Senate
13 June 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1968

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir

Alister McMullin) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1733

QUESTION

UNIVERSITIES

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I direct the following question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science: Has the Minister noted the strong statements by a professor and also a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales that up to one quarter of students at universities could be unfit for university education? Does he regard these statements as evidence that there has been a trend to exaggerate the need for expansion of university education when obviously many students now at uni- versities would be better suited to senior colleges or less advanced institutions? In view of the heavy costs of university education, will the Government take action to ensure that university enrolment ceases to be a status symbol and instead is reserved for students intellectually able to cope with university education?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– My attention has not been drawn to the statements to which the honourable senator has referred but they are in line with several other recent statements to a similar effect. I assure him that I shall bring them to the attention of the Minister for Education and Science who, I am sure, will give earnest consideration to such advice to, and influence on the universities as will establish the proper criterion for admission to universities and the proper function of admission to universities, namely, education and not a status symbol.

page 1733

QUESTION

PRICES OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Is the discovery of oil in Australia likely to cause a petrol price increase of 3c a gallon? If the answer to that question is yes, when is the increase, likely to occur7

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government’s policy of increasing the search for oil in Australia was designed about 4 or 5 years ago. Part of that policy was to give a bonus of 75c a barrel on the discovery of oil. It has been so successful that our oil supplies will increase from the 5% which was being produced in about 19S5 when this legislation was introduced to between 60% and 70% by 197.1. The price of petrol to the consumer is not expected to rise in the immedi-ate future because of these incentive payments, because the first production of oil from the Bass Strait oil wells will not take place until the end of March 1969 and then it will be only at the rate of .10.000 barrels a day. This will not require an immediate increase in the price of fuel. It will be towards the end of 1969 before the oilfields are producing much in excess of 100,000 barrels a day. In fact, when the present agreement between the Government and the oil producing companies expires on 17th September .1970 the oilfields then will not be in full production. It is not expected that they will reach their proposed full production rate of 300.000 barrels a day until early 1971.

page 1733

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– .1 direct a question to the Minister for Works. On 30th April I tendered the report of the Public Works Committee on the proposed Commonwealth office building at the corner of Ann and Creek Streets, Brisbane. When is it likely that parliamentary approval will be sought in the other place by the representative of the Minister for construction of the proposed building, and what is the reason for the delay? I should like to say that the Minister was kind enough to tell me yesterday that he would have an answer today.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I remind the honourable senator that the Public Works Committee in respect of this proposal made a recommendation that the proposed building should be expanded by the addition of three upper storeys. That necessitated reference to the Treasury for the purpose of providing an additional appropriation of, I think, $1.07m. The matter has been submitted to the Treasury and is awaiting a decision on that financial matter. From the time when that approval is given, preparation of working drawings and contract documents, invitation of tenders and letting of contract are expected to take 15 months. From that stage the construction is expected to take 30 months.

page 1734

QUESTION

APPLES

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– 1 did see the report in this morning’s Press and I sought some information concerning il from the Department of Primary Industry. The information il has given me is as follows:

The vessel concerned - the ‘Persic’ - is carrying Western Australian fruit virtually all of which has been bought before shipment by buyers in Hamburg. Arrangements for the diversion of the vessel to the United Kingdom were made by the Hamburg buyers in negotiation with the shipowners. As owners of the fruit they ore acting within their legal rights.

As the ‘Financial Review’ report indicates, it is a matter for decision by the United Kingdom authorities whether they will issue licences for the importation of the fruit concerned. The endeavour by the German buyers to have the fruit sold in London is apparently brought about by the fact that the market in Hamburg is weak and a better opportunity for profitable marketing may exist in London. This is a commercial issue in which it would not be appropriate for the Australian authorities to intervene.

page 1734

QUESTION

LAW REFORM

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– J ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether the Attorney-General’s attention has been invited to extensive Press publicity given in the ‘Canberra Times’ to the claims of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory that there is an urgent need for law reform in the ACT. Is law reform in the ACT the responsibility of the AttorneyGeneral or the Minister for the Interior? Does the Attorney-General accept that ACT law needs to be brought up to date so that Australians resident in the Territory will have a body of general law which is modern in content and comparable with that in operation in the States? What does he propose to do about the Law Society’s representations?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have not perused the representations of the Law Society to which my colleague Senator Greenwood refers but I have seen several such statements over the course of the past 6 or 7 years. I am quite sure that the AttorneyGeneral is alive to the need for law reform in the sense that Senator Greenwood has mentioned. A statement was made by the Attorney-General in recent weeks as to the arrangements made to consider this problem but at this stage I do not recall the particulars. I shall bring the matter to the notice of my colleague, the AttorneyGeneral, and convey the precise particulars of the arrangement to Senator Greenwood and the Senate.

page 1734

QUESTION

PRICES OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise whether some lime ago he made a statement in the Senate that Japanese car prices would be considerably increased, ls it a fact that because of his action Australian car manufacturers are also increasing the selling price of their cars? When will the Government insist on further increases in the price of Japanese cars?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Yes. It is a fact that 1 made a statement to the Senate in relation to the prices of Japanese cars on 9th May, after consultations between my Department and the Japanese car manufacturers. These followed complaints from the Australian car manufacturing industry that Japanese cars were being dumped on the Australian market thereby interfering with the Australian car manufacturing industry. Following an agreement between my Department and the Japanese Government, prices for Japanese cars have increased by between $100 and $400. Recently, statements have appeared in the Press to the effect that Australian car manufacturers are increasing the prices of their cars by up to 3%. There is no connection between the two events. The Australian car manufacturers have decided that because of increased costs in Australia resulting from the recent metal trades award granted by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the price of their cars must rise. This has no connection at all with the problems associated with the importation of Japanese cars. Because the Government believes that our own industry is efficient and can compete with motor vehicle manufacturers from other countries, it is not proposed to increase the duty on the importation of Japanese cars.

page 1735

QUESTION

ARMY DISCIPLINE

Senator HEATLEY:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. I ask: Can the Minister clarify the present situation in regard to the court martial of Captain Rule?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– I am advised this morning that all charges against Captain Rule have been dropped.

page 1735

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. ] ask: Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an article in the Hindu ‘Weekly Review’ of 27th May which states that the Indian Government has decided not to renew the visas of foreign missionaries functioning in the country when their present term expires? Has the Government received any complaints from the Indian Government that Australian missionaries have been involved in the unworthy activities which were outlined in that newspaper article? Will the Minister make inquiries of the Indian Government: to ascertain whether the reported decision can be reviewed, especially in view of the educational and medical contributions made by Australian missionary personnel?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I must admit that because of recent heavy parliamentary duties my reading has not extended to the Hindu ‘Weekly Review’. However, I have instituted inquiries. The Australian High Commissioner in New Delhi is making inquiries to ascertain whether the official position of the Indian Government is as stated in that article. So far as I know the Australian Government has not received any complaints in recent years from the Indian Government of the activities of Australian missionaries in India. The Australian Government will examine the matter further after receiving the information sought from the Australian High Commissioner in New

Delhi. Generally speaking, the Australian Government regards entry to and residence in India as a matter for the Indian Government.

page 1735

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– There is no existing programme whereby grants are made to State governments for school libraries. However, as was foreshadowed by the late Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, during the 1967 Senate election campaign, the Commonwealth Government has this matter under consideration. The Minister for Education and Science is at present examining the implications of a possible programme and is in the process of consulting with the State Education departments and others associated with school libraries. The honourable senator is aware that the State governments - as does the Commonwealth Government within its Territories - provide assistance in various forms for the establishment and for the running of school libraries. In reply to the honourable senator’s other question I have to inform her that separate details are not available in respect of science facilities in Government’ schools in the Territories but are provided in the schools as required within the normal Commonwealth procedure for capital works.

In relation to independent schools in the Territories, the science facilities scheme has now been superseded by the scheme of capital assistance for independent schools. Future needs for science facilities may be included in school proposals under that scheme. Grants for projects initially assisted under the science facilities scheme were completed in the 4-year period from 1st July 1964 to 30th June 1968. Details of the schools assisted and the total grants to each school are set out in the following table which, with the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate in Hansard:

page 1736

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I have not seen the report referred to by the honourable senator. 1 will have a look at it and will try to obtain from the Minister for Civil Aviation an answer to the honourable senator’s question.

page 1736

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA HOUSE, LONDON

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen an article in today’s issue of the ‘Financial Review’ which is highly critical of the administration of Australia House, London? Does the honourable gentleman know whether it is true that about 1,000 people are on the establishment of Australia House, which is a larger staff than is employed by some Commonwealth departments in Canberra? If that is a fact, is an establishment of that size necessary? Can any method be devised for co-ordinating the activities in Australia House of the Prime Minister’s Department and the Department of External Affairs? Are the costs involved achieving efficiency and the productive results that they should be achieving?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– This morning I read very quickly the article referred to by the honourable senator. It excited my interest. I think we need to wait until the subject matter of the honourable senator’s question is referred to the Prime Minister’s Department for reply. Of course, the transfer of staff in the Australian High Commissioner’s office in London from the Prime Minister’s Department to the Department of External Affairs is a matter of policy. If a reply is made available to me after the rising of the Senate for the parliamentary recess, I will see that it is directed to the honourable senator.

page 1736

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– Can the Leader, of the Government in the Senate inform me whether he will be able to supply the Senate with information I sought yesterday in respect of conditions under which a . BAC1 1 1 aircraft of the VIP Flight was used to carry news media representatives on the - current tour of South East Asia by the. Prime Minister? Are aircraft of the VIP. Flight to be made available to any other organisation?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yesterday I promised to raise this matter with the Prime Minister’s Department and the Department of Air. I have been supplied with information which I will now give to the Senate. Fifteen representatives of Australian Press, radio and television are accompanying the Prime Minister, two of whom were scheduled to join the party in Singapore! They are paying the assessed equivalent of’ the economy class fare and are travelling in the second of two BACIII aircraft being used. Also travelling on that aircraft are three Commonwealth officers. The honourable senator will understand that the advantage of this arrangement is that the second aircraft could be used as a back-up if the first aircraft were to be delayed by a mechanical fault, especially as it would be unreasonable to expect a commercial airline to accept on very short notice the demands of the strict timetable which the Prime Minister is following. The aircraft in which representatives of the news media are travelling is not. on charter, and aircraft of No. 34 Transport Squadron are not available for charter.

page 1737

QUESTION

CUSTOMS DUTY

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

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is it the Government’s policy to forgo* in general, customs duty on imported motor vehicles used by charitable organisations such as those which care for retarded children? If that is the Government’s policy, why has this concession been refused in the case, of the Subnormal Children’s Association home at Picton, New South Wales?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Before duty on imported motor vehicles is remitted in the case of certain organisations caring for subnormal children, certain criteria must be observed. One is that the remission will not be granted if a suitable equivalent vehicle is produced in Australia. Another is that the vehicle- must be used exclusively for the carriage of the children to and from school. In the case of the centre at Picton to which the honourable senator has referred the remission of duty was refused because the vehicle was being used for the carriage of produce and goods to and from the town. If the vehicle had been used exclusively for the carriage of children the duty certainly would have been remitted.

page 1737

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY NATIONAL PARK

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior advise the latest developments in regard to plans aimed at making the Mount Kelly region of the south-west portion of the Australian Capital Territory into a national park?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Australian Capital Territory National Parks Association has had correspondence with the Minister and he favours the proposal in principle.

page 1737

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator McMANUS:

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service involves a request which I hope will not fall on stony soil in spite of the blood, sweat and tears of the last two days. Will the Government during the recess consider the proposal made by the Democratic Labor Party during the debate on the National Service Bill that a committee of inquiry be appointed to inquire into conscientious objection, to hear evi dence in a calm and non-political atmosphere and to recommend principles on which ‘‘this contentious issue - can be determined in future legislation?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I think the best answer I can give the honourable senator is to say that we will consider the suggestion.

page 1737

QUESTION

ABORTION

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I direct my question .to ‘the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. In view of the widespread concern in Australian medical and legal circles at the need for a thorough review of laws relating to abortion in the States of the Commonwealth, does he agree that it would be of value if the Commonwealth Government gave a lead in discovering whether a uniform- code, .could be drawn up in an endeavour to provide a solution to this far reaching legal and social problem?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I must say that the honourable senator’s suggestion is somewhat novel, not because there is any lack of appreciation on my part of the social implications of the problem but because of the constitutional responsibilities of this Government and Parliament. It is fundamental to our Constitution that the general body of criminal law is reserved as a special responsibility of the States. I feel that it is not appropriate that we should take the lead in formulating a uniform policy on this very contentious item of the criminal law.

page 1737

QUESTION

ARMY DISCIPLINE

Senator ORMONDE:

– My question to the Minister ‘ representing the Minister for the Army relates to his statement that the charges against Captain Rule have been withdrawn. Is it the Government’s intention to conduct an inquiry into the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the arrest of Captain Rule?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– In reply to an earlier question I stated that charges against Captain Rule had been- dropped. The charges to which I .referred were court martial charges dropped by the Army. I do not know whether any other charges are pending against him.: The honourable senator mentioned the circumstances concerning the arrest of Captain -Rule. I do not think anything untoward happened in regard to the arrest of this officer. Obviously certain contraventions relating to Army procedure had occurred and that is one of the reasons why the court martial was held.

Senator Wheeldon:

– 1 raise a point of order. The Minister is referring to a matter which is the subject of a determination by a court. Captain Rule has been found not guilty of the charges and it is completely out of order for a Minister to say that breaches had been committed by the officer in quest ion.

Senator MCKELLAR:

-^- I will rephrase my answer, lt was suspected that breaches of Army regulations had occurred. That is why the court martial was held. I am not attempting to suggest for one moment that the decision arrived at by that court martial was not correct, but the Army did the correct thing in the circumstances. If suspected breaches were allowed to continue chaos would result. This is another opportunity taken by the Opposition to try to hammer the Army into the ground.

page 1738

QUESTION

AGED PERSONS HOMES

Have many local government authorities taken advantage of the assistance given under the Aged Persons Homes Act to construct such homes; it so, how many such homes have been, or are being, constructed outside the metropolitan areas, as there is a need for accommodation to be made available for the aged in areas where most of their lives have been spent?

As this is the only question I still have remaining on the notice paper, could the Minister furnish a reply to it?

page 1738

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– On 14th May I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science a question concerning a statement made by Emeritus Professor Herbert Burton of the Australian National University drawing attention to the fall in the percentage of Commonwealth university scholarships between 1951 and 1966 and certain other matters. I understand that the Minister now has some further information on the subject.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has supplied the following information in further answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Hie position regarding Commonwealth assistance to students through scholarships has changed dramatically since J9S1. In 1951 there was one major scheme of Commonwealth scholarships but in 1968 there are five schemes. Expenditure by this Government on scholarships has risen from Sl.Sm in 1951 to nearly $29m in 1967-68. In the same period the total number of awards has risen from 3,000 to 22,000, and there are new schemes of assistance to postgraduate research students at universities, secondary students, technical students and students at colleges of advanced education.

So far as Professor Burton’s statement is concerned, it is a fact that the competition for Commonwealth scholarships for undergraduate courses at universities has increased somewhat. 1 do not think that this necessarily implies that good students are being lost. In addition to Commonwealth scholarships there are other forms of assistance such as cadetships, teacher training awards and so on to assist able students with university studies. According to the latest figures I have, 55% of undergraduate university students in 1967 were in receipt of some form of assistance. The comparable figure for 1951 - Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme students excluded - was a little over 40%.

I would like to add a further comment on the figures quoted by Professor Burton, lt is true that 3,000 new awards were available in 1951 under the Commonwealth scholarship scheme, but this number was expected to provide for a growing demand for a number of years. Hence, in 1951 the actual number of awards taken up by students entering university courses was in the vicinity of 2,000. Professor Burton’s comparison is therefore misleading.

It is clear from the substantial increases which have been made in the provision of scholarships that this is an area in which this Government can claim considerable credit.

page 1738

QUESTION

ARMY DISCIPLINE

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I am not in a position to answer the honourable senator’s question but I shall make inquiries and let her know the result.

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. It arises out of an answer he gave Senator Ormonde in which he described Army procedure with respect to Captain Rule’s arrest as being the correct procedure. Does the Minister consider it. is correct procedure to arrest a man on arrival in Australia at a public airport and transport him to a military depot, taking him from the greeting of his wife and children, for examination on charges which the prosecution has said contained no suggestion of spying or sabotage, and charges which could not be proved?

Senator McKELLAR:

– First of all, it was not known whether the charges could be proved until a court martial was held. That court martial was held and we now know the result. I do not feel that I am here to give my personal opinion on the correct procedure. To the best of my knowledge, the correct procedure was adopted.

page 1739

QUESTION

DECLARATION OF DEATH

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government whether it is a fact that no State or Federal legislation is laid down to determine when a person is deceased. Does it appear imminent that chaos may result in the medical and legal fields unless action is taken at once to lay down such criteria? Will the appropriate Commonwealth Department give immediate attention to this matter and seek discussions with medical associations so that the matter may be resolved at an early date?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– This is obviously a question which has implications for the Attorney-General as well as the Department of Health. In the circumstances, I suggest it should be put on notice.

page 1739

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise whether petrol prices are determined by the Commonwealth Government or any Commonwealth statutory authority? If the answer is in the negative, will the Minister inform the Senate who determines petrol prices? If the answer is in the affirmative, what authority has the Commonwealth Government or any Com.monwealth statutory body to fix petrol prices in the light of the fact that the Chifley Commonwealth Government’s referendum seeking power to continue prices control was defeated by the people of Australia?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Commonwealth Government has no power to fi.x the price of petrol. The petrol companies agree as to what the price shall be although this is influenced by decisions of the Prices Commissioner of South Australia.

Senator Gair:

– Why South Australia?

Senator SCOTT:

– I think South Australia is the only State that has a Prices Commissioner.

page 1739

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY NATIONAL PARK

Senator MULVIHILL:

– 1 direct a further question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, lt relates to his earlier statement that the Minister for the Interior agrees in principle with plans to declare the Mount Kelly region of the Australian Capital Territory a national park. What are the obstacles that preclude a decision being made now to proceed with the proclamation of this area?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I do not know of any obstacles in the way of proceeding on the lines suggested by the honourable senator. However, . have been.’ supplied with the information that the Government is in agreement with the proposition that has been put before it and is giving it further consideration.

page 1739

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS

Senator McMANUS:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Why are Australian Democratic Labor Party and independent parliamentarians excluded from the fact finding delegations which we learn - as usual from the Press - are to investigate the European Common Market, a new Parliament House, North Africa and the Indian Ocean, and other delegations which the Government is sending abroad during the recess? As this has been a regular practice for the past 15 years at least, is it not time that this discrimination ceased?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have some sympathy with the view expressed by the honourable senator. In regard to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-parliamentary Union, the determining factor as to whether delegates go overseas during a recess is honourable senators and members themselves, who are members of the Association. But the point referred to more specifically by Senator McManus relates to the delegations which, as he described them, are going overseas on fact finding missions. 1 shall certainly raise this matter with the Prime Minister and see whether 1 can get an answer for the honourable senator. I have in mind that an independent member in another place, Mr Benson, has been’ included in a delegation this year.

Senator McMANUS:

– One swallow does not make a summer. .

Senator Gair:

– Some of them go on the eve of their retirement.

Senator ANDERSON:

– .1 Kern to be getting a lot of help, so .1 shall leave my answer at that.

page 1740

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– 1 have an answer to a question without notice which was asked by Senator Poyser on 16th May. The honourable senator’s question- was as follows:

Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to a Press report which appeared in the ‘Herald’ of Colac. Victoria, about a month ago that a Colac farmer alleged that he had purchased from New South Wales recent hay which he subsequently learned had been donated by him some 3 years previously to drought stricken farmers in that Stale? Will the Minister investigate this matter in an endeavour to ascertain how such gift. hay could bc sold back to generous Victorian donors when they themselves were suffering from their worst drought in history.

The Acting Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senators question: lt is true thai the Colac ‘Herald’ of 26lh April 1968 carried a paragraph alleging that a Colac farmer who purchased hay from New South Wales recently received in (he consignment some bales of hay he gave as :> gift under ‘Operation Goodwill’ 3 years ago. In the paragraph published in the Colac ‘Herald’ there is no indication of the quantity of hay returned, nor is the name of the farmer’ disclosed.

Under ‘Operation Goodwill,’ Victorian and South Australian farmers donated 10,000 tons of hay and other fodders to farmers and graziers in New South Wales requiring drought relief. Commonwealth and State governments co-operated in the scheme and bore the cost of freight charges to transport the fodder to the drought areas of New South Wales.

Hay and other fodders were distributed to farm rs and graziers under the supervision of officers of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture and there is no doubt that nearly all this hay was used for the intended purpose. It is possible, of course, that a small quantity may have been saved and stored on some farms after rains have alleviated the drought situation, lt is also possible that some of this hay has been returned to Victoria but, if so. it would be an isolated case and the quantity involved would be insignificant. There is certainly no evidence of trafficking in gift hay.

page 1740

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 69)

Senator GAIR:

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

  1. What are the existing payments made by the Commonwealth and State governments to assist in the education of children in independent schools?
  2. What were the commencement dates of each of these payments?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has supplied the following answer:

I and 2-

COMMONWEALTH CONTRIBUTION

Payments to Schools

Commonwealth Territories (Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory)

The Interest Reimbursement Scheme (Australian Capital Territory only) - Commonwealth contribution to interest paid on loans raised after 1st July 1936 by independent school authorities to meet capital expenditure on schools in the Australian Capital Territory. Assistance is limited to the long term bond rate. This scheme was superseded by (ii) below in November 1965, but payments on existing approvals will continue for some years.

The Capital Assistance Scheme (Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory) - Commonwealth Assistance in meeting the capital cost of constructing independent primary and secondary schools in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory comprises annual payment for 20 years of one-twentieth of the amount of the approved loan plus interest up to the long term bond rate on outstanding balance, the first payment falling due 12 months after the first drawing against the approved loan. This scheme superseded the interest subsidy scheme and the science laboratory scheme in the territories on 3rd November 1965.

Text Book Allowance Scheme (Australian Capital Territory only) - Assistance payable to independent and government schools consisting of an initial capital grant and an annual amount in respect of each secondary school student at the following rates:

Paid sincethe beginning of 1966.

  1. Student Allowances Scheme (Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory) - Assistance payable to independent schools in respect of each pupil at the following annual rates:

Payments commenced in 1968.

Payments to Parents (Northern Territory only) - Boarding allowances of $200 per annum are payable to parents of all primary and secondary children who have to live away from home in order to attend school. An additional $120 per annum is payable subject to a means test. Pupils qualifying for boarding allowances may have their return fares home paid once per term if attending school within the Territory, or once per year if attending school outside the Territory.

A textbook allowance is payable in respect of all pupils satisfactorily completing primary school. The allowance is $16 per annum for the first 3 years of secondary school, $18 for the fourth and $20 for the fifth year.

Intermediate scholarships of $10 are awarded to the top 10% of Northern Territory candidates sitting for the South Australian Intermediate Examination.

  1. Secondary Science Facilities Scheme for schools in the States - Commonwealth aid under the States Grants (Science Laboratories) Acts for science laboratories and apparatus. The scheme applies to both independent and government schools. The first payments were made in 1964-65. The annual amount for independent schools in the States is $5,336,000 and for Government schools $7,237,800. Prior to 1st July 1967 the annual rate for independent schools in the States was $2,668,000.

Payments to Parents (Commonwealth Territories and States) -

  1. Commonwealth Secondary Scholarship Scheme - 10,000 secondary scholarships to assist students to complete the final 2 years of secondary schooling are available each year. The scholarships may be held in either independent or government schools. Benefits paid in each of the 2 years are a living allowance of $200, a text book allowance of $50 and a fees allowance of up to $150 paid for compulsory tuition and other fees.

  2. Bursaries (Australian Capital Territory) - A number of bursaries are made available annually in respect of secondary school pupils at both government and nongovernment schools. They are awarded competitively and are subject to a means test. Junior secondary bursaries carry a maximum allowance of $141 per annum or $273 per annum if the bursar is obliged to board away from home in order to attend school. The maximum allowance payable under a senior secondary bursary is $150 per annum (boarding rate $300 per annum).

    1. STATES’ CONTRIBUTION

The following details of payments by the State governments have been obtained from various sources. As far as is known they are correct and up to date but confirmation of this, and any further information about State payments the honourable senator may require, would have to be obtained direct from the State authorities concerned.

New South Wales

Payments to Schools- The New South Wales Government assists non-government schools in the payment of interest on loans raised for approved building projects other than science facilities. This scheme was introduced in 1965-66. An amount of $500,000 has been allocated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this purpose in 1967-68.

As from January 1968 the State Government pays $12 per annum for each primary school pupil as a direct subsidy to non-government schools. $900,000 has been provided for this in the 1967-68 Estimates. From 1st July 1968 primary rate to increase from $12 to $24 per annum.

Payments to Parents - A number of bursaries are made available annually in respect of secondary school pupils at both government and nongovernment schools. They are awarded competitively and are subject to a means test. Junior secondary bursaries carry a maximum allowance of $141 per annum, or $273 per annum if the bursar is obliged to board away from home in order to attend school. Special junior secondary bursaries are available for children in remote areas. The maximum allowance payable under a senior secondary bursary is $150 per annum (boarding rate $300 per annum).

Secondary school allowances of $18 per annum (boarding rate $60 per annum) for pupils in forms 1 and 2 and $42 per annum (boarding rate $84 per annum) for pupils in higher forms have been paid since 1964 to parents of pupils in nongovernment schools, subject to a means test. Secondary rate for forms 1 and 2 to incerase from $18 to 128 per annum from, 1st. July 1968.

Textbook allowances rising from. $4 per annum for first form students to $16 per annum for sixth formers have been paid since 1966 in respect of all secondary school pupils in New South Wales.

Victoria

Payments to Schools - The Victorian Government helps with interest payments on funds borrowed to provide secondary school buildings, other than science facilities, at non-government schools. The interest subsidy paid is up to 5% on approved loans. The scheme started in 1966 with approval of interest payments in respect of borrowing totalling $lm. Interest subsidies were provided on a further $2m borrowed in the following . year and in 1968 subsidies arc available in respect of $2m more.

Non-government schools, in Victoria receive a direct subsidy of $10’ per annum for each primary pupil and S20 per annum for each secondary pupil. This scheme was introduced in July 1967.

Payments to Parents - Junior scholarships are awarded competitively at the end of form II and are tenable for 4 years. The scholarships provide $50 per annum for tuition fees in the case of students attending non-government schools, plus an allowance for school requisites rising from $14 per annum in form III to $34 per annum in form VI.

A maintenance allowance of $78 per annum subject to a means lest is payable in respect of all secondary pupils.

Queensland

Payments to Schools - The Queensland Government has assisted non-government schools since 1966 by the payment of interest charges up to 6% on building costs incurred to provide additional essential teaching space or residential accommodation for students. Provision of interest is for 5 years on the original capital reduced by one-fifth each year. This assistance is not available for loans raised to acquire land, provide religious facilities, science facilities, or facilities such as - assembly halls which are not provided as a matter of policy in Government schools. In addition, the Queensland Government meets 40% of the cost of approved construction projects, except science buildings, at the eight grammar schools in that State.

Stale grants for recurrent purposes are made to the eight grammar schools and $164,000 is provided for this in the 1967-68 estimates.

Tuition allowances are paid directly to nongovernment schools at the rale of $42 per annum for each pupil in grades 8, 9 and 10 and $46 per annum for each pupil in grades 11 and 12. The present scheme was introduced in 1964. Since 1967 the Stale Government has paid a supplementary amount of $15 per annum for each secondary pupil in non-government schools, separately but at the same time as tuition allowances.

Payments to Parents - Living allowances, subject to a means test, are payable in respect of pupils attending approved non-government schools. Where students live at home the allowance is $32 per annum in grades 8, 9 and 10, and $40 per annum in grades 11 and 12. Where students are obliged to board away from home in order to attend school the allowance is $130 per annum in grades 8, 9 and 10. $164 per annum in grade II and $208 per annum in grade 12. These allowances began in 1965.

Remote area allowances of $4 per week for 40 weeks are available in respect of pupils who must live away from home in order to attend secondary school. Senior remote area allowances, valued at $200 per annum, are available for these students while undertaking Senior secondary study. Neither allowance is subject to a means test.

Textbook allowances of $4 for each pupil in grades 8. and 9, S6 for those in grade 10. and S20 for those in grade 11, are paid in respect of students who do not receive grants for textbooks from another source.

South Australia

Payments to School; - Subject to approval by the Treasurer, the State Bank may make an advance for the purchase of land, construction of buildings, the enlargement of buildings, or the purchase of furniture or equipment, intended to be used for the purpose of student hostels provided that reasonable preference in accommodation will be given to country students. The advance for the purchase of land or construction of buildings is limited to ninetenths of- the reasonable cost and is repayable over a period not exceeding 40 years. For the purchase of furniture and equipment the advance is limited to half of the reasonable cost and is for a ‘ period not exceeding 12 years. The State Government has announced that it will pay direct to non-government schools an annual allowance of $10 for each primary and secondary pupil, bin has not yet nominated a commencing date.

Payments to Parents - Boarding allowances of $50 per annum are paid to the parents of primary school pupils who must, because of distance, live away from home in order to attend school.

Progress allowances, awarded on satisfactory completion of primary school, . entitle pupils to textbook and boarding allowances. The textbook allowance is $16 per annum for the first 3 years $18 for the fourth and $20 for the fifth year. The boarding allowance, payable where student; are obliged to live away from home, is $150 per annum, rising to $200 per annum in the matriculation year.

Intermediate and continuation exhibitions arc awarded competitively on the results of the Intermediate examination. They provide an allowance of $50 for the fourth and $60. for the fifth year of secondary school.

Western Australia

Payments to Schools - The Western Australian Government pays interest charges as determined by. the Treasurer of the State on borrowing by nongovernment schools for the provision of residential accommodation, provided that the loan is paid off in regular instalments determined by the Treasurer. This scheme was introduced in 1965. A subsidy of 25% of the cost is granted for the installation of swimming pools.

The State Government pays directly to the school a subsidy of $10 per annum for each primary school pupil aged 6 years or more. The scheme commenced in 1968.

Tuition allowances of $30 per annum for each pupil in first and third years and $36 per annum for pupils in fourth and fifth years are paid directly to non-government schools. These amounts must be deducted from the tuition fees charged by the school. The scheme commenced in 1965.

Payments to Parents - Boarding allowances ranging from $80 to $.160 per annum are payable where primary, school pupils, and secondary school pupils in first, second and third years, are obliged tolive away from home in order to attend school.

Pre-junior scholorships for secondary pupils, tenable for 3 years and valued at $80 per annum, arc awarded competitivelyto country children obliged to live away from home while attending school.

Post-junior scholarships, tenable for 2 years and valued at $160 per annum, are awarded competitively to pupils from correspondence and oneteacher schools.

Tasmania

Payments to Schools - As from 1968, the Slate Government pays $10 per annum for each primary school pupil and $20 per annum for each secondary school pupil as a direct subsidy to non-government schools. $208,000 has been provided in the 1967-68 Estimates for this purpose.

Payments to Parents - Junior bursaries are awarded competitively to students who are obliged to board away from home to attend secondary school. An allowance of $130 per annum is payable in respect of pupils attending non-government schools.

Senior bursaries are awarded competitively to students who must live away from home in order to attend secondary school. They are tenable for one year in the first instance and carry an allowance of $140 plus a boarding allowance of $70 or $100 according to the bursar’s age.

Schools board allowances of $40 are available to students for the year in which they sit for the Schools Board Certificate; they are awarded subject to a means test. The scheme commenced in 1964.

Matriculation allowances, which are subject to a means test, are tenable for the year in which a student sits for the matriculation examination. The allowance is $60 for students living at home and $150 for students obliged to board away from home. The scheme commenced in 1964.

page 1743

QUESTION

NERVE GAS

(Question No. 161)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government any information in support of rebuttal of apparently official reports that the United States Army, while experimenting with nerve gas, caused the death of 6,000 sheep in Utah?
  2. What is nerve gas and will such a gas be used in Vietnam?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Acting Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. In relation to this matter, the Department of Defence, Office of Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. has issued a Status Report on Investigation of Sheep Deaths in Utah. A copy of this report has been made available in the parliamentary Library for the honourable senators and members.
  2. Nerve gases are a family of highly toxic gases. They are not employed by the allies in Vietnam. .

page 1743

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

(Question No. 185)

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What progress is being made in improving the Commonwealth Railways workshop in size and capacity to enable it to undertake its own maintenance work, and to manufacture, to the maximum extent possible, rollingstock, including passenger cars, required for continued expansion?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answer:

Extensions made to the Port Augusta workshop in 1964-65 have until recently enabled demands on the workshop to be met. With the continued acquisition of rollingstock and locomotives, further extensions to the workshop are planned, and will be carried out as funds become available.

Any limitations on Commonwealth Railways undertaking their own maintenance are due more to the lack of skilled labour than to shortage of workshop facilities. To overcome this recruits are being sought in the United Kingdom, and on present indications it seems that sufficient tradesmen will be available in the near future to meet the needs of Commonwealth. Railways.

When adequate skilled labour is obtained. Commonwealth Railways will undertake all their own maintenance and repair work. It is unlikely that Commonwealth Railways will manufacture rollingstock in the foreseeable future.

page 1743

QUESTION

POSTAL DISPUTE

(Question No. 226)

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Were members of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation employed as part time van drivers during the recent postal workers dispute?
  2. Have members of this organisation been used as employees in industrial disputes at any time?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Acting Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions: 1 and 2. It is not the practice to give information which would either confirm or refute allegations of particular activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

page 1744

QUESTION

AGED PERSONS HOMES

(Question No. 266)

Have many local government authorities taken advantage of the assistance given under the Aged Persons Homes Act to construct such homes? If so, how many such homes have been, or are being, constructed outside the metropolitan areas, as there is a need for accommodation to be made available for the aged in areas where most of their lives have been spent?

To date only one application has been received from a local governing body under the Aged Persons Homes Act as amended in November last. This was from the Council of the City of Moorabb.in, in the metropolitan area of Melbourne. Approval has been given for a grant of $26,667.

Preliminary negotiations have taken place with a number of other municipal and shire councils and at least three further applications are expected in the foreseeable future.

A number of other councils have indicated the intention of making grants towards the capital cost of homes to be established and conducted by other eligible organisations. Under the recent amendment to the Act such grants may now be used to attract Commonwealth subsidy.

Of the accommodation provided for aged persons since the introduction of the Act in 1954, approximately 25% is located in country areas.

page 1744

QUESTION

FAUNA CONSERVATION

(Question No. 270)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the Prime Minister any information relating to an offer by Mr J. Murphy, Chairman of Murphyores Inc. Pty Ltd, who have large scale rutile mining operations on Australian beaches, to make a $50,000 grant to the Commonwealth Government for fauna conservation?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

No record can be traced of any such offer.

page 1744

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

(Question No. 281)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is only one in every five persons engaged in the motor repair industry a certificated tradesman?
  2. In the interests of road safety, will the Government consider consulting with the States with a view to making it obligatory for all car repair workers to be registered and certificated?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– -The Minister has supplied the following answer:

  1. There is no authoritative statistic available to indicate the percentage of certificated tradesmen in the motor repair industry.
  2. There does not appear to be a sufficient relationship between accidents and the qualifications of motor mechanics to warrant the Minister for Shipping and Transport initiating discussions with the States, particularly since this subject is primarily a responsibility of the individual States and Territories.

page 1744

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 285)

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

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

  1. How many persons were registered for employment in north west Tasmania during the months of March, April and May 1968, under the headings of male and female?
  2. What were the corresponding figures for 1967?
  3. How many jobs were secured for registrants by the Department in the above periods?
  4. What measures are taken to ensure that registrants are fully informed of their entitlements to unemployment benefits when registering?
  5. What provisions exist to meet the expenses of persons requiring to use public transport to visit a Commonwealth employment office, when out of work and seeking employment?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers:

  1. North west Tasmania is covered by the Burnie and Devonport employment districts. The Burnie employment district includes the municipalities of Burnie, Circular Head, Gormanston, King Island, Penguin, Queenstown, Strahan, Waratah, Wynyard and Zeehan, while the Devonport employment district includes the municipalities of Devonport, Kentish, Latrobe and Ulverstone. The numbers of males and females registered for employment in the Burnie and Devonport district offices at end-March and end-April 1968 and 1967 are given below:

Statistics for the month of May are not yet available.

  1. The number of persons placed in employment by the Burnie District Office were:

and by the Devonport District Office were:

  1. When an unemployed person registers for employment if he cannot be referred immediately to a job he is advised that he may lodge a claim for unemployment benefit with the Commonwealth employment service.
  2. There is no provision for meeting the expenses of persons requiring to use public transport in order to visit a Commonwealth employment Service office when seeking employment. If there is an agency of the Commonwealth Employment Service which is nearer than the district office, the person may register at the agency. Persons living in remote areas may register for employment and submit claims for unemployment benefit by mail. In other cases where hardship would be caused by the necessity to visit a district office or agency each week, arrangements may be made for the registrant to visit the office every three weeks and to forward income statements by mail in between visits.

page 1745

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 291)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the -Minister for Social- Services, upon notice:

  1. How many Australian Aboriginals are in receipt of (a) unemployment ‘ benefits, (b) age pensions, and (c) invalid pensions’?
  2. In respect of how many Aboriginal children are child endowment payments made?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister has supplied the following answer:

Because applicants are not required to state on claims their nationality or race, the Department of Social Services has no information from which to maintain separate statistics based on the ethnic origins of . recipients of the various payments it makes. The information requested is, therefore, not available.

page 1745

QUESTION

CHILD ENDOWMENT

(Question No. 303)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Where child endowment is payable in respect of Aboriginal children, in how many cases is it paid to (a) the mother of the child, and (b) some other person or organisation?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister has supplied the following answer:

  1. For child endowment statistical purposes Aboriginals are treated no differently from other members of . the community. The information requested is, therefore, not available.
  2. lt is assumed the question relates to the position in which endowment granted to one person is paid to some other person or organisation for disbursement on the endowee’s behalf. Figures derived from payment records would seem to indicate that payment is made in this way to some other person or organisation for about 380 endowees who are Aboriginals but for the reasons slated in paragraph (a) this figure should not bs considered exact.

page 1745

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Question No. 304)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Where Aboriginals are eligible for unemployment benefits, in how many cases is it paid to (a) the Aboriginal, and (b) some other person or organisation?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister has supplied the following answer:

In no known case is unemployment benefit being paid to some other person or organisation on behalf of an Aboriginal. The Department of Social Services is not necessarily aware thai a claimant is an Aboriginal.

page 1745

QUESTION

PENSIONS

(Question No. 307)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Where Aboriginals are eligible for age pensions, in How many cases is the pension paid to (a) the Aboriginal, and (b) some other person or organisation?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister has supplied the following answer:

  1. For pensions statistical purposes Aboriginals are treated no differently from other members of the community and separate figures are not available for them.
  2. It is assumed the question relates to tha group method of payment, which involves payment of a pension, granted to an Aboriginal, to some other person or organisation with tha arrangement that part of the pension will be paid to the Aboriginal in cash and part retained by tha person or organisation towards the maintenance of the Aboriginal and his dependants, if any.

At 30th June1967, pensions were being paid for 1,091 age pensioners in this way. It is estimated that the total of age, invalidand widows’ pensions combined now paid in this manner is less than 400. For the reasons stated in paragraph (a), this estimate of the numbers of Aboriginals so paid should not be regarded as exact.

page 1746

QUESTION

INVALID PENSIONS

(Question No. 310)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Where Aboriginals are eligible for invalid pensions, in how many cases is it paid to (a) the Aboriginal, and (b) some other person or organisation?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister has supplied the following answer:

  1. For pensions statistical purposes Aboriginals are treated no differently from other members of the community and separate figures are not available for them.
  2. It is assumed the question relates to the group method of payment, which involves payment of a pension, granted to an Aboriginal, to some other person or organisation with the arrangement that part of the pension will be paid to the Aboriginal in cash and part retained by the person or organisation towards the maintenance of the Aboriginal and his dependants, if any.

At 30th June 1967, pensions were being paid for 335 invalid pensioners in this way. It is estimated that the total of age, invalid and widows’ pensions combined now paid in this manner is less than 400. For the reasons stated in paragraph (a), this estimate should not be considered exact.

page 1746

QUESTION

NARCOTIC DRUGS

(Question No. 331)

Has the Department of Customs and Excise recently confiscated quantities of narcotic drugs intended for traffic in Australia?

Will the Minister advise the Senate of the last date on which such confiscation took place?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes. So far in 1968 Customs officers have made 36 seizures of narcotic drugs some of which were in trafficable quantities and believed to be intended for local use.
  2. The most recent seizure was of 3 lb of morphine powder at Griffith, New South Wales on 8th June 1968.

page 1746

QUESTION

OFF-SHORE PETROLEUM

(Question No. 342)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Further to my question of 4th June regarding off-shore petroleum vessels, has the Federal Government ever given assurances, written or otherwise, that permits to import oil exploration vessels similar to the ‘Investigator’ will not be granted to overseas competitors at a time when the ‘Investigator’ is idle?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Although no such assurance has been given, permits arc not likely to be given to import oil exploration vessels if capable Australian vessels are available and their owners have indicated firmly their willingness to undertake the work. The owners of the ‘Investigator’ have been advised to this effect.

A permit was given recently by the Minister for Shipping and Transport to import a self-propelled oil rig for 12 months because the ‘Investigator’ is not suitable for drilling in the area required. Evidence available to the Minister was that there is some doubt as to the safety of the ‘Investigator’ in open waters.

page 1746

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Motion (by Senator Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That the term of office of Senator DrakeBrockman as Chairman of Committees be extended from the 30th day of June 1968 until the day next before the first sitting day of the Senate after such 30th day of June.

page 1746

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Motion (by Senator Scott) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I suppose that one should apologise for speaking on the motion for the first reading of a Bill on what may be the last day of a sessional period and especially when so much business has to be dealt with before the end of that sessional period. Nevertheless it is necessary to do so when one believes that an injustice in which the Commonwealth is implicated has been done. In those circumstances one must air his grievance in the hope that the injustice will be rectified and that the justice to which all citizens are entitled will be given. On 19th October 1967 J raised in this chamber - also on the motion for the first reading of a customs tariff Bill - the case of Mr Messer of Blackwood, South Australia, who had patent rights on a talking chair, the specifications of which were similar to those of the chair that was used at Expo 67. My contention was that there had been an infringement of patent rights. The case that ] put on that occasion was replied to by the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Gorton, who is now the Prime Minister. He spoke in justification of the Government’s attitude and said that there was no claim against the Commonwealth.

Since that lime many questions have been raised. They justify some explanation by the Government and could cast some doubt on whether Senator Gorton was correctly informed when he replied to my speech on 19th October. I do not want to go through the history of this matter, but I would advise honourable senators who were not present on that occasion, who cannot recall the debate or who have not looked up the Hansard report of it, to consider my speech which sets out in full the history of these talking chairs and the patent rights that have been held by Mr Messer since 1961. Let me repeat, as briefly as I can, what is necessary as an introduction to my present claim. .In my speech on 19th October I claimed that a talking chair was developed for the Australian exhibition at Expo 67 identical with the chair of Mr Messer for which patent rights were held. The production of the chair used at Expo was organised by a Mr Williams of the Department of Civil Aviation, by a Mr Featherstone of Aristoc Industries Pty Ltd, who manufactured the chair at his factory in Melbourne, by Mr Robin Boyd who was the architect for the Australian exhibition and, to some extent, by a Mr Rose of the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories.

I informed the Senate that Collison and Co., patent attorneys of Adelaide, had notified the Prime Minister’s Department of the existence of Mr Messer’s patent rights and that it took that Department 7 months to reply to that notification. The reply, which was dated 3rd March 1967 and which was written after three letters had been written to the Department, stated only that the matter bad been referred to the Attorney-General’s Department. I quoted from section 125 of the Patents Act, which gives the Commonwealth the right to use a patent if that is in the interests of the Commonwealth. I said that normally the Commonwealth made provision in its contracts for the manufacture of articles for the indemnification of anyone holding patent rights. I also read a letter from Aristoc Industries, manufacturers of the chair, in these terms:

So far as your patent is concerned, we confirm that we propose to take no action because our solicitor considers that responsibility for this matter lies with the Commonwealth Government in respect to the Expo 67 chairs. We do suggest that you pressure the Government for a decision and we will also ask them to expedite the matter.

Therefore, the manufacturer takes no responsibility, despite the fact that the contract contains the usual clause in these terms:

The prices slated in the tender shall include all amounts payable for patent rights and royalties on or in respect of the material or any part thereof, and the Contractor shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Commonwealth of Australia and the Board against all actions or claims arising out of the use or exercise of any invention by reason of the purchase, possession, or use of the material or any part thereof.

I think justifiably, Aristoc Industries put the responsibility on the Commonwealth Government but it did make an admission in these terms:

If the Expo chair infringes your patent and if we decide to proceed with it commercially we would certainly negotiate a royalty basis with you.

When 1 raised this matter previously I pointed out that the person who was claimed in newspaper articles and in correspondence from the Commonwealth to have developed this chair for the Commonwealth was a Mr Williams, of the Department of Civil Aviation in Melbourne, which happens to be in the same building as the head office of Trans-Australia Airlines which prior to this development had been supplied with one of the head rests on Mr Messer’s chair for experimentation in use on aerial flights; the chair was lost somewhere in the TAA office. I also stated that it was known to the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories, which had made a test of the chair, that those designing it knew of the existence of patent rights.

It is necessary to refer to the reply given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate at that time, who is the present Prime Minister, to see whether there is some difference between what he said and what we gathered elsewhere. Senator Gorton said:

  1. .[ have spoken to the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) in another place and I have no doubt in my mind that the Attorney-General’s view is the view that I hope to put before the Senate tonight.

Having received notification that I was bringing this matter up, the then Leader of the Government was not unaware of it and, in fact, he had had a discussion with the Attorney-General for the purpose of. being briefed. We can therefore accept what he said as a considered opinion on this case. As reported at page 1495 of Hansard, Senator Gorton said:

The Attorney-General did feel that whatever the final decision might be on the.- point that 1 first raised. . .

That is the right of application to a court. He continued: - and t think tha* this is the point which ultimately needs to be decided by a court and not by argument here - and whether or not. the legal position was as he believes it to be, there could be a serious mora! situation here. Did somebody know of the actual positioning in chairs of speakers which Mr Messer had worked out and, having that knowledge, did tha* person use that knowledge?

Did that person know that Mr Messer’s development was legally patentable? If that person did have that knowledge and did use the invention, was there, therefore, some extra legal claim which could be admitted by the Government with reasonable attention to the need to conserve public funds? This is the matter to which the AttorneyGeneral directed his mind. He is convinced after questioning Mr Robin Boyd, a well-known and, I think, well esteemed man who was concerned with the interior decoration and interior fitments of Expo ‘67, that Mr Robin Boyd had never heard of this particular method of positioning of speakers in chairs.

He then deals with Mr Williams and his position. Senator Ridley interjected to say:

Does Mr Williams claim to have, thought this, idea out in his own head?

Senator Gorton replied:

What idea? The only idea that we are talking about is the positioning of loudspeakers.

Later he states that it could be a matter to be settled by the High Court. On my claim that Mr Messer did npt have the money to go to the High Court, the Senator stated that if Mr Messer were destitute he could obtain legal aid under the South Australian legal aid scheme. I have found on investigation, that there is no possibility of obtaining legal aid under the South Australian scheme for any person who has in excess of $40 in the bank. Mr Messer is carrying on a small business and he is not a destitute person who can be assisted by the South Australian legal aid scheme. Therefore the rectification of his grievance which the Minister thought was available is not open to Mr Messer. Senator Gorton then went on:

There was some suggestion that Mr Rose of the Acoustic Laboratories had some advance information and had used it . . . The Attorney-General has examined Mr Rose. My. information is that Mr Messer had approached the Acoustic Laboratories in South Australia - Mr Rose not being connected with those Laboratories but being connected solely with the head office of the Acoustic Laboratories in New South’ Wales. The evidence of Mr Rose is that he had .no knowledge at all of this matter; that on making inquiries after it had been raised he found that this invention had been taken to the South Australian Acoustic Laboratories; that those Laboratories had been concerned mainly with the ‘ analgesic use of this invention in dentists’ chairs so that music could be played to’ take the patient’s mind off the drill; that the experiments had been rather discouraging for the South Australian -Acoustic Laboratories; but- that in any case the- matter had never come to the attention of Mr Rose before it was raised.

Then the Minister concludes with this comment:

The people who were examined and who are of some substance must all be telling untruths in some sort of conspiracy if their evidence is not to. be accepted. They include Mr Williams of the Department of Civil Aviation, Mr Rose of the Acoustic Laboratories, and Mr .Robin Boyd the well-known architect and Mr Feathe’rstone as’ well as other people connected with Expo ‘67. The Attorney-General is convinced : that they did not take this idea from Mr Messer, whether it was patented or not.

Mr Rose obviously had seen the report of the testing by the Acoustic Laboratories; Senator Gorton when he gave the information that he obtained from Mr ‘Rose repeated to this House exactly what was contained in the report. Although Mr Messer’s chair has never been at the Commonwealth Acoustics Laboratory in South Australia, Mr Rose knew what:was in the report. We are told that he obtained this information by getting in touch with the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratory in South Australia. Mr Messer’s chair was tested at Point Piper; New South Wales, which is; I believe, the head office of Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories. Obviously the origin of the report needs some investigation. The then Leader of the Government quoted from a report allegedly obtained from an organisation that had never examined- the chair. Mr

Renfree of the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor’s Office wrote to Mr Messer on 10th May 1967 in the following terms: 1 refer to my letter of 13th March 1967, and regret that owing to the complexity of this matter I have as yet been unable to reach a decision whether the Commonwealth is liable to make any payment to you.

In order that full consideration may be given to the matter, and without admitting tha’t “the Commonwealth ‘is under liability to make payment to you, I shall be glad if you will give me particulars of the amount you are claiming.

This letter indicates that on 11th May 1967, the Commonwealth did not know whether it had any liability. On 1st June 1967, Mr Renfree again wrote to Mr Messer in the following terms:

The Commonwealth does not agree that in the manufacture or use of the chair or headrests any invention the subject of Letters Patent No. 251,133 has been made, used, exercised or vended.

Whilst the Commonwealth did not know that it was liable on 10th May it had made up its mind by 1st June that it had not used the invention. On 19th October, Senator Gorton, as he then was,’ said that it was not a valid patent in the opinion of the Attorney-General because our grandmothers had rocking chairs with headrests and that he had been in aeroplanes where it was only a matter of sitting on a chair and hearing music, although the loud speaker was not attached to the chair itself. Senator Gorton claimed that there was no novelty in this invention; that there was no prior art which permitted the registration of this patent and that therefore Mr Messer’s patent was invalid.

Mr Messer and I went to Sydney to see the Attorney-General on this matter early this year. Despite the fact that on the 19th October the then Leader of the Government said that those who designed the talking chair did not know of the existence of the patent rights of Mr Messer, we were able to inform the Attorney-General that Mr Maurice Smith, a sales representative from Rola Co (Aus) Pty Ltd, Melbourne, had attended that meeting when Mr Williams, Mr Rose, Mr Robin Boyd and Mr Featherstone were considering talking chairs and had informed them in April 1966 of the existence of the patent rights of Mr Messer. I have informed the Senate that this chair was developed in Mr Featherstone’s flat at St Kilda.

I do not think it is any breach of confidence to state what the Attorney-General said. He is a legal man of high repute with considerable experience in patent law. He has handled many cases on patent law and one cannot take his views lightly. He advised the Government that there was- ho valid patent for Mr Messer’s chair on the score of prior art and he produced some documents, of which I will give details later-

Senator McClelland:

– The score of what?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Prior art- -that it had been invented before. Having a firm opinion that there was no legal right, the Attorney-General could not recommend to the Government that there was a legal right. He said that the moral issue of whether Mr Messer’s chair had been copied was a matter that caused him great concern. He had questioned those concerned with its development and had come firmly to the conclusion that they had designed and manufactured their chair of their own resources without giving consideration to anything that Mr Messer had done. The Attorney-General did admit that at some time during their consideration they were informed that there were patent rights held by Mr Messer. This chair was allegedly developed in November 1966 although, as I said earlier, the AttorneyGeneral’s Department and the Crown Solicitor did not know in May 1967 that there was a patent. So that I will not do the Attorney-General any injustice I will read his reply to Mr Messer on 20th March 1968. It stated:

As to the matter of the law, quite apart from the question whether there was any infringement, I think the patent is invalid as it lacked novelty and did not involve any inventive step having regard to what was known in Australia on or before the priority date of the claims. In particular, I refer among other things to the illustrated advertisement in the ‘Audio’ magazine of August 1957, at page 26, of a stereo listening chair. This publication was available in the Patent Office library on 19th September 1957.

On the moral issue, as I understand the facts, the idea of the ‘Talking Chairs’ for the Australian pavilion at Expo 67 was decided on early in December 1965, before the persons concerned with the decision or with, carrying it out were aware of your invention. Although these persons later became aware of the apparatus described in fig. 3 of your patent, they state that the development of the talking chair used in Expo 67 was in no way influenced by your invention. The idea of the talk: ing chairs had been used previously and had been known to the persons concerned prior to 1966. Mr

Rose of the Commonwealth Acoustics Laboratory, who co-operated in the design of the ‘Talking Chairs’, had no personal knowledge of the tests you state were made by the Laboratory of your equipment in 1963. lt was stated that Mr Rose of the Commonwealth Acoustics Laboratory who cooperated in designing the talking chairs had no personal knowledge of the tests. I do not know what is meant by personal knowledge, but Mr Rose was able to inform the Attorney-General’s Department, so that Senator Gorton could reply in this House, what was actually in the report which he claimed to have received from Adelaide. While I say that we cannot dismiss the Attorney-General’s legal opinion lightly, T believe that like all other legal men his opinion is based upon the facts that are given to him. The facts given to him in respect of this claim of prior art are represented by a photograph which was published in the ‘Audio’ magazine of August 1957, a copy of which was in the library of the Patent Office on 19th September 1957. Before the Patent Office registers a patent it has a responsibility after a period of 6 months to investigate whether there is any prior art. If Mr Messer’s production was the same as that in the photograph in the ‘Audio’ magazine, somebody in the Patent Office had fallen down on his responsibility in registering the design when it did not have a valid claim to registration. Further, the photograph must have only recently been discovered in the archives of the Patent Office. Otherwise Senator Gorton, as he was then, would have been able to give a much more effective answer if the photograph could have been produced.

An examination of the photograph shows that there is very little similarity between the chair depicted and the patent of Mr Messer. Mr Messer’s article is described by the patent specifications as having an ability to create a noise free channel around the ears for the purpose of excluding outside noise and allowing the sound produced in the chair to be available only to the occupant of the chair. The patented proportions of the headrest produce that noise free channel.

The photograph published in the ‘Audio’ magazine shows a chair possessing a headrest the wings of which contain two loudspeakers. They do not create a noise free channel around the ears of the occupant of the chair so that the music produced through the chair would be available only to the occupant, to the exclusion of all others. There could be no claim of novelty for such a chair. The legal opinion that prior art was involved in Mr Messer’s article was based upon a false understanding of the position or an inability to interpret correctly the attributes of the chair in the photograph.

While I respect the opinion of the Attorney-General, it can be only as good as the information given to him permits it to be. There must be an investigation of the moral issue involved. Despite what has been said, the manufacturers of the chairs knew of the existence of Mr Messer’s patent rights. Knowing of those patent rights and specifications, they proceeded with the development of the chairs without consideration of the rights of the patentee, lt is most peculiar that they produced an article identical with that described in the printed specifications registered by Mr Messer with the Patent Office.

We asked the Attorney-General to make available to us the plans and specifications and the contract under which the chairs were manufactured. 1 say with all the courtesy 1 can muster that the AttorneyGeneral has been most helpful in making those documents available to us. In item B3 the specifications of the pavilion chair state:

The designer of the chair has produced a model which shall be followed as to dimensions, shape and form. This model will be delivered to the successful tenderer. All tenderers are advised to inspect the model and it will be assumed that they are aware of all the problems associated wilh the production of such a chair. The model will be available for viewing in the architect’s office at 340 Albert Street, East Melbourne, C2. Victoria, from 31st March to 7th April between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5.30 p.m.

Tenders for the chairs closed at 3 p.m. on 5t.h April 1966. We are dealing with an article as intricate as a talking chair, the details of which were known only to its designers, who had produced a model, called for tenders and made the model available for inspection from 3 1 st March to 7th April. From the first day that inspection was available there was a period of 7 days to complete details of a tender and price and to lodge applications with the Commonwealth. Only one firm found that to be possible, and that is the firm which was concerned with the development of the chair. Is it unreasonable that the contract went to Mr Featherstone, who was originally engaged in the development of the chair in his flat at St Kilda? The AttorneyGeneral agrees that Mr Featherstone was one of those responsible for the development of the chair. The conditions of tender were such that it would be almost impossible for there to be any competition in the pricing of the chair. A check of all the known normal methods of calling for public tenders has been made, and we cannotfind any evidence that public tenders were called for. This is one factor that is causing concern to everyone involved.

Since I raised this matter in the Senate Mr Messer has interviewed Senator Mattner who agreed to support my claim that an injustice was being done. Mr Messer had had a talk with Senator Mattner. I have said that Mr McLeay referred to this case. He said that someone down the line was trying to hide something, and there was a public report of his statement. Representations have been made to Mr McEwen to take the matter up. Obviously an explanation is due in this case. There is great support: for Mr Messer in South Australia. In March 1968 the Edwardstown Jaycee journal stated:

In 1960, Mr Messer, a sound engineer, of Blackwood, patented a ‘Talking Chair’. In 1966, the Commonwealth Government paid an industry in Victoria to manufacture ‘Talking Chairs’. Mr Messer, through a patent attorney advised the appropriate government department that this was an infringement of this patent. For reply, the department suggested he direct his correspondence to the Prime Minister’s Department. Mr Messer’s attorneys wrote to the Prime Minister on5th July 1966. After no answer was received, Mr Messer himself wrote nine months later, pointing out Talking Chairs’ were to be used at Expo 67. No answer was received. Mr Messer, since 1966 has gained the support of politician Cavanagh, (who in a debate with Mr Gorton said it was one of the greatest injustices that it had been his misfortune to come across.) John McLeay, Robin Millhouse, Don Dunstan, have all tried to right the wrong, to no avail. A recent letter to Mr Messer from the Attorney-General’s Department, which had indicated that it might revoke the patent if Mr Messer continued his fight for rightful recognition, should like the French people in 1906, make Australians hang their heads in shame. Mr McLeay recently stated in the ‘Canberra Times’: M have a strong feeling that someone down the line in a department, other than the AttorneyGeneral’s, is not being open, not playing the game. Is covering up for someone else.’ I sincerely hope that one day, Mr Messer, a former war-time RAAF instructor will, like Captain Dreyfus, regain faith in his fellow country-men.

Mr Millhouse is the elected member for Mitcham in South Australia, and Don Dunstan is the Leader of the Labor Opposition in South Australia. Clearly there are some questions to be answered. It was easy for Senator Gorton to say at the time that this is a question of law. All applications in relation to matters of law have to be made before the High Court of Australia. When we suggested that Mr Messer did not havethe finance to go to the High Court we were told that the Legal Aid Bureau of South Australia would make facilities available to him. Now that we know that no assistance in the form of legal aid is available to Mr Messer in South Australia, I think that the Government has some responsibility, by reason of the questionable statements which have been made, some of which do not accord with the facts, either to conduct a full investigation into this matter or, if the case is one which should go to law. provide some assistance to Mr Messer to enable him to prosecute his claim before the High Court of Australia.

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Western Australia · LP

– I compliment the honourable senator for the interest he has taken in this case both last year and during this year. I will put before the appropriate Ministers the comments he has made so that they can conduct the investigations he has requested.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I move:

The Customs Tariff Bill now before the Senate provides for amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1967 based on proposals introduced between 4th October 1967 and 3rd April 1968. When the proposals were introduced in another place copies of the Minister’s speech and the details of the changes were furnished to honourable senators. For this reasonI do not think I should burden the Senate with unnecessary reiteration. However, if any honourable senator would like a copy of the earlier documents 1 will be glad to let him have them. Nevertheless, for the record I should tell the Senate that the Bill comprises thirteen schedules and deals wilh the following subjects.

The First Schedule to the Bill contains amendments to adjust minor discrepancies in Customs Tariff Acts passed in 1967. There is also a change concerning water which reinstates the rates applying under the Customs Tariff 1933-1965. The Second Schedule relates to the removal of import duties on undressed Douglas fir of New Zealand origin under the provisions of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The Eleventh Schedule provides a further step in the elimination of duties on New Zealand undressed timber and is in accordance with the undertaking given by the Prime Minister in. New Zealand on 28th March this year. The Third Schedule deals with the Tariff Board report on television receiver channel tuners and deflection yokes.

The Fourth Schedule concerns two reports by the Tariff Board and one report by the Special Advisory Authority. The Tariff Board reports relate to photographic and cinematographic goods, and musical instrument cases. The report by the Special Advisory Authority concerns safflower seed oil. The Fifth Schedule to the Bill implements the Tariff Board’s recommendations relating to metal reinforced rubber belts and betting and the recommedations of the Special Advisory Authority on hot water bags.

The Sixth Schedule to the Bill gives effect to the extension of the range of goods included in Schedule A of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade” Agreement. This extension resulted from the first of regular reviews provided for in the Agreement for the purpose’ of broadening its trade coverage. Tetanus vaccines, veterinary products, quilts and sleeping bags were included in the extended range after these particular goods hud been the subject of a report by the Tariff Board. This Schedule also gives effect to the tariff changes agreed to by Australia as a result of the Kennedy Round of negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The Seventh Schedule provides for additions to the tariff preferences which Australia accords to certain manufactured, semi-manufactured and handicraft products imported from less developed countries. The Eighth Schedule implements the Tariff Board’s recommendations relating to the general textile reference and sound recorders and reproducers. In its concluding interim report on the general textile reference dated 5th October 1960 a wide variety of textiles which had not been included in the earlier reports was covered. The overall effect of these reports has been to simplify very considerably the tariff structure relating to the goods.

The Ninth Schedule provides for variations in rates of duty on sand boots and sand shoes. These variations arise firstly from the completion of international negotiations which were necessary before the recommendations contained in the Tariff Board’s report on footwear in 1966 could be fully implemented, and secondly, from a report by the Special Advisory Authority on these goods. The Tenth Schedule implements the Tariff Board’s reports on metal working circular sawing machines and stoves, ranges, cookers and the like. The Twelfth Schedule incorporates changes consequent on the adoption by the Government of four reports by the Tariff Board on earthmoving, excavating and materials handling machinery and equipment; tractors, engines and other parts; wooden articles; and pneumatic tyre valves and parts. This Schedule also provides for reduced preferential rates on imports from less developed countries within the limits of existing annual quotas. The final Schedule in the Bill, the Thirteenth Schedule, is a drafting change only and is consequent on the insertion by clause 11 of this Bill of a new Part in the Fifth Schedule to the Customs Tariff which lists the special preference rates for goods from Fiji. This is an administrative measure to simplify the tariff and no duty changes are involved. Honourable senators may recall that similar action was taken with goods from Canada, New Zealand and other preference countries in the Customs Tariff Act (No. 4) 1967.

I would invite the attention of honourable senators to the fact that Clause 15 of the Bill renumbers section 22 of the. Customs Tariff as section 33c and inserts it in Part IVa which was enacted by the Parliament last year. No changes in substance are involved. A summary in some detail covering all the amendments in the Bill is now being circulated for the information of honourable senators. J commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Customs Tariff Bill which is now before us is a formidable document. It implements the recommendations of the Tariff Board covering a wide range of subjects which the Minister has just enunciated in his second reading speech. J shall be as brief as possible and shall refer generally to the thirteen schedules to the Bill. They give to the Senate an indication of the prodigious volume of work that is being performed by the Tariff Board. If one had the time to study these reports closely and to delve into their background’ one would be amazed at the scope of the knowledge and information that the Board has about a great number of Australian industries. I do not think such information and knowledge would be available’ from any other source in the Commonwealth.

The Board has a background knowledge of industry as it is evolving in Australia and has personnel who are well equipped to give some indication of the direction in which this vast expanding industrial complex of Australia is heading.

At the present time the Tariff Board is receiving the attention of pressure groups and even adverse criticism from people in high places relating to its proposal to classify industry into various categories. I commend the Tariff Board for its initiative and courage, despite the criticism from pressure groups and from high places,’ in going ahead with the proposal. In my view this is the only’ way in which we can get a broad look at the whole canvas of industry as if is developing in this country. I hope that the criticisms of the Tariff Board will not deter it from going ahead with its complete survey. I believe that the time is right for the classification of various industries. Because of changed circumstances some of them have reached the stage where they could well enter into open competition. Some need intermediate assistance. Others need the fullest protection that we can afford them. We on this side of the chamber believe that wherever possible and wherever there is a reasonable case we should support Australian industries that produce Australian- goods, and employ good, well, paid union labour. In the end result we should be able to find markets for the products of Australian industry.

I believe that the time must come, and I hope it is not too far distant - perhaps when the next Tariff Board annual report is presented - for a full scale Senate debate on the subject, because the implications of the Board’s work have an effect on so many sections of the Australian economy. I am not afraid of the effects that the reports may have on the Stock Exchange. In my view the Stock Exchange is secondary to the main purpose of production. A report of the Tariff Board which causes some slight butterflying on the Stock Exchange should not have any strong influence on what is best for the nation. The Tariff Board works continually for the best interests of the nation. I believe that we should look at the Board in that light.

I will not go into the details of the Bill, except to observe that we should have more time to debate these important matters that affect the lives of many Australians and involve vast sums of money. The dedicated, industrious and highly efficient people who constitute the Tariff Board should have their efforts recognised and understood by the Parliament. At the time of presentation of the Board’s next annual report, I hope that the business and forms of the Senate will be used to make a full scale debate possible. I commend the Bill to the Senate. The recommendations are practical. I have looked through most of the schedules and I have found that they are technical- schedules embodying recommendations .. which the Board feels are in the best interests of the Australian economy. The .Opposition supports the Bill.

Senator SIM (Western Australia) j 1 2.4] - My colleague, Senator Bull, and I intend to speak on this Tariff Bill along much the same lines as did Senator O’Byrne. I rise at this late stage of the sitting’s’ merely’ to support Senator O’Byrne’s comments and to let the Tariff Board know at this time, when it is under great pressure from narrow, sectional interests to ‘amend its proposals to classify industries, that the Board has the support of at least some members of the Federal Parliament. I agree with Senator O’Byrne’s comments that the national interest is of greater importance than arc sectional interests. The Tariff Board’s main task is to keep before it at all times the national objectives of economic policy. 1 also agree with Senator 0’Byrne that we should have a full scale debate on tariff policy. I regret that during the dying hours of the last session customs tariff legislation was introduced and we were , precluded from having a full scale debate on it. The same thing has happened again. I hope that in the next sessional period an earlier opportunity will be afforded the Senate to debate these most important matters.

I find an extraordinary attitude being adopted by the groups which are applying pressure on the Tariff Board to drop its proposals. Those groups are spearheaded by the Chamber, of Manufactures and certain industries. One such industry sent a telegram to a member of Parliament, as was reported in the ‘Financial Review’ of Friday, 7th June. The telegram read:

Investment in industry cannot proceed with safetywhile a body not responsible to the electorate is able to publish a list which will result in the removal of tariff support for many industries.

This industry probably has had a good deal of high level protection from this body which, it says, is not responsible to the electorate. While it is receiving this protection it has no complaints. Only when it suspects that it is going to feel the cold wind of competition blowing down the back of its neck does it suddenly find some criticism of this independent body which is set up to advise the Government. Whoever is the spokesman for the industry concerned, he shows a strange inconsistency in his arguments.

I fully support the Tariff Board’s attitude, as does my colleague, Senator Bull, who will speak on the subject also. We believe that investment capital and skilled labour are scarce commodities in Australia and that they should be directed to industries which will make the greatest contribution to our national growth and not to industries which have received over many years a high level of protection which does not sustain either an efficient or an economic level of production because it isolates those industries from the chill wind of competition. Some industries have received a high level of protection for many years. There has not been a review to indicate whether they still require that level of protection or whether, under this large umbrella, they have become economic and efficient industries.

Senator Webster:

– Can the honourable senator cite any such industries?

Senator SIM:

– No, I will not cite any industries. I am speaking in a general sense. I do not want to become involved in an argument about industries. I am speaking of the general principles with which we are concerned at the moment. It is the Tariff Board’s responsibility, after a full investigation, to cite the industries which it believes are involved. That is not the responsibility of members of Parliament. I conclude by saying that what we want in Australia is a direction of resources to those areas which make the greatest contribution to our national growth so that the products of Australian industries, with a reasonable level of protection, will be able to compete with imports. I support the Bill and trust that we will be able to debate this question fully in the next session so that the Tariff Board will know that within this Parliament there are those who support it in its present attitude.

Senator BULL:
New South Wales

– I feel obliged to speak briefly on the Bill. I agree with what Senator Sim has had to say. I do not want to deal specifically with the Bill, which is of great importance to this country. The measure touches upon the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement and affects the timber industry. Although the Bill does not deal specifically with the meat industry, that is implied because under the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement there is now duty-free entry of commodities such as timber and meat imported from New Zealand. Personally I am not particularly worried about this at this stage. There must be two-way trade. The Bill contains an escape clause - I think it is clause 9 - to allow an industry which feels that it is being harmed to ask that a review of the situation take place. My main purpose in rising is to deal, as did Senator Sim, with paragraphs 55 to 82 of the Tariff Board’s annual report. The Board has decided that during this year it will classify the industries concerned into categories requiring high, medium and low levels of protecton I understand it is doing its initial survey at the present time and it is intended that the classifications shall be published in the

Board’s annual report. The principle of classification by the Tariff Board is supported by the Vernon Committee in paragraphs 24 to 28 of chapter 14 of its report. 1 support this concept because I believe that it is by encouraging low cost industries that we can make our greatest contribution to the economic growth of Australia. The classification of industries is something which has been needed for a long time and it is with the greatest of gratification that I note this is to be done now.

Admittedly there are some industries which require a high level of protection, particularly in their initial stages, but it is my opinion that this high level of protection should be under constant review. No doubt this is what the Board has in mind. But I am disturbed at the pressure being put on the Tariff Board to prevent it from publishing these classifications. Senator Sim quoted some evidence of this pressure. I wish to place on record something that was contained in a telegram which no doubt was received both by members of the Government and back benchers. It reads:

Investment in industry cannot proceed with safely while a body not responsible to the electorate is able to publish a list which will result in the removal of tariff support for many industries.

In my view, the Board must be free from pressure from governments, individuals and industry. The Minister and the Government have claimed constantly that the Board is free from interference. I hope and trust that this will continue to be so because it would be a sad day for Australia when the Board, because of such interference, proved to be worthless in assisting in the determination of our economic policy.

An unwarranted high level of protection definitely adds to our high cost structure. Many of the exporting industries of Australia are feeling this pressure of high costs, which to a degree, stems from our protection policy. The wool industry particularly, because of lower prices and high costs of production, is feeling the pinch to such an extent that if something is not done it will no longer be a big factor in earning export income for Austarlia. I have cut my contribution to the debate short because of circumstances, but I feel very strongly on this issue. I hope that the Government will on no occasion submit to pressure from industry or back benchers in Canberra.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - I thank the Opposition for according this Bill a speedy passage. I also thank those two honourable senators on the Government side who have spoken for their comments. I note the concern that they express about our export industries. I note also Senator O’Byrne’s suggestion that there be a full dress debate on the matter of tariffs in about 12 months time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– During the second reading debate I thought the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) looked across at me and 1 indicated that I wished to speak priorto his rising. I am rather concerned that we should hear from an Opposition senator andtwo Government senators certain points of view but no alternative point of view from anybody else with relation to the classification of industries into high, medium and low protection areas.

This is a matter of supreme importance to Australia and I wish to speak very briefly to this Bill which will have great significance for our economy. This is a subject which one is unable to discuss fully in the limited time available to us but perhapsI may be given credit for having raised the question of classifying industries into areas of protection on at least four occasions by way of questions to Ministers. I refer in particular to question No. 251 which was put on notice. It was addressed by me to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) some months ago. It reads:

  1. Has the Government given proper and serious consideration to the suggestion by the Australian Tariff Board that it intends in its report to list protected Australian industries into categories’ of those which receive high, medium or low tariff protection?
  2. Docs the Government consider there is an area of possible damage by this action to certain important Australian industries?

I am not over enamoured of the reply I received from the Minister. It reads:

  1. In its annual report for 1966-67, the Tariff

Board stated that it intended to make various changes in its methods and approach in relation to its task of advising the Government on those matters the Government refers to it.

  1. In the same annual report the Board stated that it proposes to publish in its next annual report a classification’ of industries into high, medium and low protection categories. How the Tariff Board proposes that such a classification would be of use to it in its task of advising the Government and explaining the reasons for the recommendations it makes regarding assistance to specific Australian Industries is contained in its report.

J suggest that the Minister’s answer gives no recognition whatever to the question that J raised.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What section of industry do you think is going to suffer by this action? ls it your own?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I realise that Australian industries are particularly important to the development of this country, and the manufacturing industries, which are to be subject to the proposed categorisation, are the main employers of labour in Australia. Surely the honourable senator will agree that we must guard against all possibility of doing chi mage to those industries. Let me mention the knitting industry as an example, lt employs large numbers of women, lt is a user of huge quantities of Australian fibres, particularly wool. If it is to continue to. exist and to grow it must have the confidence Of the community, lt must be able to sell its goods in competition with the products of other countries, some of which perhaps dump their goods here and in some of which the wage levels- are not as high as those demanded in our community.

Senator Sim:

– That is 1930 thinking.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If it is 1930 thinking, then perhaps the honourable senator will’ he able to tell us what great vision he has to create further disabilities for Australian industries. I do not know of anybody who wishes to pull down Australian industries more than does the honourable senator. In this instance I can see joint thought by the Labor Opposition and some Government senators in this chamber.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It is in the national interest.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator may be right. The point is that the Board intends to introduce classifications of industries. I do not think there is any pressure on the Board not to do. this. The wisdom or otherwise of the suggestion arises from normal discussion in Parliament, lt is not normally the function of the Board to classify industries as needing ..high, intermediate or low protection; its normal function is set out in the criteria laid down by the Parliament. Its duty is to recommend to the Government. However, the point which I raise on behalf of local industry is whether sufficient consideration has been given to possible areas of damage, in other words, can an industry which has been classified as one needing high protection gain access lo the borrowing market to provide for its growth or is there that which will react against its progress? As mentioned by the honourable senator, the stock exchange is a particularly important area which gives an indication of confidence within various industries.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They toil not, neither do they spin. This is just an extraneous organisation.

Senator WEBSTER:

– lt is an extraneous organisation, but if the honourable senator were involved in industry he would know that it has a bearing on the confidence to be gained if a borrowing is required for greater growth so that more, employment can be generated within an industry. I should have thought that this would have been of importance to the honourable senator. However, my purpose in rising was to say that I have consistently, by questioning and comment in this place, indicated that there is danger in what is proposed. I have some fear that industries which arc particularly important to Austrafia in the development and defence of our continent and in the provision of employment will be adversely affected by this action of the Tariff Board. I entered this debate because there is one lone voice in this place which draws attention to this important matter.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

COPYRIGHT BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from II June (vide page 1588), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill he now read a second time.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– This Bill is of very great importance to a quite important section of the Australian community. I refer to that section of the Australian people who are engaged in the production of various works of serious art or popular entertainment, insofar as those two differ. The Opposition is not opposed to the Bill in substance, although I intend subsequently to move an amendment to clause 58. In view of the fact, that the Opposition does not intend to oppose the Bill and also in view of the fact that there has been a quite considerable canvassing of the merits of the proposition submitted by the Government and of the Opposition’s view, no great purpose would be served by making a long speech on the subject at this stage. My colleague Senator McClelland also wishes to say something about some aspects of the Bill which are of interest to him.

There are, I believe, three things which should be said. First; it is most unfortunate that a Bill of the importance of the Copyright Bill, a measure which has been awaited by a great many people for a very long time, should be presented to the Senate at this late stage of the session with the result that it has to bc rushed through without adequate consideration being given to all the very complex aspects of it. ft seems to be a pity that one should feel -obliged to curtail what could have been a very fruitful debate on the matter. The second thing thai must be said is that there still remains in the field of copyright one matter which could give rise to dissatisfaction. I refer to the fact that as yet Australia is not a parly to the Rome Convention. I am not’ aware of what indications have been given’ by the Government as to whether it will shortly subscribe to the Rome Convention. ( know that many other countries also have been lagging in this matter. However, 1 note from correspondence which has been forwarded by an interested organisation that there is before the Irish Parliament a Bill whereby the Parliament of Ireland will ratify the Rome Convention. The importance of international conventions relating to copyright is becoming increasingly great, especially in areas of mass media of communication between various countries. For that reason, the Opposition urges the Government to give very early attention to ratifying the international convention which was made at Rome in 1961.

The only other matter that I wish to refer to concerns a particular question which is dealt with in clause 58 of the Bill. However, 1 do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by my discussing this matter in detail now. I shall wait until the Bill reaches the Committee stage before 1 say what I have to say on this question. I repeat what has been said in general terms: The Opposition welcomes the Bill and is pleased to see that it has been introduced. Apart from the one amendment to clause 58, the Opposition will support the passage of the Bill.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– Copyright is a right secured by law in every civilised country to authors of literary works and creators of musical and artistic works to prevent any reproduction of their work without their consent. The growth of copyright protection by law closely follows ..the adoption of mechanical means of reproduction.The right of copyright has been synonymous with the growth of the printing industry. For example, literary copyright was brought into effect and authors were given protection only after the invention of. the printing machine, and artistic copyright was established only with the expansion in the use of engravings and lithographs.

Much was said by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) at the second reading stage last Tuesday. The Ministers speech covered twenty-four pages of ‘type and related to a Bill of 106 pages containing 249 clauses. 1 completely agree with Senator Wheeldon, who suggested that it is very bad that an important Bill pf this nature should be introduced and dealt with in the dying hours of a’ session. The Minister said in his second reading speech that’ the Bill is intended to provide a complete revision of the copyright law in Australia and that it is the first revision since 1912. However, when one peruses the second reading speech thoroughly one sees that the Minister has admitted that the Bill falls far short of being a complete revision. It does provide for a revision so far as the warring factions in the publishing, communication and recording fields are concerned. The Minister said that the proposed changes in the law will enable Australia to become a party to recent international agreements on copyright. He said also:

The provisions in the present Bill with regard to the protection to be given to sound recordings represent an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise between the conflicting claims of record manufacturers and of broadcasting organisations. While neither party would, I think, regard the present provisions as entirely satisfactory from its point of view, my understanding is that each is prepared to accept these provisions as a workable compromise.

Therefore, as far as the protection to be given to sound recordings is concerned, we have the admission that this Bill is not the epitome of what is required but is a workable compromise. So it is completely wrong for the Minister to suggest that this Bill is a complete revision of the Copyright Act that has been in vogue in Australia since 1912.

Senator Wheeldon has mentioned already that the Opposition intends to move an amendment at the Committee stage. Apart from those matters, the Bill has one principal weakness, as 1 see it. lt is mentioned in what I regard as an admission in the Minister’s second reading speech, lt relates to performers. The Minister said:

The matter of performers is dealt wilh separately in the United Kingdom by legislation of a different character, lt has not yet proved possible to devote attention to the task of examining what legislation should be enacted in Australia to give effect to those provisions of the Neighbouring Rights Convention relating to performers. I understand, however, that there is as yet no substantial problem caused by the broadcasting or recording of performances of musical and dramatic works in Australia without the prior approval of the performers themselves.

In the United Kingdom in 1956, at about the same time as the Copyright Bill was introduced in the British Parliament, a Performers Protection Bill was also introduced. One of the purposes of the Neighbouring Rights Convention, which was held at Rome in 1961, was to have the British Performers Protection Act ratified by the nations participating in that Convention.

I suggest to the Minister that this Bill is not a complete revision when it has not yet proved possible to devote attention to the task of examining what legislation should be introduced in this Parliament to protect adequately the rights of performers. The great weakness in this Bill is that it does not anywhere at all afford adequate protection to performers. The British Performers Protection Act provides that recording companies cannot record the performances of performers without the initial consent of those performers. That provision enables a performer’s agent or union to conduct initial negotiations to protect his rights in respect of residuals and replays, thereby enabling him to obtain some equity in the prosperity created by the record. That is where I believe this Bill falls far short of what is required.

Most professional creative people - artists, musicians and composers - are not businessmen. Such people should not be put in the position, as they appear to me to be put under this Bill, of having to bargain with a commissioning body. Bargaining arrangements could be very dangerous to the future of professional artists, musicians and composers in this country. For instance, they could well mean that the composer who is the best talker or the best salesman will obtain more for his work than someone else who is a better composer but a poorer talker or salesman. The Minister has said that the Government will keep the matter under review. 1 sincerely hope that it does that. The Minister has also undertaken in his second reading speech that changes will bc made where it is thought they need to be made. I am quite confident, having regard to the problems that this Bill will create for’ professional creative people in this country, that another Bill of this nature will certainly be before this chamber within 5 years.

Australian artists, writers, composers, producers, and musicians who practice their professions in Australia are not remunerated sufficiently for their efforts in comparison with similar people in other civilised Western countries. In the great bulk of instances, people engaged in these creative professions in Australia are working on a part time basis at this stage. On the other hand a great number of them go overseas and, with their skills and talent, make names for themselves, and sometimes make a fortune. This Bill has some weaknesses. Whilst we criticise it in that regard, we do not oppose it, except for the amendment that will be moved at the Committee stage. I sincerely trust that the Government, particularly the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Bowen), will heed the situation that exists in regard to musicians, composers and producers and will seethat they are adequately protected in the interests of the creative arts in this nation.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - It would be unfairto let this debate conclude without reminding the Senate that the report of the committee headed by Sir John Spicer on this matter has been available for public consideration since 1959 and that the Bill, accompanied by a statement by the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen), has been before the Parliament for several months. Notwithstanding that, of course, the Attorney-General’s Department holds itself ready to engage in consultations on any of the matters in respect of which it is suggestedthat the Bill is insufficient. I suggest that we would make an entirely ungenerous judgment of the Bill if we did not put on the record the fact that it represents an outstanding step towards bringing our copyright legislation abreast of the developments of the modern world for the protection of authors, composers, producers and others entitled to copyright, for whose interests we have the highest regard.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Clause 58. (4.) Where the Tribunal has made a report in relation to the royalty, or the minimum royalty, payable in respect of records included in a particular class of records (whether the report related only to records included in that class or also related to other records), the AttorneyGeneral shall not, before the expiration of five years after the report was made, request the Tribunal to hold an inquiry under this section in relation to the royalty, or the minimum royalty, as the case may be, payable in respect of records included inthat class.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I move:

In sub-clause (4.), omit ‘five’, insert ‘two’. The purpose of the amendment is quite clear. It is to enable a further look to be taken at the copyright determinations which are made by the Copyright Tribunal within 2 years of their having been made rather than within 5 years. The Opposition submits that the period of 5 years prescribed by the bill is an excessively long period, especially in view of the very rapid developments which are taking place in the techniques of recording and broadcasting. We feel that a great deal could be done to preserve the rights of the producers of artistic works and also the manufacturers of records - people who are particularly concerned with the production of musical records. It seems quite obvious to the Opposition that a term of 2 years is completely adequate. It is not a question, as was suggested in another place, of bringing the parties backwards and forwards before the Tribunal every 18 months. Two years is quite a long period during which a great deal of development can take place and 5 years seems to us to be an excessively long period. For that reason, although as already indicated we are preparedto support the Bill as a whole, we feel that this is one amendment that should be made.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– Senator Wheeldon’s amendment relatesto the royalty which should be paid by record manufacturersto composers and others whose works they record. The Bill provides for that to be on the basis of 5% of the retail value with a minimum of1c per track. The Bill as amended in the House of Representatives provides that that rate shall prevail for 1 year, after the expiration of which reference may be madeto the Attorney-General and if he is satisfied there is a prima facie case for review he may refer the question of revising the rate to the Copyright Tribunal. That Tribunal is a new institution that bus been established on a basis of independence and competence and is in all respects equipped to deal with the question of reviewing the rate. The only suggestion that Senator Wheeldon puts before the Committee is that the reviewed rate established by the Tribunal should itself be subject to review at intervals of 2 years, whereas the Government’s point of view is that it should be reviewable at intervals of 5 years.

When it is recalled that the issue before the Copyright Tribunal will concern an industry of fairly wide dimensions and that representations before the Tribunal will occupy quite some time on the part of the various units interested in that industry and will involve a good deal of expense in getting the matter arbitrated by the Tribunal, it will be seen that if there is to be any element of stability and responsibility in the matter, imputing to the Tribunal a responsibility of judgment, it should be a base of confidence for all units in the industry for at least a forward period of 5 years.

That is the sole proposition in the amendment that the Opposition advances to us. I suggest that on reflection it will be seen that if a judgmentof the Tribunal is to have any weight at all it should prevail as a decision that fixes the rates within the industry over a period of 5 years. It really would be a defeating process for the purposes of the Tribunal if its decisions were to be subject to review with a frequency of 2 years as suggested by the Opposition. On that ground I would ask the Committee to vote for the rejection of the amendment.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– In moving the amendment the Opposition has no intention of casting any reflection on the competence or integrity of the Copyright Tribunal. We welcome the establishment of the Tribunal and it is not due to any lack or failure that we anticipate in that. Tribunal that we suggest the period of 5 years should be regarded as too long. Submissions have been made to us not only by creative artists but also by radio stations and record companies that with the very rapid changes that can take place, the period of 5 years before review can be too long. With all of the intelligence, integrity and judgment in the world the Tribunal would need to be almost psychic to be able to predict what the situation may be in 5 years time. We are certainly not reflecting on the Tribunal in any way or on the Government’s intentions in establishing the Tribunal. But we suggest that in the circumstances 5 years is unconscionably long. Two years is still a long time, but it is much more appropriate to the particular circumstances.

Question put:

That the word proposed to be left out (Senator Wheeldon’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1760

DESIGNS BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 June (vide page 1590), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– This Bill is also one of considerable importance and the Opposition is not opposing it. However, as with the Copyright Bill we feel, despite what the Minister said when debating it, that more time should be given to permit full discussion of the issues contained in the Bill. We realise that the legislation has been before the Parliament for some time and that the report made by Sir John Spicer on copyright was available some years ago. Be that as it may, adequate time has not been given for full consideration of this Bill. As Senator McClelland reminds me the Government itself found it necessary to amend the legislation while it was before another place.

For that reason we are somewhat disturbed that we have not been able completely lo discuss all aspects of the legislation in the way that we would have wished lo do. We welcome in particular the Designs Bill which gives protection to a group of people who seek it. It is our view that this protection should have been given for a great deal longer than it has been given and legislation of this kind should have been introduced much earlier. However because we support the principles oi the Bill it would be churlish of us to complain at this stage. The Opposition will not oppose the passage of the Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - The amendments that the Government proposed to this Bill followed representations from interests in the industry. The Opposition has had the same amount of time since those representations were made to consider the advisability of introducing amendments. 1 do not wish the debate to conclude without protesting that if the Opposition had used that period that has been available to it to formulate amendments they would have received the same consideration -by the Parliament as those of the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 12.57 to 2 p.m.

page 1761

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL (No. 2) 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May (vide page 1282), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DITTMER (Queensland) [2.0J- The Opposition does not oppose this Bill as it represents some progress for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Although we congratulate the Government on the Bill, we condemn it for its dilatory approach to the problem and for its callous indifference and irresponsibility in not having introduced these amendments years ago. What amendments are incorporated in this Bill? One is the facilitation of the handling of the CSlRO’s finances, another is in relation to the determination of salaries, and a third gives permission to the Organisation to employ certain people who have not in the past met the normal requirements of physical fitness.

The Opposition would have liked other amendments to be incorporated in the Act. One is that the terms and conditions of employment should be divorced from the control of the Public Service Board. But what the Opposition is particularly pleased to see, and I think everyone in the Organisation is pleased to see, is the releasing of the Organisation from the dead hand of the Treasury. This is a Treasury-ridden country under the Liberal Government because the Treasury determines almost everything. Previously every account for the CSIRO was handled by the Treasury. This Organisation comprises a group of brilliant scientists who are unsurpassed in the world in the contribution that they have made to primary and secondary industry, but they have had the heavy, dead hand of the Treasury constantly over them. The Minister for Works (Senator Wright) has at long last seen fit to take away this control by the Treasury, and the CSIRO can now finance its own activities. It will now be able to handle its own accounts, request appropriations and arrange its own finance in its own way. subject to Ministerial control. The Opposition agrees with that proposition.

Under the new provisions the Organisation’s Executive will have power to appoint persons whose annual salary does not exceed $10,073. Previously the figure was $3,000. An annual salary of $3,000 is merely the salary of a very ordinary clerk, but $10,073 is the salary of a principal research officer. The Executive of the CSIRO is a responsible group of men who should have the right to appoint officers to certain classifications without reference to the Minister for Education and Science. It was previously laid down that applicants for positions had to be of British nationality and had lo pass a standard of physical fitness laid down by the Public Service Board. Such persons also had to take an oath of allegiance or an affirmation. It is true that the Minister for Education and Science had power to rule that a person need not bc of British nationality and need not take an oath of allegiance or an affirmation, but physical fitness was insisted upon as one of the condlions of employment. Very often a man’s physical condition is no indication of his intellectual ability. A person may be an epileptic, underweight or overweight but still be fit for research work.

We on this side of the chamber feel that the Public Service Board has too much say in who should be appointed to this Organisation. We realise that the Executive has the responsibility of appointing officers and that these officers should meet certain requirements, but the terms and conditions of employment should not be determined by the Publc Service Board. This group of scientists is in world class and has made an extremely worthwhile contribution to the primary and secondary industries of Austral^. By and large. Australians do noi realise just how much they owe this Organisation. T!?e Opposition is of the opinion that the stuff of the CSiRO should be taken away from the control of the Public Service Board. The Public Service Board should have nothing to do with them. The Board cannot even handle employees in the Postal Department. We all know that it has not been able to determine conditions and terms of employment acceptable to postal workers. There has been a constant demand amongst employees in the Postal Department to be taken away from the control of the Public Service Board.

Often scientists are not prepared to accept the terms and conditions of employment of the Public Service Board. The CSIRO Executive is better qualified to determine the conditions that should apply to persons who are appointed to the Organisation from all over the world. Incidentally, it has been necessary to appoint scientists from all over (he world because of the shortage of scientists in Australia resulting from lack of foresight by the Government. The Opposition feels that the Government should examine this position in order to ascertain how soon it can take the employees of the CSIRO away from the control of the Public Service Board.

The Opposition congratulates the Government for bringing in this legislation, however late is the implementation of these worthwhile amendments to the Act. Again I say that Australians do not realise how much they owe the CSIRO in relation to such matters as pasture improvement and improved carrying capacities, lt would be interesting to know just how much of the extra profit that is made by land holders as a result of the Organisation’s activities is donated to the Organisation.

Far be it for me to delay the processes of this august chamber, but it does seem that loo often Bills are introduced and debated on the last day of the silling. I think that. nineteen or twenty Bills remain to be debated today. How can it be expected that these measures will be given worthwhile consideration and attention if they are rushed through in such a manner. It is the responsibility of the Government to see that this does not happen.

In conclusion. 1 support the Bill. The Opposition congratulates the Government upon its approach to this problem and upon introducing worthwhile amendments, particularly that designed to facilitate the financing of the CSIRO. We do suggest that there may be justification for the Government to investigate the heavy hand that is laid by the Treasury on all activities. This is a Treasury-ridden country. We all know that finance is the essence of government and that the Treasury is needed, but I do not think that in a progressive country everything should he under the heavy hand of the Treasury. The Government should accept its responsibility to see that the Treasury has a specific field of operation and that it keeps to that field and does not put its paws in everyone else’s business as it seeks to do at present, lt determines in no small measure how certain departments shal’l function but it would not have a clue what they are doing. I am not deriding the competence of economists and financial experts in the Treasury.

I am pleased to see that at long last something worthwhile has been done for the CSIRO in that it has been freed from the dead hand of the Treasury. The Opposition looks forward to the future success of this Organisation. We believe that the calibre and qualifications of its officers are such that it is entitled to determine the conditions and terms of employment of its employees. The Public Service Board should have nothing to do with it. The conditions and terms of employment of scientists of world standing -should be determined by fellow scientists and not by people of the Public Service Board, because they are . not qualified for the task. I am not condemning them because of the conditions and terms of employment that they lay down. The fact is that they just do not know the area. They have not lived the life. They do not know the rights, weaknesses and strengths of scientists.

I believe that in the next sessional period the Government should introduce a Bill to divorce the CSIRO from the Public Service Board so that the terms and conditions of employment of scientists in that organisation will be left to its executive. 1 wish to pay a tribute to the advisory committees of the States on which many men who arc distinguished in industry and commerce play a part in making a worth while contribution to the functioning of the CSIRO.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I wish to add briefly to what has been said by Senator Dittmer, who has led for the Opposition in this debate. As he has indicated the Opposition gives the measure cordial support because it represents a real advance. J think the financial structure established by this Bill will enable the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to discharge its responsibilities more effectively and will enhance its flexibility. Honourable senators are aware that the CSIRO is a research organisation of world standing. It is very pleasing to see that its administration will be removed from direct .control of the Treasury. Senator Dittmer made some very powerful points in dealing with that aspect. Quite obviously the CSIRO is a difficult organisation to operate under classical Treasury rules. I join wilh Senator Dittmer in pleading that the Government should in the near future give close attention to freeing the CSIRO from Public Service Board control.

Unlike the Public Service Board, the CSIRO is dealing in a world market for research scientists, lt must be free to set conditions of appointment and salaries at a level which will attract and hold research scientists of the highest calibre. Because of the tie between the Public Service Board and the CSIRO, and the pressure for salary advancement in the CSIRO engendered by the existence of a world market in research scientists, salaries at the CSIRO have become something of a yardstick throughout the Public Service and elsewhere in semigovernment authorities and such institutions as universities. We do not think that it is a particularly good thing. There is no special merit - in fact, there is an adverse effect - in having the CSIRO so closely bound up with the Public Service Board administration in regard to salaries.

I think it is fair to say, as Senator Dittmer has said, that we regard the Public Service Board as an inappropriate organisation to concern itself with the terms and conditions of appointment and employment of scientific research workers and their ancillaries. That is a very important point in the policy of an Australian Labor Party which has over recent years formulated some quite far-reaching concepts in the application of science and technology t’o government and the general life of the country.

One of the effects’ of giving to the CSIRO, as the Bill does, a greater degree of independence in the field of financing is that it ought to be possible in the future to have something in the nature of long term budgeting for research. Universities, and now colleges of advanced education, are operating under a system of triennial financing. With the new financial structure of the CSIRO there does not seem to be any reason why there should not be some such notion or conception enabling that organisation to plan ahead for a number of years. Recently much attention has been paid to scientific and technological development. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has recently announced a plan for the collection of information on all the scientific and research work being done in this country. That is a good idea, so long as it does not mean that scientists will be subject to close oversighting for government or budgetary purposes, so hampering their freedom of activity in research. 1 do not wish to delay the Senate. This measure spells progress. We support its objects and its contents, but we ask the Government to give very close consideration to a final act of emancipation to which such a distinguished body under such a highly competent executive is entitled; that is, freedom altogether from Public Service control so that where the Act now provides that something shall be done subject to the approval of the Public Service Board, or that. the selection of persons for appointment as officers of CSIRO shall be in accordance with such requirements as the Public Service Board determines, a change should be made so that these matters are determined by the executive of the CSIRO. I have much pleasure in supporting the comments made by Senator Dittmer and I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - The references that have been made to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization when taken together combine in an appreciation of the work that it has done and the purpose that underlies the conception of that organisation. It began its work in the 1920s. That work has been continued through following decades with great advantage to the practical development of Australia. Honourable senators opposite have referred to the dead hand of the Treasury. The Treasury is the body which manages the finances of government. Responsibility in the management of government finances is the keynote of efficiency in government services, lt would not be claimed fairly for any academician or great scientist of the CSIRO that he is a superman. Such men have undoubted excellence of attainments. Nevertheless, if they serve for a remuneration from the public exchequer, it is essential from the point of view of government responsibility that the Treasury should exercise a proper management - not restriction - of the finance available to that particular service.

The great advantage of this Bill is that the Treasury, exercising after proper consultation with the CSIRO a decision as to the final appropriation for that organisation, then leaves it to the executive of the organisation to apportion that sum amongst such projects as it thinks fit. The organisation having divided the appropriation amonst such sub-divisions as it thinks fit, and such projects as it decides to work upon, makes a report at the end of the year, accompanied by financial statements for examination by representatives of the people. There I think lies a great improvement in this Bill. I would not say that it removes the so-called dead hand of the Treasury. It maintains a responsibility from the point of view of overall financial appropriations, but within that limit allows to the organisation itself the freedom of judgment that is necessary for a proper selection by scientific minds of projects which, upon further research, are likely to yield value from that research.

Senator Dittmer:

– The Government was going to give the organisation complete flexibility in handling its finances.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Exactly. That is what I am saying. It has been said that there is something irksome with regard to the relationship between the Organisation and the Public Service Board. It is not only in this Organisation that excellent men of great scientific and academic skill arc recruited. Fortunately, in the other services of government we have men who are qualified in their own special field and we should be generous in appreciating their skills.

Therefore, so long as the CSIRO is .i function of Government it is essential that some relativity should be retained between the remuneration and terms and conditions of employment, of employees of the Organisation and those of other public servants whose skills are of an equally specialised nature although not directed in the scientific field. I can assure the Senate that although the relationship between the Public Service Board and the Organisation requires discussion from time to time that discussion, being resourceful and objective in its nature, does not provide any real obstacle to the advancement of the work of the Organisation.

I wish to refer to only two other matters: The first relates to the alterations made in this Bill with regard to the responsibilities of the Organisation. They will not alter in any way the amenability of the Organisation to questions in Parliament seeking information on its activities. I make that remark in anticipation of the possibility that some honourable senators, having regard to the history of statutory organisations, will have some anxiety lest the responsibility to provide information to Parliament should be reduced by this Bill.

The other matter is one that has not been referred to by the Opposition so I mention it myself. It is not appropriate under this Bill to have regard to any capital works that are projected for construction by this Organisation because the Senate will know that in the next sessional period we will be dealing with a Bill which will define the ambit of inquiry by the Public Works Committee of governmental projects. It will be appropriate then for us to consider whether capital works projects for this Organisation should be subject to the scrutiny of the Committee. Without expressing it now in words, my view on that matter possibly can be anticipated. I hope the Senate will not have any anxiety as to whether a proper decision will be made.

With the Opposition’s acceptance of the Bill, I think it is quite clear that the Senate as a whole finds a good deal of satisfaction In the improvement in the work of the Organisation that this Bill will facilitate. It is a matter of real felicity to see the cordiality in the chamber in its reception of the Bill. I commend it to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1765

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May (vide page 1325), on motion by Senator McKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– The Minister in his second reading speech said that the major part of the Bill before the House deals with special1 provisions for deductions relating to capital expenditure which mining companies can make in arriving at their taxable income. The new provisions apply to mining ventures other than to petroleum operations. The Minister also pointed out that the provisions were last subjected to a major review over the period 1950 to 1954 following the report of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation and that rather than attempt piecemeal amendments to existing provisions the Government had decided to undertake a thorough review of the relevant provisions of this aspect of taxation law. As a result we now have this Bill before us - a Bill consisting of some 23 detailed and complicated clauses, a Bill consisting of about 35 pages and a Bill with an explanatory memorandum attached thereto consisting of 69 pages.

Having regard to the important nature of this measure I would have thought that the Government could well have not proceeded with it in these dying hours of the sessional period but rather would have stood it over for more detailed and considered deliberation at the forthcoming Budget session. Because legislation has been coming through this chamber in the last week rather at the rate at which the planes seem to take off from Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, it has not been possible for one to devote as much time as one would have wished to a better understanding of them. This Bill in particular requires a good deal of study. I join with the Taxpayers Association of New South Wales which, in its bulletin of 21st May last, had this to say:

The Bill of 35 pages requires careful study before one can form any opinion as to its economic effect on this all-important sector of Australia’s national development. We hope that the Government will allow the Bill to lie on the table for a reasonable time to permit interested parties to study the proposals and, if necessary, make representations for revision.

The Opposition fully appreciates the importance of the mining industry to Australia but we cannot understand why this legislation has to be rushed through at this stage especially when the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) in his second reading speech said that at present certain aspects of the existing legislation were the subject of appeal by the Commissioner of Taxation to the full bench of the High Court.

The provisions under legal disputation relate to the deductibility of capital expenditure by mining companies. In the circumstances one would have thought that the Government not only would have waited until this legal question had been resolved but also that some estimate would have been given of the net effect of this measure on revenue. Surely before introducing an important measure of this nature relating to taxation the Government would have made some assessment of the sum of money involved. The legislation raises fiscal and taxation issues and also has a great bearing on the overall question of social conditions.

In this measure we find the taxation laws being directed towards encouraging economic development of Australia by the use of various tax concessions to companies engaged in mining other than for petroleum. As the Treasurer said, the capital expenditure to be deductible is expenditure incurred by a taxpayer company or a taxpayer miner in carrying on mining operations to extract minerals from the ground, and also expenditure on certain facilities necessary for and directly related to those operations. In short summation, the Government, by the taxation weapon, is subsidising the private development of Australia’s mining operations. In recent years there has been a very significant and substantial increase in the rate of discovery and development in Australia of vast resources of valuable minerals. So far as the nation is concerned, it is virtually a case of: ‘You name the mineral - we have it’. The majority of outcropping rock on the Australian continent is preCambrian: that is, it is considered to be more than 500 million years old. lt is in this outcropping rock which is found in the Northern Territory, in South Australia, in Western Australia, in the western parts of New South Wales and in Queensland, that our vast wealth of hard minerals such as gold, copper, iron, silver, lead and zinc, is found. As a result of mining activities and ventures, great industrial cities such as Broken Hill in New South Wales, Mount Isa in Queensland and of course Kalgoorlie in Western Australia, have sprung up over the years. That is why we say that this Bill is concerned nol only with a fiscal and taxation issue; of necessity, there is also a great social impact involved in it. In addition to the hard minerals that I have mentioned, we have virtually untapped resources of tin, tungsten, opal, bauxite and rt,tile. to name just a few. The legislation that is now the subject of discussion by the Senate can have a great impact on the development of Australia.

The mining industry, of course, has been an important factor in the growth of the Australian economy since about the middle of the 1 9th century, when the discovery of gold attracted a great number of people to Australia. From that point onward the industry has provided a stimulus to our economic development. The mining industry has been a substantial earner of foreign exchange. In addition, earnings from our mineral production have provided capital for the development of allied manufacturing industries such as the great iron and steel industry. During the early part of this century the mining industry went through a period of decline: Historians seem to relate this to the expansion of- the gold mining industry in South Africa. In about 1923 silver, lead and zinc deposits were found at Mount Isa. The industry seemed to pick up during the time of the depression. Doubtless men who were out of work at that time were trying their luck on the various diggings. But then came the war. The industry slumped during the war and in the early postwar years. Since about 1950 the value of production by the mining industry has doubled. It contributes substantially lo our export trade and our export earnings, it is highly significant that Japan has emerged as our major export market for minerals. The Labor movement, despite the shortness of time that we have had to consider this legislation-

Senator Cormack:

– Which section of the Labor movement?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– The Labor movement generally, as a political party, does not oppose the legislation . because we realise that the development of our mineral resources is of paramount importance to our economy and to our future development. Nonetheless we assert’ that there is an obligation on both State and Federal governments to ensure that our resources are applied in the public interest and for the public benefit. The Australian Labor Party believes that our mineral wealth represents an unprecedented opportunity to raise the standard of living both in Australia and in the adjacent underdeveloped nations. lt is the aim of the Labor movement to maximise the role of public enterprise in the further discovery and development of Australia’s mineral resources, lt is on this aspect of policy that we violently disagree with the policy being pursued by the present coalition administration. We also believe that it is time the Government had a look at the imposition of a capital gains tax on some of the gains being made as a’ result of investment in mining in Australia. By way of illustration I mention a report appearing in the ‘Australian’ of Tuesday last which pointed out that nickel shares quoted on the Perth Stock Exchange had jumped by $2 as the result of a reaction to a nickel strike at Scotia. We believe it is time the Government took action to sec that our mineral wealth was exploited for the benefit of all Australians and not .merely for that of a select or privileged few. We do not oppose the legislation, but we certainly criticise the Government for the manner in which and the time at which it has been brought before the Senate.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I thank: the Opposition Cor the speedy passage it has given the Bill. At another time and on another occasion 1 would like to enter into debate with Senator McClelland, who led for the Opposition, on the question of fundamental political philosophy and the advantages or lack of them in a capital gains tax. But this is not such an occasion. F agree that this is a very complex Bill, but there is an excellent explanatory note attached to the papers, which certainly will be of considerable help to many people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1767

CANNED FRUITS EXPORT MARKETING BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May (vide page 1326). on motion by Senator McKeller:

Thin the Bill be now read a second lime.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– This is a short Bill, and the Opposition does not oppose it. Its purpose is to permit the Australian Canned Fruits Board to borrow money from the Reserve Bank under a Commonwealth guarantee of repayment. Obviously the purpose for which the money is to bc borrowed is the promotion of our products overseas. We on this side of the Senate think that such promotion is a real necessity at the present time because the fruit canning industry is being confronted with many difficulties connected with marketing overseas, especially in the United Kingdom, lt is not very long ago that 95% of our exports of canned fruits was sold on the United Kingdom market. That figure has now dwindled to 65%.

Australian canned fruits are also facing very serious competition from South Africa on the United Kingdom market. In addition to this, Australia’s production has almost doubled over the last 8 or 10 years with the result that Australian producers are now experiencing great difficulty in finding a sale for the whole of their products. So great have these difficulties been that in the year 1965-66 there was a hangover of 1.5 million cartons of fruit and in the year 1966-67 sales could not be found for 1.9 million cartons. Figures for the current marketing year are not yet available but, from discussions 1 have had with people connected with the industry in Shepparton and Kyabram in Victoria, indications are that the hangover will be even greater this year. Under those circumstances I think it proper that the Parliament should make facilities available now for the promotion of our products.

The reasons for our inability to sell our total production are many. One of the major factors has been the devaluation of United Kingdom currency in December of last year. This placed a further great load on the industry in that it had an adverse effect on the prices obtainable in England. It was for this reason, as well as others, that one preserving company went out of production entirely, lt did not can any fruit at all during the current canning season. 1 refer to Smorgon and Sons Pty Ltd, a canning company in the State of Victoria. The fact that it did not can any fruit created a number of problems for growers in the Shepparton and Kyabram areas. As a result of this ceasing of operations, seventy growers who were either partly or fully concerned with providing fruit for processing by Smorgon & Sons Pty Ltd had serious difficulty in disposing of their crops. Many of them allowed high quality fruit to drop to the ground and rot. This happened in a year of record production. This was more particularly the case with pears. Peaches were not affected so much. lt is essential that we in Australia take urgent steps to ensure that markets are available for our products. If the Board is granted the proposed permission, it will then be able, under section 22 of the Act, to promote our products to a far greater extent overseas. By this Bill the Government is moving to permit the Board to borrow money apparently on the basis of the sales of subsequent years. This is certainly essential. lt is of no use promoting the sale of goods after the season has closed. We have to promote them prior to the beginning of the season. This Bill gives the Board permission to do that.

There arc other factors associated with our failure to sell our ful’l crop and our inability in some cases to compete with other - countries, in particular with South

Africa. One of these is the high freight cost of transportng goods from Australia to the United Kingdom. There have been a series of freight increases over the last 3 or 4 years and this has made it very difficult indeed for producers in this country to compete on a reasonable level with other countries. This handicap clearly indicates to me that Australia must finally face up to the fact that it has to establish its own national shipping line to transport our products overseas. This need is becoming more urgent each year and the longer the Government delays in establishing its own line the longer will it be placing our primary producers in jeopardy on the world’s markets.

Let me indicate in the short time at my disposal that we on this side would fully support any move by the Government to establish its own overseas shipping line for the purpose of carrying our goods to the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. It is quite obvious to me that while we continue to be at the mercy of the shipping Conferences we in Australia will be paying subsidies to the big shipping lines to enable them to compete with countries that have their own shipping lines operating.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It is economic bondage.

Senator POYSER:

– That is exactly the term I would have used if 1 had as good a command of big words as the honourable senator has. The Tasmanian fruit industry is in a serious plight. Freight charges between Tasmania and the United Kingdom are getting so high that the possibility of being able to market the crops profitably overseas is being seriously jeopardised. We have been fortunate in that the prices for apples have risen sharply in Great Britain over the past few weeks, but the growers face a very serious situation so far as the marketing of their crop is concerned. This position is created mainly by the charges they are forced to pay. I think it costs in the vicinity of $2.37 to send one bushel of fruit to the United Kingdom market. When 1 was in Tasmania a few weeks ago it was estimated that over $500,000 would be paid for the transport of apples to the United Kingdom by a ship that was then in port. We are now faced with a situation which makes it necessary that action be taken quickly. If the Bill before us assists the fruit industry of Tasmania I hope that lt will have a very speedy passage and that the Australian Canned Fruits Board, will be able to take such action as will enable the growers to get rid of the whole of their production.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– in reply - I thank the Opposition for the assistance given to the passage of this Bill. It is quite obvious that Senator Poyser has a vast knowledge of the industry’s problems and it is very encouraging indeed to note the attitude he has taken towards this measure. Senator Poyser did mention that there is a certain quantity of fruit unsold. When we consider the great increase that has taken place in production over the years, I think that is understandable. In 1963, the total production . was 7.2 million cartons. In 1964 it was 7.6 million cartons. In 1965 it was 8.4 million cartons. In 1966 it increased to 9 million cartons and by 1967 the production amounted to 10.3 million cartons, lt is estimated that the production for 1968 will be 11.2 million cartons. There has indeed been a great increase in our production. But one of the more pleasing features of the industry is that Australian canned fruits have a deservedly high reputation overseas. While we keep up the quality - I am quite sure we will - our products will continue to be in demand-. I do not think 1 need say anything further beyond expressing the hope that the Bill will have an equally speedy passage through Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1768

NAVIGATION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May (vide page 1 347), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– The Bill proposes to amend the Navigation Act 1912-1967 for the purpose of giving effect to the International Convention on Load Lines 1966. The Navigation (Maritime Conventions) Act 1934 amended the Navigation Act 1912-1926 to give effect to two international maritime conventions, one of which was the Load Line

Convention 1930. It was nol until 1966 that load lines became the subject of another international conference which was convened in London by the InterGovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. The Conference, in which 52 countries including Australia participated, adopted a new convention which, because of the vast technical changes in ships since 1930, made considerable alteration to the load line law. This Bill will ratify that Convention and will bring the Australian rules into line with the new international regulations on load lines. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) said early in his second rending speech:

The most significant change is that large ships, such as the new large tankers, ore-carriers, and bulk carriers, will be permitted to operate lower in the water by a reduction of some 10% lo 20% in the amount of freeboard - in simplest terms, the height of the side of the ship above the waterline - thus enabling (hem to carry a greater weight of cargo.

As the Minister has pointed out. this alteration to the load line will enable ships lo carry from 10% to 20% more tonnage than is at present permitted. The carriage of extra cargo will be allowed only after careful consideration of the safety factors involved. The Minister drew attention to this by saying:

This is being permitted, however, only alter the most careful consideration of the safety factors involved, and only provided the ship complies with more rigorous requirements, particularly for closing appliances in upper decks and superstructures. lt is necessary to have these safety measures incorporated in the legislation, and I believe that their inclusion is a step in the right direction. Because of the greater tonnage carried the shipping lines will receive a substantial increase in revenue. With the new limits permitted by the Bill shipping companies could easily double their profits. 1 should like the Minister to ensure that some of the additional profit is returned to Australian exporting interests by lowering freight rates. However, I realise that the Government may not have any control over the additional profits made.

The International Convention on Load Lines is related to the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea which was determined in 1960 but not ratified by this Parliament until 1967. It is interesting to note that there was a delay from 1960 to 1967 in ratifying a convention relating to safety, whereas with a convention the aim of which is to give more profits to ship owners the delay has been only about 2 years. This Bill will improve the legislation now in force and will do much to help the shipping industry and ship owners. However, there are a number of things to be taken into consideration. There must be a follow-up to this Bill by some governmental plan for port development. I realise that pott development is a matter for the States but I feel that the Commonwealth Government will have to give assistance to the States to enable them to make any improvements that will be needed because of the alteration to the load line.

Because of this change in the load line ships of about 50,000 or 55,000 tons will need 4 or 5 feet greater depth of water when entering a berth. In some ports there is not much depth to spare when ships are berthing, and because of their extra draughts they will be unable lo enter some ports at which they have been calling. This could happen at the Outer Harbour in South Australia where the depth of water at the entrance is about 36 feet. Ships that can barely gel into the Harbour with this depth of water will be unable to enter when laden with an extra 10% or 20% of cargo; consequently they will have to by-pass Outer Harbour. These are matters which will have to be considered by the Government. The Commonwealth should follow this up and should ensure that the States are recompensed for the cost of providing extra facilities that will be needed. This matter is touched upon in the tenth annual report of the Australian National Line. At page 1.4 the report deals with larger bulk carriers which will be built in Australia and says:

It is possible that larger bulk carriers will be built in Australia and introduced into coastal trading in the future but a limiting factor will be the capacity of port and harbour facilities to cope with these vessels. The stage already has been reached when ships the size of the ‘Darling River’ are restricted to a small number of ports with the necessary depth of water, and wharf and loading or discharging facilities.

That brings home strongly the fact that something will have to be done to assist port authorities if their ports are to take bigger ships than they are taking at the present time. If ships conform with the new Convention on Load Lines, they will be down lower in the water. That will mean that the States will be involved in extra cost in dredging to keep the ports, including the areas near the berths, clear of silt that might build up.

In the other place two amendments were made to this Bill. One of them was brought about by the concern felt by the Australian Labor Party. It was put very aptly by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), who led for the Opposition in the other place. Another amendment that was moved by the Government was also carried. So in this place there is no necessity for the Labor Party to move any amendments. We believe that this is a good Bill. However, certain matters could be considered with the object of making sure that some States will not be prevented from receiving shipping services by a lack of harbour facilities and the necessary depth of water in’ their harbours. I repeat that the Government should look into this matter very closely and see that the States are provided with sufficient money, if they require it, to carry out necessary alterations to their ports. We members of the Opposition do not oppose the Bill.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I rise to join issue with Senator Drury. He made the rather odd observation that because ships are to have a deeper draught it inevitably follows that they will carry more cargo and therefore will make more profit. That observation arises from a misconception of what is really meant by these changes in the load line. 1 am not talking about the draught; 1 am talking about the load line. A ship operates at the maximum profitability when she is full and down, to use the shipowners’ term; that is to say, when the cubic capacity to the load line is fully occupied with cargo. It is equally true that a ship can be down to her marks and be only one-third full because she is carrying a high density cargo such as a cargo of lead from the smelters at Port Pirie in South Australia. Therefore, load lines cannot bc equated with profit rates in relation to the operation of a ship.

The second matter with which I wish to deal is an implication in Senator Drury’s speech. The buoyancy or safety of a ship is related to her balance and her specific gravity; that is to say, there is a measure of emptiness between the top deck - not the top deck of the superstructure but the top of the ship itself - and the mark that indicates her load line. So. what is seen by the average person standing alongside a wharf, where one sees that a ship is drawing so many feet at the stem and so many feet at. the stern, has nothing whatever to do with the safety of the ship. It is being found in modern engineering and shipbuilding that the load line has been based on previous experience and that the heavier metals previously used in the hull of the ship is taking away from the ship the capacity to carry more cargo. The safety of the ship is not involved in this al all. I rose merely to deal with those two points that were raised by Senator Drury.

Senator Drury:

– Bui when a ship is loaded it settles down lower in the water.

Senator CORMACK:

– That has nothing to do with buoyancy. The safety of the ship is related to the distance between the load line and the top deck.

Senator Drury:

– If the load line is lower and the ship carries more cargo, it follows naturally that the ship settles down deeper in the water.

Senator CORMACK:

– That has nothing to do with the safety of the ship.

Senator Drury:

– I did not query the safety of the ship.

Senator CORMACK:

– It has very little to do with profitability of the ship either.

Senator Drury:

– If the ship is carrying more cargo it must be making more profit.

Senator CORMACK:

– That is not necessarily so. I would be quite prepared to argue that point at another time. Because 1 know that honourable senators are becoming tired, I will not pursue that argument at this stage. 1 support, the Bill.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - 1 thank Senator Drury and the Labor Party for their co-operation in relation to this Bill. I also thank Senator Cormack for his speech. This is a very interesting subject. The notes that have been given to me say that the fact that the load line can be lifted by 10% to 20% does not necessarily mean that there will be an increase of 10% to 20% in cargo carried; but, as one would expect, it does mean that there will be a slight increase in cargo carried. My officers inform me that if the load line were lifted by 10% the cargo carrying capacity of the vessel could be increased by about 5% to 6%.

In relation to (he problem of providing port facilities and the Commonwealth entering that field. I advise the Senate that under the Constitution port development docs not come under the Commonwealth at all; it is administered by the States. However, in certain instances the Commonwealth, because of ils generosity, has made advances to help some of the States in respect of loading facilities. At the moment most of the States are carrying out investigations and improvements of their major ports because of the increase in the size of vessels thai the ports are taking and will be expected to take in the future, lt is interesting to note that some of the. ports in the north west of Western Australia are being deepened by the companies concerned, with the permission of the Stale Government, to take large ore carrying vessels - some of them up to 100,000 tons - whereas a few years ago the ships were capable of carrying only 3,000 or 4.000 tons of cargo. Those were the main points that arose in the debate. I thank honourable senators for their co-operation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1771

LOAN BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Loan Act 1967, which was passed by Parliament during the Budget session, authorises the borrowing of up to $3 00m and the expenditure of the proceeds of the borrowing on defence Services. As explained in the second reading speech delivered when this legislation was introduced into Parliament, it seemed likely that total borrowings in Australia and overseas for the year would fall short of our borrow ing requirement, but it was not possibe lo estimate with any accuracy the sue of the likely shortfall. Authority was therefore sought to borrow a round figure of S300m. the same upper limit as had been specified in the comparable Loan Act in 1966-67.

Particularly because of the heavy weighting of lax collections in the last month of thu financial year, there is still some uncertainty as to the amount which it will bc necessary to borrow from the Reserve Hank ot Australia in 1967-68. It appears likely that the existing borrowing authority win be adequate, but there is a possibility - and I emphasize that it is no more than a possibility - that the amount we will need lo borrow from the Reserve Bank could exceed $300m. lt seems prudent, therefore, lo seek an increase of S60m in the upper limit of the amount which may be borrowed. Accordingly, the Loan Bill 1968 seeks to amend the Loan Act 1967 lo increase the amount that may be borrowed for defence purposes in the current financial year by $60m lo $360m and to make a corresponding increase in the expenditure on defence Services that may be met from Loan Fund.

In the Budget it was estimated that total expenditure on defence Services in 19b 7-6$ would be $1,1 18m. lt was estimated that, of this, about $l23m would be met from drawings under the credit arrangements for purchases in the United States of America, leaving about $995m to be mct from appropriations. The Additional Estimates which were recently passed by Parliament authorised increases in some items of expenditure to be met from appropriations, but, as was indicated at the time, wc do not expect the overall Budget provisions to be exceeded this year. The effect of the Loan Bill 1968 is that, of the total expenditure to be met from appropriations, an amount of up to $360m may bc charged to the Loan Fund where it will be financed from funds borrowed under the authority of the amended Loan Act.

It is our usual practice to charge part of our defence expenditure to the Loan Fund when net loan proceeds are not adequate to finance the excess of expenditures over receipts. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the amount, that may. be. charged to the Loan Fund and, thence, the amount that may be borrowed from the Reserve Bank, in order to ensure that our borrowing authority is adequate to cover the range of possible eventualities. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

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

page 1772

RAILWAY AGREEMENT (QUEENSLAND) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from J 1 June (vide page 1591), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– The Opposition does not oppose the Bill but we take the opportunity to criticise it in some respects. The Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) stated in his second reading speech:

This Bill seeks Parliament’s approval of a supplemental agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland to permit additional financial assistance of up to $600,000 to be made available to the State in respect of the Collinsville-Townsville-Mount Isa railway project. Under the agreement approved by the Railway Agreement (Queensland) Act 1961, the Commonwealth undertook to provide the State with loan finance up to a limit of S40m . . .

In fact, the rehabilitation of this line was originally expected to cost $60m, of which the Commonwealth was to find two-thirds and the State one-third. Commonwealth funds used, in fact, amounted to about $34.5m. The Minister went on to say:

Certain claims against the State by one of the contractors engaged on the project had not been settled by 30th June 196J.

The State has now come back to the Commonwealth Government and asked for additional money to settle this claim. The Government would have helped everybody had it told us the name of the contractor and the substance of the claim, but this looks very much like a secret agreement. The Government has merely given us sufficient technical data to get this Bill for $600,000 through.

When this loan was granted by the Commonwealth it was on the worst terms that had ever been applied to any similar loan to any State for a similar project. There was a high interest, rate and a short repayment term. The total loan has to be repaid by 1984. I hope that Government senators will make sure that this money is spent properly. What I say now can be backed up by many people who live along this railway line and by many of the workmen who have been and are engaged on its reconstruction. This is in fact a sub-standard railway line. It is obvious, of course, that one is able to con the Queensland Government - the hill-billy Government, as most Queenslanders in my Party call it. It got the worse end of the deal. We were told that when this line was rehabilitated it would be virtually flood proof, that it would carry very large loads of minerals, particularly from the Mount Isa area, and that there would be a better deal for the trucking of cattle from the Barkly Tableland at Mount Isa and adjacent loading places along the line.

I know that pylons for some of the bridges which are supposed to be sunk to a certain depth in river and creek beds have not in fact been put down to the required depths. A prime example of this was seen at >a time of emergency earlier this year which I described in an adjournment debate during this sessional period. The Corella Creek bridge fell into the creek. This would not have been so bad had not portion of a train fallen into the creek with it. The line was out of commission for some 2 or 3 weeks. I do not want to bore the Senate in the dying hours of this sessional period with a repetition of the contribution that I made in relation to this line. T gave particulars in relation to the many miles along the line over which speed limits had to be observed. In some cases these were as low as 2 or 3 miles an hour. This was simply because the foundations of the line or the need for repairs to the foundations and bridge structures would not permit greater speeds to be attained. There are allegations that contractors made a very handsome profit indeed because of much of the sub-standard work, so I suggest that this Government would probably have been better occupied in querying this aspect to see whether in fact a committee of inquiry should be set up to determine whether in the first place, the Queensland Government had been diddled and whether, in the second place, the Commonwealth Government had been conned out of its money. T hope that next time the Commonwealth makes a loan to Queensland it will be more careful about how the money is spent.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I thank the Senate for the speedy passage of the Bill. It is rather unfortunate that Senator Keeffe should have taken a rather wide brush in circumstances in which the Commonwealth is providing supplemental assistance to meet a situation that arose under the Agreement.

Senator Keeffe:

– What is the name of the contractor?

Senator ANDERSON:

– A copy of the Agreement is attached to the Bill. I suggest that it would be appropriate to leave the matter at that point.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1773

LOAN BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1772).

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Loan Bill 1968 is a supplement to the Loan Act 1967 which authorised the borrowing of up to $300m. It appears that it may be necessary to increase that authorisation. It is emphasised by the Minister that there is just a possibility of this. At this time of the year it is difficult to anticipate the needs of the Treasury and other borrowing authorities. The Bill makes provision to increase the upper limit that can be borrowed under the Act by $60m. The bulk of the loan funds will be diverted into defence channels but because of the lateness of the hour I do not intend to attempt to widen the debate to incorporate observations on defence. It is necessary to ensure that the authority to borrow is adequate to cover any eventuality and therefore the Opposition offers support to the speedy passage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1773

TASMANIA AGREEMENT (HYDROELECTRIC POWER DEVELOPMENT) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 June (vide page 1592), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Tasmania Agreement (Hydro-Electric Power Development) Bill, covers an agreement to provide a loan of $47m to the State of Tasmania for the purpose of supplementing an amount of $165m to be provided by the State Government of Tasmania, making a total amount of$212m for the continuation of the hydro-electric power development programme of the Tasmanian Government. The amount provided will permit the building of a thermal power station at. Bell Bay in Tasmania which became necessary for two reasons. The first was the need to have a scheme supplementary to the hydro-electric power generating system in Tasmania and the second was the fact that owing to the recent drought and reduction in water stored Tasmania was in a most serious situation with regard to the continuity of supply for one of its major industries - the aluminium industry. The State Government has embarked upon a very imaginative scheme for the accumulation of available water supplies on the highest areas of Tasmania, which includes the Mersey-Forth scheme, the lower Derwent scheme and stage one of the Gordon River hydro-electric development scheme. The next 5 years will bring into the hydro-electric complex a potential that will satisfy the need of Tasmanian industry in the immediate future and will in my view be a trigger for a much more rapid development of the industrial capacity of Tasmania.

The State itself is badly in need of increased population and the industries that will be attracted or expanded as a result of the greater availability of power will in turn attract more people to Tasmania. We in Tasmania feel as though the State has not had as good a deal in the matter of this agreement as most of the other States which have been the recipients of interest-free nonrepayable grants for similar projects. Queensland, Western Australia and other States have received these grants. I do not know under what formula the States work in these matters. It is a matter of agreement between the Premiers and the Treasury. We have the disadvantage that we in Tasmania cannot share in the Murray scheme or the Snowy Mountains scheme, yet these are Commonwealth projects that give considerable benefit to at least three States and the Australian Capital Territory.

We in Tasmania have not the demand of other States for beef roads or for ports and harbours for iron ore development and the like. Tasmania is isolated from the mainland by Bass Strait and has not yet had the good fortune to find oil - as Victoria has done - and has no potential royalties coming in to bolster State finances. Nevertheless this agreement for a loan of $47m will allow the engineers and designers to plan ahead, which is absolutely essential in a project of this magnitude, despite the disability of paying current rates of interest which are crippling the States. Interest rates through the country for government and semi-government loans will in my view absolutely ruin the finances of the States. However, that is another problem. The whole concept of hydro-electric generation in Tasmania is of vital importance to our future and .the Opposition therefore supports the Bill.

Senator Sir DENHAM HENTY (Tasmania) [3.28] - 1 just want to add a little to what Senator O’Byrne has said. The Commonwealth Government made available finance without which Tasmania could not carry on the first step of the immense Gordon River project. This was a gift of $5m, interest free, to put the highway into the Gordon River area and is some recompense for loans made to other States. I am sure that when the Gordon River scheme is completed it will establish Tasmania beyond all doubt as the premier Slate for hydro-electricity at a price that will offer an incentive to industry.

Senator CORMACK (Victoria) 13.29] - I know that we have come to the fag end of the session. We have reached a situation in which, if 1 recollect the phrase used by Senator Wright, the Government is whee.barrowing legislation through the Senate. The Government is wheelbarrowing legislation through the Senate in an area in which the Senate has a specific responsibility, lt has been argued in the Senate before this that the Senate has relatively little power in relation to votes for the ordinary annual services of the Government. The Senate has taken note of a report tabled in the Senate concerning its responsibility in relation to section 96 of the Constitution.

This is the last day of the autumn session hut there are still six Bills on the notice paper in which money is appro priated under section 96 of the Constitution to every State of Australia except the State which I have the honour to represent in this chamber, the State of Victoria. I am not saying that Victoria has any complaint at this juncture because it is not represented in any of these grants. But I think that honourable senators from Victoria are in an iron clad position to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the time is approaching very fast when the Government, which is embedded in the House of Representatives, should be told that if it wishes to introduce Bills to appropriate money from Consolidated Revenue under section 96, then the Senate, which is the proper chamber to examine section 96 grants, should be given the opportunity to examine them properly. As I said earlier, here we find that we are within 2 or 3 hours of the end of the session yet grants of millions of dollars are on the notice paper for debate.

I notice that Western. Australia will not receive as much by way of grants as it normally does so that honourable senators from that State must be feeling a bit depressed. For one moment I thought that Senator O’Byrne was going to be satisfied when he said in his opening remarks that the needs of Tasmania were being met by this Bill; but that was not so. He seemed to me to indicate that there would bc more hands put into the horn of plenty which is owned by the Commonwealth Government. 1 give warning to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), and I hope he will convey the message down to the other place, that when we deal with the annual appropriations in the spring session, as far as I am concerned there will be no more wheelbarrowing of measures through this chamber.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I thank the Senate for its reception of this legislation. With great respect to Senator Cormack, I feel that this is not the appropriate vehicle for a spirited debate on grants under section 96 of the Constitution. I have been in this chamber for 15 years and in that time there have been quite extensive debates on grants to the States under section 96. However and I believe that the annual appropriations in the spring session will provide the appropriate occasions for him to put his mind to and excite the interest of this Senate in this matter. Under this Bill bridging finance is being provided for a Tasmanian project which is an important national undertaking in any circumstances as well as a dramatic development when considered in terms of a State which is not a big area and does not have u big population.

This is a joint arrangement between the Commonwealth and Tasmania. The Commonwealth is acting as the big brother, assisting with bridging finance. 1 lo not think analogies can bc drawn - as Senator O’ Byrne tried to do - with other projects in other States because in this instance the hydro-electric generation plant will be income-earning. Financial assistance is being provided to bridge the period until’ the undertaking will be able to accommodate the capital investment commitment. I think that we should all be very delighted with the magnificent example of how the Commonwealth on the one hand can play its part while a sovereign State on the other hand seizes development opportunities in a very dramatic way. It is true, as Senator Sir Denham Henty said, that the Commonwealth made a very real contribution to this undertaking when it provided about S5m by way of a free grant for road access.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1775

WESTERN AUSTRALIA AGREEMENT (ORD RIVER IRRIGATION) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from II June (vide page 1594), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill bc now read a second time.

Senator WILKINSON (Western Australia) 13.36] - As a West Australian J have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. For some considerable time Western Australia has been trying to get the necessary finance lo commence (he second stage of the Ord River project. Some very interesting results have been achieved so far with this scheme. The first stage of the scheme, which has been concerned with the diversion dam, the development of the main dam and the associated irrigation work has shown the value of the scheme. It has also given us a lot of information which was not available when this project was first envisaged. I think that as the time goes on we will find that, a lot of the initial proposals that were envisaged in this scheme will’ have gone by the board, including the plan to have cotton as one of the main products. It is now thought that other forms of production will probably be of very much greater import. An amount of $48. 1 8m will be made available for the second stage of this scheme, lt is very gratifying to representatives from Western Australia to have the assurance of this grant and to know that work will now commence on the second stage of the scheme. On behalf of the Opposition 1 have much pleasure in supporting the Bill and we will allow it a speedy passage through the Senate.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– lt may receive a speedy passage after I finish my speech. I have spoken on the Ord River project on previous occasions. As honourable senators are aware, 1 have a strong conviction, which I expressed a few moments ago when speaking on legislation in regard to hydro-electric development in Tasmania, that matters which fundamentally concern the Senate - and this is one that fundamentally concerns the Senate - should be fully debated and not rushed through during the closing stages of a session. We have reached the afternoon of the last day of this autumn sessional period. We have before us a matter of fundamental importance relating to the manner in which money should be expended under section 96 of the Constitution. I can well understand that honourable senators from Western Australia wish to give this Bill a speedy passage. I have complained in the past that the Ord River, project has never been demonstrated to my satisfaction to be a viable and economic project. 1 have studied closely the second reading speech of the Minister foi* National Development (Mr Fairbairn). Clearly it has been written by an officer in the Minister’s Department who possesses a rhetorical inclination. I will put it no higher than that. The speech ends with this rhetorical flourish:

The Ord River scheme has pioneered one of our last frontiers. . . . We can develop our remote area given sound research and thorough investigation. In the Ord River project we see a catalyst for further development in the north.

I will now lead honourable senators through the Ministers second reading speech and quote from it the parts that seem to me to be significant. The Minister said:

In view of a number of uncertainties which existed in regard to the future prospects of the scheme . . . there have been favourable developments in regard to cotton growing.

We have heard that some stub cotton has been grown on a pilot plot. The Minister went on:

Satisfactory results have been achieved . . . should enable farmers to obtain higher yields in the future … as better varieties are developed and as farmers gain experience . . Tn addition to cotton, the prospects for commercial production of grain sorghum appear promising . . . imports of feed grains by japan could be expected to continue to rise sharply . . . reasonable prospects . . . There are also prospects of developing commercial production of a high quality rice . . . new varieties coming available . . . We do feel, however, that enough is known-

Only enough -

  1. . commercial possibilities of a number of other crops and tropical pastures are being investigated . . . possible benefits . . . realisation of these developments will depend upon the response . . .

The Minister went on to deal with siltation. The Minister’s second reading speech simply means that a decision has been made to go ahead with the second phase of the Ord River project. A public servant was given the job of writing a speech for the Minister. He has made sure that if anything goes wrong with the scheme he will not be blamed for anything he has written in that speech. The Senate has been invited at this late hour, without any examination whatever of the second phase of the project, to approve the expenditure of vast sums of money on the basis of nondefinitive terms which fail to give any definite character to the Minister’s second reading speech.

A report has been circulated to Honourable senators by the Department of National Development to enlarge our minds. If honourable senators take some care, as ] have done with the Minister’s second reading speech and with this document, they will discover that there is a lack of definitive acknowledgment of the merits of the project, all1 the way through. The report refers to high yields on Ord soils, to rice and cotton growing, and states that consideration may have to be given to increasing the size of farms. I will return to that in a moment. It seems to me that the officers of the Department of National

Development and people who live north of the Tropic of Capricorn have become ani.mists. Most honourable senators have met animists at one time or another in tropical areas. They are people who ascribe to inanimate objects a spiritual virtue. There are spirits of trees, and in this case, spirits of rivers.

Senator Wright:

– ls it sorcery?

Senator CORMACK:

– No. This time it is animisism. The Minister for National Development and his representative in this chamber, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott), are characteristic animists in relation to the Ord River. They are seeking national oblations to propitiate the spirits of rivers. Another responsibility of the Department of National Development is the development of projects on the River Murray. Senators from South Australia have appealed piteously to the generosity of the Senate for nearly a year to influence the Government to consider the provision of substantial sums of money for the construction of the Chowilla Dam. I have opposed South Australian senators on this issue. I think I have a logical mind and the reasons which have been put forward by South Australian senators have nol: been adequate to convince me that $68m should be taken out of Commonwealth revenues to build the Chowilla Dam.

Senator Laucke:

– The money is not all to come from Commonwealth revenues.

Senator CORMACK:

– The Commonwealth would have to find one-quarter of the total. I thank Senator Laucke for his correction. The Commonwealth is asked to find one-quarter of $68m to build the Chowilla Dam. But the Minister for National Development and his representative in the Senate turn from being animists to become in an anthropomorphic sense stern priests of God - priest kings. They will not provide money for a dam to be built at Chowilla unless scientific evidence is produced to support the project. But goodness gracious me, in respect of the Ord River scheme they do not want any evidence at all. That is a field of conjectural possibilities. We have been told of cost benefit analyses of one sort or another that have been carried out on the Ord River project.

The report on the Ord River project states that it is based on the possibility of growing cotton. It is conveyed to us that wherever cotton grows there are great colton crops. Reaching into the recesses of my mind it seems to me that in a modern society involved in the spinning of cotton and textiles, over 300 varieties of cotton are required. No evidence has been given to us as to the varieties of cotton that will be grown in the Ord River area. We do not know whether the cotton to be grown there will be suitable for Australian textile machinery. We are simply told that cotton is to be grown.

We have passed legislation in respect of the Emerald irrigation scheme in Queensland. A cost benefit analysis carried out by the Queensland Government states that that area will be suitable for cotton growing. On going into the matter further it is found that none of the cotton crops can be grown economically in Australia without subsidy, except in the New South Wales irrigation areas. Cotton, and conjectuarally sorghum, are to be grown in the Ord River area. According to the Queensland Government, wheat and cotton are to be grown in the Emerald irrigation area. Not only are Commonwealth revenues sought to finance the capital works for these schemes, but also there is to be a continuous drain on Commonwealth revenues to subsidise a product grown. It is conclusive to any policy pursued in future by this Government or any other Commonwealth Government that the sizes of farms in irrigation or closer settlement areas are not related in a major degree to the human equation. The important factor governing the size of a farm is its ability to support the machinery that is required for its development. I have had the benefit of speaking to two farmers of the Ord River area. They have told me that the sizes of the farms they are being allotted and have been allotted in phase 1 of the project are not sufficient to sustain the high capital cost of the machinery required. I am convinced also that the farm areas which will be served by the Emerald project are not of a size suitable to justify the cost of the machinery.

This Parliament is charged wilh the responsibility of making grants to the States on such terms and conditions as this Parliament decides. T notice that in relation to the Ord project this Parliament has not laid down any adequate terms on which this further development should take place.

At that stage I leave the matter, but only temporarily.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The last time I heard Senator Cormack speak on the Ord River project he described it as being ‘exotic’. Being a Melbourne based man, a man from the south, I take it that he regarded the project as something foreign to Australia. I notice that the other great knocker in this Parliament, Mr Turner who occupies a seat in another place and who comes from the heart of Sydney, knocked the project in no uncertain terms. I have not seen any animus in the north. I was born not very far from the Ord River and lived in the area for many years of my life. Indeed my mother was born there more years ago than I am game to tell. Senator Cormack and Mr Turner exhibit the attitude that we have come to expect of them whenever expenditure is proposed on the Ord project.

No project in Australia has been researched more thoroughly than has the Ord project. In 1941 the first quantitative information came from the Western Australian Government. That does not mean that that was the first year in which research was done. It means that at that stage sufficient research had been done to submit information. Anyone who sees the area is attracted to it immediately. Reports were received consistently and they were so good that in 1942 and 1944 - that is pretty fast moving for a Commonwealth Government after 1941 - further studies were made. As long ago as 1946 the Kimberley Research Station was set up. It attracted funds from both the Commonwealth and the State governments. In 1949 a request was made for assistance to go ahead with the Ord scheme but it was not until 1959, 13 years after the Kimberley Research Station had been started, that this scheme was resubmitted. In August 1959 the first $10m was granted, $8m of which was spent on the Ord and the remainder on other developmental projects in the area.

I remember asking questions of the late Senator Sir William Spooner on the development of the Kimberley Research Station during those years. By that time it was proving the same thing year after year. One of the slight criticisms that can be made is that there was delay in deciding whether the Kimberly Research Station would be closed down because it was not going ahead, or whether the Commonwealth Government would make up its mind to proceed further with the project. The Government decided to proceed.

In 1963 another S7m was allocated of which S4.046m was spent on the Ord. In April 1963 the first irrigating waters poured from the diversion dam. That is when the arguments started. Some twenty farms run by comparatively inexperienced farmers were successful. Although the farmers were new to the Ord and only some of them knew about growing cotton, they very quickly made a success of their farms. Yet in spile of the success story that was evident all along the line people continued to knock the Ord project. I am afraid it is knocked by people who do not believe in northern development, anyway. Mr Turner described northern development as a myth. If that type of mind has any influence what kind of Australia will we build? lt is not a question of whether Senator Cormack would rather see the money spent in the heart of Melbourne or whether Mr Turner would rather see it spent in the heart of Sydney. The question is whether we are Australians and whether we want to develop the whole of Australia. If they want to see Melbourne or Sydney a lot larger than they are that is no reason why they should knock the Ord project. Senator Cormack mentioned the size of farms. 1 notice that the Minister indicated that the new developmental area will provide larger farms. Surely if that is one of the honourable senator’s arguments against the project he should now be supporting the proposal to bring more land under irrigation. Irrespective of whether the farms have been too small or too large, something must be done to make use of the beautiful irrigable soil in the area.

What have been the benefits received already? ft. is all very well to sit back and argue that the scheme cannot succeed without a Government subsidy or that the money would be better spent in the Namoi region. The fact is that the economics of the Ord project have been attractive from the start. Cotton growing has been so successful that the project is even more attractive now. There is already a township of 1,000 people - the type of township that was unknown in the north many years ago. lt has power, water, an aerodrome and decent homes - the kind of things the pioneers never had. The great thrill of the development of the northern areas of Australia has been that people can go there and live on a level which is attractive to them. They do not have to put up with the debilitating and frustrating day to day living conditions that have existed in the north for so many years - the things that have been beating development of the north until now. There has been a revolution in the type of township found in the northern areas.

There was never any doubt of the extreme suitability of the area, lt is the perfect dam site, if one can gel perfection when looking at sites for diversion and main dams. There is a uniform type of what the layman calls ‘black soil’ although I understand the report refers to it as ‘dark brown alluvial soil’. In any case, it is the kind of soil that is tremendously attractive, lt is not found at other dam sites and therefore water has to be taken many miles to the district to be irrigated. Here there is a dam in direct command of the .soil. Cotton, sorghum and many other crops can bc grown there because of these natural attributes. There is water which can De impounded cheaply. In fact I understand that the Ord represents the second cheapest impounding of water in Australia. There is a suitable climate which can produce two crops a year and it is reasonably close to the beautiful deep water port at Wyndham - an ideal setup for the Japanese market.

A subsidy has been mentioned. As has been explained to me and according to the advice I have taken on this matter, a subsidy granted to the Ord project would not have an adverse effect on other regions because other regions would turn to the production of crops which would give a better return whereas the Ord will be always close to Japan and Japan could swallow up ten or twenty times the amount of cotton that could be grown on the Ord. Later in the day we will be dealing with a Bill which seeks to grant special concessions to people mainly from the south, chasing export markets in Asia. In the Ord we have a natural area right at the front door of Asia - particularly of Japan. Japan is the most sophisticated nation in Asia <at the present time and she wants to buy our goods. Here is an opportunity that no Government should ever have dilly dallied with for as long as this Government has done.

To hear the knockers of the Ord scheme one would think that it was in the Sahara Desert where there was no industry. A cattle industry is based in the area. It has been proved that the protein obtained from cotton can be a tremendously important adjunct in cattle feeding in those periods of the year when the cows calve and many losses can be expected. Despite the wet season early in the year there is a lack of rainfall in the last quarter of the year and many cattle are lost at calving time when it is essential that the condition of the calves and the cows should be maintained. The protein is a by-product which is ready made for conditions of this kind. Those things were in the mind of the Government when it finally made these decisions. If there were some reasonable risks connected with the Ord scheme, in my book it would still be quite permissible for the Government to say: ‘Here is an opportunity to develop this part of our country, to get some form of decentralisation, to set up a base on which other industries can grow and to shore up the cattle industry’. The cattle industry badly needs shoring up in the areas that 1 have mentioned already. That is a consideration on which the Government could act.

Politics come into this matter. According to the Minister’s second reading speech, on 2nd November last year it was announced at long last that the Government would embark on the second stage of the Ord scheme. There was a Senate election 23 days later. I do not think these two events are unconnected. If the holding of an election forces the Government into proceeding wilh this form of development, then I have no quarrel with the Government. I think the idea is a very good one, even if it is prompted by an ulterior purpose. Whether the ulterior purpose is successful or not, it is a very good thing to get development of this kind. The Ord area has many natural1 attributes. The growing of cotton on a commercial basis has been proven and now sorghum is being grown. That could shore up the cattle industry. There will be a demand from a neighbour, lagan for cotton. Japan is very much closer to this area than to other cotton growing areas of the world. All these considerations have hurried the Government along.

The arguments advanced by Senator Cormack are of the kind behind which the Government has been hiding for some time. The Government has said: ‘Let us wait and see. Let us prove it for another year. Let us wait another year.’ Finally the election came along. Other considerations gave way to the need for acceptance of the situation. Finally this very acceptable sum of money was allocated. I have noticed, because I have been interested in the scheme over the years, that some Ministers have estimated that the cost would be in the vicinity of $60m or S70m, so the Government is not being very extravagant in allocating this amount for the Ord even at this stage. The maximum amount to be provided is $48.1 8m. Some part of that sum is a non-repayable grant for the construction of the dam. The rest of the amount of money, which will be spent on the irrigation works, is an interest bearing loan based on the long term loan rate.

One of the regrettable features of the scheme is that one-third of the area to be developed is in the Northern Territory, where the drive of successive Western Australian Governments and of people who have been advocates of the Ord scheme over the years is not being felt, lt is lo be hoped that the scheme will wipe out completely the idea of boundaries, because the drawing of boundaries in this instance does not help in any way. The fact that there is irrigable land like this, extending into the Northern Territory, should outweigh considerations involving boundaries.

The Opposition supports the measure because time out of number we have tried to force the Government to move in this regard. We have proposed urgency motions, asked questions and advocated the scheme over a long period of time. Our only regret - and this concerns a bad psychological feature of the scheme - is that the Government will move in, as it did with the first stage, set up a small number of farmers and then shilly-shally as to whether it should go on and develop the area, lt will nol be of very great encouragement to pioneers and other people to move out into such areas if they feel that they will be left out on a limb. This measure, I think, will help to allay those fears. Until now the fears have been real and have been underlined by Government policy. I hope the fears will now be removed. Senator Cormack and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) in another place, who is far more interperative in bis utterances about the myth of the north, as he calls it, have expressed certain views about the development of this scheme. I thank heaven that the Government has overcome that type of thinking. If we were to agree that the northern development was a myth, we should have to rely merely on the hope that someone would discover minerals there. That is the only type of development we would get. In that event, what sort of Australian thinking and what sort of development would we have?

We support the measure because it is a step in the right direction, but we regret that it has taken so long to come forward. In future the Government, should not leave us with a situation such as it did with the first stage of the Ord scheme, when it moved out, to shilly-shally, to worry about politics and to say: ‘We do not know whether we are going on with it or not’. When the Commonwealth Government backs a scheme, it should make up its mind to do just that. There was no greater research done in regard to any scheme than was done in regard to the Ord scheme, and there was no area with a greater initial attractiveness. When the Government, goes in it should go in boots and all. We welcome this measure because it. is a step in the right direction. As dilatory as it is, we welcome it.

Senator BULL:
New South Wales

– I propose to be very brief. 1 did not intend to enter the debate originally, and I do so now only because the wisdom of spending this money has been questioned here and in other places. A tremendous amount of money has been allocated for the Ord River scheme. I am afraid that people are looking at the Ord River scheme too much in isolation. We have to look at the development of the whole of the northern area of Australia. That is one of the first things that should be done and one which I strongly support. I know that an economist might say that this money could be spent in the developed areas of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia where it would show an immediate and far better return than the Ord River scheme, but I do not think that is the correct way to look at the matter. We have to look at the development overall, and I think this will be one of the steps towards development of the whole of this area.

I have visited the Ord River scheme. I do not suggest that I have a great knowledge of the irrigation scheme there. But I am aware that not only will cotton, for which there is a limited demand and market in Australia, be grown there but also that grain sorghum will be grown. There is a reasonably good market for grain sorghum, and reasonably good prospects. I think that the development of the north will depend on the building of beef roads - there is a Bill in relation to beef roads to be debated in this chamber later on - and on the great minerals that abound in the area. More importantly still, it will depend on the beef industry which I think has enormous potential in the northern areas, particularly since the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has discovered that great benefits will flow from the use of Townsville lucerne. When all these factors are added together, and admitting that northern Australia is a big area, we can see that this scheme will bc of great advantage to Australia. In addition, as has been said, the by-products of the cotton industry will be of tremendous help to the beef cattle industry. This in turn will lead to greater population in the area. lt has been said that for every person who comes to a district two people are needed to service that person’s needs. All this will help to develop the port of Wyndham. Adding all these things together, in the long term the project will be worth while.

I refer also to the developing industry of tourism in Australia. From my observations in that area, this industry could develop into a very important one for the Northern Territory, Western Australia and the northern parts of Queensland. All these factors are important. We have to spend money in a case like this knowing that in the early stages it may not be an economic project. In the long term, I am quite convinced that it will be. I think we have a responsibility to develop the north for in my view it has an enormous potential. Let me refer now briefly to irrigation. I know a little about this subject. I know what is happening in New South Wales and I suggest that the Senate ask itself why tens of millions of dollars are being- invested at the present time by private enterprise on further irrigation schemes. That in itself is sufficient indication to me that private investment knows that irrigation has a potential and that in the long term it will give added strength to the economy and to their own individual interests. So I think we want to look at the whole area. We want to look at this problem, not so far as it relates to Wyndham or the Ord River in isolation, but as it relates to the development of the north of Australia where 1 think we have tremendous prospects which 1 am sure will be realised in future generations.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– 1 concur in the views that have been expressed by Senator Bull. National development is of major importance in a young country such as ours. That which has been done far and wide throughout Australia to enable development to take place as a result of the provision of basic facilities is to be commended, lt matters not in what part of Australia these improvements are made: they are of national value. 1 am in favour of money being made available for the Ord River scheme. I note that the amount involved is §48. 18m, and that it will provide water for the development of 150.000 acres of irrigable land of which about 100,000 acres lies in Western Australia. That is very good, but, as I make this commendation of this project, it underlines to me very deeply and most emphatically a hurt in respect of a matter that has been considered in South Australia since I960.

This is the matter of a major storage for water, not to serve 150,000 acres, but to supply the whole of a State. In 1960, the then Premier of South Australia conferred wilh the then Prime Minister and it was agreed that there should be a < meeting of governments to consider the subject of a major dam on the lower Murray River and that the technical aspects of the project should be referred to the River Murray Commission for consideration. The matter was formally raised in the Commission by the representative of the Government of South Australia at a meeting of the Commission in June 1960. It was with this background and because of personal knowledge of what transpired at that time, that, on 19th March and again on 28th March I asked in this place of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development (Senator Scott) whether he would table, all the files and documents which the River

Murray Commission had which led to tha decision-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order! The honourable senator is getting a little too far away from the Ord River scheme.

Senator LAUCKE:

– Then 1 shall not pursue the matter further but 1 think both the Ord project and that of which I speak in South Australia have some relevance to national development and progress. I appreciate that this is not the correct time for a major reference to the Chowilla Dam, but I must say that when a State’s future depends as does South Australia’s future, on the completion of a dam then the Ord assumes a deeper importance. To me it assumes a personal importance because I feel that that assistance which has been given to Western Australia and to Queensland surely should be given in a reasonable way to my state which is so dependent upon a major scheme. That is why I take this opportunity of making a few remarks about the project which is of such vital importance to my State.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Bill before the Senate provides for the approval of an agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of Western Australia whereby financial assistance in an amount of $48m is given to the State of Western Australia. The purpose, of course, is the construction of stage 2 of the irrigation project on the Ord River. The Senate is presented, in effect, with a fait accompli. The agreement has been made. The statement that the money will be made available’ has been made and we as a nation and Western Australia as a State are committed to this development.

However, I find myself in b’road agreement and sympathy with the viewpoint expressed by Senator Cormack. It appears to me that unless certain steps are taken in the development of this project, those who derive their livelihood from the irrigated areas of the Ord are likely to find themselves in a situation comparable to the position of the dairying industry in this’ country.

Senator Prowse:

– Are you going to vote against the Bill?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– All I am trying to do is point to various matters which suggest that there has not been the consideration given to this matter which would satisfy me that it is economically a sound project. I want to express the hope, that in respect of future projects the utmost research will be devoted lo establishing that the project will be an economically viable proposition.

The Ord River project commenced in 1963. That was when the first dam was created, and that was when the first development commenced. At that stage the cotton industry of Australia was, by and large, a backwoods industry. 1 say that with all respect to those engaged in it. At that stage the national production of cotton was approximately 8,000 bales a year. In the intervening 4 years, we have seen the cotton industry develop. Over the last year, our national production was approximately 100,000 bales a year. Last year, for the first time, the local production of cotton in Australia was able to meet al’l our local demands.

Cotton, of course, is the basic crop on which the Ord has so far been developed. If cotton is to continue as the basic crop 1 think the growers will be in a position comparable to that of the dairying industry. I appreciate that the Minister has pointed out. both in his statement and in the supplementary document of explanatory notes which we have been given, that alternative crops are being investigated. But I agree with Senator Cormack, lt would seem that there is no certainty in the mind of the Minister or the Government, or, presumably, in the minds of the advisers to the Minister and the Government, as to whether the alternative crops will in fact have a market, lt is hoped that they will; it is expected that they will; but there is nothing to suggest that there has been any research made which produces any certainty that these crops will1 be exported and that a market will be found for them.

Let me refer to the prospects ahead of us. If cotton remains the basic crop on the Ord and if we accept that at the present time what is required locally is produced locally, then we can expect in the future that a surplus of cotton will be produced in this country. It is inevitable that with the expansion of the Ord River scheme, the increase of the acreage and the improve ment of the yield, more cotton will be produced. A market must be found for this cotton. What are the possible markets for cotton? The first obvious market is the local one. At the moment local demand is satisfied by existing production. If greater local consumption is required, we will need to develop our cotton textile manufacturing industry. This industry is heavily protected, and the Tariff Board in recent reports has suggested it ought not to have its protection further extended. Accordingly, if there is to be local consumption of the increased production of cotton it will be at the expense of the community in the sense that there will have to be greater protection.

The prospects of overseas markets for cotton constitute an equally dismal picture. Over about the last 10 years the world consumption of cotton has been almost stationary. Nevertheless, in that time there has been an increase in production of cotton. The world average price at the moment is about 20c per lb whereas 10 years ago it was about 35c per lb. These are facts which I think point to the prospect that if the cotton industry develops in the future in the way that it has been developing we will have over-production. The only way in which the additional production could be disposed of would be at a high local economic cost or by the payment of further subsidies to enable the exports to be marketed. It appears to mc that these matters have not been satisfactorily explained or developed. Nor have they been adequately answered in anything which has been said with regard to the Ord by the Minister or any other honourable senator. Senator Cormack, far more ably then I could, pinpointed these economic problems associated with the Ord. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in his reply. lt was interesting to hear what Senator Willesee said. I think he did less than justice to Senator Cormack’s point that it was the economics of this project which were of concern. I appreciate Senator Willesee’s loyalty to his own State and the vision that he has of the Ord, and I am aware that he knows that these are problems still to be resolved. I believe that the real effort should be directed to emphasising them to endeavouring to find some way out instead of going ahead on the basis that cotton production is sufficient. Part of this problem would appear to arise from the fact that we have gone ahead with this project as part of a deliberate policy to develop an area. There must always be problems when there is planned development, lt is not the same as planning to develop an area by enabling people to go there who have the enterprise and who want assistance. We have sought to develop an area which, as Senator Willesee said, was an ideal site for a dam and which also had good soil.

What the Commonwealth Government and the Western Australian Government have done has been to approve the project and then hope that by the creation of :t people can be persuaded to go there and make a living out of whatever crops can be grown and out of other incidental benefits which can be derived. I have risen only to express what 1 felt was adequately expressed by Senator Cormack and to add my voice in support of it - that this is a matter which ought to give concern to Australia. We do not want to have an industry developing which needs to be subsidised with tens of millions of dollars, as we found with the dairying industry over the years, whereas with a little foresight and prudence we could have avoided it at the outset.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I come into this debate only because of the argument which has developed. I am a keen supporter of northern development and all that that means and I approve of the money thai has been spent on the Ord. I have seen the Ord project and I believe that in the long run money spent there will have been very well invested. If a big group of people can he induced to settle there it will be a good investment from the point of view of Victoria and New South Wales whose secondary industries will be provided with an extra market. Looking at it the other way round, the expansion- of secondary industries in Sydney- and Melbourne will provide an additional market for products from the Ord. Much has been said about the need for the Ord River scheme to be economic. It: every public enterprise started in Australia since we have occupied this land had had to be economic, we would have practically nothing now. This must bc regarded as an investment to get people into the north for defence purposes. We can be quite sure that if we do not encourage people to move into the northern parts of this continent someone else with envious eyes will come in. There is no question about that.

I refer now to some of the uses that can be made of the northern area. There is a meatworks at Wyndham. The meatworks has a fairly large throughput, but one of the features of the industry in this area is the very low average weight of stock compared with the weight in other parts of Australia. I believe from experience in Queensland that many products grown on the Ord River irrigation area could bt: used to add another 100 lb to each beast put through the Wyndham meatworks. With 50.000 or 60,000 beasts going through the meatworks each year, not much arithmetic is needed for one to realise what an additional 100 lb on each animal would mean to the income from the area. This is only one thing that can be done.

Looking, at the distribution of the cattle on the map of the beef roads which has been supplied to us I notice that there are many cattle in Western Australia and in the Northern Territory which are quire close to the Ord, the products of which could be used to put more weight on the cattle. Many development schemes have teething troubles. But I do not think that (he development of the Ord will depend entirely on cotton. Sorghum and many other products which can be produced there could be exported or used to feed stock. Many fodder crops can be grown. The best prospect for the economy of this area is to feed the products to the cattle and to walk them out or to sell them in the form of beef. I am quite confident that this investment in the Ord as part of our northern development and as part of our defence, allied with beef roads about the north of the continent, will be one of the best investments that this country has made.

Senator SIM (Western Australia) 4.27] - I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I have been slightly provoked. I. have visited the Ord project on many occasions over the years. I know the area quite well; I know the farms and I know the farmers. But I am the first to agree that it is suicidal to go ahead with any- scheme, particularly in northern Australia, without having some sound idea of the economics of it. Nothing could be more disastrous than to develop a scheme and to have it fail’. Nothing could be more disastrous to those who have the courage to go into such areas to pioneer them. They are the ones who suffer if the economics of the scheme prove not to be sound. Frankly, I have always doubted the economics of .the scheme and have always supported the Federal Government in its indecision about going ahead with a scheme based on a monoculture, which in this case is cotton. Honourable senators will know that the history of monocultures in Australia has been rather tragic. Before one can go ahead with a scheme of this nature one has to be certain that there are other crops which can be grown profitably and which would have markets available to them.

Senator Willesee brought in the question of politics and implied that this decision on the Ord was hastened by the last Senate election. 1 believe that he was not quite fair in saying that, because his memory goes back to the previous general election in 1966. He will recall that just prior to that election the Commonwealth Government announced that it had decided to defer the scheme for another 12 months. If the Government was playing politics on this matter, it is strange that it played politics prior to one election and did not do so prior to another. I do not believe that that allegation can be sustained. I point out that the diversion dam was constructed as a pilot scheme. The aim or objective was to prove the economics of the Ord River irrigation scheme. I. have always deplored the fact that even before the diversion dam had been bum pressure was applied to build the main dam without any economics being proved. I have always believed that that was a grave mistake, for the reasons that I have stated.

I do not accept the argument that cotton will be the basic crop, although I agree that anybody reading the report on the scheme would gain that impression. In the last 12 months sorghum has been established as a commercial crop on the Ord River. 1 saw it last year prior to harvesting and 1 saw it during harvesting. Yields of more than 4,000 lb- to the acre are being obtained. The economics of sorghum growing are better than those of cotton growing. To the best of our knowledge at the moment there appears to be an established and profitable market for sorghum in Japan. Several of the farmers in the area have told me that in the future they intend to grow more sorghum than cotton. I believe that a great deal of research still has to be done on cotton. Many problems are associated with the cotton industry on the Ord River. Over the years it has been nonsense to claim, as has been claimed, that cotton has been established as the main crop. 1 have visited the Kimberley Research Station and talked to the research officers. They are far from satisfied that the present varieties can be grown profitably, particu: larly if they have to be grown for sale on export markets. One relatively new variety - I think it is called Stoneville 7A - gives great promise. It is a premium variety for which there is a great demand in Australia. As far as we know, the Ord River area is where this cotton can be grown to the best advantage. It seems that this variety may improve the prospects of growing cotton profitably in this area. But the research officers advised me as late as February of this year that they were far from satisfied that they had varieties of cotton that could be grown successfully and profitably in this area.

The only other point that I wish to make relates to the cattle industry. Ever since 1958, when I first went to the Ord River area, I have believed that the future of the scheme is allied with the cattle industry of the Kimberley area. As Senator Lawrie pointed. out, the killing rate at the Wyndham meat works is very low. One questions whether the cattle industry in this area is efficient. I believe that the open range method of breeding cattle is proving most inefficient. There is a change in the pattern of ownership- in the Kimberley area. The new owners are far more inclined to spend money on fencing and pasture development and are far more interested in supplementary feeding than are many of the old owners, who have even shown a resistance to such methods.

I know that the owners of the Wyndham meat works are very interested in carrying out trials on the sorghum stalk, which has considerable fattening qualities. So there is interest in allying the Ord River scheme with the cattle industry. I would be so bold as to suggest that the future of the scheme will be based nol so much on cotton as on the cattle industry. I for one regret that over the years there has been such an obsession with growing cotton and that far too little research has been done in respect of the cattle industry. Many of the people engaged in research have told me how much they regret that they did not ever receive the encouragement that was needed to carry out research in respect of the cattle industry. I rose merely to make those comments. 1 agree with my colleagues as far as they went - that we cannot divorce any scheme from economics, and if we do so we invite disaster - but 1 believe that now, with the diversification of which “we know the Ord River scheme is capable, the economics of it are on a far sounder basis.

In conclusion, 1 pay tribute to the people of Kununurra. They did not always feel the confidence that they feel now. Their lack of confidence was caused not by the fad that the second stage of the scheme was deferred but by uncertainty that the crop they were growing was a suitable one that had a world market. I dispute the claim that cotton has a secure world market. Japan is spoken of as the major importer of cotton, and already it is starting to phase out sections of its textile industry. So 1 am far from satisfied that there is a secure and profitable export market for cotton. I pay tribute to the people of Kununurra because now they believe that, with alternative crops and the knowledge that they have gained, this area has a future.

In regard to the size of the farms, which Senator Cormack mentioned, in the first place I believe that the farms were too small for the heavy capital expenditure involved. I expressed that opinion many years ago. I know from talks that I have had with farmers on the Ord River that they have come to the conclusion that the farms will not prove to be of an economic size. This is a failing in all government schemes. I hope that the Government will now be rather more generous; that it will lean towards generosity rather than the other way. It is better for a farm to be too big than too small. I hope that that factor will be taken into account when the major scheme is developed. I do not believe that 650 acres is a large enough area for profitable farming on the Ord River. I support the Bill and look forward to its passage through this chamber.

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Western Australia · LP

– in reply - I thank members of the Opposition and members of the Government parties for the speeches that they have made on this Bill. I also thank members of the Opposition for saying that they will not oppose it. The first critical comments on the Ord River scheme were made by Senator Cormack. He said that not enough research work had been done on it. The fact is that the Kimberley Research Station has been in existence since 1947 - for 21 years- - and has been carrying out research projects to see just what can be grown in the area.

The Commonwealth Government, at the request of the Western Australian Government, is providing the finance that is necessary for the second stage of the scheme - the one that we are discussing now. The second stage - the construction of the main clam - will be the cheapest storage per acre-fool of water that has been built in (he history of the Commonwealth, with the exception of one small scheme in Queensland. For purposes of comparison, let me say that the construction of the dam on the Namoi River in New South Wales cost in the vicinity of $75 an acre-foot. The construction of the main Ord dam will cost about $5 an acre-foot. The cost of some of the other schemes which have been built and which are being operated successfully for the growing of commercial crops is in excess of $50 an acre-fool. If the Government did not have confidence in this scheme and was not prepared to go ahead wilh it, there would be no other irrigation scheme that we could contemplate building in the north of Australia. Let us look at some of the other comments that have been made. Senator Willesee mentioned an election promise. Senator Sim answered that point quite adequately when he said that had we wanted to make election capital out of this matter we would most certainly have made the announcement the year before, when there was a House of Representatives election, because the gain in a Senate election would not be very much at all.

Senator Laucke mentioned the Chowilla dam and suggested that we ought to pay more attention to it before the Ord dam is constructed. He made a comparison of costs. I point out that the Commonwealth is financially interested in the Chowilla project to the extent of only one-quarter of the total cost, whereas it is finding the whole of the cost of building the Ord project - the dam across the river and the drainage system to supply water to the plains where the farms will be irrigated. The Chowilla project, of course, is not condemned - I say this in passing - because a further investigation is taking place of the whole of the River Murray area, including possible dam sites as far upriver as the Mitta Mitta River. No doubt when this investigation is completed a further assessment will be made and the River Murray Commission will make its recommendations to the various States concerned and to the Commonwealth asto where a dam should be built on the Murray to meet the great need of the South Australian people for water.

Senator Sim commenced by saying that he had always thought that the Ord scheme was based on a monoculture and that if this were soit would not in his view be satisfactory economically. He pointed out that other crops such as grain sorghum and wheat could be grown successfully and he mentioned his great faith in the cattle industry, in relation to which he was supported by Senator Lawrie. who submitted that as there were 500.000 cattle in the area in all probability much could be done to help the pastoral industry by putting in grasses and legumes, by irrigating and by fattening stock for the meatworks at Wyndham. Quite successful experiments have been carried out on the growing of new varieties of cotton at the Kimberley Research Station.I do not want to be critical but I do not believe that one can condemn a scheme such as the Ord for the growing of; cotton because at present cotton is being subsidised. When we examine agriculture generally we find that even after 100 years of growing wheat and outs in southern parts of Australia we are still getting new varieties that will give bigger and more profitable yields per acre.

Senator Willesee:

– And we subsidise superphosphate for them.

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes. I shall not go further into that now. The growing of cotton under irrigation for the first time in Australia in this areahas had wonderful results. Average lint yields per acre rose from 447 lb in 1964 - only 4 years ago - to 794 lb - almost double - in 1966. The farmers and the people at the Kimberley Research Station say that they are developing new varieties - one is Stoneville 7a - that will give still higher yields. Then there is the possibility of growing wheat under irrigation. This will give profitable returns. Grain sorghum also has been grown successfully. With these few words 1 thank the Senate for the keen interest it has taken in this debate and for allowing the Bill to have what I hope will be a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1786

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ FURLOUGH BILL (No. 2) 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move

That the Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is to reduce the qualifying period for furlough entitlement of Commonwealth employees coming under the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act and who are retrenched. The Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act contains the furlough provisions relating to a wide range of Commonwealth staff members, including those of various statutory authorities and temporary employees in the Commonwealth Public Service. Currently, an employee who is retrenched is eligible to apply for a furlough payment if he has had at least 8 years qualifying service.

The Government has for some time been considering whether this qualifying period of 8 years should be reduced. Late last year, in this place, the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), when speaking about staff of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, said:

I am prepared to say that the Government will press forward the examination, which has already begun, of the superannuation and furlough benefits to apply on retrenchment to all Crown employees, of whom the members of the staff of the A.S.I.A. would be some, with the intention of introducing legislation in the autumn session. Any legislation which is introduced will apply retrospectively to those members of the staff of the A.S.I.A. involved in redundancy as a consequence of the introduction of the permanent employment scheme.

The Government has now completed its consideration of this matter and has decided that the qualifying period for furlough benefits on retrenchment should be cut by half -that is, reduced from 8 years to 4 years. I interpose here to say that a companion Public Service Bill will shortly be introduced and a related Superannuation Bill will follow. In deciding to legislate for this reduced qualifying period of 4 years the Government desires to see uniformity of treatment of employees whose furlough benefit accrues because of termination of employment through no fault of their own. The Bill aligns the qualifying period on retrenchment with that for retirement on account of ill-health and that for payment in lieu of furlough to the dependants of an employee who dies. As promised by the Government on the occasion quoted above, this amendment, will be retrospective to 1st September 1967, the date of the first retrenchment from the staff of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority.

The Bill also seeks to reduce from 8 years to 4 years the qualifying period for furlough for persons who retire after the age of 60, thus bringing it into line with a similar existing provision in the Public Service Act. This proposed amendment will also apply to an employee who retires, in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment in a particular field, by reason only of having attained an age less than 60 years, for example, an air hostess. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The Opposition supports and welcomes the Bill. It is satisfactory to continue and complete the Bill at this stage. This matter was raised as one of the concerns of the Opposition in November last year when the Stevedoring Industry Bill was introduced. We found that the Stevedoring Industry Bill provided for a reduction in the number of employees by retiring certain ones at various stages - 10 or 12 years service was involved, I believe. It is reported in Hansard that Senator Bishop who led for the Labor Party in this chamber stated that 130 clerks employed by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority expected to be dismissed at the end of last year. The Bill now makes retrospective provision for those clerks. We supported the proposition of compensation to employees who had been led to believe that they could expect a lifetime of employment, subject to good behaviour, with the ASIA. Though it is true that some of the clerks retrenched in Sydney are to be absorbed by the shipping companies I suggest that they will be absorbed under conditions worse than those at present applying. Subsequently in the same volume of Hansard we can see the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) which was quoted in the Minister’s second reading speech. We appreciate the carrying out of the agreement that was made which resulted in the Opposition supporting the previous Bill. I think that there were some private negotiations. We support the reduction of the qualifying period and the retrospectivity provided by the Bill. We wish it a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1787

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. This short Bill, as I foreshadowed a few moments ago, is a companion measure to the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill (No. 2) 1968. The Public Service Act contains provisions for the furlough benefits of permanent officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. Temporary employees are, as I said earlier, covered by the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act. In section 20 of the Public Service Act there is provision for the retirement - that is, retrenchment - of an officer who is excess to staffing requirements. The Provision is rarely used and action under it would only be taken as a last resort. It is, however, obviously necessary that the furlough benefits in the Public Service Act do not lag behind thosein the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act.

This Bill therefore provides for reduction of the furlough qualifying period in the event of retirement under section 20 of the Public Service Act, from 8 years to 4 years. The proposed amendment, like the similar provision contained in the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill (No. 2) 1968, will be retrospective to 1st September 1967, although no case of retirement under section 20 is expected to occur between then and the date of Royal Assent to this measure, if it is passed by the Parliament. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– We accept this Bill as a companion to the one previously agreed to. We welcome the measure and will do everything possible to expedite its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

SUPERANNUATION BILL (No. 2) 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill will amend the Superannuation Act 1922-1967 by removing the qualifying period for eligiblity for retrenchment benefits provided by the Act. The amendments have become necessary in consequence of the Government’s decisions concerning the furlough and superannuation benefits of Commonwealth employees who are retrenched. In this respect, this is a companion measure to the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill (No. 2) 1968 and the Public Service Bill 1.968. At present the Superannuation Act provides that to qualify for retrenchment benefits a Superannuation Fund contributor must have contributed for not less than 10 years and a Provided Account contributor must have been in continuous employment for not less than 10 years immediately before the termination of his service.

For the Superannuation Fund contributor the retrenchment benefit is a lump sum equivalent to the amount of contributions paid by him to the Fund plus an amount equivalent to the contributions that the Commonwealth would have paid had the Commonwealth contributed lo the fund at the same time as the contributor. The retrenched employee is given the option of receiving an actuarially equivalent pension in lieu of the lump sum. The Provident Account contributor who qualifies for the retrenchment benefits receives a lump sum equivalent to three times the amount of his contributions plus interest.

Contributors to both the Superannuation Fund and The Provident Account who at present do not qualify for retrenchment benefits are deemed to have been discharged and receive a refund of their own contributions without any Commonwealth supplement. The amendments contained in this Bill, in removing the qualifying period provisions, will have the effect of extending the benefits currently provided for those who qualify for retrenchment benefits, to all contributors whose service is compulsorily terminated for the reason that their service or position is not necessary. The amendments will have retrospective effect from 1st September 1967, in common with the companion Bills which I have introduced. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator CAVANAGH (South Australia) [5.31 - The Opposition accepts this Bill. As was mentioned by the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) this is a companion measure to the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Bill (No. 2) 1968 and the Public Service Bill 1968. There are many problems associated with superannuation that we do not have time to debate at this stage. The Opposition feels that the whole superannuation system should be reviewed. There is possibly more discontent with the whole of the Commonwealth superannuation system than there is with any of the other superannuation systems operating throughout the Commonwealth. However, as this is one of three cognate Bills and as it prescribes benefits to those paying superannuation, the Opposition welcomes it and will allow it a swift passage through this chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1789

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 June (vide page 1595), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The purpose of this Bill is to increase the salaries of senior commissioners, commissioners and conciliators of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Minister for Works (Senator Wright) stated in his second reading speech that it was the practice to review the salaries of these persons in association with the salaries of Second Division officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. However, no adjustments were made to the salaries of members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission when the salaries of Second Division officers were last reviewed and increased as from 23rd December 1966. On 31st October last year the Senate rejected a proposal to have the salaries of members of the Commission determined by the GovernorGeneral. This Bill therefore provides first for retrospectivity to 23rd December 1966 to bring the people concerned into line with Second Division officers. As from that date a salary of $11,250 be paid to a senior commissioner, $10,250 to commissioners and $9,050 to conciliators.

Secondly, the Bill proposes a further increase of $1,600 for a senior commissioner and commissioners and $600 for conciliators, operative as from the date of assent to this Bill. This is being done because the Government is of the opinion that alignment with Second Division officers is no longer appropriate due to the extra responsibilities of the holders of these offices. Ft has also expressed the hope that the higher salaries will attract the right type of men to these offices. In his second reading speech the Minister stated:

Clearly it must be possible to attract to the ranks of the Commission men with the necessary experience, maturity, integrity and established competence in what is a most complex and difficult field of work.

The delay in having claims considered by the Commission is of much concern to the Labor movement, and particularly the trade movement. It is true that two commissioners were appointed during the year, with the promise that after the passage of this Bill another commissioner would be appointed, but I think that the Government should consider appointing many more conciliators and commissioners to clear the backlog of claims. The Commission’s decision to grant a work value increase in metal trades margins will necessitate a thorough inspection and examination of all industries because the metal trades determination does not automatically How through to other awards. There will be more work for the Arbitration Commission in the future and possibly more delays in the hearing of applications for new awards.

When legislation was introduced last year to give commissioners and conciliators increases comparable to those given to Second Division officers of the Commonwealth Public Services, the Senate rejected it because it proposed that the GovernorGeneral, not the Parliament, should determine the salaries. As I have said, part of the increase awarded by this measure is to be retrospective to the date of the last Public Service Second Division increase. As retrospectivity is a provision of this measure, serious consideration should be given to providing for retrospectivity in respect of decisions given by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on wage claims. When delays for longer than normal periods occur, consideration should be given to retrospectivity. An organisation or group of workmen may gain from the Commission a decision that a claim for increased wages is justified. In that case it must be justified from the time of application rather than from the time of the Commission’s decision.

The aspect of retrospectivity warrants the greatest consideration. When unduly long delays occur injustice is done to employees because they are deprived for a time of the increases awarded to them by the Commission. In the last metal trades case, the Commission found that the claim on a work value basis was justified by the evidence. Following disputes which arose after the decision was given, the Commission reconsidered the decision and awarded a sort of penalty by allowing only 70% of the increase first awarded. Payment of the balance of 30% was deferred. I think consideration is merited of payment of the balance of 30% retrospectively.

The Labor Party is not opposed to the increases awarded by this legislation. We hope that they have the beneficial effect of attracting more commissioners and conciliators to the Commission. We hope that the Government will not hesitate in making appointments of suitable personnel lo occupy the positions which are essential in arbitration tribunals today.

Senator McMANUS (Victoria) [5.12J- I support, the Bill. It has been well known in trade union and employer circles for some time that there has been difficulty in attracting the best mcn for appointment as conciliation commissioners and conciliators because many of them have felt that the salaries and conditions offered have not been sufficiently attractive. 1 believe that the welfare of the conciliation and arbitration system depends to a considerable degree on attracting the very best men for the jobs. Generally the standard of men in these positions has been good, but there has been criticism of some appointments. It has been well known in the trade union field for a considerable time that some men who it was hoped could be induced to take positions with the Commission have not been available simply because they believe the salaries were not sufficiently attractive.

I do not think that men occupying such positions should be actuated entirely by salaries. Many of them take up the work in the spirit that they feel they can be of service to the economy and to the industry of the country. However, the fact remains that salary is a consideration. I think it is a very good thing that the Government has decided on the provisions included in this measure. 1 hope only that the salary increases will attract the best type of men for these positions in the future.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - I have listened to what honourable senators have said in this debate and have noted the remarks of Senator McManus. I have risen only to address myself to Senator Cavanagh’s remarks about retrospectivity. In this instance very special circumstances warranted retrospectivity, inasmuch as proposals to allow the fixation of salaries to be vested in the Governor-General were refused by Parliament. The process of getting the approval of the Parliament involved delay and that should be adjusted.

I want to make it quite clear that so far as I am concerned there is no acceptance in this Bill of the viewpoint that claims generally, without very special circumstances, will carry retrospectivity. I submit for consideration the view that retrospective allowances of that sort bedevil industry because the industry that pays those allowances has -not the Commonwealth Treasury as a reservoir.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1790

STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL TRAINING) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from I I June (vide page 1 596), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Hill be now read a second lime.

Senator Dame DOROTHY TANGNEY (Western Australia) [5.17] - The Australian Labor Party supports this Bill. Of course, we support any Bill which has the aim of improving educational facilities of any kind in Australia. There is nothing new in the measure, lt continues the practice of the last 4 years of making a grant of SI Om each year for the purpose of buildings and equipment for use in technical training in Stale schools. My one regret about this measure is that it is limited to State schools. There is no mention of assistance for technical education in other than State schools. 1 agree with the definition that is given of technical education. I am very pleased that Parliament has recognised the part played in the community by technical education. For instance, we are told that technical training means the training of persons for engagement in trades, technical occupations, or agricultural or other rural occupations. For a long lime I have advocated greater recognition of the nonprofessional side of education. I noticed when I was teaching that the whole educational programme was directed towards the professions, even though it seemed that less than 5% of the school population would go on to universities. I always have advocated that more attention should be given to the other aspects of education, particularly to technical’ and rural training. 1 am rather surprised to find from a study of the Bill that so few rural colleges are covered by this measure. 1 do not blame the Commonwealth Government for that. It is the fault of the State governments which do not provide technical training schools in rural areas. For instance, in the last 4 years in Western Australia only one technical college outside the metropolitan area has received Commonwealth assistance. In his second reading speech the Minister said that two technical1 training colleges in Western Australia would benefit. One is at Bentley in the metropolitan area and the other is at Bunbury in the south-western portion of the State. More should be done to encourage the decentralisation of technical training and the wider development of agricultural colleges in the country districts.

Western Australia is a very large State covering one-third of the total area of the Commonwealth. We are proud to call it the State on the move’ when we see the vast developments taking place in the northwestern area. Until recently there was not even a secondary school north of Carnarvon and there were no facilities for technical training. [ hope that in the 3 years covered by this Bill adequate technical training facilities will be provided in the northern part of the State so that students will not have to go to the city. It would be of great benefit if they could be trained on the spot because the future of Western Australia lies to a considerable degree in the northern areas of that vast State.

It is very cosily to decentralise education, health services and so on in a State which has so few people as Western Australia has, so we are dependent on the Commonwealth Government for grants for specific purposes as in the case now before us. I notice that there are developments in the technical training field in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. I taught for some years at the Perth Technical College in the evening. 1 know how very anxious people are to attend technical colleges and to do well. I have a very high regard for evening students who study in their own time and are not dependent on the Government for pecuniary assistance. They work during the day and attend the technical1 colleges at night to improve themselves in whatever job they have under- taken. Now many people are doing full-time study at our technical colleges, institutes of technology or whatever you like to call them. 1 am very pleased to note the Commonwealth Government’s increasing interest in this aspect of education. It is most important that we have well qualified tradesmen, artisans, rural workers, farm managers and so on, and I -hope that I will read later of the Commonwealth Government extending its support, through grants such as the ones we are now discussing, to institutes of agricultural training and that an increasing number of avenues of education will come within the ambit of the help given to the States.

Over the past few weeks we have approved ;grants to this or that field of education. I think the time has come when there should he a complete review of all aspects of education within the Commonwealth. Everyone in the community is interested in education. We all realise that education is something that can never be taken from us. The best educated persons realise how little they know and how much more there is to learn. If we can pass on this love of learning to our young people and help them, particularly with their technical training, not only to earn a living but also to live, which is much more important and a very different thing, we will eliminate many of the problems now confronting our adolescents.

The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. We welcome it as another instance of what the Commonwealth is doing in the field of education. However, not by way of criticism of the Bill but as an expression of my own personal convictions I should like to say that if we undertook a complete review of all aspects of education we would be able to see how the Government could best assist our educational systems so thai we would get the very best value not only for the expenditure involved but also from the young people we are trying to help.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania · LP

– It is appropriate that the Senate should hear Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney on one of the last days of the discharge of her Senate duties speaking on education, the subject of her lifelong interest. I should like her to know that I listened to her observations with special interest. I think it would be comforting to her if I were to remind her of the advantages derived by her own State in the general field covered by this Bill, that is to say Commonwealth assistance for technical training, in the years from 1964 to 1968. It will be noticed that Fremantle Technical College received $2. 37m for the assistance of technical training in an area pregnant with industrial progress based upon the skills that lie around Fremantle. She should be encouraged by that. In my own State the Hobart Technical College received during that period $ 1.25m for the construction of an additional building.

Decentralisation in the technical field has been mentioned. I would think that perhaps decentralisation would not he such a great advantage in that field as in the general field of education because the level of instruction available at technical colleges or institutes depends upon the collection of a certain amount of plant and equipment together with a group of teachers representing a complex of instruction. In the circumstances, I would think that it would be of value not to decentralise technical education too much. However, I offer that as an observation which has no authority other than my own view. It should be indicated that most agricultural colleges now propose to provide advanced education courses. One such course may be proposed by the Western Australian Government at Muresk Agricultural College during the forthcoming period.

I must add that the Minister who dealt with this Bill in another place, indicated that he was not in possession of the information which would enable him to say the direction in which the New South Wales allocation would be expended. He cited some examples of the projects put forward by the States to indicate the range and geographical distribution of technical and educational training facilities to be provided under the 3 year extension of the unmatched capital grants from the Commonwealth. Subsequently, further information was brought to the Minister’s attention which showed that the New South Wales Government had varied its proposals somewhat and did not now intend to proceed during the next 3 years with some of the projects to which the Minister referred. These were mentioned in my introductory speech. The State, however, has nominated other projects and is confident that it will qualify for its full entitlement of $ 11.127m.

It was the intention of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to provide Parliament with a list of the colleges nominated by New South Wales for assistance during the next 3 years. The list was not available to him at the time of the debate in the other place and he has asked me to provide it now in the Senate. The list is: Technical colleges at Wattle Street, Ultimo, Bankstown, Randwick, Orange, Leeton and Murwillumbah; mobile technical instruction units; agricultural colleges at Hawkesbury, Wagga and Yanco; and the Conservatorium of Music. Also there will be expenditure on library stocks, plant and equipment and furniture and the completion of some projects carried over from the present triennium.

I inform my colleagues from Tasmania that the total unmatched grants to Tasmania proposed in this Bill amount to $976,200, $325,400 being available in each of the 3 financial years of the next triennium. These grants are available for the construction and equipment of the facilities for the courses at trade and certificate level. The Tasmanian Government has proposed, and the Commonwealth Government has agreed, that a substantial proportion of the Commonwealth funds will be used to meet the costs of the first stage of construction of the new technical colleges at Burnie and Devonport. The first stage of the new college at Devonport will be commenced in the financial year 1968-69. The total cost of this stage will be met from the Commonwealth grants which, for this project, are expected to amount to $250,000 in 1968-69. The bulk of the $325,400 will be available in 1969-70. A start on the new Burnie Technical College is expected to be made in the year 1970-71 and the bulk of the $325,400 available in that financial year is expected to be used on the first stage of that project. Any balance of Commonwealth grants will be used for the construction projects at Hobart Technical College and for the purchase of equipment for technical colleges, including those at Burnie and Devonport. I am grateful to the Senate for its reception of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1793

RAILWAY AGREEMENT (NEW SOUTH WALES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 June (vide page 1597), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The Opposition supports the Bill because it will facilitate the continued improvement of our land transport services. In particular it will help us to get away from the position in which our railway networks more or less are confined to tha coastal regions. In looking at the legislation, it seems to be virtually the final chapter in the modernisation of the railway system throughout the continent. I do not think it would be amiss to pay tribute to a few people who, in the early postwar years when there was such a clamour for priorities for national projects, were instrumental in ensuring that rail standardisation received the proper priority. I refer particularly to Mr Hartigan, who was the New South Wales Commissioner for Railway’s, Sir Harold Clapp, who was the Victorian Railways Commissioner, and the late E. J. Ward who was the first postwar Federal Minister for Transport. I think it is significant that the divergent personalities of each of these people played a part in moulding public opinion. In the trade union field, people such as the then New South Wales State Secretary of the Australian Railways Union, Mr Jack Ferguson, and the Federal Secretary, Mr Mick O’Brien, who was a constant agitator in this field, joined in a common crusade. The work was commenced then and virtually is concluded by this legislation.

When we deal with legislation of this nature, which provides for the expenditure of approximately $I0m - and I hark back to the remarks of Senator Cormack earlier this afternoon - perhaps we might suggest to the recipient States that some of the money should be earmarked for projects that are away from the urban areas. The railway staff who work in distant areas have to make a sacrifice. The higher the living standards and the better the conditions in the cities, the bigger is the sacrifice that the people who have to work in remote areas make. It is ironic that the mechanisation and perhaps the subsequent automation of the railways, while requiring a smaller work force, means that the work force has to be more highly skilled as well as being subject to limitations in regard to living standards which do not apply to people in the cities. Ir is unfortunate that my colleague from South Australia, Senator Bishop, is not present because he knows, as I do, that in many of the unions, particularly the ARU, it is very difficult to induce people to remain in outback areas. It is hard to recruit labour and the position will become even more difficult. I do not know the modus operandi, but I feel that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) and the Treasurer (Mr McMahon), when they dole out this money to the States, should nudge the State Transport Ministers to earmark a percentage of this money to provide the amenities which bring about industrial harmony. In the history of the railway service in New South Wales - and it is duplicated in other States - every time that there has been agitation for climatic allowances the question of economics has been raised. I therefore make that suggestion to the Ministers I have mentioned.

The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) referred, in the summary which he presented, to the poundage of the various types of rails. The Minister referred to the 94 lb per yard rail as distinct from the existing 80 lb per yard rail. I wonder whether he could perhaps satisfy my curiosity, not necessarily now, in the light of the technical knowledge that must be at the beck and call of the Department of Shipping and Transport, as to what is regarded as the normal life of an 80 lb per yard rail and a 94 lb per yard rail.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - I thank the honourable senator for his statement that the Australian Labor Party is in full accord with this measure. The honourable senator congratulated members of the Australian Railways Union.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I mentioned two Railway Commissioners.

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes, but the funny thing is that the honourable senator did not say anything about the wonderful Government that made this money available. We will have a standard gauge railway system extending from New South Wales to that beautiful western capital of Perth.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The Chifley Government commenced the scheme. I am not playing politics. I am giving credit to the Chifley Government and subsequent governments.

Senator SCOTT:

– I thought the scheme was started by my Government. Most of the money has been provided by it. Rail standardisation has been in evidence for many years. This legislation will introduce the final stage of the standardisation scheme which will enable 2 passenger and 7 goods trains a week ;o go from east to west and from west to cast. It is envisaged that the number will be doubled in 3 years. 1 believe that many passengers will take advantage of this improved railway system to go back and forth, from east to west. T thank the Senate for its co-operation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1794

STATES GRANTS (BEEF CATTLE ROADS) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 June (vide page 1599), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill bc now read a second time.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– My Party naturally does not oppose this Bill because it seeks to provide $50m for the construction of beef roads of a certain standard to serve the cattle industry and for other purposes. I thank the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) for having provided us in advance with certain information about the beef roads scheme. But I must condemn him for the scanty nature of the evidence tendered. He tells us in terms of mileage what has been done and what it is proposed to do; he tells us also in terms of money what has been spent and what it is proposed to spend. But nowhere does he give us evidence of any justification for the expenditure. Nowhere does he say anything about the likely increase in turnover of cattle or in the facilities for the handling and transport of cattle that will result from the proposed expenditure.

Since 1961 $25m has been spent on beef roads in Queensland and $10.4m has been spent in the Northern Territory. Here again

I suppose the Government is entitled to a measure of congratulations and commendation because this is one of the few instances in which it has planned over a period. The Government now visualises a 7-year plan of development of beef roads. It could adopt this system with almost every department under its control but so far has not seen fit to do it other than in this instance.

Here I take the opportunity of criticising the Government with relation to the expenditure of $20m on the construction of the Maraboon Dam near Emerald in Queensland. At no time were we given any evidence to justify that expenditure. We did not oppose the proposal; in fact, we agreed to it. Many of us did know that there was complete justification for the construction of a water conservation scheme there, but the Government provided no evidence at all for those honourable senators who did not know the area, or what water was likely to be impounded by the proposed dam or the nature of the soil in the area. For that reason, they had to vote willy nilly and say yes or no to something about which they knew little or nothing.

The Government has a responsibility, when it seeks the approval of Parliament to expenditure, either here or in the other place, to supply evidence in support of the expenditure proposed. Some evidence was given in connection with the beef roads scheme. We also had some in connection with the Ord scheme but what was provided was so scanty that one could not arrive at a logical conclusion from it. I therefore suggest that the Minister for National Development and his Department, as well as the Government, are to be condemned for not providing sufficient evidence to justify the expenditure proposed here. We know of the justification from what we have read but it is the responsibility of the Government and its Ministers to furnish evidence justifying any proposed expenditure.

We of the Australian Labor Party do not oppose this proposed expenditure of $39.5m in Queensland, $9.5m in Western Australia and $lm on the Birdsville Track over the next 7 years. I do not know what the $lm will do on the Birdsville Track. It certainly will not provide a road of the standard necessary to carry beef cattle trains as we know them. I think it will be wasted.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– As Queensland is so greatly concerned in this measure, I would like to speak briefly to it. I am very pleased that my fellow senator from Queensland does not oppose the measure. A perusal of the map provided at the back of the explanatory notes discloses quite clearly where the cattle are situated in Australia and what areas are to be benefited. It shows quite clearly what expenditure has been incurred and what the expenditure will be in the northern part of Australia where it will result in the provision of much needed communications. Those roads which have already been completed have changed the whole outlook of the beef cattle industry. I mention in particular the road from Quilpie to Windorah, which is all bitumen. Another road which has opened up a good deal of country is that from Julia Creek to Normanton. It is almost completed now. All that requires lo be done is the construction of a major bridge over the Flinders River and this is included in the proposed programme. The development of beef roads in stage 3 of the brigalow scheme has done much to open up more country. The road in which 1 am particularly interested is the one going up lo Cape York Peninsula.

Senator Dittmer:

– Who wants to go up there?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– A number of dots are shown there, each representing 3,000 cattle. The present scheme envisages going only as far as Laura, but there will be some work done up as far as Coen. Senator Dittmer asked who would want to go up there. I remind him that there are 10,000 people up there who at present have no road communication, I hope that this road will be continued on to Weipa and right up to a point opposite Thursday Island to which J have referred many times previously. If it does, it will open up a new province for Queensland and I hope that it will be constructed in the not too distant future. The Government is to be commended upon this measure and upon its proposals to assist with the carrying out of certain dam construction projects in furthering the development of the north of Australia. This Bill represents a major step forward in the development of the north.

Senator HEATLEY:
Queensland

– I should like to speak briefly to the measure. I still say, as I said when I first came into this chamber, that the name of the scheme should be changed from ‘beef roads’ to ‘beef development roads’. Although the roads were built originally to improve the transportation of cattle from outlying areas to market, it is important to remember just what is carried on them in each direction. They are as important for the transportation of goods from the coast as they are for the transportation of cattle to market. Therefore they are extremely important to the general development of the area. They are used not only for the transportation of beef but also for the carriage of sheep. We hope to develop a fat lamb industry in Queensland in the not too distant future. 1 point out also that there is a host of things including machinery that are transported from coastal areas into the outback over these roads. I therefore suggest that the Government should give consideration to altering the name from beef cattle roads’ to ‘beef development roads’. I commend the Bill.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I wish to speak briefly to the Bill. Firstly, I commend the Government for providing money to assist in the development of our beef roads scheme. I should like to make particular reference to the Sim which is being made available to South Australia for expenditure on the Birdsville Track. Senator Dittmer has said that this Sim will go nowhere on this particular track. I draw his attention to this passage in the second reading speech of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott):

South Australia will receive a grant of $lm for permanent works on the Birdsville Track between Birdsville and Marree. This amount is the major part of the amount calculated as justified by the increased cattle turnoff expected from improvements to the Birdsville Track. Although this amount is not sufficient to improve the road to a standard equivalent to beef roads necessary for high traffic densities, it is considered sufficient to alleviate to a significant extent the considerable cattle transport problems which exist in this region of South Australia.

The permanent works, so-called, on a route which is 320 miles long underline the inadequacy of the grant to be made to South Australia. The old Birdsville Track was originally routed along a line which was a camel track. In those days, to save the pads of the camels, camel teams avoided high land and tracks were taken where there were fewer stones. Quite often tracks were along creek beds, lt is now necessary to resurvey the route, particularly at the southern end of the Birdsville Track. This survey, to be undertaken by the South Australian Government, will ensure a more passable road, but again the inability to do things with the money that we have available is emphasised.

South Australia will provide $600,000 to improve the present track, so $1,600,000 in toto will be available for this work. This will barely scratch the surface. The smallness of the gesture to South Australia is evident when it is considered that a sum of $3. 7m is required for a first class rubble job on this track and $5. 6m for bituminous work. Whilst we appreciate this rather skinny handout, this thin allocation, I should like to stress that it is far from that which we would like to see and which would enable us to make a permanent improvement to what is now a very important road. I support the Bill and trust that in future viewings of South Australia’s requirements for beef roads we will be given greater consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1796

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 June (vide page 1603), on motion by Senator McKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE (Western Australia) (5.55] - I intend to make a few remarks on this Bill and the cognate measures, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2) and the Superannuation Bill. As is well known, these measures provide a form of superannuation, which in some cases is known as a defence forces retirement benefit. This scheme has been in vogue for a long time, and these Bills propose an extension of the benefits to other classes of people. For technical reasons which suit the Department the legislation is divided into three separate Bills. The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill seeks to extend benefits to national servicemen and to full- time officers of the Citizen Military Forces. The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill (No. 2) relates to persons who rejoin the Services or who transfer to a reserve. The Superannuation Bill provides superannuation cover for permanent members of the Commonwealth Public Service, many of whom are in the forces. It provides for a public servant who enters the forces for a period of more than 12 months, contributes to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund and, on return to the Public Service, pays back into the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund the amount that he would have paid had he remained in the Public Service.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) to the fact that there are people in the defence forces who are still excluded from superannuation. The modern thought Ls that superannuation benefits should be extended as widely as possible to people employed by the Government or by private industry. From communications received by Labor members of the Parliament I understand that there are people in the Australian Army, and possibly also in the other Services, who are not covered by any superannuation scheme. Some are not covered by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund because, like all superannuation schemes, it is based on contributions made to it and benefits paid from it.

I raise this matter with the Minister so that he may refer it to the Cabinet. In this way we can hope to cover by some means - possibly through the military finance regulations - the small number of people who are unable to contribute to the Fund and therefore are unable to receive financial benefit either by way of pension or gratuity when they retire from the Service. So far as I can see from my inspection of the Bill and according to the advice that I have had, this matter does not come strictly within the Bill that we are debating, but it does seem to be a matter that should be raised. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps he could make a marginal note of the matter as it does not come strictly within the terms of the Bill, and perhaps he could have it investigated. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. It believes that it is a good thing that superannuation is being extended, by whatever name it may be termed. These Bills are the outcome of a periodic review, which has been forced to some extent by the greater number of people who are in uniform today. We commend the measure and hope that it will be kept under constant review so that the value of the benefits can be watched closely by the Government.

Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– I appreciate the fact that the Opposition is supporting the Government in relation to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill and the two related measures. I believe that the advantages of these measures are apparent to everyone. I am particularly pleased with the legislation relating to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, because it will bring within its scope national servicemen who are in Vietnam and who will now be eligible to become contributors to the scheme. I hope that the Bill will be given a speedy passage through the Committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1797

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL (No. 2) 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 11 June (vide page 1605), on motion by Senator McKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1797

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 12 June (vide page 1715), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 6.4 to 8 p.m.

page 1797

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th June (vide page 1718), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The Opposition supports this Bill which relates to an Australian replenishment contribution of $US24m to the International Development Association. Money contributed to the Association is loaned to countries which require money for developmental purposes and which cannot pay the interest rate payable on normal lending. The Opposition subscribes to the principle of giving assistance to underdeveloped countries for developmental work. In the past Australia has contributed 2.7% of the total amount. That has worked out at $US6.6m a year. The Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson), who represents the Treasurer (Mr McMahon), stated in his second reading speech that on this occasion Australia’s contribution would be reduced to 2% of the total amount - a reduction of 0.7%. The Minister said:

Having regard in particular to the numerous demands being made on Australia to provide aid of all kinds, the Government thought that 2% was a more appropriate share for Australia to undertake.

In regard to the United States of America, the Minister said: in an effort to help the United States in its present balance of payments difficulties, it was agreed that during the period to 30th June 1971 and for as long thereafter as might be necessary and IDA’S resources would allow, IDA would call upon the United States contribution only to the extent required to finance goods procured within that country. This was intended to mitigate the adverse effects of the Association’s operations upon the United States balance of payments position.

So we see that Australia is making a smaller contribution on this occasion and that there is a special stipulation as to the United States contribution. In considering our assistance to various underdeveloped countries, both in the form of loans and in the form of direct aid, one wonders whether a thorough investigation is made of how the money is spent and whether we are doing the best that we can do in the circumstances. I know that loans from the International Development Association receive the approval of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and are given the same scrutiny, as to security, as is given to a normal loan. But when 1 was travelling through India in 1964 I saw many instances in which Australian aid, although it was not misapplied, was used for purposes for which underdeveloped countries perhaps could not afford to use it. I believe that deep consideration should be given to the situation. Whilst not desiring to repeat what has been said in this chamber over the last few days. I think we might well ask whether the inability of the United States to give the cash that other nations are giving to the International Development Association, is due to its international commitments and activities in Vietnam.

Whilst we support the Bill, it is very unfortunate that time has not permitted us to make a thorough inquiry into the activities of the Association, where the money will go and what it will be used for. At the end of the sessional period it is not possible to make a thorough examination of whether this is the most beneficial action that we could take to assist underdeveloped countries. I ask that on future occasions some indication be given of how the money will be spent. Perhaps, without waiting for the introduction of another Bill, we could be given a summary of the developmental works that have been approved and could be told the countries to which assistance will be given by the Association. On some future occasion we could examine those matters and have a thorough discussion on them. But on this occasion the Opposition supports the Bill.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I thank Senator Cavanagh for the intimation that the Opposition will support this legislation. I agree with him that in different circumstances it could lend itself to quite an interesting non-party debate. Any Bill that is connected with the assistance being given to less developed countries is near and dear to the hearts of members of all the political parties in Australia. Australia’s record of assistance to the less developed countries has no equal across the face of the world.

Senator Cavanagh referred to the second reading speech which indicates that there is provision for a deferment of the United States contribution because of that country’s external balance of payments situation. We must always remember the magnificent job that was done and the astronomical assistance that was given in the periods immediately after the First World War and the Second World War by the United States in the rehabilitation of countries which had been ravaged by war and whose economies were in tremendous difficulties.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The United States is also spending a lot of money in Vietnam.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I put aside the challenge on that aspect of the modern political situation. We must remember the tremendous aid that the United States gave in the form of Marshall Aid for the rehabilitation of Europe after the Second World War.

Senator Branson:

– And of Japan.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Of Japan and, in truth, of the whole world, because the aid was so widespread. That aid has had a tremendous impact on our own ability to trade. Let us remember that we in Australia will live or die according to our capacity to trade. In those circumstances. I think we can accept the fact that the United States has had problems. In my heart and, I am sure, in the heart of everybody else, including Senator Cavanagh, there will always be a consciousness and an awareness of the tremendous gratitude that Australia owes to the United States for its ability, because of the tremendous financial resources that it had at its disposal, to assist countries to return to a state of equilibrium after the tragedies of the Second World War. I am happy to see that the Opposition agrees with us and with the passage of this legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1798

PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 June (vide page 1721), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– In 1961 the Government, in an effort to assist exports of Australian goods, made two arrangements within the taxation field to encourage people to find export markets for their goods. The Bill before us deals with one of these arrangements, a rebate of pay-roll’ tax. The second measure is not before us; it allows taxation concessions on a revenue basis and I understand that it will be coming before the Senate when we resume in 2 months time. The present pay-roll tax rebate scheme is due to terminate at the end of the current financial year and the Bill seeks to extend the period for 5 years. The amount of money involved in 1964 was $10m, which was spread over about 1,200 exporters.

In addition, the Bill seeks to simplify the formula, which is rather complicated. The new proposal is for a flat rate rebate of 10.5% of the increase in exports, lt will not be confined to manufacturers but will apply also to export merchants. I should have liked to hear more evidence on this aspect if we had had more time but there seems to be a vested interest in introducing at a late stage a spate of Bills, although this Bill does not necessarily come within that category. It would be interesting to see whether in the original legislation this type of person was contemplated amongst those whom we were trying to encourage. In relation to export incentives one thinks immediately of manufacturing industries, and of enabling them to find a wider market, to be more competitive, and to present cheaper products. There may be a good reason for extending the concession to export merchants but I should like to hear more evidence on that aspect.

The concession will be availabale also on the export of know-how, but I do not just know how this is to be figured out. Some products the export of which was formerly subject to pay-roll tax rebate are now to be excluded. These are principally in the metals group. They include petroleum products, minerals, mineral concentrates, alumina, iron pellets and other agglomerates of iron. These exclusions are due, I presume, to the tremendous boom that has taken place in these commodities since 1961 and no doubt the Government feels that no longer should there be any need to help producers of these commodities to find export markets. The Bill provides also that the Taxation Branch is to communicate information as to how the scheme is working out in practice to the Secretary of the

Treasury and the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry. The secrecy provisions applicable to Taxation officers will be extended to those officers. 1 should like to know whether the Minister can provide an estimate of the cost of the pay-roll tax rebate in any one year. I was not able to find this information in the brief research I conducted in the time available.

The Opposition supports this measure We realise that exports are tremendously important, particularly in view of events in Britain and the emerging nations, lt is correct that we should be taking this action. I do not know what is the angle on dumping, about which we have heard something lately. I do not know whether such a measure as this begins to impinge upon dumping. Evidently it does not or, if it does, we have not been caught. The manner in which a nation subsidises or makes possible in one way or another exports to foreign markets is tremendously important. In a rather peculiar way we are using two twists of the taxation laws to achieve this end. There is no doubt that the overall intention is good. It would appear that this incentive has worked in the past. It appears that the amendment relating in particular to the exclusion of some products and the simplification of the formula arc desirable. The Opposition offers no opposition to the passage of the measure.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– in reply - I am most grateful to the Opposition and, in particular, to Senator Willesee who led for it, for co-operation in the passage of this legislation. Confession is good for the soul and I must admit that I was fearful of any critical interrogation of the Minister representing the Treasurer in relation to this Bill, because it is complex. Happily, an explanatory memorandum which is a great guide to an understanding of the Bill is available. Senator Willesee sought information on the magnitude of the concession. Subject to what my advisers may say, I understand that it is of the order of $34m a year, which is a tremendous incentive for the purpose for which it is intended.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1800

VALEDICTORY

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– Mr President, while we are awaiting a message from another place I suggest that with the concurrence of honourable senators we might at this stage rather than on a motion for the adjournment express our best wishes to retiring senators. As at 30th June the following honourable senators will retire from the Senate: Senator the Honourable Sir Walter Cooper, M.B.E.; Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney, D.B.E.; Senator the Honourable Nicholas Edward McKenna; Senator Theophilus Martin Nicholls; Senator Edward William Mattner, M.C., D.C.M., M.M.; Senator the Honourable Sir Denham Henty, K.B.E.; Senator Archibald Malcolm Benn; Senator Marie Breen; Senator Sir Kenneth Morris, K.B.E., C.M.G., and Senator William Clarence Heatley.

It is true that we all come to this place to express a political philosophy but nevertheless we all come here with the conviction in our heart that we can make a contribution to our country - Australia. Predominantly in our minds we have this feeling that we can make a contribution to the welfare and well-being of Australia. The time has come for a number of senators of all political parties, who came here and served this country according to their convictions faithfully and well, to retire. I think it proper, even though for a variety of reasons a number of them may not be here tonight, that we should place on record our appreciation and sense of understanding and recognition of the work which they, according to their lights and convictions, have given not only to the Parliament as an institution but indeed to the service of this Commonwealth of ours.

I know that I shall be supported by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Country Party in the Senate and Senator McManus in making a quick reference in turn to the honourable senators who are to retire. My comments will not be comprehensive and I hope that other senators may make further points. I should like to refer first to Senator Sir Walter Jackson Cooper, M.B.E. He has the longest total parliamentary service of any surviving parliamentarian of the Commonwealth Government. He has given a total of 36 years of service in the Senate - a magni ficent record. He first took his seat in 1928; he had a brief period of 3 years out of. office after the elections of 1931. He was and is respected and admired by us all. He has held some of the most senior positions in the government of the Commonwealth during the long period of his service. He of course held the office of Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and I understand that was at a time when there was not a large number of Government supporters - I think three was the number. We all loved him and we all still love him as a kindly man.

We shall always remember him as Minister for Repatriation. One could go to him and say: ‘Walter, this is the problem’. He would say: ‘I have an Act to observe but if I can help I will.’ He was always willing and anxious to help the cause of exservicemen. An ex-serviceman himself - he had lost a limb - he was always a most kindly, warm-hearted senator who will have made his mark in the historical records of this Parliament. I always remember him, not only as the Minister for Repatriation but also as the Minister representing the Minister for Health. This was at a time when we were embarking upon a new health scheme and a free medical scheme.

Senator Ormonde:

– He was an extraordinary man.

Senator ANDERSON:

– He was so extraordinary that he could attempt the pronunciation of medical terms. We then did not have Senator Dittmer or Senator Turnbull with us and we had no-one to challenge his pronunciations. We all remember him for his activities in the Parliament. It is interesting to note that since the inception of the scheme he has been and will be until his retirement, a trustee on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowance Trust. So he has given service to us as private members as well. I should like to say that I am sure that we will remember him with great love and affection.

I should like to turn now to our most distinguished lady senator, Senator Dame Dorothy Margaret Tangney, who retires after 24 years and 10 months’ service as senator from Western Australia. She has the historic distinction of being the first lady member of the Senate and the first lady to be a member of the Library Committee to which she was appointed in September 1943. She has since served for two further terms and has served on a variety of committees. Wc shall always remember her representation of the Senate on the Council of the Australian National University. Over the years wc have all had tremendous respect for Dorothy, as we all like to call her. She has had her heart always directed towards the interests of the less fortunate. In the Senate she has made many speeches in relation to social welfare and the cause of the needy. She lakes from us our very best wishes for her continued health and happiness.

When I came to this chamber Senator Nicholas McKenna was Leader of the Opposition. He has had a distinguished career in this chamber. He was Acting Treasurer from December 1947 lo January 1948 in the Chifley Government and was Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate from November 1946 to December 1949. He served not only as a Minister of State but also as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. We have always had tremendous respect for the debating capacity and kindness of .Senator McKenna. lt has been said to me on our side of the Senate that Senator McKenna has hardly ever been known to interject. When he led for the Opposition he was a magnificent man to follow. We might have a Bill which was complex and a second-reading speech that was voluminous but nevertheless Senator McKenna had the capacity to bring out clearly the fundamentals of the proposition. lt seemed to mc that he always set about his task by explaining what the issues that confronted us were. Having explained them he would put his point of view. A kindly and courteous man, he had a tremendous capacity for doing his homework. When he was Leader of the Opposition and 1 was a backbencher I used to watch him and marvel at the extraordinary way in which he could deal with a Bill in Committee. I am sure we shall all miss him and we wish him well in the future.

Now I want to talk about Senator Theo Martin Nicholls, another long-serving senator. He leaves the Senate after 24 years as a senator from South Australia. He served with distinction as Chairman of Committees. Perhaps we shall always ‘ remember Senator Nicholls as the man with the photographic memory. I remember being told before 1 came here that Senator Nicholls had the capacity to read a page of Hansard and repeat it verbatim. I am sure that this would nol be an easy thing to do. During World War I. Senator Nicholls served in the AIF as a private. We will always remember him with affection.

I turn now to Senator Edward William Mattner, M.C., D.C.M., M.M. A man of great capacity, Senator Mattner had the distinction of being President of the Senate. He had 19 years service in the Senate, during which time he served on a number of overseas delegations. He also had a magnificent war record. We will always remember Ted as a very likeable fellow. 1 will always remember him as a senator who, if his brain was completely sated with the work of the Senate, would go out and work OUt a crossword puzzle. He seemed to have the capacity to work out a complete crossword puzzle in the time that I would take to get the first word.

Senator Sir Norman Henry Denham Henty retires after 18 years of service in the Senate. He took his place in the chamber in 1950 and became Minister for Customs and Excise in 1956. He retained that portfolio until transferring to the portfolio of Civil Aviation and becoming Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate in 1964. In January 1966 he was appointed Leader of the Government and retained that position until 1967. Senator Sir Denham Henty was Minister for Supply from January 1966 until he retired from the Ministry early this year, in his capacity as a Cabinet Minister and Minister of Stale he acted on occasions for the Ministers for Trade, Shipping and Transport and National Development. We all know that the honourable senator is a descendant of a family which pioneered settlement in Victoria. He has been a fine representative of his island State of Tasmania.

He is a man of tremendous conviction. I have found that if he believed in a thing he went forward in a very definite way and expressed his view. But after it was all over he was a kindly man, a man who understood men and a man who will have his place in the history of the Senate. As a matter of fact my career in the Senate has followed much the same pattern as that of the honourable senator. I became Minister for Customs and Excise when he gave up that portfolio and I have acted as Minister for Civil Aviation, I became Minister for Supply and I am now the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I have had a very fine example to follow. We all love Senator Sir Denham Henty and hope that he will feel free to come back and have a laugh with us and remind us again that he is a Tasmanian and we are mainlanders. But whilst he may have represented Tasmania in the Senate he has always had a broad, national outlook and a real interest in the progress and development of Australia.

Senator Archibald Malcolm Benn retires after 18 years as a Labor senator from the State of Queensland. He took his place in the chamber in 1950. He has had wide experience on select committees and was a member of the Australian Delegation to the 1 1th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. We extend our best wishes to Senator Benn and hope that he will have good health in his retirement.

I turn now to Senator Marie Freda Breen, O.B.E., who retires after completing -6 years of service as a senator from Victoria. Senator Breen is a former mayoress of the Melbourne suburb of Brighton. 1 think we all have a warm spot in our hearts for her. Tragedy struck her in the form of- an accident to her husband at a time when she was fulfilling her ambition to serve this nation as a member of Parliament. Because of this accident she had to decide whether to continue as a senator or to care for her very ill husband. She saw it as her duty as a loving wife to devote her time to nursing her husband and so she put her life’s ambition behind her. I think the story of Senator Breen is a story that would touch the hearts of everybody.

Senator Sir Kenneth James Morris, C.M.G., has had 24 years experience in State and Federal politics. He came to this Senate after having been Deputy Premier of Queensland. Senator Sir Kenneth Morris had a long and distinguished career in politics in Queensland. He was Minister for Labor and Industry from 1957 to 1962 and Deputy Premier during the same period. What I as a Minister have always liked about Senator Sir Kenneth Morris is that in the hurly-burly of the Senate when I needed someone to hop in quickly and make a stirring speech he would always agree to speak on any matter, but particularly on a matter in relation to Queensland, and he would make a speech that would bring to bear a cogent point of view. During World War II he served with the Australian Imperial Force in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and New Guinea. 1 am sure that we will all miss the contributions that he has made to our debates.

I come now to Senator William Clarence Heatley - Bill Heatley as we know him. He has not been with us for a great, period of time but I believe that he will certainly come back again. While he has been here he has proved himself to be a studious senator and a person who has a special understanding of the requirements of Queensland and indeed, a proper understanding of many things regarding the progress of Australia. Senator Heatley served on a select committee and made a real contribution to the work of the Senate. He served with the AIF in the Middle East during World War II.

I am sure that I will be supported when I say that we will miss these honourable senators. This is a situation that eventually confronts all of us. We come here and serve according to our lights and then the time comes for us to go. But I am sure that all the retiring senators will retain affection ‘ in their hearts and in their memories not only for colleagues of their own political persuasion but for senators from all parties in this place. Although we may have political differences in this House, we all have a strong conviction that we are citizens of a great country and while we are here we strive to make a contribution to Australia’s progress. As our retiring senators depart and cease their duties as senators from 30th June next they will leave with fond memories of great loyalties amongst other honourable senators. They will carry in their hearts the knowledge in retirement that whilst they were here they played their part in the progress and development of Australia.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I would like on behalf of Opposition senators to endorse the very friendly and warm sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate ‘ (Senator Anderson) on this auspicious occasion. I am sure that all honourable’ senators will appreciate especially his opening and closing remarks. All of us, men and women alike, whether we enter politics of our own free will, or as most of us like to claim, reluctantly, being driven, swept or dragged here-

Senator Wright:

– Against our conscientious objections.

Senator COHEN:

– And on occasions, as Senator Wright suggests against our conscientious objections - J am sure that each one of us comes here with a personal feeling, usually a deep personal feeling, that he can contribute something to the common good, and that he can espouse fearlessly the causes which wc sometimes jointly and sometimes severally are ready to support’. Wc do not always find that life in politics is what wc expected it to be. I suppose that every honourable senator finds in the reality something different from the expectation, lt is a tough arena. One learns to respect and usually to like one’s opponents. And so on occasions such as this it is a pleasure to recall the good in men and women wilh whom one has fought and disagreed, as well as those people whose every word is a pearl of wisdom and rich with sweetness and light. Like Senator Anderson I wish to say a few words about each honourable senator to whom tonight wc arc expressing our personal good wishes, congratulations and appreciation for their devoted service lo the Parliament and the Senate.

Senator Sir Waller Cooper came here in the first instance in 1928. He had a short period out of office and returned here in 1933 or 1934. A study of his career shows that he has spent as a senator significantly more than half the time that Australia has been a nation. He came here first just before or at the beginning of the depression. He came here for the second time when we were still going through the depression but beginning to emerge from it. More than 35 years have passed since he came here for the second lime. Events of enormous significance to the country have occurred. A great deal of Australia’s history has been made, inside and outside this Parliament. Senator Sir Walter Cooper has been a distinguished member of the Government parties, although it is said there was a lime when he was in the Opposition. He was Deputy Leader amongst three, a position requiring the support of both of his colleagues, not only of one of them. 1 am sure he would have regarded his position with pride at the time. Later he had a distinguished career as a Minister. We wish Sir Walter well and thank him for his great service to this country.

I will vary the batting order a little in order to deal firstly with honourable senators retiring from the Government Parties. Senator Ted Mattner is a former President of the Senate. That means he is entitled to very great respect. 1 have always had great personal affection for him, perhaps because when I first came here in 1962 he was kind enough lo warn me that his commanding officer in the First AIF was a namesake of mine. I do not think I have quite lived up to his expectations, but [ believe that there is a mutual respect between us. I have great admiration for him and I wish him well in his retirement. 1 thought for a moment when I was describing those senators whose every word is a pearl of wisdom and rich with sweetness and light that Senator Sir Denham Henty looked as though he wanted to be placed in that category. But I think he would bc somewhat suspicious it I so described him. He is a man for whom I have great affection and respect. He was a Minister when I first entered this chamber, and for a long time before that. He is a former Leader of the Government in the Senate. He has always liked a good scrap and has been prepared to hit out, not always accurately but always with good humour. I am sure that we have all appreciated not only the times when he managed to land a blow, but also those times when he missed. We wish Senator Sir Denham Henty well and assure him that wc will carry very happy memories of our arguments and disagreements with him.

Senator Marie Breen is a fellow Victorian and a lady for whom I have great affection and respect. I have a high regard for her husband, who has been the victim of a very tragic accident. She is a woman of great courage and character. She has borne her trial with great fortitude and we much regret the unhappy circumstances that have forced her retirement from the Senate.

Senator Sir Kenneth Morris came to the Senate after a very long career in politics in Queensland. He has made his own forceful contributions to the work of the Senate. He leaves us wilh our best wishes foi” lbc future. Senator Bill Heatley has not been here as long as other retiring senators but T think he knows that he carries our goodwill and respect. He is a young man and I do not know what politics holds for him in the future. During the comparatively short time that he has been here he has been regarded as a man who has made his own effective contributions to debates. We wish him well.

I turn now to honourable senators who are retiring from the Opposition. Firstly I will deal with one of the most talked about ladies in Australia this week - Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney. She has been much discussed this week because of the very significant event which has befallen her, ill that is not an inappropriate expression. She is retiring after service of just short of 25 years as a senator. She was the first woman senator. Her colleagues, not only on our side of the chamber, but I am sure also on the. opposite side, have admired and respected her contributions and have a deep affection for her personally. She possesses a quality which, so far as 1 have been able to discover, is one of the first requirements in politics; that is the capacity to laugh at yourself. If you do nol have that capacity political and parliamentary life can be a very trying business. Dorothy, as we know her, carries the utmost goodwill and affection of every honourable senator. I have had other occasions to pay small tributes to her, as have colleagues on the Opposition side. We had a small celebration of our own at which we were able to express our goodwill to Senator Dame Dorothy , Tangney, and to Senators McKenna, Nicholls and Benn. To some people listening to me tonight some of my remarks may have a familiar ring, but they are nevertheless sincere. I am sure that one person who will never be forgotten in the history of this Parliament is the first woman member of this chamber.

Senator McKenna was Leader of the Opposition when some of us came into the Senate in 1962. He was a distinguished man in every respect, a dignified man and a man of monumental industry in the discharge of his duties. I think that historians who look back to the first half-century and more of federation in Australia will be very much indebted to Senator McKenna. If they read Hansard they will find his contributions to the debates of absorbing interest because of their thorough and comprehensive nature. Those who followed him into the Senate found his example to be inspiring and instructive. He was always a fountain of wisdom, judgment and sage advice when younger men looked to him for guidance.

He was a member of the Chifley Cabinet - the first post-war Cabinet. He was known to be a very close friend of the late Ben Chifley and shared with him many of the deep convictions that made Labor men the kind of men who felt that they had something to contribute to the welfare of this great country. I am sure all honourable senators will remember Senator McKenna’s contribution in this place. He has been an outstanding senator and a’ man of great quality. We trust he will find his retirement rewarding and as free of worry as possible.

We are saying farewell, also to Senator Theo Nicholls, a man of very long service in the Senate. He has been a very popular and experienced senator. At one time he was Chairman of Committees. I have been told of one of his most interesting personal experiences. He occupied, the Chair for the whole of the Committee stages of the long debate on . the banking legislation that was before the Parliament in 1948. That was a very controversial piece of legislation.

Senator Poyser:

– Nearly as bad as the National Service Bill.

Senator COHEN:

– I do not know about that, lt was another, occasion with an equally contentious issue, but with Labor in government. However I do not doubt that he discharged his duties effectively because he had the great gift of . memory and accuracy. I. have been told by those who were his contemporaries in those days that he did a wonderful job and was very much respected. He retires with the goodwill and affection of his colleagues on both sides of the chamber.

Senator Benn is a comparative newcomer ; of the class of 1949. He served as a senator for three terms. . Senator Benn was a man with a highly individualistic streak in his character, a man of very strong opinions which he was never afraid to express. He gave a long and energetic service to his own State of Queensland and his contributions to debates in this chamber were always interesting.

I hope that I have not spoken at too great length but I did feel that the warm words of the Leader of the Government made it appropriate and proper for me, speaking on behalf of Opposition senators, to make a reference to each of those to whom we are saying farewell tonight. I join the Leader of the Government in expressing to them the very best of good wishes for their future and the hope that they will enjoy health and happiness wherever they go. If any of them, either personally, in writing or by telephone is ever in touch with any of us we shall all welcome the opportunity to keep the association fresh.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– This evening we are speaking about ten retiring senators: Senator Sir Walter Cooper, Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney, Senator Sir Denham Henty, Senator Sir Kenneth Morris, Senator McKenna, Senator Breen, Senator Heatley, Senator Mattner, Senator Nicholls and Senator Benn. In one respect I think there is a feeling of thankfulness in all of us, in spite of the regret we feel at the passing of these senators from the scene, that at least they are not being removed, as has been too often the case, by death. We are very glad indeed that although they are going from us they will have many happyyears of retirement ahead of them.

I join with the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cohen) in the good wishes that they have extended to our retiring senators, and endorse the remarks that they have made. I feel, however, that I must single out Sir Walter Cooper for special mention, not because he is a member of my Party but because of the years of service he has given to the nation not only in this Senate but also in other spheres. He and I have enjoyed membership of the Australian Country Party for more than 40 years.

His record of service, which is ever so much better than mine, has truly been remarkable, lt has been outlined pretty well by the Leader of the Government. As has been mentioned, Sir Walter Cooper served a record period as a senator. He was elected in 1928, defeated in 1931 and returned to the Senate to stay in 1935. He is retiring voluntarily. I am very sorry that his health did not permit him to be here tonight. I am also sorry that we are not on the air so that he could have had an opportunity to hear what we are saying about him tonight. He served a record period of 11 years as Minister for Repatriation. Wherever I have gone throughout Australia as his successor in this portfolio I have heard nothing but goodwill, affection and respect for him from those who knew him.

He had a wonderful war record. He was wounded in France and, as we all know, lost a limb. We older ones remember that he really served as a guinea pig in trying out new artificial limbs. One turned up in the office that I occupied previously. It had been there for years and 1 had pleasure in presenting it to Sir Walter Cooper. It was one he had discarded many years before. The fact that he had lost a leg did not deter him. I do not suppose any member of this chamber has walked to and from the Hotel Kurrajong as often as he has. He was a great battler for the ex-serviceman. He was the father of the Senate, possessed of a kindly disposition that endeared him to all who knew him.

Senator Sir Denham Henty spent many fruitful years on parliamentary committees between his election in 1949 and his elevation to the Ministry in 1956. He has represented in the Senate many Ministers in another place. He has been a good parliamentarian and a very good tactician. 1 think one could almost call him, with respect, a cunning tactician. Usually he has been friendly, kindly and jovial although, as most of us remember, on odd occasions he has been very wrathful. Sometimes when the mood took him he greatly enjoyed a bit of a box-on - with words, not with fists. I feel that his Queen’s birthday honour was very well deserved. I should like to introduce a personal note here. Tonight I achieved something that I have never achieved before - J had the pleasure of beating a knight al billiards. He will be missed by us all. We hope that he will come back to see us from time to time.

Now I come to Senator McKenna. 1 came here in 1958 and I had been here for only a very short space of time before he drew from me my admiration and respect. He is one of the best debaters that I have heard. He has a keen, analytical brain. He is always courteous. As has been mentioned tonight, it was very seldom indeed that he interjected; he always had control of his feelings. He had a devastating way of attacking the Government and he scored many victories over us. As my friend Senator Kennelly said, fortunately it does not matter whether you have the logic as long as you have the numbers. We had the numbers. In one respect I am very glad that he is no longer on the Opposition benches because we no longer have the numbers. Quite apart from that, we are very sorry indeed to see him leaving us and also because his enforced absence from the Senate over the last few months has been brought about by conditions in respect of which we all sympathise with him very much indeed. We hope he and the other honourable senators have a happy retirement.

Now I come to Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney. As was mentioned, earlier, she will be remembered always in history as the first woman senator. She has always been a very human person indeed. I think that she would have been one of the hardest senators to interrupt by way of interjection because once she started talking she never stopped and never gave an opportunity to interjectors. But she talked sense, T might add. She is a great humanitarian. Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney has a very keen sense of humour. I feel inclined, although T think 1 had better restrain myself, to relate to the Senate some of the stories that she has told about herself. I am sure that ;hey would be very interesting, but perhaps I had better not. Within the last few days we have heard of the honour that has been bestowed on her. Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney retires from this place with the good wishes^ the respect and, I feel sura the friendship of everybody.

Because I do not refer to the other honourable senators who are retiring in the same detail that I have referred to those I. have already mentioned doss not mean that our regard for them is any the “ less. I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate in expressing our very great admiration of Senator Breen and our’ deep sympathy for her in the position in which she has been placed during the last 12 months or so. Those of us who have been blessed with wives know the part that they play in the careers we choose. Senator Breen has .given up her parliamentary life” to devote time, .solicitude and care to her husband who is so sadly stricken. We’ honour her very much indeed. Mention has been made of Senator Sir Kenneth Morris. He has had a distinguished record in Parliament and in war. Senator Mattner has the greatest war record of any of us in the Senate. As has been mentioned, he was President of the Senate. We will miss him, a very kindly man, full of jovial anecdotes. We wish him a happy retirement. Theo Nicholls and I speedily became. friends after my arrival here. The friendship that began early in the piece has endured and 1 hope it always will. Senator Benn is a dour type of senator who is never frightened to speak up for what he thinks is right. I served with Archie Benn on several committees and always got along quite well with him. Now I come to Bill Heatley. I wish him well and I hope it- will not be long before he returns here.

In many ways tonight is a sad occasion for the Senate. The time has come to say goodbye to the colleagues I have mentioned. For one reason or another the time has come for them to leave us; They are retiring in the knowledge that they have served the Senate and the nation well. 1 am sure that this will1 give them considerable satisfaction in the years to come. On behalf of the Australian- Country Party I join with the other Party Leaders and extend to the retiring senators my Party’s best wishes for the future and for a happy retirement, f hope that they enjoy good health and will come back to see us as often as they can.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– We of the. Australian Democratic Labor Party share the sense of’ loss of other honourable senators when we look at the list of those who are now. about to leave us. Looking briefly down the list we see the name of Senator Sir Walter Cooper, the essence of kindliness and a nian who has represented his country with credit both in peace and in war. I shall not’ deal with the honourable senators necessarily’ in order of seniority. The next name I have is that of Senator Bill Heatley. I shall not say a great deal in farewelling him because we all know that he will be back. We look forward, to the day when he is back again, in the ranks of the Senate! Senator Sir Kenneth Morris had had a distinguished, career in Queensland politics when he came here. Iliked him because he had. a . fighting spirit in inverse proportion to his size. As has been said, he was always preparer! to fill . the breach when a speaker was wanted. No matter what the subject, .may have been, he could speak on it.

Senator Ted Mattner always impressed me as a true Australian digger. He served his country overseas. He had a most distinguished war record. He has played his part in the Senate with great sincerity. He was interested in sport and he always loved it when I was able to bring him a good joke from Melbourne. I think he will be particularly missed by us. Senator Sir Denham Henty, as has been said, always had a smile and a joke, but behind the smiling exterior, as we found out, there was a very keen and astute political brain. I admired him for the way in which he was able on occasions to deal with the outlaws on this side of the chamber and also the outlaws on the other side. The more we saw of him the more we realised that he knew just the way in which to get along with people, even in the difficult circumstances that he faced when he did not have a majority.

Senator Marie Breen has been mentioned. I share with others the regret at the misfortune which has been suffered by her husband. I knew her husband, Bob Breen, very well. We were friends in Melbourne 30 or 40 years ago. The Victorian Debaters Association at that time consisted of a lot of young men who never dreamed of their future but who used to engage in wordy combat. Bob Breen was one. Another was a man named Harold Holt. Others included John Spicer, Reg Smithers, now a member of one of the arbitration courts. Jack Cremean and Stan Keon. I got to know Bob very well. We were very good friends. As it turned out, his wife, Marie Breen, defeated me in 1962 but it never made any difference to our friendship.

On the other side of the Senate we have Senator Nick McKenna, whom I have known for nearly 50 years. When I was a boy in my fina] years at school the President of the Old Boys Association was named Nick McKenna. I saw quite a bit of him until a Tasmanian Premier came over to Melbourne looking for a young man of ability to run the Premier’s legal practice while he engaged in politics. He met Nick McKenna. He said to him: ‘When can you come?’ I understand Nick said: ‘In about a fortnight’. He replied: ‘No you are not. You are leaving on the boat tomorrow afternoon’. He had a very distinguished career in legal circles in Tasmania. He came into the Senate and I do not need to tell anybody who heard him about the ability with which he carried out a tremendous task oyer the years. I do not know anybody who worked harder than he did in the Senate and I think he can always look back with satisfaction upon his career here.

As for Senator Theo Nicholls, 1 met him in trade union circles. He was associated in a union with a great friend of mine named Reilly. We met each other often. We travelled together on the occasion of what is now referred- to as the famous Hobart Conference. We disagreed politically after that, but there was never any bitterness between us. I do not think Theo had it in him to be bitter. He was a very happy and popular figure in this place.

Senator Benn 1 met on a number of occasions and I suppose there was no man who was more sincere in the presentation in the Senate of what he believed in. I served on some committees with him. He certainly made them lively at times. 1 am sure that he put up a good fight for Queensland, the State of which he was proud to be a native.

Finally I come to Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney. It is hard to think of anything else to heap on the compliments that have very deservedly been paid to her. After all, she had a very big responsibility. She was the first woman to come into the Senate. I suppose the eyes of Australia were on her and they were saying to themselves: This is the first occasion on which a woman has been in the Senate. Can she make a success of it?’ I suppose if she had been a failure it might have been difficult for others to follow her. I think it is a tribute to the success with which she carried out her duties as Senator that other parties said: ‘If women can do as splendid a job as Dorothy Tangney we had better also be represented by women in the Senate.’ I close by saying I am very sorry we are losing every one of these senators, and I wish them a long life and happiness.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - On behalf of the staff and myself, I wish to express the warmest cordiality and agreement with the remarks of the previous speakers. We have known these senators through the years. We have respected them and, as people who are watching the work of the Senate, we say to them that they have served the Senate faithfully and they have served the Parliament faithfully. The whole place is richer because of their having been here. Their contributions will be remembered. I say on behalf of the staff that we have the greatest affection and regard for those senators who are retiring this year, and we wish them very well.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[9.16] - I would like to pay my tribute to the retiring members of the Senate. When we speak of Senator Sir Walter Cooper 1 remember the time when he and J made two-thirds of the Opposition. This is in my memory tonight, and I would like to pay a personal tribute to Sir Walter not only for his gallant service to this nation in war but for his dedicated service in this Parliament and in the State of Queensland.

Then I would like to speak of Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney for she was the first woman senator. I followed on after she had been here for a time. 1. remember the first thing Dorothy ever said to me. lt was in the Parliamentary Library. She came up to me and said: T am Dorothy Tangney. Can I do anything to help you?’ I think that has been her story all through life: Can I do anything to help you? 1 remember that occasion. She may have forgotten it, but I have not.

I think now of Senator Sir Denham Henty. He carries a great name in Australian history for the part he has played in the Senate. We will never forget: it. and we wish him well.

Senator McKenna was a Minister when I first came into the Senate. I remember his consideration, his courtesy and his very deep devotion to his task. J. can remember also some of the funny little things that have happened when the two new senators Sir Neil O’sullivan and myself - Senator Sir Walter Cooper did have some experience - were bobbing up and down during the debate on the Estimates and Senator McKenna was giving us time to collect our thoughts sufficiently for the next point. 1 think of Senator Nicholls in those days on the Banking Bill to which Senator Cohen referred, lt was a very strenuous and torrid time, if I might say so. not only for Senator Nicholls but for the three members of the Opposition

Then I think of our other friends, Senator Morris with his enthusiasm in the work he has done for Queensland, Senator Mattner, a gallant soldier and great friend, .Senator Breen who showed courage of the highest order, and Senator Heatley and Senator Benn, both Queenslanders who have given their particular contributions. 1 wish them well and thank them for the service and friendship they have given us. I thank them for all the things they have given to the Parliament and this nation.

I did want to pay this small tribute tonight because it is from those early days when I first came into the Senate that 1 remember so many of these people. Now as they go out into their retirement, I wish them good health, happiness and a long life. They have left behind for us a touch of their kindness, tolerance, understanding and courage and, at the end of this session, as we think of them we will say, in the words of the song: ‘We think of the friends we have made.’

Senator BRANSON (Western Australia) [9.161 - Mr President, I am sure you will understand as other honourable senators will if 1 do not refer to all ten retiring sena. tors. I have a deep respect for the fact that they have given of their service to the Senate and the country. But there are three to whom I want to refer specifically. I start with Senator Sir Denham Henty. The Leader of the Government told us what he has done in his official capacity. I want to pay a special tribute to him beyond the fact that he was a Minister and Leader in the Senate. I think everyone here will agree with what I am going to say. But. more importantly, posterity is going lo respect him for what he did. I refer to his setting up of the committee system within the Senate. 1 honestly believe that this has set the Senate on the course that it was intended to take by the founding fathers of our Federation.

We may remember Sir Denham for a lot of things but [ personally will always remember him for this and 1 am quite sure that his name will go down in history not as Leader of the Government in the Senate and not as a Minister of the Crown, but also somebody who saw the course this Senate should be taking and who was able to bring enough influence to bear on the members of his Cabinet and the Prime

Minister of the day to convince them that this should be the role of the Senate. I say to Sir Denham: ‘Thank you for that because I think you have achieved something great.’

Then I turn to Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney. [ prefer to call her Dorothy. 1 have a very deep feeling of guilt because J feel 1 may have made some contribution towards the fact that she is retiring. She rang me one day and said: ‘I want to go to Merredin. I understand you arc going there. Can I get a lift?’ I went and picked her up and took her to this town, 160 miles away. When 1 got there, people said: ‘ls this an unholy alliance between the Liberals and the Labor Party?’ Perhaps from that day onwards Dorothy may have suffered some disaffection. I do not know. All 1 can say to you, Dorothy, is that you have a warm heart and soul that everybody appreciated. It did not matter whether they were Labor, Liberal, Communist. Country Party, or who they were - you fought their fight for them.

I think I did make one mistake when I took you to my sister’s home where there were three very impressed little daughters of my sister. I think from that day onwards I probably lost four Liberal votes. They probably voted Labor after that. Dorothy, you will always carry the respect of everybody in Western Australia, irrespective of their politics. I personally am sorry to see you leaving this place. You have worked hard over the years. You have earned the respite you will have and perhaps you will be able to do some of the things you have denied yourself over the years because of your assiduous approach to your job as a senator.

I turn now to my very close friend. Bill Heatley, who has been my room mate. He says he is not. He says that I am his room mate - that it is his room, not mine. Bill has engendered among people in this place a friendship and a very great respect for his capacity as a representative of Queensland. I paraphrase the words of a very great man, General MacArthur, who said: ‘I shall return.’ I close by saying of Bill: ‘He shall return.’

Senator POKE:
Tasmania

– I should like to associate myself with the remarks of previous speakers. I rise principally to pay my respects to a person whom I regard as the ideal man in this Chamber. I refer to Senator McKenna. Whilst I have a lot of respect for all other honourable senators who have been mentioned, 1 feel that I should pay a special1 tribute to Senator McKenna. Nick, as we have so affectionately known him, has been a kindly man, one who has always been prepared to give advice. It was Nick’s leadership of the team of which I happened to be a member that enabled me to be elected to this chamber. I was associated with Nick McKenna when he conducted his first election campaign in Tasmania, and 1 have been associated with him ever since. I pay a tribute to him also for the love and affection that he has had for his wife, who was ill for many years but who was quite happy that Nick should come here to do the job that he was called upon to do.

Senator Dame Dorothy Tangney:

– Dot. as we know her - was in the Parliament when 1 came here. I think that the two features for which Dot will always be remembered are her affection and her humour. She has two firsts that no other woman in Australia will ever cap: She was the first woman in the Senate and she was the first woman member of the Australian Labor Party in politics to be made a Dame.

I should like to refer also to Senator Mattner because I had the pleasure on one occasion of being overseas wilh him. As a travelling companion 1 found him lo he a good pal. Politically we did not agree, but he was a good travelling male. I refer also to the other Tasmanian who is retiring, Senator Sir Denham Henty. Perhaps the only thing that I regret about Senator Sir Denham Henty is that I could never defeat him at an election. That was one of my ambitions. But now Denham is leaving the Senate. Good Kick to him; I wish him well. The others who are leaving us are .Senator Theo Nicholls, Senator Benn. Senator Breen, Senator Sir Kenneth Morris, Senator Sir Walter Cooper and Senator Heatley. I echo the words of the previous speaker who said that it is good to see them going out in the way that they are rather than because of death, which has been the cause of so many senators leaving us. 1 am happy to be associated with this motion. I hope that all honourable senators who are leaving us will have a very happy retirement.

Senator Dame DOROTHY TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– Mr President and fellow senators, I feel very humble as I rise to address the Senate for the last time, particularly after honourable senators have said such nice things about me. I would be exceedingly ungracious, I suppose, if 1 came back to the Senate. I do not think I could ever live up to what has been ..aid. I have been put on a pedestal, a position which I do not deserve. When I first came into the Senate just on 25 years ago it was a very novel experience. There was a lot of fuss and there were a lot of bangs about it. I seem to be going out in the same way because of the honour which has been conferred upon me this week. With all the excitement about it I suppose it can be described as a double banger. 1 am very sorry to be leaving the Senate. Unlike most of the other senators who are retiring, I am not doing so voluntarily. I had hoped to be able to complete some of the tasks which I had set myself. I now bequeath them to those senators who remain. I know that they will give those tasks the greatest consideration.

For years 1 have been the mother of the Senate and Sir Walter Cooper has been the father. Perhaps I had better not pursue that line of reasoning; we do not know what might be said of other honourable senators. With our departure Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin becomes the mother of the Senate and 1 think Senator O’Byrne becomes the father of the Senate. 1 do no! think that this improves the status of the Senate really, because there is still the same barrier to their political marriage.

The last 25 years that I have been in this place have been a very happy period for me. I do not seem to have been here as long as that. When I was about to come here one of my pupils at the school where I taught said: ‘Have a good time while it lasts’. That is the best advice that anybody has ever given to me because no matter how tough the going has been - at times it has been tough - I have always been able to look on the bright side. I think all honourable senators realise how lucky they are to be able to take part in the very ‘ important deliberations within this Senate chamber. I have been very fortunate in having the complete co-operation not only of honourable senators on this side of the chamber but also, when possible, honour able senators who are supporters of the Government. When they have not been able to support what I have said they have at least paid me the compliment of listening to me and of doing their best to meet any wishes that I have expressed.

I was very fortunate also in the help that I received from officers of the Senate. Firstly, Mr President, if you do not mind my including you in this, as the Presiding Officer you have been a source of great strength to me, particularly as a member of the various committees or groups of which I have been a member, including the one that is very close to my heart - the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I have always admired the work you have done to raise the standard of the Association and the status of parliamentarians in the community. One thing which I shall miss very much is working in that organisation with you and with other members of this and another House. 1 shall miss also working with Sir Walter Cooper. When I first came here he and I were members of the Social Security Committee. We became lost on one occasion in Parkes, but that is a story which 1 will not relate. Sir Walter was a wonderful worker on that Committee and was a great supporter of anything that was suggested for the betterment of the community. I think that helped to make him such a good Minister for Repatriation. The work that he did on that Committee as we travelled about from one end of Australia to the other enabled him to see at first hand so much that was needed in the way of social reform. I am very happy to be able to say that every recommendation made by that Committee is now part of the law of this land. These things are now taken as a matter of course and people cannot, think of life going on without the benefit of those provisions which were recommended by the Social Security Committee.

Senator Branson talked about cooperation between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. 1 remember quite well how very kind he was on one occasion when n*y car had broken down. He called down to my house and took me up to Merredin to his sister’s home. She was kind enough to provide us with a meal. She then brought me all the way back to town to my home. I shall always be very grateful to him for helping me out on that day. There was an even closer connection between . the Australian Country Party and myself in that Sir Walter Cooper and 1 were both responsible for the founding of Trans-Australia Airlines. I will tell the Senate how that happened. In those days there was only one airline. We members of the Committee were going to Tasmania to take evidence: When we arrived at the aerodrome in Melbourne we had to be weighed. If there is anything from which I have always run a mile it is a set’ of scales, particularly when 2, 3 or more critical males are about. Of course, in those days I was not quite as weighty as I am now. Mr Daly was also a member of the Committee. When J stood on the scales Mr Daly and Senator Sir Walter Cooper kept putting a foot on them. The scales went round to 20 stone and then started going round again. I said to the clerk at the aerodrome: ‘Have you not a private weighing room for ladies?’ He replied: ‘No, and we have no time to waste either’. He was a little curt. So I said to him: ‘All right: I will1 nationalise you’.

That afternoon, when- 1 arrived in Launceston, I picked up a copy of the Melbourne ‘Herald’ and saw that the Government had decided to establish an airline. I received a telegram from somebody whom I did not know saying: ‘You are the quickest and most effective politician I know’. When I arrived back in Melbourne a week or so later I saw the same clerk at the aerodrome. He was smiling broadly at me. He was the one who had sent the telegram. He thought- that I had nationalised the airlines all in the course of a day. That was how TAA came into being. So, if anyone hears any criticism of public enterprise, he can apportion one-third of the blame to- the Country Party and the other two-thirds to the Labor Party. But that is just by the way.

The whole attitude of members of the Parliament has changed a good deal since I first came to Canberra. In those days we used to come by train. Now we come by aircraft. Members come into Canberra on Tuesday and go out on Thursday or “Friday. We do not have time to get to know each other as we did in those days. We do not have time to get to know Canberra as well, to meet the people here or to get down to preparation for our work in <he Parlia ment. I often think that if the people in the airlines went on strike for a parliamentary session we might be surprised at what happened in this Parliament because members would have to come to Canberra and stay here over the weekend.

Senator Branson:

– You had better not elaborate on that.

Senator Dame DOROTHY TANGNEY:

– Staying here is an excellent experience. I think Senator Branson would enjoy it as much as I do. I have had a very happy time in the Senate. 1 have, had the cooperation of all the officials of the Parliament. I refer to the Hansard reporters who, I am sure, will be pleased to ‘ see me go because I seem to keep them’ working when I am here. I refer to all officers of the Joint House Department, the attendants who have shown me every courtesy and also the transport officer. I am sure that he must be a little tired of me. 1 have become a change daily girl. I book on one aircraft one day and change my mind the next. 1 am sure that he will be pleased when I finally depart. I also refer to the staff of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms and to the men in the transport section who have been very kind to me for many years.

Without the co-operation of all” of these people I could not have done very much. People have been kind enough to say that I have done a good job.’ What I” have done has been only very little in return for all that the job has done for me. I suppose that when I leave the Parliament I will find plenty to do. Firstly 1 will have to enter upon a very extensive course of girth control. If that is successful,-, one never knows what might happen in the future. I do not know whether I will come back to the political scene or whether I will be able to do a little better in the community because I have been in the Senate, where I have enjoyed great friendship, and cooperation. I wish all honourable senators every happiness in the future. I. hope that God will bless you and all your undertakings.

Senator Sir DENHAM HENTY:
Tas: mania

– Mr’ President, Mr . Leader and Senate colleagues: Firstly I say thank you for the very warm words that have been said to those of us. who will be leaving the Senate on 30th June. Being a senator has been a very rewarding experience. I have had 18 years here. It is interesting to note that I won a Senate seat in 1949 and had to wait until Senator Lamp completed his term on 30th June 1950 before I entered the Senate. Then, having been here for a year, there was a double dissolution. I was elected again and my 6-year term started from 30th June 1950. So my initial period in the Senate was quite an interesting experience.

I say with great sincerity that I will miss tremendously the comradeship and the cut and thrust of politics that we have enjoyed in this chamber. But when I look around and see many younger men coming into the Senate - men who are ordained to make their mark in this place - I realise that they should have an opportunity. That was why 1 decided to call it a day after 18 years. I believe that I should give them the opportunities that 1 had. When 1 came here in 1950 I never dreamt that I would have the opportunities that 1 have had. I have had Hi years as a Minister and 4 years in the Cabinet, which has been a termendously exhilarating experience. It has been a grand life. 1 have formed a very high regard for the Senate. 1 thank Senator Branson for what he said about the select committee system. I put this charge to honourable senators: I believe that there is a tremendous task for you to do in the select committee field on many important subjects, but not on party political subjects if they can be avoided. We have received reports from the Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures and the Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes. I believe that I can say with justification that they are excellent reports. I congratulate the members of those Committees. They have brought credit to the Senate by what they have done. I look forward to reading the reports of the select committees on air pollution and water pollution.

These are all questions of great importance. As I see the work of the Senate, the documents that result from the work of these select committees will be books of record which will be of tremendous importance to Australia for years ahead. That is what I believe about the role of the Senate. Honourable senators should be examining great problems ahead of events. Their reports should guide the government of the day in developing its policies on the basis of facts that have been ascertained by select committees. 1 hope they will do that.

The Senate is losing nine other senators. 1 wish to say to them all how much I have enjoyed being with them, how much 1 have learned in this chamber and particularly how much I have learned of human nature. If there is one place in which people get to know one another, learn to value one another and learn to evaluate one another, it is in a house of parliament. Particularly after one has been here for a few years, other members get to know him and his work and judge him on that.

I apologise for not being here in time on Tuesday. I did not know that the events that happened then were to happen. I say thank you to the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) for his kindly expressions on Tuesday. I will let the Senate into a secret. Monday was a holiday in Tasmania. I had celebrations on Saturday, Sunday and Monday and I did not wake up in time to catch the first aircraft. I was a little late. I am sorry that 1 missed what was said, but I say thank you for all the kind things that were said.

I must say that I go out of the Senate with a tremendous regard for the officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. Over the years no-one has had more opportunities than 1 have had to lean on them and to seek their advice, and never have they failed me. Tn the departments that I administered - the Department of Customs and Excise, the Department of Civil Aviation and the Department of Supply - I found that the officers were men dedicated to the tasks that they have to perform. When I am out of politics, I will take the opportunity whenever I can to impress upon the taxpayers of Australia the fact that they get full value for their money from the Commonwealth Public Service.

So I wish all honourable senators well. I trust that the Senate will go on for many many years with the same relative strengths as it has at the moment, although we could do with one or two more on this side. I do not want to get provocative. Honourable senators know very well that I have never done that during my time in this chamber; I have only enjoyed the good fun. In all the debates that we have had I have never found any bitterness in honourable senators on either side of the Senate, and this is the right way in which to conduct a Parliament. We say things and get at one another because we believe in what we arefighting for. When we finish that, there is no bitterness. This has been to me a great and enriching experience. 1 can never adequately thank the people of Tasmania for sending me here, the public officers for helping me while 1 have been here, and honourable senators for the comradeship which they have given to me and which I hold very dear indeed.

Senator HEATLEY:
Queensland

-I thank those honourable senators who have spoken so kindly tonight about retiring senators. I should like to say how grateful I am to the staff of the Parliament, from those within the chamber to the girls who wait on us at table. In this fieldI have found nothing but friendship since I came to this place. Today I was asked whether I felt nostalgic. I realised that I did momentarily but strangely enough it was because I am leaving a conflicting fraternity. As Senator Sir Denham Henty has just said, we have conflict here because we state our views for what: we think is the betterment of the nation but when we walk outside we drop our personal views and mix in common in a friendly manner. I speak very briefly because I have been here only a short time but I feel that I have inthat time achieved something for individuals,for our State and for our nation. I close on the note that when I arrived here one person said to me: You are a short-timer’.I only hope that I am a short-timer before I return.

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (No. 2) 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I move:

In I960 the Legislative Council was reconstituted so that official members did not form a majority of the members. At the same time the Administrator’s Council was established to give some of the elected and non-official members of the Legislative Council a say in matters concerning the executive government of the Territory, and the Act was also amended at the request of the Legislative Council to enable the Governor-General to return ordinances with recommended amendments as an alternative to disallowance or the withholding of assent. In 1965 the Administrator was withdrawn from the Legislative Council which now elects its own President. The Darwin City Council has been responsible for local government in that city since 1957. lt is, and has been since its inception, receiving generous financial assistance from the Commonwealth. The Government stands willing to consider similar assistance for other town areas of the Territory interested in running their own civic affairs. This year discussions have been held with the Town Management Board for Alice Springs on the possibility of local government there and I am hopeful that we will soon see the second local government authority in the Territory.

When discussing the governmental arrangements for the Territory, local government is often ignored. The tendency is to look at the arrangements at the top of the political structure without examining the structure as a whole. Local government is an important tier of the structure by which we, as a people, govern ourselves. The opportunity exists in the Northern Territory for the people outside Darwin to exercise a measure of self-government through local government ‘authorities and at the same time gain the administrative experience necessary to exercise responsibility at a higher level of government.

The people of the Territory are not without political rights. They elect a member to this Parliament who has now the same voting right’s as other members. The elected members have, since 1960, constituted the largest single group of members in the Legislative Council and this Bill proposes that the people should elect a majority of the members of the Council from the next general elections to be held this year. The Administrator’s Council provides the means for elected member? to participate in executive decisions concerning the Territory and there has been increasing consultation with that Council on a wide range of subjects including the large development proposals for the Territory. .

On the question of the economic development of the Territory, anyone with any familiarity with the Territory would affirm the great strides forward that have been made there in recent times. Population has increased during the last ten years from 38,000 to about 62,000. The value of new buildings approved for construction has risen from S4.6m in 1956-57 to S 13.2m iti 1966-67. New vehicles registered in the year 1956-57 totalled 700; new registrations in 1966-67 were 2,700. Savings banks’ deposits which stood at $3.8m in 1956-57 rose to $ 1 2.5m in 1966-67 and the number of civilian employees increased from less than 8,000 to about 16,000 over the same period. There are other figures which could be quoted to illustrate the development of the Territory. The mining and quarrying production increased from $9. 2m in 1956-57 to $20.5 m in 1967. There was a growth in retail sales from $13. 5m to $40m in this period. The fact is that the Northern Territory can no longer be represented as the Cinderella of the Commonwealth, lt is one of the most exciting development areas of Australia. lt is true that the Territory with a population of 62,000 has more people than some States when self-government was given. The conditions existing when the various States were accorded the right of self-government are far different from the conditions of today. Australia is a developing country, and the Northern Territory is one of the fastest developing areas. Development means money to provide the special services needed and it requires people with the necessary skills to enable development to take place. The Commonwealth is spending in the Northern Territory this year on Statetype functions approximately $61 .6m. Revenues of a State type raised in the Territory will be approximately $8.9m. The excess of about $53m represents the direct contribution by the Commonwealth to the costs of administering the Territory. On a per capita basis this is $860. This is far more than the grants to the States by the Commonwealth which this year range from about $94 per capita for Victoria to $231 for Tasmania. 1 have given these figures to illustrate the financial position of the Territory because this must be borne in mind when discussing possible forms of government for the Territory. Responsibility in government comes through those who have the political power deciding between the various competing demands for funds, and having made these decisions, determining then how the burden of meeting the costs of government shall be distributed among the community they represent. The likely level of revenue which would be available to a possible executive drawn from the Territory would clearly be insufficient to sustain responsible government in the proper sense, even with generous State-type assistance grants from the Commonwealth. The Northern Territoryis an integral part of the Commonwealth under the Constitution and its future lies, as the Prime Minister has said, as part of our federal system. Developments taking place there have a long-term national importance for all Australians. Yet, to put the Territory into proper perspective I point out that approximately 62,000 people reside in an area which comprises one-sixth of our Continent.

The provision for an elected majority in the Legislative Council is a welcome step forward. It represents a considerable increase in local participation and responsibility in government. With this change we will have advanced to a stage at which the constitutional theorist might say there is an imbalance in the distribution of executive and legislative power in the Territory. I should perhaps illustrate the point I am trying to bring out. Ordinances passed by the Council which have only local significance and do not affect the structure of administration are normally accepted. Since 1960 the Council has made over 450 Ordinances and there have been only fifteen substantive cases of rejection of whole ordinances and one case of disallowance of a single section in the period of 1967.

There are, however, developments in the Territory which have national significance. I mention the development of bauxite al Gove, manganese at Groote Eylandt, silver and lead at Mc Arthur River, sorghum at Tipperary, and the various proposals for establishing prawning and wood chip industries in the Territory. All these are heavy investment industries and development is preceded by detailed consultation with the

Government. Wherever possible the views of the Administrator’s Council are sought at appropriate stages of the negotiations.

In these policy areas it is to be expected that the elected members of the Legislative Council would give a reasonable recognition to the Government’s responsibilities when, considering legislative proposals. In a similar category are matters concerning the welfare of Aboriginals; the implementation of agreements between the States and the Commonwealth for uniform legislation; the administrative arrangements for the government of the Territory; the financial responsibility of the Commonwealth in the Territory; and policies for economic development including land and mineral development. Despite some overlap in ‘the distribution of authority and responsibility between the Government and the Legislative Council the Government believes that there is no reason why these new arrangements should not work well in practice given that there is goodwill on both sides.

The other change proposed by this Bill is unrelated to the composition of the Legislative Council. It concerns the power of the Governor-General in regard to ordinances. The Act now provides that the GovernorGeneral may disallow an ordinance or part of an ordinance assented to’ by the Administrator. Where an ordinance has been reserved by the Administrator for the Governor-General’s pleasure, the GovernorGeneral may assent to, or withhold assent from the ordinance, or return the ordinance to the Administrator with recommended amendments. Though an ordinance can be disallowed in part, assent cannot be withheld from part of an ordinance. The bill proposes a new provision, similar to that included recently in the Papua and New Guinea Act, to provide that the GovernorGeneral may withhold assent from part of an ordinance. The advantage in this to the legislative councillors is that if an ordinance introduced by an. elected member contains an unacceptable provision .which is not fundamental to the ordinance as a whole, it would then be possible to allow the major part of the ordinance to stand, only the unacceptable provision being omitted.

Government is most effective when the people take an active interest in it. I would hope that the change in the composition of the Legislative Council which this bill proposes will be an encouragement lo people to widen their interest in matters which come before the Legislative Council. Government for the people requires that the people be prepared to make their views known through those who represent them in the political institutions. As J said earlier, the Territory is going through an exciting stage of development. New mineral discoveries, agricultural development through new crops and methods, and new projects to develop other natural resources, such as fishing and forestry, are changing the face of the Territory and the attitude to it of people who have money to invest. 1 am confident that the Territory will continue to grow, to the betterment not only of those people who live there but lo the advantage of Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Opposition supports the Bill but intends to move some amendments. This is the second time today that 1 have been dealing with a Bill which has for its purpose the development of the northern parts of Australia. I feel that the Government has made greater progress on the physical side with the Ord River scheme than it has on the non-physical side of improvement of the parliamentary system of the Northern Territory. The main purpose of this Bill is to increase the number of seats for elected members of the Legislative Council from 8 to 1 1 and to abolish the 3 seats for nominated non-official members. Although the Opposition agrees with the Bill in principle it would like to strengthen the Bill by the inclusion of certain amendments that I will be proposing.

The Opposition feels that the Government is approaching self-determination of the Northern Territory with a tremendous amount of timidity - far more timidity than it is showing in Papua and New Guinea. Mr Chan, the very distinguished President of the Legislative Council in Darwin, has criticised the setup. On the one hand we see the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) obtaining full voting rights and on the other hand we find that there are part time members of the Legislative Council. The small sum of money that these members receive obviously makes it a part time job. Although the situation has been modified to a certain extent in that elected members are in the majority, the old system of official members is still in operation.

The next move that has to be made by the Government is one of a fairly radical nature and that is self-government. I sincerely hope that the Government is looking ahead and thinking ulong those lines. But an examination of some of the wording of this Bill makes one wonder whether the Government is looking ahead. Upon reading the early part of the second reading speech of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) one gets the impression that it is almost an. apologia; that the Government does not want to keep its dead hand on the development of the Northern Territory. To quote from Shakespeare: ‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks’. The Minister said:

Every change has been, directed to increasing the participation by residents in decisions concerning the Territory, although Commonwealth expenditure has been increasing in recent years at an average of approximately 15% per annum.

It is interesting how the Government links these two points together.’ If one reverses the position then surely it would mean that the more the Commonwealth Government spends on the Northern Territory the more it ought to be able to control the Territory. Surely this situation is the reverse to what is happening in “New Guinea. We are moving towards self-government in New Guinea but nobody would suggest that expenditure on New Guinea this year should be less than it was last year.

Senator Wright:

– Nobody is suggesting that we are aiming for independence in the Northern Territory whereas we may be for Papua and New Guinea.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I think that is a completely irrelevant interjection. I think the Minister is trying to draw the long bow, as he has been doing here over the last two days. I am merely drawing attention to the financial side of the matter. This has nothing lo do with the Minister’s gratutious interjection. He should be quiet and let me finish. What I am saying is that this peculiar type of argument seems to suggest that if the Government spends more money on the Northern- Territory it -should reduce the powers of the Legislative Council and increase its own powers. The Government hastens to assure us that it is not attempting to do this but I would expect this assurance. I merely say that the Government is slowly and reluctantly giving power to the Legislative Council.

The Northern Territory is not a backward area. It is probably developing faster than any other comparable area in Australia. There are 62,000 people in the Northern Territory, which is more than some States had when they received selfgovernment. The argument that this is an area with not a lot of people and therefore the Government should hang on to it until the very last moment is the very thing that is stultifying the growth of the north at this time.

A lot of honourable senators on this side of the chamber would have liked to take part in this debate, but here again we find an important Bill introduced in the closing stages of the session. It was introduced only a few minutes ago and I am proceeding with it immediately. 1 have not had time to have my amendments roneoed. I have only a rough copy of them. If the Government is placing as much importance on the Northern Territory as ‘ it suggests then this legislation should have been introduced many weeks ago. Of course the Government has a vested interest in introducing legislation of this nature at a very late hour of the day. I would have preferred to address myself to the Bill more fully than I am able to do now. But I am tired and many other honourable senators are tired. This is the ninth Bill’ that I have dealt with today and many other honourable senators have had thrust on them.

There are some very important principles that I will deal with at the Committee stage. Firstly, I will seek to have the name ‘Legislative Council’ changed to ‘Legislative Assembly’ because the former title reeks of the Victorian era. Secondly, I will seek to ensure as near as possible the principle of one vote one value so as to avoid the disgusting gerrymandering that occurs throughout Australia and particularly in South Australia. Thirdly, I shall seek to make certain that the Governor-General shall say yea or nay to an ordinance within 6 months and that he shall not have power tolet it lie in a pigeon hole indefinitely. Fourthly, I shall seek to resist the Government’s proposal1 that the Governor-General may dissent from a part of an ordinance. I will deal with those subjects only briefly at the Committee stage because of the mood of the Senate at this late hour. I very much regret that this Bill was not introduced earlier because several members of my own Party have mentioned that they would have liked to speak on it but will refrain from doing so because of the circumstances.

The Opposition supports the Bill. It is a small step in the right direction. We hope that much more legislation of this nature will be introduced in the not too distant future to enable those who know the north to develop the north, which is such a vital part of our nation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 2a.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

-I move:

After clause 2 insert the following new clause: 2a. The Principal Act, as amended by this Act, is amended by omitting the words ‘Legislative Council’ (wherever occurring) and inserting in their stead the words ‘Legislative Assembly’.

The Government may not think that this is a tremendously important amendment but we on this side of the chamber want to see the parliament of the Northern Territory made into a modern legislature as quickly as possible. We feel that the term ‘Council’ can be confused with, for example, municipal councils. It reminds one also of the old legislative councils with a property franchise. The term has a lot of unhappy memories for many people in Australia and for the people of other former colonies in other parts of the world. I will not belabour the point. I know that changing its name to Legislative Assembly’ will not give that body any more wisdom or alter the nature of its functions. We feel that if we can at least introduce this spirit and attitude in the legislative body there, it will help to bring the Territory up to modern thinking.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the Opposition. It has been the practice down through the ages that when a Territory is assuming more local authority it commences with the parliamentary authority of a Legislative Council. That body continues to function until self-government is granted to the Territory, at which time there is set up a House of Representatives or a Legislative Assembly. It has been pointed out to honourable senators tonight that on a per capita basis the Commonwealth contribution to the Northern Territory is about four times as much as that to Tasmania, the State which receives the highest Commonwealth contribution. Victoria receives the lowest Commonwealth contribution on a per capita basis. The Northern Territory receives about eight times as much from the Commonwealth as does Victoria.

The Government is anxious to ensure that al a later date it will be possible to set up in the Northern Territory a House of Representatives or a Legislative Assembly. The Commonwealth is endeavouring to have local government authorities set up by the people living in the Territory so that they will take more civic pride in their towns and districts. I understand that at present the only local government authority in the Northern Territory is at Darwin’. It :s probable that the next local government authority there will be established at Alice Springs.

I visited the Northern Territory 8 or 9 years ago. It may interest honourable senators to learn that on visiting Katherine and other places I found that the people were not keen to set up a local government authority because the Commonwealth was providing money from taxation for ‘ the development of the areas. The residents were not paying any rates or taxes to a local government authority because none was established, and they did not want one. However, development of the Territory has progressed. The establishment of a local government authority at Alice Springs will be a step in the right direction. At a later date when the Commonwealth contribution to the Northern Territory on a per capita basis is lower than it is at present and the residents of the Territory are contributing more towards their own development, a Legislative Assembly or House of Representatives probably will be set up there.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

Section 4c of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: (1.) For the purposes of the election of the elected members of the Legislative Council, the Territory shall be distributed into as many Electoral Districts as there are members to be elected.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I move:

As the clause stands at present it would be possible to arrange electoral boundaries without regard to equity for the residents of each electorate, a set of principles or anything else. We are asking that the principle of one vote one value be applied as closely as possible in the Territory. The arguments, against the principle of one vote one value are immediately apparent in this country. We have heard them ad nauseam over the years. A conglomeration of people live in the cities and there is sparse population in the great wide outback, it is said, and importance must be given to the’ outback. The situation iti South Australia, because of the great publicity given during the recent election to the distribution of electoral boundaries there, ‘ has horrified every Australian who ‘has given the matter 2 minutes thought. People who had not realised that the situation is as bad as it is are” now prepared to do anything to alter it in order to escape the present disgraceful situation there. The Labor Party is anxious to ensure that the position ‘ does ‘not occur again in Australia, if that Can be avoided.

In the Northern Territory the Government is creating .new electoral boundaries. It can follow principles without fear of treading on anybody’s corns, lt should ensure that as far as possible the principle of one vote one value is followed. There is no likelihood of. leaning to a political party or to any personality in the Territory. The Government could say that it is acting as fairly as possible in directing that there shall be one vote one value, and that the chips can fall where they may. Government supporters may argue against the principle as much as they like but in Australia at every level of our democratic processes we will adopt the system of electing parliamentary representatives, and representatives on municipal authorities, on the principle of one vote one value. While the Government moves away from that principle, its last position will be very much worse than its first. We have moved an amendment in the hope that the Government will grab this opportunity to import the principle into a fresh and virginal situation where the finger of scorn cannot fairly be pointed for ulterior or political reasons. I suggest that the Government would do well to accept the amendment.

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Western Australia · LP

– I have to advise the honourable senator that the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. The Northern Territory covers an area of about one-sixth of the Commonwealth. If the Government accepted the principle of one vole one value the population distribution of the Territory would prevent its fair application. Of the 19,000 electors in the Territory, about 13,000 reside in Darwin or Alice Springs; that is, about thirteen-nineteenths of the electors live in two densely populated areas.

None of the States has yet adopted the principle of one vote one value. In Western Australia the number of voters in the electorates ranges from 1.870 to 14,280. In Queensland the range is from 6,750 to 19,570 voters, and in New South Wales from 1 8,300 to 32,530 voters. In the United Kingdom and Canada, for instance, the same kind of thing occurs. In 1965 the number of electors in the smallest constituency in the United Kingdom, the Zetland electorate, was 25,481, and the number in the largest electorate, the electorate of Antrim in the south-east, was over . 105,000. In Canada the number of electors in the largest electorate, York-Scarborough, was 267,000 and in the smallest electorate, Kings, 17,000.

I do not think we would get the right type of development in the Northern Territory if we did not do exactly as we are doing in the States - giving representation to the outback areas so that the people living in them will have some say in the developmentthat takes place. Therefore, we cannot accept the proposed amendment.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 18

NOES: 20

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I move:

The insertion of the words proposed in my amendment merely places a time limit within which the Governor-General may act. We suggest 6 months because we believe that the whole of the administrative processes should take place within 6 months, but if the Government thinks that that period is too short and would like it extended to 8 months we would not raise any great argument. We believe that it is wrong to allow an ordinance to come from the Northern Territory and then pigeon-hole it for 3 years, 5 years or forever according to the Govenor-General’s pleasure. We have proposed our amendment so that that situation cannot arise and so that the people of the Northern Territory will know that when they forward an ordinance it will be dealt with within, we suggest, 6 months or such slightly longer period as can be agreed upon.

We have heard from Senator Scott tonight some ingenious replies to the arguments we have raised. We look forward with pleasure to see what argument he can possibly put up against a time limit. We merely ask that the due processes of administration be tidied up within a reasonable time and we have suggested 6 months.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– The Government cannot accept the proposed amendment. In 1959 the then existing provision in the Act was removed and the provision now in the legislation, which does not provide a time limit of 6 months, was introduced. I understand this was done after consultation between the Minister and the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory. We have had a close look at this provision and do not believe that there is any need to alter it. We do not want to have assent withheld but we do not think that at this stage there is any need to accept the amendment proposed by Senator Willesee.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The Minister said that negotiations had taken place. Are the amendments embodied in the Bill before us the result of consultation with members of the Legislative Council in Darwin?

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

-These proposals are exactly in accordance with those which emerged from the conference between members of the Legislative Council and representatives of the Government in Canberra last July.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Willesee’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C.

Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 18

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

-Clause 5 reads, in part:

Section 4x of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by omitting sub-section(1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: (1.) Where the Administrator reserves an Ordinance forthe Governor-General’s pleasure, the Governor-General shall, subject to this section, declare-
  2. that he assents to the Ordinance;
  3. that he withholds assent to the Ordinance; or (c)that he withholds assent to part of the Ordinance and assents to the remainder of the Ordinance.

I move:

Leave out ‘or (c) that he withholds assent to part of the Ordinance and assents to the remainder of the Ordinance’.

It seems to usthat it israther dangerous and unwise to alter what is already contained in the Act. At the moment, if the

Governor-General does not agree with an ordinance he can return it to the Legislative Council or to the Administrator and say why he does not like it. Virtually that would be suggesting an amendment, and the matter could be resolved. In the situation proposed by the Bill the GovernorGeneral can take the unusual step of disallowing part of an ordinance. No time limit would be imposed because the Committee has refused to set a time limit. The situation is that an ordinance would be sent here and stay here for any length of time. Finally, half of it could be thrown out. Even with written documents there can be confusion, and if there is no confrontation, as it were, between the Governor-General and the members of the Legislative Council they will not know his views with regard to the weight of the ordinance and therefore a vital part of it could be omitted.

Since 1960, 450 ordinances have been transmitted to the Senate and only 15 of those have been completely disallowed. Only 1 of the 450 has required a partial alteration by the Governor-General. Surely we are taking a sledge hammer to crack a peanut: when, in order to cover that one. instance out of the 450 amendments over 8 years we propose to insert what could be a very dangerous provision. I do not mean wilfully dangerous but dangerous in the sense that the purport and strength of the amendment might not be understood. The present practice is much better. It there is disagreement or if somebody is not happy about an ordinance, it is. sent back with the suggestion that it be strengthened or weakened, or that a part of it be eliminated. I am worried about this proposal and the effect it might have.It is bad administratively. The Minister would have nothing to lose by deleting this paragraph of the proposed sub-section. There would still be indefiniteness as to time because of the Committee’s decision a few moments ago. We suggest that the Government adopt the amendment proposed by the Opposition.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– The Government is unable to accept the amendment. This is not a new principle. Since 1954 the Northern Territory Administration Act has provided for the GovernorGeneral to disallow part of an ordinance. All that the Bill seeks to do is to extend to an ordinance which has been reserved for the Governor-General’s pleasure the provision that now applies under the Act to an ordinance which has been assented to by the Administrator. We think that this is essential because the Administrator can send down an ordinance for the consent of the Governor-General, who may accept nine-tenths of it and disallow one-tenth. The Governor-General has had this right since 1954.I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 18

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1822

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION (CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

The Bill does two things. It extends to workers employed by the United States Navy at the Navy’s communication station at North-West Cape in Western Australia the terms of the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act 1930-1967 as if they were employees of the Commonwealth. It also gives to such persons or, in the event of death, another person, the right to recover damages from the Commonwealth independently of the Compensation Act, and again as if the Commonwealth were the employer, in the event of damage* as a result of injury or death suffered directly as a result of employment with the United States Navy.

Mr President, there are currently about 350 Australian employees engaged by the United States Navy at the communications station. I use the term ‘Australian’ to cover all the locally engaged members of the work force at the station which includes some migrants who may not be Australian citizens. Their terms and conditions of employment are laid down in an industrial agreement negotiated between the United States Navy and the unions in Western Australia under the auspices of the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia. The agreement is neither an award of an industrial tribunal nor an agreement registered with such a tribunal by virtue of the fact that the United States Navy, as an agency of the United States Government, is outside the jurisdiction of our laws and hence of our courts. There is nothing unusual about this immunity. It is an immunity claimed by every sovereign state from the laws of other states. Thus Australia claims immunity from the laws of the United States in respect of Australian Government activities in the United States.

Nevertheless, despite this’ immunity, the United States Government has agreed to conform to, amongst other laws, our industrial laws. This arises from the agreement entered into between the United States and Australian Governments for the establishment of the communications station and approved by this Parliament by the United States Naval Communication Station Agreement Act 1963.

Whilst the terms, and conditions of employment of the Australian work force at the station are regulated by the industrial agreement to which I have referred, that agreement cannot deal with one important matter which forms part of Australia’s industrial laws for the protection of employees. I refer to workers’ compensation. Because of the immunity of the United States Navy of which I have spoken, our workers compensation laws do not bind the United States Navy as they do other employers. Moreover, since our workers compensation laws can involve proceedings before courts or other tribunals it would not be possible for an employee of the United States Navy to take action iri pursuance of his rights against his employer before such courts or tribunals. The same limitations would be faced by an Australian employee of the United’ States Navy at the Communication Station were he to attempt to exercise what would ordinarily be his rights at common law against his employer for damages he might consider he was entitled to as a result of injury or death associated with his employment.

I should make it clear that no worker employed by the United States Navy at the Station has been disadvantaged as to workers compensation.- The’ scales of compensation in the Commonwealth -Employees’ Compensation Act have been applied by the Americans to any Australian employee who has suffered a compensable injury. But the Australian employees have not enjoyed this as of right. Nor would’ any- worker have been able to take action at common law had he wished to do so. In the light of all these circumstances, the Government made known publicly last year its decision to introduce legislation to enable locally engaged employees of the United States Navy at North West Cape to enjoy what are, after all, these basic fights of Australian workers generally. That, then, is the purpose of this Bill.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, Mr President, the problem of the immunity of the United States Navy from our laws and courts will be overcome by deeming the Commonwealth to be the employer of locally engaged labour for the purposes of workers compensation and, accordingly, such workers will be covered by the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. Similarly, if one of these workers or, in appropriate circumstances, another person decides to take action at common law in respect of damage suffered through injury or death that action may be taken against the Commonwealth.

Mr President, let me add a word or two about the clauses of the Bill. Clause 4 deals with the classes of employees to whom the Bill will apply. Clause 5 applies the terms of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act to the Australian component at the Station and modifies that Act so as to have it cover those employees of the United States Navy. The modifications are set out in the Schedule attached to the Bill. Clause 6 establishes the liability of the Commonwealth in actions at common law which might be taken in respect of damage suffered through injury or death directly associated with employment at the Station. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– When the industrial agreement was signed in Perth between the unions and the United States Navy 2 or 3 years ago it was pointed out by representatives of the Trades and Labour Council, who were led by Mr Jim Coleman, that after negotiating the various industrial clauses there the question of workers compensation was outstanding. When they came to this question they were up against a blank wall. The United States naval authorities told the unions that they would resolve this matter in some way but they would need time to investigate it. As the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) pointed out, the Commonwealth Government has now stepped into the breach and for the purposes of workers compensation the Commonwealth stands as though it were the employer. This seems to us to be a satisfactory solution.

The industrial agreement which has been entered into and which in many ways breaks much new ground in this field in Western Australia remains undisturbed. The Com monwealth Government comes into this matter in two respects, the first of which is in relation to workers compensation. Perhaps 1 should state that I note with pleasure that at long last Commonwealth employees’ compensation is to be gone over very thoroughly in the Budget session. We look forward to that with very great interest.’ The review of workers compensation will, apply also to the section with which we are dealing tonight and which will give to workers at North West Cape a common law right to sue the Commonwealth of Australia. It seems to be a happy solution to have the Commonwealth stand in the place ‘ of the American Navy for this purpose. Because of this we welcome the Bill and we support it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1823

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1968

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 1823

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 28th May I undertook to make inquiries and to give a prompt reply to a question directed to me by Senator Gair. The question asked by the honourable senator was as follows:

Further to the answer to my question on notice, No. 68 of 8th May, in which it was stated that the Commonwealth and State committee of decentralisation had met on only two occasions since, its formation in March 1965, is it a fact that it is the Commonwealth Government’s prerogative to convene meetings of the full committee? Is it also a fact that in January this year the New South Wales Government requested that a further meeting of this body be held and that so far there has been no response by the Commonwealth Government to this request?

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

The Commonwealth provides the Chairman and is the convener of the Joint Commonwealth/ State Officials Committee on Decentralisation.

With respect to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, the Commonwealth’ Government did not in January this year receive a specific request from the New South Wales Government for a further meeting of the Joint Commonwealth/State officials Committee.

I assume that the honourable senator’s question has reference to a letter to the editor by the New South Wales Minister for Decentralisation and Development which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 20th May. As has previously been indicated, there have been frequent informal discussions on the subject of decentralisation between Commonwealth and State officials. The New South Wales Minister for Decentralisation and Development may have been referring to discussions between Commonwealth and Stale officials in whichthe possibility of holding a meeting of the Joint Commonwealth/State Officials Committee earlier this year was raised. However, no firm arrangements were made. As indicated in the answer provided by the Prime Minister on 8th May to the honourable senator’s earlier question on the matter, it is likely that’ the Committee will meet again shortly.

page 1824

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

page 1824

HUMAN RIGHTS

page 1824

ALCOHOLISM

(Question No. 50)

Senator MURPHY (through Senator

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

What research is being conducted in Australia into the prevention and cure of alcoholism? 2.In what institutions is the research being conducted?

How many research persons are engaged on this work full-time?

How many research persons are engaged on this work part-time, and what is the equivalent in persons engaged full-time?

Approximately how much is spent annually directly on this research?

Is any of this research being conducted directly by the Commonwealth or any of its instrumentalities?

In what way is the Commonwealth participating?

What is its actual contribution in (a) research personnel and (b) finance?

In what other way is the Commonwealth supporting such research?

What arc the extent and circumstances of any major contributions to such research in Australia by overseas countries?

Apart from research, what work or action is being undertaken to prevent or cure alcoholism and in what way and to what extent is the Commonwealth participating?

page 1825

COMPUTERS

(Question No. 133)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a factthat of the 720 computers installed in Australia, some 350 have proved defective in operation?
  2. What is the Government doing to provide trained operators for computers?

Senator ANDERSON- The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The last census of computers taken by the Department of Labour and National Service as at 30th June 1967 revealed that there were 635 digital and analogue computers known to be in operation and 185 on order. The Commonwealth authorities dp not have information on the number of private computers which have proved defective in operation. The general reliability of computer equipment acquired by the Commonwealth Public Service has, however, been good. Regular equipment maintenance is of course necessary to ensure continuing operational reliability. Maintenance engineers are either resident on Commonwealth premises or on call so that any equipment malfunction can be rectified quickly. In addition, the equipment is run under special environmental conditions that are required for efficient operation for example, stable temperature and humidity levels, and dust free atmosphere.
  2. The Commonwealth Government’s contribution to the training of computer operators takes various forms. In relation to the Commonwealth’s own computer operations, in-service training is undertaken by the Public Service Board and user departments. Because qualified personnel are not generally available on the recruitment market, the Commonwealth Public Service has, since 1960, undertaken its own training of automatic data processing personnel. The Public Service Board and the departments have trained approximately 750 officers for work on the analysis, design and programming of computer-based data processing and information systems and 200 as computer operators. In addition, approximately 1,000 officers at executive levels have attended ADP appreciation courses conducted within the service.

A detailed tabulation of the various ADP training courses conducted by the Public Service Board and the departments between 1960 and 1967 was published at page 53 of the Board’s annual report for 1966-67. The Board pointed out in the report that in-service training will be reduced to the extent that external institutions are able to provide an adequate source of supply of trained personnel; the Board said that the service was active in making its requirements known to the education authorities and in co-operating with them and other interested parties in meeting the many and varied challenges of this new technology.

Furthermore, the Commonwealth provides grants to the States on a dollar for dollar basis for the purchase of computers for teaching and research purposes at the universities and colleges of advanced education under the Universities (Financial Assistance) Act 1966-67 and the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1967. Under the same legislation, grants on the basis $1 Commonwealth to$1. 85 State are also made available to meet recurrent costs associated with computer teaching and research. It is anticipated that universities and colleges of advanced education will make an increasingly significant contribution to the provision of trained personnel for computer systems in business and industry. In addition, the Department of Labour and National service conducts surveys designed to provide data on employment needs and opportunities in the field of computer operation, the results of these surveys are intended to assist educational authorities and others in augmenting the supply of computer staff. The Commonwealth Employment Service also has assisted by dissemination information about career opportunities in computer employment, particularly to young people entering the work force for the first time.

page 1826

IRRIGATION

(Question No. 164)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the Government listed as high priority an irrigation project in the Burdekin watershed as requested by the State Government of Queensland in June 1967?

Senator ANDERSON- The Acting Prime Minister has furnished the following reply:

The Government has not given any priority to an irrigation project in the Burdekin watershed. The honourable senator will know that the Queensland Minister for Local Government and Conservation was reported in the Press last year as having said that his Government had submitted for consideration under the National Water Resources Development Programme a proposal for an irrigation scheme on the Broken River, a tributary of the Burdekin River. Commonwealth authorities are, in fact, assisting the Queensland Government in an investigation of the proposed irrigation area and of the potential of the dry land areas adjacent to it. It is envisaged that, when this investigation is completed, the proposed irrigation scheme on the Broken River will be considered by the Commonwealth Government, along with other projects submitted by the States under the National Water Resources Development Programme.

page 1826

VIETNAM

(Question No. 262)

Senator GREENWOOD:

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

  1. With reference to the murder in callous circumstances, the occurrence of which has been related by a credible eyewitness, of three Australian journalists in Saigon on 5th May, does the Prime Minister regard these killings as atrocities of the Vietcong?
  2. Has the Government information as to other atrocities committed by the Vietcong and vouched for by credible witnesses?
  3. Will the Government consider making available details of such atrocities so that the Australian public will be better informed on the horrors to which the South Vietnamese people have been and will be subjected unless satisfactory guarantees are obtained in any peace settlement?

Senator ANDERSON - The Acting Prime Minister has provided me with the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes. 2.Yes.
  2. The following information has been released by the United States authorities. In 1966, 1,618 Vietnamese civilians ‘ were killed and 3,507 kidnapped by the Vietcong; in 1967 3,820 were killed and 5,368 were kidnapped; and so far this year 6,570 have been killed and 4,637 kidnapped. Included among these victims of Vietcong terrorism have been members of parliament (three of whom were abducted or killed in the Tet offensive), district and village chiefs, religious leaders, doctors, nurses, teachers and public health workers. The Vietcong have also murdered or kidnapped foreign doctors, nurses, journalists and civilian workers. Publications providing evidence of these acts of, Vietcong terror have been made available to the Parliamentary Library.

page 1827

VIP FLIGHT

(Question No. 276)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does the supplementary estimate of $302,000 represent only a small portion of the cost of VIP air services in Australia?
  2. When can Parliament expect to know the total cost of VIP air services?

Senator ANDERSON- The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:-

  1. and 2.. $302,000 is the estimate of the cost of VIP flights for the period 1st January to 30th June 1968, based on the Treasury formula which was advised to the Parliament in a statement on VIP aircraft by the late Prime Minister on 24th October 1967.

It was decided that the new procedures announced by the then Prime Minister should be commenced as from 1st January 1968. The actual costs are being progressively brought to account against the estimate and will be known at the end of the financial year.

page 1827

INDONESIA

(Question No. 278)

Senator O’BYRNE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Prime Minister seen Press reports that some of the larger Australian industrial companiesare examining potential fields for investment in Indonesia?
  2. In the event of firm arrangements being made for Australian companies to establish industries in Indonesia, will the Government ensure that a limit is placed on the percentage of profit to be derived in Indonesia, and that the object of Australian investment is the rehabiliation of Indonesia’s industry rather than the traditional objective of exploitation by one country of another country’s natural resources?

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Indonesian Government has indicated that it welcomes the interest of Australian companies in prospects for investment in Indonesia. Such investment could make a useful contribution to the rehabilitation and development of the Indonesian economy.

The terms and conditions on which Australian and other foreign companies will be permitted to invest in Indonesia are a matter for decision by the Government of Indonesia and in this connection the Indonesian Government has introduced comprehensive measures. It is worth noting, however, that under the Commonwealth Government’s scheme to insure Australian investment in overseas countries, including Indonesia, only those investments are approved which will benefit the country in which investment is made as well as Australia.

The Government is unaware of any basis in the experience of Australian companies with investments overseas for a suggestion that Australian firms would seek excessive profits from investment in Indonesia.

page 1827

NATIONAL SERVICE TRAINING

(Question No. 290)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

How many conscripts are currently in detention in Australia under the following categories:

those claiming conscientious objection to military service, qualified or otherwise, and

for other military offences.

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

There are at present eleven national servicemen under detention in Australia. Of these, three are known to have claimed conscientious objection to service under the National Service Act.

page 1827

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 300)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. What is the national total of cases of the following diseases amongst Australian aboriginals and persons of aboriginal descent, for the period 30th June 1967 to 30th April 1968- (a) Tuberculosis, (b) Leprosy, (c) Veneral Disease, (d) Heart

Disease, (e) Mental Illness, (f) Malaria, (g) Cancer, (h) Typhoid Fever, (i) Hookworm, and (j) Gastroenteritis.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply:

  1. The Commonwealth Department of Health does not receive separate disease statistics for Australian Aboriginals or persons of Aboriginal descent.

page 1828

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

(Question No. 31 7)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is it a fact that the maximum thyroid dose (Iodine 131), millirad, accumulated in children during any 12-month period during 1966 and 1967, was 226 at Malanda (North Queensland) as compared with 20 at Hobart-Launceston (Tasmania)?
  2. Is it likely that the same measurement wilt be taken if French nuclear tests in the Pacific are resumed?
  3. Can the danger to children living in the North Queensland area, almost all of whom consume milk products derived from the MalandaAlherton Tableland area, be avoided?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply:

  1. Yes. The data quoted by the honourable senator were included by the National Radiation Advisory Committee in its report of December 1967, to the Prime Minister.
  2. If French nuclear weapon tests are resumed in the South Pacific, monitoring of the concentration of Iodine 131 in daily samples will be undertaken, as in 1966 and 1967, from milk being processed for consumption in Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Hobart, Launceston, Sydney, Brisbane and Rockhampton and from milk produced in the Malanda area of the Atherton Tableland. The National Radiation Advisory Committee will be kept informed of the results of the monitoring and all the data will, as in the past, be published in the scientific literature.
  3. In 1965, the National Radiation Advisory Committee recommended a radiation protection guide for the concentration in milk of Iodine 131 due to fallout. It concluded that there would be no significant consequence to health if the radiation dose to the thyroid of the young child, accumulated in any 12 months period due to this component of fallout, amounted to 840 millirad. In the report referred to in the answer to the first part of the question of the honourable senator, the National Radiation Advisory Committee noted that the maximum thyroid dose accumulated in any 12 months period during 1966 and 1967, due to Iodine 131 in the milk produced in the Malanda area was 27% of the radiation protection guide. In its report of December 1967, the National Radiation Committee, after considering the data on radiation doses to the whole body and to the thyroid, concluded that fallout over Australia from the 166 and 1967 series of French nuclear weapon tests in the South Pacific was of no significance as a hazard to the health of the Australian population. Thus, the National Radiation Advisory Committee has pointed out that there was no danger to the health of children due to Iodine 131 in milk produced in the Malanda area.

page 1828

WOOL

(Question No. 338)

Senator POYSER:

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

  1. Is it a fact that, in 1963, Sir Edwin McCarthy, at the request of the Australian Wool Board and with the approval of the then Minister for Primary Industry, wrote the history and achievements of the post-war wool disposals organisation, the United Kingdom-Dominions Wool Disposals Ltd?
  2. Did the other three Governments who were partners in the scheme, viz. United Kingdom, South Africa and New Zealand, concur in this project?
  3. Has the Australian Wool Board published Sir Edwin’s factual and non-political work in book form with the title, ‘Wool Disposals 1945-52-The Joint Organisation’?
  4. How many copies have been published to date, and what was the total cost - exclusive of any payments to the author?
  5. What is the retail price being charged for the book?
  6. What is the medium of distribution?
  7. Have booksellers been advised of’ its availability and, if so, what is the wholesale price charged?
  8. For the year 1966-67, did woolgrowers pay approximately $l4m in wool tax, and did the Commonwealth Government provide approximately $9m in grants to the Board?
  9. In view of these payments and to ensure the fulfilment of the object of the book’s publication, will the Government recommend to the Wool Board that a free distribution of the book, either in its present form or in a paper back, be made to all woolgrowers, upon application?

Senator McKELLAR- The Acting Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answers to the points raised in the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Yes. Funds for this project were provided from the Wool Research Trust Fund which is jointly financed by woolgrowers and the Commonwealth Government.
  2. The question of compiling a history of the United Kingdom-Dominion Wool Disposals Ltd - commonly known as the Joint Organisation - was discussed some years ago by the Australian representatives on that body with the representatives of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and South Africa and they were in favour of the idea. When the project was eventually undertaken by Australia, the appropriate bodies in the countries concerned co-operated fully in the preparation of the history.
  3. Sir Edwin McCarthy, the author of the history, arranged, al the request of the Australian Wool Board, for the history to be printed in London towards the end of last year.
  4. Two thousand copies of the history have been printed. However, should the demand warrant, the Australian Wool Board will, no doubt, arrange for additional copies to bc printed. The total cost of the project to date, excluding Sir Edwin’s fee, is ?Stg 2,308.
  5. The price charged for the publication to individuals in Australia is SA2.50.
  6. The Australian Wool Board is handling the distribution of the publication.
  7. Bulk supplies of the publication are being shipped to Australia. I have been advised that pending the assessment of the possible demand for the publication by woolgrowers, no decision has yet been taken’ by the Australian Wool Board on the question of making the publication available to booksellers.
  8. In 1966-67 woolgrowers paid approximately $ 1 4.9m in’ wool tax for wool research and promotion - Jim for research and ?1 3.9m for promotion. The Commonwealth Government provided about. S.I 0.8m for these activities - $2m for research and $8.8m for promotion.
  9. 1 have been informed by (he. Wool Board that a limited number of complimentary copies is being made available to all federal woolgrower organisations and their respective State affiliated bodies. Should the organisations require additional copies for their members these will be supplied by the Wool Board at the cost of $2.50 per copy. As this charge represents only about one half of the total cost of each copy the Wool Board considers that the charge is a nominal one and should not deter interested woolgrowers from obtaining a copy. Al the same lime it will assist in defraying some of the cost of the publication.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-(New South Wales - Minister for Supply) - Mr President, with your permission I join with you on behalf of the Government supporters in the Senate, indeed on behalf of all honourable senators, in wishing Mr Healy the very best of good wishes, good luck and good health in his retirement. Earlier tonight we referred to certain honourable senators retiring and made reference to Sir Walter Cooper having had a tremendous length of service here, lt is a matter of historical fact that Mr Healy was here when Sir “Walter came to this place as far back as 1934. lt is true to say also that during the ‘magnificent service that Mr Healy gave he served under six Presidents in the Senate and under len Leaders of the Government rn the Senate He has had a long and distinguished career in this place. We are all very conscious of the wonderful work that the Hansard staff do and Mr Healy, as the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, has been leader of that side of the parliamentary administration. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate I join with you, Sir; in the good wishes that you have extended to him on his retirement.

Senator COHEN (Victoria)- On behalf of Opposition senators ! join in the expressions of goodwill to Mr Healy on his retirement. As the Leader of the Government (Senator - Anderson) has said, his service goes back a long way. He was here to welcome Senator Sir Walter Cooper when he began his second term as a senator: From what I am told, although Mr Healy’s duties have covered both Houses of the Parliament he has had something of a special affection for the Senate. J say that without wishing to appear to be making any invidious comparisons. A good deal of his parliamentary reporting career was’ spent in the Senate.

The leader of the Government has referred to the fact that Mr Healy served under six Presidents and ten Leaders of the Government. I mention for the record that he served under eight Leaders of the Opposition - Senators Barnes, Collings, Mc.Leay, Cooper, Ashley, McKenna, Willesee and Murphy. He is a native of Queensland and had been in Canberra less than a year when that State supplied the only members of the Labor Opposition - Senators Collings, MacDonald and Brown. In 10 years the situation had changed to some degree. Queensland still supplied the three members of the Opposition, but they were Senators O’sullivan, Rankin and Cooper. I am told that Mr Healy heard Sir Isaac Isaacs, the first Australian born Governor-General, open the Fourteenth Parliament on 24th October 1934. In recalling the service of men who have given so much to public institutions, as we did earlier in respect of retiring senators, it is interesting to note that in 1934, when the Fourteenth Parliament was opened, the total Commonwealth Budget was £72m and the provision for defence was only £4m. We seem to have gone a long way since those times. I join with the Leader of the Government in his expressions of appreciation to Mr Healy for his service and good wishes on his retirement.

Senator MCKELLAR (New South Wales - Minister for Repatriation) - Members of the Country Party would like me to endorse the remarks made by the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cohen), to wish Mr Healy a happy retirement, to say ‘thank you’ and farewell to him, and to say ‘congratulations’ to Mr Bridgman.

page 1829

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the silling this day to the day on which the Senate nr.vt meets.

page 1829

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 1829

RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin)- I have to announce that the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr A. K. Healy, will reach the retiring age of 65 years on 18th June after having served the Parliament for nearly 34 years. .

Mr Healy was born and educated in Queensland, and worked as a journalist in Brisbane for 1.2 years before he was appointed to the Parliamentary Reporting Staff in 1934. He was a reporter for 21 years, and after filling several more senior positions in the department he became Principal Parliamentary Reporter in 1964.

Mr Healy established a reputation as a highly efficient parliamentary reporter, and honourable senators who have had business with him in his executive position know him to be an able and faithful servant of the Parliament. I am sure honourable senators would like me, on their behalf, to wish him and his wife many happy years in retirement.

L have also to announce that, upon Mr Healy’s retirement, Mr W. J. Bridgman will be the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr K. R. Ingram the Second Reporter and Mr G. R. Fraser the Third Reporter.

page 1830

VIETNAM

(Question No. 236)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister upon notice:

  1. Did the Government pay the fare from Vietnam to Australia of a newly acquired wife of a national serviceman from New South Wales? If so, which Government Department advanced the fare?
  2. Did the Government pay the fare from Austria lo South Australia of a child who was being adopted by a South Australian family as they preferred lo adopt an unknown child from Austria? If so, which Department advanced the fare?
  3. Did the Department of the Army refuse to pay the fare from Vietnam to Australia of national serviceman, Private t. G. Carter, to attend his mother’s funeral?
  4. Docs the Government ‘ consider thai financial assistance lor a young wife to be reunited with her husband, or for the satisfying of a whim of a family to adopt a child from a foreign country, is more important than assisting a young conscript soldier risking his life for what the Senate is told is in Australia’s defence, to attend [he funeral of and pay his last respects (o a beloved mother, or is it the Government’s policy lo provide such assistance lo foreigners while refusing it to Australians?

Senator ANDERSON- The Acting Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Military financial regulations authorise the Military Board lo approve passages al public expense for the wife and children of a member who marries while posted overseas. The Board has given approval, under these regulations, for the cost of transport to be paid by the Department of- the Army in the case of the wife and children of a member who marries in Vietnam while serving there. provided the requirements of the Department of Immigration are met.
  2. No. An assisted passage was recently provided for a two years old Austrian child whose entry for the purpose of adoption by a South Australian couple had been sought. The ‘application was strongly supported by the South Australian Children’s Welfare authorities and the Austrian Consul as the child was related to the foster parents. Movement was arranged through the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration, the Australian Government making only the normal contribution towards passage COStS as for other migrants moved under the Austrian Assisted Passage Scheme.
  3. The Army, in common with the other Services has adopted certain rules in respect of return to Australia of a serviceman serving overseas in circumstances where the death of a relative has occurred. If there is no other relative, or only a sick relative available lo make the necessary funeral arrangements, the serviceman is given emergency leave and free travel to enable him to return to his home as soon as possible. When such circumstances do not exist, however, the soldier is permitted to take emergency leave, on full pay, but he has to make his own travel arrangements and meet the cost of them unless an indulgence passage can be made available on a service aircraft.

In Private Carter’s case there were other members of the family in a position to make the necessary arrangements and, although the soldier’s presence was not essential for this . purpose, quite properly it was requested. Private Carter ejected to fly to Australia at his own expense as there was no Service aircraft scheduled to depart from Vung Tan on which an indulgence passage could he made available to him.

  1. In each of the above cases the appropriate rules have been correctly applied. The human situations in each case are distinctive and not comparable. Every effort was made in Private Carter’s instance to ascertain whether an indulgence passage could be arranged. This is possible in most cases but regrettably was not on this occasion. Private Carter is to remain in Australia until his National Service requirement is completed in June.

page 1831

VOYAGER ROYAL COMMISSION

(Question No. 274)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What was the total cost of the Second Voyager’ royal commission?
  2. How many lawyers appeared al the commission, and what portion of the total cost was paid to lawyers?

Senator ANDERSON- The Acting Prime Minister has provided the following replies to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. $330,200 has been appropriated by Parliament for the purpose. However, the actual costs are not yet known. There arc claims still outstanding, including some expenses for counsel.
  2. Seventeen counsel and seven firms of solicitors -appeared at the royal commission in addition to the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor.

page 1831

VICTORIAN SALARIES AND WAGES TAX

(Question No. 327)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Will the Prime Minister direct the attention of the Parliament to an official statement by the Commonwealth Government regarding the wages and salaries tax now levied in Victoria?
  2. Can income earners in that State expect that the lax will continue?
  3. Does the Commonwealth Government feel confident that the lax as levied by the State is within the Slate’s constitutional rights?
  4. Does the Commonwealth Government intend lo seek the elimination of this taxing method by the State or other States?
  5. ls il competent for Commonwealth public servants and Commonwealth Government instrumentalities to be called on to pay the turnover and wages tax?

Senator ANDERSON- The Acting Prime Minister has supplied the following answer lo the honourable senator’s questions:

I, 2 and 4. Attention is drawn to the Prime Minister’s press statement of 4 March in which he outlined the Commonwealth’s attitude to the Victorian stamp duty legislation which, inter alia, increased the rate of stamp duty on receipts and widened the classes of receipts subject to duty, -n particular by removing the exemption that had previously applied to receipts of wages and salaries. The correspondence on the matter between 5ir Henry Bolte, Mr Holt and Mr Gorton was released at the same lime. Copies of the statement and the correspondence arc available on request.

Briefly, the Commonwealth has taken the view that the duty as it applies to payments of wages salaries and comparable payments to individuals such as superannuation and pensions is inconsistent with the principle of uniform income taxation and contrary to the basis on which the Commonwealth is providing general revenue grants to the States. The State has therefore been asked to remove the duly from these types of receipts.

The Victorian Government has not removed the duly from receipts of wages and salaries and like payments, lt. has been agreed, however, that the matter should be the subject qf further discussion, both wilh Victoria and Western Australia 3 and 5. These questions seek the expression of legal opinions, lt is not appropriate lo give such opinions in reply to a parliamentary question.

I point- out, however, that, consistent wilh its general attitude on the duty, the Commonwealth has not agreed, as requested by (he Victorian Government, to collect duty payable on the wages -and salaries of its employees.

Senate adjourned at .1.1.3 p.m. till a day and hour to bc fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 June 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19680613_senate_26_s37/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant