Senate
20 November 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1968

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMulIin) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2113

PETITION

Senator MULVIHILL presented a petition from eleven citizens of the Commonwealth praying that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

place an immediate and total ban on the sale of skins, flesh and by-products of all species of kangaroos and wallabies, thus removing the motivation of profit from the slaughter of these animals;

Cb) institute an immediate withdrawal of all existing licences for shooting kangaroos and wallabies in the States of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania;

ensure the strict enforcement of laws protecting these animals in Victoria;

give urgent consideration to granting substantial and adequate areas of land throughout the Commonwealth to be proclaimed as protected reserves for kangaroos, wallabies and other Australian wild life;

consider the rational control of the populations of kangaroos and wallabies in these areas by Commonwealth and/or State rangers qualified in the knowledge of the characters and habits of these animals, and experienced in the efficient and proper use of firearms.

Petition received and read.

page 2113

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Housing inform the Parliament how many national servicemen were eligible for benefit under the war service homes scheme as at 1st November 1968? Do all national servicemen who serve in any country or territory outside Australia qualify for a war service homes loan?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I think I answered most questions relating to this subject during the debate yesterday on the War Service Homes Bill. I shall certainly endeavour to obtain the figures for which the honourable senator has asked. Of course those who serve overseas are eligible if allotted for special duty.

page 2113

QUESTION

TRIMARANS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport by referring lo the questions that I have asked already about trimarans and my request for an inquiry into the loss of a number of trimarans off the Australian coast in recent years. I have mentioned that the vessel ‘Iwaka Toru’ was missing and I have sought an inquiry into the basic safety of the design of these vessels. Is the Minister aware that the missing trimaran has been located abandoned, or not manned, and upside down some 330 miles north-east of Lord Howe Island? Will the Minister take steps to arrange for the boat to be picked up or towed to a place where a full investigation can be made into the cause of the apparent tragedy as part of the investigation that I have already requested?

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

– The honourable senator and Mr Dobie, a member of another place, have shown a continuing interest in the safety of trimarans operating off the coast of Australia. The ‘Iwaka Taru’ left Sydney in August of this year. As the honourable senator said, it has been found about 330 miles north-east of Lord Howe island. When the vessel left Sydney it was manned by eight people. Their present whereabouts are not known. The ship was found upside down by Captain King of the vessel ‘Moanaroi’ and reported only a day or so ago. 1 will ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether it is possible for him to direct his officers to make an investigation to determine what happened to the ‘Iwaka Taru’ and also carry out surveys to ascertain whether trimarans may safely essay long voyages from Australian ports.

page 2113

QUESTION

POSTAL WORKERS CONFERENCE

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs: Is it a fact that the Department of External Affairs has refused Mr H. C. V. Joseph, a Colombo Plan student, permission to attend the annual conference of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union? Mr Joseph, who is General Secretary of the Ceylon Union of Post and Telecommunication Officers - which is affiliated with the internationally recognised telecommunications organisation - apparently was invited to attend the Australian Postal Workers Union’s conference for the purpose of allowing him to listen and observe, as it was felt that that would form a useful part of his studies of the postal industry in Australia. What possible justification can there be for such a high-handed and unco-operative attitude to what would seem to be a reasonable request by a trade union attempting to assist a trade union official from another country?

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

– I know nothing of the circumstances referred to by the honourable senator. I think the proper course for me to follow is to seek the information that the honourable senator requests.

Senator Cohen:

– The conference is on now.

Senator ANDERSON:

– For how long will it last?

Senator Cohen:

– I think about a week.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I will make inquiries this afternoon.

page 2114

QUESTION

SYNTHETIC MEAT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry whether it is correct that Australian patents have been granted for the manufacture of synthetic meat in Australia, and that manufacture is restricted at present to pig meats but is expected to extend to beef steaks. If it is correct, will the Minister take steps to cancel the patents and to stop the production of synthetic meats which would adversely affect not only the Australian meat industry but also the Australian economy as a whole? Have import licences been issued for the importation of Danish and Swedish canned pig meats? Will the Government investigate this matter, as it could seriously affect the Australian pig industry, which is now almost oversupplying the Australian market?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As the honourable senator indicated to me earlier today that he intended to inquire about this matter I sought information from the Minister for Trade and Industry. I would like to advise honourable senators with your permission, Mr President, that where they give notice to me of their intention to ask questions the answers to which will not be within my immediate knowledge I will always try to accommodate them by obtaining quick replies. The information I have been supplied with is that a number of Australian patents have been granted for synthetic meat manufacturing processes. Some of the patents issued relate to general processes which would include the manufacture of most meat types. As far as I am aware, synthetic meat is not presently being manufactured in Australia.

With regard to imports of canned pig meat, import licences are not required. However, imports must comply with Australian health and quarantine requirements. I understand that imports of canned pig meat from countries such as Denmark and Sweden will be permitted only with the written consent of the Commonwealth Director of Quarantine. The consent of the Director will not be given unless the government of the exporting country can provide satisf actory evidence that its system of meat inspection, standard of hygiene and premises, temperature control and the like are substantially equivalent to, and as efficient as, those required by Australia in respect of exports from this country. In this regard I understand that no consent has been given to imports from Denmark or Sweden in recent months. Finally I would like to point out that imports of meat into Australia represent a very small proportion of our total production and consumption. However, it is open to all industries, both primary and secondary, to seek protection, either by increases in duties or by antidumping action, against market disruption by imports.

page 2114

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate explain why the Prime Minister informed Britain, Singapore and Malaysia 2 months ago of a defence decision of magnitude but failed to inform this Parliament and the Australian people at the same time? Can he expl’ain the Prime Minister’s arrogant indifference to the rights of the Parliament in this and other vital matters?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I think that the honourable senator’s question is based on an assumption. I assure him that no action by the Prime Minister in respect of Australia’s defence responsibility has shown any arrogance or any disregard of the Parliament. What the Prime Minister said in another place is now in Hansard for people to read. The fact is that in matters of defence, where one is dealing with another nation or other nations, certain prerequisites have to be met in relation to any arrangements that have to be dealt with. I think the honourable senator and the Senate would recognise that the affairs of nations and affairs between nations are not dealt with in the Parliament, at question time or any other time, until there is a clear understanding between the nations concerned of what the mutual arrangements are. All these matters are inherent in the question. 1 believe that they have been met by the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place.

page 2115

QUESTION

KODIAK PACKAGING MATERIALS CO

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that the Kodiak Packaging Material’s Co., of North Ryde, New South Wales, with sixty employees, is retrenching valuable staff because of large scale imports of pressure sensitive adhesive materials and gummed materials that it manufactures? Will he intercede immediately to save this company and its employees, for, whilst a hearing on plastics, which covers part of the company’s range of products, is now before the Tariff Board, the company is afraid-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator is giving too much information. He must ask his question.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– I am asking my question.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator is giving too much information at the same time.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Will the Minister intercede immediately to save the company and its employees for, whilst there is a hearing on plastics which covers part of the company’s range of products now before the Tariff Board, the company is afraid that it will be out of business before the report finally goes before the Minister?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As I understand the question, the honourable senator is suggesting that a certain company is being injuriously affected, that its industry is being put at risk and prejudiced by certain importations. He acknowledges that a current

Tariff Board inquiry will deal with some of the imports in question, but he says that because of the time taken in concluding the inquiry irreparable damage can be done to the company before the report is submitted. I would point out to the honourable senator that there is machinery available whereby reference may be made to. the Special Advisory Authority to meet emergencies of this type. Under that machinery it. is competent for the company concerned to make representations to the Department of Trade and industry and to the Minister seeking that the position be treated as an emergency and given urgent consideration by the Special Advisory Authority. In this way what is termed a holding position is created. Sir Frank Meere is that Authority. But application must first be made to the Department and the Minister. I shall certainly put the honourable senator’s question before the Minister for Trade and Industry and ask whether this may be a case in which a holding position may be taken for a short time by making special reference to the Special Advisory Authority.

page 2115

QUESTION

CONTAINER METHOD OF HANDLING CARGOES

Senator YOUNG:

– I address a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Has the Minister seen Press reports staling that the British railways are having problems in transporting containers which are bigger than 8 feet by 8 feet by 20 feet or 8 feet by 8 feet by 40 feet as recommended by the International Standards Association? Can the Minister say whether Australia will conform to the standard of containers measuring 8 feet by 8 feet by 20 feet as set by the International Standards Organisation so that the necessary use of rail transportation will not be restricted by the problems of clearing tunnels and bridges?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I am aware of Press reports relating to the problems experienced by the British railway system in transporting containers which are in excess of 8 feet high. The Australian standard specification for international freight containers is the size recommended by the Executive Committee of the Australian Standards Association. Such containers are 8 feet high. Another size recommended is 8 ft 6 in. Containers of both sizes present no difficulty to the Australian railways systems in transporting them under bridges or through tunnels. It is therefore anticipated that when containerisation is introduced into Australia the recommended heights of between 8 ft and 8 ft 6 in will present no bar to such containers being handled by our railway systems.

page 2116

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it a fact that on Saturday, 16th November 1968, two overseas aircraft were forced to land at Meekatharra Airport because Perth Airport was closed by fog? Were there approximately 300 persons aboard the two aircraft? What facilities are available at Meekatharra Airport for large groups of people to remain for several hours? Were food and drink available for the passengers and crew? Was the temperature 90 degrees at 8 a.m. that day? In view of the fact that Meekatharra is an isolated township in the inland of Western Australia does the Minister regard it as a suitable place for an alternative airport for overseas aircraft?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– On rare occasions when the Perth Airport is closed aircraft land at an alternative site at Meekatharra, some 400 miles north-east of Perth. I have no knowledge of the particular instance referred to by the honourable senator, but 1 do know that on other occasions overseas aircraft have landed at Meekatharra and that the passengers have been catered for as well as a small township such as that could cater for them. In view of the fact that the honourable senator says that two aircraft landed at Meekatharra on the one day, I shall ask the Minister what happened and how the passengers were treated, and obtain an answer for him.

Senator Cant:

– Shall I put the question on the notice paper?

Senator SCOTT:

– If you like.

page 2116

QUESTION

PHOSPHATIC ROCK

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for National Development any further information to give the Senate on the investigations of the deposits of phosphatic rock in the

Cloncurry area of Queensland? Are the new techniques of manufacture which apparently have been evolved overseas likely to have any effect on the development of this field of phosphatic rock?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I am aware that huge deposits of phosphatic rock have been discovered in the Cloncurry area by Broken Hill South Ltd. Deposits in excess of 1,300 million tons containing 18% phosphoric acid have been located. By world standards this is a huge discovery, but because it is inland there are problems associated with the transportation of the rock phosphate to the manufacturing areas of Australia. I understand that the company is making a survey to see what possibilities there are of bringing the deposits to fruition in the future.

page 2116

QUESTION

BUSH FIRES

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister in charge of civil defence. Because of the prevalence of near century temperatures in many parts of Australia which will hasten conditions leading to serious bush fires, will the Minister inform the Senate whether any progress is being made in co-ordinating and equipping State civil defence units to assist State rural fire authorities in fire fighting and fire prevention? Will the Minister state also whether any Commonwealth-wide plans are proposed to treat bush fires, wherever they occur, as a national responsibility and the repeated disasters arising from bush fires as a state of affairs no longer tolerable?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The honourable senator has related his question to civil defence and, as such, I understand that part of it would be directed to me as the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. The honourable senator asked about bush fires and what is happening to protect Australia against the ravages of fires. T inform him that the Forestry and Timber Bureau of the Department of National Development has a fire fighting section which maintains a watching brief on fire hazards as they affect Australia. The Bureau has carried out with the States a survey to Bud out whether aircraft can be used satisfactorily for bombing bush fires. Although in some instances aircraft can be used successfully against a small fire which has broken out for the first time, it has not been accepted by the Bureau or iis advisers that aircraft are successful in fighting large scale fires in eucalypt forests. The Bureau is investigating possible use of helicopters for fighting bush fires. It has found that because helicopters are capable of transporting fire fighters to the scene veg quickly after being notified of a fire, that might be a more successful way of fighting fires. But, of course, it is beyond the Government to fight fires alone; it is necessary to have the full co-operation of local authorities and the people within them to fight bush fires successfully.

page 2117

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the admission by the Minister for External Affairs in a recent lecture of a deplorable tendency on the part of Ministers to involve public servants too deeply in their ministerial affairs? Is he also aware of a statement by the Secretary of the Canberra branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association that the Minister for External Affairs should have the courage of his convictions and that Mr McEwen, the Minister for Trade and Industry, involved his staff in his politics to the great concern of the (Public Service? What action is being taken to remedy these deplorable tendencies, and will the Government make a statement to this Senate on what safeguards exist to protect departments of the Public Service from being turned into political instruments of Ministers?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As I recall it, the Minister for External Affairs made a supplementary comment in which he made it abundantly clear that he was speaking from broad experience over a very long period, and he was most careful in his follow up statement to make it categorically clear that he was not making reference to any particular Minister. I gather that Senator (Murphy introduced the name of the Minister for Trade and Industry as a result of an article. I do not think I have any responsibility to answer something when somebody chooses to introduce the name (of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia in that fashion. As for the other part of the question, I see no reason why a statement should be made here at all.

The Public Service of Australia is a wonderful public service. It does a magnificent job. It has its own Professional Officers Association and its own Public Service Act under which it is administered, and I am quite certain that there is no need for me as the representative in this place of the Prime Minister, or for any other Minister, to make any statement on an address given by the Minister for External Affairs after he has gone to the trouble, lest there be any misunderstanding, to follow it up with a further statement clarifying the position.

page 2117

QUESTION

KIDNEY BANK

Senator RAE:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the call made yesterday by Professor Mitchell, who is the Professor of Surgery at the University of Tasmania, for the establishment of a kidney bank to reduce some of the problems arising in relation to the saving of lives by kidney transplants? Is this a field in which the Commonwealth department could assist the States iri the establishment of such a bank?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Yes, I did see the article. I ilo not know whether this could be done. It would be a matter for the States themselves to decide the kind of bank they should have for this type of thing. 1 shall be pleased to put the question before the Minister for Health and will endeavour to get the, honourable senator a reply.

page 2117

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 address my question to the Minister for Housing. Are national servicemen who serve only in Australia eligible for a war service homes loan? How many national servicemen have applied after discharge for war service homes loans? How many applications have been granted and how many- have been rejected?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Yesterday, in the debate on the War Service Homes Bill, I gave conditions of eligibility. I said that national servicemen who served overseas in special areas and fulfilled the conditions of eligibility were able to get a war service home. The honourable senator has asked a detailed question about numbers of applications. It v/ould be only proper that I obtain this information for him. I could not at the moment give him the exact numbers.

page 2118

QUESTION

EUROPEAN LAUNCHER DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Supply whether he has yet received an evaluation of the results stemming from the Bonn conference, held last week, on space probing and other associated matters. As a result of that conference can the Minister tell the Senate anything about the future work load of his Department at Woomera and Salisbury in South Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

- Mr President, on 14th November I indicated to the Senate that further information would be available at the conclusion of the European Space Conference which was being held at that time. The information I now have does not add a great amount to what I have said previously. There will be some subsequent studies in relation to this information. Decisions emerging from the Conference confirmed the probability of continued use by the European Launcher Development Organisation of our facilities at Woomera until about the end of 1969. A few problems remain to be resolved between member states of ELDO concerning the ELDO programme. Until these are resolved it is not possible to be completely confident of the future programme. However, we believe, on all the evidence available to us at this time, that the programme will continue.

The European Space Conference also studied broad proposals for future space programmes and a proposal for a unified organisation to control Europe’s space activities. We will need to study the detailed plans which evolved from the broad programme outlines that the European Space Conference considered in order to ascertain whether there is any future work likely to be available to us in Australia. However, with the development of ELDO’s own launching site at Ghana, to which I have referred previously, it seems doubtful whether much worthwhile activity will come our way as a result of the transfer to Ghana. The proposed full membership conditions for the new European space organisation could impose a considerable financial burden on us without commensurate return. There is, however, likely to be provision for associate membership on conditions expected to be more acceptable to Australia. There is to be further dis cussion relating to the future. programmes and the membership arrangements in about one year’s time. During the intervening period more detailed programmes and a draft convention will be prepared for consideration by the nations. It will be closely studied and analysed to see what’ advantage it can be for Australia and the Woomera programming. It largely will determine the future role in relation to European space activities.

We feel reasonably confident that we will have, firings next year. These will take us to the end of 1969. At best we thought we would have only one firing beyond that time. I think the Ghana concept evolved some 12 months ago. I will keep the Senate informed from time to time. Present indications are that our satellite firing at Woomera will take place at the weekend. I shall be informing those honourable senators who will be present of the exact time as soon as possible.

page 2118

QUESTION

PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICERS

Senator COHEN:

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate - it is supplementary to the question asked of him by the Leader of the Opposition - on the subject of the recent controversial address given by the Minister for External Affairs. My question is: In view of the answer that the Leader of the Government gave to the Leader of the Opposition, does he seriously expect us to accept that in Mr Haslucks lecture, as in all the respected works of fiction, no reference was intended to any living person?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Here again, Mr President, I am suggesting that the honourable senator is misinterpreting my words. I do not recall having made any reference to any living person at all. I will be interested to read-

Senator Cohen:

– I asked the Minister whether he expected us to treat it like a work of fiction.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Everybody has to make his own judgment in these matters, Mr President.

page 2118

QUESTION

BANANA INDUSTRY

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the

Minister aware that banana growers on the north coast of New South Wales are fearful of glut conditions once again taking place this season in the large southern markets of Newcastle, Sydney and Melbourne? ls the Minister aware also that the already severe economic difficulties of these banana growers have been added to considerably in recent days by very severe bushfires which have burnt out a number of plantations on the north coast of New South Wales? Will the Minister immediately draw the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry to the problems of these people and ask the Minister to send officers of his Department to the banana growing areas to see whether it is at all possible for the Commonwealth to assist these people to overcome their near-insurmountable problems?

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

– As the Minister for Primary Industry comes from the area mentioned by the honourable senator, I am quite sure that no need exists at all for me to draw his attention to the conditions existing and as outlined by the honourable senator.

Senator McClelland:

– He is not doing much about those conditions to date.

Senator McKELLAR:

– That is the opinion of the honourable senator. It is not mine. However, I will convey the question to the Minister to see whether any action may be taken that has not been taken already.

page 2119

QUESTION

WOOD-CHIP INDUSTRY

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. On 8th October last I gave notice of question No. 591 which reads:

In view of the serious concern in Western Australia as to the future of the wood-chip industry, will the Minister make an early statement to Parliament as to the precise nature of the restrictions imposed on the export of wood-chips and the reasons for their imposition, and in the light of action recently taken by the Western Australian Government, whether it is proposed that the restrictions be relaxed?

Subsequently, I have asked the Minister whether he can expedite the reply to this question because some very serious concern is being fell about it. The Minister said that he would do so. Still no reply has been given. In view of the fact that quite considerable concern has been expressed about this matter in Western Australia, and as the Parliament will be rising shortly, can the Minister give me any indication as to when an answer is likely to be given to this question?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– All 1 can say is that I will take this matter up again with the Minister for National Development to see whether I can expedite a reply to the honourable senator.

page 2119

QUESTION

MARRIAGES

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Over the past week, I have refrained from asking further questions on secular marriages, hoping to receive some advice from the Minister, but in vain. Can the Minister now inform me whether his Department has made any progress towards giving full rights in all States to those who wish to marry in registry offices?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– As I remember, this matter was debated fully in the Senate within the past fortnight and for quite a considerable period. I am not conscious of any obligation upon me to provide any further inquiry. My recollection of the debate revealed to me no administrative channel m which action on my part or on the part of the Attorney-General was appropriate.

page 2119

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Senator KEEFFE:

– I preface my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by reminding him that a week ago I asked whether the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs would take appropriate action to ensure that a boat was made available to convey passengers from Thursday Island to Moa Isaland for the opening of a co-operative bakery there on Friday next, 22nd November. The Minister replied

I do not know of the circumstances, but I shall have the honourable senator’s question directed to the Prime Minister’s Department and hope to get an answer expeditiously for him.

As the official opening of the bakery will take place within 48 hours can the Minister inform the Senate whether a boat was obtained and, if it was, the number of passengers the boat can carry? If the boat was not made available, why was it not made available?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– 1 must admit to the honourable senator that I do not have the information. In view of the point he now makes I shall try to ascertain the position this afternoon.

Senator Keeffe:

– It is too late now.

Senator ANDERSON:

– At least I. can obtain some information on the current position. I would hope to be able to convey it’ to the honourable senator later this afternoon.

page 2120

QUESTION

MARRIAGES

Senator MURPHY:

– My question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General follows that asked of him by Senator Georges. Is not the Attorney-General responsible for the administration of the Marriage Act? Is it not clear from what was said in the Senate in the previous discussions referred to by the Minister that those persons who wished to marry in Queensland at a ceremony other than one performed by a minister of religion were not able to do so at registry offices on week-ends, in particular - not even on a Saturday morning - although this facility was available to citizens in a similar position in Sydney and Melbourne? Why does this discrimination exist? Why does the Minister claim that there is no administrative responsibility to correct this situation?

Snator WRIGHT- I said that the administration of this Act from the point of view of the operation of marriage registries was carried on through State instrumentalities, and I should think that it would be for the States, within their various boundaries, to prescribe the hours during which marriages could take place and to arrange for officers to be available at those times. I was indicating that I was not persuaded that there was any necessity to intervene in the arrangements in Queensland to meet the need that Senator Georges was advocating. That was the result of the debate as far as I am concerned.

page 2120

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Further to the question just asked of the Leader of the Government by Senator Keeffe I should like to point out that Moa Island in Torres Strait is not a native reserve and that people are free to go and come as they please.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– In the circumstances is there any obligation on State or Federal authorities to provide transport from Thursday Island to Moa Island as requested?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I think an answer to the supplementary question should await the information that I obtain. I then will be able to give a comprehensive reply to both Senator Keeffe and Senator Lawrie.

page 2120

QUESTION

MARRIAGES

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Is it not within the power of the Attorney-General to authorise celebrants other than ministers of religion to perform marriages for those persons who wish to be married by celebrants other than ministers of religion? Why can that not be done by the appointment of responsible persons in the community to meet the public demand for marriages during the weekend, if the Queensland State authorities refuse to make available the same facilities as are made available in New South Wales and Victoria?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It is within the authority of the Attorney-General lo approve celebrants. He has taken the responsible course of confining his approvals to well recognised personnel. I shall ask him to consider the honourable senator’s proposal.

page 2120

QUESTION

CRANES

(Question No. 360)

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What is the total value of dockside and gantry cranes manufactured in Australia?
  2. How many Australian manufactured cranes have been used (a) in Australia, and (b) in overseas countries?
  3. Have any of the 7i-<ton ‘Kangaroo’ type grabbing cranes been exported to Asian countries?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers: 1 and 2. Official statistics are not available to answer the precise questions asked by the honourable senator. However, he may be interested to know that the Australian production of hoists, cranes and lifting machinery - excluding agriculturalwas valued at $18m in 1965-66 and $22m in 1966-67, the last 2 years for which statistics are available. Exports of Australian made power operated cranes were valued at $390,000 and $642,000 in 1966-67 and 1967-68 respectively, while exports of hoists and other lifting machinery including hand operated cranes were valued at J257,000 and $30S,000 in the same 2 years. A new commodity classification was introduced in 1966-67 and comparable details are not available for earlier years.

  1. The Australian manufacturer of ‘Kangaroo’ type grabbing cranes advises that there have been no exports of these types of cranes from Australia to Asian markets.

page 2121

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

(Question No. 452)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. To what extent is the aluminium industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  2. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of fa) sources of raw material, (b) the existing or proposed refineries, and (c) the manufacturing section of the industry?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers:

  1. There are two integrated aluminium complexes in Australia at present - Alcoa of Australia Ltd and Comalco Industries Pty Ltd. These companies carry out bauxite mining at Jarrahdale, Western Australia, and Weipa, Queensland, respectively, process the bauxite io alumina at Kwinana, Western Australia and Bell Bay. Tasmania, and then to aluminium metal at Point Henry, Victoria, and Bell Bay. Tasmania, and have semi-fabricating facilities. There are a number of fabricating firms, the more important of which are Alcan Australia Ltd, Dowell Australia Pty Ltd and Kawneer Company Pty Ltd. Queensland Alumina Limited is engaged in the production of alumina at Gladstone, Queensland. Companies engaged in the development of other activities include Alcan Australia Ltd - construction of aluminium smelter at Kurri Kurri, New South Wales; Alcan Queensland Pty Ltd - lo mine bauxite near Weipa from .1977; Nabalco Pty Ltd- to mine bauxite and produce alumina at Gove; and Amax Bauxite Corporation - investigating bauxite occurrences in the Kimberley region of Western Australia.

The degree of overseas ownership of the above companies is shown in the following table:

  1. In relation to existing and proposed alumina refineries, the situation is as follows:

For aluminium smelters the position is:

page 2123

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 496)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Minister for Social Services, at an international conference held in New York, make the statement: ‘We have’ no laws restricting free emigration and our citizens are at liberty to come and go as they like”? If so, is the Minister for Social Services aware of the National Service Act?
  2. Are not 20-year-old males restricted in their freedom to come and. go under that Act?
  3. What would be the position if a person eligible for national service desired to emigrate?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. When at the United Nations meeting in New York the Minister for Social Services did in fact contrast the general freedom of Australian citizens to leave the country as they like, with the tight penal laws which are used by Iron Curtain countries to imprison their own nationals within their boundaries. 2 and 3. The National Service Act 1951-1968 provides that a person who has registered or is liable to register for national service shall not leave Australia before commencing to render service, or after having commenced to render service but before completing it, unless be has obtained the permission in writing of the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service. Each application is determined in the light of the particular circumstances but permission to leave Australia is, for example, readily granted to registrants who have no further liability to render service, and to migrants who have been in Australia for less than 2 years and wish to leave rather than be called up.

page 2123

QUESTION

HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD

(Question No. 589)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Has the Minister investigated complaints of the attitude adopted by the firm of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd at the Western Australian port of Dampier to migrant employees?
  2. Was a Polish migrant employed by the catering firm of Poon Bros dismissed under circumstances lacking in natural justice?
  3. Were this migrant worker, and a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union who defended him, ordered out of town at a few hours notice?
  4. Did the justice of the peace who presided at an early court hearing involving these members also happen to be the medical officer for Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd?
  5. What is the present position in regard to the employment status of the Polish migrant and his AEU good Samaritan?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

Because of the lapse of time - the incident to which the question refers occurred 5 months ago - it has taken some time to obtain the necessary information.

  1. I am not aware of any complaints about the attitude of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd towards migrant employees. 2 and 3. A Polish migrant employed by a subcontractor of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, not by Poon Bros, was one of three men allegedly involved in a violent disagreement with Poon Bros’ catering officer about June last. I am informed that they were transferred to workin another location away from Dampier.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Polish migrant is believed now to be self-employed as a prospector. Of the other two men, one is reported to be working in Perth for the same sub-contractor mentioned above, but the employment status of the other is not known.

page 2123

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY DRAFTSMEN

(Question No. 602)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. For how long has there been an acute shortage of parliamentary draftsmen in the Commonwealth Service?
  2. What remedial steps have been taken over the last 5 years, and with what results?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answers:

  1. The shortage is of long standing.
  2. I refer the honourable senator to the answer given on 5th November 1968 to Question No. 498, asked by Senator Devitt. The two persons mentioned in that answer as having been selected for appointment have now taken up duty.

page 2123

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 731)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy upon notice:

Did the Minister recently state that 80% of Royal Australian Navy personnel would get pay rises as from 5th December 1968? If so, will the Minister furnish a table setting out the Service classification of the 80% who will receive such benefits and listing the other 20% who will not receive any salary increase?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answer:

Yes, it is a fact that about 80% of our 14,000 naval sailors will receive pay rises from the new group pay system, and it is planned to pay the new rates and arrears on 5th December 1968.

The categories who will receive increases are: Seaman Branch - All ranks.

Communications Branch - All ranks.

Engineering Branch - All ranks except engine room artificer 2nd class (without engine room watchkeeping certificate) and some naval shipwrights.

Electrical Branch - All ranks.

Supply and Secretariat Branch - All ranks except some chief cooks and chief stewards.

Medical Branch - All ranks.

Dental Branch - Dental mechanics and dental hygienists.

Musician Branch - All ranks.

Regulating Branch - All ranks.

Air Branch - All ranks except some chief petty officer categories.

The 20% of sailors who will not receive any immediate increases, are mainly recruits, apprentices and junior sailors under training. Additionally, there are some 300 trained sailors who receive no increases and these are mostly in the Engineering and Dental Branches; that is, mostly engine room artificers 2nd class without engineroom watchkeeping certificates, naval shipwrights 2nd class and dental assistants. The 20% also includes some 400 senior sailors who have been placed on non-reduction allowances because of changes introduced in the Navy’s good conduct badge pay provisions, to align them with the Army and Air Force.

The detailed effect of the Navy’s change to the group pay system may been seen from a set of pay tables which has been placed in the Parliamentary Library. This shows a comparison of the pay rates under the former common pay scale with the new group pay rates, together with a statement of arrears of pay for the period 1st March 1968 to 21st November 1968.

page 2124

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY SALINITY DISPOSAL

(Question No. 735)

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Are the pumping stations at the Barr Creek and Lake Hawthorn salinity disposal schemes in operation, following the completion of the $3.6m project provided to arrest the flow of saline water into the Murray River? If not, will the Minister ascertain the reason?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answer:

The two schemes referred to by the honourable senator, which were approved last December for inclusion in the national water resources development programme, were placed in service about nine months later - in September of this year.

However both schemes are designed for intermittent operation. In both cases the pumping stations and pipelines have capacities considerably greater than would be required to match the losses? from the evaporating surfaces, on the basis of continuous operation. Although conditions and requirements differ in the two cases, both schemes are designed so that saline water can be pumped out of the Murray system at a relatively high rate when this is required.

The purpose of the Barr Creek scheme is to pump water away to an evaporating basin when the combination of saline flow in Barr Creek and flow in the River Murray is such that undesirable salinities are likely to occur in the Murray. As an illustration, the pumps operated for 16 days in late September and early October, and in that period water containing 6,000 tons of salt which would otherwise have entered ‘the Murray was diverted to the evaporating basin. Subsequently, because of higher Rows in the River Murray the saline flow from Barr Creek was not such as to cause any serious concern, and pumping was suspended.

In the case of the Lake Hawthorn scheme, Lake Hawthorn itself acts as an evaporating basin and the pumps are to be operated only whenit reaches the planned operating level. In this case also, it is necessary to be selective in the periods during which the pumps operate, and on the other hand, when there are high flows in the Murray, a limited quantity of saline water may be allowed to flow into it.

Thus the two schemes can’ be expected to take the peaks off the salinities which would otherwise occur in the Murray. They were not put forward as a complete solution to the problem, but as the best means of providing some’ early relief.

page 2124

QUESTION

FISHERIES NEWSLETTER

(Question No. 740)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

  1. What is the annual cost of printing the jour nal ‘Australian Fisheries Newsletter’?
  2. What is the annual cost of postage?
  3. What is the annual amount of revenue received from the sale of advertising space in the journal?
  4. What is the specific annual allocation for administrative expenditure incurred for the payment of salaries for departmental officers connected with the preparation and publication of the journal?
  5. Who is the actual publisher of ‘Australian Fisheries Newsletter’? 6.Are tenders called for the printing and publication of the journal?
  6. What is the total cost of the journal to the Department of Primary Industry? . .
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. The cost of printing the journal ‘Australian Fisheries Newsletter’ in the 1967-68 financial year was $27,259.59.
  2. Cost of postage for 1967-68 was $2,863.61.
  3. Net revenue payable from advertising space was $16,379.22 in 1967-68.
  4. ‘Australian Fisheries Newsletter’ is produced by an editor (journalist Grade AI - salary $7,278).
  5. Fisheries Branch, Department of Primary Industry under the authority of the Minister for Primary Industry.
  6. Yes.
  7. Total cost of publishing and distributing Australian Fisheries Newsletter’ in 1967-68 was (30,928. Estimated total expenditure for publishing and distributing ‘Australian Fisheries Newsletter’ in 1968-69 is $33,000. Estimated net revenue payable from advertising space in 1968-69 is$22,000.

page 2125

QUESTION

FISHING

(Question No. 742)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

When was the last sighting made of Japanese fishermen working their vessels within the 12- mile area off the coast of New South Wales?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The following information has been supplied by the Minister for Primary Industry in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Since the 12-mile exclusive fishing zone came into force on 3rd January 1968 no reports have been received by the Department of any Japanese fishing operations within thezone off the New South Wales coast.

page 2125

QUESTION

CEDUNA EARTH STATION

(Question No. 746)

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. What were the prime cost items, amounting to $43,525, in the construction of the earth station at Ceduna, South Australia, which were not included in the original specifications of tender for this job?
  2. Why were tenders not invited for the building of the tower base at Ceduna?
  3. What is the cost of construction of this tower base?
  4. Why were five firms invited to tender forthe construction of an earth station at Ceduna before public tenders were called for the contract?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answer:

The Ceduna earth station is being established by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, at a cost of approximately $4,000,000. The Commission, as a statutory authority, has negotiated all necessary contracts, including that for the station building to which this question relates, and has provided the following answers:

  1. The specification on which tenders were called included an amount of $206,475 to cover prime cost items such as mechanical and airconditioning services, electrical services, internal telephone service, landscaping works, etc. Subsequently it was decided, on the basis of quotations received for some of these items, that the overall provision was insufficient and it was increased to $250,000. This resulted in the addition to each tender price of an amount of $43,525, which relates to the whole range of prime cost items rather than to any particular item. 2 and 3. The Commission called world-wide tenders for the provision and erection of the antenna - a major element of the earth station complex - and let the contract to Mitsubishi (Australia) Pty Ltd. This contract includes responsibility for provision of the concrete tower for the antenna. The Commission was not concerned in the letting of a sub-contract for this item by the prime contractor, and has no knowledge of the details, including price, of the contract.
  2. The normal practice of the Commission is to call public tenders. Immediately it became known that the Sydney architects engaged for this project were following the alternative procedure of inviting selected contractors to tender, they were instructed to begin again and call public tenders. This was done, and the tenders subsequently considered were those received in response to the advertisement.

page 2125

QUESTION

EMBASSY STAFFS

(Question No. 764)

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the Minister noted the details of a reported decision of the British Government to limit the size of the staff of the Russian Embassy in London?
  2. Does the Department of External Affairs in Australia maintain any details of embassy staffs in Canberra and does it, within the propriety of diplomacy, watch both the size and structure of their staffs as far as Australian security is concerned?
  3. Is the Department of External Affairs in a position to control the size of embassy staffs if circumstances endangering Australia’s security are evident?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following replies:

  1. The Minister has noted the report concerning the size of the staff of the Soviet Embassy in London. 2 and 3. The Department of External Affairs maintains details of the staffs of embassies in Canberra and is able to exercise controls over their size and structure within the terms of existing international agreements on this matter.

page 2126

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 780)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

With reference to the joint communique issued by President Tito of Yugoslavia and the Australian Minster for External Affairs, did the agenda of the discussions between the President and the Minister include consideration of an immigration agreement between the two nations?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Externa] Affairs has supplied the following reply:

During my talks with President Tito, friendly reference was made on both sides to the immigrants coming to Australia from Yugoslavia. Any detailed discussion will proceed through other channels.

page 2126

QUESTION

POSTAL WORKERS CONFERENCE

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Earlier this afternoon Senator Cohen asked me a question about a Mr Joseph. I have sought information and 1 understand that the matter is currently before the Minister for External Affairs. The information that 1 have at this point is that the Ceylon Government did not request training in union matters for Mr Joseph and the Department of External Affairs was not. aware of Mr Joseph’s union position. Indeed, the request from the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union was not made through the Department. If further information becomes available I shall inform the honourable senator.

page 2126

QUESTION

SOVIET NATIONAL DAY RECEPTION

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 6th November 1968 Senator Cavanagh asked a number of questions about Government representation at the Soviet National Day reception. In reply I undertook to seek the information for him, and the Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

The Government was officially represented by two officers of the Department of External Affairs at the National Day reception given by the Soviet Embassy in Canberra on 6th November. These two officers were the acting First Assistant Secretary in Charge of European Affairs and the Chief of Protocol. This was the level of official representation which the Government considered appropriate in the circumstances.

page 2126

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– Yesterday Senator Keeffe asked a question regarding the

International Sugar Agreement. He addressed the question to me as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I told the honourable senator that I would make inquiries. I have since found that the question should have been addressed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. I was not aware that the honourable senator had put the question on notice - I have no quarrel about that - but I now have an answer provided by the Minister for Trade and Industry. As the honourable senator would know, the Minister for Trade and Industryled the Australian delegation at the recent sugar conference and the new International Sugar Agreement will be open for signature at the United Nations headquarters in New York shortly. Accordingly, no country will have yet signed the agreement, which will be open for signature until and including 24th December. The Minister advises that steps are being taken for Australia to sign and it is expected that most other countries will also sign by the clue date.

page 2126

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a statement in relation to the conventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference at its forty-ninth, 1965, session.

page 2126

HOLLYWOOD REPATRIATION GENERAL HOSPITAL

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator PROWSE (Western Australia)I present the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the following proposed work:

Para-medical Building and Occupational Therapy Day Centre, Hollywood Repatriation General Hospital, Western Australia.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The summary of recommendations and conclusions of the Committee is as follows:

  1. It is a practical arrangement to relocate the occupational therapy, X-ray and pathology departments in the para-medical building.
  2. There is a need to provide new accommodation for the occupational therapy, X-ray and pathology departments.
  3. There is a need for an occupational therapy day centre.
  4. The para-medical building should be air conditioned.
  5. The proposal to provide a new chiller plant is the most satisfactory and economic means of providing chilled water for air-conditioning.
  6. The sites selected for all buildings are suitable.
  7. The Committee recommends the construction of the work in this reference.
  8. The estimated cost of the proposed work when referred to the Committee was $950,000.

page 2127

GOVERNMENT OIL POLICY

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– As I indicated in this place yesterday I propose to table documents relating to the Government’s agreement with Esso-BHP and the Government’s policy on the use of Australian indigenous crude oil. I lay on the table the following papers:

Aide Memoir

Letter, dated 14th November 1968, written by the Comptroller-General of Customs.

page 2127

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I lay on the table the supplementary report of the Auditor-General upon other accounts for the year ended 30th June 1967.

page 2127

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT OIL POLICY

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - I understand from the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) that he has tabled certain papers pursuant to the question which I asked him yesterday when he undertook to table papers. I had intended to move a notice of motion and because of that I was able to give him a copy of the proposed notice. I asked for the tabling of papers referred to in that notice of motion. I am now informed by the Minister that only one of the paragraphs referred to in the proposed notice of motion and in the question which I read out yesterday has actually been complied with. I say on behalf of the Opposition that the Minister undertook to table the papers and that we would expect him to comply with his undertaking which was made to the Senate in response to the question which I asked of him.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– by leave - On Thursday of last weekI was asked a question by Senator McClelland as to whether I would be prepared to table certain documents in relation to an agreement between the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and Esso-BHP on indigenous crude oil from Bass Strait. J answered the honourable senator’s question by saying thatI would look into the matter and if it was possible I would certainly table the papers. Right at the beginning of the sitting yesterday I received notice from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) that he intended to seek leave to move a motion in relation to the tabling of documents.

  1. undertook that if he did not seek leave to move a motion on the next day of sitting and if he asked a question on the matter, I would answer favourably in relation to the tabling of documents.I did answer to the effect that the documents would be tabled, intending that (he same documents as were tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) in another place would be tabled in the Senate. Those documents covered three aspects: firstly, the aides-memoir used by the Prime Minister when he was consulting with the managers of Esso-BHP in relation to an agreement on oil; secondly, a submission by the company as to what it thought it should get by way of payment for the crude oil after 17th September 1970; and, thirdly, a letter written by the ComptrollerGeneral of my Department to the producers and refiners of oil setting out points of interest to them and the Government’s interest in this particular measure. They are what we always intended to table and what we have agreed to table.

That is in answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question. Senator Murphy did give me notice of two further propositions that he wanted to bring forward. From memory one related to the costs, as ascertained by the Department of National Development, used in arriving at any prices, and the other to the value of the crude oil actually in the ground. I want to make it quite clear that this is not acceptable to the Government, and if I misled the honourable senator in any way I would like to apologise because that was not my intention. Because of the hurriedness of it, I thought that the honourable senator was really after the agreement between EssoBHP and the Government. But it has never been the policy of the Government, as far as 1 know, that the actual departmental files should be tabled, containing such information as 1 would seek from my departmental officers as to certain aspects of the oil industry, which would be of interest only to me in making a decision in relation to that industry. Also, there is the fact that negotiations possibly are still going on between the Department and the industry as to the future price. These papers just cannot be made available to the Senate, but ail of the papers that can reasonably be made available, giving all of the information relating to the terms of the agreement - which was the subject of the original question - have been tabled, and I can assure the honourable senator that that is just as far as I am prepared to go.

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Opposition) - This matter is of some importance so I ask for leave to make a further statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:

– A clear undertaking was made to table the documents for which I asked. That undertaking appears in yesterday’s Hansard. I said:

Will the Minister representing the Minister for National Development indicate whether he is prepared to lay on the table of the Senate all reports and papers containing or relating to, firstly, any agreement between the Government and EssoBHP concerning the oil industry, including the agreement referred to in the Prime Minister’s statement of 10th October 1968 on oil pricing policy; secondly, departmental estimates of the amount and value of resources affected by any such agreement; and thirdly, departmental estimates of the costs and future costs of production of oil from those resources?

The Minister said:

The papers referred to by the honourable senator will be tabled.

He went on to speak about negotiations and so forth. I must say that at the time when I asked the question there was in the hands of the Minister and before him the notice of motion which set out the same three items, so it was not a case of my saying something without deliberation and the Minister being unaware of what I was saying.

Senator Scott:

– I have never claimed that.

Senator MURPHY:

– The purpose of the request was quite clear. Here is an agreement entered into, and the question is, in effect: ‘What is the area covered by this agreement, and what are the amounts of resources which are affected by it?’ It is a reasonable request to make. The Senate is asking to be informed as to the extent of the resources affected by that agreement and it is asking for the reports and documents indicating the estimates by the Department of the costs and future costs of the production of oil from those resources so that the Senate will be able to make up its mind on the matter of the agreement. It cannot be suggested that this is asking for something that is in some way moving into this secret area where nobody is entitl’ed to know anything and, as I say, the undertaking was made and we would expect the Minister to observe the undertaking that he made.

page 2128

PATENTS 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill has largely resulted from the recommendations of a small committee which was set up by the predecessor of the present Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) and included representatives of the Bar, the Institute of Patent Attorneys and industry. The main purpose of the Bill is to make substantial changes in the procedures for obtaining patents in respect of inventions. One of the fundamental principles of our patent system is that an application for a patent is submitted to a thorough examination in the Patent Office, and a patent is granted only if the application is found to satisfy the requirements of the Patents Act. The Bill retains this principle, but introduces two quite new procedures which will substantially modify the present procedures before the Patent Office.

The first new procedure is one that is sometimes referred to as ‘deferred examination’ although it is more accurately described as examination on request. The second new procedure is one which I shall refer to as modified examination. I will describe these procedures in more detail at a later stage of my speech. The new procedures are intended to improve the efficiency of the patent system by making it possible for the Patent Office to cope with the increasing numbers of applications for patents.

Many honourable senators will be familiar with the delays experienced by applicants in having their applications dealt with by the Patent Office. The mounting arrears of work in that office have been a matter of concern for some years. Despite the best efforts of the Commissioner of Patents in attempting to recruit and to retain staff, and in keeping a close watch on the efficiency operations in the Patent Office, it has not proved possible to keep up with the very considerable and continuing increase in the number of applications for patents. Let me give some figures by way of illustration of the problems confronting the Patent Office. The number of complete specifications lodged is an index of the amount of work required to be performed by the Patent Office, there being no examination of an application unless and until the complete specification is lodged in respect of that application. There were 3,360 complete specifications lodged in 1939, 4,723 lodged in 1950, 13,255 lodged in 1967 and it is estimated that approximately 1 3,700 will be lodged in the current year. Arrears of unexamined applications have risen from 12,456 at the end of 1960 to a present figure of approximately 46,600 applications. This figure represents some 5 years of work by the present examination staff of the Patent Office.

The Australian Patent Office is not alone in its difficulties; practically all patent offices that have an examination system are troubled by mounting arrears of work. The growth in the number of patent applications is caused not only by an increase in the number of inventions for which patent protection is sought but by the practice of seeking protection for an invention in more countries than previously. I will give some figures at a later stage to show that the majority of applications received in the Australian Patent Office emanate from outside Australia. This is the result of increasing trade and increasing transfers of technology to this country. The very great increase in patent applications in Australia is, in fact, a measure of the growing industrial development of the country.

Let me now deal broadly with the two main changes that are proposed. Under the present law an application must be examined if a complete specification is lodged describing the invention for which patent protection is sought. An examination in accordance with the Act involves a consideration of the specification from a number of viewpoints by an examiner on the Patent Office staff. The examiner reports whether the application and complete specification comply with the requirements of the Act. This involves a consideration of whether the invention has been fully and clearly described. He is also required to make a search through previous Australian patent specifications to see whether the’ invention has been described previously, and to report the result of his investigation. His report is sent to the applicant or his patent attorney. In the majority of cases, amendment of the specification is required. to meet the matters raised in the report. There may be correspondence with the applicant or his patent attorney and further reports by the examiner before the specification is in order for acceptance. Altogether, the examination of each application involves a considerable amount of work.

The first change proposed is to the present procedure whereby every application and complete specification comes up for examination. Under the new procedure for examination on request ah application will not be examined unless the applicant specifically requests examination. An applicant will have 5 years from the date of lodging the complete specification to decide whether he wishes to proceed with his application. If he does not ask that it be examined in that time, the application will lapse. This procedure will afford an applicant opportunity to assess the value of his invention from time to time -in the period up to the examination stage and decide whether it is commercially worthwhile to proceed with his application. In this regard honourable senators will bear in mind that a patent application is generally made at a time when the commercial value of the invention is still largely a matter of speculation. In the nature of things the initial expectation of the inventor is not realised in every case. If a number of applicants decide not to proceed with their applications, there will be a saving in the work of the Patent Office.

The period of 5 years allowed for making a request for examination is something of a compromise between two” conflicting considerations. On the one hand, the commercial value of an invention may not become apparent for a considerable time after the application for a patent has been made. This suggests that there, should be a relatively long period allowed to an applicant to decide whether he wishes to proceed with his application. On the other hand, it is in the interests of third parties that the patent position in a particular field should be clarified as quickly as possible. Five years has been chosen as effecting a reasonable compromise between these two conflicting considerations. The system of examination on request has been adopted or is under consideration in Holland, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America. The system is also provided for in the draft patent law that has been prepared for the European Common Market countries.

When the system of examination on request was first mooted in Australia, one very strong objection to it that was made by representatives of Australian industry was that it would transfer the burden of considering whether a patent would result from a pending application from the Patent Office, which is specially equipped for this task, to industry generally. This would place a serious burden on third parties, and, in particular, those enterprises not large enough to have their own patent departments. A number of provisions have therefore been included in the Act to protect the interests of third parties. The most important of these are contained in proposed new section 47b and in clause 18 of the Bill.

In the first place, provision is to be made for a person who wishes to know whether an applicant is going to proceed with an application to have the position clarified without waiting for the end of the 5 year period. Proposed new section 47b will entitle any person to require the Commissioner to direct an applicant to request examination of his application. An applicant who receives such a direction will have 3 months in which to decide whether to proceed with his application. In the second place, clause 18 of the Bill proposes the insertion of new section 57 entitling a person who is aware of matters that would affect the validity of a patent resulting from a pending application to have placed on the Patent Office file relating to that application particulars of those matters. The matters are to be notified to the applicant by the Commissioner and they are to bc open to public inspection. This provision will enable the results of: a search made by one person to be made available to any others who arc interested in the fate of the application.

I turn now to the second change in procedure made by the Bill. This change is the introduction of a system of modified examination and is made by clause 14 of the Bill. Very broadly the system seeks to reduce the amount of work required of examiners by relying on the examination of equivalent specifications by the Patent Offices of certain prescribed overseas countries. The countries which will be prescribed are the United Kingdom and the United States of America. These countries have been chosen because their requirements as to patent specifications are so like our own that a specification meeting the requirements of these countries may be regarded as sufficiently meeting our requirements.

Honourable senators will recall that I mentioned earlier in my speech that a large proportion of applications are received from overseas applicants. In 1967 approximately 88% of all complete specifications were received from overseas. Of even greater significance in view of the proposed introduction of the modified examination procedure is the fact that approximately 60% of all complete specifications originated either in the United Kingdom or in the United States of America, the two countries that are to be prescribed. Also, in the case of many applications that originated in other overseas countries, there would have been equivalent applications lodged in the United Kingdom or in the United States of America.

T would make it clear to the Senate, nevertheless, that it will be a matter for the applicant to decide whether his application is to be dealt with under the system of modified examination or under the ordinary system of full examination. In order to avail himself of the modified examination procedure, an applicant must amend his Australian specification to make it the same, except as to matters of form, as the specification of a patent granted in the United Kingdom or in the United States of America in respect of the equivalent application. It is thought that it will still be necessary for the Australian examiner to make some of the search that he would make if he were conducting a full examination. The extent of the search required will vary according to a number pf circumstances. It is not possible to provide in the Bill for all the contingencies that will arise, and, accordingly, it is provided in sub-sections (3.) and (4.) of proposed new section 52b that the extent of the search to be made by the examiner under modified examination should be prescribed by regulation.

In some respects, these proposals anticipate likely international developments. Consideration is being given at an international level by member countries of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property to a scheme to avoid the duplication of work that occurs where applications in respect of the same invention are lodged in several countries. In October of last year Australia was represented at a meeting of a Committee of Experts in Geneva which was engaged in the preparation of a Draft Patent Co-operation Treaty. Although the discussions of that Committee indicated that anything in the nature of an international patent application valid in a group of participating countries is very much a matter for the future, these discussions are continuing this year and Australia will continue to participate in them. The scheme proposed in this Bill is in keeping with what could well be the outcome of these discussions.

It is not expected that the changes in procedure I. have described will by themselves enable the Patent Office to cope with the continuing increase in the number of applications for patents. Consequently, until such time as an acceptable international scheme is devised it will still be necessary to continue our endeavours to recruit more examiners and to improve the administrative efficiency of the Patent Office. Apart from the two main changes I have mentioned, the Bill would also, make some other changes in the principal Act I would mention only one of these briefly.

In 1965 Russia became a party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Very few applications are received in Australia in respect of Russian inventions, but I think .we can expect that there will be a substantial increase in the number of applications originating from Russia in the future.. Most inventors in Russia apply for the grant of an inventor’s certificate and not of a patent. An inventor’s certificate entitles the holder of it to royalties if his invention is used; unlike the grant of a patent, it does not give him a monopoly right. The inventor’s certificate system is also in force in other east European countries which are also members of the Paris Convention. The Paris Convention was amended at a conference in Stockholm last year to require member countries of the Convention to recognise an application for an inventor’s certificate . as giving rise to the same right of priority under the Convention as an application for a patent, lt is not clear that, under the. Patents Act as it now stands, an application for an inventor’s certificate in a Convention country would give rise to a right of priority under the Act. Consequently, it is proposed, in clauses 29, 30, 31 and 33 of the Bill, to amend the relevant sections of the Act to make it clear that the priority required to be given by the Convention may be claimed in Australia in respect of an application for an inventor’s certificate in a Convention country.

The Government has been concerned that a strong and vigorous patent system should be maintained in Australia. The constant need to recruit and train large numbers of examiners of patents each year and to concentrate on the task of preventing the arrears of work from growing too rapidly has meant that attention could not be given to a number of other much needed changes in the Patent Office. The Office is a repository of vast amounts of technical information. Until some attention can be given to classifying that information it cannot be made readily available to industry, nor can it be used effectively for extending the scope of the search made by an examiner and thus increasing the value of patents granted by making it more likely that a patent will be held to be valid if it is challenged. Thus the measures now proposed are seen as tending to be of advantage to industry and to the strengthening of the patent system. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McClelland) adjourned.

page 2132

EXTRADITION (COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Wright) read a

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

Mr Deputy President, the main purposes of these Bills - I refer to this Bill, the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill 1968, and to the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill 1968 whichI will introduce after I have completed my second reading speech on the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill 1968 - are to make amendments to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and the Extradition (Foreign Stales) Act 1966 to overcome difficulties which have arisen in practice since those Acts came into operation and to make amendments to those Acts necessary to enable Australia’s accession to the United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others.

The first difficulty in practice arose because when the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 was prepared it did not follow exactly the Scheme for the Rendition of Fugitive Offenders formulated at the London Conference of Commonwealth Law Ministers on which the Act is based. The departure from the Scheme was in relation to the so called speciality rule as it was modified in the scheme. That rule is that a person surrenderedcan be tried only for the offence in respect of which he was surrendered. The scheme, however, was not quite so strict and permitted in addition the trial of a fugitive for a ‘lesser offence’ proved by the facts on which his surrender was based. The concept of a ‘lesser offence’, however, proveddifficult when the legislation based on the Scheme was being prepared. In some circumstances it might not be clear whether one offence was ‘lesser’ than another although in other circumstances the meaning would be clear. As Australia was the first country to legislate following the formulation of the scheme no guidance could be obtained as to how other countries would tackle the difficulty. In the hope that other countries would see the same difficulty as we did and follow our example, the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 departed fromthe scheme and permitted trial for any other offence proved by the facts on which surrender was based. It was not thought that this departure would be of any significance and it was in keeping with the view implicit in the scheme that the speciality rule should not be applied in its strictest form. The relevant provision is in section 22 of the Act. Likewise, section 1 1 (3.) of the Act provides that the Attorney-General may issue a warrant for the return of a person to another Commonwealth country notwithstanding that he may there be dealt with for any other offence of which he might beconvicted upon proof of the facts on which the request for his return is based.

The United Kingdom Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 has since been passed, but as regards the speciality rule it follows the scheme exactly. This means that Australian law does not comply with what is required of the law of a requesting country by the United Kingdom Act. In a recent case of a request for the return of a fugitive to Australia from the United Kingdom it was shown that our departure from the scheme could adversely affect a request for the surrender of a fugitive to Australia. The difficulty in that case was overcome by a not entirely satisfactory means. That difficulty is likely lo be repeated, however, as other countries introduce legislation based on the scheme, for it is probable that they will follow the scheme and the United Kingdom example. The proposed amendment in clause 9 of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill would overcome this difficulty. It would amend section 22 of the Act so that Australian law would conform to the London scheme. At the same time, section 1 1 (3.) of the Act would be amended by clause 6 of the Bill to provide that the Attorney-General may not issue a warrant for the return of a person to another country unless the law of that country conforms to the London scheme.

The recent case which I have mentioned pointed out a further difficulty in our extradition law and one which exists in both the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. Neither of those Acts makes any provision for the taking of evidence in Australia for use in proceedings in another country for the surrender of a fugitive to Australia. It was thought when the Acts were introduced that State and Territory law contained provisions satisfactory for this purpose, but the recent case which I mentioned earlier has shown that there is some doubt as to the power of a magistrate to take such evidence. It is to remove this doubt that the provisions contained in clause 1 8 of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill and clause 7 of the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill are introduced. Regulations will have to be made to prescribe the practice and procedure relating to the taking of such evidence. As a result of these provisions and the regulations to be made there will be uniformity in practice irrespective of the State or Territory where the offence was committed.

The second group of amendments relating to the Convention which 1 have mentioned are found in clause 8 of the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill and clause 19 of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill. The Convention requires that the Convention offences be considered as extradition crimes and that they be deemed to be included in any extradition treaty in force or to come into force between parties to the Convention. The clauses I have mentioned will enable these requirements to be met. These amendments alone will not be sufficient to enable Australia’s accession to the Convention. Amendments to State and Territory law will be necessary to create some of the Convention offences. Further Commonwealth legislation to permit the trial in Australia of a person who commits a Convention offence in a country with which Australia has extradition arrangements but to which because of the terms of those arrangements that person cannot be surrendered will also be necessary.

Another group of amendments relates only to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill and its purpose is to restrict the application of Part III of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act to New Zealand. At present that Part applies, in addition, to certain British colonies and protectorates in the Pacific. The Part which provides a simplified procedure for extradition depends for its effectiveness on reciprocity. The United Kingdom Act corresponding to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act in its application in those colonies and protectorates does not contain a similar simplified procedure in respect of Australia. It is therefore necessary to restrict the application of Part Ml to New Zealand.

There are some other amendments that would be made by the Bills. All references to Nauru in the two principal Acts would be omitted consequent upon Nauru becoming independent. The definition of ‘extradition crime’ would be amended. As the Acts now stand, for a crime to be an extradition crime the act or omission which constitutes the offence against ‘ the law of a requesting country must also constitute an offence against the law in that part of Australia in which the fugitive is found, lt is thought that this definition may be too narrow. For example, the bribery of a British official in the United Kingdom is not an offence against the Jaw in Australia, although equivalent acts would constitute an offence in Australia. It is proposed to amend the definition of ‘extradition crime’ to avoid any such restrictive interpretation. Clause 6 in the Extradition (Foreign States) Bill and clause 7 in the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill are necessary because not all the extradition crimes are necessarily indictable offences. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– The Opposition supports both the Bills which have been introduced into the Senate this afternoon by Senator Wright who in this place represents the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Bowen). Questions relating to extradition are very serious questions. On the one hand, we have to take care to ensure that no citizen of another country who for some reason has obtained refuge in Australia should be taken from Australia and dealt with by a court in another country for some alleged offence which would not be an offence were it committed in Australia. On the other hand, we have to take the necessary precautions to see that people are not dealt with arbitrarily by a country in which formerly they resided because we allowed them to be taken from Australia to be dealt with. The fact that the nations of the world have agreed to reciprocal arrangements relating to extradition is one step towards a universal rule of law whereby they will act together so that they can bring about the apprehension of offenders and take steps to prevent the commission of crimes.

In the two Bills before us - I do not intend to speak separately to the Bill relating to foreign states - many of the matters referred to are machinery matters which have arisen of necessity owing, to changes in situations which have taken place since the original Acts were passed. This has particular reference, for example, to the provisions relating to the status of Nauru. I do not think exception can be taken by anybody to the provisions which enable magistrates within Australia to take evidence in relation to extradition proceedings. This is a very proper procedure and it is quite right that the Government should have clarified a situation where it seems that in the past some doubt has existed.

The only matter on which 1 intend to speak at any length - and then not at great length - is related to the variations of the speciality rule which are now being made by this amendment. My own feeling is that the original proposals of the Government are to be preferred to those which have now been inflicted - I think that is the appropriate word - upon the Government, owing to the actions of the United Kingdom Parliament and its anticipation of what the other parliaments of the Commonwealth would do. It seems to me that the Australian Government was quite correct in departing somewhat from the scheme originally agreed in London by enacting that at the trial of a person for an offence the same evidence was required as the evidence which had been presented in order to secure his extradition. I believe that this is more sensible than the arrangement which apparently had been agreed upon at the conference and which has now been incorporated in the United Kingdom legislation whereby a person can be charged with a lesser offence.

The Minister correctly pointed out in hi3 second rending speech that for one thing a lesser offence is rather difficult to define, lt is a vague term. 1 do not think anyone can ever say authoritatively what is a lesser offence, except in very blatant cases such as that referred to, where grievous bodily harm is obviously a lesser offence than murder. In many other instances what constitutes a lesser offence is doubtful. I do not know that anybody can properly say whether speeding in a motor car is or is not a lesser offence than having an unlicensed bicycle. I do not think the amount of the penalty that may be imposed necessarily determines what is a lesser offence. The penalty in one country for an offence may be of a lesser nature than the penalty for the same offence in another country.

However, it seems that the United Kingdom Parliament has insisted that the original agreement be adhered to and in its own legislation has used the terminology lesser offence’. The Minister has predicted that other governments will follow the London Scheme according to the original agreement, which means that Australia will have to follow suit. The purpose of the legislation is to provide for reciprocal extradition arrangements, and however much better we may feel our own proposition is, there is no point in pur persisting with it if no other country wishes to agree with us. Sp we are forced into the situation of accepting in this instance what the United Kingdom Parliament has already done and what it appears other Commonwealth countries will also do. -

I think I speak for the Opposition in saying that we have some reluctance in supporting the amendments, but at the same time we appreciate that they are not the responsibility of the Government. In view of the fact that the Government originally applied for a variation from the London Scheme it seems that it also has some reluctance in this matter and is merely facing an unavoidable situation. I have nothing further to add. We support the Bill. It is necessary that these arrangements be made. Although it is a pity that the original scheme has been adhered to and the suggestion of the Australian Government has not been followed, we accept that this is not the responsibility of the Government and that it had no alternative but to act in the way that it has acted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2135

EXTRADITION (FOREIGN STATES) 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purposes and provisions of this Bill have ‘already been explained in the second reading speech on the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill 1968, which the Senate has just passed. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– In view of the remarks I made on the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill, which has just been passed by the Senate, I intend to make no further comment. I merely indicate that the Opposition regards the amendments introduced by the Minister as necessary. They will be supported by the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2135

JUDGES’ PENSIONS 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Judges’ Pensions Bill is the result of the review by the Government of the Judges’ Pensions Act 1948-1966. In view of the number of changes proposed in the existing provisions, this Bill is for a completely new Judges’ Pensions Act, repealing the present Act altogether. The changes from the law in the present Act are numerous. Rates of pension payable to widows are increased; pensions are increased in the case of a judge dying or retiring through ill health in the early years of his service as a judge; the area of recognition of previous judicial service is widened; benefits payable in respect of children are altered; and, finally, provision is made for increasing the pensions presently being paid to retired judges and widows of judges. I shall refer to these in a little more detail shortly.

In 1926, section 48a was inserted in the Judiciary Act. It provided a pension of 50% of salary for justices of the High Court who retired, regardless of age, after 15 years service. That was the first legislative provision for pensions for Commonwealth judges. Similar provision was made in respect of judges of the Seat of Government Supreme Court and of the Federal Court of Bankruptcy in 1945 - in section 8b of the Seat of Government Supreme Court Act 1933-1945 and in section 18bb of the Bankruptcy Act 1924-1945 - and in respect of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in 1947 - section 22 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1947. None of that legislation made any provision for judges’ widows or children. The three judges pensions provisions I have mentioned were repealed by the Judges’ Pensions Act 1948.

This Bill is expressed to make provision for pensions for judges and their families. The Bill defines ‘judge’ for this purpose as a justice or judge of a Federal court or of the Supreme Court of a Territory forming part of the Commonwealth, or a person who by virtue of an Act has the status of a judge of one of those courts. As honourable senators know, presidential members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission have the status of judges, and they are covered by the provisions of the Bill. The Bill does not apply to judges of Papua and New Guinea, as section 12a of the Papua and New Guinea Act deems the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea to be the Supreme Court of a Territory which does not form part of the Commonwealth.

The judges of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are, however, covered by a Judges’ Pensions Ordinance of that Territory. The benefits provided by the BUI are non-contributory. This is also the position under the existing Act and under most judicial pensions schemes in the Australian States.

Under the Bill, the normal judge’s pension remains at 50% of salary on retirement, as at present. The normal pension is payable on retirement, after at least 10 years judicial service, at the age of 60 or over. There is a change from the present law with regard to retirement due to permanent disability or infirmity. If the Attorney-General certifies that a judge’s retirement is due to permanent disability or infirmity, the judge will be entitled to a pension of 40% of his salary on retirement, plus 2% of that salary for each completed year of service in excess of 5 years, with a maximum of 50% of salary on retirement. The present rate is 14%, plus 4% for each completed year of service after the first; with a maximum of 50%. The Bill provides that the widow of a judge or retired judge is to receive fiveeighths of the pension the judge would have received had he retired for permanent disability at the date of his death, or of the pension the retired judge was receiving at the date of his death. The present widow’s proportion is one-half. The new provision will be identical with that now operating under the Superannuation Act. No pension is payable to a widow who married the judge after his retirement, and the pension payable to a widow under the Bill terminates on the widow’s remarriage.

Improved children’s benefits are provided also. The basic annual rate payable in respect of a child at present is $104. This is doubled under the Bill. In respect of an orphan, pension will be payable at a special annual rate of S520 or at an alternative higher rate. The alternative rate is $208 plus a fraction of what would have been the widow’s pension. This fraction is arrived at by dividing the widow’s pension by four or the number of eligible children, whichever is the greater number. At present, an orphan is entitled only to the usual child’s pension. The existing qualifying age for children under 16 years is raised to under 21 years in the case of children receiving full time education at a school, college or university. These provisions will restore judges’ children to a position of equality with children of contributors under the Superannuation Act, which they enjoyed before the 1967 amendments to the Superannuation Act. A child’s pension is payable under the Bill only if the judge or retired judge himself is dead, and is normally payable to the widow. However, provision is made for the Attorney-General to authorise the payment of a child’s pension to a person other than the judge’s widow if the child concerned does not live with the widow. If the widow is dead, the pension is payable to the child’s guardian. Where appropriate, the Attorney-General may also authorise a child’s pension to be applied direct for the benefit of a child - for example, in payment of the child’s living and educational expenses at a residential school or university.

Under the Bill, previous judicial service as a State judge counts as judicial service for the purposes of the Act. This is the position also under the present law. lt means, of course, not that the Commonwealth undertakes to pay the pensions of State judges, but that a former State judge, when becoming a Commonwealth judge, is credited with his State service for the purpose of calculating his pension entitlement when retiring from Commonwealth service. The same applies in the case of his widow or orphan children. Judicial service in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea is to be taken into account in the same way under the Bill. This cannot be done under the present Act. However, in relation to judges appointed after this Bill becomes law, and in relation to their widows and children, there is to be deducted from their Commonwealth pension the amount of any pension to which prior State or Territory judicial service of the judge concerned had established an entitlement. Under the present legislation, a judge could receive full judicial pensions both under the Act and under State or Territory legislation. The legislation in the State of Western Australia makes adjustments in such circumstances, and the Government believes that the Commonwealth legislation should provide likewise.

Following in this regard a corresponding provision of the existing legislation, the Bill also provides that if a judge, instead of voluntarily retiring, is removed from office the pension provisions of the Act will apply in respect of that judge, his widow or his children, only if the Governor-General so directs. The concluding provisions of the Bill concern pensions at present being paid to retired judges or widows. There are fourteen persons at present in receipt of judges pensions or judges’ widows pensions. The Bill determines and sets out the pensions payable to those persons after the new Act comes into operation. In addition, the children’s pensions as provided by the Bill will be payable in respect of any eligible children of those persons.

The Bill places on a statutory basis all payments to existing pensioners. At present one of the pensioners has no legal pension entitlement, because her husband died before the commencement of the relevant judges pensions legislation, and there are a number of others whose present pensions are made up in part of a legal entitlement and in part of ex gratia payments approved by the Government at various times. Each pension set out in the Schedule to the Bill exceeds the pension paid at present. The Government has examined these pensions individually and has made adjustments that, in the light of the principles incorporated in the general provisions of the Bill and in terms of comparable fairness to the pensioners in relation to each other, appeared desirable. The increases to existing pensioners are the first such increases since1 958. This Bill brings up to date the Commonwealth’s judges pensions legislation. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2137

LAW OFFICERS BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Wright) read a firsttime.

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Law Officers Bill complements the Judges’ Pensions Bill. In section 16 of the Law Officers Act 1964 there are a number of references to the existing Judges’ Pensions Act. That section deals with the pension rights of the present and future holders of the office of Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth. The section applies the provisions of the Judges’ Pensions Act to and in relation to a solicitor-general and to and in relation to the widow and children of a deceased solicitorgeneral as if the solicitor-general were, or had been, a judge to whom the Judges’ Pensions Act applies. There is one exception to this - the provision of the Judges’ Pensions Act including prior judicial service in a State as part of the service on which the calculation of pensions entitlement is based has no application to the solicitor-general, or to his widow or children.

It is also provided in section 16 of the Law Officers Act that if a solicitor-general or former solicitor-general is appointed to be a judge his service as solicitor-general is counted as service as a judge for the purposes of calculating his, or his widow’s or children’s, pension entitlement. Provision is also made for a former solicitor-general’s pension to cease when he becomes a judge and for a retired judge’s pension to cease when he becomes solicitor-general. The Law Officers Bill ensures that these provisions will operate in relation to the new Judges’ Pensions Act as they do at present in relation to the existing Judges’ Pensions Act. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2137

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to make it clear that all jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory under the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act extends to the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. The Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands is by virtue of the Ashmore and Cartier Islands Acceptance Act annexed to and deemed to form part of the Northern Territory and all laws in force in the Northern Territory apply to and are in force in the Territory. However, there is no specific provision in the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act extending to the Ashmore and Cartier Islands the general civil and criminal jurisdiction that Act expressly gives to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in relation to the Northern Territory, and it could be argued, therefore, that the Supreme Court hasno general jurisdiction in respect of the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. It is desirable to remove all doubt about the matter by defining the Northern Territory for the purposes of the Act as including the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. That is the effect of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Bill has been so clearly and simply explained by the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Wright) that the Opposition has nothing further to contribute. We will support the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2138

OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL (No. 2) 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The prime purpose of this Bill, Mr President, is to make way for the introduction of new international telecommunications arrangements between Commonwealth countries. The existing arrangements are contained within the Overseas Telecommunications Act. Commonwealth partnership arrangements on telecommunications matters began at the end of the last century. At that time the Government of Britain, Canada, New Zealand and some of the

Australian States took what was then a radical step when they agreed to construct a submarine telegraph cable across the Pacific Ocean. From that point, the partnership developed until, today, it covers the operations of cableand radio links utilised by nearly all of the Commonwealth countries. The partnership operates under the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreement of 1948, as amended, and is advised by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board. This Board is a standing body of representatives of partner countries, meeting fortnightly in London.

These arrangements have served quite well in the past, but with the increasing complexity and size of the Commonwealth network, coupled with rapid changes in technology and other factors, a need for review has been seen in more recent years. Consequently, the partners have agreed that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board should be dissolved and that the Agreement should be terminated. In 1966 a conference was held, out of which the new Commonwealth Telecommunications Council was born. A constitution was drawn up along with a new financial agreement. The Australian Government has indicated its concurrence in these documents. There will be the Telecommunications Council which will meet annually and there will be a permanent secretariat, stationed in London, which will attend to the daytoday affairs of the organisation between meetings of the Council. The new organisation is so constituted that it will more adequately meet the needs of present day international telecommunications and it is currently taking over the functions of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board. It is planned that the Board’s affairs will be wound up finally on 31st March 1969, but this will depend on all partner countries having given their concurrence to the financial agreement by that time.

The Bill repeals the preamble to the Act, which relates specifically to the setting up of the present organisation, and also repeals the schedules which contain the Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreement as amended to date. The new constitution and financial agreement will not be included in the Act but, since it is desirable that Parliament have a knowledge of their content, copies will be tabled after signature by the partner Governments. The Bill also makes consequential changes to remove specific references to the existing organisation and arrangements.

I would like to speak now, Mr President, of another matter. As the Act now stands, entrance into the service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission is limited to persons who have passed examinations for appointment to a position or who have passed appropriate public examinations. It happens from time to time that some persons, particularly persons from overseas, become available. These . persons would be valuable assets to the Commission but they cannot be appointed under the existing conditions. In order to open up this additional source of recruitment,, the Bill provides that such a person may be appointed to a position where, iri the opinion of the Commission, he has qualifications appropriate to that position.

Finally, the Bill makes certain changes in conditions applicable to alterations in the routing of international traffic. Currently, route changes must have the prior approval of the Minister but, in the present context of international communications, this is unworkable because with automatic and semi-automatic operation the path followed by a call is often not known. In any case, route changes are purely operational matters. The Bill also amends the provisions concerning alterations and extensions to the telecommunications system operated by the Commission. These too must have the prior approval of the Minister. It is proposed that only those alterations and extensions of significance will in future require approval. The responsibility for day-to-day minor changes is thereby placed where it properly belongs - with the Commission itself. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill which, from my point of view, is an interesting one. I think we can divide the Bill into four parts as has been done pretty well by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) in introducing the Bill. These parts can then be dealt with separately. The original Commonwealth Telegraphs Agreement which began in 1948 has functioned with amendments up to the present time. With the technological improvements that we have seen, particu larly in the last 10 years, the agreement has become a little cumbersome. The Commonwealth Telecommunications Board which has been meeting and considering the operation of the Commonwealth telecommunications system has felt that it would be wise to do away with the agreement and to do away with the Board and replace it with the Commonwealth Telecommunications Council which will have full control of the operations. This is what the first part of the Bill sets out to do.

The second part of the Bill is interesting from the viewpoint of the personnel who are employed by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission or who will be employed by the Council. I refer particularly to clause 7 which will amend section 18 of the principal Act by adding at the end of sub-section (5a.) the words: or appoint to any other position a person who has not passed the appropriate entrance examination but, in the opinion of the Commission, has qualifications appropriate to the position.

This is a matter which has concerned engineering staff for many years with regard to positions in the Public Service. They do not want to prevent qualified migrants from coming to Australia and being appointed to positions, but difficulties do arise in this situation. Although this aspect has not been mentioned, I hope that it will be considered by the Public Service Commissioner in administering the Act. The engineering staff in the past has considered that an Australian citizen who is appointed to a position must have the required qualifications which he has gained by examination. He must also have had the experience necessary to qualify him to undertake the practical work involved in the position. He must also have seniority and he must have given satisfactory service. In future persons already in the Service who are looking for positions higher than those which they presently hold will be concerned to see that due opportunity is given to them to state their qualifications on the basis of experience, seniority, satisfactory service and examination qualifications and that these matters are considered when examining the case of qualified migrants. I offer this criticism with regard to this part of the Act because I feel that a certain amount of dissatisfaction may be created among those already in the Public Service unless these precautions are adhered to.

I come then to the third part of the Bill which relates to technical matters. The Minister is supposed to approve the transmission paths that are in operation. At the present time with our sophisticated teleCommunications set-up nobody ever knows by which route a call is transmitted. It can go in many directions, and all that anybody is worried about is that it gets to the person to whom it is directed. Now, with the COMPAC cables and the other cables that extend around the world, the actual route that a conversation or a teleprinter service takes is unknown, and it is quite impossible to meet the present situation whereby the Minister must approve the route that is used. This Bill gets over this technical problem and makes it possible for the Minister to give a blanket approval of any type of route that may be put into use. Finally, the fourth section of the Bill concerns any alterations and extensions to the telecommunications system which will be operated by the Commission, which must have the prior approval of the Minister. These four sections into which we can divide the Bill seem to me - with the reservation which I have made with regard to clause 7 - to be a very worthwhile advance on the present set-up, which was initiated in 1948 and has been amended since. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2140

SPIRITS BILL 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main amendments sought in this Bill will remove the prohibition on the use of denatured (i.e. methylated) spirit in scents and toilet preparations. This prohibition was designed to avoid the substitution of denatured spirit, which is free of duty, for undenatured spirit, which until recently was dutiable at rates up to $2.50 a proof gallon for various industrial uses. However, honourable senators will recall that during this session an amendment was made to the Excise Tariff which freed from excise duty spirit for all industrial uses, including scents and toilet preparations.

With the removal of excise duty from spirit used in toilet preparations the need for the prohibition has ceased and, in fact, the Department of Customs and Excise proposes to require that spirit for use in such manufactures be denatured or rendered unpotable by the addition of approved substances to ensure that there is no diversion of such spirit for potable purposes. The vast majority of spirit used in industry is denatured before delivery for home consumption. The requirement that spirit for scents and toilet preparations be denatured will merely be placing the manufacturers of those goods on thesame footing as the manufacturers of other goods in which the use of denatured spirit is possible.

The, remaining amendment contained in this Bill, clause 7, relates to the establishment of a Collectorate of Customs in the Northern Territory. Honourable senators will recall that, earlier this year, a series of Bills were passed dealing with similar amendments to various other Acts administered by the Department of Customs and Excise made necessary by the setting up of a separate departmental office in the Northern Territory.” I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This Bill, as has already been pointed out by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott), makes provision for the removal of excise duty from spirits used in toilet and scent preparations - methylated spirits in particular. The Opposition has no wishto delay the passage of the Bill, but while we are on the subject let me say that I would hope that the substantial reduction in the cost of production that should flow from this measure will be passed to the public who buy the toilet preparations and the scents in which this spirit will be used. I sincerely hope that the manufacturers will do the right thing and eventually pass the reduction on to the consumers. As has already been mentioned, the other provision relating to the Collector of Customs in the

Northern Territory was debated earlier in the session. The setting up of separate departmental offices in the Northern Territory is a logical consequence of the earlier legislation. We wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2141

APPLE AND PEAR EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Represenatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT (Western Australia–

Minister for Customs and Excise) [5.10] - I move:

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act 1938- 1966 to vary the expression of the rate of charge payable so that the charge imposed under this Act is expressed in a form which can be satisfactorily related to the diverse kinds of fresh fruit containers currently in export use. Funds raised by the charge are employed to finance the operations of the Australian Apple and Pear Board, including those related to promotion, research and administration.

At present the Act provides for a maximum rate of charge unless a lower operative rate is set by regulation under the Act. The Act imposes the maximum charge,5c, for each case, 2 half cases or 3 trays of apples and pears exported. A lower rate, 2.5c, is operating under the regulations. When the Act was introduced the containers referred to in the Act were virtually the only export containers in use. There have been rapid developments in fresh fruit containers in recent years and there is now a wide range of containers in commercial or experimental use, an increasing number of which cannot be related in a completely satisfactory way for the purpose of assessment of charge to the expression of the rate appearing in the Act.

The new form of expression of the maximum rate, i.e. not to exceed 5c per reputed bushel or part thereof, will provide for a much greater degree of flexibility in the fixing of the amounts payable under the regulations, and will enable these rates to be expressed, within the maximum provided by the Act, in a form applicable to a wide variety of containers. No change in the level of charge is involved in the amendment and any incidental effect on the income of the Board will be minor only. I commend the Bill.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– As the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) pointed out in his second reading speech, the main provisions of this Bill are contained in clause 3 which seeks to omit sub-section 2 of section 4 of the principal Act and to insert a new subsection. The Minister referred to the provisions of this new sub-section. I think honourable senators will welcome the assurance given in the last paragraph of the Minister’s speech, that no change in the level of charge is involved. The Bill, as he pointed out, merely seeks to vary the expression of the rate of charge payable in relation to export apples and pears.

The principal intention of the Bill is to meet the changed circumstances of this modern age. Various types of container are being tried in order to find out the best way of exporting our fruit. While all care and attention may be given to the preparation and packaging of fruit at points of dispatch in Australia, it is a different matter when the fruit arrives at the markets in England, Germany and other European countries. On 12th July last, Mr President, I visited Covent Garden in England to find out the condition in which fruit arrived from Australia. I can assure the Senate and those people listening to this debate that by and large the condition of Australian fruit was quite good. I canvassed various vendors, importers, agents and others who were handling Australian fruit, principally apples and pears, and their comments generally about the condition of our fruit were quite encouraging. If we are able to maintain the standard set with last year’s export crop I think we have every possibility of competing with other countries on the world markets.

There is always a lesson lo be learnt when one visits the traditional markets if one attempts to assess the changing circumstances and conditions of marketing. Surely these are among the most important considerations. As Australia is, 1 believe, at present included in the twelve top exporting countries it is tremendously important to receive information quickly about changing trends in order to try to meet the varying situations of marketing and other circumstances. It is a changing world.

This Bill does not propose to increase the level of charges for exports. Surely this is some assurance to exporters and growers of our fruit. It is essential, however, to be able to give expression to the charge involved which will be applicable to the various types of containers and packages in which fruit is exported. There is great diversification at present in the types of containers and packages used. I discussed with the Tasmanian Agent-General in London this new concept of the bulk bin type of container used for apples. Although it is in the experimental stage at this time I believe it is preferable to- the present traditional export system of packaging in case lots in Australia. My attention was drawn by the Agent-General and by people handling fruit in London to defects in some of the types of container which are being used. It was pointed out to me that the fibre board container is subject to a certain amount of deterioration. This occurs during the period of refrigeration on the sea voyage. The refrigeration leads to a softening of parts of the container, leaving the fruit susceptible to damage. It was suggested to me that we should give more consideration to the use of the telescopic type of pack, one pack being placed over the top of the other. I believe this system is used commonly in the United States of America, Canada and France. The fruit travels much better in this type of pack and arrives at the market in a better condition.

The use of the cell pack also was criticised. This was a fairly common criticism. I urge people concerned with exporting apples and pears to give serious thought to the advisability of continued use of the cell pack and to consider the use of the tray pack arrangement. The tray pack was recommended to me. Referring again to the bulk bin, this is a substantial type of container. By its use a great number of cases can be exported in one bin. 1 do not know how many cases a bin will hold. When the bins reach the market in England they are taken to a depot where the fruit is picked over. Only top grade fruit is put into bushel packs for ultimate retail sale. Charges are involved because of the picking over and regrading. Every endeavour is made by the people concerned to dispose of fruit damaged in transit. The damaged fruit is not a complete loss. Nevertheless, a certain quantity is lost, which results in a drop in the price received by the producer or the person handling the fruit. As against this, there is a premium because of the better condition and better presentation of the fruit.

The authorities concerned are still trying to determine whether one system is better than another. I do not know at this stage if anybody has determined whether it is better to continue to export in wooden cases or fibre board packs in the traditional way or to change over to the container system with a depot at the market where fruit can be picked over and graded.

I was very heartened, Mr President, to note the general standard and turnout of our fruit overseas. While every care is taken at this end to ensure that fruit reaches the market in good condition there is bound to be some damage to it. I do not know how this can be avoided. I do not think it can be avoided under the systems in use now. There appears to be no way to avoid damage to fruit during transit or while being handled. But it was encouraging to see the way the fruit was turned out in the English market that I visited.

There is another point I should make in relation to the bulk bins. The runners that guide the forks on the fork lift truck, which are only set now for loading and handling from the sides of the container, ought also to be fabricated so that the fork lift truck can operate end on. When the containers come off a ship onto the truck, often it is not possible for the forks of the fork lift truck to enter end on when in fact that is the only part of the case presented to the mechanical operations of the loader. It was suggested to me that some means ought to be devised whereby a guide could be made on the ends of the containers as well as laterally. This would save a great deal of damage to the containers and enable persons concerned with the turn out of the fruit to insist that all care and attention be given to the containers. At the present time, where a container is not built in such a way that one can require care in this direction, there is an excuse for somebody doing some damage to a container. These are points thatI think might very well be taken into account in relation to the turn out of our fruit generally.

PerhapsI have strayed a little bit from the intention of the Bill which is purely and simply to give to those concerned with the levying of charges on the export of fruit an opportunity so to vary the terminology in relation to the charges that they can cover the newly arising contingencies from, as I mentioned, the new type of pack being used and the experiments being carried out with various types of containers.

Senator Rae:

– What sort of pack did the honourable senator suggest other than the cell pack?

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA · ALP

– The tray pack. Apparently less damage is done to the fruit this way. It seems to me illogical to expect this but, in fact, this is how it turns out. The tray pack is preferable in terms of minimising the damage done to the fruit.

Senator Wilkinson:

– This is done with pears too.

Senator DEVITT:

-I have seen the damage that is done to apples. Now I am informed that it happens with both apples and pears. I am passing on what was told to me there and whatI saw with my own eyes. Perhaps I have indicated already in the course of my remarks about this Bill that the Australian Labor Party does not object to the measure. The Labor Party supports the proposal because it does give an opportunity to the people concerned with this industry to make sure that every possible avenue for better presentation of fruit for overseas is explored. They have sufficient funds within their grasp to enable proper overseeing of the export of this fruit. With those few comments I indicate to the Senate that the Opposition supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2143

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION BILL 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act so that the Commission may enter joint ventures or arrangements with other Australian or foreign enterprises to establish, maintain and operate shipping services of a kind which it is now empowered to operate but only in its own right. The main purpose of the amendment is to allow the Commission to engage with other interests in providing overseas shipping services to and from Australia. It will allow it to do this also in respect of coastal operations. At the same time the Commission will be empowered to act as agent in Australia for either its associates or others engaged in overseas shipping services. It will enable the Commission to enter into associations with overseas principals. Provided that the association will be for the purpose of carrying out a function which the Commission now is authorised to carry out under section 15 the Commission may hold shares or stocks in an incorporated company, or enter into a partnership or an arrangement for sharing receipts.

For constitutional reasons it is necessary to include the proviso that the functions of the proposed association must not go further than those held by the Commission. For the same reason, it is necessary that a provision be inserted in the Act to ensure that if the memorandum or articles of association of a company in which the Commission holds stocks or shares is changed, so as to enable the company to extend its functions beyond those held by the Commission under the Act, the Commission shall as soon as practicable dispose of its shares or stocks. In practice, by obtaining and keeping sufficient voting rights it should not be difficult for the Commission to prevent such a change taking place but this ensures that the Commission does not retain its association with an incorporated company the functions of which go beyond the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth. If similar circumstances should arise in connection with the Commission’s association in a partnership, the Minister for Shipping and Transport would terminate the arrangement by withdrawing his approval, required under the Act, and insisting on the withdrawal of the Commission from the partnership.

To obtain cargoes at overseas ports and to obtain the use of facilities in other countries, which are essential if overseas trading is to be conducted on a commercial basis, there is without any doubt a clear advantage to be able to enter into an association with another operator who either has these facilities or has access to them, lt also follows, as part of the association, that the Line should be in a position to act as agent in Australia for its associate in the joint venture. Similarly, in order to obtain a share of the trades between Australia and other countries, and to operate at an economic level, there is in most circumstances no alternative but to enter a conference and accept its system and method of rationalisation and agreed operation in the particular trade. Entering a shipping conference will involve the Commission in agreements with other shipowners for the fixing and charging of uniform freight rates. This makes essential clause 4 of the Bill, which modifies the provision in the Act under section 18 requiring the Commission to make its shipping services available at the lowest possible rates.

The necessary amendment has been related only to overseas shipping services, and the obligation to continue the lowest possible rates of charges is still binding on the Commission in relation to its coastal operations. The amendment to section 19 takes account of this modification in regard to overseas trades by laying down the manner in which the Minister shall approve of rates of charges fixed by the Commission in these circumstances.

So far as any arrangements or agreements which may be negotiated by the Commission are concerned, in particular those relating to joint ventures within a shipping conference, the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1965-1967 will apply in the same way as they do to and in relation to any other persons. The Third

Schedule of the Act has therefore been amended to include reference to the Trade Practices Act 1965-1967 as an Act applicable to the Commission.

The amendment in relation to rates of charges might seem to be a departure from the Commission’s existing role of providing shipping services at favourable rates but I feel sure honourable senators will agree that as the Commission, since its establishment in 1957, has made such a substantial contribution to the Australian coasting trade, not only by the lead it has taken in the development and construction of modern vessels but also by the efficiency of its operations, it can confidently be assumed that the Commission will demonstrate the same sense of responsibility and efficiency in its overseas operations. Its influence on overseas trading and conference operations will, I am certain, be to the benefit of Australia. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 2144

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY 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.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2144

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION BILL 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) [5.3 5 J - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1968, is to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the special levy imposed by the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill 1968. In addition, the opportunity has been taken to clarify the present legislation in respect of deductions of the levy from producers’ sales accounts. Since the levy has been in operation cases have arisen where the levy has been deducted on livestock and the livestock were not slaughtered but retained for further fattening. The proposed amendment requires recognised slaughterers to refund the equivalent of the levy to the vendor if the livestock are not slaughtered within 30 days of purchase. I commend the Bill to honourable senators as a necessary adjunct to the Livestock Slaughter Levy Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 2145

MEAT RESEARCH BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives.

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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Meat Research Act 1960-1965 to provide for the payment of the additional levy, provided for in the Live-stock Slaughter Bill, into the Meat Research Trust Account and to provide for the funds derived from the levy, plus matching Commonwealth contributions for approved expenditure, to bc used for financing service and investigation activities of direct interest to the meat processing industry. The moneys will be made available to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to finance work in this field approved by the Minister on the recommendation of the Australian Meat Research Committee. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 2145

MEAT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL 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:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to repeal several Acts which have lapsed due to the expiration on 30th September 1967 of the Fifteen Year Meat Agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom. The Acts concerned are the Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Acts of 1955, 1956 and 1964 and the Meat Export (Additional Charges) Acts of 1956 and 1964.

The Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Act provided for the receipt and distribution of deficiency payments received by Australia under the Agreement. As the Agreement has now expired the Act is no longer operative. However, there is still a credit of $1.9m in the Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Fund established and maintained by the Australian Meat Board under the Act. Provision has therefore been made in this Bill for these moneys to be transferred to the Board’s general funds. This will allow their use by the Board under the Meat Industry Act 1964-1966 for any activities which the. Board is empowered to undertake under that. Act.

The Meat Export (Additional Charge) Act provided for a charge to be imposed on meat exports if payments to exporters exceeded receipts from deficiency payments received from the United Kingdom. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 2145

PROCESSED MILK PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL 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:
New South WalesMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act 1962- 1967 to permit the payment of this bounty on specified processed milk products that have been manufactured from products that have already attracted the production bounty under the Dairying Industry Act. The processed milk product section of the dairy industry has suffered from subsidised competition in export markets to such an extent that butterfat in processed milk products exports was 18% lower in 1967-68 than in 1966-67.

The competition in export markets for processed milk products continues. The whole of the Australian dairy industry is concerned at the loss of the export sales of these products. Butterfat that would normally be thus exported is inevitably channelled back into butter production where a world wide surplus already exists. The Australian Dairy Industry Council has submitted a proposal, which has the support of manufacturers of processed milk products, to help the latter compete in the export field.

The Government has agreed to the Council’s proposal for the exemption of specified processed milk products from the restrictive provision contained in section 4 (3) of the Processed Milk Products Bounty Act, so that the export bounty will be payable on products made from butterfat which has already attracted bounty under the Dairying Industry Act. The amendment will not involve the Government in any additional expenditure but will allow maximum usage of the $800,000 already appropriated by Parliament for payment as export bounty on processed milk products in each year of the current 5-year stabilisation plan which ends on 30th June 1972. I commend the Bill.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I have carefully listened to the Minister’s second reading speech and have read with great interest the debate in another place on this Bill. It is quite obvious that the measures it contains will be of benefit to producers of dairy products, the manufacturers of processed goods and our export market. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill and is prepared to give it a speedy passage through the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2146

STATES GRANTS (PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS COLLEGES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 November (vide page 1653), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– This Bill is of considerable importance. It establishes for the first time a direct Commonwealth interest in the field of pre-school education. Together with the next Bill to ba debated by the Senate - the States Grants (Secondary School Libraries) Bill - it affords honourable senators a substantial opportunity to come to grips with some of the more important issues facing Australian education at present. I say at once with regard to this Bill, which seeks to grant financial assistance to the States for the purposes of building projects in connection with pre-school teachers colleges, that we do not oppose it. Indeed, I say with sincerity that we welcome what we hope will be only the first steps by the Commonwealth in this important area of education. So far it has been a Cinderella in the education field, a matter in which even the State governments have taken little action.

In the field of pre-school education we are dealing with an area that does not involve compulsory education. We are dealing with young children, whose attendance at pre-school is not compulsory. The parents of young children are not compelled to send them to pre-school. Nevertheless, I do not think there are any more important years in the life of a child than his early formative years in which the first contact is made with other children in an educational environment, and with teachers in a sense other than the role of parents. The United States Educational Policies Commission of the National Education Association recently said that research showed clearly that the first 4 or 5 years of a child’s life is the period of most rapid growth in physical and mental characteristics and of the greatest susceptibility to environmental influences. Experience indicates that exposure to a wide variety of activities and social and mental interaction between children and parents greatly enhances a child’s ability to learn.

Whilst we welcome this incursion of the Commonwealth into the field of pre-school education I am not sure that the Government recognises clearly how much more needs to be done and how vast is the task in which the first tentative steps are now being taken. It is very important to train kindergarten teachers. This Bill sets out, with good intent, to assist those institutions which are specified in the Schedule to the Bill and which perform the important task of training people who ultimately can be responsible for teaching young people at this early, formative stage of their educational career and experience. Broadly, the Bill sets out to double the number of students who can be trained in these institutions. As I have said, we have no quarrel with that purpose; so we welcome the Bill. But it is important to recognise that a great untapped reservoir of talent and experience in this field exists.

It is sobering to obtain the figures and to see the small proportion of the Australian infant population - I use the word ‘infant’ to cover the 3 to 5 years age group - that actually goes to kindergarten. About one in twelve of 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in Australia attends pre-school. The number is roughly 60,000 in all. Public expenditure on pre-school education represents about one-half of 1% of the total amount spent on education by State and Commonwealth governments in Australia. When we look at the position in the various States we see that there is a substantial disparity between the proportions of youngsters who receive the opportunity to go to pre-school or kindergarten. Obviously the Australian Capital Territory leads the country. It is an area in which there is a number of model education institutions. Recently some of us had the opportunity to look at what is offered in Australian Capital Territory education institutions at the pre-school, primary and secondary levels. As one who comes from a State that is perhaps no better and no worse than most of the other States in its education system, I can only say that it makes one’s mouth water to see what can be done if money is spent and if attention and care are given to this problem.

The figures show that in the Australian Capital Territory about 34%, or one in three, of children from 3 to 5 years attend accredited kindergartens. That is the highest figure for all parts of Australia. In addition, 35% of the children in that age group attend primary school. So, in the Australian

Capital Territory, 69% of such children are being catered for either in the early grade of primary school or in kindergarten. In New South Wales only 3% of such children attend recognised pre-schools^ and another 34% attend primary schools. In Tasmania the total number of children receiving any sort of recognised pre-school and early grade primary education is about 20%. There, more than in any other State, substantial government assistance is given in this field. The figures for children in the 3 to 5 years age group attending kindergartens in the other States are:’ Victoria, 17%; Tasmania, 10%; South. Australia, 9%; Western Australia, 8%; and Queensland, 7%.

Wherever one goes one is met by the statement of experienced educators that this is an area in which much more needs to be done. Even in the Australian Capital Territory, where we who come from the various States seem to be in the presence of model schools, there is a serious shortage of preschool teachers. According to the ‘Education Chronicle’ published by the Australian Council for Educational Research in August, eight permanent teachers had left the service during the year and they included the driver-teacher of the mobile unit that takes pre-school education to children in country areas of the Territory. The publication slates that the shortage of preschool teachers in the Australian Capital Territory is part of a nation wide problem and is caused mainly by the difference between the salaries of infant and preschool teachers. I do not intend to enter into the subject of the difference between the salaries of primary and pre-school teachers.

It is perfectly obvious that the Bill will fulfil a long felt need in that it will tackle the problem of the training of teachers. I am concerned, however, to draw attention to the wider ramifications of this problem. One of the things that we like to regard as legitimate aims of education policy in Australia is equality of opportunity for children coming from all section’s of the community. It seemed to be the claim of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Minister. for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in his second reading speech on this Bill, that in some way attention is being given to areas of need. That claim seems to be disputed by a number of educationists whose main complaint is that what is happening in Australia is that the kindergartens are going into middle class areas and perpetuating what might be called the bias of Australian education towards middle class children as compared with children who come from working class areas and who have less advantaged backgrounds. This is a tremendously important question.

If there is one age at which it should be possible to cement the equality of opportunity which must be central to a system of the type we want, it is the preschool age. There are inequalities in the later years - in the primary schools and the secondary schools. If ever there was an opportunity to reduce the handicaps of children with economically and culturally deprived backgrounds, it is in the pre-school field. Let us consider the views of such distinguished educationists as Mr Fitzgerald, who wrote a splendid summary of the pre-school education position for the Quarterly Review of Australian Education’; Dr Marion de Lemos, who dealt with this problem of trends in pre-school education in quite recent months; Mr McLaren, a senior lecturer in the secondary teachers college in Victoria; and Mr Henry Schoenheimer, a senior lecturer in education al the Monash University. They all complain-

Senator Sim:

– They are always complaining.

Senator COHEN:

– This is really a serious discussion. I ask the honourable senator not to debase it and to just keep quiet.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull)-Order

Senator COHEN:

– What all these distinguished educationists are saying is that, contrary to the claim that seems to be made by the Government in the Minister’s second reading speech, the emphasis is more and more on the building of schools and the creation of opportunities in so called middle class areas. My authority for that statement is some of these excellently and carefully written discussion papers which have contributed to an understanding of the subject in recent times. Let me refer first to Mr R. T. Fitzgerald, who introduced this subject in the ‘Quarterly Review of Australian Education’ of June 196S with an article entitled ‘Facilities for Pre-Schooling in Australia’. 1 am sure that the Minister will have had some opportunity to read this article. If not, I commend it to him as a valuable contribution on this subject.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator COHEN:

– Before the suspension of the sitting, 1 was dealing with this extremely important Bill for the provision of Commonwealth funds for pre-school teachers colleges. I was saying in substance that it was a very welcome first step by the Commonwealth in a field which had been neglected for so long. 1 had drawn attention to the very small percentage of Australian children in the 3 to 5 years age group who were in fact receiving pre-school education because this is an area in which there is no compulsion upon either the student to attend school or the parent to send the student to school. 1 was giving to the Government what I hoped was a fair measure of commendation for taking this step.

But I had two complaints on the overall plan. Firstly, in the field of Commonwealth interests in education, we have moved very much in a piecemeal way into the area. Traditionally, education is a matter for the States. Now, after many years of most stubborn refusal to recognise that there was any field other than university education in which the Commonwealth should be interested, the Commonwealth has been moving in a tentative sort of way into a number of fields. In recent years, it has been science laboratories. If the legislation that I expect will come up for discussion later this evening is passed, it will be libraries in secondary schools. At the moment we are dealing with the provision of funds for teachers colleges in the preschool area.

All of these things represent progress, but they will never make a massive impact upon the crisis in education in Australia unless they are seen as part of a much wider responsibility which the Commonwealth must inevitably undertake, especially in relation to finance, to move into new fields of education. I was not proposing to make the present Bill an occasion for exploring these wider considerations because, as the Opposition sees the position, the next Bill which the Senate will debate, that relating to the provision of funds for secondary school libraries, provides much greater scope for the discussion of these genera] issues.

In dealing with my second complaint with regard to pre-school teachers’ colleges I drew attention to a special problem. That is that, historically, whilst once there may have been an attempt to establish pre-school centres in areas of need, the drift over the years has been the other way and today the emphasis in the provision of pre-school education is in areas where it is not needed as much as it is in those areas which are still neglected. The emphasis is now in the middle class areas. 1 was saying that, notwithstanding the claim in the Minister’s speech that there is some attention here to areas of need, educationists seem to differ with him. I want to cite some observations by some educationists and I refer in particular to the remarks published in the ‘Quarterly Review of Australian Education’ by Mr R. T. Fitzgerald in June of this year. He speaks first of all of the rethinking that has been going on in this area, a rethinking which he says is more evident overseas than in Australia.

In England, for instance, the Plowden Committee has recommended a vast expansion of pre-school facilities. In due course I want to say a word or two about this massive report of the Plowden Committee, the report of the Central Advisory Council for Education in England, on this very problem that we are concerned with in this legislation. That Committee recommended a very great expansion of pre-school facilities because it took account of the overwhelming evidence of experienced educators and looked for ways of giving particular benefits to children suffering from deprived or inadequate home backgrounds. That kind of consideration, as Mr Fitzgerald points out, also underlies the thinking in the United States where they have established a large scale scheme of pre-schooling. The most notable of the projects there is what they call Project Headstart. That was established by the Federal Government in the US in 1965 as part of a national campaign against poverty. It provides a range of services in health, social, psychological and educational areas for 1,500,000 children. It was a sort of pilot project of areas of great need.

What Mr Fitzgerald says about Australia by way of contrast in this very interesting survey is this:

By way of contrast, the extension of pre-school facilities in Australia has, during the past two decades, been linked less and less with the question of social disadvantage. The traditional, philanthropic character of the kindergarten movement has steadily diminished. Originally, it was in the depressed industrial suburbs of the major cities that kindergarten associations established their centres the major concern being for the physical health of deprived children. Now the major emphasis has shifted to the aspects of emotional growth and intellectual development of children from varied social backgrounds. The value of the pre-school programme has been increasingly recognised in the post-War period. As a result pre-schooling in Australia now tends to operate in such a way as to confer advantages on the child from the middle class family rather than remedy the disadvantages of any impoverished social group.

Mr Henry Schoenheimer, Senior Lecturer in Education at Monash University, makes the same general point in an article which was published in the ‘Australian’ newspaper of 2nd September of this year, in which lie says:

Pre-schooling has generally ‘ been regarded as desirable rather than essential. No-one in Australia, so far as I know, is advocating compulsory kindergarten attendance, though New York aims at accommodating all its 4-year-olds by 1970 and all its 3-year-olds by 1972.

I pause to observe that I know of no such ambitious objectives that have been suggested by any of the State educational systems in Australia or that have been spurred on, encouraged and stimulated by any opportunity of Commonwealth assistance.

Senator Cormack:

– Would you. refer to the attitude of New York schoolteachers in the Bronx?

Senator COHEN:

– When the honourable senator came in I was referring to Operation Headstart, which is a very significant thing. Indeed, it has the active support of President Johnson. In 1965, he announced a frontal assault upon this problem.

Senator Cormack:

– He does not control the schoolteachers in the Bronx. The honourable senator is citing New York.

Senator COHEN:

– I do not think the solution to this problem is going to stand or fall by the attitude of schoolteachers in the Bronx. What I am saying is that in the United States under very senior sponsorship and in Great Britain under very distinguished leadership there are, as revealed by the Plowden Report, great objectives in this field. They are setting their sights high. What I miss in the Commonwealth’s attitude is not a sign of some interest in the matter, although that is welcome, but the attention to the problem on the massive scale that is necessary in order to eliminate social inequalities at the level at which they can be eliminated, that is, at the pre-school level. If we allow these inequalities to develop, by the time children have reached primary and secondary ‘ school stages they have already the divisive influences at work on them. Already they come from different backgrounds. The chances of them then getting the kind of equality they can get with a proper pre-school programme are evaporating and disappearing. I realise that our problem is not entirely the same as that in the United Slates.

Senator Cormack:

– Or the United Kingdom.

Senator COHEN:

– Or the United Kingdom, but on the other hand we have great natural advantages here in Australia. Our system of education ought to be the best in the world with the advantages with which we start. We have a much more egalitarian society than the United Kingdom. We have great advantages here and the great thrust of educational policy ought to be to ensure that youngsters, wherever they come from in the community, have the same opportunities to develop their talents. Where children have an economically or socially deprived background there is a special responsibility to put our effort, including our financial effort, into those areas.

Senator Cormack:

– The honourable senator says this notwithstanding that the authorities he is quoting are from the United States and the United Kingdom?

Senator COHEN:

– On the contrary, I started by quoting Mr Fitzgerald, the editor of the ‘Quarterly Review of Australian Education’. He is very highly regarded in educational circles and at one time was on loan to our own Parliamentary Library as an expert on educational research. Then I quoted Mr Henry Schoenheimer who is regarded as being among the liberal reformers in Australian education. He holds a senior position at a distinguished Aus tralian university, in the talented educational school at Monash. 1 could quote Mr John McLaren, the author of a very penetrating recent book called ‘Our Troubled Schools’. He is a senior lecturer in the secondary teachers’ college in Melbourne and he ought to know something about these problems. He does not have his mind on the Bronx and on the problems of underprivilege in the United Kingdom; he has his mind on Australia. This is what he said about this scheme which he describes, as I do, as being very welcome:

This has been an aspect of education long neglected by Australian governments, and tha Commonwealth acceptance . of a measure of responsibility is most opportune.

It is unfortunate, however, that the Government is not prepared to follow the American example of a head-start programme, for underprivileged children.

Under the present system, kindergartens are provided for those children who need them least, and this serves only to increase the educational disadvantages of the rest of the child population before they even enter primary school.

As long as education . remains essentially a middle-class affair, it will continue to offer its greatest rewards to children from middle-class backgrounds; but this built-in bias can be lessened by ensuring that all children are equally well prepared before they enter the first years of their schooling.

I would suggest that we could not get a clearer statement of principle upon which educators could base their approach to this problem, lt is quite obvious that the Commonwealth has a very heavy responsibility in putting its toes into the water in this aspect of education. The subject has many ramifications. None of us here, I suppose, is an expert in the teaching of young children, but for these tender, frail young minds which are being brought for the first time into contact with other children and with educators in an educational environment, this is a moment of great opportunity.

Let us not regard pre-school education as something of a minor consequence, a matter of indifference to the State or to the Commonwealth whether it takes place or not, or as something that should essentially be a matter of whether it suits the parents to send them to kindergarten; let us regard it as an opportunity to provide a proper basis for an education in a democratic society.

We are not opposing this measure and it is not my purpose to debate the general issue which I want to raise in relation to school libraries. However, there are three or four areas in which there is some special responsibility for the Commonwealth to act and three or four areas which are peculiarly Australian, in a way. I have mentioned the economically disadvantaged and I do not want to say any more about them. There is the problem of the non-English-speaking child. There is the problem of the child of migrant parents who should have this opportunity for pre-school education, if he misses out in that area he may never come into contact in a real sense with the moment of opportunity to learn the English language as it ought to be learnt. This problem was very well put by Dr Marion de Lemos in the same issue of the ‘Quarterly Review of Australian Education’ in June of this year.

Senator Wright:

– At what page?

Senator COHEN:

– The article starts at page 14. I am glad to see that the Minister has the text so that he can follow my remarks.

Senator Cormack:

– Is this the ‘Australian Quarterly Review’?

Senator COHEN:

– It is the ‘Quarterly Review of Australian Education’. I have found it to be an extremely well balanced publication which puts the various arguments and considerations very fairly. The article refers at page 25 to the relevance of overseas developments to pre-school education in Australia. It deals with some special problems in Australia where preschool education could be used to meet special needs. The first problem, the article states, is related to the schooling of nonEnglishspeaking migrant children. The article continues:

While it is generally agreed that many migrant children suffer language difficulties in school, little attempt has yet been made to determine the extent to which these difficulties affect their school learning and achievement, or to investigate any means to overcome these difficulties. The provision of special programmes of language training for non-English-speaking migrant children with the pre-school could help to meet this problem. The pre-school could also provide a means of contact between the non-English-speaking migrant mother and the school and community.

The article goes on to make some practical suggestions by saying:

This could be done through arranging English classes, discussion groups, and other community activities which would bring the migrant mothers into contact with Australian mothers. This could help to meet the problem of isolation and lack of contact with the Australian community that constitutes one of the main difficulties facing migrants, particularly the women who have no contacts outside of their home and family. Traditionally oriented pre-school programmes are unlikely to be effective in meeting the needs of migrant children, and programmes with clearly specified objectives and teaching instructions would need to be devised and tested to determine their effectiveness in overcoming language difficulties.

That is the first problem that he raises as a special need in the pre-school area in the Australian environment.

Secondly, he points to the problem of Aboriginal education. I have no time to develop this aspect at length, but the learned author says:

While forming only a small proportion of the population in most Australian States, aboriginal communities pose serious social problems. One of the main factors contributing to the unemployment and poverty in these communities is lack of education. Aboriginal children attending school generally reach only a very low level of achievement, and few complete secondary schooling.

He makes the point that in Australia, as in other countries, when we deal with aboriginal children we have to get away from traditional methods. This has been done in the United States of America and in Israel, which countries have found that the traditional pre-school methods are not adequate to meet the needs of severely deprived children, especially those from backward communities. That is the second special area to which some attention will, in the long run, have to be given in preschool education.

Thirdly, there is the area in which preschools could serve a special need in providing facilities for the children of working mothers. That, of course, is a problem in itself - the extent to which children are in school for the convenience of working mothers and the extent to which mothers need to be breadwinners and to help with the family and so to find proper places for their children. Those are all problems of very real importance and they will form part of the challenge for Australian preschool education in the future.

It could be said that this is a little bit away from the precise purpose of the Bill. I see the Minister nodding his head, but I think on reflection he would acknowledge that we must ask ourselves seriously about any step that we take in the education field is: What is the purpose of it all? What kind of education do we want for our children? What sort of objectives should the national government set itself in intervening at all in education policy? Is it merely to say: Well, there is a little more money for the States to spend how they like’? Is it putting the icing on the cake, as the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) - who was once Minister for Education and Science - said in relation to the Commonwealth’s function, or is it something wider? Has the Commonwealth to give some leadership - I use that word in the best sense and not in the sense of telling everybody outside Canberra how lt is to be done - effective leadership in the proper elucidation and solution of these problems which are problems that the whole community shares? We welcome the Bill. We welcome the opportunity afforded by its introduction to speak about these general issues. Above all, we must not have the idea that by doing something - and doing something valuable - we are solving everything. We are merely making a contribution to the solution of an extremely important problem and we have to understand the wider ramifications of that problem. We have to understand into what kind of areas we may eventually be treading if we are to adopt the consequences and the logic of taking the first tentative but nevertheless definite step that is involved in this Bill.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD (Victoria) [8.26] - I do not propose to speak at any length on this Bill because Senator Wright, who represents the Minister for Education and Science in the Senate, stated in his second reading speech that the Bill gives legislative effect to one of the new measures in education announced by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) in his Budget speech. I would like to congratulate the Government on the introduction of this measure. This is not the first occasion, as Senator Cohen has claimed, that the Government has entered the field of pre-school education, but I propose to deal with that later. The Bill provides for a direct contribution by the Commonwealth to the development of preschool education. The contribution will be made by unmatched capital grants to the States to increase the capacity of approved pre-school teachers’ colleges throughout Australia. The Minister has already stated that investigations and consultations with the various authorities responsible for preschools and pre-school teacher training colleges, and with State education departments indicated that assistance to ensure an adequate supply of trained kindergarten teachers was the area in which the Commonwealth could give the most important help to pre-school education. Therefore, the proposal before the Senate will make available the sum of $2.5m over this and two subsequent years to be distributed among the various colleges in the States for the construction and equipping of colleges for the training of pre-school teachers throughout Australia.

Flexibility is provided in the Bill by giving the Minister authority to vary the amounts between the individual colleges. In addition the Bill does not specify that particular amounts shall be spent in particular areas, but the Minister is required to table in the Parliament each year a statement showing the amounts he authorised for all projects in the previous year. The Government’s object is clearly discernible; it will provide help to colleges to double their present output of trained pre-school teachers, and lest there should be any doubt in the mind of any honourable senator about the need to double at least the number of pre-school teachers I would advert to the extraordinary development that has taken place in pre-school education over the last decade. To do that it is necessary for me to traverse some of the ground covered by Senator Cohen.

It is freely admitted by all who know anything about pre-school education that kindergarten and nursery schools were started originally to provide social help to under-privileged children, and they were therefore necessarily situated in areas where under-privilege existed. But today ‘pre- school’ may refer to any type of centre established for the education of children under the statutory school age. This is what Senator Cohen forgot when he was speaking. A pre-school centre is one which is established to provide pre-school education for any child under the statutory age and the economic situation of the parent has nothing whatever to do with pre-school education.

The need for pre-school education, and the growth in it. arises from different circumstances in the home and the community and different attitudes today towards life. As honourable senators would know, the restrictive living space in a modern home often proves very confining for the psychological and physical development of young children. Another contributing factor is the increase over the years in the number of women in the work force. The proportion of married women gainfully employed today is very much greater than it used to be. Indeed, a pre-school centre is provided for staff at one of the leading teaching hospitals in Sydney. Some universities also provide such centres for staff and undergraduates.

Senator Cormack:

– But Senator Cohen gave a sinister explanation for all this.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD:

–

There is nothing sinister about it at all. 1 would like to develop my own argument because this is a subject about which 1 think 1 know a little. I have worked for a long time with people engaged in pre-school activities. There is a growing belief in the community that in many instances it is better for a child to attend a pre-school centre even though the mother may be present in the home. The fact that there are more smaller families contributes to this. People who are very authoritative on this subject believe it is often essential for a child, upon reaching 3 years of age, to mix with other children of that age if the child is to develop normal interactions with children of the same age.

Senator Cohen referred particularly to the need for pre-school education for Aboriginal children. He quoted an opinion that Aboriginal children benefit fully from formal education only if they have the same type of pre-school association as other children have. I agree with that opinion. I think the Government agrees with it also. I have some of the most delightful pictures of children in pre-school centres in Darwin and Alice Springs which Senator Cohen may like to see. They are a joy. I think the Commonwealth Government has recognised fully, in areas in which it is responsible for Aboriginal children, that pre-school education can contribute greatly to their development. Senator Cohen also referred to the need for migrant children to receive preschool education. I could not agree more. In certain areas many migrant children attend pre-school centres because their parents have realised that this is the best way for a child to learn English at an early age. Perhaps Senator Cohen would like to accompany me to the Lady Gowrie Centre in Bouverie Street, Carlton, at some time. I would then be able to show him an excellent centre which has been established in the heart of one of the most densely populated migrant areas in Australia.

Senator Cohen:

– It is some time since I was there.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD:

Yes. Perhaps the most poignant group of children to benefit from pre-school education are the mentally and physically retarded children. Those children who find difficulty in coping under normal circumstances are much better off when mixing with people outside their own homes. If a child suffers from any disability it is often frustrated and inhibited through over protection. If parents insist that such a child receive preschool education they find it often contributes greatly to the future maximum development of that child. Many professional men and women believe that well run pre-school centres provide a means of solving problems of child behaviour and child management. In many cases the teachers at these centres are able to prevent such problems from arising.

As I said earlier - and 1 agree with Senator Cohen in this respect - kindergartens and pre-schools developed out of voluntary services. The demand for pre-school teachers was met by voluntary organisations which established this type of training in Australia. However, today, these organisations cannot meet the demands. Therefore the Commonwealth Government is taking a positive step to assist them. But this is not the first step taken by the Commonwealth. I remind Senator Cohen that in 1940 the Commonwealth Government established a pre-school demonstration centre in each of the six State capitals.

Senator Cohen:

– I have not overlooked that point.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD:

–

Well, the honourable senator said that this was the first step. Let us consider what has been happening since 1940. These centres, known as Lady Gowrie Centres, are administered by local State committees under the supervision of the Australian Pre-School Association which is located in Canberra. The Commonwealth makes an annual grant towards the operation of the centres. The Commonwealth provided a sum of $120,000 in the Appropriation Bill passed by the Senate a week or so ago. That is not an inconsequential sum. It is a substantial amount of money. True it is that this money passes through the Department of Health but nevertheless it represents a contribution by the Commonwealth Government to preschool education.

I would like to say a little more about these centres because they have been used as the model for pre-school centres that have been set up throughout Australia. The specialised function of the Lady Gowrie Centres is that of demonstration and research. Programmes are carried out under the supervision of the Federal pre-school officer. The centres are concerned with the study of factors promoting and retarding mental and physical health in young children and in demonstrating an educational health programme based on the needs of children between the ages of 3 and 6 years. They are also used for observation by student teachers and by students of medicine, psychology, education, social studies, architecture, nursing and domestic science. Therefore, Mr Deputy President, I contend that the Commonwealth Government, through its financial support to these centres, has been involved to no small degree in pre-school education. It is true that in Canberra itself a very lively appreciation exists of the value of preschool and kindergarten centres. These centres in the national capital are second to none in the Commonwealth, and very properly so. I think that the best that can be provided is not one bit too good for the future citizens of this country. 1 now would like to come back again to the Bill itself, and refer specifically to the Schedule. 1 have been extremely interested to read that the trustees of the Melbourne Kindergarten Teachers College have been allocated $210,000. Earlier, I was quite prepared to go along with the Minister on the matter of flexibility. But I would be interested to hear from him the reason why Victoria, with the second largest child population in Australia, appears to receive a much smaller allocation proportionately or on the basis of percentage than do some of the other States. I will be very happy to learn whether this is another instance of the principle that Victoria, having helped itself, need not expect as much help from this source. The Minister can supply me with the reason for this smaller allocation.

However, as I said at the commencement of my speech, I do not intend to speak at length on this Bill. I agree with everyone who says that pre-school education is the base of the whole structure of education and social relationships. No money value can be placed upon it. No-one can gauge its effect on the child or on the adult. I have been working with others in this field for a long time, Sir, and I have no hesitation in standing here and saying that I, for one, hope the day will come when every child will have the advantage of pre-school education. I support the Bill and I commend the Minister.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - Mr President, I am grateful for the lucid explanation that my colleague, Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood, has given of facets of the Bill supported from her unremitting experience in this field over several years. 1 noted too with appreciation that honourable senators opposite are abstaining from opposition to this Bill and will allow its passage. But I am bound to say that, on a Bill such as this, the quality of the education of the chamber is revealed in the character of our contributions to this discussion. There are one or two remarks that I would reserve for myself on this occasion. The first is stoutly to refute the proposition by Senator Cohen that the approach of the Commonwealth Government to this matter is a tentative one and a piecemeal one characterised by stubborn refusal on demanding areas.

Under this Bill we are supporting an appropriation of $2im for the assistance of colleges that have been approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and which are designed to provide training facilities for pre-school teachers. We remind ourselves that the opinion of the Minister has not been formed solely upon his own experience and judgment. I inform the Senate that the Minister took into account the opinions of various authorities responsible in the preschool area, including the teachers in the training colleges who operate this field of education, and indeed the opinions of the departments of education in the various States. With such a combination of opinions and judgments, it ill-becomes us, I submit, on unsubstantial material to criticise the basis of the policy of the Commonwealth in this matter when we remind ourselves that this is an initial approach to a new field of Commonwealth interest in the area of education - that it is one more field in which the Commonwealth has emphasised its interest. To me, when we put it in this context, the statement by Senator Cohen that the approach of the Government to this field is tentative and characterised by stubborn refusal on matters that should be supplied is ill-advised.

Senator Cohen:

– I was talking about the whole of our education policy.

Senator WRIGHT:

– And these are the remarks that I feel that I should be given an opportunity to make in order to explain my point of view. The Federal Government interested itself in the field of education, first, by assisting and complementing State expenditure on universities. The Commonwealth then provided assistance for colleges of advanced education, science laboratories, technical training facilities, teacher training colleges and school libraries, inaugurated a scholarships scheme and now introduces assistance to pre-schools. If that is not a well considered programme fertilising the purposes of education, I do not know what is. This is a well considered programme, not in the administrative way that Senator Cohen would suggest - Senator Cohen by waving his hand would produce everything and supply the requirements of education in every field - but in a practical way. The Commonwealth proposition is one which is appropriate to the confidence that the people have reposed in it in respect of the appropriation of the money that they yield for this purpose. We are dealing with $2im of that money tonight.

The next thing that Senator Cohen was good enough to think was worthy of inclusion in his contribution to the debate was the suggestion that the Commonwealth, by assisting in this field, was assisting the area of the well-to-do and the upper class. The fact is that the Department of Education and Science has made a survey as to this aspect. This is the aspect which Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood has most clearly shown is irrelevant to the situation. But the survey conducted by the Minister’s Department shows that of the pre-schools in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, 58% of the affiliated metropolitan units were in the poorer sections of the city of Sydney, 65% in the city of Melbourne, 73% in the city of Adelaide, and 55% in the city of Perth. I am not here to pretend that anybody can ascertain these things with any degree of accuracy. But this is a survey by which the Minister for Education and Science has informed himself and, so far from neglecting the aspect of need, he has adopted a viewpoint which shows that the pre-school centres are located in the areas where the need is greater.

Significant as these figures are, if we take a survey in relation to pre-schools that have been built in the last 5 years or are likely to be built in the next 12 months, we will find even more cogent figures to suggest that what we are doing is specially assisting the areas of need. Of pre-schools built in the last 5 years or likely to be built in the next 12 months, 62% of those in Sydney, 75% of those in Melbourne, 75% of those in Adelaide and 54% of those in Perth are in the more unfortunate areas. That proves that the allegation that the Minister has altogether neglected the area of need is completely ill-founded.

Senator Cohen then suggested that the Government should concentrate with much more emphasis on providing facilities for the pre-school child of from 3 to 5 years. All I want to say on that aspect is that we are putting forward a practical approach, not some airy fairy proposition. The amount allocated to this field is to be considered, not in absolute terms in the abstract but in relation to other needs in the field of education and to other fields calling for Commonwealth responsibility. I was impressed with the citation of authority to which I am afraid lawyers are a little too prone. Nevertheless it excited in me, as a lawyer, an interest. Of course I assumed that all the authorities quoted were of accepted position in the education field. One of them was Dr Marion de Lemos, whose article appears in the June 1968 issue of ‘Quarterly Review of Australian Education’. According to the quotation that fell from Senator Cohen, that article referred to striking advances in New York in the field of education. I listened intently and failed to hear Senator Cohen refer to a certain passage in the article. I crave the indulgence of the Senate to put it into the text of tonight’s debate so that it can be considered alongside that fragment of the article that Senator Cohen chose to state. On page 18 the author says:

The second factor influencing the trend towards the new emphasis on the development of intellectual skills in the pre-school is the development of the concept of compensatory pre-school education and the establishment of compensatory preschool programmes, particularly in the USA.

I ask the Senate to note this -

These programmes are still in an early stage of development, and as yet no clear evidence of the effects of such programmes is available. However, they have given rise to a great deal of interest and research activity.

The very next paragraph goes on:

In the USA the major impetus to pre-school education was given by Project Headstart-

I think that was the project referred to - an 8 week pre-school programme initiated throughout the country in the summer of 196S, and continued in subsequent years.

An 8-week programme initiated in the great New York in 1965! That is the precedent that has been put to us, and the very contributor who is quoted to us says that there is no clear evidence of the effect of such programme yet available. The article goes on:

The widespread enthusiasm and support for this project has generally been taken as an indication of its success. However, its effectiveness has not yet been established, and there is some indication that without a continuing programme of special education the initial advantages gained through pre-schooling may quickly disappear.

Forgive me for my sins, but one thing I cannot disclaim is parentage. If a child who has had an 8-week pre-school1 programme has to go through the rest of the year without it, I am afraid that he will lose a lot of the advantage of the pre-school tuition unless he is particularly perservering. Then reference was made to Aboriginals. I pass that by because it is so obviously a special area. Both Mr Wentworth and Mr Malcolm Fraser in their recent statements have announced the provision of scholarships and other educational advantages which are really striking in their contribution to the situation.

Senator Cohen, leading for the Opposition, then chose to illustrate the deficiency in this form of instruction in the migrant field. I should like to refer to the supplement to the June 1968 issue of ‘Quarterly Review of Australian Education’ which contains a statement by Miss Mary Swift, Assistant Federal Officer, Australian Pre-school Association. In commenting upon the article by

Dr Marion de Lemos, to which I have just referred, Miss Swift referred to the federal pre-school experience in relation to migrants in this way:

In the immediate post-war years the Australian Pre-school Association was approached by the Commonwealth Government seeking advice about the establishment of pre-school centres for migrant children. By the year 1951, 22 centres were established in migrant camps catering for 5,000 children of 19 nationalities. Qualified pre-school teachers were appointed to staff the centres under the supervision of senior personnel. The activities suggested by Dr de Lemos were featured in the centres’ programmes and migrant mothers were employed as assistants. These women made an important contribution to the centres and received help through these contacts.

Then the author goes on to say that we have passed through that transitional stage and have matured to something much more effective:

As the housing position improved, people moved out from the migrant camps more quickly and the need for these pre-school centres diminished. In 1968 only one such centre is still operating. It is a source of satisfaction that many migrant children are now attending community pre-schools where their special needs are carefully considered.

The author refers with rare commendation to the Lady Gowrie Child Centre in Carlton, Victoria, where these migrant children join with the rest of the community in receiving with Australian children, like with like, the education to which they are entitled.

It is due to ourselves and to the country to consider, in a debate on a Bill relating to education, the balance first of the information and then of the judgment that the contributions to the debate displayed. I have brought into focus one or two of the observations made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of trying to get in debates on education in this place a realisation that what we should be doing is making a genuine contribution to the real purposes of education.

The only other comment I want to add as a postscript is made in deference to the remark of my colleague, Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood, who referred to the apparently exiguous amount that has been appropriated to Victoria in this Bill. The Melbourne Kindergarten Teachers’ College receives an appropriation, as the honourable senator said, of only $210,000. The reason for that is that the Victorian Bolte Government had already supplied to that College about $425,000. Taking the national outlook and avoiding dissidence through purely State considerations, it is a case where our supplement, allied to the more favourable grant of the Bolte Government, provides a balanced contribution to preschool education in the city of Melbourne. I hope that the Senate will give the Bill a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3- - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Minister may approve building projects).

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I wish to take this opportunity, prior to the Senate’s giving approval to this clause, to reply to some of the remarks of the Minister in winding up the debate on the second reading of the Bill. I should have thought that the Minister would have been a little more gracious in accepting the fact that not only is the Opposition not opposing the Bill, but it is also making what we believe to be constructive suggestions about long term issues in the area of pre-school education. If the Minister chooses to interpret those suggestions in a very thin skinned way as being in some way unworthy and an ill considered contribution to the debate, I feel very sorry for him. We were welcoming the step that the Government is taking.

Senator Wright:

– What has this to do with the clause we are debating?

Senator COHEN:

– This is my opportunity to speak. I do not propose to vote for this clause until I have had an opportunity to say what I wish to say. With respect, I do not think that the Minister did himself or the Senate justice in the way he replied at the second reading stage of the debate. We were making a contribution. Anything I said was not meant to be the last word of wisdom on the subject. If I had two hours to make a speech on this matter perhaps I would quote the passage referred to by the Minister. He was quite entitled to quote it. If 1 had sought to score debating points I would have quoted a number of other statements in the same article which show how little we have so far done in Australia in the field of pre-school education. My remarks were not intended to be critical of what the Government has so far done in this field. This is the first opportunity to point to the fact that in an area so vast we must be conscious of the fact that there are many complex problems. It did not seem to me to be inappropriate for a senator leading for the Opposition to point to those problems in dealing with a Bill of this importance. Subject to those remarks, I support the clause.

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 Wright) read a third time.

page 2157

STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS LIBRARIES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 November (vide page 1655), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– The Bill that the Senate is now to debate, like the States Grants (Pre-school Teachers Cot leges) Bill we have just debated, is of considerable importance. It deals with the grant of financial assistance to the States for libraries at secondary schools and for the acquisition of library material and equipment for use in such libraries. It sets out a programme for the expenditure of $27m over the 3-year period commencing on 1st January 1969 for approved capital projects for the development of school libraries in government and independent secondary schools throughout Australia. The general purport of the measure may be summarised by saying that it follows rather closely the lines of the science laboratories scheme which was introduced in 1964 or 1965, and is now in its second triennium. That scheme is likely to conclude at some time during the next triennium, according to a speech made earlier this year by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in introducing the second 3-year period of the scheme. The Minister said that the current triennium will carry the scheme through to 1971 and in the following 3 years there ought to be lesser expenditure on the scheme; that, in effect, it ought to wind up the job.

The library scheme introduced by this Bill follows the pattern of the science laboratories scheme. We do not wish to be grudging about this legislation. Any scheme to assist the spread of education ought not to be rejected. Many aspects of the science laboratories scheme have worked effectively. In some ways we have been very critical of it because we do not believe that it has been accompanied by sufficient measures to emphasise the importance of science teaching as a concomitant of the development of science laboratories and science facilities. I say that, quite irrespective of whether one speaks of the operation of the scheme in government or nongovernment schools. Our criticism at the time was that it was one thing to develop science laboratories but it was also necessary to concentrate on the training of a sufficient number of qualified science teachers to take full advantage of the scheme. We put our objections, as far as they went, on that kind of basis.

We believe that this libraries scheme is another example of the way in which this Government has approached the whole matter of Commonwealth entry into the field of education. I know that on that point I will be in conflict immediately with the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Minister for Education and Science. We have prepared a far reaching amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill. It sets out our basic philosophy in relation to the Bill and spells out our criticisms of the Government. That amendment reads:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof:

The Senate is of opinion that the Bill is an inadequate contribution to education in Australia because it -

fails to attack the crisis in education in Australia in the areas of greatest need;

is symptomatic of the Government’s unplanned, piecemeal approach to the development of educational facilities in Australia, and

fails to provide for an inquiry into all aspects of education, at all levels, in both government and non-government schools.

Therefore the Senate resolves that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted -

to provide for the extension of the grants for libraries and library material and equipment to primary schools;

to provide for recurrent grants for the maintenance of libraries and for the training of teacher-librarians; and

to ensure that, in the administration of the scheme, priority is given to schools according to need, so that all children shall have equal opportunities of access to library facilities’.

In regard to paragraph (1) of the amendment I point out that the Bill deals only with libraries in secondary schools. In regard to paragraph (2) I point out that the Bill deals with the provision of buildings and library materials and equipment, but it does not deal at all with the problem of recurrent grants or with the essential accompaniment of a successful libraries scheme, namely, the training of teacher-librarians. Buildings and books are not much good without the proper guidance to students to enable them to take full advantage of those facilities. And that guidance can come only from the employment of properly trained teacher-librarians. Paragraph (3) relates to the central problem that I raised in dealing with the States Grants (Pre-school Teachers Colleges) Bill.

As far as the Australian Labor Parry is concerned, the emphasis is on need. 1 say quite plainly that in this debate we are serving notice that the next Labor government will not regard itself as being bound to follow meekly in the footsteps of the present Government in the field of education policy. We will establish our own patterns of assistance in education. We will make need the criterion for assistance. We will give financial aid in the areas in which it can do most to make equality of educational opportunity a reality. That is something that we think is not part of the Government’s approach to the education problem today. I will develop that in a moment or two.

We believe that it is extremely important to do what is being done by this Bill; that is, to make more and more books available to more and more children. The library is the core of any education system. Books are essential to education. As one authority has put it, the library is the heart of the modern school. Its concern is with the whole of education and with the potential of every pupil because of the diversified nature of the material that it contains. It expresses the belief that in some way all children are readers and that reading endows them with skills and with a richer appreciation of life. In providing children with the tools and materials of research, the library makes of everyone an explorer in his own right and, in a degree immeasurable, a moulder of his own destiny. In an age in which there is continual competition for the attention of youth through pictorial agencies, the library demonstrates the significance of books in the unity and continuity of knowledge. This is something that is extremely important to all of us. So, when there is a scheme that will bring these things closer to reality, it has to be welcomed - as far as it goes.

In the field of education there are deprived areas in this community. The whole thrust of education policy has to be designed to do something for the children in those areas. 1 do not want to see assistance going to places where it is not needed. We have had criticisms to make in the past. I do not want to document them or to go into detail on some aspects of the science laboratories scheme. Under that scheme, some laboratories have been built in schools in which they would have been built anyway. In other schools the scheme has been of great assistance. I am not concerned about suggestions that the equipment provided has not always been the most suitable for scientific laboratories. I dare say that that is true in some instances and that attempts are made to remedy that fault. But if we are talking about spending millions of dollars on some aspect of education, it is important that those millions of dollars go to places where they can do some good and where they will help somebody who otherwise would not have been helped.

In the case of the library scheme, the Minister’s second reading speech spells out a difficulty that seems to us to be central to the question. Let me quote from his speech the following passage, which makes the point that we want to criticise:

The Government hopes that the scheme will assist secondary schools to develop a modern school library….. The intention is that schools will be able to obtain a good basic stock of these materials to be used in new libraries or in existing libraries where these are of acceptable standard.

What the Government is saying there is: We will have new libraries or we will supplement the libraries that are of acceptable standard’. But what about the libraries that are not of acceptable standard because of poverty or deprivation? Does the Government say: ‘Those are not the Government’s concern’? We say that in regard to this Bill the concentration has to be in the areas of the greatest need.

Paragraph (b) of the amendment declares that the Bill is symptomatic of the Government’s unplanned, piecemeal approach to the development of educational facilities in Australia. I say that quite deliberately. I am prepared to stand up to any rebuttal that the Minister may see fit to make. The Labor Party charges that in the whole of the Government’s approach to the education problem the thing just grows; there is not a plan; and things which were rejected yesterday or which were not part of the Government’s plan yesterday are adopted by it today. For 15 years the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, as he now is, said no to every attempt to interest the Commonwealth in spheres of education other than the universities. I challenge anybody to gainsay that. We tried, and we tried, and we tried, and we could not get an atom of interest because, taking the high constitutional ground, he said: ‘These are matters for the States.’ Indeed, when the Martin Committee recommended that the Commonwealth enter the field of teacher training he said: ‘Important though this field of education is, the Commonwealth is not prepared to enter it.’

Senator Gair:

– When he was saying that, what was the ALP doing?

Senator COHEN:

– For 10 years before we got the Ministry of Education and Science we were pressing for the establishment of it. The ALP was also calling for Commonwealth assistance in education, and I would remind the honourable senator that the ALP pioneered the Commonwealth component in education with the establishment of the Australian Universities Commission in 1942-43, with the establishment of the Australian National University, and with the great reconstruction training scheme after the last war which set many of the young men who served this country on the road to opportunity because it gave them an educational start.

Senator Little:

– That was us, not you. You were not there then.

Senator COHEN:

– Do not start on that. I was in it as long ago as the honourable senator was.

Senator Gair:

– Do not give us that. You were hiding behind a bush that year.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ball)- Order!

Senator COHEN:

– I do not want protection against that kind of vulgarity, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was saying that it is not so long ago since the present Prime Minister was saying that libraries are none of the Commonwealth’s business. Let us have a bit of perspective about this. I reject utterly this kind of contemptuous nonsense that flows from the Minister in charge of the Bill in this place when one seeks to get under the Government’s skin a little bit and tell a few home truths. Early in 1967, which is not so very long ago, the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association wrote to the present Prime Minister, when he was Minister for Education and Science, and said: ‘What about a school library scheme on the lines of the existing science facilities scheme?’

Senator Wright:

– What year was that?

Senator COHEN:

– It was 1967, which is not so very long ago. It was early in 1967. It was in the life of the present Parliament.

Senator Greenwood:

– When did the Labor Party adopt assistance to libraries as part of its policy? Has it ever done so?

Senator COHEN:

– Just listen to me. Just take it for a moment. I am going to read the reply by the Prime Minister to the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association. He said: 1 was impressed with the presentation of your arguments. However, this is a matter which is the sole responsibility of the various State governments, except in various Commonwealth internal Territories.

The Association had asked him for an interview to put in person the case which impressed him so much in writing. He said:

As there is no question at this stage-

Let me be fair. He said ‘at this stage’ - of the Commonwealth Government entering this field in the States, I do not think there is anything to be gained by discussing this issue with your representative.

Senator Greenwood:

– What was your Party’s policy then?

Senator COHEN:

– Will you please keep quiet. You are not going to put me off my speech. 1 have made too many in this place.

The point I am illustrating is that this Government has no concerted approach to an education policy. If something is likely to win an election, the Government’s answer is yes. The test is not educational, it is political. That is the test that this Government applies to its education policy, and that is why I think it is fair to say to parents and to educators: ‘You cannot trust this Government. It will do whatever it thinks will win votes on the eve of an election.’ I say that because, back in 1963, after we had had 15 years of refusal by Sir Robert Menzies to enter into any field of education but universities, we had some action. Heaven help me, I am not going to discuss the Fill aircraft, although the event I am going to talk about was in October 1963, but in that pre-election year we had (he introduction of scholarships for secondary schools, scholarships for technical schools and science laboratories, all in the one breath. Sir Robert Menzies thought he was going to have trouble in the elections, and we got the lot. We got the FI 1 1 in four days as well. 1 would give the Government a lot more credit if it had said: ‘There is a great deal to be done and you can only have a limited amount of resources applied to education compared with other calls such as development, defence, and so on; but. we can see the light and we would like to do this.’ The Government is frightened to open its mouth and say yes to anything unless it is obvious that what is suggested is something that can be politically right at the right time. That is no way to tackle an education policy. I make no apologies for saying that the Government’s approach is unplanned, that it is piecemeal, that it is ad hoc and that it is based on political opportunism more than it is based on educational considerations.

I come now to the first leg of my criticism of the Bill, and it relates to what I deem to be the fatal flaw in the Government’s policy. Although, on the face of things, one would not expect it to do so, the Bill fails to provide for an inquiry into all aspects of education at all levels in both government and non-government schools. I cannot imagine a more reasonable plea than a plea for that. We have been making it for 10 years. We have been saying in our election speeches that we would set up an inquiry into all aspects of education, pre-school, primary, secondary and technical, in government and non-government schools. I do not suppose we need an inquiry into tertiary education because we have Commonwealth participation in universities and colleges of advanced education. If such an inquiry were set up, all sorts of needs of the country in education’s various aspects could be examined.

I suppose that, like me, every other honourable senator gets a lot of mail dealing with educational matters. I suppose they are all asked whether they will support this or support that, whether they are in agreement that funds should be provided for this purpose or that purpose, whether it be in public schools or in private schools. And he would be a very rash man who would say yes to every request that he gets in relation to these matters. They have to be evaluated, and they have to be evaluated in terms of need.

The Labor Party wants to see an inquiry into all forms and all levels of education so that the case can be put and the areas of greatest need can be assisted. That seems to be an eminently reasonable proposition. But the Government has never been willing to do it, because it has been unwilling to accept overall responsibility for giving leadership in these problems. That seems to me to be the fatal flaw in its policy. We say all sorts of propositions can be examined, with a view to deciding which is the best way of assisting a particular aspect of education, whether it be the public system, the private system or any other. It is only by a thorough inquiry that we can ascertain which is the proper, the sensible and the rational way of approaching these problems. That seems to me to be a very reasonable approach. When we come to look at individual pieces of legislation we have to test them not because we want to throw them out but because we want to see whether they are realistically part of anything or whether they are again political improvisations, and so on. That is the broad background upon which we approach this Bill.

I want to deal briefly now with the deficiencies of the measure. We say there are three. Firstly, we say there is no warrant for assuming that we ought to start at the secondary level. There is a good deal of material to suggest that the library ought to be the heart of a primary school. This is where children learn to use books, where the relationship between teachers, books and librarians is established in a way which lays the proper foundation for the children’s later development. That seems to us to be extremely important. We should not limit the provision in an arbitrary way to secondary school libraries. But the Minister’s reply to this suggestion is: ‘Yes, I am aware that there is a case for primary schools, but you have to start somewhere.’ I think the educationists would agree that we have to start somewhere.

However, not everybody would agree that we ought to start in the secondary schools to the exclusion of primary schools. Rather than the elaborate buildings which often go with secondary school libraries, we want books, shelves and the basic materials which are the sort of thing that youngsters start with in the primary school. Probably, also, primary schools are the places in which the greatest need can be established, although again something different might be established in an inquiry. Secondly, the legislation fails to provide for recurrent grants for the maintenance of libraries and for the training of teacher librarians. I said something about this in opening and I do not want to be guilty of unnecessary repetition. It is one thing to set the scheme up; it is another thing to keep the scheme going. Frankly, sometimes over the years books become out of date, and in schools curricula change very rapidly. I do not recognise the books that my children bring home from their primary and secondary schools; they are nothing like the books that I knew a generation ago, and I do not know that they are very much like the books that were in use 10 or IS years ago. Although there is a basic core of materials that would go into any library, there is rapid change.

The worst thing about a library is for it to be old-fashioned or out of date. If one walks into a ship’s library or a library like that one cannot find anything that has been written in the last 10 or 20 years, and so one walks away. The test of a good library is that it is kept up to date. So, sooner or later some attention will have to be given to recurrent grants. .Suffice it to say that at present there is a deficiency in the legislation in this respect.

The second leg of my argument relates to the training of teacher librarians. This is critical, but there is nothing in the Bill about this. There is something about a crash course at some place for the training of teacher librarians. 1 know what the Minister thinks about crash courses because already he has had something to say about Operation Headstart, the American project which 1 cited and which he properly criticised as being based upon a short term course. Crash courses are not going to turn out proper teacher librarians. The role of a teacher librarian has to be a career that is so good in itself that a teacher will be prepared to be a librarian and be left in some promotional scale. We cannot expect a teacher to give up opportunities for promotion in an orderly grade or classification in the teaching service to remain static for 5, 10 or 20 years as a librarian.

The librarian has to be so skilled that he or she can teach not only children but also the teachers so that there can be a constant relationship between the librarian in the school and what is going on in the classroom. The school library is not just a place where a child can go if he has a period off and nobody is looking after him, a place where he can read something that he wants to read; nor is it a place to go to borrow a text book if he cannot afford to buy it. It is the place in which the child’s horizons are being widened because there is such a good relationship between librarian and teacher and librarian and child; it is the place where the contact freshens, enlivens and enriches the child, where the child gets something out of it. We need teachers, librarians, children and books, and they all have to be brought not into a static relationship but into a dynamic relationship so that the whole thing is a living experience, an educational experience. That is what this ought to be all about. We are saying that it is a basic deficiency of the scheme not to have a sufficient number of trained librarians.

The facts about the shortage of libraries have been documented by people such as Margaret Trask who wrote a report to the nation on school libraries. I am pleased to see that she is one of the persons appointed to the advisory committee under this legislation. The facts have been documented also by Professor Sarah Fenwick who was out here as a Fulbright scholar 3 or 4 years ago and who wrote a report on libraries. She pointed to the shockingly inadequate school libraries in Australia and to the inadequate sum per pupil that this country has spent on libraries. We cannot expect to have libraries unless we spend money on them. A central difficulty is that if we want to have a proper library scheme we have to have proper training schemes for librarians. We have to make the opportunity such that a teacher will want to remain a librarian, lt is no good having a non-teacher as a librarian, one who quickly loses touch with the way that a school is run and the way in which the library facilities can be used.

Finally, we have said that we would like, on a redrawing of the Bill, that it be ensured that in the administration of the scheme priority is given to schools according to need so that all children shall have equal opportunities and access to library facilities. I want to conclude what I have to say at this stage of the discussion on this note, and I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the importance of the point: The Bill is, whether by accident or by design, silent on principles, lt merely defines ‘building’, ‘library’ and ‘library material’. Then it defines ‘secondary school’ as a school or similar institution, whether conducted by a State or not, at which some or all of the students who attend the school are taught at a secondary level of education. From that I would assume that even a primary school with a couple of secondary classes at the top would be a secondary school within the meaning of the Act. Clause 4 (3.) states:

Payment of an amount to a State under this Act is subject to the condition that the amount will be applied by the State, as approved by the Minister, for purposes in connection with libraries at secondary schools and for the acquisition of library material and equipment for use in such libraries.

That is all. There is nothing about the principle on which the moneys are to bc disbursed. There is nothing about any principle of need. There are no guidelines in accordance with which the committees are to disburse the money. All this is within the Minister’s own say-so and within the province of the Minister to determine. We want in this legislation something which would operate as a direction to the Minister and to any committees which may be appointed to advise him. This would ensure that in the administration of the scheme priority is given to schools according to need so that all children will have equal opportunities and access to library facilities. We want that in the Bill so that it will be a test and a principle according to which the legislation can be administered. Otherwise we are at large. We are back in that realm which the Minister in charge of this Bill has himself so often criticised - the exclusive prerogative of the Minister, not bound by regulations.

There are no regulations here to say how it is all to be done. It is done as a ministerial scheme, it is done by committees and it is all advice to the Minister. We think that it is deficient in that respect. Mind you, it suffers from the same deficiency as the science laboratories scheme. We want to do two things. We want to have accepted the principle that there ought to be this general policy direction that need is the supremely important thing. Secondly, we want to provide - and this is surely a very reasonable request and we will be moving it in Committee - for an annual report by the Minister to the Parliament, setting out not only the particular amounts disbursed to particular schools but also the principles upon which the moneys have been disbursed from State to State, because there has to be, to some extent, a decentralised State basis of administration and advice in the disbursement of these funds.

Those are the very substantial criticisms that we make of the deficiencies of the Bill as such. We believe that what should be done with the Bill is that the Government should have another look at it in the light of these criticisms. We think that they are far reaching and they do bring us into confrontation with the Government on broad questions of education policy. As I say, we want to make it plain that whilst we do not oppose the Bill outright we do want to fight for certain principles according to which educational legislation will be administered, and it is in that spirit that I have made the remarks that I have made on behalf of the Opposition.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– Having listened to Senator Cohen and his criticisms, I think that we should return to reality for a moment in relation to what the Bill does provide before considering some of the things that he says it does not provide and ought to provide. So it is with some pleasure that 1 rise to support the Bill and reiterate to honourable senators just what it does contain. It is a measure which gives effect to a Budget proposal to provide $27m over the next 3 years by annual amounts of $9m. lt is to provide, for approved capital projects, funds for the development of secondary school libraries by grants to the States. The funds are to build and extend libraries and to equip libraries with books, papers, periodicals, films, tape recordings, etc. So this scheme takes into account the fact that various schools in various parts of Australia will be in different stages of need in relation to libraries. The scheme makes provision for the fact that some schools will have no libraries at all and will need funds to start from scratch. It also provides for the assistance of those schools which have libraries already in use but perhaps not adequate for the purpose for which they are required. Funds are to be provided to stock up and add to the libraries which are already in use or which are to be built.

I would agree with Senator Cohen insofar as he says that it is unfortunate that this assistance was not provided to all primary schools as well as secondary schools. But I think it is fair to say that there is a limit to what can be done in any one year or in any one provision, and this is providing in an overall Commonwealth educational scheme an amount of $27m towards this part. I have little doubt that in the future the Government will be taking steps to provide adequately for the primary schools. Now, so far as the Commonwealth’s movement in education is concerned - after what Senator Cohen has said it is unfortunate that he has left the chamber and will not be able to hear my reply - Commonwealth expenditure has increased from about $50m in 1962 to about $2 10m this year, which is a very substantial increase and does show the Commonwealth’s concern, and the present Government’s concern, in this field. In a moment or two I will deal with whether or not its concern has been misdirected, but I think we can start from the proposition that certainly an increase of four times in 6 years is a very substantial increase in the attention which has been paid to this field.

There was an increase of 34% last year and a further 19% this year. Obviously in the most recent Budgets more attention has been paid to this particular field by the Government. For the reasons for this attention perhaps I could refer to what the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said in another place:

The reasons for this changed approach and the reasons for the present attitude are, I think, several.

I wish lo highlight two or three of them because it is now believed more firmly than ever before thai opportunities should be provided for individual students to develop their talents to the maximum of which they are capable. Secondly, lt is believed that a more highly educated and a better educated community is necessary in this modern scientific age if Australia is to develop as we would wish. Thirdly, 1 believe that a better educated community and nation will do much to improve the quality of life.

So in those general philosophical terms - if that is what is required to have some overall principle - this is one of the steps that are being taken by the present Government towards that end. There are numerous other projects under way. Before going on to mention some of those other Commonwealth projects perhaps it will be of particular interest to those in my own State of Tasmania to know the extent of the provision made by this Bill for that State. The provision is 8872,000 over a period of 3 years. In the first year $216,200 will be provided to Government schools, $43,200 to Roman Catholic schools and $31,500 to other independent schools. It can be anticipated, I imagine, that those figures will be repeated in each successive year for the next three years.

Senator Ormonde:

– That is, if they want it.

Senator RAE:

– I cannot imagine that they would not want it, but perhaps they will not. 1 now turn to libraries as such. A consideration which I have no doubt will be at the forefront of the work of the committee which has been appointed is the importance of taking into account the changes in teaching methods to which Senator Cohen has referred and of which, I have no doubt, honourable senators are only too well aware. Over the past 50 years many changes in teaching methods have taken place, and over the next 50 years we can expect and hope for many more changes. So one would hope that in the expenditure of the moneys provided by this Bill consideration will be given to the most convenient type of building which can be erected to work in with the possibility of ever changing teaching methods. The function of the committee was set out by the Minister for Education and Science in his second reading speech. He said:

As well as advising me on desirable standards and the assessment of deficiencies, members of this committee will visit independent schools seeking Commonwealth assistance and advise on their library needs. The committee will also assist these schools in developing plans for buildings and in selecting materials and equipment.

The constitution of the committee is such that obviously it will be capable of giving excellent consideration and advice. I hope and trust that in carrying out its work the committee will consult the work of Professor Ehrenkrantz, of California, who has produced a scheme which, in my opinion, enables maximum use to be made of the library facilities which can be provided with these funds. Basically, Professor Ehrenkrantz’s innovation is to make it possible for the interior of schools to be flexible. All interior walls of the project buildings are movable. The design is modular and is built up by repeating units on a square grid. The basic unit is a 5 feet square and space may be built up from any multiple of that unit. Spaces can be enclosed on only two or three sides or the partitions can be thrown out so that there is an open area. This scheme is devised to enable flexibility in the design of a library with the idea that it is the central feature or the hub of a teaching institution. By use of this flexible design it is possible to meet the varying needs of individual schools, or individual classes, according to the methods in vogue at the particular time. This is just one of the practical considerations which I hope will be taken into account by the committee.

When considering libraries we must not overlook one of the practical problems at existing schools inasmuch as many of them have libraries which were not designed for modern use. Some school libraries were built many years ago and may or may not be in such a location that they are the hub of the school system. In applying this legislation it may be necessary to consider whether some existing school libraries should be scrapped or used for some other purpose and replaced with others which truly fulfil the concept of being the essential hub of the school. This, of course, is a matter for the committee.

Senator Ormonde:

– This does not apply to State schools, does it?

Senator RAE:

– What does not apply?

Senator Ormonde:

– Your idea about rebuilding. The States make their own arrangements.

Senator RAE:

– I am not suggesting that anybody has to do this. I am hoping that it will be possible for schools wishing to use this system devised by the Professor to be able to do so in order to develop a better library and to make more use of the money provided under this legislation. One hopes that a situation will not develop in which there will be autocratic direction as to what shall be done in every case in every State.

Senator Ormonde:

– Do not the States have full authority?

Senator RAE:

– I will refer to State authority in a few moments. I want to refer now to the amendment moved by Senator Cohen. He suggested firstly that the Senate should state that it ‘is of opinion that the Bill is an inadequate contribution to education in Australia because it fails to attack the crisis in education in Australia in the areas ot greatest need’. Logically, this is a rather difficult claim to substantiate. This Bill that we are debating relates to the granting of assistance for libraries in secondary schools. One could hardly expect it to relate to the ‘crisis in education’ and the ‘areas of greatest need’ in education. The matter dealt with in this Bill relates to the greatest need in the library field. If that is so then I suggest that this first point in the amendment is misplaced. Perhaps it would be better placed as an amendment to Senator Gair’s Bill which proposes assistance for independent schools. It may be that this statement could be fully discussed when dealing with that Bill but I suggest it is quite inappropriate to deal with it in a debate on this Bill to provide grants for libraries.

The second point in the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is an allegation that this Bill ‘is symptomatic of the Government’s unplanned, piecemeal approach to the development of educational facilities in Australia’. Once again, we can be impressed only by the fact that this is an attempt to argue the general while dealing with the particular. This is an unfortunate tendency which has crept into this debate as well as the debate on the States Grants (Preschool Teachers Colleges) Bill. In the past there have been ample opportunities for the Opposition to discuss, and discuss at length, questions relating to the ‘crisis in education in Australia’ and the Government’s planning to overcome that crisis, and there will be ample opportunities to do so in the future. It seems to me to be particularly unfortunate to delay this Bill and to attack it in order to make political capital when there will be other opportunities to discuss these matters which will not delay the introduction of a very important measure.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That would be a good note to finish on. The honourable senator is holding up this Bill.

Senator RAE:

– Senator O’Byrne says that I am holding up this Bill. The Opposition has moved the amendment and I am replying to the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Opposition wants the Bill withdrawn and I want it to be passed. Perhaps I can get on with the job of trying to get it passed. When considering the first two points of the amendment it is as well not to forget the plans of the Government in relation to science laboratories and science facilities. Legislation dealing with science laboratories and facilities was another part of the Government’s education planning. In the period from 1964 to 1968 the Government spent $43. 2m in order to grant assistance to 383 Government high schools, selected by the State Governments, and 508 private schools. Other projects were announced in this year’s Budget. Let us consider whether those projects do anything towards overcoming the so-called crisis in education. Firstly, there is the programme relating to junior secondary science. The Treasurer (Mr McMahon), said in his Budget Speech this year:

The estimates of the Department of Education and Science include $150,000 for the first annual instalment of a Commonwealth contribution over 5 years to a major project for the development, in co-operation with Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, of curricula and related teaching materials for a junior secondary science project which covers the first 4 yeaTS of secondary school science.

He also referred to the grant for pre-school teachers colleges. The Bill relating to that grant has been debated in this chamber. As a result of that legislation S2.5m is to be spent on pre-school teachers colleges. The number of Commonwealth scholarships has increased this year. Scholarships to universities have been increased by 25% and to colleges of advanced education by 50%. These are substantial increases in anybody’s language. They certainly are increases which show sensitivity towards educational requirements in Australia and a planned and organised approach to overcoming problems. Another established and well-known area of Commonwealth activity in education relates to the control of funds for Australian universities. The fantastic development in Australian universities is evidenced by the success of the Government’s planning in this field.

I refer to the introduction of grants for technical colleges, technical training and the policy for the establishment of colleges of advanced education which has been instituted as a result of the recommendations of the committee appointed by the Government to inquire into this field. The two specialised investigations which have been conducted have produced lengthy reports of some hundreds of pages. These reports have been approved and substantially acted on by the Government. These developments that 1 have outlined all show the attention which the Government has paid to this field. They show the clarity and the uniformity of the programme of the Government in relation to education. The support by the Government for research illustrates yet another field in which it has engaged. This is part of its planned programme.

The Government is criticised for its approach, which 1 have just outlined, to this matter. But let us compare the approach of the Government with the approach that was advocated not very long ago by the Party that now criticises the Government here. Reading from page 1191 of Volume 39 of Hansard for the House of Representatives, we find that the present Leader of the Opposition in that place (MrWhitlam) said on 19th September 1963:

But there is a difference between the Government andt he Opposition on the ways in which the Government can and should assist students in all schools. The first is by increasing and extending child endowment and by granting scholarships and other benefits to students in accordance with the Constitution; we believe that no child should be denied education because of lack of means. The second is by awarding scholarships and making grants for that form of tertiary education represented by teacher training, with the object of equipping men and women for a profession and not just for a State public service. The third is to make State grants for further and new installations such as science equipment, mobile libraries and language laboratories to which non-State pupils can have access.

One can only be impressed by the fact that the programme of the Government is far more extensive than the programme pro posed then by the present Leader of the Opposition. In fact, this Government has done much more than the Opposition would have done had it been in the position to be deciding what education policy would be.

Let me go on to see whether there is some other explanation for the criticisms that have come forward here. One wonders why in the course of this debate the question of assistance to independent schools has not been raised. One wonders whether perhaps there are too many differences of opinion on the Opposition benches for that to be done. Whatever may be-

Senator Gair:

– By 36 votes to nil, the Labor Party repealed the State aid section of its programme in 1957.

Senator RAE:

– Is that so?

Senator Gair:

– Yes, by 36 to nil.

Senator Ormonde:

– That was before Senator Rae’s time.

Senator Gair:

– I think Senator Ormonde was there too.

Senator Ormonde:

– Senator Gair heard the bugle pretty late there.

Senator RAE:

– Let us move on to look at some of the other criticisms that are made by the Opposition of the Government’s education programme in the amendment that has been moved by Senator Cohen. An incredible thing is included in the amendment. The incredible thing is that it is suggested that this Bill:

  1. fails to provide for an inquiry into all aspects of education, at all levels, in both Government and non-Government schools.

One can just imagine how likely it would be that a Bill providing for grants to secondary schoollibraries would contain provisions for an inquiry into all aspects of education. I sec that Senator Gair is smiling. I seem to recall that Senator Cohen himself, in moving this amendment, said that he would not expect to find such a proposal in this Bill. Why on earth has he moved an amendment which contains this sort of criticism and this sort of proposal which he says he would not expect to find the Bill providing for?

Let us consider now what the Opposition proposes. The Opposition asks that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted. It says that this should be done:

  1. to provide for the extension of the grants for libraries and library material and equipment to primary schools;

As I have mentioned already, only so much can be done in any one year. This Government is increasing its expenditure on education substantially. This expenditure last year was increased by 34% and by a further 19% this year. When we bear in mind all the other programmes, including the new programmes that have been introduced this year, that the Government must support, it is hardly a practical proposition to say in an unlimited way that the Government should do this, that and the other - in fact, cover the whole area - in one year and bankrupt the country in doing so. Then the opposition suggests that the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted:

  1. to provide for recurrent grants for the maintenance of libraries and for the training of teacher-librarians;

As to that request, one can only comment that again one would hardly expect to find the training of teacher-librarians, as a continuing scheme, to be provided for in this Bill.

Already the Senate has debated the Bill relating to pre-school teacher training. The Government is providing vast sums of money for the building of teacher training colleges throughout Australia. One would expect that the training of teacher-librarians would be one of the things provided for in the teachers’ colleges which are being built throughout Australia with Federal Government money. In fact, I think I am correct in saying that this Government is endeavouring to ensure that that is the case. I. think that the Minister referred to this point in his speech when the Bill dealing with pre-school teacher training was before the Senate. As far as the maintenance of libraries is concerned, one would think first of all that it is a matter of getting libraries built and stocked before provision was made lor maintenance. No doubt, when maintenance becomes necessary it will be given its due consideration as a budgetary measure. This is an initial budgetary measure to get. the scheme going.

Finally, the Opposition asks that this Bill be withdrawn and redrafted.

  1. to ensure that, in the administration of the scheme, priority is given to schools according to need-

Whatever that may mean - so that all children shall have equal opportunities of access to library facilities.

I think that it is extraordinary to find this sort of wording used in an amendment which seeks the redrafting of a Bill such as this. One would think that it would be somewhat difficult to lay down any specific principle in relation to what constitutes need. One would think rather that it would be better to set up an expert committee and leave the matter to that expert committee and to the schools and to the States concerned to determine themselves the areas of greatest need and what are the provisions that ought to be made. In fact, I would have expected that had this Bill laid down a strict formula as to how the priorities were to be determined we would have heard considerable criticism from the other side of the Senate alleging that the Bill was inflexible. Now, wanting something to criticise the Bill for, the Opposition criticises it because it is too flexible. As well as that point, I wonder whether the State governments would be altogether happy to have this sort of provision carried? I think we ought to consider for a moment the problem of Commonwealth-State relations in this situation.

I think that it is perhaps unfortunate that a lot of unnecessary confusion is created in this field. I presume from the amendment moved by the Opposition that it would take over entirely the field of education, take it away from the States or, at least, take control in the education field away from the States. Obviously, this is what is envisaged by this amendment.

Senator Gair:

– The Opposition wants a single system, but not the State system.

Senator RAE:

– The Opposition considers, as it says in its amendment, that the Bill:

  1. is symptomatic of the Government’s unplanned, piecemeal approach to the development of educational facilities in Australia and the Opposition goes on to say that the Government should, in the administration of this scheme, do this, that and something else. Obviously, the Opposition wants one scheme, as Senator Gair has said. The Opposition wants to take over from the States entirely. If the Opposition did this, education would be one more field of State endeavour which would pass completely out of the control of the States.

As far as this matter is concerned, I wish to refer very briefly again to the second reading speech delivered by the Minister. The Minister said:

There is no intention on the part of the Commonwealth to exercise supervision over the States in these matters. The procedure here will involve agreement between the Commonwealth and each State as to the purposes for which expenditure is to take place and notification by the State within that general agreement of the particular projects to be undertaken.

I would support that wholeheartedly. It is most unfortunate that there is this tendency to try to confuse the issue in relation to the Government’s pol’icy on education. There are statements such as that rather unfortunate statement that was made by Sir Philip Baxter, Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, who is reported in a newspaper today in this way:

The power struggle between the Commonwealth and the States for control of education was doing considerable damage lo education, Sir Philip Baxter said yesterday.

Clearly the Commonwealth is already engaged in education within the States on a large scale, and its activities overlap and sometimes are in conflict with those of the States,’ he said.

The impression c.-.e gets from that statement, and from other statements that have been made, is that the present Government is endeavouring to take control of education as has been advocated by our political opposition. What the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has said, what the Minister for Education and Science has said, and what the Minister who represents the Minister for Education and Science in this place has said, is that it is necessary to see that an Australian child, in whatever part of Australia he is born, is offered uniform facilities in education. They do not say that the State should have to surrender control of its education system as is envisaged by the Opposition’s proposed amendment.

I believe that the amendment is extraneous to the issue before us, that is unrelated to the measure and that obviously it is intended to delay the passage of the Bill for purposes which cannot be substantiated. As I have said already, if it is necessary for us to debate the other issues, then let them be brought up in the proper way. Do not let us del’ay the passage of this very important and worthwhile measure simply to discuss general questions of education in Australia.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– As I rise to speak, Mr Deputy President, may I inquire whether there is before the Chair an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time?

Senator Cohen:

– There is my amendment, Mr Deputy President.

Senator Gair:

– It was circulated but you did not move it.

Senator Cohen:

– It is the first time 1 have been guilty of inadvertance of such magnitude. I spoke at considerable length on it and my firm intention was to move it. It was my understanding that I was speaking to the amendment. If there is any difficulty about it 1 would ask leave to put the amendment formally to the Senate now.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - It has been circulated. I have it on my table. If there is no objection, I will permit Senator Cohen to move his amendment now.

Senator Cohen:

– I move:

Senator BYRNE:

– As Senator Cohen had not formally proposed his amendment it was my intention to propose an amendment on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I would have directed my remarks to the motion and then to the proposed amendment. I am now put in the position of directing my remarks at this stage to the amendment moved by Senator Cohen and at a later stage of moving my own amendment. It is not my intention to intrude at great length in this debate. I have risen for a particular purpose, namely, to indicate the attitude of the Democratic Labor Party and to state why we are not prepared to support the amendment which has been moved by the Australian Labor Party.

The amendment proposes the withdrawal and redrafting of the Bill. We must conceive of this Bill in the circumstances in which its intent was announced originally and in the light of the steps that have been taken in the intervening months in pursuance of that announcement. From memory, this project as a political and administrative proposal was propounded initially in the policy speech on behalf of the Government prior to the last election. Therefore, this matter has been before education authorities in Australia, both public and private, for a long time. Many of them have embarked upon projects, have put plans into operation, and have sought to raise funds in one way or another to take advantage of the incipient generosity of the Government in making this money available. To withdraw the Bill at this stage, more particularly for the purposes which have been recited in the amendment and which have emerged from the Opposition, would be to embroil these people, without any fault on their part and virtually by way of breach of public contract, in a waste of money in replanning school buildings and probably many school activities.

It would need an extremely serious reason for that to be done. I am not able to find in the amendment proposed by Senator Cohen for the Opposition any consideration which would warrant such a step being taken. The propositions which have been put forward by Senator Cohen in the amendment as justifying that very radical step have been analysed with particularity by Senator Rae. He has not found in them, nor do we find in them, justification for such a step.

I turn now to the question of relevance. If Senator Cohen’s proposal were considered to be irrelevant it might be argued that the amendment we propose contains an element of irrelevance. Some of Senator Cohen’s propositions may not be relevant because I think education has to be considered as an entity, a unit, a totality. Those things must be considered. The point about Senator Cohen’s amendment is that it fails to specify the areas of need in the educational system in Australia. It is one thing to recite that there are needs in the community; it is another thing altogether to recite them in general terms without a specification of those needs. The only need that is mentioned is that there should be parity of treatment in the provision of library facilities between secondary and primary schools.

The difficulty about Senator Cohen’s amendment is that it contemplates, as it were, an available pool of money which is provided in the terms of the Bill and the only thing in that Bill to which the Opposition objects is the distribution. In other words the Opposition says: ‘Take the Bill back and redistribute the available moneys which are to be appropriated for the purpose recited’. Irrespective of whether that is intended, we claim that that is one of the inferences that may be drawn from the Opposition’s attitude. In fact we think it is in the contemplation of the Opposition. We cannot agree with that attitude. We say that the amount of money provided is inadequate for any school but to distribute it between primary and secondary schools would be to defeat the very needs of education when education is surveyed over the Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore we find that there is not the necessary recitation in particularity although there is acceptance of the optimum provision in the Bill. The complaint of the Opposition relates to the method by which the optimum is distributed to the various recipients. That is an additional reason why we find we are unable to accept the amendment.

More particularly, and I think most importantly, the Opposition has suggested that an investigation should be conducted into all forms of education. This has been the policy of the Australian Labor Party - not for some years, because there has been tremendous variance in that policy. But there has been throughout a uniform theme of reluctance finally to accept the position of the independent schools, clearly, frankly and unmistakably. Many of the statements of the ALP, from conference to conference and from spokesman to spokesman, are attempts to project an educational system which finally would not embrace the clear and unmistakable enunciation of the policy that private and independent schools are deserving of direct Government assistance.

The amendment proposed by the Opposition asks for an inquiry and recites what was declared as the policy of the Australian Labor Party at its conference at Surfers Paradise on 29th and 30th July 1966. Clause 4(a) of the education platform recited the policy which emerged, as follows:

Citizens who do not wish to use the school facilities provided by the State, whether for conscientious or other reasons, shall have the absolute Tight to develop an independent system of schools of a recognised standard provided that the cost of the capital development of this system is not a charge on any government; further, that the existing policy of a full public inquiry by the Commonwealth into primary, secondary and technical education in both government and non-government schools be confirmed.

I think it is logical to assume that what prompted the writing of that proposition into the then accepted platform of the Party was a developing need that warranted investigation. That change in policy occurred 2 years ago. If a crisis was then developing in the independent school system, that crisis has become increasingly acute in the 2 years that have elapsed. Senator Gair referred the other night - I do not wish to recite his speech in great detail - to one or two points to which I would like now to advert, with the consent of the Senate. He referred to the number of former pupils in one scheme of private education now attending public schools. For example, in New South Wales in 1962 Catholic children at State schools represented only 12% of all the children enrolled. In 1966 that percentage had risen to 14.6 which, in numerical terms, represents more than 100,000 children. In Victoria, in 1965, Catholic children at State schools represented 8.8% of the enrolment. By 1967 that percentage had risen to 10.5, which represents nearly 57,000 children.

The position in South Australia is even more revealing. Figures have been gathered to indicate that by 1972 the South Australian State education system will be educating about 16,000 Catholic children who normally would have gone to Catholic schools. It is anticipated that in 1972, if the trend continues, only 38% of Catholic children will be attending Catholic schools, as against the attendance of 63% in 1960. Those figures illustrate that what may have been a problem in 1966 has become a matter of acute urgency in 1968. It is a developing situation that in the opinion of the ecclesiastical authorities has reached crisis point. That being so, it seems quite futile that we should institute in 1968 an inquiry which might have been belated, even back in 1966, and would be tragically time wasting in 1968. If the type of inquiry that no doubt would be insisted upon by those who urge it were embarked upon, the independent school system would move into a deeper and deeper condition of crisis. If the position, as finally resolved by an inquiry, was that substantial assistance should be given to private schools, the situation would be practically irretrievable.

I would like to believe that the Australian

Labor Party - the Opposition - in proposing this amendment which reflects and reproduces elements of the Party’s policy as declared in 1966, seriously considered that this is the best and most effective method of handling the problem. But in the intervening years a tremendous amount of work has been done and I do not think that the nation today would consider that it is not very well equipped from all sources - that is, by government investigations with governmental resources, investigation by private schools, expert surveys and figures available - to determine the true position. The depth of the crisis can be appreciated. There is a way of alleviating it immediately, if not totally and completely, at least by correcting the worst features of the approaching and deepening crisis. In those circumstances I am constrained to hold that the amendment proposed by the ALP, whether relevant or not primarily directed to the purposes of this Bill, reflects the failure of the Party to stand up and face frankly the existing situation.

It is not an easy situation to face, as I will explain in more detail when I move my proposed amendment at a later stage. It is a situation which attracts tremendous community sensitivity. It has been part of our history over many years. It takes a substantial measure of political frankness and courage to stand up and be counted on this issue. I cannot help feeling that the amendment proposed by the Opposition reflects the timidity of the Party in the field of education. It would be regrettable if a great section of the community were to find its fate depending on the timidity of any group in the community. It is too important from a national point of view. I reserve my right to speak to the motion in more detail when I present my own proposed amendment. For the reasons I have stated we are unable to support the amendment moved by the Opposition. At the appropriate time, as our amendment will indicate, we will be prepared to support the Bill to which we propose to add the amendment which has been circulated and will be moved in due time.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I rise to a point of order. I wish to draw your attention, Mr Deputy President, to standing order 140. To the best of my knowledge Senator Cohen’s proposed amendment was not seconded. Standing order 140 provides in effect that an amendment which is proposed but not seconded shall not be further debated.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- It has not been the practice for amendments moved by the Leader of the Opposition to be seconded. I. have followed that practice.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– But Senator Cohen is not the Leader of the Opposition.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- He is

Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and is leading for the Opposition in this matter. I have followed the usual practice. Senator Cohen moved successfully that the amendment bc accepted as moved, and in following the usual practice I took that as the wish of the Senate.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– As Senator Byrne has said, this measure forms part of a total matter of many complexities encompassed in the programme of education in a rapidly developing and changing society. Australia’s education system includes State and Federal authorities, lt calls for ingenuity and planning from both educational and constitutional angles. Its composition of government authorities, officers, directorships and ministerial heads in several educational spheres means that education sometimes runs the risk of having certain political tags attached to it. Senator Cohen said that the test applied by the Government to education is a political test. I take up that point very quickly in order to remind him and other members of the Opposition that, if the amendment that he has put before the Senate tonight is the test that the Opposition applies to education, it is also a political test. It is very much a political test in every sense of the word. It might even be described as a political stunt. In fact it is nothing short of a political stunt because, in all its wording, it bears little relationship to the measure now before the Senate. The measure provides for the payment of grants to the Slates for the provision of secondary school libraries. The Opposition has come forward with a form of words which says that the Bill should be withdrawn. If the Opposition amendment were carried, this Budget measure would be delayed and the provision of library equipment would be delayed even further.

The amendment refers to ‘areas of greatest need’. Senator Cohen has not set out for us in any persuasive form what the areas of greatest need are. He has moved that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted so that it may make certain provision. What would be included? It would be just one series of extensions. In short, the Opposition’s amendment expresses no limits, no horizons and no sense of responsibility. lt seeks the extension of the grants for libraries and library material and equipment. That might be taken to great lengths. It seeks these grants not only for secondary schools but also for primary schools, lt seeks to provide for recurrent grants for the maintenance of libraries, and for other matters. It seeks to ensure that priority is given to schools according to need.

I listened in vain for a delineation by Senator Cohen of what he. means by the phrase ‘according to need’; but it did not come forward. I have no idea what he means by that term. He knows as well as does anybody else in this chamber that when this measure is passed and is in operation the student who will receive the greatest advantage from it will be the student who needs this assistance most. He will be the student from the home that cannot afford books. He will be the student from the home that we sometimes describe as the relatively underprivileged home - the home in which parents are unable to go to the bookshops and buy for their child books, including reference books, encyclopaedias, modern historical novels and other helpful reading material that other sections of the community can afford to buy.

The student who will receive the greatest benefit from this measure is the one who comes from the home in which the parents are not interested in the new world of libraries, reading and research and who are not capable of discussing easily with their child across the evening meal table matters that are dealt with in books in libraries. He will be the student from the home which, while it may be a home in every sense of the word, has not the kind of atmosphere in which a child can sit down, pick up a book, read it, put it down, take it up again and read it again. He will be the student from the home in which the parents, because of their circumstances, are working hard and at night are too tired to give their child the kind of attention that he should be given. This is the student who is the needy student, and this is the student who, more than any other, will benefit from this measure. So I reject the amendment because it is irresponsibly worded and because it provides in theory for a vast extension of facilities without giving any idea of what they may cost, where they may be placed and how they will be maintained over the years.

I turn now to the advantages of the Bill and the Government’s plan, which I believe are quite extensive. The Bill makes provision for grants totalling $27m over a 3-year period. Grants will be available for a variety of installations, which the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), spelt out in detail in his second reading speech. There is diversity; there is flexibility; and there is a variety of provisions. The Bill provides for the establishment of stocks of various instructional material in secondary school libraries. I suggest that it could be called a basic measure. The emphasis in the Minister’s second reading speech was on development. He expressed the hope that the secondary school library would be a centre of learning in which materials, including not only books but also newspapers, periodicals and more modern equipment such as film strips, films, tape recordings and things of that nature, could be got together and exchanged. He pointed out that the intention was that there should be a good stock of materials so that the operation of school libraries would be a developing process.

Emphasis has been placed on the fact that this Bill is confined to secondary schools. Regret has been expressed that it does not extend to primary schools. Secondary schools are a very important phase of the total education programme. One would be put to some difficulty to say which is the most important period in a young person’s education programme.

Senator Georges:

– The time in primary school, of course.

Senator DAVIDSON:

– Primary education gives a good beginning. Tertiary education is for specialising and finishing off what we hope is a successful education programme. But I point to the value of the period of secondary education, during which the young person moves into young adulthood or the teenage period, when the mind and the character are developing and when the processes of inquiry, assessment and judgment are at their most creative stage. It is during the period of secondary education that a child needs the opportunity to read, to research, to reflect and to return to the source of information, and to do so unhurriedly. Therefore, I submit that the proposal for the provision of libraries only for secondary schools is very valuable. The Minister is not unmindful of the fact that some schools in the country have both secondary students and younger students. The reference to this point in the Bill indicates that there is sympathy for the school with these two groups of students.

Another important matter dealt with in the Minister’s explanatory speech is the method of allocating amounts. This matter has been studied by officers of the Department of Education and Science. Cognisance has been taken of the Commonwealth Statistician’s figures showing the total numbers of secondary school pupils enrolled in government schools and independent schools throughout the States. The two figures arrived at are divided separately among the States in proportion to the populations of the States. The resulting information enables the allocation to be made.

Then, supervising this process, as it were, is a committee that advises the Minister on standards and conditions. I believe that the Minister has been very fortunate in obtaining such a fine group of people, headed by Dr McKenzie, of Knox Grammar School, in Sydney, and including such people as Miss Goodman, of the Bedford Park Teachers College in Adelaide. This committee has a variety of tasks and assignments. In addition to advising the Minister on standards and requirements, it will engage in practical tasks such as visiting independent schools seeking Commonwealth assistance, in matters relating to independent schools, the Minister will have the added assistance of advisory committees that have been set up in each State. The departmental schools, of course, will also work through their State departments of education who will assist with the determination of priorities of allocation. I was pleased to note in the Minister’s speech that there was no intention on the part of the Commonwealth to exercise supervision over the States in these particular matters. In any discussion that we might have on Commonwealth involvement in education this matter of Commonwealth-State relationships applies very strongly and, of course, continuously today.

Underlining the reference which the Minister made to the fact that the Commonwealth had no intention of exercising supervision is a factor which 1 note with some degree of satisfaction because, although we have in this country a system of education which is growing, that system is under the control, supervision and maintenance of the States. Education is a State responsibility and the States jealously guard this area of their authority. In the last few years the Commonwealth has involved itself in the area of education and has made a significant contribution. I instance its support for universities, its support for colleges of advanced education and its assistance in the area of science education. This Bill takes this programme one regular, organised step further forward into the provision of libraries for secondary schools. This leads me to reject entirely the reference in the amendment proposed by the Opposition to the Government’s programme being piecemeal. The Government has moved forward in conformity with the relationship between the Federal and State governments. It has moved into an area in which it is able to render the most effective assistance possible.

It is ali very well for authorities, people and members of the Opposition to call for greater Commonwealth involvement in education. This has been set out in a very easy and almost limitless fashion in the amendment. But do these people ever foresee the day when the Commonwealth might provide an astronomical proportion of the taxpayers money for education to be distributed amongst the various States? I warn them that sooner or later, some government, when it disburses such a great sum of money, will need to acquire unto itself some degree of authority in connection with the administration of the expenditure of those funds. I do not overrule the possibility that at some point in the future some government, faced with the expenditure of so much of its money on education, could determine the curricula. We could arrive at the stage where we would have a uniform process of education throughout the country and that, of course, would be completely disastrous.

I want now to say something about the value of the library system in the Held of total education. From time to time we have spoken in this place of the advantages of other educational projects which the Government has sponsored in recent years. I refer in particular to the universities programme and the science laboratories programme. I, among others, have underlined the value and importance of these projects, but at the same time I have drawn attention to the fact that there are other facets of education which I think are equally important. The sciences are, of course, all important in the development of a modern State, but in the modern processes of international relations research into other facets of life and humanity are equally important. As I said a little earlier, libraries provide for another segment of an individual’s personality to be developed and made more useful to the community.

In recent years considerable emphasis has been placed by some educators on the value of independent studies. It has been found that in the process of library experience the individual learns best because he comes to regard himself as an individual. He regards what he has learned as having some personal meaning to him.

Many of his personal senses are involved in this learning process. Through this learning process the student is being prepared to meet, assess and judge the issues which he will face later in life. The use of libraries in this way develops his critical thinking. It helps him to gather information from the widest variety of research material. As I said earlier, he develops a sense of judgment not only through reading but through discussion, and all of this adds up to the development of a total personality within the community. This is not without its influence on teacher activity and curriculum planning. In our changing society more emphasis is being placed on the individual needs and interests of the student. The library programme will enable this side of educational development to be carried out fully and effectively, and the Bill before us is a good step in this direction.

One of the contributors to modern library publications, Margaret Trask, in her work entitled: ‘School Libraries’ has this to say:

How many school libraries in Australia today have such resources available - in the variety of form - at the variety of levels - in sufficient numbers?

The central place of resource materials in the learning situation will, in turn, mean a change in the role of the teacher, the school library and the school librarian.

I regard this Bill as a very important move along the right road in the total contribution which the Government is making to education on a national level.

But while it is important that we have a wealth of material, and have it housed adequately, I suggest that this cannot be regarded as a total solution. If there is to be emphasis on individuality there must be emphasis on guiding the individual or developing that individuality. In other words, emphasis must also be placed on what I understand as reading guidance and on the training of librarians. I suggest that it is just as important as any turnover in books or any provision of equipment that we should have some assistance in knowing how to use a library. It is all very well to have a grand library and have it adequately equipped, but we must also have assistance in training people in how to use it or in how to provide a greater quantity of reading guidance.

In her current study on school libraries in Australia Sara Fenwick, who has been mentioned already tonight, has underlined the importance of reading guidance. This importance, she says, is not always recognised by librarians. She says that librarians, with teachers, share the responsibility of providing experiences for students through reading that will nourish the development of mature reading skills that will give them a lifetime source of wisdom, knowledge and pleasure. So I hope that as this programme develops there will be an opportunity for the provision of reading guidance.

The only other point I want to mention is dealt with towards the end of the Minister’s speech and is the second point to which I referred a moment ago. It relates to the training of librarians. I suppose that in a programme of this kind the training of librarians must be one of the difficult aspects for any Minister or department to face. I would wish that the Minister had laid greater emphasis in his speech on this particular aspect of the programme. He said that he recognised the urgent need for additional trained school librarians to staff the new and existing libraries in secondary schools. He mentioned that as a contribution towards the provision of this fully trained staff a small sum has been allocated in this year’s Budget. A little later in his speech he pleads for the co-operation of the State education departments and the State library authorities. To ensure future opportunities for adequate training of teacher librarians, the Commonwealth will encourage colleges of advanced education to conduct suitable courses or even to provide some scholarships. I have no doubt that the teachers colleges and the colleges of advanced education will assist in this way.

But side by side with what I believe is a fairly well spelled out programme for the development of libraries for secondary schools, I would have hoped that there would have been equal emphasis and equal detail on the plans that were in hand or in mind for the training of teacher librarians. I look forward to an improvement and an extension in this sphere. If we want to make this programme a success we must continually investigate new methods of team teaching and all the relationships of teaching, learning and testing. It was Sir Lawrence McGrath of Western Australia in his essay ‘School Libraries in Australia: Developments, Problems and Future Trends’ who, in speaking of improved facilities, said that the future of the school library lies not so much in selling unfamiliar wares to the disinterested but in the development of new demands by an enthusiastic staff and eager student body. I hope that these new demands that will obviously and quickly come from enthusiastic staffs and eager students will be able to be met by the Government in establishing this library programme. I am sure that they will be met. I hope that the Senate will reject strongly the amendment which will, if passed, only delay the implementation of this well worthwhile programme.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– When dealing with the previous Bill I offered Senator Cohen some mild approbation on his acceptance of the measure. On this occasion when he seeks to reject the measure, in a very critical and disparaging manner, I trust that he will not expect any measure of appreciation from me. I think his attitude shows a poor insight into the real needs of education. The Commonwealth Government has put forward a proposal to appropriate $27m over a 3-year period for the buildings, equipment and materials for libraries in secondary schools throughout Australia, but the Australian Labor Party can do nothing better than request that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted. This shows a poverty of outlook and a complete pre-occupation with the politics of the situation. In moving the amendment the Opposition has had in its forehead the catchcry that has worn thin throughout the country. Honourable senators opposite have talked about a crisis in education. Fancy invoking that term in relation to this library Bill.

The amendment urges the withdrawal of the Bill and suggests that it does not make provision for libraries in the areas of greatest need. The first thing that should be understood, and I hope that there will be some audience for what I am saying in an endeavour to have this understood, is that the basis upon which this money is to be distributed throughout the secondary schools in Australia is, for the greater part, to be determined by the State education systems, ls there anyone in the Senate who will not yield to the State education systems primacy in this field? They carry the primary responsibility. Is there anyone in the Senate who will deny to each of the State education departments a proficiency with regard to the understanding of needs for libraries in secondary or primary schools?

With regard to the independent schools it has been pointed out that there has been consultation with the authorities which are expert in the field of independent school administration. The money that is to be devoted to the independent schools will be granted on the advice of those people who are experienced in education. We see how hollow is the ground of the Opposition’s amendment when it denies to the Government proposal a recognition that money should go to the areas of greatest need. The next amazing proposition with which the Labor Party seems to have hypnotised itself is this assertion that the Government’s approach to education is unplanned and piecemeal. In relation to this matter I referred earlier to the facets of education in which the Commonwealth Government has given assistance. I pointed out that they were, firstly, universities; secondly, colleges of advanced education; thirdly, science laboratories; fourthly, technical training facilities; fifthly, teacher training facilities; sixthly, school libraries; seventhly, pre-school teachers colleges; and eighthly, the scholarship scheme. Let anybody take any one of those items and deny to it a genuine claim for Commonwealth assistance, and then, having had to concede that there is in respect of each of them a real need, let him then put forward any other item in education that would come into competition with them and demand an earlier recognition.

But when it is said that the Government’s approach to education is unplanned, let the Senate recall that the Commonwealth’s whole programme of assistance to the universities was preceded by one of the most proficient and expert inquiries that has been held in Australia into the field of university education. I refer to the Committee on Australian Universities, which is generally referred to as the Murray Committee. It is really an education for anybody to read the report of that Committee. That is the foundation of the Commonwealth’s expanding interests in the field of education. Then before the next step was taken, namely, to establish colleges of advanced education, we entered upon another most formidable inquiry by the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia, the Martin Committee. But in addition we have had other inquiries. When one considers those inquiries, the suggestion that there has been an unplanned approach beggars description. 1 regret that my time is a little abbreviated. I had wanted to deal with the third ground of complaint, namely, that the Bill fails to provide for an inquiry into all aspects of education at all levels in both government and non-government schools. I thought that the remark made by my colleague Senator Rae was most appropriate in this respect Just imagine the outlook of those who propose this as an item of complaint attached to a specific proposal of a libraries Bill. The Opposition complains because the libraries Bill does not provide for an inquiry into not some aspects but all aspects of education, not at some levels but at all levels, and not into State school education but into government and non-government schools. This seems to me to show, most inappropriately, a vain endeavour by the Opposition to bring the catchcries of the Australian Labor Party into the debate on the Bill.

Debate interrupted.

page 2176

ADJOURNMENT

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure - Naturalisation and Passports - Interpreters in Public Hospitals - Cost of Naturalisation Ceremonies

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate 1 formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I will not occupy the time of the Senate for more than a few moments. Honourable senators will recall that during the Estimates debate I asked a lengthy series of questions and the Ministers acting on behalf of Ministers in another place put in a lot of homework and wrote some very detailed answers. I believe that these replies would be of considerable benefit to the community generally and ought to be permanently recorded in Hansard. I intend in a moment or two to seek leave to have them incorporated, but before 1 do that 1 should like to name the departments with which they are concerned. They are the Department of National Development, the Department of the Navy, the Department of External Affairs, the Department of the Interior and the Department of External Territories.

I know that the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) will not mind my saying that I discussed with him earlier this evening the fact that with the replies received were the Budget papers of the Papua and New Guinea House of Assembly. I agree that it would be rather ridiculous to incorporate all of the Budget papers but I hope that we can reach agreement on incorporating a small section of them. I shall nominate the section and if Senator Wright has no objection we will probably reach an agreement on it. There are about six pages in these Budget papers setting out the receipts and expenditure, and the Budget speech delivered by the Treasurer of the Territory covers only a small number of sheets. I believe that this material would be of tremendous value both for the records of the Senate and for anyone seeking to do any research in future sessions on the Estimates or on the Budget. The only other point that I want to make is that there is a reasonable volume of material’. If we can reach agreement with the Hansard people some of this could be taken out for inclusion in tomorrow’s Hansard. I would not like it to extend over more than 2 days. Otherwise it would become disjointed. If we can have it incorporated over 2 days it will help both the Printer and the Senate. I now seek leave of the Senate to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Honourable senators ; Yes.

Senator Wright:

– I would ask for leave to make a statement to explain why I do not wish to give unqualified leave. I want to see the documents first.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The President asked whether leave was granted and it was granted.

Senator Wright:

– I will content myself with saying no.

Senator Anderson:

– As we are debating the motion for the adjournment of the Senate I might meet the situation, if there is to be a question of leave, by responding to the representations made by the honourable senator. I see nothing wrong in principle but we would want to have some regard to the way in which the material went into Hansard. Perhaps the position could be met by letting Ministers see the material and then having it incorporated. What the honourable senator is doing in effect is saying: ‘Here I have a bundle of papers. They are answers to questions. I want to have them incorporated in Hansard’. I do not see any problems in relation to it. The honourable senator himself made the point that we would not want to incorporate the material in one parcel but would perhaps do it over a number of days. Perhaps the relevant material could be given to each Minister.

Senator Murphy:

– The Ministers must know what they gave Senator Keeffe.

Senator Anderson:

– I certainly know what I gave him and 1 am happy for it to be incorporated. 1 gather that Senator Wright wants to know what is to be incorporated. I know what material I provided in replies and I would be quite happy to have it incorporated. If other Ministers want to see material before it goes in, that is a point that they are entitled to take.

Senator KEEFFE:

-I attempted to be quite fair on this. I acceded to Senator Wright’s request earlier by not incorporating the whole of the Budget papers to which I have referred, but in view of the importance of the matter 1 shall now proceed to read the material in detail, starting with that part of it which relates to the Department of External Territories. I regret that I have to take this action. It reads:

COCOS ISLANDS

Question:

The jump in the appropriation sought for air charter expenses to $217,000 from an expenditure last year of $93,703 is deserving of some explanation.

The increase in the amount sought for Messing subsidy’ to $118,000 over the expenditure of $111,312 merits some explanation.

Answer:

Since Qantas and South African Airways ceased calling at Cocos Islands there has been no normal air service from Australia to Cocos Islands. An air service is essential for the movement of personnel, mail, medical supplies, fresh foodstuffs, etc., and arrangements have been made for a regular fortnightly charter service. The net cost of the service, after allowing for revenue from the carriage of passengers, freight paid by consignors other than Commonwealth Departments, and mail, is met from this appropriation.

The increase of $123,297 in the estimate is due to an increase in the cost of each charter flight. Expenditure in 1967-68 was based on a charge of $6,590 per return flight to 2nd February 1968, and for $12,970 per return flight from15th February 1968. The estimate for 1968-69 provides for a charge of $12,970 per return flight less an estimated average of $4,610 recoverable for fares, freight and mail, a net cost of $8,360 per return flight.

Because of the Islands’ isolated position and high cost of living, and as an inducement in recruitment of staff, a messing subsidy is provided for all employees. Married couples purchase supplies from the Cocos Store at capital city rates, whilst single employees pay a subsidised rate for board and lodging. Commonwealth Hostels Ltd operates the hostel and store at Cocos Islands on behalf of the Commonwealth. The difference between cost to Commonwealth Hostels and receipts is met from this appropriation. Based on the current rate of expenditure it is estimated that messing subsidy payments will increase by $6,688 in 1968-69. The amount of subsidy is influenced by a number of factors including variations in the number of employees on Cocos Islands.

NORFOLK ISLAND

Question:

The Minister might explain how the investigation into registration of companies on Norfolk Island is being financed.

Answer:

Investigations are in train by the Commissioner of Taxation and the cost will be met from the appropriation for his Branch.

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Question: 1 now request that the expenditure proposed under item 01 (Grant to Administration) be set out in more detail and in a way different to that in which it is set out in the explanatory notes.

Answer:

Receipts of the Administration of Papua and New Guinea are derived from the Commonwealth Grant to the Administration towards expenses, Territory revenue and public loans.

The Commonwealth Grant is related to overall requirements and not to any particular purpose or project. The Government accepted the conclusion of a Select Committee of the Territory House of Assembly on Constitutional Development in 1967 that a single budget based on revenue raised in the Territory and the Commonwealth Grant would best serve the ordered development of the Territory at this stage.

Details of the 1968-69 expenditure estimates of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are contained in an Appropriation Ordinance passed by the House of Assembly. This appropriation Ordinance was tabled in each House of the Parliament on 8th October, 1968.

A set of Papua and New Guinea budget documents for Senator Keeffe is attached. ] had another query about the unavailability of information from that Department. This was my question:

I am not allowed to go to the Department in search of information. 1 want to know why this sort of restriction is placed on members of Parliament.

This is the answer I received:

The Minister is responsible to the Parliament for the Department and its activities and it would be proper for all requests by members of Parliament for information or explanations to be addressed to the Minister. However, in relation to requests for information of a routine or minor character there is no objection to members of Parliament directing their inquiries to the Department.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Could we evolve some way of getting over this difficulty? It will take an hour for the honourable senator to read these questions and answers.

Senator Anderson:

– Mr President, may I have leave to speak at this time?

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Anderson:

– I see no problem about: this matter. I was trying earlier to find a way by which the matter could be handled. The simple thing would be for Senator Keeffe to say that he had received a reply from a certain Minister about a specific matter and then ask leave for that reply to be incorporated. I do not think it is necessary for the honourable senator to read each reply he received. However, it is a matter for the honourable senator and I am prepared to remain here while he does so. I suggest to him that he merely give us the heading of each document and that we have it incorporated in Hansard. The matter could be dealt with in 5 minutes.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I take it, Mr President, that I need only refer to the reply from each department and then ask for leave to have the information incorporated.

I will deal firstly with requests about the estimates for the Department of the Navy and the Department of External Affairs and with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate the requests and answers in Hansard.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Question:

I refer to Division 634. Administrative expenses and general services. It appears that moneys received from canteen tenancies and associated rentals may be credited to this Division. That explanation is very indistinct. Has the money been so credited? If so, under what heading and how much has been credited? For what canteens has the money been credited?”

Answer:

Rent is charged for the tenancies of barber shops at the naval establishments HMAS Albatross’, ‘Penguin’, ‘Creswell’, ‘Kuttabul and Nirimba’ and for a laundry and a boot repair shop at HMAS ‘Albatross’.

The rent for these tenancies currently totalling $1,827 per annum is, on receipt, paid to the credit of Division 634 Item15. Incidental and other expenditure. Subsequently an equivalent amount is paid, as a charge against this same vote item, to the credit of ships funds from which amenities are provided for sailors.

Question:

The proposed expenditure for special training fees for naval aviation and other personnel is another matter concerning me. Will this money be spent in Australia, the United States, Britain or some other country?’

Answer:

Although the bulk of the expenditure under this vote was in the past for training naval aviation personnel the emphasis has now changed. On Treasury direction the RAAF do not now recover the cost of training Navy personnel. In the current year this vote provides for the training of 74 naval aviation personnel on courses other than those conducted by the RAAF and 410 personnel on other courses.

The spread of the estimated expenditure provision of $741,000 for 1968-69 is anticipated to be:

Question:

I want to know how far behind schedule is the construction of twenty patrol boats for the Navy.’

Answer:

The original contract date by which delivery of the 20 patrol boats was to be completed was November 1967. Design problems in the early stages of construction necessitated an extension of time for delivery to 30th April 1969. As at 2nd November 1968 sixteen boats have been delivered and it is expected that the remainder will be completed before 30th April 1969.

Question:

It would be helpful if I were advised whether any of these patrol boats will be based on Townsville or some other Northern ports on the Queensland coast and not Sydney or Melbourne.’

Answer:

It is not at present intended to station a patrol boat at a North Queensland port. They will however be stationed in Sydney and Melbourne.

Question:

I now refer to Division 648 which sets out details of recoverable expenditure for other administrations. Last year’s expenditure on the items listed under this Division ranged up to $2.5m.

I wouldlike some information from the Minister on how the money was spent in respect of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and other. I would also like to know what countries are covered by the word “other”.’

Answer:

Expenditure in 1967-68 under Division 648 was as follows:

The Classification Other covers all countries other than the United Kingdom and New Zealand. In 1967-68 the only countries involved were the United States of America, Malaysia and Belgium ($122). However, in previous years other countries have been involved including in the past four years France ($48), Kenya ($1,939), Canada ($317) and Italy ($738).

page 2179

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Question:

The number and type of motor vehicles owned by External Affairs in Rome, Manila and America?

Question:

How was the incidental vote apportioned between overseas posts and how was it made up?

Answers:

page 2179

MOTOR VEHICLES AT OVERSEAS POSTS

San Francisco - 3 1964 Buick Electra (Head of Mission) 1967 Plymouth 1968 Plymouth Station Sedan

Washington - 10 1967 Cadillac (Head of Mission) 1966 Mercury Monterey Sedan 1968 Ford Custom Sedan 1967 Ford Custom 500 1967 Ford Custom 500 1967 Ford Custom Sedan 1965 Volkswagen Station Sedan 1967 Ford Custom Sedan 1967 Volkswagen Sedan 1966 Ford Econoline

Manila - 5 1967 Buick Sedan (Head of Mission) 1967 Holden Sedan 1967 Volkswagen Micro-bus 1965 Holden Sedan 1965 Chevelle Sedan.

Rome - 4 1965 Buick Electra (Head of Mission) 1965 Ford Zephyr Sedan 1968 Fiat 500 1967 Ford Zephyr Station Sedan

New York (Consulate General)- 2 1966 Buick Electra Sedan (Head of Mission) 1968 Ford Falcon Station Wagon

New York (United Nations Mission) - 2 1965 4-door Buick Electra (Head of Mission) 1967 Checker Marathon Sedan.

Sundries include such items as bank charges and fees, translation expenses, legal fees, search fees, etc.. petty cash expenditure, cleaning of protective clothing, air port taxes, exchange variation, other expenditure of a minor nature.

page 2180

AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Question: Why is the proposed expenditure set out under the one bulk heading and not in detail?

Answer: One line estimates have been in use for the Commission and most Statutory Authorities since their inception. As indicated by the Minister in reply during the debate, the expenditure details are set out in Table 12 of the budget papers.

Question! What amount of Commonwealth money has been expended on surveys and search for markets?

Answer! The Commission expenditure since 1953 on exploration totals $6,431,491. The amount proposed in the budget papers for 1968-69 is $370,000 and this will be confined to the Rum Jungle area. No specific amount has been spent on search for markets other than that expended in investigations during the normal activity of Commission staff.

Question: What has the Government spent on nuclear power?

Answer: There has been no expenditure on nuclear power as such. The expenditure in the Estimates for this and previous years is related to nuclear research involving studies of nuclear power systems.

Question: Has the Government spent any money at all on stockpiling nuclear weapons anywhere in Australia?

Answer: No

Question: If so, where are these weapons stockpiled?

Answer: Not applicable.

Further information will be incorporated in tomorrow’s Senate Hansard. Earlier, Mr President, I read the written request that I made about a certain matter but because the detail was not incorporated I am quite happy to have only a section of the Budget Speech and a section of the Budget papers incorporated.

Senator KEEFFE:

– There are six pages only, Mr President, which set out receipts and expenditure.

Senator Cormack:

– No. That information is already available in records. Why do those papers have to be duplicated?

Senator Wright:

– I would give leave to have incorporated the answers provided by the Minister but not the Budget papers or the Budget Speech.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Mr President, I regret that these papers are not readily available to the general public. I think they should be incorporated in Hansard. 1 will have to read them.

Senator Wright:

– If the honourable senator submits them to me I will look through them overnight.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I suggest the honourable senator incorporate those pages which are not contentious. The others can be examined.

Senator KEEFFE:

– They are not contentious.

The PRESIDENT:

– They are contentious at this point of time.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Perhaps it could be handled in another way. If we cannot reach agreement I shall speak tomorrow night on the motion for the adjournment. If that is acceptable to the Senate then it is acceptable to me.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I take this opportunity to make certain submissions about matters handled by the Department of Immigration because in the next few months departments will be engaged in tooling up in anticipation of additional legislation. My first submission is that I hope there will be some equality in relation to the passport rights ot two citizens as from the time they become naturalised. I understand ideas have been mooted about reducing the required period of residence in Australia in order to qualify for naturalisation. I refer to the case of a man named Roman Hajinger who worked on the Snowy Mountains project. He was on the verge of becoming naturalised, according to the procedure laid down under existing laws, when he found that his employer on the Snowy Mountains project was transferring operations to Canada. I approached the Department of Immigration about expediting his naturalisation. I told them quite frankly that he would be going overseas. The Department indicated to me that it took a dim view of the attitude of intending citizens who wished to speed up the naturalisation procedure in order to obtain an Australian passport before going overseas. I was told that this practice was more or less discouraged.

I wish to make two comments about this. Firstly, Mr President, I found that this inequality existed in the United States until some years ago. It was eliminated by the United States Supreme Court. It was poppycock to talk about the equality of a citizen with acquired citizenship and a native born citizen because it did not exist. Mr Hajinger was in a similar situation to a professional boxer or footballer or some other person whose livelihood from his particular occupation might not be permanent. The firm offered him continued promotion in Canada. There are some other cases about which I am not going to worry the Senate now. It was a very difficult situation for this man because he had to obtain Australian citizenship immediately. If a person meets all the requirements and obtains Australian citizenship then he should be able to use his passport on the same basis as a native-born Australian. Referring again to the United States, if a person obtained United States citizenship and went overseas his citizenship was in jeopardy if he did not return within 3 years. I am not canvassing that point at this time. No person knows what is ahead of him. In tha next decade work may be available in Australia for which fairly high remuneration will be paid.

I make a comparison between the case I mentioned and an Australian-born doctor who exercises his right as an Australian citizen to go to the Mayo Clinic in the United States and work there for a considerable time. We would not say that that doctor was being disloyal to Australia for utilising his medical talents in that country. To take the matter to its logical conclusion, if that doctor returned and worked as a medico he would be using the additional skills he acquired overseas. A migrant who becomes an Australian citizen, then chooses to work on big metalliferous mining projects in other continents is in a similar situation when he returns to Australia. I cannot stress too strongly that I am concerned about what the Government has in mind regarding citizenship. What I am concerned about - I want to make this quite clear - is that when a person receives Australian citizenship and obtains an Australian passport he should get equality in every respect with the native born Australian who also has an Australian passport.

I want to say this: I am not unmindful that situations arise where individuals want to use Australian citizenship. This is the same as some vessels which fly the Panamanian flag. After all, I am not interested in swindlers like Stanley Korman or John Woolcott Forbes. In the case that I have mentioned the bona fides of the person concerned probably could be checked through the trade union concerned or the employer. Any problem in this situation can be overcome. I make this plea to the Minister because in a number of orations that I hear at citizenship ceremonies speakers talk about equality of opportunity. This does not exist. It is not made abundantly clear that this is so when people acquire citizenship and then seek a passport to go overseas, as is illustrated by the case that I have mentioned.

The other matters that I wish to ventilate come under the administration of the same Ministry. The first matter is the question of interpreting services in public hospitals. This is the age of the status symbol. It may be said that probably a number of the girls employed as interpreters in hospitals may be lacking an organisation to look after them. I will not indict some of the semiprofessional1 groups that are supposed to look after them. But I would say this: I understand that at the last meeting held between State immigration ministers and the Commonwealth Minister for Immigration reference was made to this matter. J do suggest respectfully that if the Government wants to keep some of these competent girls, who are in their early twenties, as interpreters it has to give them higher remuneration than they receive.

I had occasion to ring up one big hospital in Sydney. 1 quoted the name of the person to whom I wished to speak. I said that she was an interpreter. The very tart rejoinder that I got from some sophisticated miss on the other end of the phone was: No, she is just a social worker’. 1 asked myself who was the more important, the interpreter or this girl sitting on her bottom answering telephone calls? 1 mention this in passing. 1 hope that this will not be merely a matter of platitudes but that we will see something tangible done in this respect even if we need to generate into action some of the fuddy duddys who masquerade as interested persons on hospital! boards but whose only desire is to depress the wages and conditions of people working in those hospitals. J am not blaming the Minister for this. But I believe that some of these outmoded conceptions do exist in State hospital authorities and it is time that the thinking on these matters was upgraded out of this 1 9th century complex.

The final matter with which I wish to deal really is an addendum to what I said during the debate on the estimates of the Department of Immigration. I made a plea to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration concerning the need for the Commonwealth Government to provide some financial assistance to the States for naturalisation ceremonies. Speaking during that debate, I pointed out to the Minister that the Local Government Association of New South Wales unanimously decided that the cost of naturalisation ceremonies was becoming a high imposition on the functions of local councils. In turn, this involves the expenditure of funds from the very limited amount of finance available to these councils. Even though in some cases the amount involved is not a great deal, it is a case of the last straw breaking the camel’s back.

This afternoon, I received information from the Concord Municipality, which is a segment of the Lowe electorate. That is the electorate of the Treasurer (Mr McMahon).

It is a large municipality. As a matter of fact to prove my point, I make this comparison: This municipality consists of one sub-division of 3,900 people, another subdivision of 3,600 people, a third subdivision of 1,787 people and a remaining sub-division of 6,000 people of whom twothirds would be included in the municipality. Five naturalisation ceremonies were held in that municipality this year. Of the 5, 2 were organised and the other 3 were small affairs in which groups of people were naturalised by the mayor at private ceremonies. The cost involved was $352. This is not a large sum of money. But if we consider the number of ceremonies that are held in New South Wales and in every other State of the Commonwealth, even allowing for a minimum cost of $352 to each local authority, a considerable amount of money is involved. I throw these figures into the field for consideration by the Senate. I hope that the three submissions that I have made, particularly the first one about parity if rights concerning passports, will be gone into during the parliamentary recess and that when the parliament reassembles in the New Year I will be able to expect clear cut decisions regarding the matters that I have mentioned.

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

[11.25] - Mr Acting Deputy President, I have listened to Senator Mulvihill with a great deal of interest. The points that he has mentioned he has raised previously, some of them during the Estimates debate in the Senate.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I have elaborated more on them.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Yes. I was about to say that the honourable senator has dealt in more detail with some of the points that he has raised tonight. I am very appreciative of the real concern that I know Senator Mulvihill feels in regard to these matters. I acknowledge his very deep interest in them. I will be very pleased to place before the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden) the points that the honourable senator has raised.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.26 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 November 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19681120_senate_26_s39/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant