Senate
28 November 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1968

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIlin) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2477

QUESTION

BEACH MINING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior read a morning Press statement in which the Byron Bay Shire Council and a sand mining company operating at Tallow Beach are complaining about the ravages of wild goats in the area and blaming the Department of the Interior? Can the Minister elaborate on the matter, give details of the portion of Commonwealth land involved and also assure the Senate that the wealthy rutile firm concerned is not attempting to pass the buck to the Commonwealth Government for effective beach regeneration, which is its own rightful responsibility?

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

– The only Commonwealth interest in the Byron Bay area is the Byron Bay rifle range which consists of about 44 acres, 4 acres of which is leased to a zircon mineral sands company so that it can store its equipment on the land. The land in question, therefore, is the responsibility of the Department of the Army. If the honourable senator so desires, I will place his question before the Minister for the Army and obtain a detailed reply.

page 2477

QUESTION

CHOWILLA DAM

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development whether. he is aware of a resolution which was passed unanimously by the House of Assembly in the Parliament of South Australia on 13th November 1968 and which reads:

That this House considers that the State of South Australia has a fundamental and legal right to the construction of the Chowilla Dam without delay and calls on South Australian members in both Houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth to support South Australia’s case to the utmost.

In view of this unanimous resolution of the House of Assembly, which is therefore fully representative of the wishes of the people of South Australia, will the Commonwealth Government do all within its power to have the Chowilla Dam built as originally agreed to, irrespective of the provision of other storages in the Murray system, and so ensure to South Australia and to the nation the undoubted and unique advantages that the Chowilla Dam, downstream from the confluence of the Darling and Murray systems, alone can provide?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– 1 am aware of the unanimous resolution which was passed by the South Australian House of Assembly and which amounts to a request for the immediate construction of the Chowilla Dam. I advise the honourable senator that the delay in the construction of the Chowilla Dam is at the request of the River Murray Commission and that the South Australian representative on that Commission agreed with the other three commissioners that a further survey be carried out at Dartmouth on the Mitta Mitta River. As the honourable senator well knows, a decision by the River Murray Commission on the most suitable site for the construction of a dam is awaiting the findings of the survey by the Snowy Mountains Authority of the upper reaches of the Mitta Mitta River at Dartmouth. I understand the report will not be available for the commissioners to peruse until December of this year. I know the honourable senator’s concern about the need to supply South Australia with the greatest amount of the purest water possible. The Government, which has a 25% interest in the venture, will do all it can to ensure that, when the report is available, the honourable senator’s request is noted.

page 2477

QUESTION

SPORTING POOLS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is the Minister aware that the Nauruan Parliament has passed a Bill known as the Sporting Pools Bill and is he aware that this is the preliminary step to establishing a gigantic football pools organisation that will draw most of its revenue from Australia? Will the Minister inform the Parliament whether the Australian owned Nauruan registered company of Pacific Sporting Pools Ltd has Australian Government approval to operate?

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

– My understanding is that with the advent of independence Nauru has sovereignty oyer its internal affairs. However, the honourable senator’s question contains certain implications and perhaps I should obtain some information for him. I do not think that the Australian Government would have any responsibility for Nauru’s internal arrangements. I do not know what effect the establishment of such pools would have upon Australia. Of course we do know that other countries operate pools and use Australian sporting events as the modus operandi.

page 2478

QUESTION

TARIFF

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. In respect of the Tariff Board inquiry into the Australian shipbuilding industry, which will result in advice being given to the Government in connection with the future of a shipbuilding subsidy policy, could any advantage accrue to a company desiring to construct a shipbuilding yard in Tasmania by placing evidence before the inquiry? Would it be given an opportunity to do so?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The normal procedure with a Tariff Board inquiry is for the Board to advertise that it is taking evidence in relation to an industry. It is then within the competence of any organisation which considers it has a point of view to approach the Secretary of the Board and seek an opportunity to give evidence. That is the generality of the procedure. I do not know the particular circumstances of this case, f would need to make some inquiries.

page 2478

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 ask a question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does the Minister recall that 3 weeks ago I asked him to reply to the question I put on the notice paper on 28th March about an Australian journalist being slandered under the privilege of Parliament? A period of 12 months has elapsed without any attempt to ascertain whether this man is guilty of the conduct alleged against him. It is taking a long time to obtain an answer to the question.

Senator Anderson:

– What is the number of the question?

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is No 169.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– During the course of the morning I shall make some inquiries.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You promised me that 3 weeks ago.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The situation is that I ask people to do certain things. Sometimes those things are not done.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Well, sack them.

Senator ANDERSON:

– A proposition as arbitrary as that is a pretty severe one to come from a person who sits where Senator Cavanagh sits. I certainly shall make some inquiries during the morning and let the honourable senator know the result.

page 2478

QUESTION

LAMB

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is there in existence a panel to advise the Minister concerning the importation of lamb from New Zealand? If so, what is the personnel of that panel, and has the panel conferred with the Minister concerning these imports? Is it not correct to say that the fact that the price of Australian lamb is lower in Western Australia than in any other State proves nothing except the prevalence of a local condition and in no way justifies mounting importations of New Zealand lamb on an already glutted Australian market?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Government has offered to establish a lamb panel consisting of industry representatives and Government officials. The question of industry representation on the panel is currently under consideration. Lamb prices have been lower in Perth in recent months than have prices in most other States. However, prices in all States are well down on prices at the same period last year. The basic reason for the low prices has been unusually heavy yardings. Only small quantities of lamb have been imported from New Zealand. The total imports have amounted to less than 0.5% of the Australian production and could not have had any effect on local prices.

page 2479

QUESTION

ELDO SATELLITE LAUNCHING

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Supply relating to delays in the launching of the ELDO satellite. Can the Minister tell us the reasons why the launching is frequently delayed? Does scientific opinion indicate that these technical difficulties are characteristic of this sort of launching or are the delays due to some defect in workmanship or technical ability?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– My information is that the delays have been caused by malfunctions in the second stage. The latest information I had, which was last night, was that it was anticipated that there might still be a launching today. I think it is not without precedent in connection with these launchings, when there is some suggestion that there might be some malfunction after the countdown has been started, to abandon the intended firing rather than have any element of chance. Indeed, in one of the attempts already made, I think the count was down to 36 seconds before a decision to defer the attempt was made. However, if any information comes to hand during the day I will make it available.

page 2479

QUESTION

EARTHQUAKE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to the earthquake disaster in Western Australia. Has the Western Australian Government requested dollar for dollar assistance from the Commonwealth? If so, what is the amount of money to be provided by the Western Australian Government for such assistance? Is the Commonwealth Government prepared to make such payment as was made with respect to natural disasters in other States?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Primarily, there would be no distinction between States in the Commonwealth’s approach to these matters. I have answered many questions here which have given the pattern of the Commonwealth’s approach. The pattern is that representations must come through the Premier of the State concerned. It is true to say that the Commonwealth has already made an offer similar to that which it made in connection with the first Lord Mayor’s fund. The Commonwealth has offered to match the grant made by the Western Australian Government. As to any subsequent representations by the Premier to the Prime Minister or Treasurer, I would need to seek information.

page 2479

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. During the recess, will the Government concentrate its efforts more effectively on ending the Vietnam war, on the reopening of the Suez Canal and on bringing the Fill aircraft into service operation as all these matters are of vital importance to Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator suggests that during the recess the Government should direct special attention to the conclusion of the Vietnam War, the reopening of the Suez Canal and the delivery of the Fill aircraft. The Government is aware of the desire for the Vietnam conflict to come to an end. The decision taken yesterday by the Government of South Vietnam to come to the conference table is encouraging. I made the point yesterday - as did the Prime Minister in the other place - that the Australian Government had made representation to South Vietnam in the hope that it would attend the Paris talks. I think it is axiomatic that Australia is vitally concerned that the Suez Canal should be re-opened to shipping because Australia relies heavily on exports. Any good offices that the Government can use have been used and will continue to be used. The honourable senator also referred to the Fill aircraft. The Government believes that it is an aircraft that will serve Australia well in the future. It is hoped that when Parliament resumes for its autumn session any lingering doubts the Opposition may have had as to the worthiness of this aircraft will have been dispelled.

page 2479

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. 1 ask: Will he consider calling a special meeting of the Australian

Agricultural Council to discuss the introduction of uniform State legislation banning production in Australia of synthetic meat, which could cause untold damage to the Australian meat industry?

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

– I will have the honourable senator’s question drawn to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 2480

QUESTION

COMPANIES

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is he aware that two companies known as Central Pacific Airlines and Central Pacific Hotels have been established in New South Wales for the purpose of furthering the football pool gambling complex on tax free Nauru? Is he also aware that Mr H. G. Pearce, a former Liberal member for Capricornia, is one of the two principals of those companies? Does the Government approve of the establishment of such companies, having regard to the prominent role played by Mr Pearce in the promotion of tax dodging companies on Norfolk Island?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– 1 am not aware of the matter to which the honourable senator has referred. I do not doubt that the information he has given here is in good faith, but I do not think that is the issue involved. The issue is: Should the Commonwealth Government interfere with two companies that want to operate in the normal way under company law? That is another matter altogether. I believe that the question should be referred to the AttorneyGeneral and I will have that done.

page 2480

ELDO SATELLITE LAUNCHING

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have just received some further information on the launching of a satellite by the European Launcher Development Organisation, which may be of interest to Senator Bishop. I have been informed that the ELDO launching was again delayed due to a malfunction which has not yet been defined. The first count-down reached minus 22 seconds and the second count-down reached minus 3 seconds. So, the satellite was close to being fired. The second count-down reached a point which was so critical that no third count-down could be attempted. Rescheduling of the launching is now under consideration. .

page 2480

QUESTION

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Supply. I remind the Minister that yesterday when I asked a question about chemical and biological warfare he said he would make a further statement on the matter today. I ask: Has the Minister any further information for the Senate?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I was under the impression that this information would be supplied to me during question time. I have not received it so far. When I receive it I will have it incorporated in Hansard.

page 2480

QUESTION

USE OF AUSTRALIAN PORTS

(Question No. 463)

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

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

In view of the policy announced by the Government to deny Australian ports, except in cases of emergencies, to foreign fishing vessels, with a view to protecting Australia’s coastal fishing industry, does the Government similarly propose to deny Australian ports to vessels which are engaged in carrying materials of war to Australia’s enemies engaged in armed combat with Australia’s military forces, with a view to protecting the lives of Australian servicemen?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The policy of the Government, formulated wilh the agreement of the States, to close Australian ports to foreign fishing vessels, except in special cases including genuine emergencies, was designed to support the Australian fishing industry by maintaining for Australian fishermen their geographic advantage over fishermen from distant countries and thus to lessen the competition from foreign fleets. However, action to deny right of access to Australian ports to foreign ships other than fishing vessels or war ships, which would of course also have to be taken in conjunction with the State Governments, would conflict with Australia’s obligations under the Convention and Statute on the International Regime of Maritime Ports, negotiated in 1923. As a party to that Convention, Australia is committed to allow complete freedom of access to its main ports for merchantmen of all contracting parties on the basis of full reciprocity.

It might be possible for Australia, without being strictly in breach of international law, to deny access to our ports to ships of countries not parties to the Convention, which might be operating in the manner referred to by the Senator. However, the doctrine of the freedom of the seas is so well established that it would be extremely difficult to do so. There have been some instances of nations denying to vessels of other nations right of access to their ports but these actions have been generally regarded with disfavour.

It is relevant to note also that Australia is an island continent heavily dependent on overseas trade and it would have to examine most carefully any proposal to take such action.

page 2481

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH-STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

(Question No. 325)

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What Commonwealth grants and Commonwealth loans (together with interest rates and terms of loans) have been made available by the Commonwealth to the various States during the past ten years?
  2. Have any grants or loans not been taken up by the States?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers:

  1. Details of Commonwealth payments to each State in each of the past ten years, classified according to form and purpose, are given in tables 56 to 68 of the White Paper ‘Commonwealth Payments to or for the States 1968-69’. The tables do not include advances to the States under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, details of which are given on page 55 and table 37 of the aforementioned publication. The attached table sets out further details of payments made as loans for specific purposes.

    1. As far as can be ascertained the following are the only instances where a State or States have not taken up offers of Commonwealth assistance, or have not drawn the full amount available to them under the relevant Commonwealth legislation. The list does not include those cases where payments made to meet specified costs incurred by the States (such as for natural disaster relief) were less than the maximum amounts authorised by Commonwealth legislation because the costs to the State proved to be less than those maxima.
    1. Housekeeper Services - Queensland has declined Commonwealth assistance and South Australia has not yet availed itself of the Commonwealth’s offer. (See page 33 of ‘Commonwealth Payments to or for the States 1968-69’.)
    2. States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act 1968- Victoria has not yet accepted the Commonwealth’s offer of assistance under this Act.
    3. States Grants (Menial Health Institutions) Act 1964-67 - This Act preserves the States’ rights to specific amounts of assistance provided for in the States Grants (Mental Health) Act 1955. To 30th lune 1968, Queensland had drawn $2,298,410 of the sum of $2,920,000 to which the State is entitled under the 1955 Act.
    4. Universities - In aggregate, grants so far made to the States under the legislation covering the 1958-60, 1961-63 and 1964-66 triennia amount to about SI. 7 million less than the total amount appropriated. At this stage there are firm indications that, as a result of the operation of the matching provisions in the legislation, approximately $760,000 of this present aggregate shortfall will not be advanced to the States. A dissection of this amount is as follows:

page 2486

QUESTION

COMPUTER TRAINING

(Question No. 392)

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: 1 At what public educational institution in Australia is (a) some computer training, and (b) a full range of computer training available? 2Is any attention being given to the introduction of computer training to students at the higher secondary school level? 3 Mas any consideration been given to pooling the resources of various educational bodies to meet the cost of purchasing computers, where the cost would be beyond the reach of any one institution? 4 What consultations, if any, have been held between the Commonwealth and State education authorities on the subject of computer training?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The Minister for Education : and Science has supplied the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions -

University of Adelaide

Diploma in Computing Science, 1 year full-time, 2 years part-time, post-graduate.

Australian National University - School of General Studies

Digital Computing available in Bachelor of Economics course.

The School of Mines and Industries,Ballarat

Associate Diploma of Business Studies (Data Processing), 4 years full-time, longer parttime. (Entry requirement, Victorian Leaving Certificate).

Bendigo Institute of Technology

Associate Diploma in Business Studies (Data Processing). 4 years full-time. 8 years parttime. (Entry requirement Victorian Leaving Certificate).

Associate Diploma in Information Processing, 4 years full-time, 8 years part-time. (Entry requirement Victorian Leaving Certificate).

Caulfield Institute of Technology

Diploma of Business Studies (Electronic Data Processing), 4 years full-time, 8 years parttime. (Entry requirement Victorian Leaving Certificate).

Diploma of Electronic Computation, 1 year fulltime, post-graduate. (Special entry requirement).

Diploma of Information Processing, 4 years fulltime, longer part-time. (Entry requirement Victorian Leaving Certificate).

Footscray Institute of Technology

Associate Diploma in Business Studies (Data Processing), 4 years full-time. (Entry requirement Victorian Leaving Certificate).

Associate Diploma in Electronic Computation, 1 year full-time, post-graduate. (Special entry requirement).

Gordon Institute of Technology

Associateship in Business Studies (Data Processing), 4 years full-time, longer part-time. (Entry requirement Victorian Leaving Certificate).

Macquarie University

Available as study in Bachelor of Arts course.

University of Melbourne

Data processing available as study in Bachelor of Engineering course.

Computer programming available as study in Bachelor of Engineering course.

Mildura Technical School

Diploma of Business Studies (Data Processing), 4 years full-time. (Entry requirement Victorian Leaving Certificate).

University of Newcastle

An extra-curricula course in programming and computer applications.

New South Wales Institute of Technology

Diploma in Information Processing. 3 years fulltime, 5 years part-time. (Entry requirement New South Wales Higher School Certificate). Post-diploma course in Computer Programming, 2 terms part-time. (Special entry requirement). Post-diploma course in Systems Analysis. 2 years part-time. (Special entry requirement).

University of New South Wales

Available as study in Bachelor of Science course. Available as study in Bachelor of Engineering course.

Prabran College of Technology

Diploma of Business Studies (Data Processing), 4 years full-time. (Entry requirements Victorian Leaving Certificate).

Preston Technical College

Diploma of Business Studies (Data Processing), 4 years full-time, 8 years part-time. (Entry requirement Victorian Leaving Certificate).

University of Queensland

Diploma in Information Processing, I year fulltime, 2 years part-time.

Diploma in Automatic Computing.1 year fulltime, 2-3 years part-time. Available to graduates with previous studies to the Standard of Pure Mathematics 11.

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

Associateship Diploma in Business Studies (Data Processing), 2 years full-time, longer part-time. (Entry requirement Victorian Matriculation). Fellowship Diploma in Business Studies (Data Processing), 3 years full-time, longer part-time. (Entry requirement Victorian Matriculation).

South Australian Institute of Technology

Diploma in Technology in Data Processing. 3 years full-time, 6 years part-time. (Entry requirement registration with S.A.I.T. based on S.A. Matriculation examination).

Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Data Processing 3 years full-time, 6 years part-time. (Entry requirement, matriculation).

Swinburne College of Technology

Diploma of Business Studies (Data Processing), 4 years full-time, 8-9 years part-time. (Entry requirement Victorian Leaving Certificate).

University of Sydney

Available as major study in Bachelor of Science course.

Warrnambool Technical College

Diploma in Business Studies (Data Processing), 2 years of 4 year full-time course available. (Entry requirement Victorian Leaving Certificate).

University of Western Australia

Diploma in Numerical Analysis and Automatic Computing,1 year full-time, 2 years part-time, post-graduate.

A certain amount of experimentation is taking place in high schools in the A.C.T. I believe that in South Australia a computer has been installed in Angle Park Boys’ Technical School and that several other high schools have revealed an interest in the field. 1 understand, also, that some work is being done at Sydney Grammar School and Scotch College, Melbourne. The introduction of computer training experiments into certain Government high schools in New South Wales is I believe under examination. I do not claim that this list is exhaustive. The Commonwealth Department of Education and Science will keep in touch with developments in this field.

In pursuance of the general policy for an integrated computer network the chairmen of the Australian Universities Commission, the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation have been asked to collaborate in assessing computer needs in the areas for which they are responsible. The three arc working actively as a committee and a series of meetings has already been held.

Consultations have been held in the past and arc being held at the moment between Commonwealth and State authorities on equipment and financial requirements at universities and colleges of advanced education required for computer training.

page 2487

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICE PENSION

(Question No. 411)

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer upon notice:

Is the existing social service pension for an aged person designed as a living wage, having regard to the circumstances and sustenance of the pensioner, or is it accepted as an adjunct to living needs and requirements, to be supplemented by contributions from relatives or other sources?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answer:

The honourable senator’s attention is drawn to the remarks which the Right Honourable the Prime Minister made in his speech in the Parliament on 27th August 1968 in the Budget debate. In that speech the Prime Minister said -

Our aim is a social welfare structure which identifies the most needy and sees that those who have no other means are provided with enough to live on in a modest, self respecting way without requiring any other assistance from outside the pension. Our aim is to encourage all to work and to save so that they can live at a standard above that minimum. What we want to see is that the aged needy, the ill needy, those really suffering from some unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own, are adequately provided for by the nation, but that this should be done without destroying the incentive to self reliance. These goals are not easy to achieve, but we have set our hand to the plough and we will not turn back. Step by step we will achieve them.

There are many difficult problems in the way of achieving these aims, but Cabinet is working on them.

page 2487

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 549)

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Is it a fact that, under the Broadcasting and Television Act, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board hits power to grant permits for the operation of community television aerial services in areas of difficult reception?
  2. Has the Government had any requests for such services? If so, how many and where?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answers:

  1. Under section 130a of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1968, the Minister may on the recommendation of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board grant permits for the operation of community television aerial systems in areas of unsatisfactory television reception if improvement of reception by that means is practicable and desirable.
  2. Permits have been applied for and granted as follows:

page 2488

QUESTION

MISS BETH DEAN

(Question No. 556)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Beth Dean, the internationally famous Australian dancer and choreographer, returned this week from Mexico City after winning for Australia its first Olympic gold medal, in the Cultural Olympics?
  2. Did Miss Dean go to Mexico at the invitation of the Australian Ambassador to Mexico after consultation with the Department of External Affairs?
  3. Is it true that other competitors were financed by their respective governments and that Miss Dean, the gold medal winner for Australia, had to pay her own expenses?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

I learned with pleasure of the award to Miss Dean of a gold medal. I should explain, however, that the Mexican authorities presented gold medals to all choreographers associated with the production of the ‘Ballet of the Five Continents’, which formed part of the Cultural Olympics. The medals were commemorative and a mark of appreciation of their recipients’ collaboration with the Mexican Organising Committee and participation in the cultural programme. They are not comparable to gold medals received by competitors in the sporting events, since there was no competition involved in the Cultural Olympics.

Miss Dean was invited to Mexico by the Mexican authorities concerned with cultural activities associated with the Olympic Games. The Australian Ambassador in Mexico and the Department of External Affairs in Canberra provided a channel for some of the communications between Miss Dean and those authorities in connection with the invitation. I have no information on the financial arrangements which other Governments may have made in regard to the expenses of attendance in Mexico City of their nationals who took part in the cutural activities associated with the Olympic Games. I believe, however, that the Mexican authorities met the cost of Miss Dean’s fares and accommodation, and the costs involved in mounting the production. The Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust arranged for Mr Russell Drysdale to design the scenery and provided Miss Dean with a grant of $500.

page 2488

QUESTION

COAL

(Question No. 576)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What proportion of the capital invested in the Australian coal industry is foreign owned?
  2. Are there any Australian coal mining companies which are wholly Australian owned? If so, what are the registered titles of these companies?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers:

  1. This information is not available. However, a general indication of the degree of overseas ownership, in terms of the operations of mining establishments, is presented in Part I of ‘Overseas Investment in Australian Mining Industry 1963 to 1966’, issued by the Commonwealth Statistician on 5th November 1968. For 1966, the Statistician apportioned 22% of the value of output in ‘fuel mining’ to overseas ownership, other than ownership by overseas portfolio investors as defined by the Statistician. ‘Fuel mining’ includes petroleum and natural gas as well as coal, but the value of output of these commodities in 1966 was relatively small and would not significantly affect the proportion of the value of output apportioned to overseas ownership.
  2. Because of the difficulty of determining the beneficial ownership of ali shares in a company, particularly where the shares are held in the name of another company or through nominees, wholly Australian-owned enterprises cannot be listed with certainty.

page 2488

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER

(Question No. 684)

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

In what way would Australia’s adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty affect the Government’s choice of and the operation of, a nuclear power reactor for civil uses?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The implications of Australian adherence to the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons are being closely examined by the Government in consultation with other Governments and this examination is not yet complete.

page 2488

QUESTION

TRADE WITH NORTH VIETNAM

(Question No. 692)

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to a news item which reports plans of a group of Sydney businessmen who hope to trade with North Vietnam and to appoint a trade commissioner in Hanoi?
  2. Was the Attorney-General correctly reported by Mr P. Sayers - spokesman for the group - when he alleged that Mr Bowen said: ‘As Australia was not technically at war with North Vietnam it would be all right to trade with Hanoi’?
  3. Does the Government intend to allow such trade to take place and also permit the planned appointment of a Trade Commissioner in Hanoi?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to . the honourable senator’s question -

  1. Yes.
  2. 1 refer the honourable Senator to the answer which the Attorney-General gave in reply to a similar question on 22 October 1968 (Hansard, House of Representatives pp 2155 and 2156) in which the Attorney-General stated that the news item in question was incorrect.
  3. There is no trade from Australia to North Vietnam, lt is not the intention of the Australian Government to appoint a trade commissioner in Hanoi.

Fill AIRCRAFT (Question No. 698)

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

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

  1. With reference to an answer to a question on the Fill aircraft on 15th October, in which Senator Anderson said that my assumption that any cancellation of British orders for this type of aircraft was related to the quality performance or role of the Fill was hypothetical, can the Minister equate his answer with the statement by the United States of America Secretary for Defence Systems Analysis (Dr A. Enthoven) calling for sizeable cuts on Fill attack aircraft because its type of mission could be performed by much cheaper aircraft, and the suggested outright cancellation of the programme to build more than 200 FBI 11 bombers because their range was inadequate, plus the aircraft’s crop of technical problems?
  2. Will the Government give close consideration to the Enthoven evaluation which appears to be far from hypothetical?
Senator ANDERSON:

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following information:

The honourable senator will be interested in the following statement of the United States Secretary for Defence at a Press conference on 25th October:

Let me say that it is our opinion in the Secretary’s Office, and it is the opinion of the

Air Force, that this (i.e. the Fill) will be an excellent plane. I believe that there has been some over-emphasis upon the difficulty. I might use this opportunity to put it in perspective. We have tested the Fill for some 15,000 hours. In 15,000 hours of tests, we have lost 10 ills. Now look at this: The F-100, a very useful plane, when tested 15,000 hours, we had lost 28 of those in the same period of time. The F-104 also an excellent plane, we lost 21. The F-101, we had lost 18 in a similar period. Just one further comparison: The F-4, which, as you all know, is the Phantom, which has proved to be so successful - and we have some 2,000 Phantoms now - at this same period, 15,000 hours, we lost the same number - 10 Phantoms. So that the number. of losses in the 111 Program are very well within the experience we have had with other planes that turned out to be very successful.’

The United States Department of Defense has advised that reports in the American press about the position of Dr Enthoven, Assistant Secretary of Defense (Systems Analysis), on the Fill program distort the Department of Defense budgetary processes. Many alternative programs are considered within the Department prior- to forming up recommendations for the optimum United States defense posture.

While the final decision on the United States Budget rests with the President we have no reason for apprehending that the United States Air Force will not have a sizeable FI 1 1 fleet.

page 2489

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT

(Question No. 701)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How much in direct grants has been made available by the Commonwealth in each year, to each State, since 1950 for developmental purposes?
  2. What proportion of Commonwealth money invested in the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme has been (a) non-repayable grants, and (b) repayable loans?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers:

  1. The amounts of Commonwealth funds made available by way of direct non-repayable grants to each State between 1st July 1950 and 30th June 1968 for developmental purposes are shown in the attached table.
  2. The whole of the Commonwealth investment in the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme has been in the form of interest-bearing repayable advances.

page 2491

QUESTION

METRIC SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

(Question No. 710)

Senator MURPHY:

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

What is being done to implement the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures 1968 That in view of the rapid expansion in education at all levels and in commercial and industrial activity, conversion to the metric system in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea be implemented with the least possible delay’?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for External Territories has now supplied the following answer -

The recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures, in so far as they relate to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are under consideration.

An important consideration is what decision is taken about adoption of the metric system in Australia. The views of the Administrator’s Executive Council will have to be sought and this will be done when the Australian decision is known. Legislation by theHouse of Assembly would of course be necessary.

page 2491

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 712)

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Has the Postmaster-General seen a report that Victorian Broadcasting Network Ltd is making a takeover bid for Bendigo and Central Victoria Telecasters Ltd, operator of television channel BCV8 Bendigo and translator station BCV11 Swan Hill?
  2. Is any offer that has been made conditional on obtaining the Postmaster-General’s- approval?
  3. What percentage of daily telecasting time was devoted to unrepeated bulletins of local news from Monday to Friday and on Saturday and Sunday on BCV8 and BCV 1 1 in each of the last 4 weeks?
  4. What population is served each by BCV8 and BCV 1 1?
  5. By what means do Bendigo and Central Victoria Telecasters Ltd obtain local news of the Bendigo district, and of the Swan Hill district?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answers: 1 and 2. Yes.

  1. The following information has been obtained from the licensee of BCV in respect of the period 30th September to 27th October 1968:
  1. It is not the normal practice to make available estimates of either population or area served by individual stations because of the competitive nature of the commercial services established in the various areas.
  2. The following information has been obtained from the licensee: 24 Stringer cameramen are situated in the following towns - Kerang, Castlemaine. Nanneella, Inglewood, St Arnaud, Kerang, Stawell, Caldwell, Echuca, Moulamein, Ballarat, Narrung, Cohuna, Wycheproof, Seymour, Ultima, Daylesford, Deniliquin, Maryborough, Alexandra, Swan Hill, Birchip and Barham. News is also supplied to the station by the Swan Hill Guardian, Bendigo Advertiser, Castlemaine Mail and broadcasting station 3BO Bendigo. In addition. BCV operates two mobile news vehicles in the Bendigo and country centres and also a news vehicle covering the Swan Hill-Murray Valley area operating from the licensee’s Swan Hill Office.

page 2491

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 714)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

Will the Postmaster-General list all commercial broadcasting and television stations operating in Australia and the total population served by each radio station and each television station?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following reply:

A complete list of all commercial broadcasting and television stations is contained in the twentieth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30th June 1968 as follows:

Commercial Broadcasting Stations - Appendix A, page 97.

Commercial Television Stations - Appendix C, page 105. lt is not the practice to make available estimates of population served by individual ‘broadcasting or television stations because of the highly competitive nature of the industries.

However, with regard to the general level of coverage, it can be stated wilh respect to television that whilst considerable variation occurs from area to area according to the power used, the height of the transmitter site and the topography in the area concerned, in average conditions the reception from a 100 kw. station is generally satisfactory within a radius of about 60 miles from the station’s transmitter.

In the case of broadcasting stations, the extent of coverage as between individual stations varies markedly primarily according to the frequency and power on which the stations operate and the type of terrain over which signals are propagated. Coverage also varies considerably between day time and night time, especially for stations which share the use of a frequency.

page 2492

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 716)

Senator MCCLELLAND:

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

  1. Has the Australian Broadcasting Control Board yet been able to make a report and recommendations to the Postmaster-General on the possibility of providing national television services to Nyngan, Cobar, Bourke and Brewarrina by translator stations?
  2. What are the recommendations, if any, and when is it likely that television will be available to people resident in these areas?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answer: 1 and 2. No. However, I expect a report from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in the near future regarding the possibility of the provision of television service to these centres. I am not in a position to comment on the matter until I have received and studied the Board’s report and recommendations.

page 2492

QUESTION

BEEF EXPORTS

(Question No. 719)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Will the restraints placed on the export of beef to the United States of America this year also apply in 1969?
  2. Has the Government been successful in obtaining any new markets for Australian beef in order to avoid what appears to be the imminent collapse of the Australian beef export industry because of the loss of the American market?
Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

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

  1. The restrictions imposed last September on exports of beef and mutton to the United States apply only to shipments for arrival in the United States during 196& Whether or not restraints will again be required in 1969 as a result of the United States Meat Import legislation is not yet certain. Under the legislation, which relates to imports of fresh, chilled or frozen beef, veal, mutton and goat meat, quotas are applied if the United States Secretary of Agriculture estimates that imports during a calendar year are likely to exceed by 10% or more a ‘permitted level’ which is calculated by a formula in the legislation. The permitted level’ for 1969, which must be announced by 31st December 1968. has not yet been determined but it is expected to be about 5% higher than for 1968.

The Australian Government is maintaining close consultation with the United States Administration on the 1969 meat import situation. Should the Administration determine that voluntary restraints or quotas will be necessary in 1969, Australia will seek to negotiate, at the earliest opportunity, an entitlement for Australia which would fully reflect our share of United States’ imports in recent years. In that event Australian exports to the United States would be regulated under arrangements already developed by the Australian Meat Board in consultation with industry organisations whereby exporters’ entitlements to ship to the United States will be based on their exports to other markets. These arrangements would operate to ensure that Australian exports to the United States fully matched the Australian entitlement and would, at the same time, encourage exporters to develop additional export outlets.

  1. The Australian Meat Board is the authority primarily responsible for developing and promoting meat exports and the Board has been particularly active in seeking new export outlets. In addition to its regular market development activities conducted through its offices overseas, the Board has in recent months conducted two overseas market survey missions to the Middle East, with encouraging results, and a third mission is currently examining potential markets in the Asian area.

There is no prospect of a loss of the United States market and no question of a collapse of the beef export industry. Indeed, if restraints on exports to the United States in 1969 do become necessary, Australia would certainly expect to obtain a larger entitlement than in 1968.

page 2493

QUESTION

NEWS-FILM DISTRIBUTION

(Question No. 720)

Senator MILLINER:

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

  1. Is the Australian Broadcasting Commission a shareholder in the world-wide news-film distributors Visnews?
  2. ls the ABC competing against its own clients, such as some metropolitan commercial television stations, by buying satellite coverage of news events from the ABC’s own opposition, CBS in America?
  3. What is the cost to the Government of news-film supplied by Visnews?
  4. What is the cost of purchasing satellite coverage of news events from CBS?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has supplied the following replies:

  1. Yes.
  2. The ABC obtains its coverage of news events overseas from the best source available by the most expeditious means in order to provide Australian viewers with the best possible service. On some occasions this coverage is taken from CBS in America. The ABC subscribes to the CBS newsfilm service as well as the Visnews service. The British Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation, which are shareholders with the ABC in Visnews, also subscribe to the CBS newsfilm service. Some metropolitan commercial television stations in Australia also subscribe to both Visnews and CBS.
  3. There is no cost to the Government for newsfilm from Visnews. The ABC pays Visnews an annual fee for its newsfilm service under a contract, the terms and conditions of which the honourable senator will readily understand are confidential. They could be disclosed only in this way, but not publicly, particularly having regard to the highly competitive nature of the industry.
  4. The coverage of news events is supplied by CBS to the ABC under an overall agreement embracing both news ‘ and current affairs programmes. When coverage of news events is sent to Australia from CBS by satellite the only additional cost is the payment by the ABC to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission for the hire of the satellite. This cost amounts to approximately $3,000 per 10 minutes.

page 2493

QUESTION

OVERSEAS BORROWING

(Question No. 723.)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How can the Prime Minister reconcile the vision splendid of vast mineral production in Australia with the attitude of the Commonwealth Treasurer in advocating economic bondage by Australia to European countries by large scale borrowings?
  2. Can the Prime Minister explain the phenomenon of World War II vanquished nations becoming lenders whilst the victors like Australia are the borrowers?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question -

  1. Borrowings by Australia in Europe in no way entail any economic bondage to European countries but they do augment the resources available for development in this country and thereby help the building up of its strength.
  2. There are many reasons why, at any point of time, some countries are net exporters of capital and others are net importers of capital. It is not the case, as the question implies, that tha present status of countries as net exporters or net importers of capital is directly related to the status they had as victors or vanquished in World War II. As to Australia’s position, given the opportunities for development in this country, it is clearly in our national interest to import capital from abroad to supplement our own limited resources, and thereby enable development to proceed at a faster pace than would otherwise be possible.

page 2493

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

(Question No. 734.)

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Do members of the Regular Army Emergency Reserve commit an offence punishable by imprisonment for three months if they take an active part in the affairs of any political party?
  2. Were instructions given to amend regulation 210a of the Australian Military Regulations in its application to members of the Regular Army Emergency Reserve in 1964; if so, when will these instructions be carried out?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions -

  1. Yes, but this is the maximum penalty. Penalties prescribed under Australian Military Regulations range from minor punishments such as admonition or reprimand, or a small fine, up to either detention or imprisonment for 3 months.

    1. The honourable senator asks, in effect, for information concerning Government policy, namely, whether regulation 210a is to be amended in respect of its application to members of the Regular Army Emergency Reserve. The question of amending the regulation is under consideration.

page 2494

QUESTION

IMPORTED FISH

(Question No. 741)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: 1 Will the Minister ascertain the latest available domestic selling price of South African hake, Japanese hake and English bream as caught and sold to consumers in each of these countries? 2 What is the price of boneless fillets of such fish imported and sold to consumers in Australia?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

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

The information sought is not readily available but I am arranging for it to be obtained from the Departments concerned and I will convey it to the Honourable Senator as soon as it is to hand.

page 2494

QUESTION

COPPER MINING IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS

(Question No. 752)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

With reference to the Solomon Islands copper development project -

What is the area of land taken over by the development company?

What royalty is to be paid to the local people?

What are the wage rates paid to expatriates employed on the project and the wage rates paid to indigenous people?

how many indigenes have been gaoled or otherwise dealt with by the authorities for objecting to the establishment of the project on their tribal lands?

Senator WRIGHT: The Minister for External Territories has supplied the following answer:

This answer is supplied on the assumption that the question relates to the copper development project in Bougainville in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

No mining leases have yet been granted to the company. In accordance with the Bougainville Copper Agreement which was approved by the House of Assembly the company at present has prospecting authorities over 242 square miles; it has recently relinquished rights under two prospecting authorities.

If there is mining production land owners will be paid the equivalent of five per cent of the royalty. Owners of land included in a mining lease or a lease for a mining purpose will also receive an occupation fee of at least two dollars per acre per year for the duration of the lease. If any damage is done to land or improvements during the course of prospecting or mining full compensation is paid.

Details of contracts of employment of indigenous and expatriate employees are matters for private negotiation with (he employer. Conditions of employment of indigenous employees comply with the relevant Territory legislation. There is no similar legislation in relation to conditions of employment of expatriate employees.

Seven people have been sentenced to imprisonment for offences against the criminal code which are believed to have been related to opposition to the copper development project.

page 2494

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

(Question No. 757)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What is the total number of helicopters possessed by the Army?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

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

As at 25th November 1968, 37.

page 2494

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 762)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. What is the total number of Australians killed or injured in the war in Vietnam?
  2. What are the monthly figures of killed and injured for the past 12 months?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following information:

  1. Total number of Australians killed or injured in Vietnam from 31st July 1962 to 31st October 1968:

    1. killed 252. (Killed in action, killed accidentally, died of wounds, and died of injuries and illness.)
    2. wounded and injured, 1,289.

  2. Australians killed or injured in Vietnam by months from 1st November 1967 to 31st October 1968.

page 2495

QUESTION

TRIMARAN YACHTS

(Question No. 777)

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Will the Minister cause an inquiry to be made by a suitable individual or group into the basic safety of the trimaran type yachts?
  2. If there is found to be any basic deficiency in the design which makes such yachts unsafe for making off-shore voyages, will the Minister take steps to impose some control over their use so that owners and crew members are made aware of the risks which they are undertaking and appropriate safety precautions are taken?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Officers of the Department of Shipping and Transport are making enquiries into the basic seaworthiness of trimarans, in particular to see whether special controls and standards should be imposed in respect of such vessels when proceeding into the open sea. Their’ proposal will be considered by a Commonwealth/State committee which will be looking into the question of the desirability of, and responsibility for, some form of control being exercised over trimarans and other pleasure craft, at a meeting to be held next month.
  2. Any recommendations made by the Commonwealth/State Committee as to the need and responsibility for special controls to be exercised over trimarans or other small craft will be given careful consideration with a view to appropriate action being taken either by the Commonwealth or the various States.

page 2495

QUESTION

DUMPING OF MOTOR VEHICLES

(Question No. 778)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that three European motor firms have been told to increase their prices or face dumping charges?
  2. Which department made the investigations leading to the ultimatum?
  3. What was the nature of these investigations?
  4. Has the Minister any comment on the Fiat company’s assertion that no charge of dumping can be sustained?
  5. As the firms handling Renault, Volvo and Alfa Romeo motor vehicles have all denied being approached by the Government, will the Minister name the firms involved?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. It has been pointed out to the local representatives of the manufacturers concerned that it appears that cars are being exported to Australia at prices less than normal values as defined in the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act. The representatives concerned have been asked what action they propose to take to correct this situation.
  2. The Department of Customs and Excise.
  3. To ensure that the conditions of the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act were being observed by all exporters of motor vehicles to Australia. 4 and 5. No.

page 2495

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS

(Question No. 783)

Senator BISHOP:

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

What would be the cost to the Commonwealth of abolishing the means test with respect to living allowances provided to holders of Commonwealth university scholarships and Commonwealth advanced education scholarships?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

If no means test were applied to Commonwealth University and Advanced Education scholarships the cost of living allowances paid under those schemes for the calendar year 1968 would have been increased by an estimated$11m over and above the total estimated expenditure of $15m on both living allowances and fees for the same year.

page 2495

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

(Question No. 790)

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. What facilities are available at Meekatharra to check passengers from overseas when international aircraft are forced to land there and stay for several hours?
  2. Is there a doctor resident in this area to check medical certificates and examine passengers? If not, does the Department intend to station a doctor there or provide quarantine facilities?
  3. What are the last ports of call for international aircraft at which medical certificates of passengers are checked?
  4. If no facilities are available at Meekatharra is there any danger to humans and/or animals from the introduction of disease into Australia through this source?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply:

  1. A district medical officer employed by the Western Australian government and based at Meekatharra has been appointed as a quarantine officer under the Commonwealth Quarantine Act and is normally available to check passengers from overseas when international aircraft are forced to land there and stay for several hours.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. The last ports of call for international aircraft at which medical certificates of passengers are checked are those ports proclaimed by the Governor-General as first ports of entry for aircraft,

The proclaimed first ports of entry for aircraft are:

Brisbane Airport, Queensland

Brisbane Water Airport, Queensland

Cairns Airport, Queensland

Horn Island Airport, Queensland

Townsville Airport, Queensland

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, New South Wales

Sydney Water Airport, New South Wales

Melbourne Airport, Victoria

Perth Airport, Western Australia

Darwin Airport, Northern Territory

Darwin Alighting Area, Northern Territory.

  1. No. Arrangements exist for the disinfection of overseas aircraft, for the collection and disposal of garbage, and minimum contact of local residents with passengers and crew from overseas aircraft

page 2496

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

(Question No. 800)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Min ister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

How many Australian professional musicians are employed: (a) permanently, or (b) casually by commercial television and broadcasting stations?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answer:

The information which the honourable senator requests is not available.

page 2496

QUESTION

RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK

(Question No. 807)

Senator BISHOP:

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

  1. In relation to tenders currently being called by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner for 2 sleeping cars and 8 passenger cars, to operate over the standardised railway system, and in view of the need to maintain a continuing Australian capacity to manufacture rolling stock, will the Minister endeavour to have the orders for these cars placed with the South Australian Railways Workshops, which have experience of standardisation work?
  2. Will the Minister also endeavour to have private Australian orders for rolling stock placed with either railways workshops or private manufacturers in Australia?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. It is presumed the question relates to tenders recently called by the South Australian Railways Commissioner for the units mentioned. The tenders received are currently being considered, and the quotations submitted by the South Australian Railways Workshops will receive equal consideration with those from private companies.
  2. Orders placed for rolling stock by private companies are for decision by the individual purchasers. The facilities available in railway workshops and in the factories of private manufacturers are no doubt known. Their decisions would be based on normal commercial considerations.

page 2496

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 18th September and 22nd October 1968 questions without notice were directed to me by Senator Rae relating to a request from the Tasmania!) Premier for Commonwealth drought relief assistance for the east coast of his State. A question on this matter was also directed to me by Senator O’Byrne on 8 th October. I indicated that I would seek early answers to these questions. I should first point out that the earlier question from Senator Rae preceded the Premier’s request by a couple of weeks. When the other questions were asked the matter was under active consideration and it was therefore not possible to provide substantive replies then. Although I believe, from later debates in the House, that the honourable senators are aware of the Commonwealth’s decision on the Tasmanian request I am now providing a formal reply to the two honourable senators’ questions.

The first request for Commonwealth drought relief assistance was made by the Tasmanian Premier on 3 October. While this request was under consideration the Premier again wrote to the Prime Minister on 22nd October indicating that conditions had deteriorated since his earlier request and that it was estimated that funds needed to meet the current situation would be as high as$1m. The assistance sought by the Premier was in the form of reimbursement of loans made by the State to drought affected farmers. The Premier did not indicate any intention that the loans be restricted to dairy farmers. The Commonwealth’s decision on the Premier’s request was conveyed in a telegram despatched by the Prime Minister to the Tasmanian Premier on 7th November, the text of which was released to the Press. This telegram set out the conditions under which the Commonwealth would provide drought relief to Tasmania. The telegram made specific reference to the balance of $288,000 held by Tasmania under the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act and which Senator Rae asked about in his question on 22 October and stated that the Commonwealth would consider any request by the Premier to facilitate the use of this balance. Consultations between the Commonwealth and the Stale on this matter are currently proceeding.

page 2497

QUESTION

MELBOURNE UNDERGROUND RAILWAY

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 10th October Senator Greenwood asked me, as the Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question about the proposed Melbourne underground railway and 1 undertook to obtain the information asked for. I am now able to give the honourable senator the following information in answer to his question:

The Commonwealth has received a request from the Premier of Victoria for financial assistance for the construction of the proposed Melbourne underground railway. The Premier has also asked for an interview to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister who has agreed to his request. As yet no date has been fixed for the discussion.

page 2497

TABLING OF TREATIES

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

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table texts of the undermentioned treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature, acceptance or ratification;

  1. Trade Agreement between Australia and the Republic of China signed at Canberra on 22 April 1968.
  2. Exchange of Notes dated 25 July 1968 between Australia and the Federation of Malaysia constituting an amendment to the Trade Agreement of 26 August 1958.
  3. Exchange of Notes dated 10 September 1968 between Australia and Indonesia extending the operation of the Trade Agreement of 17 December 1959.
  4. Agreement between Australia and the United States of America relating to Scientific and Technical Co-operation signed at Canberra on 16 October 1968.
  5. International Coffee Agreement drawn up in New York, 18-31 March 1968.

I also lay on the table for the information of honourable senators the texts of the following two treaties to which Australia is considering becoming a party by ratification:

  1. International Convention for the Protection of Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works, drawn up at Brussels on 26 June 1948.
  2. Universal Copyright Convention, drawn up at Geneva on 6 September 1952.

page 2497

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I present the Twenty-fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator WOOD:

– I ask for leave to move a motion in relation thereto.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WOOD:

– I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2497

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I present the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject:

Rubberised textile fabrics.

I also present the following report by the Tariff Board which does not call for any legislative action:

Ethyl acetate (Dumping and Subsidies Act).

page 2498

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1967-68

Statement of Expenditure

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

– I present the following paper:

Statement for the year 1967-68 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1966 (Advance to the Treasurer).

Ordered -

That consideration of the statement in Committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.

page 2498

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1968

Assent reported.

page 2498

LANDS ACQUISITION (DEFENCE) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this bill is to enable the Commonwealth to acquire, by compulsory process if that should be necessary, any of thelands at Holsworthy, New South Wales, described in the Bill, which are currently used for military training and which the Commonwealth may wish to retain for Army training purposes, or as a buffer zone of 1 mile radius round the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s reactor at Lucas Heights, which borders the Holsworthy area. An explanatory map of the area has already been made available to honourable senators.

Honourable senators will be aware that, over the past 60 years, Holsworthy - on the outskirts of Sydney - has become virtually the hub of Australia’s military training organisation. The area comprises about 80 square miles, 27 of which are Commonwealth owned, having been acquired from 1912 onwards. The balance of 53 square miles is State Crown land, which the Army has used under tenure granted by the New South Wales Government from time to time. In addition, an area to the south of about 32 square miles, known as the ‘O’Hare’s Creek Area’, has been used for training under the authority of a proclamation under section 69 of the Defence Act.

Presently, the major portion of the Australian Army Field Force is located at Holsworthy, and the strength of units in the general area is about 7,000. In addition, the area is used by about 8,000 Citizen Military Forces personnel in the Sydney area. Its accessibility for cadet training and for CMF training, especially at weekends, is of enormous importance, as is also its proximity to the amenities of city life for the servicemen at Holsworthy and their dependants.

Over the years of Army occupation, depot and training establishments and housing have been developed. All told, the Army’s capital investment in Holsworthy is of the order of $65m. The bulk of these improvements is on Commonwealth owned land, but on the rest of the land are extensive ranges and facilities for training and exercises. In a word the entire concept of the whole Holsworthy complex has been based on the assumption that the State Crown lands, which have been used for so long and for a purpose so important, would continue to be available. One sidelight is that extension areas hold unexploded shells fired in the course of artillery training. The cost of their removal could be as much as $25m.

For the past 15 years, efforts have been made by the Commonwealth to obtain a more secure tenure of the State Crown lands, without success. Proposals for acquisition were first taken up with the New South Wales Government in 1954 and since then there have been numerous dicsussions with the State authorities. In February of last year, the State Government - in full knowledge of the importance of our continued occupancy of the area, but without any prior discussion with us - caused a notice to be published in the Government Gazette’ reserving ‘for public recreation’ the greater part of the State lands on which the Army carries out its training.

The effect of this gazettal was to prevent the Commonwealth from acquiring the land under the Commonwealth Lands Acquisition Act. Section 6 (ii) of that Act prohibits the Commonwealth from acquiring land reserved for public recreation. That that was the State’s purpose has been made very clear in recent days with public announce.mentsc of the State’s intention to use much of the area for residential and industrial purposes. Indeed in July 1967 - 5 months after gazetting the State Crown lands ‘for public recreation’ - the New South Wales authorities put forward proposals for the development for industrial and residential purposes of almost the whole of the northern areas of both State and Commonwealth lands.

However, despite the unilateral State gazettal action, the Commonwealth continued to seek an accommodation with the State. In August last the Minister for Defence, the Attorney-General and the Minister for the Army met the State Ministers concerned but failed to reach agreement on the relative priorities of need. Later, by arrangement with the State Ministers, there were further discussions between Commonwealth and State officials, but again without productive result.

The Commonwealth has sought to go as far as it can in finding some sensible accommodation with State wishes. We agreed to provide access for road and rail links across Commonwealth land. We agreed that the Commonwealth would not seek to acquire an area suitable for residential development, known as the ‘Little Forest’, but we did ask that the Army should be allowed to use this area until the State actually needed the land for development. We also said that we would be prepared to transfer some Commonwealth lands to the State to allow for residential development. The State’s attitude was that in ten years time the State should have 3,800 acres for industrial and residential development - a large slice of this being Commonwealth owned land and the rest State Crown lands. The consequence would be the excision of much of the only flat land in the whole training complex - land given over to close training and to a series of interlocking small arms ranges which cannot be located to the south without occupying a vastly greater area and reducing markedly its value for training exercises.

Whether this is the State’s present position is difficult to judge. Reports in the Press suggest that the State now wants back 7,300 acres, not 3,800 acres. It is advanced that the Army should move somewhere else - to the Colo-Putty area some 80 miles north west of Sydney or to the Singleton area some 100 miles from Sydney. Let us, for a moment, put aside the cost of this - the capital already invested at Holsworthy and the 1,400 married quarters. Let us consider the effect on recruiting of moving the largest Army centre and the men training at it, and their dependants, from the amenities the metropolitan area provides. Let us consider the costs of maintenance, movement of stores and supplies and also what we would lose by absence of any readily accessible training facilities for the cadets and Citizen Military Forces units in the Sydney area.

The Commonwealth has been criticised for not having warned the New South Wales Government of its intention to introduce this legislation. As long ago as October last year the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, told the Premier of New South Wales that the Commonwealth would be forced to take this step if some sensible agreement could not be reached. Our Ministers repeated this at the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers in August last.

Looking into the future, the Commonwealth accepts that at some unspecified date it may be possible, or desirable, for the Commonwealth to make other arrangements. We said to the State that, if it agreed to our acquiring the land we needed, we would undertake to make it available to the State at present day values when no longer required for Commonwealth purposes. However, the Commonwealth must have the deciding say when the land is not required for military training purposes.

The Senate will be aware that the Lucas Heights reactor stands on the boundary of the Holsworthy land. It is necessary, for protective purposes, to prevent development of the land in a circle with a radius of 1 mile from the reactor. Here, happily, the State has been more understanding but. as yet, we have no final agreement which would ensure this essential provision.

The whole purpose of this Bill is to protect the position of the Army with respect to the use of the Holsworthy training complex, and to provide effective safety measures in relation to the reactor. With some unhappy knowledge of State attitudes we just could not risk being served with a peremptory demand to vacate the State Crown lands we continue to need. Indeed, as matters stand, the Commonwealth’s tenure of the State Crown lands expires on 31st December.

Notwithstanding the passage of the Bill, we will continue to seek an accommodation with the State. The Bill does not, by its terms, acquire the lands referred to in its schedules. It merely enables acquisition action to be taken under the Lands Acquisition Act if that becomes necessary - action that could be taken without this Bill but for the recreation reserve proclamation to which I have referred. When the Bill is enacted as law, we will resume our discussion with the State, in the hope that we can come to a sensible accommodation.

By way of explanation, I point out that, for convenience, the First Schedule to the Bill uses the description appearing in the State proclamation of reservation for recreation purposes. This includes the ‘Little Forest’ area, but I repeat that the Commonwealth does not intend to acquire that area which the State wants for its own development except that part of it lying within the 1 mile radius buffer zone surrounding the Lucas Heights reactor to which I have referred. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2500

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION 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:

This Bill provides for the validation, until 30th June 1969, of customs duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals moved in this House since 10th September last. Honourable senators will appreciate that legislation to enact these changes could not properly be debated before the senate goes into recess. I expect that a Bill to enact the tariff changes will be introduced into the Senate in the autumn session. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

- Mr President, as this validation Bill provides for a period of operation of only 7 months, during which time it will be reviewed, the Opposition does not oppose it. We give our approval to it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2500

ELECTORAL DIVISIONS OF QUEENSLAND

Proposed Redistribution

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

– I move:

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– On behalf of (he Opposition I move the following amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘that’ -

Insert - the Senate disapproves of the fresh redistribution of the State of Queensland into electoral divisions as proposed by the Distribution Commissioners for the reasons stated in the dissent expressed by the Chairman of the Commissioners, MrI. F. Weise, Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland, and requests the Minister to refer back to the Commissioners the redistribution of the State of Queensland into electoral divisions for a further distribution’.

Honourable Senators will recall that a distribution was brought before the Senate and dealt with on 10th October last. On that occasion a similar motion to that which he now moves was moved by the Minister and amended by the Senate. The resolution of the Senate was:

That the Senate disapproves of the distribution of the State of Queensland into electoral divisions as proposed by the Distribution Commissioners, for the following reasons:

a major dissent was presented by the Chairman of the Commissioners Mr I. F. Weise, Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland

the rejection of the proposed redistribution by the Senate empowers the Minister to refer the proposal back to the Commissioners for reconsideration

the Senate is of the opinion that the proposal should be reconsidered by the Commissioners, with a view if possible to arrival at a unanimous decision

the Senate is of the opinion that the Minister should when empowered by the decision of the Senate so refer the proposal back to the Commissioners and so requests him.

The matter has been sent back by the Minister and the distribution commissioners have presented a new report, which is now submitted for consideration. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard the report by the distribution commissioners on the fresh distribution, not including the accompanying documents.

page 2501

COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDISTRIBUTING THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND INTO ELECTORAL DIVISIONS FOR THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

page 2501

QUESTION

REPORT BY THE DISTRIBUTION COMMISSIONERS ON FRESH REDISTRIBUTION

To His Excellency the Right Honourable Richard Gardiner, Baron Casey, a Member of Her Majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Member of the Order of Companions of Honour, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, upon whom he has been conferred the Decoration of the Military Cross, Knight of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, Governor-General and CommanderinChief in and over the Commonwealth of Australia.

May it please Your Excellency:

  1. Your Distribution Commissioners, having acted in pursuance of the Commission issued by His Excellency, the Governor-General on the 8th February 1968 of which the foregoing is a copy, and having submitted, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918- 1966, their Report dated 13th September 1968, upon the redistribution of the State of Queensland into Electoral Divisions, have the honour to inform your Excellency that they have been advised by the Minister of State for the Interior that the said Report was duly laid before both Houses of Parliament on 18th September 1968 and that:

    1. on 26th September 1968 the House of Representatives passed a resolution approving the proposed distribution of the State of Queensland into Electoral Divisions; and
    2. on 10th October 1968 the Senate passed a resolution disapproving the proposed distribution of the State of Queensland into Electoral Divisions.
  2. Your Distribution Commissioners, having been directed by the Minister of State for the Interior in pursuance of sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918- 1966, to propose a fresh distribution of the State of Queensland into Electoral Divisions and having acted in compliance with that direction, have now the honour to submit their further Report upon the re-distribution of the said State into Electoral Divisions together with a map (in three parts) signed by them showing the boundaries of each proposed Division.

  3. Your Distribution Commissioners were duly informed by the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth that:

    1. the State of Queensland is to be distributed into eighteen Divisions;
    2. the number of electors in the State of Queensland is 912,858;
    3. the quota for the State of Queensland has been ascertained to be 50;714; and
    4. the permissible maximum number of electors in a Division is 60,857 and the permissible minimum number is 40,572.
  4. In accordance with the direction by the Minister, your Distribution Commissioners have reconsidered the matter and now propose a fresh distribution of the State of Queensland into Electoral Divisions. They find they are able to agree on four relatively minor alterations affecting the proposed Divisions of Capricornia, Dawson, Fisher and Wide Bay. In all other respects, the majority of your Distribution Commissioners(E. F. Lane and E. Smith) are not prepared to alter the previous proposals, whilst the Chairman of your Distribution Commissioners (I. F. Weise) is not prepared to alter his dissent from the majority proposals.
  5. Before giving details of the alterations proposed, and why the majority of your Distribution Commissioners are unable to agree with the minority proposals in general, the majority of your Commissioners consider it necessary to set out their previous views (with minor alterations) in so far as they concern their proposals for the re-distribution of the State as a whole, including the seven proposed Divisions upon which unanimity was not reached. These views are set out in the following paragraphs.
  6. The task of your Distribution Commissioners was neither to increase nor decrease the number of Electoral Divisions in Queensland. The total remains at 18. Consequently it seemed to the majority of your Commissioners that a major operation was not indicated and furthermore, that it should be possible to meet all legal requirements under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1966 without substantially changing the existing arrangement of Divisions.
  7. The largest number of suggestions or objections were in respect of the proposed Division of Kennedy (mainly because of the inclusion of the subdivisions of Gayndah and Eidsvold in that

Division) and to a lesser extent the proposed Divisions of Capricornia, Dawson, Fisher, Herbert, Maranoa and Wide Bay. In the metropolitan area, the main suggestions or objections were in respect of the proposed Divisions of Bowman and Griffith. Other objections received were considered to be of a less important nature.

  1. With regard to the objections in relation to the Eidsvold and Gayndah Sub-divisions being included in the proposed Division of Kennedy, it was claimed generally that these subdivisions have a community of interest with Wide Bay. Although this may be so it is pointed out, however, that the majority of your Distribution Commissioners consider that pursuits in these two subdivisions are largely cattle grazing, as is the case of a major portion of the Division of Kennedy.
  2. Objections were also lodged against the exclusion of the Subdivision of Bowen from the proposed Division of Kennedy and the Subdivision of Ayr from the proposed Division of Herbert. These objections, if upheld, would in turn affect, the proposed Divisions of Capricornia, Dawson, Fisher and Wide Bay.
  3. The majority of your Distribution Commissioners saw nothing in the objections which would lead them to the conclusion that any major alterations should be made to the original proposals, since most of the features contained in the suggestions or objections had been considered thoroughly by your Commissioners in formulating their proposals.
  4. In the opinion of your Distribution Commissioners the alterations sought failed in many instances to take account of the permissible maximum and minimum number of electors, and if adopted, would have created an imbalance of electors in the Divisions concerned.
  5. An alternative to including Eidsvold and Gayndah Subdivision in the proposed Division of Kennedy and the inclusion of the Subdivision of Ayr in the proposed Division of Dawson, would have been to extend the boundary of the proposed Division of Capricornia to include the city of Bundaberg and divide the city of Rockhampton by the Fitzroy River, with the northern section being included in the proposed Division of Dawson. This alternative would have permitted the Subdivision of Bowen to remain in the Division of Kennedy and the Subdivision of Ayr to remain in the Division of Herbert, but investigations disclosed strong opposition to transferring Bundaberg from the proposed Division of Wide Bay and dividing the city of Rockhampton. It was necessary to move some proposed Divisional boundaries northerly in order to achieve objectives as far as numbers of electors are concerned. It is thought that the proposal incorporated in this Report is preferable to this alternative.
  6. Another alternative would have been to increase the Division of Kennedy to something in excess of SO per cent of the area of the State, to reduce the Division of Maranoa in size and to extend the Division of Dawson into the central western grazing area. This would result in the Division of Kennedy extending from the junction of the border of Queensland with the border of the Northern Territory near Kajabbi in North

Western Queensland to the New South Wales border (an increase in area from approximately 282,320 square miles to approximately 357,700 square miles). This would greatly increase the distances to be travelled and make substantial changes to the Division of Maranoa which would lose its identity.

  1. The majority of your Distribution Commissioners do not favour this second alternative for the following reasons:

    1. The Division of Maranoa has existed for many years and is centred around Roma and the surrounding south-western areas where it has enjoyed a common community of interest and lines of communication. The alternative mentioned would destroy the Maranoa concept and the heart of what is now Maranoa would be transferred to the proposed Division of Kennedy.
    2. This matter had been considered carefully by your Commissioners. On the one hand a suggestion lodged in respect of the proposed Division of Maranoa claimed that the south-western portion of this Division comprising the Sub-division of Adavale, Charleville, Cunnamulla and Windorah should be added to the proposed Division of Kennedy thus providing for a western Queensland Division, with a community of western interests. On the other hand another comment submitted was that these same Subdivisions should be permitted to remain in the Division of Maranoa. At the present stage of Queensland development the majority of your Commissioners can see no justification for such fundamental changes to the proposed Divisions of Kennedy and Maranoa.
    3. An extension of Division of Dawson into parts of the central west whilst giving a compact division would diversify its interests between sugar and substantial grazing areas. The majority of your Distribution Commissioners considered that the proposed Division of Dawson should be mainly a sugar growing coastal area.
  2. In respect of the seven Divisions where your Distribution Commissioners are not unanimous, the majority of your Commissioners consider that for their part they have given effect to community of interest and population trends, having regard at the same time to quota requirements. They consider that the number of electors in each proposed Division concerned and the balance of electors as between each of these Divisions are reasonable and therefore satisfactory.

  3. Your Distribution Commissioners submit in the accompanying statement, descriptions and maps, alterations now proposed to the Divisions of Capricornia, Dawson, Fisher and Wide Bay. These alterations are:

    1. A splitting of the Subdivision of Livingstone along the shire boundary separating the Livingstone and Fitzroy Shires which has the effect of increasing the number of electors in the proposed Division of Capricornia by 1,185 to 46,142 and decreasing the number of electors in the proposed Division of Dawson by 1,18$ to 47.201: and
    2. A splitting of the Subdivision of Kilkivan along the shire boundary, separating the Kilkivan and Widgee Shires which has the effect of increasing the number of electors in the proposed Division of Wide Bay by 873 to 51,962 and decreasing the number of electors in the proposed Division of Fisher by 873 to 52,221.

It is considered that the alterations to these four proposed Divisions give a better balance of electors between them. No other alterations are proposed.

  1. The fresh distribution of theState into Electoral Divisions is as follows:

    1. All three of your Distribution Commissioners are in agreement in respect of eleven proposed Divisions, viz., Bowman, Brisbane. Griffith, Herbert, Leichhardt, Lilley, McPherson, Moreton, Oxley, Petrie and Ryan.
    2. The majority of your Commissioners have proposed slight alterations to the proposed Divisions of Capricornia, Dawson, Fisher and Wide Bay, but do not propose any adjustment to the proposed Divisions of Darling Downs, Kennedy and Maranoa; and
    3. Your Distribution Commissioner, I. F. Weise (in minority), dissents from the proposals relating to the proposed Divisions of Capricornia, Darling Downs, Dawson, Fisher, Kennedy, Maranoa and Wide Bay.
  2. In dissenting from the proposals for the seven proposed Divisions listed in paragraph 17 (c), your Distribution Commissioner,I. F. Weise, still considers that it is necessary to effect a major alteration to the shape patterns of the existing Divisions of Kennedy and Maranoa to obtain the desired re-distribution. He contends that it is completely wrong to increase the number of electors in the proposed Division of Kennedy to above the permissible minimum by the transfer of Eidsvold and Gayndah Subdivisions. He further contends that the inclusion of these Subdivisions in the proposed Division of Kennedy would result in the proposed Divisions of Capricornia, Darling Downs, Dawson, Fisher and Wide Bay being imbalanced in numbers and/or wrongly constituted in respect of community of interest.
  3. In support of his opinion that the deficiency of electors in the proposed Division of Kennedy should be made good from the proposed Division of Maranoa, your Distribution Commissioner I. F. Weise advances the view that such an action is indeed necessary if the proposed Divisions of Capricornia, Darling Downs, Dawson, Fisher and Wide Bay are to be constituted in a manner so as to conform to the criteriaset out in section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1966. Your Commissioner I. F. Weise therefore relies upon the details as shown in his Statement of Dissent dated 13 September 1968 to provide a better re-distribution.

I particularly directthe attention of honourable senators to paragraph 10 of the report, which states that the majority of the distribution commissioners saw nothing in the objections which would lead them to the conclusion that any alterations should be made to the original proposals, since most of the features contained in the suggestions or objections had been considered thoroughly by the Commissioners in formulating their proposals. Paragraphs 18 and 19 set out the reasons for the dissenting opinion expressed by Distribution Commissioner I. F. Weise.

It is clear enough that the first distribution was disapproved by the Senate; that it went back to the commissioners; and that the majority of those commissioners have made some minor alterations - that is all they are - and otherwise have said, in effect, that they will not take any notice of what was said and that there is nothing in the objections. One would have thought that some major alteration was called for in order to reconcile the views of the commissioners, as requested. One of the commissioners is the most experienced and most competent man and a man who throughout his life has been required to preserve a balance between the interests of political parties in numerous elections. He is the chief electoral officer for the State. He is a man who is to be trusted in these matters. He is taking a firm view that a major alteration is called for. He is seeking to make such an alteration. We believe in him. We believe that he is impartial. We believe that what he is doing is endeavouring properly to carry out his duties as a distribution commissioner.

I must say that it is most unfortunate, when there is this tremendous clash between the commissioners, that one of the majority commissioners is the Director of Posts and Telegraphs for the State and is not in a position of such independence as the chief electoral officer. It is regrettable that in a matter that affects party political interests appointments of distribution commissioners were made as they were made in this instance. It cannot be shrugged aside. There is a very serious clash between these commissioners.

We members of the Opposition are not satisfied with the fresh distribution. We are not satisfied that proper attention has been paid by the majority commissioners to the decision of the Senate in rejecting the original proposals. Therefore the Opposition is persisting. We do not believe that this distribution should be accepted by the

Senate. In effect, we press what we proposed before. We are not satisfied that the electors of Queensland have had a fair deal. We are not satisfied that the Opposition has had a fair deal. We do not believe that this is a fair distribution or a just distribution. We are not satisfied with what the majority of the distribution commissioners have done. It is of no use to mince words. We are not satisfied at all with their conduct of the matter. Therefore I have moved this amendment.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– Seldom in the political history of the Commonwealth Parliament has it been necessary to deal with a position such as that covered by this motion. I have no recollection of a report of distribution commissioners being sent back on previous occasions. There may have been one occasion on which a report was sent back to the commissioners and they succeeded in arriving at something that was acceptable to the Parliament. In this instance we have a second report of the electoral distribution commissioners appointed to carry out the redistribution of Queensland’s electoral boundaries and we find that the report does not differ materially from the original report.

Senator Cant:

– The commissioners took no notice of the Parliament.

Senator GAIR:

– I cannot claim that that is the case. They may have been fully conscious of and had full1 respect for the wishes of the Senate but if they, in conscience, believed they had drawn maps that would give the greatest measure of balance they have to be respected for having stuck to their opinions. When the original motion for the acceptance of the commissioners’ report was before the Senate 1 moved an amendment which stated, amongst other things:

The Senate is of the opinion that (he proposals should be reconsidered by the Commissioners, with a view if possible to arrival at a unanimous decision.

Our hope and our desire were that a unanimous decision would be reached. It is a matter for regret that our aim and our objective were not achieved. During the debate on the original motion I said that the major dissent was presented by the chairman of the commissioners, Mr I. F. Weise, the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland. Whilst I was conscious of the fact that Mr Weise was probably the most experienced of the three commissioners in matters of an electoral character, I must admit that I did not agree entirely with his report. While he opposed the other two commissioners in regard to the proposal to extend the electoral boundary of Kennedy across Queensland to give it sufficient numbers for the quota to which it was entitled - portion of the south eastern corner of Queensland was to be included - he proposed that the Kennedy electora te be bigger in size that it was formerly. ] did not agree entirely with him in thai respect because the Kennedy electorate is probably one of the biggest in Australia. .1 think the commissioners should have tried to avoid making it any bigger than it is because it presents an almost impossible task for a representative of the people to cover it adequately and frequently enough to keep in touch with the people whom he represents. In that connection I differed from Mr Weise, but I moved the amendment in the hope of getting a unanimous decision. I repeat that it is a matter for regret that something nearer to unanimity was not reached.

Let us examine the position that will exist from now on. We could, as Senator Murphy suggested, reject the motion for the approval of the redistribution. The report would go back to the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon). Our electoral laws do not place any responsibility on him to refer the matter back to the distribution commissioners. It is a matter for his decision. The Electoral Act provides that he may do so; it does not say that he shall do so. It we reject the report today and send it back to the Minister he may say: ‘The commissioners have had a second look at this. They have been asked to see whether they, could come to a unanimous decision on it and they have not succeeded in reaching such a decision. If I send it back again what are the chances of their reaching a unanimous, decision?’

Senator Little:

– Bruce and the spider.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. Let us be realistic about this. What would any one of us consider would be the chances of getting any better decision than we have got? Two men say that they still believe that what they have done is right for the better balancing of the electorate of Queensland. Mr Weise, in his minority report, says: ‘I cannot go along with that’. Who is going to surrender? It is like a lot of these industrial conferences that are convened by courts. Unless somebody is moved by the spirit and the mood to concede something, all conferences arc destined to be abortive. And that is what I fear in this case.

Senator Wood:

– Then get a new panel to do the job.

Senator GAIR:

– That was going to be my second point. The electoral act is deficient in that connection, lt does not provide for an emergency such as this, lt does not say (hal if, after a report has been referred back to them for further consideration, the Commissioners submit a further report which is still not acceptable to the Senate because it is almost the same as the one already referred back to them, the Minister shall dismiss the three Commissioners and appoint three new ones.

Senator Devitt:

– What would be the purpose of thai? Would you seek to come up with a unanimous decision?

Senator GAIR:

– Yes, that would be the aim. That is what 1 would seek to do. But there is no provision in the Electoral Act for that to be done. The Minister says he can take one of two courses if we reject this report now. He can send it back to the commissioners and ask them to have another look at if. and if they come up in another week or two with a report which is no different from the one which they have been asked to reconsider, we reach a stalemate.

Senator Cohen:

– It leaves the Minister wilh the problem, doesn’t it?

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. 1 suppose all he has to do then is to say that he will accept the majority report. For a long time now we have been calling out for a redistribution of electoral boundaries. We have at last got one after inexcusably long delay. Now we run into a position in which the old boundaries of Queensland have been allowed to remain as they are. Electorates like Brisbane, with 35,000 and others like Moreton and Petrie with twice as many and more, have continued without any redistribution al all. Either wc agree to that or accept this redistribution which could be regarded as satisfactory with the exception of the electorates of: Maranoa and Kennedy, and, as Mr Weise says, some imbalance in Capricornia and Dawson. That is the position in short.

Senator Cohen:

– Four out of eighteen.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes, but are we going to penalise the other 14 by perpetuating an imbalance that has existed for so long, and which we had hoped would be corrected, for the sake of those four? What I would desire in the circumstances, these three Commissioners having had a go at it and evidently been determined that their decisions are correct, would be for the Minister to dismiss these three and appoint another three to have a look at the position. But it is evident that this cannot be done under the Electoral Aci. ls Queensland to be different from the other States? It is not desirable that the present electoral distribution in Queensland should remain until such time as the Government decides that there shall be another overall redistribution, which may be 3 or 4 years hence. But I am not very sanguine that there will be very much change in the proposals if they are referred back to the distribution commissioners.

Senator Georges:

– Not these commissioners.

Senator GAIR:

– The honourable senator agrees with me. But what can we do? We have no power and the Minister for the Interior has no power under the Electoral Act to appoint new distribution commissioners.

Senator Georges:

– Why not change the Act?

Senator GAIR:

– it would bc necessary for the Minister to introduce amending legislation.

Senator Georges:

– He will have sufficient time to do so before the next elections.

Senator GAIR:

– That depends on when the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) decides to go to the people.

Senator Cant:

– Does the Electoral Act provide the Minister shall not appoint three fresh commissioners?

Senator GAIR:

– It does not provide that he shall not and it does not provide that he shall.

Senator Cant:

– It is open ended; he can if he wants to.

Senator GAIR:

– I do not think he can. There is no provision for him to do so. Senator Murphy would be better informed than I am on the subject.

Senator Murphy:

– The distribution commissioners could resign.

Senator GAIR:

– What would happen if they did resign? If the Parliament is not satisfied with redistribution proposals it can refer them back to the distribuion commissioners. The Minister has fulfilled that obligation. What else can he do? There is no provision for him to appoint another three distribution commissioners. So he has no alternative but to accept their recommendation.

Senator Murphy:

– If we knock back this recommendation we will revert to the old boundaries.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. That is not desirable. Only four electorates are really at issue and of these, two. Capricornia and Dawson, are affected only slightly. The electorates over which there is a substantial dispute are Maranoa ‘and Kennedy.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Does the honourable senator think that the proposed redistribution is better than the old boundaries?

Senator GAIR:

– I have my reservations. I have not expressed an opinion about that at all. I am conscious of the fact, and I made reference to it, that Mr Weise is the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Queensland and I respect what I might call his superior capacity to carry out this kind of work because of his many years of association with it. Mr Lane is the Director of Posts and Telegraphs for Queensland and Mr Smith was the Valuer-General for Queensland when I was Premier of that State. Though Mr Smith is quite a competent officer on valuations and that type of thing, I would place Mr Weise in a position of advantage as far as electoral matters are concerned because of his long association with that type of work. Mr Weise was responsible for the minority recommendation. That is what caused me to move an amendment on the earlier occasion and to support the sending back of the report, if possible. I am disappointed that something has not emerged. I am pessimistic that there will be any alteration in the event of us sending the recommendation back again. I am sure that these three estimable gentlemen, who have given long years of service to the public in various branches of the public service, did not fail to recognise that the Senate desired them to have another good look at the redistribution proposals and to do whatever they could to recommend something which is closer to the desires and the needs of the ‘Parliament. I am sure that they understood the importance of this. But if (hey in conscience believe that what they have reported is right, I can understand that they wil) not be ready to change their view.

Senator Mulvihill:

– But Mr. Weise differs. He does not think that the, proposals go far enough.

Senator GAIR:

– That is so. Here we have a conflict of opinion. Whatever views Mr Weise may have oh electoral matters, the other two distribution commissioners cannot be regarded as incompetent. They are quite qualified but have large problems to overcome. They have powers of understanding, discernment -and determination. I wonder whether we would achieve anything by referring the redistribution proposals back to them again. If we do this and they again recommend little or no change we would be in the same position as we are now now in.

Senator Georges:

-r-So . , the. Senate will capitulate in this matter? .

Senator GAIR:

– -That is so. Why should Queensland be placed in the unenviable position of being different from the other States in that it has npt had a redistribution of its electoral boundaries because of disputation over, in the main, two electorates? In the event of the Prime Minister calling for an election early next year, which has been threatened or promised- -

Senator Wilkinson:

– Has he not told the honourable senator about it?

Senator GAIR:

– He has not consulted me yet. But if an election were to be held early next year and there was no time for any redistribution of electoral boundaries in Queensland the citizens of that State would be disadvantaged in that an election would be held on out of date electoral boundaries, about which we have complained for so long.

Senator Milliner:

– We faced that risk previously.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes, we did. But it is more imminent now. I do not think that it can be said that there is any great political advantage to any party in the recommendations of the Queensland distribution commissioners. The electorate of Kennedy may be slightly improved for the present occupant of that seat, but the electorate of Herbert has been worsened for the present liberal member. Beyond that, there are few changes in the metropolitan electorates. The honourable member for Bowman (Dr Gibbs), in the other place, voted with the Opposition in this matter. Obviously he believes he has been robbed to help the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron). This can happen with any redistribution. The best redistributions will not save governments if public opinion is against them.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Assuming that next year was not an election year, if you were looking at the matter objectively with your vast knowledge of Queensland would you not favour the Weise proposal?

Senator GAIR:

– There is not a great deal of difference between the proposals. I said a while ago that I would be definitely Opposed to enlarging the Kennedy electorate. Mr Weise proposed to bring it further clown the western part of Queensland. As it stands, it is far too big in size, but to get the quota the other commissioners took out Bowen and a few other places and brought it down to the south east corner which included Gayndah and such places, the inclusion of which Mr Weise does not favour. There were some arguments for and against and I thought that in the hope of getting some unanimity the commissioners should have another look at it. Can we be optimistic of any material alteration if we do send it back? If we cannot be optimistic, what is the point in pursuing it? Why not let it go until a further distribution is required in 3 or 4 years time? Three new Commissioners might be appointed who could remedy the position. In the meantime we will only have had one election. It is like asking what is the difference between a bad haircut and a good one. The answer is 2 weeks, that is, if you get your hair cut every 2 weeks. Senator Bull and I do not get ours cUt as frequently as that.

Senator Ormonde:

– You cannot pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.

Senator GAIR:

– I do not see the honourable senator brushing the hair out of his eyes too often.

Senator Mulvihill:

– From your experience as a Premier, could you not lake the industrial quota-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order! There will be no second reading speeches.

Senator GAIR:

– All of the compulsory conferences convened by arbitration court judges over the years could never have hoped to succeed unless one of the parties was prepared to concede something. That is very definitely essential.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is remarkable how they do make concessions in conferences.

Senator GAIR:

– They do. But if neither party is prepared to concede one foot, as was the case in the shearers’ strike in Queensland in 1956 when we had Sir William Gunn and Mr Joe Bukowski-

Senator Ormonde:

– I have not heard that name for years.

Senator GAIR:

– Do not provoke me or I’ might tell you something about him. It was just hopeless. We had a protracted strike which was very damaging to the economy of the whole State and of the country. In the light of what has happened in this connection, can we hope that one or other of the parties - Mr Weise on the one hand and the other two commissioners on the other - is prepared to do anything? Merely to satisfy us they might commit a wrong drawing of the boundaries to get the thing off their plate and dispose of it. I would not desire them to do that. I want them to give us a report and maps showing boundaries that they conscientiously believe are the best and the best balanced for the whole State of Queensland. That is the attitude that I adopt to this matter. If the Electoral Act provided for the appointment of another set of commissioners I would be inclined to say that we should reject this proposal and request the Minister to appoint a new set of commissioners to have a look at it. But in the absence of any provision of that character I am afraid that we have to say that the chance of getting anything better than what we have is remote, and that we should give Queensland a redistribution which, if not totally satisfactory, is at least hi the main satisfactory, so that it will not be the only

Stale that has not some measure of redistribution and balance brought to its electoral boundaries.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - The Government is unable to accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). As to the redistribution, we have to realise that of the three Commissioners two are in agreement and one is not. Therefore the Government has a majority of 662/3 % of the Commissioners on its side. On page 3 of their report the Commissioners made a statement. which I think covers the matter pretty adequately. It reads:

In respect of the seven divisions where your Distribution Commissioners are not unanimous, the majority of your Commissioners consider that for their part they have given effect to community of interest and population trends, having regard at the same time to quota requirements. They consider that the number of electors in each proposed division concerned and the balance of electors as between each of these Divisions are reasonable and therefore satisfactory.

That is the majority view of the commissioners. The redistribution in Queensland alters the numerically large electorates of Moreton and McPherson. It brings the number of electors in Moreton from 72,000 to 51,000-odd and in McPherson from 76,000 to 47,000-odd. The number of electors in Queensland is 912,858 and the average enrolment in an electorate is 50,000. In view of the fact that there is quite a lot of discussion to take place today I conclude by saying that we cannot accept the Opposition’s amendment.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 22

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2508

AERODROME (PASSENGER CHARGES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November (vide page 2473), onmotion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition opposes this Bill: We consider that the imposition of these charges on passengers in this way is a grave interference with free movement and the convenience of the flying public. Already air travel is hampered by delayson the ground, and this new tax will be a bureaucratic nightmare. Its administration, to be forced on the airline staffs, will act as a formidable barrier at all airports where it is applied. Why harry air passengers in this way with a clumsy, inept method ofgaining extra revenue? Can honourable senators imagine passengers rushing to catch a plane, checking luggage, clutching tickets and then being confronted with a demand for 50c? it will be almost impossible to collect the tax swiftly or efficiently and it will be a totally unwarranted burden. . on air passengers.

Most members of the Senate have been to places overseas. I know that wherever this tax is imposed one gets a feeling of irritation about the whole matter. That irritation continues with one long after leaving a place where the air tax has been imposed. There is an annoyance at having to pay it when leaving a country. I understand that this tax will apply to those coining into Australia. There will be all the inconvenience of having to keep money to meet this tax. One strikes the situation in places like Hong Kong and it creates a general irritation. There must be some better way.

Senator Gair:

– I think it concerns only the passengers leaving Australia.

Senator Byrne:

– The honourable senator said that it would affect passengers coming into Australia.

Senator MURPHY:

– It will affect those who leave the airports, whether they are overseas travellers or not. It means that they will have to remember to keep Australian currency to meet this tax.

Senator Gair:

-It is not included in the price of a ticket and it will have to be paid separately.

Senator MURPHY:

– That is right. It will result in the collection of a comparatively small sum of money when one considers the vast operations which are conducted and the huge amounts of money which are involved in the tourist trade. The Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities (Senator Wright) comes into the Senate and quite rightly says that tourism is a wonderful way in which Australia can collect revenue, that tourism is one of the fastest growing and greatest industries in the world. We have moved into an era where the primary and secondary industries are no longer dominant; the tertiary industries are dominant and tourism, which is one of them, is going to be among the most prominent of human activities in the future. Yet we come into this place and start to impose a burden like this, an irritation which will involve paper work gone mad.

In our society we seem to have a number of us engaged in thinking out ways to irritate the rest of us by unnecessary paper work, lt seems to me that the proposed tax is an instance of a petty method of raising revenue which should not be encouraged. If we have a chance to stop it at the beginning we should stop it here and now. The tax is discriminatory. It will apply only at airports handling more than 35,000 passengers a year and it could make some air routes unprofitable. This will be the situation especially with regard to intrastate and commuter airline services, some of which are operating on extremely slender profit margins. The Australian National Travel Association has lodged a strong protest against this tax, pointing out that it will jeopardise the operations of some air services. The ‘Bulletin to Members’ issued by that body under a release date Sunday, 24th November 1968, call’s on the Government to abandon the air tax. The document states:

The Australian National Travel Association today called on the Commonwealth Government to abandon its proposed ‘head tax’ on air travellers.

The Executive Director, Mr G. W. L. Tucker, said the tax would discriminate against country air travellers; jeopardise the operations of some intrastate and newly-introduced commuter air services: cause passenger delays at airports; and increase costs to the airline industry, already recognised as being among the most heavily taxed in the world.

The document goes on for some pages setting out the reasons why this tax should not be introduced. There seem to have been some changes in the incidence of this tax. Apparently the Australian Country Party has demonstrated its power in Cabinet and certain changes have been made with regard to country airports. Perhaps this will mean that the incidence will ultimately fall more heavily on other sections of the travelling public. In making airline companies responsible for the collection of the tax under a threat of $1,000 penalty, the Government is making the already high cost structure of the industry bear another burden which it should not have to bear. The new tax will cause many anomalies. The way in which these measures are pushed through does not give us an opportunity to examine fully their ramifications but it appears that children will have to produce birth certificates every time they travel to and from school and on holidays. We believe that the Bill is ill conceived and will do a serious disservice to the airline industry. Tourists will be hit badly despite the fact that tourism is an area in which rising costs are a constant danger. Is Australia to become some kind of banana republic with tourists and other travellers being accosted by officials as they go their way and asked to pay surcharges? I understand that our air navigation charges are already the highest in the world.

The Government wishes to raise about $4m a year by this new measure, lt is just not worth the chaotic conditions, the irritations, the added inefficiency and the sure threat to some services that will result. We take the view that the Bill should be scrapped. Australia already sutlers greatly from a multitude of indirect taxes and this latest suggestion of a lazy minded Government will add another dangerous straw to the camel’s back. Obviously the Government sees the air traveller as a new ready source of extra taxation, lt should not be encouraged. We know what happens when governments turn to sources of taxation. 1. am reminded of income tax which was to be only temporary and we know what has happened with that. Once a tax is introduced the tendency is not merely to retain it but to increase it and to extend the area of its operation.

Australia has peculiar problems in that we are a continent, a very large area of land, with very few people in it. So the question of transport and travel is extremely important for us. In addition we are isolated from the rest of the world. Because of the improvement in transport, that isolation should be measured nowadays not in terms of distance or of means of travel but really in terms of the cost of travel. That is what has kept Australia isolated from the rest of the world. If you could chop down air fares to Australia, if you could chop down air fares inside Australia and if you could chop down other transportation costs you would overcome the tremendous problem of isolation that we face because of our physical situation.

From the point of view of efficiency inside Australia and of the advancement of our economy we should be extremely careful about imposing any additional burden on the cost of transportation in Australia. In its very nature the proposed tax is irritating. To impose such a tax on individuals is an inefficient way to raise revenue. One can imagine the checking that will be involved in this. The cost of collection will be most substantial. Some other way could be found to raise the revenue that the Government wants.

Senator Rae:

– What other way would you suggest?

Senator MURPHY:

– There are many other ways which would not involve this cost of collection.

Senator O’Byrne:

– A capital gains tax.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. a capital gains tax. Let us look at this from the point of view of increasing income tax or any other tax. That would not involve any increase in the cost of collection. One must come to the conclusion that an increase in those taxes would be a much cheaper method of obtaining revenue than the proposal the Government has now advanced. Only a fractional amount would be involved in collecting such a tax. The kind of tax that the Government has proposed, which will be imposed on every person who falls within the stated categories, must be an expensive way of raising revenue. We should be looking for ways of reducing the paper work in our society and the inefficient methods that we adopt.

The Government is taking a step towards greater inefficiency and is putting a curb on travel in this country whereas those who founded our Commonwealth were well aware of the necessity to remove every possible curb on the movement of people, so much so that they put into the Constitution the famous section 92 to provide that trade, commerce and intercourse among the States should be absolutely free. As much and as often as that section has been condemned, it is that section which has done more than anything else to make Australia a nation, because it has prevented the barriers being raised between the States. The principle behind it is that our movements, especially between the States, must be absolutely free; but here the Commonwealth Government is advancing a proposal to put a burden on every person who travels between the capital cities as well as between other airports covered by the Bill.

Senator Gair:

– And there is no guarantee either that it will not be an annual thing.

Senator MURPHY:

– I would agree with Senator Gair’s proposition. Once the Commonwealth gets hold of this tax that will not be the end of it. We will see increases in it and extensions of it. In principle it is bad and we have no hesitation in opposing the Bill. Therefore the Opposition calls upon the Senate to reject it.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– This Bill seeks to bridge the deficit between the revenue received for the use of airport facilities and the cost of operating and maintaining those facilities. The Opposition opposes this proposal on the ground that it will increase the cost of travel in

Australia. In reply to an interjection, Senator Murphy suggested that the necessary amount could be raised by a capital gains tax, increased income tax or some other form of taxation. My reply to that is that the Opposition seeks to impose an additional tax, such as income tax, on the workers of Australia whom they claim to represent and who probably never use the airlines.

Senator Murphy advocated or implied that we should be seeking to reduce air fares. That is an interesting suggestion. If we reduced air fares in Australia someone would have to subsidise them and pay for all the facilities that are provided. Included amongst those people must be the workers whom the Opposition claims to represent. In other words, the question is whether the users of these facilities should pay a greater proportion towards the cost of them or whether a charge should be imposed generally on the taxpayers of this country. I come down heavily on the side of those who believe that it should be those who use the service. To my mind this is common justice.

We should look at the difference between the revenue received and the cost of maintaining airport facilities. This must be a matter of serious concern to us all. For the year 1967-68 it cost about $60m to maintain, operate and administer the facilities at airports throughout Australia. Revenue received from those airports amounted to $ 12.5m. That revenue came mainly by way of air navigation charges. If my arithmetic is correct, there was a deficit of something like $47m which had to be met by the taxpayers. If one likes to add the aviation excise tax which raised $8. 5m - in fairness I do not think it should be added - there is still a deficit of about $40m. So the Australian taxpayers, many of whom never use airports or the facilities available at them, are today very heavily subsidising those who do use those facilities. Whatever Senator Murphy said, I do not think there is any doubt that the air industry in Australia has been pampered for many years, lt has cost the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.

I might be critical of some aspects of aviation. At the risk of annoying my Victorian friends, I cannot see the sense in Tullamarine becoming an international airport. I believe there is little need to have an international airport at every capital city in Australia. To judge by the comments I hear, I have stirred the possum, but I think we should not look at this matter from the narrow parochial viewpoint of the States. International airports should be only at the main points of entry. To my mind, spending these tremendous sums of money to pander to the ego of Sir Henry Bolte or someone else cannot be justified from the national outlook. I believe many of our facilities are too great. Expenditure on airport facilities throughout Australia must be of great concern to the Treasury, and rightly so. We should look closely at this type of expenditure in which we have been engaged for many, many years. Be that as it may, I do not believe we can justify the fact that taxpayers continually have been subsidising airport users. Admittedly, the revenue obtained from this charge will bc of the order of only $4.5m a year but it is another attempt to bridge the gap.

Senator Murphy suggested that this charge would affect tourism. He quoted the Australian National Travel Association. Frankly, 1 do not accept this. I do not believe it will affect tourism. This type of tax is applied in other countries. From memory, about 60 countries impose a charge such as this. I find that countries such as France-

Senator Little:

– France is not doing so well, is it?

Senator SIM:

– France is not doing so well but I hope the honourable senator is not suggesting that the French situation is due to air charges such as this.

Senator Little:

– I am saying that the honourable senator should not suggest that the French are good managers.

Senator SIM:

– Let me continue my remarks. I wish to refer to France despite what Senator Little had to say. France, despite her problems at the moment, is an advanced country. I noticed that France imposes a landing or air navigation charge of $300 in respect of a Boeing 707 aircraft carrying 70 passengers and imposes other charges amounting to $347. In Australia the landing or air navigation charge, from 1st January next, in respect of the same aircraft will be $898 and there will be other charges amounting to $140. Sweden, which has no economic problems, is another country where the landing or air navigation charges are almost level with the passenger service charge. So there are advanced countries which apply these charges to a far greater extent than does Australia. They are also applied in Malaysia. Many honourable senators have travelled in countries where these charges are made. I have not been annoyed or irritated because of them. I can understand why those people concerned with tourism are making this point. After all, they are looking after their own interests and are justified in making this point. But merely to state that this charge will affect tourism and that tourism will be badly hit is not justification for dropping this measure. 1 do not wish to speak at any great length about this Bill but I believe one or two points should be made. This charge is to apply only to certain airports which have passenger movements of over 35,000 annually. It will not affect small country airports in outback areas. There are very good reasons for this. One reason is that they do not have adequate facilities. Provision of facilities at such airports has not been a great financial burden to the taxpayer; in many cases there has been no cost to the taxpayer. Therefore, this measure will not have a crippling affect on outback air services as suggested by Senator Murphy. It is to apply only to those people using major airports.

Senator Devitt:

– Not necessarily.

Senator SIM:

– lt is to apply to airports which have 35,000 passenger movements a year. If Senator Devitt wishes to oppose what I am saying I suggest that he say what figure should be set. He might argue for the figure to be set at 50,000 passenger movements or 100,000. It is for him to decide. It is a matter of judgment. I believe that 35,000 is a reasonable figure to set. When we look at airports with passenger movements of 35,000 a year we find that the cost of maintaining them and the ancillary facilities and so on is $34m a year. This charge will return $4.5m. Therefore the gap is to be bridged slightly. I believe we have to continue finding means of bridging this gap. The other alternative is, as I have said before, for the Australian taxpayers, many of whom will never use these facilities, to subsidise air travellers through some form of taxation. Those who oppose this measure should stand up and be counted. There were great problems involved in devising this passenger charge “system.

Senator Cant:

– In order to avoid section 92 of the Constitution.

Senator SIM:

– I thank the honourable senator. I was coming to that matter without his help, but I appreciate his help, as always. There is a spirit of goodwill today. Any system which did not take into account the constitutional problems involved would have been open to challenge. This scheme was devised and was considered to be the fairest way of imposing the charge. In the opinion of the legal advisers it is not open to challenge. If we did not have a federal system in Australia it may have been possible to find’ a more equitable system but, subject to the constitutional provisions, no such system could be found. Therefore if there arc anomalies and injustices in the view of some people, it should be remembered that there are anomalies and injustices from some points of view in any form of taxation. From time to time anyone may argue about the injustices of any tax that is imposed. If this form of tax were not enacted, perhaps an alternative system might involve greater anomalies.

I believe that in all these circumstances this is the best system that could be devised. I believe it is justified and we should not continue to ask the taxpayers to subsidise air travellers in Australia. On those grounds and on the ground that other countries* - developed and under-developed - have found a need to impose a form of taxation similar to that involved in this measure, I believe that it should receive the support of the Senate. This legislation has been mooted in two Budget speeches and I cannot recall any criticism being offered previously. One must in those circumstances suspect that the criticism and opposition now being offered contain a degree of political opportunism. I support the Bill.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– Having regard to the desire of all honourable senators to dispose of the business on the notice paper with as much expedition as possible I intend to put into as brief a form as I can manage my main objections to this legislation. I believe that the measure is sloppy, messy, ill-conceived, administratively very hard to operate, damaging to the development of Australia’s airline industry discriminatory, unfair to air travellers, particularly in country districts, unjust in its application, inequitable, bad in principle, and ineffective in solving the finance gap. That is a relative statement. The Bill does not go back to the heart of the problem at all. At present the airlines system operating in Australia results in an annual gap of about $42m between revenue raised from operations, and capital expenditure. An attempt is made in this measure to bridge that gap. My first impression of the Bill was that it was prepared by somebody without the slightest knowledge of administration. In Australia we depend on air travel to a great extent. Measures such as this whittle away efficient operation and have an irritating effect on the people operating the national airline. 1 am not too sure that the charges to be imposed are properly based. The concept in trying to bridge the gap between revenue and expenditure seems to me to be wrong. Perhaps some other honourable senator can deal with this aspect in greater detail at a later stage of the debate. Having regard to the overall position of the national airline I do not think there is a need to introduce this inefficient, messy and sloppy method of imposing additional taxes totalling annually about $4.5m. ft is inequitable and completely unjust. For example, in Tasmania with an area of about 27,000 square miles four airports are to come within the net cast by this Bill. The air fare between the Tasmanian airports of Devonport and Wynyard - a distance of about 40 miles - Devonport and Launceston, or Hobart and Launceston, is about $8 or $9. An additional charge of $2 is to be made for return journeys between those airports. We therefore feel that in Tasmania we are particularly hard hit by this legislation. As a contrast, it is possible to travel in an aircraft from an airport in northern Queensland to an airport in Western Australia without being affected at all by the charges imposed by this legislation. Nobody can convince me that this is a just and equitable measure. Surely we must have some regard for justice and equity in the decisions we make here. On that basis we should toss out this Bill neck and crop.

No proper comparison can be made between air operations in this country and in Europe or the United States. Why should we slavishly follow the systems and prac tices of Overseas countries? It is certainly a bone of contention that our foreign affairs policy is formed by imitating somebody else. For heaven’s sake, let us have a little originality. The tax to be imposed by this Bill strikes me as being in the same category as sales tax, which very often is paid by the people who are least able to bear the additional cost. For the reasons. I have given and in the interests of expedition, in deference to the wish of the Senate to deal with the business on the notice, paper, 1 will conclude . by registering the strongest protest possible on behalf of the people, particularly, pf Tasmania, and the organisations who are concerned with development of the economy. I refer to chambers of commerce, municipal councils and other bodies which have been in touch with me on this matter; and no doubt with other honourable senators. I join with the Opposition in offering the strongest possible’ opposition to the measure.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I want to say at the outset that 1 very strongly oppose this legislation. lt seeks to impose a most discriminatory tax which is unfair to a great section of the community. I cannot understand why the Government should bring in legislation, of this character which imposes a tax on some people and exempts others. To use a colloquial expression, certain areas of the community are to be slugged. I think it is ridiculous. This is a very spacious country and -the development of civil aviation has been particularly important to our growth!. Air travel offers great convenience to people who live in the populated areas of the outback. With the development over the years of this wonderful means of travel it has come to play a very important part in the lives of many people. The times taken to travel great distances have been . cut down by modern methods of transportation.

The Government has often been acclaimed for developing the aviation industry by the construction of airports, and so on, in recognition, of the importance of the industry to this country.’ Air travel has wonderful advantages.. This - Bill represents a very backward step by imposing a head tax on passengers boarding and alighting from aircraft at certain airports of the Commonwealth. The charge is not even to be applied uniformly throughout Australia. It is to be levied only in selected areas.

Queensland has been selected to be probably the hardest hit of all the States, in view of the number of; aerodromes at which the tax will bc imposed on passengers. Tasmania is the State next hardest hit, with four airports at which the tax will be imposed. The Northern Territory does not have many airports, but at two of them - Alice Springs and Darwin- the tax is to be imposed. Like Queensland’ and Tasmania, the Northern Territory-w.ill.be affected to a great degree by this legislation. lt is alleged that this’ Government is keen to develop tourism, but it seems to be taking the very step that will retard the tourist industry because the areas in which the tax will have the greatest application are the areas of greatest attraction to tourists. My home State of Queensland is very important from the point of view of tourism. The capital city of Brisbane is an entry airport for passengers disembarking for the Gold Coast and the northern parts of Queensland. Cairns is well-known as a tourist city. Coolangatta is the entry airport for Surfers’ Paradise and the Gold Coast. My home city of Mackay is a point of embarkation and disembarkation for tourists visiting the Great Burrier Reef. The airports at Rockhampton and Townsville will also be affected by the measure. They too are important from a tourism point of view, although to a lesser degree, in recent years the attraction of Townsville and Rockhampton to tourists has been built up. This slug known as a ‘passenger tax’, is to be imposed at no less than six airports in Queensland. That indicates to me that the Government is very partial to some States and very lough on others. Queensland is the one on which it is toughest. I am not prepared to allow the people of my State to be picked on in this way and to be taxed so heavily by this type of charge, when other people go scot free.

In Tasmania there are four points at which people will be taxed as they get on and off aircraft. An editorial in one of the Tasmanian newspapers bears out the point that Senator Devitt made. Because of the small hops the percentage increase in fares that will be caused by the imposition of this tax will be very big. This impost is a most retrograde step in rel’ation to Tasmania, which is another tourist area. But that is a matter for the Tasmanian people to talk about. I am speaking as an Australian and in the interests of the tourist industry of the whole of Australia. In the Northern Territory the centres involved are Alice Springs and Darwin. Alice Springs is the focal point for the centre of Australia, which has been featured so much in regard to the tourist industry in recent times. That is an area to which we want to encourage people to go if we want to encourage them to go anywhere. We should make it as cheap as possible for people to go there. But what do we do? We slug them, loo.

Let me refer now to the more populous States. In New South Wales, apart from Sydney this tax will be imposed at three points. In Victoria it will be imposed at one point, namely, the capital city. In South Australia it will be imposed at Kingscote and Port Lincoln, apart from Adelaide. In regard to Western Australia, I cannot see any point at all, other than the capital city of Perth, at which this tax will be imposed. If anybody can rightly tel’l me that this is not a discriminatory lax against States such as Queensland and Tasmania and the Northern Territory, then I do not know what I am talking about, lt is a discriminatory tax. lt indicates that the Government has no regard for the requirement of the people who are developing some of the industries on which they are so keen.

I speak as one who has had experience of the travel industry for many years. 1 make no bones about the fact that 1 am in the travel industry as an agent. But over the years, in an honorary capacity, .1 have originated and helped to promote the development of the tourist industry of the Great Barrier Reef in certain areas. Over the years 1 have put a lot of time and effort into trying to develop this industry. The imposition of this tax comes on top of the outl’andish antics of the pilots and a few other people who have had their salaries increased and the action of the Government in increasing air navigation charges every year. Our air navigation charges are the heaviest imposed by any government in the world. That has been the position for a number of years, but they are still increased every year.

The result is that the cost of travelling from the southern parts of Australia to the northern parts and vice versa has become so expensive that it is cheaper for people to go to places such as Fiji, Noumea and New Zealand on the tours which are arranged by overseas airlines and on which concessions are given, lt is cheaper for people to go on those tours than for southerners to go to north Queensland the Great Barrier Reef or for northerners to go to Tasmania and other places in the south. This is a very serious matter which has concerned me for some time. 1 am concerned about how the rising cost of transportation in this country affects the tourist industry in various areas.

This tax is another impost on those areas. Strange as it may seem, it is those areas, more than any others, which are picked out by the Government in respect of this legislation. Over a period of years those areas have been built up on this industry. Yet this is the very industry that the Government is now attacking by this charge, ft is all right to say that the charge is only half a dollar here and half a dollar there. But this may be the straw that eventually will break the camel’s back, in view Of the increases in the cost of transportation in recent, times. I had discussed this matter long before I knew that the Government intended to introduce this silly tax. It is a matter that has concerned me, being a person interested in the development of the tourist industry. If our cost of transportation is raised much more, it will be a deterrent and more and more Australians will go overseas because it is cheaper for them to go to the nearest overseas areas than to our own tourist areas.

What about the people who live in these areas? What about the people who live along the Queensland coast? Everybody would think that the Government would be keen to encourage decentralisation. But what does it do? Does this tax encourage decentralisation? Right along the Queensland coast from Brisbane to Cairns people will be slugged every time they get on or off an aircraft. Is that the way to encourage decentralisation? Of course it is not. Queensland has been particularly fortunate over the years that decentralisation has worked the way it has. But this charge is contrary to that sort of thinking. I am amazed that the Government should introduce such a clumsy piece of legislation as this, lt is confined to places at which 35,000 or more people move in and out of the aerodrome each year. That is the ridiculous method of imposing .this charge. Although I am not a legal man, it seems to me to be so ridiculous that, because of the discriminatory nature of the basis on ‘ which this tax is to be imposed, it could very well be the subject of an appeal to the High Court of Australia on constitutional grounds.

Senator Scott:

– It is not a tax; it is a charge.

Senator WOOD:

– Well, this charge, lt seems to me that, because of its unevenness, there is no reason why if could not be made the subject of an appeal to the High Court on constitutional grounds. 1 sincerely hope that, somebody will make it the subject of an appeal, because I believe that this is the type of legislation that we do not want, lt is an irritating type of legislation. I do not know where the Government’s political nous is. 1 would say that this would be one of the best ways for the Government to lose votes that I can think of. What do honourable senators think people will say every time they get on or off an aircraft? Do honourable senators think that the airlines will say: “lt is our tax’? Of course they will not. They will say: ‘It is a Federal Government tax’. To my way of thinking, it is very stupid of the Government to introduce this tax.

Of course, the catchcry that goes up is: How are we to find this magnificent sum Of $4-Jm in other ways? This amount is really only chicken feed. The amazing point about members of this Parliament is that they have such grandoise ideas about spending money and they ask: ‘Where will we get the $4im?’; but they do not ever think to ask: ‘Where can we, stop spending some money?’ The other night we raised our salaries. Nobody was worried about the expenditure involved there. Last night we raised the salaries of some public servants and introduced something new. But nobody was very worried about that. The expenditure of money in a particular area may be at a faster rate- than is necessary. In other areas we could probably curtail expenditure. If we had to find this §4>Sm, it would not take anybody very long to show where the Government could prune expenditure and find’ more than $41m.

It is all right to say, as an honourable senator on this side of the chamber said, that the Government has to get a return on ils expenditure or that the people who use civil aviation facilities have to pay for them. The people who are using the aircraft are already paying for. the facilities. First of all there is a heavy charge on the fuel consumed. It is paid to the Government. Then there is the air navigation charge that the airlines pay. All of these charges ate passed on to the people who use the facilities. Now they are to be slugged with this extra tax.

Let us have a look at the other forms of transport. What about motor transport? There are coaches tearing up and down the country. Do the owners of them pay the Commonwealth Government anything? Does not the Commonwealth Government build roads for motor transportation? Of course it does. But those people are not taxed. Yet the Government picks on the airways. What about the railways? How does the Commonwealth Government tax the railways? lt is all right to say that they are Stale instrumentalities. But many things are done by various authorities in order that the railways may operate. What about the roads thai lead to the railways? Some of them are main roads for which the Government provides the money. Some of them or roads for which the money is provided by municipalities so that there can be transportation to and from the railways. Does anybody lax the people who use the railways? Of course not.

Honourable senators should not think that it is always tourists who use airports. Ordinary Australians use them, too. Let me refer to my own city of Mackay. Apart from the tourists who come in and go out, the people of the area use the airport. Why do they use it? Some of them use it when going on holidays. But very often in that area there are not certain types of medical specialists that people require. So what do the people do? They might go to Rockhampton or Townsville, or even to Brisbane or Sydney, to see a specialist. There are cases in which sick people have to be transported quickly. Many of the local children fly from Mackay to Rockhampton, Brisbane or other places for college education. No doubt this happens in various parts of the country. These are the types of people who, apart from the tourists, will be slugged by this tax. The tax is a ridiculous one. lt has been introduced on a very bad basis. It is irritating and selective. I should like somebody to put a case to the courts because 1 think it would be worthwhile putting such a case.

Senator Cohen:

– That might not be necessary. We might fix it here today.

Senator Ormonde:

– On the vote.

Senator WOOD:

– I do not know about that. We are discussing legislation which will tax the ordinary people who travel on business, on holidays, for pleasure, for’ medical reasons, for education and for other reasons. The one group that will not pay the tax are the parliamentarians. Therefore it is quite easy for us to pass this legislation and tax other people. It is all right for us to slug other people. We will not be paying the tax. I think we have to look at the legislation in a sensible manner. I strongly oppose it because the tax is a discriminatory one.

I oppose the legislation because Queensland is the hardest slugged of all States. The various cities and towns along the coast will be the hardest hit. T will not stand for other States being granted favours al the expense of my State. 1 believe the legislation is detrimental to the tourist industry, particularly when I remember and recognise the closeness of some of our opposition tourist areas such as Noumea, Fiji and New Zealand. One has only to look at the resorts being developed in those countries to realise that some change is taking place. For those reasons I strongly condemn the legislation. I hope that parliamentarians give it the answer that it should be given and reject it. My own Slate, Queensland, and Tasmania and the Northern Territory are being discriminated against. I think it is a rotten type of legislation. I am strongly opposed to it.

Do not say that I oppose it only because I am associated with the travel industry. 1 am not worried one iota because of my association with the travel industry. I am not affected in a personal way. Recently the head of East-West Airlines Ltd said that the legislation should be scrapped. Of course it should. The Australian National Travel Association, which has been reconstituted, originally was responsible for the development of an overseas tourist trade and for bringing people here from overseas. It has transferred its headquarters to Sydney, which is the headquarters of most of the travel businesses in Australia. The Commonwealth keeps its Tourist Commission in Melbourne, away from most of the main areas of the tourist industry and away from the headquarters of the industry. The Australian National Travel Association wrote to me, contacted me by telephone and sent me a statement. The Association is strongly opposed to the legislation. The statement sent to me reads:

Briefly, ANTA opposes the tax for these reasons: it is discriminatory; it could result in a cut-back of intrastate and commuter air services; it will cause passenger inconvenience, and delays at airports.

That organisation is imbued with the spirit of helping to develop our overseas tourist trade. It is opposed to the legislation. Its members are public spirited on the matter. No doubt some have worked for many years to develop the trade. I have always said that the tourist industry is a very important one and one which could become increasingly important. The amazing thing is that the Government, which says it supports the tourist industry, slugs the three most prominent areas in which the tourist industry could be developed - the Northern Territory, Queensland arid Tasmania. I am diametrically opposed to the legislation. 1 hope it receives the end that it deserves.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I will be very brief in my contribution to the debate, but I want to join the previous speakers who have opposed the legislation. I do so particularly on behalf of my Tasmanian colleagues. I think that the legislation discriminates more against Tasmania than against any other State, although the other States have a strong case to put against the passage of the Bill. As far as Tasmania is concerned, the tax could be called a tourist tax. Many people do not realise that over 80% of the people who travel to Tasmania travel by air. Almost all the travellers to and from Tasmania will be subject to this tax. Therefore, as a consequence, people on their holidays will choose to travel by rail or road rather than pay these quite considerable charges. After all a man in Victoria could travel perhaps 150 miles by car and pay for the petrol on the amount that this tax will cost him. A lot of tourists work very close to a budget.

The latest figures for traffic in and out of Tasmania show that 454,000 people use the Tasmanian airports which will be subject to this tax. The number of people using the Adelaide and Brisbane airports is only twice that number. The number of people using the Essendon and Sydney airports is in the vicinity of 1.9 million and 2.5 million respectively. The four Tasmanian airports are fifth on the list of importance in regard to movements of passengers in and out of airports. I believe that the tax will be unduly harsh on Tasmania. It is a head tax, which is discriminatory. Recently I raised the matter of economy fares for Trans- Australia Airlines. If the Government encouraged rather than discouraged this idea the additional people who would be attracted to using air services would further boost the profits of TAA. Those profits could go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as they do already. The Government is so preoccupied with protecting the magic Reggie, who seems to have cast a spell - : -

Senator Scott:

– How is he being protected by this legislation?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– He is not, but in every other activity he is. Every time his name is mentioned members of the Government Parties bow towards the west or towards Reggie’s residence. I am not speaking about my colleague from Tasmania, Senator Wright. Tasmania is having a very difficult task in balancing its Budget. This year the deficit will be $5m. Out of its limited funds a lot of money is being spent on advertising for tourists, but the Government is placing a tax on almost every tourist who visits Tasmania. I add my voice to those who have spoken against the Bill.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– In presenting the second reading speech, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) said:

In drawing up the scheme of charges, the Government gave a lot of thought to whether they should be applicable at all Commonwealth aerodromes, and concluded it would be appropriate to restrict them to the busier airports. It has been decided, therefore, that no charges will be levied for embarkation or disembarkation at any Commonwealth aerodrome where,’ in the most recent completed year, passenger movements were less than 35,000.

I welcome this provision, but I am concerned about what I regard as anomalies and undesirable features of the charge. I refer particularly to its application to Kangaroo Island residents. In the main they rely on air transport for travel to the mainland. The distance involved is not great, but because I he charge is based on the usage of airport facilities and not on a distance or on a percentage of the fare paid, the increase in relation to the fare is indeed heavy.

Senator Devitt:

– What is the increase?

Senator LAUCKE:

– If is 11.67%. Here we have a situation where the population, of necessity, has to use air transport for such things as medical requirements and to tranact business on the mainland. 1 think the situation is unique and quite distinct from that in any other area of Australia. I am in agreement with the principles of the Bill. Vast amounts of money are being spent on providing facilities at aerodromes, and I shall vote for the Bill. But 1 make this plea to the Government to reconsider the situation at Kangaroo Island in particular and to see whether, because of its unique-

Senator Cavanagh:

– -You are going to impose the charge while making a protest.

Senator LAUCKE:

– Ways and means may be found of exempting air passengers to and from Kangaroo Island from this charge which could so adversely affect the interests of the decentalised industry and the people there. Al this stage I rise to draw attention to the unique position of Kangaroo Island and to ask that, after the passage of this measure, the Government give consideration to releasing Kangaroo Island air passengers from liability to pay the charge. I support the Bill.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– The Government has taken this method of imposing a charge upon the users of facilities at airports in order to evade the provisions of section 92 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, by this Bill it is imposing a discriminatory tax. it says that the people who use the airport facilities should pay a tax for the use of those facilities. Therefore, it should impose the lax upon all those who use the facilities. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the restaurant at the airport at Melbourne. It has a dance floor and a dance band and operates when there are no aircraft departing from or coming into Melbourne. Yet the people who use these facilities are not subject to any tax whatsoever. Again, the people who use the restaurant facilities at the airport at Perth are not charged anything at all for using them, and they are used for wedding receptions and all sorts of other functions.

Senator Webster:

– They are in an indirect way.

Senator CANT:

– The honourable senator has been so accustomed to indirect taxation that he is befuddled by it. The simple fact is that the Government is imposing a tax on people for the use of facilities provided by the public purse, but it is imposing that tax on only a section of’ the people who use those facilities.

I mention, for example, the big parking area at the Perth Airport. Only in about eight of the parking bays are parking meters installed. All but the users of those eight bays with the parking meters can park at the airport in the facility provided by the public purse and they are not required to pay any charge. In any case, it is a matter for conjecture as to whether’ in this context the Government does avoid the implications of section 92 of the Constitution. Looking at it in this context, it is a tax on the ticket and not on the use of facilities because the whole of the people who use the facilities are not taxed. The tax’ is imposed only on those who buy a ticket to go interstate. Some passengers may travel intrastate, but all the interstate passengers will pay unless they are travelling fro’m a place like Geraldton in Western Australia to Bundaberg in Queensland. Those travellers will not pay anything, but people travelling from Perth to Brisbane will have to pay. The imposition of this form of taxation upon a section only of the community should be opposed despite the fact that there is a large gap between the amount of money thai the Government collects from’ the airline operators and the amount that it spends on facilities.

It has been said that the tax will apply only to those airports where there are 35,000 passengers or more a year. I want to know what effect this will have on the improvement of facilities at those airports which have less than 35,000 passengers annually because these are the sorts of airports that have to be .built up. I want to know what amount of this money which the Government expends from the public purse on airport facilities ,can be attributed to the development of Australia, what amount, can be attributed to the defence of

Australia and what amount can be attributed to the promotion of tourism. This tax will give tourism a knock irrespective of what anyone else says because most tourists work on a pretty light budget. What amount can be attributed to the cost benefit of trade? All of these things will be affected by the imposition of this tax. 1 would have liked my legal friends on my own side and on the opposite side of the Senate to have expressed some opinion as to the effects of section 92 with relation to this tax. The legal eagles have been extremely silent about this. But that does not mean, Of course, that some private citizens mav not take up the point. 1 oppose the Bill.

Senator BISHOP:
South . Australia

– 1 rise to state briefly a number of objections to the legislation. I have regard for the fact that the time available to the Senate does not allow us to make the full contributions that we would like to make. 1 suggest that at this stage of its development the aviation industry of Australia is in a similar position with relation to charges and the great costs about which the Government talks as was the railways industry in the early part of the century. Therefore the charges proposed here ought to be borne by the whole of the nation. They should not be imposed upon ordinary individuals, as is being done in this instance. This Government is always ready to impose both direct and indirect charges upon the ordinary people in the community. Here, I am prompted to criticise Senator Laucke, who is not in the chamber at the moment, and also the honourable member for Grey (Mr Jessop) in another place. Both these gentlemen made passionate pleas on behalf of the people al Kingscote on Kangaroo Island, and at Port Lincoln, yet, for some strange reason, they vote for the imposition of the proposed charges. What sort of hypocrisy is this? The honourable member for Grey, who defeated the former honourable member for Grey (Mr Mortimer) at the last election, received great publicity in the local Press, the ‘Advertiser’ over his representations against this particular piece of legislation. A very strong case can be made for not imposing these extra charges on the people of Kangaroo Island because, as the Government well knows, most of the settlers there are ex-servicemen. They are already saddled with heavy transport costs. The heavy costs which they have had to bear have been the subject of representations to the Government and of complaint from the residents of the Island. Now every person living there is going to be saddled with an extra charge. This charge will even be imposed upon women and children who have to go to the mainland for medical and dental attention.

Senator Wood:

– lt also hits the tourists.

Senator BISHOP:

– That is so. The tourist industry will also be affected. The people at Port Lincoln and at Kingscote, Kangaroo Island, suffer special disabilities. As Senator Wood has said, the tourist industry will also be affected. In future, if will be cheaper for people to travel outside of Australia than to tour within the Commonwealth. Why the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities (Senator Wright) has not made his opinion known in this place, I do not know. He has made repeated statements in this place about the importance of attracting tourists to this country, and his efforts in this direction are now going to be imperilled by this sort of legislation.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

Senator BISHOP:

– Prior . to the suspension of the sitting I was critical of the altitude adopted by Senator Laucke to this legislation. As he is now present in the chamber, I think I should repeat my criticism. Senator Laucke referred to two particular airports in South Australia, Kingscote and Port Lincoln, that are affected by this legislation:

Senator Greenwood:

– He said that he supported the principle of the legislation.

Senator BISHOP:

– I am aware of that. Senator Laucke and the honourable member for Grey (Mr Jessop) in the other place have both made it known that they are very critical of the legislation. I simply wish to make the point that if a Government supporter is of the opinion that it is unreasonable to impose additional charges on the two airports in South Australia to which I have referred he should vote against the legislation.

Senator Cotton:

– When are you going to vote against something?

Senator BISHOP:

– I arn expressing an opinion. 1 am entitled to express an opinion. lt seems quite hypocritical to me that members of this Parliament should stand up and criticise legislation but not vote against it. The honourable member for Grey has received quite a deal of publicity in Adelaide recently on his belated attitude to shipbuilding, and to this legislation. He received a three column spread in the Adelaide Advertiser’ on the representations he was to make regarding these increased charges. But the record of the vote taken in the other place on this Bill shows that he voted in favour of the legislation. Hansard records that the honourable member for Grey made great pleas during the debate in the other place about the inequity of the legislation in regard to Kangaroo Island and Port Lincoln. I completely agree with the points that he made. But I would have thought that because of his criticism of the imposition of these charges he would have done the same thing as one Government supporter and voted against the legislation.

This is a clear example of an attempt by the Government to recover a certain amount of money to meet the increased cost of providing aviation facilities. The Government has hit upon a plan which imposes charges upon those people who can least afford to pay them.

Senator Webster:

– Where does the honourable senator think the money should come from?

Senator BISHOP:

– I will explain it quite clearly to the honourable senator. Honourable senators opposite comprise the Government and are responsible for the economic policies of the Government. It is not for the Opposition to decide whether foreign shipping should operate in Australia at an annual loss to our economy of $400m. What the Government should do is examine the two-airline policy, which imposes a restriction on the activities of Trans-Australia Airlines and subsidises its competitor. For example, if the Australian Labor Party were in government it would adopt a Socialist attitude towards our airlines. It would not adopt the measures that are adopted by this Government.

Senator Greenwood:

– What would you do?

Senator BISHOP:

– The Government believes in free enterprise, lt makes sure that hardship is not imposed on its friends but that it is imposed on the public. That is the point I wish to make.

Senator Marriott:

– What about the unionists?

Senator BISHOP:

– Those who work for the airlines are entitled to all1 the protection that we can give them’.

Senator Marriott:

– You would close Ansett down.

Senator BISHOP:

– No, the Labor Party would not. What it .would do would be to ensure that there was free competition between the airline operators. In such an event it is quite clear that the national airlines would earn more .money and make a greater contribution to Consolidated Revenue. The Government should allow TAA to provide feeder services, under the present two-airline, policy the Ansett interests have a monopoly of these services. They run buses, feeder airlines, tourist agencies and have television interests. The Government claims to follow its present policy of restricting competition within the industry because of the safety factor. That is unsatisfactory. The two-airline policy is one matter that a Labor government would look at if it were trying to recover moneys expended on the provision of aviation facilities. lt is a matter for the Government, consistent with its own policies, to apply other measures which will bring in the revenue to meet these increased charges.

Earlier 1 made the point that the aviation industry in Australia today faces the same sort of developmental problems as the railways faced at the beginning of the century. Everybody accepted that our geography and the scattered population meant that the railways had to receive some special subsidy. This was a matter for which the Government had to have regard. But in this instance it has hit upon a ready cut idea of imposing charges on passengers. This will not only restrict the growth of the industry but also will affect- tourism. I wish to support the point made by Senator Wood. I believe it was a very good one. Senator Wright has made a number of speeches in this chamber urging people to travel within Australia. I pay a tribute to him in this regard. To some extent he has enlivened interest in tourism in the Senate. But those who have accepted Senator Wright’s suggestion and have decided to tour Australia are having second thoughts about it because of the extra charges. They are calculating whether it would be just as cheap to go say to Noumea, Fiji or New Zealand as to north Queensland. We are reaching the stage where the alternative will be attractive and the money will be spent outside Australia.

Senator Wright:

– ls the honourable senator aware that the passenger charge to go out of Australia is greater than that on flights within Australia?

Senator BISHOP:

– I am aware of that. The point is that the fares are so close now that instead of accepting Senator Wright’s pita and going to, say, Surfers Paradise, as Senator Wood suggested, people will go to Noumea, New Guinea or some other place overseas. This is happening at present, lt should not happen, lt is the responsibility of the Government to organise the economy so that those who can least afford to meet the increasing expense of the aviation industry are not required to do so.

I know that because of the shortage of time 1 should not debate this legislation for too long, but I wish to indicate - the Opposition has made the point on prior occasions - that the Government has never really coped with the problems of the aviation industry. For example, it has established a tight system of rationalisation which impedes national enterprise, lt has clone nothing to develop Australia’s capacity to supply a large part of the requirements necessary for airport facilities and aircraft. It is well’ known that many industries that have existed since the war are going bankrupt. These industries are jacking up at the Government’s lack of activity, lt should be Government policy that the Australian aircraft industry will supply most of our requirements, lt seems to me that there are very sound reasons to reject the legislation, which follows the pattern of previous legislation. lt is a hit or miss device by the Government to be reimbursed for its expenditure on the expansion necessary in the industry. The Government should have planned years ago to relate the development of the industry to the whole of Australia. This was clone with the railways. It should also adjust its policies, and in particular the two-airline policy, which has not maintained competition and reduced fares and charges but has in fact increased charges.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I rise to support this Bill, and in doing so I want to make one or two comments. First of all, 1 suggest that it may be as well to look at the reason behind the Bill. Let us look at the cost of providing facilities, first, for the comfort of the people who are travelling by air and, secondly, for their safety. It is in the second respect that the greatest amount is being spent, and this amount is being spent on all of the aerodromes which are covered by this legislation. Those aerodromes are receiving safety equipment and safety devices which, I believe, are second to none in the world. 1 believe that we have a system in relation to airlines which provides something of which we can be proud, but something for which we must pay. If we want to have that safety, we must provide the wherewithal to pay for it. Sio we get to the next step: How do we reconcile the various interests which are concerned in this? We have, first of all, the interests of the nation in having a safe, efficient and quick transport system. We have, secondly, the interest of the individual traveller, which apart from anything else is not being overloaded with the costs involved in that transport system. Thirdly, we have the interest of the general taxpayer in not having to pay for facilities for a relatively small section of the community.

I think that the Bill which we have before us is an attempt to reconcile those interests. It envisages the continuation of the provision of the standards 1 have mentioned which, I believe, are the best in the world. But the Bill also envisages that some of the money to provide those facilities will have to come from the people who are using them. Quite obviously from the figures which have been mentioned by many speakers, both here and in another place, the amount that is being provided by the people who are using the facilities is a relatively small amount, but it is a contribution to the relief of the general taxpayers. So far as the facilities which are being provided are concerned, it is interesting to note that the majority of people who will be paying this charge are those who go through capital cities. Of the total number of passengers who would have come within this charge last year 7,150,000-odd went through the airports at the capital cities, and the total number of passengers likely to be affected by this charge is about 8 million. So seven-eighths of the total number are those who go through the capital cities, and all of those capital cities have facilities which arc excellent so far as comfort and safety are concerned.

But there are some smaller airports which will be affected by this charge, in which perhaps the comfort aspect has not been dealt with in the same way. 1 refer particularly to two Tasmania airports - Wynyard and Devonport - both of which come within this legislation, Wynyard because it has some 59,000 passengers a year and Devonport because it has some 56,000. Both will obviously come well within the scope of the Bill. But the facilities which passengers using those airports are receiving are perhaps not as high as they are in other places, and I am sure that we can expect that as quid pro quo for the fact that the people of Tasmania will have to pay this charge greater attention will be paid to giving them an adequate return by way of the provision of good facilities. I am confident that they will be given adequate consideration in the way in which they have already been given most favourable consideration at the airports at Hobart and Launceston.

Another factor which concerns me is the effect which this may have on the intrastate Beechcraft service in Tasmania. There has been much comment already as to the possible effect of this charge on that service. One of the points which has not been made, so far as I am aware, and which I would like to make in relation to this matter is that not all the airports from which this service operates will be concerned with this charge. Smithton, Queenstown and St Helens will all be exempted. So it is not a matter of every flight which that Beechcraft service makes being loaded with this extra charge, but it is something to which, 1 have no doubt, close consideration will have to be given to ensure that a good service will be continued. It may be that if it continues to operate at a loss - and in fact it may be shown that the effect of this legislation will be to affect adversely the future of that service - (he matter will have to receive some special consideration. The service suffered a loss last year and it may well be that it will need to receive the same sort of treatment as is received by the flight to Flinders Island by way of a special subsidy from the Department. This is the sort of quid pro quo which one may expect to follow and one which I hope will follow this measure. . .

I support the measure subject only to the reservation which .1 have mentioned. I trust that these factors will not. bc lost sight of in the general administration of the airline system. This is an important measure which clops relieve the general taxpayer of some of the responsibility for the provision of facilities used by a relatively small section of the community. I : trust, therefore, that arguments such as those used by Senator Bishop when he said that the Bill will adversely affect tourism within Australia to the extent that people will be driven abroad will not be listened to. What he overlooked when he made that remark is that people going . through international airports - as they will have to do to go abroad - will be paying a greater amount than they would be paying if they were travelling interstate or intrastate. There have been a number of similar statements made as to the effect of this legislation on the tourist industry. I would be surprised if it riad such an adverse effect as has been mentioned. In fact I cannot see that the relatively small overall cost will have such a detrimental affect. For these reasons, and having given the matter full consideration so far as Tasmania and the whole of Australia is concerned, 1 am prepared to support the Bill.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I rise to oppose the provisions of the Bill1. 1 believe that it is a discriminatory Bill and one which should not be fostered by the Australian Government. To my way of thinking, it is a most ill conceived Bill. lt appears that the Government has said that it must have additional revenue and it has chosen this way to obtain that revenue without giving due consideration to the repercussions. Senator Rae quite rightly said that safety is a factor which should be paramount in the operation of all airlines, but is it not true that safety precautions are adopted in many countries? Surely we have not supremacy in that respect. Yet I know of no country - perhaps the Minister could correct me in this direction - in which a tax of this nature is imposed on interstate or intrastate travellers. Many honourable senators have travelled throughout the United States of America and I know of no area in which a tax of this nature has been imposed.

Senator Rae:

– There are many toll’ gates, which is the same sort of principle.

Senator MILLINER:

– Let us deal with the principles of this situation and not with some other idea. The situation as I see it is that it is a tax, irrespective of the fact that the Government has elected to call it a charge’, lt is a fair or a tax and it will be paid by travellers. It is ‘ useless to try to hide the situation that the traveller will have to pay it. If the fares are to be increased he will pay it direct. If we say that a charge will be imposed on travellers the travellers will pay that charge just the same. To my way of thinking it is the same as asking a person whether he would rather bc eaten by an alligator or a crocodile. But coming closer to the Bill, what will be the situation in relation to travellers in Queensland? What effect will1 the measure have on a person travelling from, say, Charters Towers to Maryborough? We have not been told whether such a person would be asked to pay this charge and the Bill is silent in that respect. 1 appreciate that in his second reading speech the Minister gave some illustrations of how the charge would operate. 1. appreciate also that it would be impossible to list all cases throughout Australia in which the charge would apply. Nevertheless, there are many points on which we have been given no explanation. That is another reason why the measure should be rejected. Clause 5 states:

As soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act, the Minister shall publish in the Gazette a notice specifying each Commonwealth aerodrome as to which he is satisfied that the passenger movements at the aerodrome in the year that ended on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight, exceeded thirty-five thousand, and declaring each of those Commonwealth aerodromes to be a Commonwealth aerodrome in respect of which charges under this Act apply.

The Senate is entitled to more precise information than that, which is contained in the Bill as it now stands. I shall content myself with joining my colleagues in saying that I oppose the measure. I believe that it is discriminatory. I believe that it is illogical and that it is just another instance of the Government intending to obtain money by some type of subterfuge. 1 hasten to add that I do not use that word in its worst sense. I support my colleagues and oppose the Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The point made by Senator Laucke regarding the disability which this Bill will impose on those who are dependent entirely on air transport was one which should impress the Senate. He mentioned one or two places within his own State, but I believe that his remarks will apply equally to other States. I was not impressed by the comments made by honourable senators opposite, and particularly those made by Senator Bishop, lt was obvious to me that when this matter was first raised in another place the Opposition was trying to jump on the bandwaggon to gain political capital1 from an excellent suggestion which was advanced by honourable members representing the South Australian Government. I support the Bill and express my extreme displeasure at the fact that the measure is necessary. J have no doubt that the Department of Civil Aviation and the Cabinet gave this matter great thought before deciding to introduce the Bill, but I question whether sufficient thought has been given to the proposal. I see this method of raising funds as a most annoying tax.

Within the Past weeks I have travelled overseas and, if I may recount my experience to the Senate, in no capital city international airport was I asked to pay a passenger charge. To the best of my knowledge at one airport only was the existence of a charge made known to me, and in that case I was advised in a most abrupt fashion by those who were collecting the tax. They definitely placed the blame for the charge where it was due - on the authorities - but the matter was handled in a most objectionable way. Probably those who are interested in an airline organisation by which they are employed will act with some kindness in asking for the charge, but I found that in only one place was I informed that the charge was to be imposed. I suggest that this is a most annoying tax and one that I should have thought could have been avoided in a modern transport system. Surely in Australia we should encourage people to travel. 1 have not been convinced that we should adopt the principle which is proposed by the Government that all charges incurred in the running of international airports should be recovered from those who travel by air. Further, I am most disturbed by the thought that has been given to the way in which the collection of this charge will be administered. Over a period of years I have found that in most fields it is the private individual or the business community which is forced to incur the expense of collecting taxes for the Government. Surely this is another instance of that happening. Nowhere in the Bill do I see any suggestion that Ansett-ANA and Trans-Australia Airlines will be compensated for the costs they incur in collecting the tax. I hope that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) who represents the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz) in this chamber, will bc able to point out to the Senate whether the airline companies will be recompensed.

It is apparent that from the day that this legislation comes into force the private airline and the Government airline will each be able to say, with good reason, that they will have to increase their passenger charge by at least some percentage. As a result we will see before the Parliament in the next sessional period a proposal to increase the cost of travel by air. An increase will be justified because of the administration and collection costs involved in this measure. Perhaps the Minister can correct me on this point, but there will be some staffing and accounting to bc done by the airline companies. They will be required to lodge returns relating to the collection of the tax. Cheques will have to be drawn and credits will have to be made where a person does not travel. I gather that in each airways office an accounting system will have to be set up to handle this charge for the Government.

This form of tax collection is not new. Taxes which have been imposed in Victoria involve an impost on private industry and in this instance as in other instances I object to it as being unfair to private industry. My main opposition to the proposal is that it will result in an increase in air fares in coming months. I endorse the suggestion made by Senator Cant that the many thousands of people who visit airports could be required to pay a small fee. Perhaps this could be operated through a turnstile system so that people entering the airport could pay, perhaps, 10c as they pass through the turnstile, in the same way as they are required to put money into a meter when parking a vehicle on Commonwealth property. In this way the money would be collected and no great accounting system would be necessary. I support the Bill but object to the basic principle contained in the measure.

Senator Poyser:

– The honourable senator is talking with his tongue in his cheek.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not. 1 have said already that I support the Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I shall be extremely brief. I think it is time that someone mentioned that what we are trying to do iri this country is to run our economy on sound and balanced lines. If honourable senators opposite will take’ the time to learn; they will see that the Budget Speech for 1968-69, delivered on 13th August by the’ Treasurer (Mr McMahon), included a reference to the problem of air navigation and passenger service charges. The proposal was spelled out last August. Everybody has known that this measure was going to be brought forward, but no one has said anything until now. We have to try to run a responsible economy with a- responsible government. From listening to honourable senators opposite- during this debate it has become quite clear that they . never, contemplate in their lives being in charge of a government.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– Senator Cotton said .that no-one raised any voice or took any action on the Budgets that were presented on 13 th August this year and in August last year. I would have him know that the Party 1 am privileged to lead moved last August for the withdrawal and redrafting pf the Budget. He has a very convenient memory. There were many aspects of the Budget presented last August which did not conform with our desires.

Senator Bull:

– Were- you supported by the Labour Party?

Senator GAIR:

– No, the Labor Party supported the Government, as Senator Wood did. .

Senator Wood:

– That does not mean to say that one agrees with every aspect of the Budget.

Senator GAIR:

– The honourable senator supported the Budget. If he wants to argue about that-

Senator Wood:

– Not all the details.

Senator GAIR:

– I have all the details. However, the fact remains that we have to deal with the legislation before us. I and my colleagues are opposed to it principally because it is sectional in character, it discriminates against a section, of our people. It will have a very damaging effect on air services throughout Australia, particularly in the larger States which include great areas that have little or no alternative means of transport. It will have the effect of destroying the very good value that has come out of air transport, particularly in remote parts of a vast State like Queensland. Some of the western towns in Queensland are much less remote now than they were 20 or more years ago by reason of the fact that they have an air service. I refer to Blackall, Mount, lsa. Longreach and so on.

Senator Maunsell:

– The people there will nol have to pay the tax.

Senator GAIR:

– There is an embarkation tax. They have to pay the tax to go there. Anyone who travels from Cairns, Townsville, Brisbane or anywhere else may not have to pay the disembarkation tax. That is true. Do you want to handicap or tax people because they want to travel to your district of Longreach? It could be asked: What percentage of people travel by air anyway? I do not know. I have never taken out any figures.

Senator Devitt:

– There- were six million passengers last year.

Senator GAIR:

– Thank you. I was stranded at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport on the occasion recently when the transport drivers held up air services in Australia and 1 had a clear and vivid vision of the effect of that strike on the travelling public of Australia. I saw people in all stations of life affected by the strike - an aged person wanting to get home to a sick daughter; other people wanting to get to the wedding of their only granddaughter; women with children, or babies on the breast, hanging around the airport for hours not knowing whether they would get out of the place that day, the next day or any other day. When I reached Brisbane finally I saw the same picture there. A lot of people must use the air services of Australia - more than I ever thought prior to that occasion.

I shall not repeat the arguments used by previous speakers, particularly Senator Murphy who probably has handled some of the brief that I have; but I must say that I am impressed with the case that has been made out. I think the Government’s proposal will have a very ill effect on our air services. It will militate against the people in the back country and will have a detrimental effect overall. The Government is imposing a tax - irrespective of whether the Government likes the term, it is a tax - on the people in the far north of Queensland who have to pay to get on a plane and to get off a plane. The alternative to air travel is to sit in a train for a couple of days and a couple of nights. I presume that Victoria will not be affected to a great extent, but when you consider the days and nights that it takes you to travel long distances by train in Queensland and compare that with the fact that you can travel from Brisbane to Cairns in a couple of hours by air, is it not reasonable that people should travel by the modern means of transport? We should be prepared to encourage the use of our airlines.

The reason given for the introduction of this legislation is that steps must be taken to fill the gap between the cost of maintaining our Commonwealth controlled airports and the revenue that the Commonwealth derives by other means. I should like the figures relating to that gap to be examined. Who determines the gap? I think the matter should be the subject of investigation by people at least impartial enough to examine it from the public point of view. Of course airports and aerodromes have to be maintained. Is it intended that those privileged people who travel by VIP planes will pay the tax too? I do not expect so. It is only Joe Blow and his wife and kids who will be required to pay even though the airports and aerodromes have to be kept open for VIP planes just as they have to be kept open for aircraft operated by Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett-ANA.

Even though the Government gave notice of its intention in regard to this matter 15 months ago, it still looks like a very hurried and clumsily composed scheme. The Treasurer (Mr McMahon) in his Budget speech 15 months ago said that the charge would be introduced. The fact that it was not introduced before this is evidence in itself that the Government was uncertain of the scheme. It had second thoughts about the proposal. But the Government is throwing it in now and is telling us that it aims to get $4.5m additional as a result. It is true that that is not a huge sum but it is the principle to which I object.

Let us examine the machinery behind the proposal. The tax, as I elect to call it, is not to be included in the cost of the ticket. It has to be a separate and distinct payment otherwise it is thought that it may contravene section 92 of the Constitution. If this Bill goes as close as that to contravening the Constitution the Government will have to tread very lightly and very carefully. But what will happen under this legislation? Mr Citizen will get his ticket from the airways office and go to the airport. He will have to pay his tax before he can embark on an air journey. Mrs Citizen, with a baby in her arms and children hanging onto her skirts, will have to go along and pay the tax for herself and the children, then get aboard and go off to Cairns, let us say. When she alights at Cairns she will again be obliged to pay the tax. She would be occupying her time better if she got down on her knees and thanked God for arriving safely instead of having to pay tax to the airlines and to the Government.

Senator Wright:

– Many would prefer to do that as a substitute for paying taxes.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. It might be better if somebody started to do this without being forced. Anyway, these are ail delaying tactics. From my experience, air travel is sufficiently frustrating now. The day that a plane departs or arrives on time, there is a big gold cup in my office for the company concerned. Honourable senators say that this is not right. Air travel must be different on the eastern coast. I can understand an aircraft arriving an hour late if it departed an hour late but I can never understand why departure times are delayed for 45 or 60 minutes, particularly if it is the plane on which you have been travelling from Melbourne, for example, without there being a mechanical defect or some such thing. That delay is bad enough and is most annoying without having to go and pay your tax for the privilege of travelling by air.

I do not like this BUI. I think it will have a bad effect on passenger traffic generally. When I look at Senator Wright, the genial senator from Tasmania, 1 almost know what, is passing through his mind about the effect of this legislation on the tourist traffic.

Senator Cohen:

– He is thinking that he would love to be able to oppose it.

Senator GAIR:

– I think the honourable senator would be right. I am sure that Senator Wright would have two reasons for opposing it: Firstly, he would be conscious, as he always is, of the interests of the public of Tasmania. He would be concerned about them, as he has demonstrated over the years. He has been one of the most solicitous advocates that the people of Tasmania have had in this Parliament. His second reason would relate to the fact that he is now Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities and we have never had anyone more dedicated to encouraging people to travel. Now the honourable senator is a party to a decision which will cause an impost or a tax to be placed on people who travel. The handicap will vary. In some cases the increase will be only about 2%. In others it will be more. I cannot understand the Government submitting a Bill of this nature.

Senator Wood:

– It is not Senator Wright’s Bill.

Senator GAIR:

– I am aware of that but 1 am conscious of the fact that he is a member of the Government and is obliged to support it. Of course he is. It would be a pretty funny turnout if he did not support the Bill.

Senator Withers:

– It would be a turnout all right.

Senator GAIR:

– To see Senator Wright turned out of the Government might be a thing desired by the Opposition. Nevertheless it is not often that we get a free vote.

Senator Sim:

– You had one yesterday.

Senator GAIR:

– That is correct. The Democratic Labor Party is the Party most likely to have a free vote. The Australian National Travel Association, as Senator

Murphy has already pointed out. is worried about the effect of these charges on the tourist industry, particularly in respect of services to country areas. This point about services to country areas is the one that concerns me most. For too long were our country centres isolated and regarded as remote parts of our community. Air services have brought them closer to the centre of the State or the Commonwealth, as the case may be. Imagine the invaluable service provided by aircraft in times of sickness or emergency. Aircraft enable sick people to be taken quickly from a country hospital to a city hospital where they can get the advantage of specialist treatment. Air passengers will not have to pay the charge on embarking at some of the smaller airports either because of their size, because they are municipally owned, or for some other reasons. However, they will have to pay upon landing at Brisbane or some other centre.

Typical of the increases will be that of an 8.8% rise on the trip from Cairns to Townsville. That is a big increase. Cairns and Townsville are about 200 miles apart by rail. There is a similar increase in the journey from Mackay to Rockhampton, which is about the same distance. Let us take an extreme case, that of the journey from Brisbane to Coolangatta. The fare in this case will rise by 18%, which is a pretty healthy increase. Surely honourable senators do not wonder why I am on my feet and am speaking against this Bill. Although this measure was outlined in the Budget Speech, it cannot be strictly classified as a money Bill, lt is a Bill to increase charges, as was the Post and Telegraph Rates Bill.

I strongly and sincerely implore the Government to withdraw this Bill and have another look at it. I do not think it has been considered properly. The Government will gain nothing from it but the wrath of the people who travel by air. At the present time when one alights from a plane one has to run along and check one’s ticket in order to get a seat on the plane for the next stage of the journey from Sydney to Canberra, for example, or from Sydney to Melbourne, unless the previous aircraft is continuing to one’s own destination. Under this legislation, in addition, you will have to find some officer in order to pay your tax of 50c. or whatever it may be.

Senator Wright:

– Oh, no. It is a through journey.

Senator GAIR:

– AH right. It may not be necessary on a through journey but if you intend to travel on the next day you probably will have to pay.

Senator Wright:

– You will not.

Senator GAIR:

– Then apparently there is no tax at stop-overs. That means there must have been an amendment to the Bill that was originally drafted. If a break in a journey is considered to be unreasonably long, or even beyond a few days, the charge will have to be paid. Let us quietly examine the position. Many Commonwealth airports are not used solely for passenger traffic. I have already referred to VIP aircraft. I now turn to consider the value of these aerodromes for defence purposes. Do not Service aircraft use Commonwealth aerodromes? Do not cargo carrying aircraft also use them? I ask those questions because the Minister might be able to tell me something more than I already know.

Senator Wright:

– What would be the point of charging Service aircraft?

Senator GAIR:

– It would help to bridge the gap that the Government features so much in its submissions. I remind honourable senators that the Government allows the services to Papua and New Guinea to be charged against the travelling public of Australia.

Senator Wood:

– And the freighter aircraft.

Senator GAIR:

– That is so.

Senator Little:

– Is the charge to be imposed in respect of race horses that are transported by aircraft?

Senator GAIR:

– That represents freight.

Senator Prowse:

– If an aircraft crashes do you get a refund of the disembarkation fee?

Senator GAIR:

– Senator Prowse wants to know whether the beneficiaries of my estate would receive a refund of the tax paid. He is becoming a bit like a Scotsman. Let us compare the position with railway services. Does a traveller pay a tax to use a railway platform? Of course not.

Senator Young:

– What about platform tickets?

Senator GAIR:

– Platform tickets are not bought by the travelling public. They are bought by relatives and friends who go to see the travellers off. It would be a good thing if regard were had to that practice in the administration of airports. It would keep off airports a lot of people who get in the way of passengers who are trying to get out of the terminal buildings to board aircraft.

Senator Prowse:

– The honourable senator has got something there.

Senator GAIR:

– Of course. They clutter up the gateways and the managements of airports are not sufficiently vigilant or efficient to keep the way clear for passengers. Some airports managements are rather weak. I have on occasions seen them allow about 100 people to board a jet aircraft through the same gate as was being used by the passengers disembarking from - a jet and seeking to enter the terminal building. If they cannot run an airport better than that, I would not trust them with the responsibility of running a message. Railway passengers do not pay a tax to use a platform when boarding a train. I am referring to the public generally. If you want to see somebody off on a journey you buy a platform ticket. That practice was instituted to limit the number of. send-off parties on the platforms in order to facilitate access to trains for passengers. That principle has not been adopted at airports which are open to general use.

Senator Little:

– Thousands of people who use the bars and restaurants at airport terminals never travel by plane.

Senator GAIR:

– That is right. The Government, should withdraw the Bill and have another look at it. The amount of revenue involved does not warrant disturbing the travelling public, upsetting air services, and disadvantaging a big section of people, particularly people .who live in the outback. I have the greatest sympathy for those people and always speak up for them. They should be paid to live in some of the outback areas, instead of being asked to pay a tax in respect of journeys by air. In all seriousness I ask the Minister to give some thought to my suggestion. If the Government persists stubbornly, to pursue the passage of this legislation as it stands at present, I will vote against it.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - The Government stands firm on these proposals, notwithstanding that we have heard that the Opposition and the Australian Democratic Labor Party will oppose the Bill. As a responsible government, represented in the Senate by responsible Parties, we must look to the costs and the revenues involved in this issue. The cost of administration of the Department of Civil Aviation throughout Australia amounts annually to about $60m. Airport charges return about $12. 5m. The revenue gained from fuel tax amounts to about a further $8. 5m, making a total of about $21m revenue against expenditure of about $60m. That calculation does not take into consideration the construction and development of Commonwealth airports throughout Australia. Those costs involve annual expenditure of about $30m. We are looking for additional revenue. To that end we have decided to impose a charge on passengers travelling to and from Commonwealth airports of up to 50c for embarkation and 50c for disembarkation, to be collected by airline companies at the point of embarkation.

Senator Gair and other honourable senators have referred to the charge to be imposed as a tax on people living in the outback for which they get no return. The traffic capacity of airports has been used as a criterion to determine the airports at which the charge is to be imposed. People living in areas that are not thickly populated will not be liable to meet the charge unless they are travelling to a Commonwealth airport. Then we gave further consideration to those people who travel from one city to another and stay overnight. They will not have to pay an extra fee when they start off the next day. We decided that we would exclude stopover charges. All in all, this measure is designed to recoup some of the money that the Government spends on maintaining these airports.

Let us look at the terrific growth in traffic throughout Australia in the last 12 months. In the year 1966-67 passenger traffic increased at the rate of 9%, freight traffic at the rate of 8% and mail traffic at the rate of 8% . The average rate of increase was 8.4%. On the competitive routes the rate of increase in traffic was about 9%. In 1967-68 it went up 2% to 11%. On the long haul routes, which include those from Perth to Sydney and Darwin to Adelaide, traffic increased by 11% in 1966-67 and by 18% in 1967-68. Because of the huge volume for which we have to cater, we have to make additional facilities available. I say without fear of contradiction that, bearing in mind the size of the Australian continent, no other country can compare with us in services provided. We as a Government believe that it- is part of the responsibility of the people who enjoy those services to contribute part of the cost of providing them. That is one of the reasons why we are imposing this passenger charge.

Some honourable senators have said: ‘We are opposed to this charge’. I do not argue that they have not the right to say that. But I did not hear anybody present to the Government a proposal that it do something else to raise this money. I have not heard any Labor members of the Parliament say: You are charging passengers 50c on embarkation and 50c on disembarkation in respect of these services. We want you to remove this charge so that the worker, who is paying tax and not travelling at all, can contribute his share of the cost of providing airports.’ This is something that honourable senators opposite will have to live with. As honourable senators opposite have done frequently in the past, I have counted the numbers and, well as 1 have spoken, I believe that 1 am about to be defeated. Nevertheless, I support the measure.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 22

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2529

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November (vide page 2432), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This is a Bill to amend the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act. It deals with a number of domestic matters. 1 do not intend to take the Senate through them again. They have been dealt with in the second reading speech made by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who represents the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen). At this stage of our year’s proceedings I do not think any purpose would be served by going through them. So I come to the points which concern us. One of the matters which concerns us is that the Bill contains a proposal to insert a rather curious provision. In clause 9 of the Bill there is a provision to deal with the. making of certain rules of court. Clause 9 (b) states that the judge may make rules of court: for prescribing any matter or thing that is, by any law of the Territory that makes provision for the incorporation of, and otherwise in relation to, companies, required or permitted to b’e prescribed by regulation under that law.

There is a further provision that’ states, in substance, that when there is an inconsistency between rules of court made under the Act and regulations, the rules of court shall prevail and the regulations shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be of no effect. That relates only to the rules of court that deal with the incorporation of, and otherwise in relation to, companies.

Senator Wright:

– That is under the Companies Ordinance.

Senator MURPHY:

– That is right, ft is restricted to matters under the Companies Ordinance. Nevertheless the rules of court deal with matters of practice and procedure. One does not know the outer limits of the matters that would be dealt with, but it seems extremely curious to have a situation where rules of court prevail over regulations to the extent of an inconsistency. This does not seem to us to be the right order of affairs. If regulations are to be made, one would think that the regulations should prevail when there is an inconsistency.

As the Bill came from the other place we hud net only this position but also the further position that under the principal Act the rules of court were not disallowable by the Houses of Parliament but were disallowable by the Attorney-General. This was an extraordinary state of affairs. In the Committee stage we intend to move an amendment in order to bring the rules of the Supreme Court into line with those of the High Court and into line with the legislation that has been introduced by the Government in regard to the Superior Court, so that rules of court will have to be gazetted, tabled in each House and be subject to disallowance after a motion has been moved. That is more or less along the lines of what is done with regulations and ordinances. 1 do not think the provisions of the Bill go quite as far as that, and we might have to look at that aspect at some future stage. It is not worth worrying about now, but there is an anomaly here and it is time it was removed. I am glad that there will be no quarrel about that. The Minister for Works has circulated copies of an amendment.

Senator Wright:

– We never quarrel. In this instance there will be no differences.

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank the Minister. He circulated copies of an amendment which deals with the fundamental part of my proposed amendment - the disallowance of the rules of court. We are very happy that that is being attended to. His proposal is not quite the same as ours because he would still retain the provision, introduced by this Bill, about the rules of court prevailing over the regulations. We do not think that that is a proper approach to the matter. The law ought to be kept in line. The Acts, the regulations and the legislation, whether of another character, ought not to be subordinate to the rules of court.

Senator Byrne:

– Will the rules of court emerge as regulations?

Senator MURPHY:

– That does not seem to be so.

Senator Byrne:

– It would be only a question of supremacy of one regulation over the other, would it not?

Senator MURPHY:

– I do not know. Perhaps the Minister will explain this. On the face of it, the provision seems to be a very curious one. It is that the rules of court shall prevail and the regulations shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be of no effect.

Senator Byrne:

– The rules of court will be made by regulation.

Senator MURPHY:

– No. The rules of court will still be made by the judges. The rules of court will operate subject to disallowance in Parliament, as 1 see it. The regulations made under this enactment–

Senator Byrne:

– They will be of the nature of regulations because they will be subject to disallowance.

Senator MURPHY:

– That is true, but they will be made by an authority which, however respected in the judicial sphere, must be regarded when it comes to the making of law as being not of the same order as those who make the Acts of Parliament or the regulations under them. That is the approach to it. We see no reason for departure from the position whereby the rules of court should be subordinate to any regulation and should be made consistent with it. A ground for examination, one would think, would be if the rules of court were inconsistent with a regulation. No doubt the Minister will explain this in more detail. I will not detain the Senate much longer, except to say that although the Bill seeks to amend the Australian Capital1 Territory Supreme Court Act obviously the Act was not looked at properly. No attempt was made to bring the Act up to date. Otherwise one would think that the matter of the disallowance of the rules of court would have been attended to before the Bill was introduced. Provisions similar to those we are seeking were incorporated in the Superior Court legislation and certainly are applicable to the High Court.

We think many provisions ought to be examined closely. I suggest that during 1969, if the Attorney-General’s Department can solve its apparently insoluble problems of stall and so on, some attention might be paid to matters such as the matter of trials by jury in civil cases in the Australian Capital Territory. The present provision is not satisfactory. Had this matter been introduced in different circumstances - if we were not approaching the end of the parliamentary year - we would be seeking to move amendments of various kinds, including one to extend to citizens the right to participate in the judicial process. We think that citizens ought to participate more in the judicial process in the Australian Capital Territory, especially in regard to trial by jury. There ought not to be a provision that in every suit, unless the court or judge otherwise orders, the trial shall be without a jury; but rather that the emphasis should be the other way and that unless there is some strong reason, to determine otherwise, civil trials ought to be by jury. We will not oppose the passage of the Bill.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

-I rise to make one or two comments on the question that the rules of court shall not emerge as regulations. There may be some reason behind this. The Queensland Supreme Court Act of 1921, in relation to rules of court, states in section 11:

The Governor in Council, with the concurrence of any two or more of the Judges, may from time to time, by Order in Council published in the Gazette, make all such Rules of Court as may be deemed necessary or convenient for regulating the procedure and practice. . . .

In other words, the rules of court emerge as an ordinance made by the Governor in Council. It will be interesting to know why a different practice is being adopted here. I refer to Standing Order 36a, which relates to the powers and duties of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Paragraph 4 of the standing order reads:

All Regulations and Ordinances laid on the Table of the Senate, except those of the Northern Territory and of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, shall stand referred to such Committee for consideration and. if necessary, report thereon. Any action necessary, arising from a report of the Committee, shall be taken in the Senate on motion after notice.

If these rules of court are to be tabled in Parliament and may be disallowed, the intermediate practice of reference to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee would appear to be denied to them. Perhaps the Regulations and Ordinances Committee may not be the appropriate body to scrutinise rules of court: I quickly glance at this and ask the Minister, if he would be good enough, to make anobservation as to whether these, not being strictly regulations may, in terms of the standing order, be referred to that Committee or whether the only alternative left to the Senate would be to disallow or to adopt them.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - AllI wish to say at this stage is that I listened with considerable interest to Senator Murphy’s reference to trial by jury.I think that in itself would constitute a subject for purposeful debate. The other comment to which I wish to reply at this stage relates to this matter of regulations. This is not a matter of inadvertence. The Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) decided at first when the Bill was introduced to design an amendment to subsections (3.) and (4.) of section 28 of the Act because he was considering it in conjunction with an associated proposal for laying a different foundation for these rules of court, the chief one of which was a proposed provision that rules of court shall be made by not less than three judges. I thank the Senate for its consideration of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Clause 9. (1.) Section 28 of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: (1.) The Judge may make Rules of Court, not inconsistent with this or any other Act or with any Ordinance -

  2. for regulating and prescribing -

    1. the practice and procedure, including the method of pleading, to be followed in the Supreme Court and in the offices of the Court; and
    2. all matters And things incidental to or relating to any such practice and procedure or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for the conduct of any business of the Court; and
  3. for prescribing any matter or thing that is, by any law of the Territory that makes provision for the incorporation of, and otherwise in relation to, companies, required or permitted to be prescribed by regulation under that law.’; and
  4. by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: (5.) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the power to make regulations conferred by any law of the Territory that makes provision for the incorporation of, and otherwise in relation to, companies, but where regulations made in pursuance of such a law are inconsistent with Rules of Court made under this Act, the Rules .of Court shall prevail, and the regulations shall, 10 the extent of the inconsistency, bc of no effect.’.
Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– 1 move:

Leave out paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph:

by omitting sub-sections (3.) and (4.) and inserting in their stead the following subsections: (3.) All Rules of Court made under this section shall -

be notified in the Gazette;

take effect from the date of notification or from a later dato fixed by or in accordance willi the Rules; and

be laid before each Mouse of the Parliament within fifteen sitting days of that House after, the making of the Rules. “(4.) If either House of the Parliament, in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given within fifteen sitting days after any Rules of Court have been laid before that House, passes a resolution disallowing any rule, the rule so disallowed ceases to have effect. “(5.) Nothing in’ this section shall be construed as derogating from the power to make regulations conferred by any law of the Territory that makes provision for the incorporation of, and otherwise in relation to, companies, but where regulations made in pursuance of such a’ law are inconsistent with Rules of Court made under this Act, the Rules of Court shall prevail, and the regulations shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be of no effect,”.’.

It will be noted that this proposal seeks to omit subsections (3.) and (4.) of section 28 of the principal Act along with the other provisions mentioned in clause 9 of the Bill and to insert three new subsections. The proposed new subsection (3.) provides:

All Rules of Court made under this section shall-

bc notified in the Gazette;

take effect from the date of notification or from a later date fixed by or in accordance with the Rules; and

be laid before each House of the Parliament within fifteen sitting days of that House after the making of the Rules.

Proposed new subsection (4.) reads:

If either House of the Parliament, in pursuance of a motion by which notice has been given within fifteen sitting clays after any Rules of Court have been laid before that House, passes a resolution disallowing any rule, the rule so disallowed ceases to have effect.

These provisions vest the authority to disallow in either House of the Parliament and repeal the provision whereby that authority was vested hitherto in the Attorney-General. There is a general concurrence - and the Attorney-General is foremost in it - that once a matter is considered it is inappropriate that the Attorney-General should have power to disallow rules made by the judges. Proposed new subsection (5.) reads:

Nothing in this section shall bc construed as derogating from the power to make regulations conferred by any law of the Territory that makes provision for the incorporation of. and otherwise in relation to, companies, but where regulations made in pursuance of such a law are inconsistent with Rules of Court made under this Act, the Rules of Court shall prevail, and the regulations shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be of no effect.

Without some provision of that sort properly reconciling the operation of regulations made under the companies ordinance wilh rules of court made under the Supreme Court Act, there would be a continuing doubt as to which of these two kinds of subordinate legislation should prevail. Here I suggest that the provision that is expressed in proposed new subsection (5.) is the appropriate one because the supervising authority, whether a regulation under the Companies Ordinance or a rule of court under the Supreme Court Act is concerned, will now be this Parliament and the Senate. The Senate will have the right to disallow either.

A regulation made under the companies ordinance or a rule of court made under the Supreme Court Act must go on to our table, and that vests in us the power of disallowance. Therefore, 1 submit that, from our point of view, little turns upon the question as to which should have the right to prevail in the event of inconsistency. But I go further and say that the view that the rules of court should prevail should be adopted for the reason that, in the specialised field of company winding up, it is traditional in most jurisdictions for the judges to have power to formulate rules of court in a winding up which is primarily by the court but which is usually carried through by way of reference into a voluntary winding up. This means that the judges, with their registrars, are specialists in this field and, I would think, they would therefore be more expert, specialist and appropriate people than the Governor in Council or the Minister to promulgate the regulations under the companies ordinance. But whether that is so or not. F submit to the Senate that we should accept this provision because, as I say. whether this is a regulation under the Companies Ordinance, or a Rule of Court under the Supreme Court Act. this House and the Parliament has the right to disallow it.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I can see what Senator Wright wants to do. As I understand the position, he wants to avoid a continuance of any inconsistency, and he has some argument about the rule of court being superior. But this does not seem to me to fit in with the general division of power in the community. We have the legislative power vested in this Parliament. We have the ordinances in the Australian Capital Territory virtually playing the part which Acts of Parliament play, in the States and we have a scheme whereby regulations are made under them.

Our legislative power is exercised in the way that we have Acts of Parliament and we have regulations made under them. This is the way for the exercise of power. It is a direct exercise in the case of Acts of Parliament and it is a subordinate exercise in the making of regulations. But the rules of court are not intended as a real legislative power; they are a mere incident. This is an incidental power which is attached to those who exercise judicial power in the same way as one might have incidental power of an administrative nature conferred upon those exercising judicial functions. They are given certain incidental adminis trative and legislative powers. But where there is some inconsistency, I think it is only consistent with the framework of the Constitution and certainly with the way in which the power has been exercised over the years, that the inconsistency bc resolved. The rules of court would have to come into line with the regulations.

We would be horrified at the thought that rules of court should , preva.il over an Act of Parliament, although we would be doing this if we provided that in the event of inconsistency the rules of court were to prevail. I am sure that the Minister would be horrified at the thought of rules of court prevailing over an Act of Parliament. Perhaps there is a lesser degree of horror in this instance, but the same kind of principle applies. We should not provide that rules of court shall prevail over regulations. I thought it would be better to delete proposed sub-section (5.) of section 28. But if the Minister is of the opinion that there is a real question of inconsistency it can be resolved by amending proposed sub-section (5.) to provide that the regulations shall prevail and the. rules of court shall, to the extent of inconsistency, be of no effect.

I do not think that this is a matter that should be determined on party lines. 1 think it is of considerable importance. I would like the Minister and others to reflect upon my suggestion. It seems to me to be much more consistent with the way in which we do our business. If the interpretation of rules of court can be widened to this extent, it seems to me that it may even be possible that the question of power could arise here because it appears to be ‘going further than the incidental rule making power which is attachable to courts. However that may be, I have no doubt in my mind as to how I think the conflict should be resolved. I had intended to move that proposed sub-section (5.) be deleted, but having regard to what the Minister has said-

Senator Wright:

– Proposed sub-section (5.) should be put to a different vote to proposed sub-sections (3.) and (4.).

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. I do not know whether any other honourable senator has any suggestions to make. 1 believe that instead of deleting proposed sub-section (5.) the wording of the Minister’s amendment be transposed to read that a regulation shall prevail and the rules of court shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be of no effect. That is the amendment 1 propose to move at a later stage.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– 1 am sure that we are all sensitive to the timetable, but 1 must reply to Senator Murphy. 1 submit that his submission is in principle misconceived. We have conceded that it is inappropriate for the Executive - even in the person of the Attorney-General - tq have power to disallow judges’ rules. ‘I submit that within the field of their, special authority - in some sense a legislative authority of a subordinate nature but only as incidental to their judicial function - when the judges have a rule making power it is inappropriate that a Minister should promulgate a regulation which would be inconsistent with that power and would override the proper value to be accredited to the judicial function. Whether it is purely judicial in the open court or in the performance of a rule making power. I submit it should not be undermined by an Executive regulation. When the two instruments, the rule from the judge and the regulation from the Minister, are of the same character - that is to say, subordinate legislation - I submit that one should mark out a specialist field for the judge to operate within. One must prevent an encroachment upon that field on the same level by the Executive. When both of them are subject to review by Parliament, I would submit that as between the two instruments of a subordinate character the proper viewpoint that we should take is that the judge’s instrument should not be subordinated by an inconsistent instrument of an Executive Minister.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The observations of Senator Murphy and the Minister again raised the point on which I addressed a question to the Minister. I know that the Minister intended to advert to it al a later stage, but I thought I should take the opportunity before he does that of making a point. It is obvious that up to this stage the rules of court, lie in a particular category. They could be disallowed by the Attorney-General. They also have not been laid on the table of this chamber. But they are now to be elevated to a new intermediate position between the old position and the position of a regulation which not only may be tabled but also may be disallowed or referred to the appropriate committee, which is the Regulations and

Ordinances Committee. Under the proposal, the rules of court will be tabled and may be disallowed. The intermediate process is still denied. Obviously we are injecting into matters which will be presented to this Senate a completely new type of document and it will be necessary for the Senate to delineate what will be its attitude, its power and its action in relation to. this new type of situation which has been created. This new type of instrument is disallowable by the Senate but not examinable by the Committee. T would be obliged if the Minister would comment on that.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– If the rules of court are not within the term ‘regulation’ as used in our Standing Orders, 1 indicate that without the slightest hesitation .1 shall facilitate any amendment of the Standing Orders to bring them within the scope and authority of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Although within a small compass, this matter has broad implications. Having listened to the Minister quite fairly trying to explain the proposed sub-section, I. think he has confirmed in my mind that what is sought to be done here is wrong. He said that in effect the judges will know more than the Minister. That is not the test. The Ministers who are delegated the authority by Parliament are the legislative arm of government. There is no question about that. The Minister gave an example of a Minister making a regulation and the judges making another one inconsistent with the Minister’s regulation. He said, in effect, that the judges know more than the Minister and therefore their one should prevail. This cannot be right. Judges should never be in a position where there is to be a clash over which instrument is to be the law. If there is any question as to which is to be the law it should never be decided in favour of the judges. Their function is to interpret and administer the law. They must be confined within the very narrow compass of matters incidental thereto. It does not matter whether the law made by’ the Minister is subject to the control of Parliament or whether it is good or indifferent. I am .not concerned wi th whether -he . makes a bad law as that is subject to our control. We cannot have the situation where the judicial arm, in using this very confined incidental power, is really cutting across the legislative arm of government. That is where it seems to me to be wrong; it cannot be resolved on the basis of which arm has the superior knowledge. Who is to exercise the power? Which is to prevail when there is an actual inconsistency and a clash between them? Confined though this matter be. it seems lo me that this must be resolved in favour of the legislative arm of government. We should not set out to do this. We often defend the rights of the court; we stand for the rule of law. Once we say not what the judges make as a judicial decision but the law that they make is to prevail over the law that is made by the Parliament or a Minister delegated the authority by the Parliament, it seems to me that we have got into a situation that we should never have got into. If there is to be a clash between those two laws, the law made by this body or by the Minister under it I would think must prevail. In (he normal course the judges would probably suggest, if there was a clash or an inconsistency, that the regulation should be amended, and that is the way in which this matter would be resolved. But if wc have to deal with it on the basis that there will bc no resolution or no amicable solution lo this thing it seems to me lo be extraordinary that the judges could actually make their law - not their judicial decisions, applications or interpretations - prevail over that which had been made by a regulation. That is how it seems to me. and what the Minister has said seems to confirm this view.

Senator WITHERS (Western Australia) [3.43 - I have listened with great interest to what Senator Murphy has said, and I am afraid I cannot agree wilh him. As I understand the substance of his argument, it is that the regulation power given to a Minister is given to the Minister as part of the legislative process. As I understand the situation, it is given to the Minister in his capacity as pari of the Executive and not in his capacity as part of the legislature. As I see this, it is rather like a pyramid. At the base, on the one hand we have the executive government represented by the Minister who has power to make subordinate legislation, and on the other hand we have the judges who have power to make rules of court which arc, in effect, subordinate legislation. Over both of them, at the lop of the pyramid, is Parliament with its power lo disallow. This merely comes down to a matter of choice. I fail to see that the executive is in any better place to make the regulations than is the judge lo make rules of court. For the life of me I cannot follow Senator Murphy:s argument because sitting over the base of the pyramid is the Parliament. At that stage the Minister is part of the Executive. If we believe in this sort of tripartite system of legislature, Executive and judiciary, it is only a matter of which subordinate legislation shall prevail - that promulgated by the Executive or that promulgated by the judiciary, both being subordinate to the legislature. Therefore I feel that the clause as printed should stand without amendment.

Senator Wright:

– 1 invite you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to put the amendment that I have circulated in sections.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laught:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The question is:

That the words proposed to be left out be left out.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is:

That proposed new sub-sections (J.) and (4.) be inserted.

Senator RAE (Tasmania) 3.47 - In relation to the proposed new sub-section (4.), I just want to direct attention (o a possible ambiguity which appears in the last line, which reads: . . the ride so disallowed ceases to have effect.

  1. inquire of the Minister whether it would make it clearer to add the word ‘thereupon’ before the word ‘ceases’. Since the amendment was circulated I have not had an opportunity to check the construction that would be likely to be given to those words by a court, but it seems to me that there is a possible ambiguity as to when the rule ceases to have effect. If the word ‘thereupon’ were added, there would be no ambiguity.
Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– In order to avoid any doubt about it 1 will accept the suggestion of my colleague. I ask for leave to amend proposed new sub-section (4.) by adding the word ‘thereupon” after the word ‘disallowed’. The proposed new sub-section will then read: . . the ride so disallowed thereupon ceases to have effect

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted to the Minister to amend his motion to that effect? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The question now is:

That the word proposed to be inserted in proposed new sub-section (4.) be inserted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is:

That proposed new sub-section (3.) and proposed new sub-section (4.) as amended, be inserted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is:

That proposed new sub-section (5.) be inserted.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

The effect of that would be that the regulations will prevail. The rules of court shall, to the extent of inconsistency, be of no effect.

Senator Greenwood:

– I suggest that at this time we should clarify what it is that we are voting upon. Perhaps the Minister could advise us. Is he proposing that the proposition put by Senator Murphy, that in this case the regulations should prevail over the rules of court, is to be accepted?

Senator Wright:

– Everything that I said when I last addressed the Committee would be to oppose this amendment. I submit the view that as between the two subordinate instruments, the judges’ rules of court and the Minister’s regulations, if there is any inconsistency the rules of court as circulated in the amendment should prevail.

Amendment to proposed new sub-section (5.) negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is that proposed new subsection (5.) be inserted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2536

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Debate resumed from 27 November (vide page 2470), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 153 from the House of Representatives: That the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory or any sub-committee thereof, when considering whether the breathalyser should be introduced into the Australian Capital Territory as an instrument to assist the ACT Police in the detection and prevention of the offence of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor which was referred to the Committee on 26 November 1968, have power to move from place to place.

That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This motion contains the proposal that the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory shall have power to move from place to place to consider whether the breathalyser should be introduced into the Australian Capital Territory as an instrument to assist the Australian Capital1 Territory police in the detection and prevention of the offence of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. That question was referred to the Joint Committee on 26th November. No substantial question is involved in this motion. It is merely a matter of whether the Joint Committee or its subcommittees shall have power to move from place to place. The Opposition has no objection to this proposal. I support the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2536

JUDGES’ PENSIONS BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 2137), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition has considered this Bill and, having considered it, finds no objection to it. It is a matter for the Government to see to it that the various provisions contained in the measure are satisfactory. It deals with individual persons and in general with the question of judges’ pensions. Perhaps at some stage more attention will have to be given not only to judges’ pensions but also to age pensions and other pensions generally in order to ensure that the effects of inflation are met by permanent legislation. In that way we will not forever have to make provisions to deal with the effects of inflation. For myself may I say, because it applies to this and much other legislation, that I think we have reached the stage in society where we ought to be taking the view that when people retire from their occupations they should be able to continue at the same standard of living.I see no reason why our society should accept anything less than that a man. whether he be a judge, a white collar worker or a person working in industry, ought to be able to continue at approximately the same income.

We should not be giving people a pittance when they retire. In our affluent society where the problems are mostly of over-production rather than underproduction we ought to be aiming at the objective that people, having served and worked a full life, will be paid approximately the same when they retire as when they were working and will be able to continue at the same standard of living rather than at a lower standard. So far as this Bill is a partial attempt to arrive at that objective we support it, but we would like to see the principles so extended that not only judges but also other people in the community will not have to be afraid of retirement and will not have to face the prospect of a reduction in their standard of living. I hope that by the time the young people who are now in the gallery reach retirement age. this will have become a principle beyond argument.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2537

LAW OFFICERS BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 2137), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition has read this Bill and has no objection to it. it is a small measure which deals with the situation of the law officers of the Commonwealth. It makes provision for their service to be taken into account in case they become judges. It deals also with ancillary matters. We have no objection to it and we support the passage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2537

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 2144), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The Senate will recall that since this legislation was introduced in the other place and in this place the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has made a very important announcement about whichI shall say something later. I indicate at the outset that the Opposition docs not oppose the Bill. We think the proposed amendments to the Act are necessary and should have been considered a long time ago. The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission will be permitted to enter joint ventures or arrangements with other Australian or foreign enterprises to establish, maintain and operate shipping services. At present the Commission can operate only in its own right. The intention now is that the Commission may engage, with other interests, in providing overseas services to and from Australia, and in coastal operations.

The Commission also will be empowered to act as agent for its associates or others engaged in overseas shipping services. The proposed amendments will allow the Commission to hold shares or stocks in an incorporated company or to enter into a partnership or an arrangement for sharing receipts, provided that the purpose is within the functions of the Commission as set out in section 15 of the Act. It is also provided that if changes are made in the memorandum or articles of the company in which the Commission holds stocks or shares which go beyond the defined functions of the Commission as provided in the Act the Commission shall, as soon as practicable, dispose of its shares or stocks. The Minister has referred to the practicability of the

Commission acting to prevent such a change taking place. He said that it should be practicable for the Commission to know exactly what was taking place and to impede it, but if it could not be impeded the Commission would be required to sell its stocks and shares. We agree that the legislation is necessary and concur in the Government’s intention to take an interest in overseas shipping. We think such a step is long overdue.

Clause 4 of the Bill, which seeks to amend section 18 of the Act, requires the Commission to make its facilities available at the lowest possible rates of charges and to restrict the provision only to its coastal operations. This is where there is a marked change from the provisions of the existing Act. Under the existing Act there is a direction that the Australian National Line shall maintain charges at the lowest rates. Because of the Government’s intention to become involved in overseas shipping, this limitation has been removed. In the circumstances that seems to me to be sensible, lt is proposed to amend section 19 of the Act by clause 5 of the Bill which sets out the manner in which the Minister shall approve rates of charges fixed by the Commission in regard to its overseas operations, ft has been necessary to alter the Third Schedule of the Act to include a reference to the Trade Practices Act to indicate that the operations of the Commission in ils new ventures are covered by the Act.

At the conclusion of his second reading speech the Minister expressed confidence that the Commission would continue to demonstrate its record of responsibility and efficiency in the wider field of its overseas shipping operations. As is well known, for many years the Labor Party has been directing attention to the reports of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission which has expressed its desire to enter the overseas shipping trade. Some restricted operations have taken place in relation to special bulk cargoes but its pleas to enter the overseas trade have never been considered by the Government. I make the point that it has been our policy for over 20 years that we should enter the overseas shipping trade and we have directed criticism at the Government for its failure to embark on that kind of activity. For that reason we applaud the Government’s announcement. It seems to us that it has accepted part of Labour’s policy. In 1 963 and 1964, and more recently during the debate on the Estimates, we have proposed amendments on those lines to permit the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission to establish, maintain and operate shipping services between the Commonwealth and other countries and between New Guinea and other countries.

In recent years the pressure for Australia to participate in overseas shipping has been increasing. Apart from our own policies which we have produced in the Parliament over the years people outside, including certain Chambers of Manufactures, the Press generally and others have raised the matter. Those of us who were members of the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes know from experience that there has been pressure in this direction. It became evident in a very positive way that the Commission had made representations to the Government, and that certain departments had urged the Government to act. It was with some surprise that we heard the Government’s announcement because the Government would not give any positive replies to questions asked of it by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in another place.

We can only say that it is a good move. We think that our association with Associated Container Transportation Ltd will have to be considered on a long range basis. We do not want to see the Government involved in a way which does not give it an active role as a member of the consortium. We want to see the Australian Government participating in arrangements in such a way that it will exercise a worthwhile measure of direction. It should make sure that it is not impeded in securing its objectives. 1 do not intend to take up too much lime. On various occasions we have referred to the pattern of subsidies which have been afforded by other nations to shipping operations and shipbuilding. We have not always been able to obtain full details but I have before me now the most recent information that is available. It is contained in a statement made by the then Minister for Shipping and Transport, Mr Opperman, on 23rd May 1963 which lists the subsidies paid in some countries, though not all, for shipping operations and shipbuilding. Since this list was prepared other countries have increased the level of assistance to private shipping companies or to national lines which they have set up themselves, just as we are trying to do now. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate the information in Hansard.

Many countries other than Australia provide some form of assistance to their shipping and shipbuilding industries, and the methods employed vary from investment allowances, financial concessions and subsidies to direct participation and protective legislation. According to the information available in my department, in the ten traditional maritime countries the following forms of Government assistance are provided: -

United Kingdom. - Investment allowance of 40 per cent. in addition to normal depreciation.

France. - An operating subsidy on “national interest” services. Accelerated depreciation valid until 1965. Payment of interest over 41/2 per cent. on ship construction loans. Statutory requirement that two-thirds of crude oil imports must be in French ships. Reservation of certain trades to French ships. Shipbuilding subsidy of 15 to 20 per cent. of shipyards capable of international competition.

West Germany. - Tax concessions on materials used in the construction of ships for export. Assistance to meet interest payments on some ship construction loans. Bank credits on shipbuilding orders from underdeveloped countries. Reservations on the coastal and certain export trades.

Netherlands. - Previously existing accelerated depreciation and investment allowances brought into line with those for other industries.

Greece. - Tax exemptions on ships up to seven years old transferred Greek registry. Reservation of coastal trade.

Italy. - Operating subsidy on Government controlled lines. Government contribution of up to 31/2 per cent. of interest on ship construction loans. Shipbuilding subsidy on a tonnage basis. Scrapping subsidy on old ships Tor which replacements are ordered.

Denmark. - Advance depreciation on new orders.

Sweden. - Tax postponement on proceeds of ship sales set aside for replacement orders. Government guarantees of loans for small ships. Building guarantees.

Japan. - Operating subsidies on certain export trades. Initial tax exemptions on export earnings. Special depreciation allowance of 10 per cent. in first year. Extended loans and payment of some interest differentials. Deferment of interest on loans granted to shipping organization mergers.

United States of America. - Operating subsidies on essential overseas trades. Shipbuilding subsidies of up to 55 per cent. Tax remissions on reserve funds for new ships. Mortgage guarantees. Low interest loans. Trade-in allowances on old ships to be replaced by new tonnage. Reservation of coastal trade. Reservation to United States flag of 50 per cent. of government sponsored cargoes.

A number of other nations have expanded their maritime activities by direct ownership, reservation of a proportion or the whole of their coastal and overseas trades to national flag vessels and by the provision of financial support to shipowners and shipbuilders.

I would like to refer quickly to the Annual Report of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission for 1968. I said earlier that the Chairman of the Commission regularly had drawn attention to this matter to which I am referring. The annual report for 1968 has just been released. In it the Chairman said:

On the subject of overseas trading generally, the commercial feasibility of vessels on the Commonwealth Register participating in trades other than that between Australia and Japan (in which the Commission has the obvious advantage of established terminal facilities and in its view, at any rate, of a more efficient type of ship than those contemplated by its competitors) continues to be studied against the background of the benefits in terms of depreciation and investment allowances for tax purposes, shipbuilding credits, etc., granted by foreign Governments to their shipowner nationals: and in the bulk trades the growing tendency for the producers of cargoes to provide their own tonnage. As to the first, comparable subsidisation to the Australian owner may be the only answer - whilst concerning the bulk sphere. the field may become more limited as lime goes on.

In his last report the Chairman of the Commission drew attention to the depreciation rates and suggested that a different attitude towards this subject should be adopted because of the need to maintain our new interest in overseas trading. It is true that the Australian National Line has shown expertise in its operations on the coast and in the special voyages it has undertaken on a restricted basis to other countries. Its new intrusion into the Japanese trade and the proposal by the Government to extend its overseas shipping activities, which I have mentioned, are matters about which we of the Opposition are happy. It is estimated that something like $400m leaves Australia each year in charges for freight and insurance and for invisibles generally. If the amounts are totalled over the years honourable senators will realise that valuable assets have been lost to Australia which should not have been lost.

We of the Opposition consider that the Government’s decision to enter the overseas trade is belated. It could and should have acted before. On every occasion that the

Labor Party moved in this Parliament for this action to be taken the Government voted against it. However, this certainly is a good move. Governments throughout the world have made special arrangements to help their shipping lines and their ship builders. I noticed when we were dealing with Bills to provide loans for the purchase overseas of aircraft that exports from the United States of America have to be carried on American ships. This has been a long standing practice in the United States. As honourable senators will remember, President Johnson was faced with balance of payments difficulties some years ago and at that lime he suggested that American exporters and importers should ensure that their goods were carried on American ships. This is a matter which the Government should consider for the future.

I trust the Government will give the greatest possible support to the new ventures which have been proposed under this legislation. I hope there will be no neglect on its part in ensuring that Australia has a strong interest and that it exercises a majority influence in those ventures. The Government should work towards achieving this. With those few comments. Mr Deputy President, the Opposition supports the legislation.

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

– in reply - I thank Senator Bishop for his interesting speech. The Government introduced this Bill to amend the Australian Coastal Shipping Act so that the Australian National Line can enter into joint ventures or arrangements with other Australian or foreign enterprises relating to shipping to and from Australia and other countries. Two of the reasons for this relate to the new containerised method of handling cargoes and the development of new types of vessels which can handle cargoes at a cheaper rate because of the short time that they have to be in port. A third reason is that the Australian National Line has been very successfully operating on the Australian coast in carrying cargo from port to port. Probably another reason relates to the terrific growth in cargo carried to and from Australia over the last 10 years.

This legislation will enable the Australian National Line to negotiate agreements with other shipping companies so that joint ventures with other countries can be operated successfully. I was interested to hear Senator Bishop say that this was the policy of the Australian Labor Party.I have known this for a considerable time. However, this is the first time that an opportunity has presented itself -I am referring to the new method of cargo handling - for Australia to get into the overseas trade at the beginning of a venture. This has happened as a result of containerisation and the development of special vessels to carry bulk cargoes. We all realise that the larger a ship, the cheaper the freight. This is an opportunetime for the Australian National Line to participate in this type of shipping. 1 thank Senator Bishop for his interesting speech and for stating that the Opposition does not intend to oppose the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2540

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1968

First Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 2144), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Mr Deputy President,I want to speak about the earthquake disaster in Western Australia and about the aircraft industry in Western Australia. It is possible for me to do this because of standing order No. 190 which provides that on the motion for the first reading of a Bill which the Senate may not amend, matters both relevant or irrelevant to the Bill to be debated may be discussed. Both the matters I propose to discuss are irrelevant to the Bill.

In Western Australia there is a small aircraft industry attached to MacRobertson Miller Airlines Ltd. It is a small industry by Australian standards. As honourable senators know, most of the shares in MacRobertson Miller Airlines are owned by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. According to the Press, Ansett Transport Industries at the moment is attempting to gain the remainder of the shares in MacRobertson Miller Airlines Ltd. That is one thing that

Is happening to the industry at the moment. Another thing is that because of trimming down of the services, allowing some of the feeder lines to go to commuter services, the introduction of jet services may well be hastened on the main lines. However, at the moment, the services are being trimmed down and are going to commuter services.

At present an aircraft engineering establishment is attached to MacRobertson Miller Airlines Ltd. It services the aircraft of that company. About 80 people are employed in that establishment, and when the ancillary services are taken into account, employment is given to about 100 aircraft engineers. They are concerned at present because of strong rumours that the service may be closed down. As an organisation, they have done everything they can to try to protect their livelihood. They have consulted several people. I understand that they have written to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz). They are frustrated because they cannot gain any definite information.

This is a vital matter when regarded from two angles. It is vital to this Parliament, particularly to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Anything that helps the aircraft industry in Australia helps a national asset. I do not think any honourable senator would require me to argue that point. However the matter is studied, it has national ingredients and deserves the interest of this Parliament. Further, a body of skilled men could be broken up through unemployment. Some people might say that only about 100 people are affected. But they are skilled workers, and naturally they are very worried about their future. To the State Government this matter would not amount to 1% of its worries. Probably it would represent about 0.5% of the Commonwealth Government’s worries. But it represents 100% of the worries of these people who are concerned about their employment.

All sorts of factors impinge on the situation. There is not only the question of the commuter services but also the possibility of the take over of the whole of the share issue of the company by Ansett. That may not affect the problem facing these people. It is unfortunate that this matter has arisen just before Christmas when all families are involved in extra expenditure. Problems may be created for the industry. It has all the ingredients of industrial trouble. There is no worse situation, particularly in the industrial sphere, than being unable to obtain definite information. These men would love to hear that their fears are groundless, but it seems from the developing situation that their services will not be required in the future as in the past. If that is so, negotiations should be conducted. If it is found that termination of their services is inevitable, it should be done over a gentle phasing out period.

I appeal to the Minister for Civil Aviation to have an urgent look at this situation. This Parliament is to rise today. Christmas is approaching, and the holiday period. The problem of these men could easily be forgotten. 1 ask that the matter be taken up with the Minister for Civil Aviation to examine whether he has had correspondence from the people concerned. 1 urge that he take it up as a matter of urgency and enter into meaningful discussions with these people who are concerned about their future.

The other matter to which I wish to refer briefly was adverted to in a question asked this morning by Senator Prowse. I refer to the earthquake disaster which hit the small town of Meckering in Western Australia, causing very grave repercussions. Buildings were split and scaffolding has been erected to avoid accidents. Whenever a disaster of this type occurs, an honourable senator from the State concerned asks what the Commonwealth Government will do to help. The stereotyped reply is given that it is a matter for the State Government to approach the Commonwealth Government and then undoubtedly something will be done. Invariably something is done. I am afraid that the Meckering disaster is showing that this situation is not quite good enough. The disaster occurred six weeks ago. That is a long time for people whose homes have been shattered about them.

Tasmanians will understand their plight, having experienced the bush fire disaster that struck them a couple of years ago. I have read in today’s ‘West Australian’ that Mr Brand, the Premier of Western Australia, made representations to the Federal Government only yesterday. It may be fine for a department to have time to examine all the financial problems involved, but the situation is that today the people of Meckering are in doubt. I have been through the town since the disaster struck. It is a real disaster, please believe me. Some houses crashed to the ground like a pack of cards. On others the ridge capping and parts of the roofs have been removed. Parts of the framework have been destroyed. Cracks have appeared in walls. Some houses are total wrecks and are lying on the ground like a pack of cards. The people of Meckering are still not sure where their town will be rebuilt. As individuals they are not sure whether they will be recompensed enought to replace their homes.

This situation contrasts badly with what happened in Tasmania after the bushfires there. If I have ever heard of a statesmanlike act it was that of Mr Reece, Premier of Tasmania. At a time of great devastation it seemed that there might be an exodus from Tasmania. Mr Reece said: ‘Everybody will go back into the situation he was in before the dreadful fires’. He had faith in his own Government, the Commonwealth Government and the people of Australia that that would come about. 1 thought it was a tremendous act of statesmanship. In the twinkling of an eye confidence returned to the people of Tasmania who were visited by such dreadful devastation. The same cannot be said about the Meckering situation. I ask honourable senators to consider the position of these people who do not know when or where their new town is to bc built. Businessmen and the other citizens are not sure whether they will be recompensed, whether they are to be given new homes and if so, where they are to be built.

In Senator Prowse’s question this morning and the reply that he received reference was made to the Lord Mayor’s Distress Relief Fund. I was in Sydney with the Lord Mayor of Sydney on the day that people queued up to support his appeal for the victims of the Tasmanian bushfires. It was thrilling to see how the people rallied to help their fellow man. Some elderly people gave jars of jam and gifts like that. Other people presented cheques. 1 have never understood that the Lord Mayor’s Distress Relief Fund was to be used in Western Australia as a way to compensate for capital loss. I think everybody would agree that it should be used for the immediate alleviation of needs; that is, to give people immediately houses to live in, clothes to wear, and replacements of broken bassinets and that type of equipment for children. In other words, it is to help immediately on the personal side.

I may be unfair to the Minister, but as I gauged the atmosphere this morning the Commonwealth Government has made a contribution to match that of the State Government to the Lord Mayor’s Distress Relief Fund. It will be a very bad thing for public minded citizens led by people in positions such as that of the Lord Major of Perth, if the Lord Mayor’s Distress Relief Fund is allowed to become confused with the responsibilities of governments. We want to encourage public giving, but we do not want people who contribute their mite to distress funds in the immediate urgency of a disaster situation to find that their contributions are transferred over for use with government contributions in the major need to make capital replacements.

I believe that this practice raises two urgent points. One is the immediate urgency of the Meckering situation. If State governments are to be as slow as they have been on this occasion in making requests and entering into discussions with the Commonwealth Government, the Commonwealth Government itself ought to overhaul its machinery to make sure that meaningful discussions proceed at a much quicker rate than has happened in respect of the Meckering disaster. In that way confidence and hope will be given back to these unfortunate people. The other is the local issue, lt underlines completely the need for an overall disaster organisation with the Commonwealth Government at the head. It is no good saying that this is a State matter which will be dealt, with when the State gets around to it. The fact is that Australian citizens, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a situation that could not be foreseen. They find themselves in a situation of abject poverty, with all hope gone and with their homes shattered around them.

I leave the Government with that thought. If the newspaper report is correct and if the Premier of Western Australia at long last has contacted the Commonwealth Government, I ask that the matter be treated as one of urgency. I ask the Government to have a look at the situation. The people of Meckering have been left up in the air as to their future. Firstly, they do not even know where the town will be rebuilt. Secondly, when the town is rebuilt they will need financial assistance to enable them to replace the homes that were shattered around them. I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) to take up both of the questions I have raised as matters of urgency.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I will be very brief. 1 wish to draw the attention of the Senate to the case of Mr Keith Hyland, an Australian businessman who was taken prisoner in Cholon, just out of Saigon, last February and who recently was released without any conditions or tags as a result of representations made on his behalf by Wilfred Burchett, a Press correspondent who is at present in Paris attending the Vietnam peace talks. Wilfred Burchett is an Australian who is being kept away from his own country by a decision of the Government, evidently on the ground of his political beliefs. The events of the past week, when a very wide circle of people in Australia were joyful when they heard the news of the release of Keith Hyland, have produced a reaction, namely, that some action should be taken to give a quid pro quo in recogition of the efforts of Wilfred Burchett to have Keith Hyland released. 1 make an appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) to exercise clemency in the case of Wilfred Burchett in order that he may visit his father, who is aged 96 years and who wants to see him. Wilfred Burchett is an Australian. His exclusion from Australia is a very technical matter. He is a professed Communist. But even in the clash of political ideologies and the heat of recriminations there is always some redeeming feature that restores man’s faith in human nature. I. make this appeal on humanitarian grounds. I hope that the Prime Minister will lake some action, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, to allow this Australian to visit his family, particularly in view of the age of his father.

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

– 1 will have the matters raised by Senator Willesee directed to the right quarters. The first matter that he raised will go to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr Swartz). As to the other matter, it was quite obvious that Senator Willesee fully understands the position with regard to claims by the States for

Commonwealth assistance. It is that the Commonwealth Government, after receiving an application for assistance from the Premier of a State or the spokesman for a State, makes a contribution. Un for.nately, in the case to which Senator Willesee referred there seems to have been delay. I would not know the cause of the delay. I will direct his remarks to the attention of the Minister concerned. I will do likewise in respect of Senator O’Byrne’s remarks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purposes of this Bill are, firstly, to provide for a new or additional levy on the slaughter of livestock to finance service and investigation activities of direct interest to the processing industry which will be conducted by Commonwealth Sciencific and Industrial Research Organisation and, secondly, to increase the maximum rate of the existing research levy on cattle slaughterings which is used to finance research into the cattle industry. The new or additional levy will operate for 3 years from 1st January 1969, and will be additional to that currently imposed under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964-1966, funds from which are used to finance the operations of the Australian Meat Board and the meat research scheme. It will be payable by the owner of the livestock at the time of slaughter, but unlike the existing levy, no provision is made for it to be passed back to producers. The rate of the additional levy is specified in the legislation at lc per head on cattle (over 200 lb dressed weight) and one tenth of a cent on sheep and lamb slaughterings and at the expressed wish of the industry there is no provision for the levy to be varied during the 3-year period.

By way of background it is pointed out that in October 1966 the Australian Meat Research Committee resolved to provide financial support up to a limit of $405,000 per annum for the CSIRO Meat Research Laboratory at Cannon Hill on the understanding that a service and investigation section would be established within the laboratory to provide direct and continuing liaison with meat processors and to undertake investigations into problems of direct concern to the meat processing industry. The Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council, fully supported by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation and the Australian Meatworks Federal Council, submitted proposals to the Government for the operational cost ‘of the service and investigation section to be financed by income from a special levy on the slaughter of livestock with matching Commonwealth contributions. These proposals are embodied in this Bill. At the expressed wish of the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council the levy will be applicable only for 3 years, commencing on 1st January 1969. However, funds derived from the levy together with matching Commonwealth contributions will allow a continuity of operations over a period considerably in excess of 3 years. The proposed increase in the maximum rate of the research component of the levy on cattle slaughterings is from 20c to 25c. This is to provide scope for an increase in the operative rate should this be considered necessary by the Australian Meat Board after consultation with industry organisations and the Australian Meat Research Committee.

Since the research levy on cattle slaughterings was introduced in 1960 the operative and maximum rates have been the same. Reductions in slaughterings associated with the recent droughts have caused receipts from cattle slaughterings to fall from $954,000 in 1964-65 to $854,000 in 1966-67. For 1967-68 receipts were $859,000. In recent years, largely as a result of the long term tendency for beef research project costs to rise faster than income, expenditure on beef research has exceeded revenue. By raising the maximum rate the way will be cleared for the Australian Meat Board to consult with the industry as to the operative rate of levy which would enable research currently being undertaken to be maintained at satisfactory levels. In accordance with the principal Act any increase in the operative rate of the levy will be prescribed by regulation. Despite the changes mentioned above the maximum rate of cattle levy will not be permitted to exceed the 75c currently specified in the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964-1966. The introduction of these changes to the present legislation will be of considerable assistance to the meat industry and will provide scope for scientific and technical research into meat processing. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

I suggest that this Bill and the other three related Bills- the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Bill, the Meat Research Bill and the Meat Legislation Repeal Bill - be debated together at the second reading stage.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I agree with the suggestion made by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar), who represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony), that these four related Bills be debated together at the second reading stage. 1 discussed with him previously the possibility of doing this in order to expedite their passage. The Opposition is not opposing the Bills and will certainly give them a speedy passage. J think they will be passed in record time, at least in respect of the proceedings of the last 2 days.

Let me take the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Bill first. I think growers will appreciate the fact that the small increase in levy provided for in the Bill is justified because of the very valuable work that is done in research into the processing of meat as a result of payment of the levy. The increase in the levy is only lc per head. The present legislation provides for a levy of 32.5c per head - that is, over 200 lb dressed weight or 220 lb hide weight. The new levy will be 33.5c per head. The increase in the levy on sheep and Iamb will be O.tc. The present levy is 1.25c per sheep or lamb, lt will be increased to 1.35c. In the Bill the rates for lamb and sheep, although identical, are shown separately. The principal Act provides that the levies can bc changed by regulation, but the new Act will prevent an alteration during the next 3 years.

The Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Bill provides the machinery for the collection of the levies. One important change is in regard to stock purchased but not slaughtered within 30 days. Registered slaughterers have to refund the levy which has been collected. I think the provision is a quite reasonable one. Again this Bill is not opposed by the Opposition.

The Meat Research Bill enables portion of the funds collected to be used by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for research work into matters which affect the processing industry. The work done by the CSIRO in this regard is most valuable to the industry. No-one will quibble about funds being allocated to the CSIRO. The Meat Legislation Repeal Bill is a machinery Bill. The Meat Agreement (Deficiency Payments) Acts of 1955, 1956 and 1964 and the Meat Export (Additional Charge) Acts of 1956 and 1964 expired on 30th September 1967. Those Acts related to an agreement in operation between Australia and the United Kingdom. This machinery Bill repeals those Acts. I do not want to say any more about the Bills because we agree with them. We think they will help the industry. The Opposition supports the Bills.

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

– in reply - I thank the Opposition for the speedy passage of the Bill through the second reading stage. I hope it will receive similar treatment in the Committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2545

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 2145), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2545

MEAT RESEARCH BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 2145), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2545

MEAT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November (vide page 2145), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The Opposition takes the same attitude in relation to this Bill as it took to the previous Bills. The measure is largely a machinery one. Any honourable senator who has studied the latest report of the Australian Meat Board and the ramifications and problems that confront the industry will welcome the fact that this machinery measure unlocks the sum of $1.9m for use bythe Board. We think this additional sum certainly will give the Board an added impetus. I would add that in the new year there may be other legislation introduced to deal with the problems of the industry, but we are prepared to give this legislation a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2545

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November (vide page 2213), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. We accept the amendments as proposals designed to correct anomalies that have arisen under the existing Act. It should be recognised that in the early development of the new system of permanency, redundancy, the pensions scheme, and a continuing conference method, incidental questions will need constant attention as will the major issues that will arise in the industry as time goes on. Without quoting them, I refer to the remarks I made in the Senate when the legislation was first introduced on 7 th November 1967 following acceptance by the Government of the recommendations contained in the national stevedoring report of April 1967. The Labor Party at that time expressed the view that the conference system had accomplished a great deal, that in fact what it had accomplished was surprising. We see no reason why we should depart from this point of view. We are confident that in the ensuing years the parties involved in the conference system will continue to engage in peaceful methods of solving the problems arising in the industry. Honourable senators will realise that various important matters will arise as time goes on. For example, up to this stage, Sydney, Port Kembla, Melbourne, Adelaide. Fremantle and Brisbane have been declared 1o be permanent ports; but the Waterside Workers Federation is already conducting a campaign to have other smaller ports declared permanent ports. The union is hopeful that its efforts will be successful. Here I must express disagreement with the strong criticism offered by one government speaker in another place who said that the conference scheme had not been successful.

I refer also to the comments made by the Senate Select Committee on (he Container Method of Handling Cargoes. They are contained in paragraphs 293, 294. 295 and 296 of that Committee’s report. With the concurrence of honourable senators, 1 incorporate those paragraphs in Hansard.

The Committee considers that the situation on the waterfront directly affecting stevedoring operations, where employers, lbc stevedoring authority. the waterside workers and the ACTU have developed a new agreement on the basis of joint consultation, basically meets the technological and industrial changes arising from mechanisation and containerisation.

Labour problems, such as those which arose from the mechanisation of the Queensland sugar pons, which resulted in large scale industrial unrest, should be avoided. lt is the Committee’s opinion that some redundancy will occur in most ports and attention is again drawn to the methods employed in the Woodward exercise, which could be applied to cover all workers involved. lt was the opinion of the ACTU that the work force should share in any increased productivity by increasing the standards of the labour force. lt was their opinion, too, that some of the present labour would have to be re-trained for the new occupations.

After listening lo evidence from all sides, the Select Committee said that a practice similar to that adopted for solving the problems of the stevedoring industry could be adopted with advantage in dealing with the problems presented by changes in other industries.

When introducing the legislation, the Minister stated that the anomalies which the Bill sought to correct arose under section 7 of the principal Act. These anomalies became apparent during the implementation of the new permanency arrangements. The first matter to which he referred was payment by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to the holding company in respect of annual leave earned during periods of casual service. The second related to payment by the Authority lo the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour for the redundancy scheme, and the third concerned provisions for refunding charges imposed by the Authority on employers who had special arrangements with the unions with respect to workers on weekly hiring.

As to the first matter, provision is now made allowing the Authority lo make payments for any portion of annual leave which represents casual service of the worker. This arises mainly in the circumstances where labour from permanent ports is transferred to casual ports because of seasonal and other requirements. That is, where labour is transferred to what are not in fact permanent ports. The existing obligation of the holding company to pay for that portion of annual leave accrued while a worker is on transfer will be removed upon the passage of the proposed amendment. When quoting examples as to where this question arises, the Minister referred lo the transfer of waterside workers from the mainland to Hobart during the apple crop export season.

It is also proposed to amend the Act to provide that where waterside workers deregister within 12 months of the port becoming permanent the Authority shall be responsible for the payment to the holding company of that proportion of pro rata annual leave which is consequent upon his service as a casual worker. The second matter relates to section 7 (b) which enables the Authority to make payments to the holding company for costs associated with payments for the redundancy scheme. The Association of Employers of Waterside Labour is responsible for making applications to the Authority for redundancy declarations and, because doubts exist as to whether the Authority is authorised to make such payments direct to the Association, the legislation has been redrafted.

The third and final amendment relates to those employers who employ waterside workers under special arrangements. I may say that this practice of engaging in special arrangements has operated for many years. For example, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission is one authority that has entered into a number of special arrangements relating to the provision of weekly hiring, or what we call permanency. There are also some other arrangements applying to employees working on cranes. Before the 1967 legislation was introduced, these employers met the cost of annual leave, sick leave and long service leave, and of payment for public holidays. The 1967 amendments provided that these employers should pay the levy applicable to employers of workers on permanent hiring, in view of the fact that these employers do not now draw upon the holding company for labour and make no claims upon it in respect of labour requirements provision is made that the Authority be authorised to reimburse a registered employer for a portion of the levy paid by him in respect of class A waterside workers whom he employs under special arrangements in continuous nonpermanent ports, or in permanent ports.

In the circumstances, we see no reason to oppose the legislation. I understand the union accepts the proposed amendments as being designed to rectify anomalies that have arisen. In my view, through the conference system the representatives of the workers and other parties engaged in the industry have done much to achieve satisfactory labour relations and we trust that as a result of its introduction labour relations in the future will be much better than they were before this legislation was recommended to the Government by the conference.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2547

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 5) 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November (vide page 2215), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILKINSON (Western Aus the Senate for too long as the Opposition does not oppose this Bill. But I wish to register a protest that Bills which should receive a lot of attention are being brought on for debate during the last hours of the session. This is unnecessary. Honourable senators should have been given an opportunity to examine this legislation very closely. This Bill is very important in that it proposes amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act to authorise deductions for capital expenditure on pipelines and roads for the transportation of oil, petroleum and gas. It provides that taxation deductions for depreciation will in future be spread over a 10-year period instead of the present 5- year period. I think that we should look closely at the provision of pipelines and ancillary services for the transportation of oil, petroleum and gas, although this is hardly the time to go into that matter in detail. As these facilities will be under the control of one company, it is obvious that a monopoly will be created. Only one pipeline will go into an area where there should be competition. Possibly the pipeline should be under the control of some government authority.

As this is the last day of the sitting for this year it is hardly the appropriate time to go into these very important details. The legislation will not become operative until the end of the financial year. Five income tax assessment Bills have been dealt with in recent weeks. It seems to me that they should not have been rushed through but should have been given more attention as they will not be operative until the end of the financial year. However, the Opposition supports the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2547

LOAN BILL (No. 2) 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November (vide page 2215). on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– This Bill, which is practically a machinery measure, is to enable loans to finance our defence commitments to be floated overseas when necessary during the coming year. It is noted that there will be a departure from the previous practice of seeking authority to borrow up to a specified upper limit; no upper limit is to be applied. Apparently the previous practice of specifying an upper limit has proved unsatisfactory in that the limit needs to be set high enough to ensure that it adequately covers the final cash deficiency at the end of the year. However, this does not mean that the Government will have carte blanche approval to borrow as much as it likes overseas. The Opposition supports the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2548

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 November (vide page 2216), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This is a small matter that the Opposition has examined and has no objection to. The Opposition supports the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2548

JUDICIARY BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November (vide page 2354), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This is a very important Bill. It is aimed at ensuring that appeals are not brought to the Privy Council from courts other than the Supreme Courts of the States. We know that legislation has been passed by this Parliament which has limited the power to bring appeals to the Privy Council in matters which are called ‘federal matters’ from State Supreme Courts and other courts. There remained the possibility that such appeals could go from the minor tribunals of the States to the Privy Council. That was a real possibility and it is proper that it should be excluded, lt is unfortunate that in 1968 we are still in this disgraceful position that the Privy Council can exercise jurisdiction in matters which originate in Australia; that a tribunal which is not appointed by anyone in Australia, not responsible to anyone in Australia and not responsible to anyone elected by Australia, should be having an effect upon our judicial system. It is quite inconsistent with our status and our claim to be independent and it is time that it was cleaned up. A lot of the failure to clean it up is our own. I have no doubt that those responsible persons in the United Kingdom would be only too willing to end this matter. They would probably end it by altering an order-in-council or by declining to hear any appeals at all. The various delegations which have come out here from the United Kingdom have indicated that they have no wish to continue this arrangement. They seem to have a greater regard for the independence of Australia than have the Government Parties. The Liberal Party whether in the Federal sphere or the State sphere, for some reason, wants to cling to mother’s apron, even though this is 1968 and we ought to be independent.

Senator Laught:

– The Dunstan Government in South Australia retained it. you know.

Senator MURPHY:

– Senator Laught says that, but I do not know. If that is correct, I say it was wrong. I do not care who does it. I am not accepting what Senator Laught says as correct. The Dunstan Government in South Australia has always had the problem of an Upper House not controlled by the Australian Labor Party under the wicked system which still prevails there. But whoever does it, it is wrong. It ought to be swept away. Although there are said to be legal difficulties which prevent it being swept away entirely from the State courts, I have little doubt that if the State legislatures attempted to pass Bills to sweep it away there would not be any difficulty created by the Privy Council interpretations, or any difficulties in the United Kingdom. In fact, I think a resolution by each House of the bicameral State legislatures and by the single legislature in Queensland, would be enough to do away with this anachronism. It is shocking that it should be allowed to persist.

So far as this Bill is a step in the right direction it is to be approved. As the Senate knows, the Opposition did not agree to leave the gap which has been and still will be left, in that certain matters which are of a State character can still get through the federal legal system. This Bill is one to deal with these conditions and restrictions which affect the State courts exercising federal jurisdiction. A federal legal code is overdue. It is not right that the Judiciary Act should apply so that the laws as to evidence, competency of witnesses and so forth should vary from State to State. That is the position at the moment. With two law suits of the same character being contested, one in Melbourne and one in Sydney, one could get a different result because of the operation of State laws upon that cause. This is unsatisfactory.

Senator Wright:

– This is not in the Bill.

Senator MURPHY:

– I know, and that is the great tragedy - that there is nothing in the Bill to see to it that an Australian citizen who is having his case in a federal matter heard should be treated in the same way wherever the case is heard. His rights should not depend on the State in which the case is heard. This is graphically illustrated in the case of the High Court, and although it has not. dealt with this restrictive provision it has shown graphically how it operates.

Senator Wright - I was only interjecting because 1 thought that on this day perhaps we could stick to the Bill.

Senator MURPHY:

– We are sticking to the Bill. The Bill is to deal with the restrictions and conditions upon the State courts in the exercise of their federal jurisdiction. In a matter heard in the High Court the judges have said that sometimes not only the rights during the course of the case but also the fate of the case, the very decision in the case, would depend upon the State in which the High Court heard the case, and fine questions as to where it gave its judgment. So if a judgment were given in Sydney one might get a different result from that which would flow if the judgment were given in Melbourne. This is because of the operation of the provisions in this Judiciary Act which apply there as well as to the State courts.

Senator Rae:

– Is that situation not typical of the result of federation?

Senator MURPHY:

– It is not typical of the result of federation. We are all Australians and not citizens of a particular State. Surely when a federal law is made it ought to be made so that the rights of citizens will be the same wherever they are and wherever their case is heard? Their rights should not vary from State to State under federal law. Yet in the matter at which this Bill is aimed, that is, the exercise of federal jurisdiction, the provisions in the Judiciary Act which are untouched by this Bill actually vary from State to State. That is not right and it ought to be corrected. It is time that this Judiciary Act was cleaned up and a proper federal legal code was established in all of these matters of federal jurisdiction by State courts. I would suggest also that a proper federal legal code dealing with evidence, the rights of parties, the practice and the procedure to be applied in federal matters wherever they are dealt with, in State courts or in federal courts, should be established. One would think that in 1968 it is time this were done. Everyone can understand that when there were very few federal matters back in the early days of federation it was convenient that the procedures of the State courts should be followed and that the State law - the substantive law where there was no federal law applying - should actually be applied. We have long passed this. T suggest that it is time that attention was given to establishing a federal legal code. It is another of the very important matters which have been neglected by those responsible for law reform in this country. It is not good enough that citizens of Australia are treated discriminately, depending upon which State they belong to and where their case is heard. The Opposition will not oppose this Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - It would have relieved the Leader of the Oppotion (Senator Murphy) of the energy with which he has castigated the Judiciary Bill if he had reminded himself that a few weeks ago the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) announced that he had established a committee, composed of the highest legal personnel in Canberra, to revise the Judiciary Act. So far as Senator Murphy’s speech was irrelevant to the Bill I can be forgiven for neither contesting nor accepting it. So far as the speech was relevant to the Bill 1 wish to dissociate myself unequivocally from any remarks that suggested that the retention of a Privy Council appeal in any field in .1968 was disgraceful. One reason invoked by the Leader of the Opposition for that suggestion was that the Privy Council is not appointed by us. We need not debate this matter other than to take a line of the record to put it straight.

The existence of the Privy Council as a court of appeal is not disgraceful; it has been of great honour and credit to itself and of service to this country. The honourable senator said it is no longer appropriate because it is so far distant, that it is a further unnecessary step in the hierarchy of appeals and it adds to litigation that burden which makes litigation the prospective means of ruin to the ordinary litigant. The subsequent expressions of ‘shocking’ and wicked’ should also be rejected. The provisions in the Bill to restrict (he appeal to the Privy Council from State courts vested with Federal jurisdiction or inferior State courts are accepted on both sides of the Senate. I express my pleasure that that is so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2550

LANDS ACQUISITION (DEFENCE) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2500).

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Opposition) 1.5.25 1 - This Bill provides for an amendment to the Lands Acquisition Act in order to enable the Commonwealth to acquire lands which have been gazetted by the State of New South Wales as public recreation lands. The principal Act contains a provision which says that the Commonwealth may acquire land for a public purpose by agreement or by compulsory process, but that the Commonwealth shall not acquire, cither by agreement or by compulsory process, land which under the laws of the State or Territory of the Commonwealth is dedicated or reserved, or is vested in trustees as a public park or otherwise for the purposes of public recreation. In this light between the Stale of New South Wales and the Commonwealth of Australia over the land at Holsworthy it seems that

New South Wales has dedicated, reserved or vested in trustees some of the land in question for the purposes of public recreation. lt has been suggested that that was not done bona fide, that the State acquired it as a residential area or for industrial purposes. in any event, the Commonwealth now claims that it is frustrated and cannot acquire the land, even if it wants to do so. The Commonwealth proposes to alter the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act in order to do this, lt says also that the rights which it has to occupy some of the land wilt expire on 3.1 st December this year. From what has happened in the last couple of days it seems that the State of New South Wales has issued to the Commonwealth some kind of notice to quit the area by June of next year. What kind of conduct is this between the Governments of two sovereign bodies? They are going on like a bunch of kids. This is a terrible way for the disposition of land near Sydney to he determined, lt is like a backyard squabble between two women when really what is concerned is the proper use of that land.

We, sitting in this Parliament, are not gaining any respect for the two Governments because of the way they have dealt with this matter. One could be excused Ibr thinking that this was a reflection of the difference in political philosophy of the two Governments. One could understand it if some issue of Socialism were involved or if there were some matter of vital Party interest involved in pursuing a particular programme, but this is nol the case. Thi*! is an example of the great unity in the Liberal Party of Australia.

Senator MURPHY:

– Of course. This is a contest between two Liberal and Country Party Governments. Honourable senator* opposite talk about the troubles of the Labor Party. Whenever there is a bit of a tiff in the Labor Party, with one member voting this way and another voting in some other way. or if there is some criticism of the leadership of the Party, it is played up as a terrible clash, as a great rift in the Labor Parly. But in this instance the representatives of the two Governments have not been able to solve their differences, even when acting in public capacities on behalf of the greatest State in the nation and the Commonwealth. They are righting like cats and clogs in a very unedifying way.

Senator Wright:

– Not over credentials to the Labor Party conference.

Senator MURPHY:

– That is a domestic matter which might be of some importance internally to a party, but in this instance the fight is over matters which affect the public. As a result of this dispute, the public programme for housing the people of New South Wales, public programmes for the development of our industrial capacity, the question of the defence of the nation, so far as it is affected by the retention or removal of. Holsworthy, and the industrial capacity which assists defence - all these things are held up, nobody knowing where they arc going but both authorities wanting the land. In Sydney tens of thousands of young people want to acquire land for homes but the prices are forced up because of the shortage of land. The State of New South Wales, even if it wished to do so, is not able to make proper arrangements to plan ahead. A plan for Sydney in the year 2000 is being issued but everything is being kept in doubt because of this nonsense going on between the two Governments.

Now. after wrangling for 2 years, in the dying days of this Parliament the Government seeks approval of a Bill which will enable the Commonwealth to acquire this kind permanently. The Minister’s second reading speech indicates that the Government does not seem to know even yet what it wants. The Government says that it does not want some of the land in the Lucas Heights area, lt says that fortunately the State Government has enough sense to agree with it. The Government claims that it wants power to acquire this land permanently and then says that it does not want some of it. Obviously the Commonwealth does noi know what it wants. The State may know what it wants but it may noi be able to get all of what it wants. The Commonwealth and the State arc behaving in a pretty irrational’ way, not in the way in which one would expect governments to act. The Opposition says: ‘A plague be upon both your houses.’ The people of Sydney deserve better from their Commonwealth and Stale governments than they are getting in this instance.

The Government comes into this place and says to us: ‘Unless something is done before our leases expire at the end of this year we are liable to be thrown out of the place in June next year. We want to be protected’. It seems to us that what the Government is asking for is reasonable to the extent that no State government should be able to behave towards the Commonwealth in this way and throw it off the land. To that point the Opposition will agree that the Government should be put in a position where the State Government cannot act unreasonably towards it. Obviously a measure of some kind should be passed to assist the Commonwealth. We take the view that it should bc put in such a position that the State cannot do that to the Commonwealth. But 1 do not know that what the Government is seeking is enough to protect it from that and to put it in the position that it says it wants to be in, namely, to be able to continue negotiations. The Opposition takes the view that the Commonwealth should not be given power to acquire this land permanently. The Commonwealth claims that it wants only to continue negotiations and that it does not want all the land. It does not seem to know what it wants. We take the view that the Commonwealth should be put in a position to acquire such an estate or interest in any of this land as will enable it to protect itself. We do nol believe that it should be put in the position where it will bc able to hold the land permanently. We know from experience that once anyone, especially the armed Services, gets hold of any land in the choice spots of a city, whether it be on the harbour or at any other place with a nice outlook, it is very difficult to get it back.

Our proposal, which we hope commends itself to the Senate and which would be better put at the Committee stage than at the second reading stage because it may have the effect of defeating the motion that the Bill be read a second time - we would not want to do that - is to place a limitation in the Bill so that the Commonwealth may acquire any estate or interest it wished in that land. The principal Act allows the Commonwealth to acquire any estate or interest. It need not even be an estate or interest hitherto existing. The Commonwealth could get an easement, leasehold or anything it wished to keep itself in undisturbed occupancy of that land. But a limit should be placed on the acquisition.

Senator Wright:

– What limit do you say should be placed?

Senator MURPHY:

– Our suggestion is that if we made a limit, say, to the end of 1970 that would give the Government ample time to go on with the negotiations.

Senator Byrne:

– Are you moving an amendment in those terms?

Senator MURPHY:

– Not yet. 1 am merely indicating what I intend to do later.

Senator Byrne:

– The amendment which has been circulated relates to the appointment of a select committee.

Senator MURPHY:

– I will come to that later. I think it wise to indicate what we have in mind at this stage. If we made a limit to the end of .1970 the Commonwealth would be able to remain in undisturbed possession of the land, it could acquire whatever estate or easement it wished and it could continue the negotiations. Of course, if the Commonwealth had that power it probably would not need to exercise it, because the State would know that the Commonwealth could do so whenever it wished. If the Commonwealth could not come to a satisfactory arrangement with the State of New South Wales it would be able to come back here before the end of 1970 and either get an extension of time or, having made up its mind what land it wanted, introduce a Bill and say: ‘This what we want to do. We will acquire this land.’ In that way the Commonwealth would be completely protected. If the Government has an answer to that suggestion I would like to hear it. It comes to the Senate saying that it does not really want to acquire the land against the will of the State.

Senator Little:

– You are not suggesting, are you, that this Government will still be in office by 1970? We will be the government by then.

Senator MURPHY:

– That is one qualification I wanted to make. There was a little forethought in the suggestion of 2 years and I thank you for reminding me of what I wanted to say, namely, that by the time the end point is reached this Government no longer will have the embarrassment of this problem because by 1970 it will be able thankfully to unload this problem if it has not been solved before then. I am sure that we will be able to deal more satisfactorily with the State of New South Wales than this Government has done.

Senator Little:

– I think that point is more important than that the Government will still be in office.

Senator MURPHY:

– That is our suggestion. If the Government has any answer to it we would like to hear it because it seems to us that our suggestion really meets the situation. The Commonwealth is dealing here not with some private company, not in relation to the acquisition of a simple building or of a small block of land; this matter relates to 50 square miles and involves the State of New South Wales. These negotiations should be conducted in a reasonable atmosphere. The Commonwealth should he given the protection it seeks, but in the events that have happened I think it is undesirable that the Commonwealth be given permanently a right which is not given to anyone else, namely, to acquire land which has been dedicated for purposes of public recreation.

Senator Wright:

– When was it dedicated?

Senator MURPHY:

– In February 1967, if the second reading speech is correct.

Senator Wright:

– That is a date of some significance, is it not?

Senator MURPHY:

– It is more than 18 months ago and now the Commonwealth seeks to be put in the position to acquire land from the State of New South Wales which has been dedicated for purposes of public recreation. The Commonwealth really is seeking a special kind of acquisition right in relation to this land and we think it should not have such a right permanently. We believe that if there were a limitation of 2 years on the estate which the Commonwealth could acquire it would leave the Commonwealth in a perfect position to negotiate and conciliate, and if the negotiations and conciliations failed the Commonwealth would have ample time to come back to this Parliament and deal with the situation. The State of New South Wales would know well that unreasonable conduct on its part would not be tolerated. The very fact that there was a limitation upon the estate which the Commonwealth Government could acquire under this Bill would mean that the State would be expected also to carry out the negotiations in a reasonable spirit. It is ali very well for members of the Commonwealth Government to come here and say that they have been reasonable. We are hearing one side of the case. We have not heard the view of the New South Wales Government. It is unfortunate that two governments, comprised of members of the same political parties, are behaving in this way.

The Opposition considers that the appropriate way to deal with this problem would be to adopt a simple amendment aimed at limiting the estate or interest to be acquired to 31st December 1970. We believe that the two governments ought to consult some sort of tribunal. Negotiation has been mentioned and conciliation has been mentioned. Perhaps there ought to be some kind of forum where the opposing contentions could be put neatly and where this argument could be aired in a reasonable sort of way. Where better could this be done than before a body constituted by this Senate? After all, as has been said many times, this is the States House.

Senator Byrne:

– That would hardly be regarded by the other party as a neutral tribunal, would it?

Senator MURPHY:

– Why not? The Senate is the States House. It has been said that the Senate was set up to protect the interests of the States. What other body could do such a job? This is a squabble between two sovereign governments.

Senator Byrne:

– The honourable senator’s proposition may be all right from the Commonwealth’s point of view, but would the State Government be prepared to accept such a body as a neutral tribunal?

Senator MURPHY:

– I am not suggesting that a Senate select committee should determine the matter but such a body would be helpful for everyone concerned. The Commonwealth claims that justice is on its side. It would be reasonable if the New South Wales Government could put before some such body its contentions as to what the situation ought to be. The Opposition takes the view that such a select committee should be established to inquire into and report upon the most appropriate use of the land referred to in the Bill and any consequential arrangements by the Commonwealth in cooperation with the State of New South Wales. I suppose the word ‘co-operation’ seems a little strange in view of what has been going on between the two governments. However, the Opposition fondly hopes that they would co-operate in determining the best way to use this land. The Senate should not have to determine whether the Army will remain there and whether an artillery range should remain so close to Sydney. 1 do not know enough about these matters but surely this argument should not continue between the two governments. The Commonwealth Government ought not to be put in a position where it can exercise permanently a heavy hand against the State of New South Wales.

Senator Little:

– The Commonwealth is not getting on very well with any of the State governments at present. I seem to have heard a few rumblings in Victoria.

Senator MURPHY:

– That appears to be the case. The Commonwealth Government in this case is saying that it is right; that it is the only one in step and that all the others are out of step. Perhaps it is out of step. But in this instance there is contention between the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government.

We will seek the vote of the Senate about the course that should be followed. We are not seeking to set up such a select committee but are suggesting that it ought to be set up because in this way perhaps a little more reason could be brought to bear. Such a body could look into the question and make suggestions. If the New South Wales Government says that it does not want to co-operate, then it does not have to do so. If it says that it does not believe it would be worth while to put its views before such a select committee, then it cannot be compelled to do so. In a matter such as this, the Senate - .the States House as it has been described - would not want to see this kind of contention continuing. ls it not reasonable to say that such a select committee should be established to inquire into and report upon the most appropriate use of the land and any consequential arrangements connected with it? If such a committee were set up, we of the Opposition would hope that both governments would appear and present their views. If they did not do so then such a committee would not be of help. However, it might be of assistance in determining the argument if the argument were translated to a somewhat more rarefied forum; a forum which. over the years, has been noted for its common sense, its discretion and its ability to reach unanimous decisions which have been most helpful to the community. 1 therefore move:

At end of motion add - but the Senate is of opinion that a Select Committee of the Senate should be established to inquire into and report upon the most appropriate use of the land referred to in the Bill and any consequential arrangements by the Commonwealth in co-operation with the Stale of New South Wales’.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Kennelly) - Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Wilkinson:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Senator BULL:
New South Wales

– I think the Senate would agree that the main objective outlined by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) in his speech was an endeavour to stir up trouble between the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government. This was quite obvious but I am sure he has not succeeded. Not once during his speech did he mention Australia’s defence requirements. Not once did he mention that aspect. Anyone who considers the defence and security of Australia will agree that this Bill relates to a very important matter.

Senator Murphy:

– I mentioned that aspect on a number of occasions.

Senator BULL:

– Senator Murphy never mentioned that matter. His argument was directed to the negotiations between the Commonwealth and the New South Wales Government. I will admit that the negotiations have not gone quite as well as we would expect and hope. However, to use this as an argument is unworthy of Senator Murphy and is unworthy of the position of Leader of the Opposition. Senator Murphy did not do one other thing during his speech.

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Government to acquire land at Holsworthy by compulsory process if negotiations to do so do not succeed. The land is required for military training purposes. The honourable senator should remember that this land has been under the jurisdiction and control of the Commonwealth for the last 60 years, lt is one of the most important training areas in the Commonwealth. At present it is used by about 7,000 Australian Regular

Army personnel and 8,000 Citizen Military Forces personnel. Honourable senators should remember that the area is reasonably close to Sydney. It is well located for use in the training of CMF units.

We all recognise that negotiations concerning this land have been continuing for a considerable time but there is now some urgency attached to the matter because the current agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government expires at the end of the year. Any person who has read the second reading speech of the Minister will realise that the Commonwealth has very extensive capital investment in the Holsworthy area, lt amounts to about $65m. Most of that capital has been spent on the northern part of the area - about 27 square miles - which is under the control of the Commonwealth. Tn that area there are 1,400 housing units for married couples.

The Commonwealth has had permissive occupancy of 53 square miles for which it at present pays $1,800. If the Commonwealth gets permissive occupancy of the remaining land it will, I understand, compensate the New South Wales Government. If the land is returned to the New South Wales Government at a later time, then that Government will acquire it at the figure agreed upon at the present time. I recognise that in the future the Commonwealth may have to leave this area, but I do not think that is necessary at present. Our defence requirements are too important for that. At this stage it is not required for development as suggested by Senator Murphy. The Commonwealth has made considerable capital expenditure on the land and requires to retain it in order to carry out competently our defence needs. In recent months the Commonwealth and State Governments have got together to work out a suitable arrangement. The Minister said in his second reading speech:

In February of last year, the State Government - in full knowledge of the importance of our continued occupancy of .the area, but without any prior discussion with us - caused a notice to be published in the New South Wales Government Gazette reserving ‘for public recreation’ the greater part of the State lands on which the Army carries out its training.

Honourable senators should keep in mind that this area has been used by the Army. We are advised that there are considerable numbers of unexploded bombs in the area. lt would therefore be dangerous for it to be used for recreational purposes until it is made completely safe. The Minister went on to point out the expenditure that could be involved to that end.

What is the alternative open to the Commonwealth? Its huge capital investment could be lost, or at least portion of it. The Commonwealth would have to look for another area suitable for its purposes. That would nol be easy to find within reasonable distance of Sydney. I think honourable senators will agree that the Citizen Military Forces must be located reasonably close to Sydney in order to carry out their training efficiently. I would think that Senator Murphy in proposing his amendment would have been very conscious of the time taken by select committees to conduct their investigations and report back to the Parliament. 1 served on a select committee that occupied about 14 months in investigations and compilation of ils report. At present 1 am serving on another select committee which should lake about the same time to present its report. Does Senator Murphy suggest thai such an arrangement would be convenient in this instance, bearing in mind the tremendous Commonwealth investment in the area and the importance of our defence requirements to be mct as they have been met in recent years?

I think the proposal to establish a select committee to inquire into this matter is little short of irresponsible. I hope that the Senate will completely reject the proposal. The Minister indicated in his second reading speech and newspapers have reported that negotiations arc still proceeding. 1 believe that wilh a little give and take the Commonwealth and the State governments will be able to reach a satisfactory arrangement. The legislation is before us now to ensure that in the event of negotiations not being successful the position of (he Commonwealth will be assured. I support the Bill and oppose the amendment.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– 1 wish lo support briefly the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). As Senator Murphy pointed out, we have heard only one side of! the issue. Senator Bull went to great lengths to refer to the utterances of various Ministers. I wish to refer to a newspaper article written by John O’Hara. a Sydney political journalist. He quoted the remarks of Mr Lewis, the New South Wales Liberal Minister for Lands. He did not quote Senator Murphy or myself, but a Liberal Minister in the New South Wales Government. Mr Lewis is reported to have said that the New South Wales Government had offered the Defence Department a region in the Singleton area of greater acreage than it has now. Senator Murphy made the point that we are only getting one side of the issue placed before us. Nothing in the Minister’s second reading speech or the Bill justifies the rejection by the Commonwealth of the offer by the New South Wales Government.

Senator Wright:

– ls the reservation of the Holsworthy land by the State Government a genuine reservation for recreation’ purposes?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The Minister is questioning the sincerity of the New South Wales Minister for Lands.

Senator Wright:

– I am asking whether it is a reservation of a public reserve.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The New South Wales Minister for Lands is a responsible Minister. He made the offer. To imply that he is any less aware of Australia’s defence requirements than are we or other people is distorting the issue. Mr Lewis said, among other things, that negotiations were proceeding and that he was hopeful that they would result in an amicable solution. But he said: ‘Now this has happened’.

My next point relates to Senator Murphy’s suggestion as to a form of compromise. Senator Bull questioned whether the land could be used for housing and referred to unexploded bombs and land mines. Parts of Europe were used for battles over a period of 4 or 5 years. Those areas have now been returned to farming and other pursuits. From that experience I think it is clear that that difficulty can be overcome. The stand of the Opposition was borne out by an interjection by Senator Little. He said that relations between the Commonwealth and the States have never been at a lower ebb. The purpose of the Committee wc propose is to enable senators who can take a detached view of the matter to visit and inspect the areas concerned. Senator Bull referred to the time factor, but in this instance efforts would be concentrated within a very small area. A field inspection would be conducted at Holsworthy at which Mr Lewis, the Minister for

Defence (Mr Fairhall) and other Ministers involved could attend.

We are not unaware of the time problem. At heart I am a unificationist, and the federal system involves a partnership - a tier form of government. Senator McKellar and other Ministers have been asked by the Opposition about sales of land back to the States. We believe that the attitude adopted by the Commonwealth landlord has been unduly paternalistic. We do not claim that there will not have to be rationalisation, but we resent the way the Commonwealth has gone about its business. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to bridge the gap between two governments of the same political philosophy. It is not a question of a socialist government against an anti-socialist government. Both the Federal and the New South Wales Governments are supposed to support free enterprise.

I believe that Mr Lewis is not wrong on every count. Relations between the Commonwealth and the States could be improved by a little conciliation, as Senator Murphy said. We do not believe that the difficulties cannot be solved. Many of the assertions made by Mr Lewis have not yet been answered. They were not answered in the Minister’s second reading speech. I refer particularly to the offer of land in the Singleton region. The Opposition believes that Senator Murphy’s proposed amendment meets all difficulties and could bring about in 1969 a greater degree of harmony between the Commonwealth and the States.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– I support the amendment moved by Senator Murphy. I admit straight away that I am very happy to see that at last the Government is making a move towards helping to bring some justice back into the arrangements for the ownership of land between it and the Government of New South Wales and the governments of all the other States. The area under discussion tonight is one of about 80 square miles at Holsworthy. I can see sense in the Government beginning to see the error of its ways and wanting to make a move towards loosening its grip as a landlord on some of the most beautiful areas of the country. It is interesting to note that it is almost characteristic of the Army to have the best areas of land in every State. In the early days the churches got the good areas. Their buildings were generally on the hills. The Army was generally in the next best areas. It was always very close to the top areas.

There is an interesting story in relation to Sydney Harbour, which I know so well. A religious sect consisting of the followers of Krishnamurti built a temple at Balmoral, looking out towards Sydney Heads, because Christ was going to come in over the water. The Army, built on Middle Head at about the same time because it thought that the attack on Australia would come through the Heads.

Senator Marriott:

– And didn’t it?

Senator ORMONDE:

– That is history now. But the Army is still there. The followers of Krishnamurti left long ago because they knew that they were wasting their time. But the Army is still at Middle Head. It still has property in the best areas around Sydney Harbour. It is about time it made some effort to disgorge its substantial properties. It would be true to say that land is held by the Army all around the city of Sydney.

Senator Marriott:

– We have to be well defended.

Senator ORMONDE:

– But we cannot defend ourselves from Sydney Harbour. We have to go to Darwin to do that in a military sense. I welcome the decision of the Commonwealth Government to approach the New South Wales Government on this vexed question of military areas. I am interested in this Bill principally because, along with many of my constituents, I am interested in doing something about Victoria Barracks. I spoke about this matter in the Estimates debate. There the Army is occupying a most important part of the city of Sydney. I hope that when this Senate select committee is appointed it will discuss not only Holsworthy but all military areas. I hope that the whole matter will be discussed at the government conferences that take place.

This problem occurs even in Newcastle. Fort Scratchley is a beautiful area that is held by the Army. It is quite useless, but for traditional reasons the Army wants to stick to it. I was interested to receive a letter from the Minister for the Army (Mr Lynch) the other day. This all goes to show how wise the Government is to have young Ministers. In the Estimates debate I referred to the bottom part of Victoria Barracks, which is a very important area that juts on to the Sydney Cricket Ground and which should be handed over to the public.

Senator Marriott:

– It is a long way from this Bill.

Senator ORMONDE:

– That may be, but I will get back lo the Bill. The Minister for the Army has announced that the rifle clubs, which I criticised for being in this area, are to be moved and that very shortly all1 rifle clubs, which tire old fashioned anyway, will be moved to another part of the State. So we are getting places.

This Bill deals with something that is a problem all over Australia. The Army and the Government will have to do something about it. I support largely the case put up by the New South Wales Government on this matter. Fancy me supporting Rob Askin. 1 do so because I believe that these areas are needed by the people and that this Government should be more lenient and generous in its attitude on areas of land that it control’s. [ support the amendment because 1 believe that a Senate select committee would be able to approach this problem in a non-party political manner.

Senator Marriott:

– On a free vote.

Senator ORMONDE:

– That is right. This problem will be with us for a long time. The Government says that it will take 15 years to rationalise all these problems and to get fairness back into the distribution of Army land. A Senate select committee would bc able to cover all the extra areas to which I have referred. The areas that the Army has around Sydney Harbour are really useless for its purposes and arc retained only for the convenience of the staff. In a military sense they are of no value whatsoever. So I support the amendment moved by Senator Murphy and hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through this chamber.

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

– I can agree with Senator Ormonde on at least one point, namely, the hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through this chamber - but on our terms, not on his. One aspect of this Bill that has not been developed, except by Senator Bull, is the defence aspect. That is a pity, because I think we all recognise that in Australia we have a wonderful country. The prime task of any government, no matter what its political colour may be, is to hold the country. That is what this Government has tried to do over the years. Unless we can hold this area that we want to hold at Holsworthy, it could be a very serious factor against holding the country. I make that point right at the outset.

Senator Kennelly:

– The Minister has a fear complex.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I do not want to have to remind members of the Opposition of a matter of which I have reminded them so many times when we have started to talk about the defence of this country. So if they do not provoke me I will not mention it. In the second reading speech of Senator Anderson, who introduced the Bill, and in the speech of Senator Bull we have been given the area that we are talking about tonight, lt is a huge area. It comprises 53 square miles that is under permissive occupancy; 27 square miles that is owned by the Commonwealth; 32 square miles which has been proclaimed under the Defence Act and which is the area known as O’Hare’s Creek; and another 3 square miles. 1 say at the outset that had this area been occupied by the defence forces of Australia for a period of only a few years this matter would not be of such prime importance as it is today.

The defence forces have used the area to great advantage for a period of between 50 and 60 years. The area has been used mainly for artillery and small arms practice. Under the proposition put forward to the Commonwealth Government by the New South Wales Government the area required by the State Government is such that future artillery and small arms practice could not be carried out there. Against the demands of the State Government we have to set the Commonwealth’s requirements for defence purposes, and New South Wales is a part of the Commonwealth. Senator Mulvihill mentioned that the State Government offered alternative areas. That is true. What were they? Putty was one. lt is 80 miles from Sydney. Singleton was another. It is 150 miles from Sydney. There is nothing around Putty. To erect buildings adjacent to Putty would require tremendous expenditure. I know the area fairly well Adjacent to Singleton there is an Army camp, but

Singleton is 150 miles away from the metropolis and the lines of communication are not very good. There would be tremendous expenditure there, too.

Senator Ormonde:

– It was good enough for the American Army.

Senator McKELLAR:

– We are not in the United States of America. As Senator Bull pointed out, the major portion of the Australian forces is located in the Holsworthy area. Buildings and accommodation have been provided for the armed Services to the extent of approximately $65m. Are we to walk out of this area within the next 2 years, as has been suggested, and spend this amount somewhere else? I think that proposition is too ludicrous to consider. Senator Bull gave figures relating to the number of people using the area - approximately 7,000 members of the Australian Regular Army and 8,000 members of the Citizen Military Forces. This is a large body of men to be using the area. If it were only a few hundred men the case would be different, but these were the numbers given by Senator Bull. It is about 15 years since negotiations started between the New South Wales State Government and the Commonwealth Government concerning the use of the land

Knowing the area as I do, I cannot agree with the proposition put by the State Planning Authority, the body responsible for the ideas put on behalf of the State Government, that it is necessary to have this area to connect up with Campbelltown. To my way of thinking there is nothing to stop expansion by way of developing to the west of the area. Instead of linking the development with Campbelltown it could be linked with Liverpool, with all its facilities. I do not. think that the suggestion made in this respect holds water. Had the Holsworthy area been adjacent to the ocean I would have thought that perhaps there could have been some justice in the cl’aim made by the State Government about needing the area for housing, but this is not so. The National Park is between Holsworthy and the ocean.

A large portion of the area at Holsworthy is broken country and, in the main, unsuited for housing development. Another aspect is that as the range has been used for 50 or 60 years, naturally it follows that hundred and hundreds or perhaps thousands and thousands of unexploded shell’s are in the area. If this area were to be given over to housing development the ground would have to be dug to a depth of at least 2 feet. The estimated cost of this is between $15m and $25m. If a few rounds were missed and an accident occurred the Commonwealth Government would be liable for compensation. This happened in relation to another area. It is all very well for the State to say: You vacate this area and, having vacated it, we will build on it. But if anything happens to the people who live in this area you will be responsible for any injuries or deaths that occur in the area’. It would be a one-sided bargain.

Adjacent to the area we have an atomic reactor at Lucas Heights. I have been informed that today the area was ringed by fires. No one appears to know what risks may arise from the run-off from the reactor. From time to time one hears that, despite the fact that the waste from the atomic reactor can be buried, it is not known for how long this may be dangerous. Therefore it is considered that we need an area of at least 1 mile around the Lucas Heights atomic reactor. The impression given by some Opposition speakers this afternoon was that on this occasion the Commonwealth has been the big bad wolf and that in the negotiations we have attempted to stand over New South Wales. That is not true. Negotiations have been carried on for something like 15 years in an endeavour to reach an amicable settlement that would allow the Commonwealth to provide for the defence of Australia and yet give a square deal to New South Wales. The negotiations are continuing. The passing of the Bill will not stop the negotiations from continuing.

Senator Murphy:

– Is the Minister saying that the New South Wales Government is unreasonable?

Senator McKELLAR:

– I. am not saying that at all. The honourable senator should listen carefully to what I say. I said that the impression was given that, the Commonwealth was the big bad wolf. I think that in the present circumstances naturally the State Government has been endeavouring to obtain the best deal it possibly can. That is what any government, irrespective of its colour, should do. The Commonwealth’s main purpose is to ensure that Australia’s defence is not impaired by anything that may be done under an agreement made with a State. It has been very difficult to arrive at a decision, firstly, that would be fair to New South Wales and, secondly, that would do nothing to impair Australia’s defence. After a lot of talks had taken place over the previous years, in 1966 the Department of Defence and the Department of the Interior took a hand in the negotiations and a committee was appointed. To this point of time it has not proved successful. In 1967 consideration of the State Government’s proposals was undertaken, but here again it was thought that the Commonwealth Government should not agree to the proposals, for the reasons that 1 have outlined. Then the New South Wales Government gazetted a proclamation proclaiming the area as being needed for recreation purposes. This meant that, in order that it might continue to retain this area in the interests of the defence of this country, the Commonwealth Government would have to pass special legislation. That is why this Bill is before the Senate this evening. This is not the first occasion on which a Bill of this nature has been passed by the Commonwealth. An Act known as the Lands Acquisition (Defence) Act was passed in 1918. It related to the acquisition of land in the municipality of Leichhardt. So we are not breaking new ground.

Senator Murphy:

– That was 50 years ago.

Senator McKELLAR:

– The defence of this country was of paramount importance 50 years ago, just as it is today. The Commonwealth Government would be falling down on its job if it did not see to it that provision were made for the defence of this country. That is its first responsibility.

Senator McClelland:

– Holsworthy was out in the bush 50 years ago, too.

Senator McKELLAR:

– Senator

McClelland had his opportunity to speak and did not avail himself of it. It is estimated that the shells to which I have referred extend over an area of .17 square miles. The New South Wales Government has suggested that provision be made for the construction of a road across portion of this area. To construct the suggested road would be to nullify the usefulness of Holsworthy for artillery training and small arms practice.

Senator Murphy:

– Would that be a really serious interference?

Senator McKELLAR:

– Of course it is an interference.

Senator Murphy:

– But is it a serious one?

Senator McKELLAR:

– Of course it is a serious one. This area has been used for the purpose for which it is now being used for 50 odd years.

Senator Murphy:

– But times change.

Senator McKELLAR:

– Do you mean to tell me that we do not need artillery training or that we do not need small arms practice. 1 heard the Leader of the Opposition in silence and 1 think he might hear me in silence. I repeat that if we were to accept the proposition put by the New South Wales Government, the Defence Department would have to get out of this area. The New South Wales Government offered us two areas - Putty and Singleton. But they are not acceptable to the Commonwealth Government, not so much because of the cost involved in making the transfer but because of the fact that those areas would not be anywhere near as convenient for the purpose of. providing for the defence of this country.

A Senate select committee has been suggested. How many more Senate select committees have we got? We have just about run out of manpower now. How long would this committee take to complete its inquiry? 1 suggest it would take at least 2 years. 1 think the Senate should pass this Bill and allow negotiations to continue.

Senator Murphy:

– We are suggesting that you pass the Bill.

Senator McKELLAR:

– Indeed you are, but you are adding a rider that we appoint this committee to have a look al the mutter.

Senator Murphy:

– What is wrong wilh that?

Senator McKELLAR:

– I say to the

Opposition: For once in your lives, pay a bit of attention to the defence of Australia. That is all we are asking you to do. Honourable senators opposite may laugh as much as they like, but this is a serious matter.

It has been stated that this area is needed to meet the housing needs of a growing population in New South Wales. This is not the only area available for housing. There is nothing at all to prevent an expansion westwards. Indeed, there is much more suitable country towards the west. I know what 1 am talking about here.

Senator McClelland:

– Do you say the houses should go to Singleton?

Senator McKELLAR:

– The houses need not go to Singleton at all. I appeal to the Senate to pass the Bill and allow negotiations to continue in a spirit of goodwill.

Senator Murphy:

– It is a spirit of bad will.

Senator McKELLAR:

-I know that if I were sitting in Opposition I would be endeavouring to create friction between two governments of the same political persuasion, just as the Opposition is doing tonight. I do not mind the Opposition doing that. That is the role of an Opposition, but in this instance I suggest that the Opposition should place the defence of the country a little higher than party politics.

Senator McClelland:

– Is the Minister suggesting the Opposition is not worried about defence?

Senator McKELLAR:

– Senator McClelland had an opportunity to speak earlier and did not get up. I ask the Senate to pass this Bill in the interests of the defence of Australia.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 20

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition has listened with great care to what has been put by the Government. It is anxious to help the Government out of this deplorable situation in which it finds itself as a result either of its neglect or of the wickedness of its colleagues in the New South Wales State Government. I suppose that it is a delightful situation for the Opposition to be in to have the Liberals in the Commonwealth Government deriding - to use a euphemism - the conduct of their Liberal colleagues in the New South Wales State Government. The Ministers in this chamber have done a fairly good job today of painting themselves as angels and their colleagues in the New South Wales Government as–

Senator Byrne:

– Fallen angels.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, fallen angels. I thank Senator Byrne. It would seem that the Liberal-Country Party Government wants not merely a knuckle duster but a great big club that it can wield if necessary to influence the New South Wales State Government. I am not suggesting that the club will be actually used. The Government has more or less said to the Opposition: ‘Give us a great big club with knobs sticking out of the end of it so that we can threaten to clout the Liberals in New South Wales as they do not really understand what is important for the defence of the country or the welfare of the people of New South Wales. They do not even understand what is in the best interests of the metropolis of Sydney. We will not really hit them on the head, much as we would like to.’ At times like this one can appreciate how fallible human nature is and how easy it is for the processes of government to break down. Translating this incident to another sphere, one can understand how easy it is for wars to break out between nations.

Wc are dealing with a very simple problem - the proper disposition of, I think, 53 square miles of Crown land and 27 square miles of other land, some of which is required for extension of the city of Sydney. The Commonwealth, having some interest in this land and certainly having put a lot of money into some parts of it for defence purposes, wishes to retain the use of the land. A lot of brilliant men have been unable to reach agreement in negotiations on the subject. Even those who last night were granted salary increases to $22,750 a year plus allowances - more than Cabinet Ministers receive - with the assistance of others in receipt of $19,500 a year, exercising all their intelligence and drawing on their long experience have been unable, together with their ministerial heads to arrive at a reasonable solution to the problem of the disposition of this land. Heads of departments are, of course, normally free from politics, although one Minister has told us that they have been involved in the political machine in New South Wales. Some of this land is vital for the development of Sydney and some of it is important for the defence of the Commonwealth.

The Opposition would like to help the Government. In fact, the Government has asked for the Opposition’s assistance. We on this side of the chamber have heard only one side of the argument - the Commonwealth’s side. I have no doubt that if Mr Lewis, who is the Minister for Lands in New South Wales, or some of his State colleagues were to come into this chamber and speak on the subject they would paint a pretty picture of what the Commonwealth has been doing to the New South Wales Government over the last 2 years. Unfortunately they are not here. Due to the pressure of business, most honourable senators on this side of the chamber have not been able to take time off to read the newspaper reports of what the State Ministers have had to say. So, the Opposition suggests that what should be done is accede to the Government’s request and give it a chance to negotiate with its colleagues in New South Wales. Honourable senators opposite say that their political colleagues in New South Wales have deceived them and have acted in bad faith. They claim that their colleagues, who have proclaimed the land for public recreation, have been dishonest in that the land is not really required for public recreation purposes.

Senator Wright:

– ls that the same land as they say they want to subdivide?

Senator MURPHY:

– 1 welcome the interjection by the Minister for Works. As I understand the position, that is right. I am not in full possession of the facts, but 1 think it is right. In other words, the Minister is asking: ‘Are they not dishonest in saying that they want the land for public recreation purposes? Are we not faced with a bunch of people who are acting in bad faith?’ What the Minister for Works has just said is, if it is correct, proof of this. Honourable senators opposite are saying: Look, we are in a bit of a spot here because we passed an Act a long time ago which provided that the Commonwealth could, compulsorily or by negotiation, acquire land other than that held for public recreation purposes, but these villains in New South Wales, our Liberal Party colleagues-

Senator McKellar:

– Those are your words not ours.

Senator MURPHY:

– Does the Minister deny what I am saying. Honourable senators opposite may not have used the word villain’ but they have painted their colleagues in New South Wales as black as can be. I think I am using a kinder word than some honourable senators opposite used. They said, in effect: ‘These villains have acted in bad faith and have proclaimed land that they actually want for industrial and residential purposes as a public recreation area, so putting it outside the scope of the Lands Acquisition Act. What we want to be able to do is to bring these lands back inside the provisions of that Act so that the Commonwealth can acquire them compulsorily’. The Commonwealth Government does not want to acquire any other land in Australia by this means. It only wants to acquire this land at Holsworthy. But it wants to acquire the land against the wishes of the New South Wales Government. The Commonwealth Government will be able to acquire this land permanently if the Senate passes this Bill and it will be able to do what it wants to with the land.

The proposal of the Opposition is that we should assist the Government out of this spot, and what we would suggest - if the Government really wants to negotiate - is that it should have the power to have undisturbed possession for another 2 years till the end of 1970. That will give it the chance to act reasonably towards the State and the State will not be able to act unreasonably towards it. The Government can quite simply overcome the effects of any eviction notice or any suggestion of disturbing the Commonwealth, and if it cannot come to a reasonable accommodation with its Liberal Party colleagues - that is, during the lime when the Liberal Party is in charge of the State of New South Wales, and during the time, short though i( will be, when the Liberal Party is in control of the Commonwealth of Australia - at any time during that period it can come back into this Parliament and ask for an amendment to this Act so it can acquire this land in estate or interest. Wc hope that the next time it comes back it will not be in an atmosphere of recriminations and allegations of bad faith on both sides, taking the petty kind of altitude that one would expect in a rather miserable landlord and tenant case, but instead it will come in wilh some sensible proposal befitting the situation of two sovereign governments. Therefore I move:

That means that if the Government wants to go ahead and acquire land by negotiation with the State there is no limitation at all, and that is what we would hope would happen. If the Government wants to reach some arrangement with the State we hope that that will happen, but if the Commonwealth instead of simply putting itself in a negotiating position seeks to acquire land permanently by virtue of this special Bill the actual estate or interest will be limited to one which shall terminate on or before 3 1st December 1970. For the information of those who are interested, let me say that the Commonwealth under the provisions of the principal Act can acquire any estate or interest, whether such an estate or interest has existed before or not, or it can say that it will acquire something up to December 1970 and give itself undisturbed possession.

It means that the situation will be such that the Commonwealth cannot be disturbed, and if it cannot get a reasonable settlement and some kind of sensible deal with the State of New South Wales it can come back here next year and ask for the matter to be determined, say, by some Act of Parliament which will especially deal with this great tract of land, and the matter will bc determined taking into account all of the considerations of defence and the other considerations of the advancement of the City of Sydney. I would ask that the Senate support this, and 1 especially ask the Government to tell us - if it does not agree - what possible objection it could have to this if it really wants to negotiate and not use the big stick.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Senator Murphy has proposed his amendment with a smile on his face which, I suspect, is due to the fact that he had his tongue in his cheek. It would seem to me that what he has proposed is essentially a proposition designed to make some political capital out of what he conceives to be a difference of opinion between two governments basically of the same political character. If he wishes to make that sort of political capital I think it ought to be relevant to consider the attitude of the Party in New South Wales which sends him to this Senate. Does it adopt the same view as the Liberal Government in New South Wales or does it take the view that the Commonwealth Government is right? By just ignoring those facts any argument of political capital which he seeks to make is so much the weaker.

Coming to the merits of the amendment which he has proposed, I feel that he has ignored what has been said as the justification for this measure. The Commonwealth has a problem which it seeks to resolve in the light of what it conceives to be necessary for the defence requirements of this country and in regard to the installations in which a considerable number of troops are trained. When the Commonwealth takes (hat view it ought to be recognised that its position should be paramount. It is not by this Act acquiring any land, it is merely putting itself in a situation where, if negotiations fail, acquisition could take place.

If that is the position - and I think it is a very sensible position - which the Government wishes to arrive at, what is the sense of saying: ‘Well, you can acquire this land for a period not exceeding 2 years’? The amendment seeks to make a farce of the justification which the Government has put forward and, indeed, which Senator Murphy has never challenged. 1 think there is a further reason why this particular amendment is not a sensible one. It purports to give to the Commonwealth the right to acquire land for an interest which will expire on 31st December 1970. In short, we get a curious concept in the law - a freehold interest for 2 years. Normally, if a person wants to have possession for 2 years he will take it by some form of leasehold interest, but if the Commonwealth acquires an estate for 2 years what is to happen on 31st December 1970? The Commonwealth interest would presumably cease. Is it then to put tha land on the market for sale? Is it then to negotiate with anyone who wants to buy it or is it to give the land back to the State of New South Wales?

Senator Wright:

– He is just allowing us to acquire a Murphy estate.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– lt may be, as Senator Wright says, that the land may be described hereafter as the ‘Murphy estate’. But I feel that we would be far wiser to adhere to traditional concepts than to embark on the new fields proposed by Senator Murphy. This amendment proposed by Senator Murphy has intrinsically no merit. As I suggested earlier, it is an amendment which is designed to make some present political capital for his Party, and an examination of what it contains suggests that it ought not to have more than a momentary consideration by this Senate. Technically it appears that there would be an impossible situation if it were carried.

Senator Murphy:

– Do you suggest that it cannot be done?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Yes.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– My remarks will be brief, but I wish to say just one or two things in reply to Senator Greenwood. First of all, he has said that the Commonwealth is not acquiring land but is putting itself in the position where, if negotiations fail, acquisition can take place. But the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar), toM the Senate that these negotiations had been proceeding for the last 15 years. I ask rhetorically: How, with a Bill or an Act of this nature hanging over the head of a New South Wales Government, can we expect effective negotiations or conciliatory negotiations to take place? In the 1’ast 12 months the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government have been wrangling about this, that and the other thing. They started off wrangling about insufficient finance. Then they got on to the wrangling that has been going on over the last few months about drought relief. Now they are wrangling about land. Even as late as today, in the New South Wales Parliament the Premier said that the New South Wales Government would not allow itself to be pushed around by anyone. With statements like this being made by the New South Wal’es Premier in the New South Wales Parliament, how can we expect, with a Bill of this nature - or an Act when it becomes law - ‘hanging over the head of the New South Wales Government, effective negotiations to take place between those two governments in the interests of the Australian people?

In the course of the debate the Minister said: ‘For goodness sake start thinking about the defence of this country.’ He went on then to refer to the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth some 50 years ago in the municipality of Leichhardt. I remind him that 50 years ago Leichhardt was an outer suburb of Sydney and Holsworthy was considered to be out in the bush. But now, with the growth and development that has taken place in the metropolitan area, Holsworthy is as much a part of the metropolis of Sydney as Hornsby, Parramatta, Penrith or any of the other suburbs. The Minister has chided us to start thinking about defence. If the words apply to us they must apply automatically to the New South Wales Premier and the New South Wales Minister for Lands. It cannot be suggested for one moment that the Minister for Lands is acting in isolation and is not representing the New South Wales Government.

In reply to the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Parliament today Mr Askin said that the action of Mr Lewis in serving a notice of eviction on the Commonwealth was within the full knowledge and approval of the State Government. He said that there had been some recent developments and that the Government would look into these and see whether a settlement could be reached. Tonight we have this Bill before us. Tomorrow it will be an Act. of Parliament hanging over the head of the New South Wales Government. I believe that it is important in the interests of New South Wales, particularly having regard to the importance of the development of the great metropolis of Sydney, that the clause proposed by Senator Murphy be inserted in the Bill.

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

– Some remarks made by Senator Murphy call for a refutation. The honourable senator implied that the Commonwealth Government was saying that members of the New South Wales Government were villains. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Senator Murphy:

– That was my summation of it.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I know, but like myself, the honourable senator is not always right. In this case 1 believe that 1 am right and he is wrong. This Commonwealth Government has a very great respect for the New South Wales Government. Let there be no false ideas about that. The honourable senator said also that this Bill would allow the Commonwealth Government to acquire land anywhere. 1 do not think I am misquoting him when I give that as my interpretation of what he said. But the honourable senator’s suggestion is not correct. The Bill provides for an acquisition, if necessary, in the Holsworthy area. It applies to this area and to nowhere else.

Senator Murphy:

– There is no dispute about that.

Senator McKELLAR:

– All right. Senator McClelland chided the Government for bringing in the Bill. The reason for introducing this measure is to prevent the New South Wales Government from debarring the Commonwealth from meeting the defence requirements that we feel are necessary for the defence of Australia. If the Bill is passed it will not prevent a continuation of the negotiations that have been carried on in the past. In fact we hope that negotiations will continue in a more amicable manner.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I think I should answer what has been said by Senator Greenwood. The honourable senator said that what 1 was suggesting was a Murphy estate, as if such a proposition was not consistent with the Act and could not be done. I remind the Committee that the Lands Acquisition Act contains a definitions section which says that unless the contrary intention appears, ‘land’ includes an interest in land; and an interest in relation to land means:

  1. a legal or equitable estate or interest in the land; or
  2. a right, power or privilege over, or in connection with, the land;

When we deal with the acquisition of land by compulsory process, which we are concerned with here, we refer to section 10 of the principal Act which sets out the procedure. Apparently this procedure has not been much pursued, but the procedure requires that if the requisite notices are given and authorisation is made, and so forth: (5.) The land acquired under this section may be an easement, right, power, privilege or other interest, which did not previously exist as such, in. over or in connection with land.

It is quite clear that the Commonwealth may take an estate or interest in this land limited for any particular time, lt may take such rights as it may need to have undisturbed possession and to do exactly what it has been doing. I notice that those who are responsible for the carriage of the Bill through this place do not rise to support what has been said by Senator Greenwood, that the proposition which we put forward is not maintainable. I think the Senate could well take the view that an amendment may be made to this Bill to enable the Commonwealth to be able to take, by compulsory process, such an estate or interest as will enable it to have undisturbed possession of the land and to do exactly what it has been doing, and that we could limit that possession so that it would be for any period that we cared to name.

We consider that until 3 1st December 1970 allows reasonable time for the Commonwealth to sort out its difficulties with the State of New South Wales. If it is unable to sort out its difficulties in that time it can come back to the Parliament and tell us frankly what the position is. lt can tell us exactly what it needs in regard to this land. We should not have these vague statements about needing some kind of area but not needing some other area, and suggestions that it will be prepared to give some back to the State of New South Wales, but in the meantime this is what it needs. If at the end of the period that I mentioned the Parliament is satisfied, it will no doubt allow the Commonwealth to acquire such land as is necessary for its purposes.

Senator Greenwood:

– Does the honourable senator suggest that his so-called Murphy estate is analogous to a lease?

Senator MURPHY:

– I should think that the estate which the honourable senator describes in those terms would be either a leasehold or an estate of any nature at all.

Senator Byrne:

– An interesting term.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, it is an interesting term. The fallacy that often besets lawyers is to assume that what has been done by the common law is the only thing that can be done.I have no doubt that what is suggested here can be done under common law by a proper leasehold. But if that were not the position it is quite clear that, although not in the principal Act, that was a fair enough indication of what was envisaged, this Parliament could provide for the acquisition of any estate or interest, or deal with the acquisition of property in any such way as would enable us to fulfil the Commonwealth’s purposes.

I am sure that Senator Greenwood, on reflection, would agree that what I have suggested can be done and that my proposition is maintainable. What I have suggested would allow reasonable negotiations to continue. The Commonwealth would have everything that it really wants. On the other hand, if the Commonwealth were to act in some way unreasonably towards the State of New South Wales and could not get a settlement by negotiation and agreement, the matter would have to be brought back to the Parliament before the end of 1970 so that the Commonwealth could have the sanction of Parliament for what it was doing. That is a proposition that I think should commend itself to all honourable senators. Therefore I ask that the Committee support the amendment which is proposed.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– One word, I think, is due to Senator Murphy. He apparently did not get the true significance of the idea that Senator Greenwood was intending to convey because when Senator Greenwood used the expression ‘Murphy’s estate’ he intended it to be regarded as a real furphy. Despite his solemn silent presentation, I have no doubt that Senator Murphy is well aware of the mask in which he is clad. His proposition that we should acquire an estate until 1970 gives all the appearances, as it will be read tomorrow when we look at it in the light of dawn, of having been conceived in drink and presented to the Senate in delirium.

Senator Murphy:

– What do you mean by that? You will withdraw that, senator.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Drake-Brockman).- Order! Senator Wright, I think you should withdraw it.

Senator WRIGHT:

– If it is taken offensively, certainly I withdraw it.I was referring to–

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Question put:

That the proposed new clause (Senator Murphy’s amendment) be inserted in the Bill.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2566

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Wright:

– In the Committee stage of the debate on the Lands Acquisition (Defence) Bill I used an expression facetiously but it was understood in another sense.I disclaim any intention whatever of using it except in an atmosphere in which I myself have been living this evening, that is to say, one of some conviviality. I hasten to disclaim any idea that I imputed any factual reproach to any member of the Committee, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy).

page 2566

CONTINENTAL SHELF (LIVING NATURAL RESOURCES) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McKellar) read afirst time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of the Bill, which the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton ) announced would be introduced this session, is to enable the fullest possible protection to be given to the living sedentary resources of the continental shelves of Australia and the external Territories. In particular, passage of the Bill will enable the introduction of measures to conserve the living resources of the Great Barrier Reef beyond territorial limits. I shall return to that aspect of the Bill later, but first I shall make some general observations with respect to the scope of the Bill.

As I have already indicated, the Bill deals with certain resources of the continental shelf. According to the 1958 international Convention on the Continental Shelf, which came into force in 1964 and to which Australia and some thirty-six other countries are party, the continental shelf of the coastal country comprises the seabed and subsoil of the seabed adjacent to that country but beyond its territorial limits, to where the depth of the sea above is 200 metres, and even beyond that limit to where the depth of the sea above admits of the exploitation of the natural resources. This definition is now accepted as a matter of international law, and since it is proposed that the legislation now under consideration should apply to foreigners as well as to Australians, the definition has been adopted for the purpose of the Bill.

Honourable senators will doubtless be aware that Australia’s continental shelf covers a vast area. I shall not attempt to define the area in detail but by way of illustration,I will merely say that it includes the portions of the Great Barrier Reef beyond territorial limits that are submerged at high tide as well as the submerged lands beyond territorial limits between the reef and the mainland. It also includes the submerged lands beyond territorial limits in the Gulf of Carpentaria and in Bass Strait, as well as large areas off Western Australia and in the Great Australian Bight. The continental shelves of the external Territories also cover a wide area.

International law leaves no room for doubt that a coastal country has exclusive sovereign rights over its continental shelf for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. This is clearly recognised in the 1958 Convention. It will therefore be quite in accordance with international law for Australia to apply the legislation under consideration to foreigners as well as to Australians and the Government intends to use to the full the powers that are available to it under international law to ensure that the legislation is complied with and that any offences under it are dealt with in accordance with Australian law. The Convention defines’natural resources’ as consisting of ‘the mineral and other non-living resources of the sea bed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which at the harvestable stage either are immobile on or under the sea bed or unable to move except in constant physical contact with the sea bed or subsoil’.

Honourable senators will have noted that the Bill is concerned with living sedentary resources of the continental shelf. Legislation of a different nature is required to deal with non-living continental shelf resources. Already, as honourable senators will recall, legislation is on the statute book to deal with the petroleum resources of the continental shelf off Australia and the Territories. As regards other non-living resources, the Government is considering the preparation of appropriate legislation to deal with these resources. With the passage of the Bill now under consideration, and the legislation in relation to the non-living continental shelf resources other than petroleum, Australia will be in a position to exercise full legal control over all of its continental shelf resources, both living and non-living covered by the Convention.

I turn now to a brief explanation of the living resources, the taking of which would be subject to control if the present Bill passes into law. Clause 7 of the Bill envisages that the Governor-General should be empowered to declare certain resources to be sedentary organisms and it is contemplated that further measures to control the taking of those sedentary organisms should be taken by the administrative action that I shall describe later. Before making a declaration with respect to a particular organism, the Governor-General would have to be satisfied that the organism is, for the purposes of the 1958 Convention, a part of the living natural resources of the Australian continental shelf. I shall not attempt to provide an exhaustive list of the resources which belong to sedentary species within the meaning of the Convention. There can be no doubt that pearl shell, trochus, clams, abalone, live coral, sea plants and bechedemer organisms that are found in large quantities on many parts of Australia’s continental shelf and in particular on the Great Barrier Reef, are organisms that are within the Convention definition.

Before I deal with the provisions of the Bill in detail, I shall say a few words about its general pattern. I have already mentioned that it is contemplated that the

Governor-General should be empowered to declare certain organisms to be sedentary organisms. It is proposed in clause 11 that by ministerial action, areas of the continental shelves of Australia and the external territories may be declared to be controlled areas for the protection of specified organisms. Clause 12 authorises the Minister to issue notices to prohibit or regulate the taking for both commercial and non-commercial purposes of any of the specified organisms from the controlled areas. For example closed seasons, minimum sizes, methods of taking sedentary organisms and the quantities that may be taken can be regulated. However, clause 13 would enable certain activities to be permitted under licence. In accordance with the Government’s recognition of the developing independence of certain external Territories, the Bill proposes in clause 6 that the Minister for Primary Industry should have the responsibility for administration of the legislation in relation to the Australian continental shelf. The Minister for External Territories would have the responsibility in relation to the continental shelf of the external Territories.

The Government proposes to give urgent attention to the preparation of proclamations and notices with a view to ensuring that the taking of living resources from Australia’s continental shelf and the continental shelves of the Territories - and more particularly from the Great Barrier Reef - are regulated in an appropriate manner. One of its main concerns will be to ensure that the living resources of the reef are adequately protected. Perhaps I might say here that the Government has appreciated the interest shown especially in relation to the preservation of the resources of the Great Barrier Reef by the Queensland Government, by scientific bodies and by private individuals. I assure all concerned that the submissions that have been made to the Government are being carefully examined with a view to the introduction of appropriate controls.

I turn now to other provisions of the Bill. In clause 3 it is proposed that the three Pearl Fisheries Acts be repealed. These Acts, according to their terms, apply only with respect to the taking of pearl shell, trochus, beche-de-mer and green snails. Other living sedentary resources of the continental shelf such as clams and live coral are outside their scope. Those Acts were enacted some 5 years or more before the Convention on the Continental Shelf was drawn up. There can be no doubt that in international law, Australia has exclusive sovereign rights over a wider range of continental shelf resources than the four organisms mentioned in the earlier Acts. Rather than attempt to bring earlier legislation up to date merely by extending the list of organisms to which it applies, the Government has considered it preferable to repeal the earlier legislation and start afresh. This will enable certain other aspects of the legislation to be brought more into line with the 1958 Convention.

Under clause 14, officers would have extensive powers similar to those provided under the Fisheries Act to enable them to carry out effectively their duties under the legislation. Clause 15 enumerates certain offences such as unlicensed fishing, the unlicensed use of a boat, and the unlicensed employment of divers and provides that a defence to a charge under this clause is that the act referred to in the charge was not done for commercial purposes. Provision has been made so that foreign vessels that are not engaged in fishing may pass through waters overlying the continental shelves. Clauses 16 and 17 enumerate offences relating to regulatory measures in force under the legislation and to obstruction of officers. Provisions relating to penalties, jurisdiction and evidence are set out in clauses 18, 19 and 20. Clause 23 provides for permits to be issued for the taking of sedentary organisms for scientific purposes.

The Government on a number of occasions has made it quite clear that it is most concerned over reports that foreign fishermen have wantonly destroyed valuable living resources of the reef. The measure now before the Senate will, as I have sought to explain, provide the means for Australia to control the taking by both foreigners and Australians of the live sedentary species of the reef beyond territorial limits. However, it is but one step amongst several that are required to provide full legal protection to the resources of the reef. The laws of Queensland apply with respect to the living resources on the portions of the reef that are within territorial limits and there is need for the Commonwealth and State laws to be complementary, and this has been taken up with the

Queensland authorities. Legislation will be required to deal with the non-living resources of the reef and as I have explained this is now receiving close attention.

Effective patrolling of the reef will be required. The present arrangements for patrolling the 12-mile declared fishing zone are being reviewed and a comprehensive study of the requirements created by this new legislation is now being undertaken by the various departments concerned. Negotiations will be undertaken with each State in respect of the sedentary resources of the areas of continental shelf outside its territorial limits to maintain the complementary nature of the Commonwealth and State fisheries legislation.

Finally, I wish to make it clear that the Government would not wish this legislation to be regarded as precluding it at some later time from making a claim to the waters inside the Great Barrier Reef or in other areas, as Australian internal waters. As has been made clear to honourable senators in other connections, the Government has this matter under close examination. It has sought legal advice on Australia’s rights in this regard, not only from its own advisers but from several authorities distinguished in the field of international law. Several difficult issues are involved and the matter is still under examination by the Government. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2568

FISHERIES BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill just introduced, is to remove from the definition of ‘fish’ in the Fisheries Act the sedentary organisms which will now be covered by the new legislation. The opportunity has been taken with the introduction of this Bill to correct the definition of ‘Minister’ in the Fisheries Act to recognise the new title of the Minister for External Territories.

Honourable senators will appreciate that the Fisheries Act applies to foreign fishermen only within the 12-mile declared fishing zone and if the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Bill is enacted it will apply to foreign fishermen over the whole of the continental shelf, a large proportion of which is outside the declared fishing zone, lt is therefore in Australia’s interests to have all the organisms which can be proclaimed as sedentary species under the new legislation brought within the control of the new legislation instead of the Fisheries Act. 1 commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2569

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL (No. 2) 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November (vide page 2356), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This Bill concerns the provision of superannuation and retirement benefits and an employment security scheme in Papua and New Guinea. It also relates to overseas officers appointed to the Territory Public Service and powers of delegation for the appointment of overseas and local officers. I would like to ask the Senate Whether it is possible for the debate on this Bill to be deferred until the autumn sessional period. I do not know whether there is any great hurry to pass this legislation. It is a matter for decision by the Government.

The position is that officers of the Public Service Association of New Guinea have never seen the proposed amendments and have not heard of any changes concerning the method of appointment of overseas officers. They have said that they would be grateful if the Bill could be postponed to enable the Public Service of Papua and New Guinea to study its provisions. I think this should real’ly have been done before the Bill was introduced. Quite an important change is to be made to the procedure which has previously operated, particularly since 1963 when officers of the Territory

Public Service were almost all recruited from Australia and appointed as permanent officers. The system has been introduced of appointing overseas officers on a contract basis. This is quite a departure from the previous practice and involves a survey of all the circumstances surrounding the change. I believe that the Public Service Association of Papua and New Guinea should be given an opportunity thoroughly to examine this legislation before it is passed by the Parliament. For those reasons I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date with a view to consideration being given by the Government to deferring this Bill until the autumn sessional period.

The ACTING DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laught) - Is leave granted?

Senator Wright:

– No.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– A considerable amount of detail is associated with this Bill. Certain points should be stressed. The scheme applies not only to serving officers of the Territory Public Service but also to the Constabulary. It provides insurance against the possibility of the career of an overseas officer being terminated before normal retirement age .through constitutional or administrative changes. These are quite important alterations. The legislation provides that an officer will be re-established in government employment elsewhere, but I think more consideration should be given to the measure by the Public Service Association of Papua and New Guinea.

As leave has not been granted for the deferment of the Bill, the Opposition will have to oppose the measure in the hope that the Senate will see fit to give the Public Service Association of Papua and New Guinea an opportunity, as it has requested, to give the Bill further study. I will leave it at that, because of the nature of the request, and we will put it to a vote.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– Senator O’Byrne’s reference to the possibility of deferring the debate on this Bill was the first intimation I have had of it. I feel that if a responsible suggestion were to have been made, it would have been indicated to me or to the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) at some time so that we could have engaged in consultations that would produce information. We would wish to discover the basis of the request. The Government does not feel that it would be proper to defer the debate on this Bill because, in the first place, the first part of the Bill is beneficial to a section of officers, providing as it does insurance against risks to which they are specially subject. It concerns also a recruitment programme that in future will be dependent upon giving an assurance to officers appointed to positions. The Public Service has been fully advised on that matter and I believe it is the product of its request. The other part of the Bill provides for administrative appointments and a reconstruction of the Public Service. In the circumstances, it might do unforeseen damage and put people to unforeseen prejudice if this Bill were deferred, as requested by the Opposition.

Question put:

That the Bit! be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 24

NOES: 21

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Wright) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition is not satisfied that this Bill should be passed by the Senate at this stage. It was introduced at a late stage in this session. We have endeavoured to contact those people who are most concerned with the Bill. We are not unmindful of its importance. It is an attempt to protect the rights of those members of the Public Service who are engaged in New Guinea and are concerned about their future security. We have communicated with them. Senator Keeffe, who was following the Bill on behalf of the Opposition in this chamber, received a telegram today from John Smith, who is the Secretary of the Public Service Association in Papua and New Guinea. That telegram reads:

Thanks your telegram. We have not seen proposed amendments, not heard of any changes concerning method of appointment of officers. Would be grateful therefore if you could postpone Bill to enable us to study it. Regards.

That means that the people who are most concerned about this Bill do not know what is going on. The Bill may be beneficial. In fact, looking at it, we believe that it probably is beneficial. But we believe that the people who are concerned should be given an opportunity to know what is happening. The Bill affects their future; it affects their security. That was our motive in opposing the motion for the second reading of the Bill. As I understand .the position, Senator O’Byrne asked for leave to continue his remarks later, but that was refused. In the circumstances we opposed the second reading of the Bill to show that we were not accepting that the Bill should he dealt with now. We do not know enough about it. We think that those who will be affected by the Bill ought to be given the opportunity to be heard. I do not know that there is any urgency in the Bill. The Secretary of the Public Service Association has asked us to postpone the passage of the Bill so that those affected by it could consider it. We are not attacking the Government. We do not say that it has done anything wrong. Those who are affected by the Bill do not know what is happening arid would like it to be postponed so that they may consider it.

In those circumstancesI suggest that the Senate not conclude its deliberations but that the matter be left over; there being no suggestion of urgency. Let the people of Papua and New Guinea who may be affected study the Bill and let us have the advantage of their views on it. Therefore I shall ask for leave to continue my remarks. If that leave is refused an honourable senator on my side of the chamber will move that the debate be adjourned.I shall ask for leave to continue my remarks and let the matter stand over to the first day of the next sittings. This important Bill, which concerns us all, may well be passed with the approval of everyone here and with the approval of those whom it seeks to protect. I suggest that that is the proper way in which to deal with the Bill.I now ask for leave to continue my remarks.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - Is leave granted?

Senator Wright:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Motion (by Senator O’Byrne) put:

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 21

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– In answer to Senator Murphy’s proposal that the Bill be stood over, I suggest that he proceeded without a realisation that what is actually involved in the Bill is a removal of the impediment at present contained in section 30 of the Act whereby, in effect, the Public Service Board of Papua and New Guinea, recently constituted under local legislation, is prevented from proceeding with appointments to the Public Service by the Minister and by means of a proposed delegation that he will give to the Public Service Board. The first part of the Bill, dealing with the guarantees that have been given to officers from abroad, is intended to secure their service and to ensure its continuance with aid from the Papuans and New Guineans in the Public Service and from external recruitments to the Territory. The second part of the Bill enables the local Public Service Board to be the delegate of the Minister, instead of the Governor-General, for the purpose of appointment to the local Public Service. It is to be seen, therefore, that to defer legislation that is beneficial to the Public Service of the Territory could be of real prejudice to the local public servants. That is the reason I ask the Senate to proceed with the third reading of the Bill now.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2571

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November (vide page 2360), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– If it is convenient to the Senate I suggest that the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill and the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Bill be debated together at the second reading stage.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, that course will be adopted.

Senator CANT:

– The Labor Party does not propose to oppose this Bill. In fact, we welcome it as the commencement of Commonwealth responsibility in the field of Aboriginal advancement following the referendum that altered the status of Aboriginals so far as the Commonwealth is concerned. Over the years, a great many people have endeavoured to do something for the Aboriginal race of Australia, but many of them have attempted to do so without having a full knowledge of the Aboriginal race and, although their intentions were very good, their activities were not always as successful as they might have been had they had greater experience of these people. I move:

As I and my Party see them, these Bills contain many weaknesses. The first and most important of these is that they fail to define an Aboriginal, lt would seem that it is left to each State to decide its own definition of an Aboriginal. Whoever the Slate legislation declares to be an Aboriginal according to its definition will be eligible for benefit within the terms of these Bills. It is not fair to ask the Senate to consider such a proposition. After all, if we are to vote moneys for Aboriginals, we are entitled to know who is an Aboriginal. Honourable senators should not be expected to search through the various State Acts to discover who is an Aboriginal. That is the first weakness, as I see the measures.

Because the definition of ‘Aboriginal’ varies from one State to another, a person who is entitled to benefit under the provisions of these Bills in one Slate may not necessarily be entitled to benefit under them in another State. I believe that when the Commonwealth advances moneys for the benefit of people there should be a uniform definition throughout Australia of those who are to benefit. It should not be left to the whims of the various States to decide who is an Aboriginal for the purposes of benefit under these measures. I repeat that the definition should be contained in this legislation.

One of the first questions that one must ask when considering legislation of this nature is: What is the position of Torres Strait islanders? The Bil] does not tell us whether Torres Strait islanders come within the definition of ‘Aboriginal’ or whether they will be entitled to benefit from the funds that will be made available by the Commonwealth to the State of Queensland. Then there are the people of mixed race who came to this country in the early days to work in the cane fields. These people were commonly known as ‘Kanakas’, and not all of them were transported. Some of them remained on the off-shore islands of Queensland and may now have part Aboriginal blood. We do not know whether they come within the definition of ‘Aboriginal’ in Queensland or whether they will benefit under these Bills.

It has been very difficult to obtain figures as to the number of Aboriginals who would benefit under the terms of this legislation even if we accept the definitions as laid down by the various States. The figures which I have obtained may or may not be accurate, but at least they might be some guide. In New South Wales, according to my figures, there are 130 full blood Aboriginals and 23,000 part Aboriginals, making a total of 23,130. In Victoria there are no full blood Aboriginals but there are 3.500 part Aboriginals. In Queensland there are 12,000 full bloods, 29,700 part Aboriginals . and 8,000’ Torres Strait islanders. In South Australia there are 3,128 full bloods and 4,632 part Aboriginals, making a total of 7,760. In Western Australia there are 9,905 full bloods and 1 1,985 part Aboriginals making a total of 2.1,890. In Tasmania there are no full bloods; nor are there any part Aboriginals according to my figures. As the Northern Territory Aboriginals do not come within the terms of this legislation; the numbers there are not of interest to us.

It seems strange that although the figures I have been given disclose that there are no Aboriginals in Tasmania, neither full bloods nor part Aboriginals, the Commonwealth proposes making $25,000 available to that State. Perhaps the Minister will give us some explanation of that. Victoria has the smallest number of proposed beneficiaries of any of the mainland States. The number involved there is 3,500 part Aboriginals and the grant to be made to that State is $225,000. I do not believe that the figures that I have quoted are correct but they were the only ones that the Parliamentary Library could give me and I have quoted them for what they are worth. Perhaps they do give some guide as to the break up of numbers on a ratio basis as between the States.

One would be in great difficulty in ascertaining what number of Aboriginals there are in Australia unless one had a full knowledge of all the various State definitions of who is an Aboriginal. It would certainly be extremely difficult, because of the nomadic habits of many of these people, to get absolutely correct figures, but I submit that the only way by which we could possibly hope to get anything near an accurate figure would be to have a uniform definition throughout the Commonwealth as to who is an Aboriginal. 1 believe that figures based upon the definitions of who is an Aboriginal under the various Slate Acts are governed by the financial ability of the Slates to apply moneys towards their welfare. The definition of who is an Aboriginal is altered from time to time according lo the ability of the States to provide for them. When the Stales are short of money one finds that not everyone who can properly be regarded as being of the Aboriginal race is included in the definition. 1 think this is one thing that affects the numbers of Aboriginals. This highlights the need for a Commonwealth definition of who is an Aboriginal.

The Bill refers to an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. On about five occasions during the past fortnight I have complained that legislation is introduced in the - Senate without a full explanation of why it is necessary. We on this side of the chamber are constantly faced with the problem of making a proper judgment of the worthiness of legislation with as little information to guide us as the Government can possibly provide. In this instance the Government has gone to the extent of mentioning in the Bi 11 that there is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, but that agreement is not presented to the Senate nor is any information given on it in order that the

Senate may properly judge whether the money is to be applied in an appropriate way. It is true that the States have to make available a sum at least equal to the Commonwealth’s grant, nevertheless the Senate is voting on an appropriation of about $4m for the advancement of Aboriginals, without knowing how that sum is to be spent or administered. That is why the Opposition has requested that the Bill contain the power to make regulations providing for details of the administration of the scheme. The Opposition wants to know the terms of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. It wants to know what regulations are to be used to administer the legislation. The Opposition wants to know whether this is just another gift which the States can apply in a manner that they think fit. I believe that full information should be supplied to the Senate on these matters. The present position is unsatisfactory.

There are many facets of the advancement of Aboriginals that the Commonwealth and State governments could take up with advantage to that race and to the enhancement of Australia’s image in regard to its treatment of Aboriginals. I would not attempt to list all the matters that could be taken into account, but I think that the three most urgent ones on which money should be spent are health, housing and education. We are not told whether the money provided under this legislation will be spent in those fields or in some other direction, such as assisting the establishment and development of business enterprises by Aboriginals. I think we have to spend more on the health, housing and education of our Aboriginals if we are to be able to hold up our heads and say that we have done something for them. This further heightens the need to have regulations so that we will know how the legislation is being administered.

The Bill provides for a repayable grant of $350,000 to the State of Queensland for the development of an irrigation project for the Aboriginals in the Bamaga area. 1 believe it is to be on the Jardine River. But we arc not told anything about this project. We are told that loans are to be made to these people to assist them to develop areas under irrigation, that the loans are repayable and that they bear interest, but that is all we are told. In the first place, we are not told whether there is any holding period on the loans - whether the interest is to be stayed during the period of development of the land. We are not told what rate of interest is to be charged. I think this is a pretty sloppy way of introducing legislation into this place. The Senate should not be expected to deal with it. The Opposition will not oppose the legislation because it believes that the Bill is a step in the right direction. But the Opposition wants to know what is going on.

I do not want to delay the Senate any longer. The hour is getting late and we have a lot of business to gel through before rising tonight. But I express the hope that the Minister will take into consideration the matters 1 have raised tonight on behalf of the Opposition. 1 express the hope that the Government will take note of my continued protests at legislation being introduced without sufficient information being supplied to the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood) - Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Murphy:

– I second the amendment.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I have only a few words to say on these Bills. I commend the Government for introducing this legislation and for starting a chain of events that commenced with the referendum held last year which gave the Commonwealth Government additional power to make laws for the benefit of the Aboriginals. This is a big step forward. I see no reason why it should not succeed in the long run. Some aspects of the Bills are of an experimental nature. Senator Cant said that the Bills did not contain much information on how the money is to be used. I draw his attention to proposed clause 5 of the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Bill, which states:

Tile object for which the Fund is established is to enable persons of the Aboriginal race of Australia to engage in business enterprises that have prospects of becoming or continuing to be successful and the Fund shall be administered for that object.

That is one of the objectives of this legislation. The second reading speech of the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) refers lo housing, education and health. I believe that the projects in various parts of Australia that the Go vernment has in mind for helping individual Aboriginals or groups of Aboriginals to go into business on their own account include cattle raising and farming, mining and sawmilling. Many of them are capable of achieving success in these ventures. The more enterprising ones, I feel sure, will make a success of this. There is no shortage of land in aboriginal reserves throughout Australia. Possibly same of this land is of poor quality, but some’ of it is in good rainfall areas and is of excellent quality. It would be far better, I believe, to encourage the people now that they are no longer of a nomadic nature and have settled down in most areas, to develop and make full use of the reserves, and so help to reduce what is today a defence hazard - unused native reserves. This Bill will help to develop these reserves- for the use of the native people. I see no reason why the scheme should not succeed. I believe it is a very good one. I want to refer to another point mentioned by Senator Cant about the deal with the Queensland Government.

Senator Cant:

– I did not say a ‘deal’.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The Bill provides, with reference to Bamaga in the State of Queensland, that the loan will bc to the Queensland Government and not to the natives of that area. The Queensland Government will therefore be administering the area. I want to refer particularly to the section that I know best, the top of Cape York Peninsula where Bamaga and several other small villages are situated. This is where the money to be made available by loan to the Queensland Government is to be used, mainly for the establishment of an irrigation scheme. I believe that this irrigation scheme will be almost unique in the sense that no headworks whatever will be required to store or dam water. The people are simply to use the water that is there in such abundance. The river never ceases flowing. Even in dry seasons this flow does not appear to drop below 50 cusecs. The start of the scheme is only comparatively small, involving 200 or 300 acres of irrigation, but some of the best rain forest to be found in Australia is in that area. The Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island - Affairs has about 1,000 cattle on the property now. lt hopes to be able to enlarge the number to 10,000. lt also hopes to be able to grow quite a variety of crops there. I would draw the attention of the Senate to an article in the Brisbane ‘Courier Mail’ headed: ‘A Salad Bowl for Cape York - Irrigation Plan for Native Settlement’. This is only the start of what can be done -there. In and around Bamaga today there are about 1,200 people. This figure can be enlarged. Not far away from Bamaga - only about 80 or 90 miles - is the mining town of Weipa which no doubt could be a ready market for much of the produce grown- on the irrigated farms at Bamaga.

But there is one thing missing in this scheme that 1 have advocated many times, and that is communication. This irrigation scheme, the produce and the turnoff, would be greatly assisted if the proposed beef road which is designed to go just up past Coen could be extended right to the top of Cape York Peninsula with a branch at Weipa. This would open up that area tremendously and make considerable development possible, it has lovely soil and a good rainfall. The rainfall is very seasonal, and that is why the irrigation scheme is needed. I believe that the help provided by this money being made available by the Commonwealth under this Bill could be the start of a big development programme, making it possible for the native races of Australia to engage in business enterprises that have prospects of continuing to be successful. For that reason I support the project and very definitely oppose the amendment. It seems remarkable to me that the Opposition Parties which, for so long, have said that they want all of these things for the Aboriginal people are now a bit inclined - according to Senator Cant - to throw cold water on this scheme and find faults and difficulties. They should be wholeheartedly behind it and help to get it off the ground. If there are teething troubles we will amend them as we go along. I believe that the scheme will turn out to be one of the great things that this Commonwealth has started. I support the Bill.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I recall that the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) went into the Northern Territory, sat down with the Gurindji, spoke with them and promised them that they would receive justice as far as their land rights were concerned. But he returned and suffered the displeasure of his colleagues, and the Gurindji were denied. On 30th July 1968 I received a letter from the Northern Territory Council for Aboriginal Rights. It reads:

The Australian Government’s decision not to grant land at Wattie Creek (N.T.) to the Gurindji people was announced on 10th July 1968. That day, George Gibbs, Public Officer of the N.T.C.A.R. was preparing to leave Wattie Creek after spending a week there helping the Gurindjis repair their truck. He heard the news at Hayes Creek the following day on his return trip to Darwin.

On Saturday, 20th July, Gibbs arrived back at Wattie Creek with further parts for the truck. In the intervening ten days neither the Government, the Northern Territory Administration nor the Welfare Branch had even bothered to convey the Government’s decision to the Gurindjis and he had the unhappy task of breaking the news to them.

The people were stunned. Leader, Vincent Lingiari, said ‘That can’t be right, Mr Wentworth promised us that land’. He walked away and sat alone under a tree and other mcn gathered in disconsolate groups. Then tribal elder, Pincher Manguari, picked up a handful of Wattie Creek earth and held it in his hand. ‘Forty-five years 1 work for Vesteys - bread, salt beef, little bit of tea and sugar, that’s all. Now I get nothing, don’t even own this little bit of my land. Welfare do nothing for us. We don’t want Welfare town, we don’t want that dirty, stony place over on Common, that’s only rubbish country. We want Wattie Creek for ourselves and our children. This country belong to us. Wattie Creek our dreaming place, sacred ground belonging to Gurindjis”.

This was what was promised to the Gurindji by Mr Wentworth in good faith, but somewhere along the line the whole proposal came unstuck, lt is for this reason that we look at legislation in connection with Aboriginal affairs wilh some concern. We do not even know that the Gurindji have been contacted officially, we do not even know whether Mr Wentworth has gone back to speak with the Gurindji, but it brings into doubt the whole tone of the approach of the Government to the problem of Aboriginal affairs. The people of Australia gave overwhelming support to the proposal that the Commonwealth should legislate on behalf of Aboriginals, but the measure now before us is an abdication. The Commonwealth is abdicating in favour of the States and enabling them to take the initiative in relation to the Aboriginals. By this legislation we are merely passing over to the State governments large sums of money so that they can carry on their record of the past, a record of patronage and paternalism to a noble race.

The amendment which we propose will make certain that the States carry out their obligations. If the money is to be passed over to the States - although we object we can do little about it - we want to bc absolutely certain that the work that is to be carried out is performed. We want to be absolutely certain that the States do not cut down their own programme for the Aboriginals. It is very important that the programmes that the States have carried out do not decrease in value over the years so that the Aboriginal people are brought back to the stage that they were in previously - without justice and without assistance. 1 propose now merely to ask a couple of questions because we are faced with the stricture of time. Bills have been brought in in the dying stages of the Parliament so that we cannot give them due scrutiny and we cannot give to the Government the advice that we would wish to give.

I refer first to the $350,000 which is to be given lo the Queensland Government to carry out an irrigation project. This is a worthy attempt to assist with this problem, provided, of course, that the full cooperation of the Aboriginals is sought and that it does not become another native affairs development scheme in which the Aboriginal merely follows the instructions of his master, a situation which he deeply resents. What interest is to be paid on this money? What are the terms of the loan? Why is it that there are some procedural difficulties? These are all questions which I ask quickly at this stage. 1 allude briefly to the second reading speech where the Minister referred to the:

  1. . capital fund for special assistance for potentially viable enterprises by Aboriginals either individually or co-operatively.

I should like from the Government a clear statement as to whether Aboriginal cooperatives will have quick access to this fund. In Queensland it is possible under the State Act for twenty-five Aboriginals to come together and to become a cooperative. Since this co-operative effect is instinctively understood by the Aboriginals, it is one way- in which the development and standing of our Aboriginal communities can be improved quickly. Will Aboriginal cooperatives have quick and ready access to assistance from this fund?

The Senate will recall that I have on the notice paper a question in which 1 have asked why it was that the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) refused to allow Aboriginals in. New Guinea to be trained in co-operative enterprises. In view of some remarks that have been made by honourable senators opposite I have a feeling that the Government looks with some suspicion on cooperatives, that it feels that there is some political motive in their formation. I deny this suggestion strongly. The co-operative movement of Aboriginals is strong and viable. It can help the Government to assist the Aboriginals. Other matters may come up in the Committee stage, but at this point I merely indicate to the Senate that the amendment proposed will improve the Act and wm be in the best interests of the Commonwealth. It is designed to ensure that the Commonwealth has some control over the expenditure of moneys in accordance with the wishes of the people of Australia expressed by way of referendum.

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

[10.25] - I thank those honourable, senators who have spoken to the. Bill tonight for the comments they have made and for the obvious interest that they are taking in our Aboriginal people. I oppose the amendment which has been moved by Senator Cant. There are one or two points on which I should like to comment on behalf of my colleague the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth). Senator Cant spoke at some length on the definition of Aboriginal people. ! remind the honourable senator of what I said in the early part of my second reading speech. J think this explains excellently the points raised and is an entire answer to them; I said: 1 would stress at this stage- that the Commonwealth regards an Aboriginal as a person of full or part Aboriginal descent, who claims to be an Aboriginal and who is accepted as such by the community in which he lives.

The’ honourable senator asked also about Torres Strait islanders. I remind him that I continued in my second reading speech to say:

Torres Strait islanders ana” anybody who is a full blood Aboriginal or is of part Aboriginal descent come within the definition.

This is a definition which has been agreed upon by the States and the Commonwealth

Minister. The honourable senator referred also to an irrigation project at Bamaga. This project was referred to also by Senator Georges and Senator Lawrie. I must say in passing that I am particularly interested in this project as I know Bamaga well and know the people of Bamaga. I know what this legislation will mean to them because of what will be achieved with the assistance which has been given already.

I was asked about the repayable grant to the Queensland Government which is made under section 96 of the Constitution. Honourable senators will understand that it was terribly important to proceed with this project and that there is no wish by either the Queensland Government or the Commonwealth that there should be any delay. However, there are still a few details to be settled. These matters are under discussion between the Commonwealth Minister and the States. It is very important that the splendid work in this area should be got under way as quickly as possible. Whenever the Minister has spoken on this matter he has stressed the importance of flexibility in this field to enable the agreements to be effective. Senators Cant and Georges asked about a holding period in connection with the rate of interest. I inform the honourable senators that a holiday for the payment of interest may be granted. The rate of interest is to be decided by the Minister, but I can assure honourable senators that it will never be an oppressive rate. There is this great desire for flexibility in our approach so that the best possible, arrangements can be made.

I was asked also about our Aboriginal population. I am now able to supply the figures. New South Wales has an Aboriginal population of 25,000; Victoria has 5,000; Queensland has 50,000, including 8,000 Torres Strait islanders who come within the definition of Aboriginals; South Australia has 8,000; Western Australia has 26,000; Tasmania has 500; and the Northern Territory has 25,000. These figures have been agreed to by the State representatives. I would cross swords with the mover of the amendment and those who spoke in favour of it when they say that they have not been given information concerning the terms and conditions agreed between the Commonwealth and the States. I remind the Senate of the statement I made in this chamber on behalf of the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs on 27th August. The statement appears at page 311 of Hansard of that date. In it I set out very clearly and at considerable length the conditions in relation to housing and other matters which had been under discussion by Commonwealth and State Ministers.

I have replied to Senator Georges’ comments about Bamaga. He referred to cooperatives and asked whether individuals and co-operatives would have access to the fund. Both individuals and co-operatives are acceptable. The co-operatives certainly will have quick and ready access to the fund. He referred also to payments to the States. The money will be paid quarterly, but the first payment will be one-third of the total. I have some further information which will be of interest to honourable senators. It will change this legislation from being somthing dry into something that has a personal human touch about it. That is a tremendously important feature and I am sure that every honourable senator appreciates it.

Debate interrupted.

page 2577

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2577

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The Acting Deputy President - Senator I. A. C. Wood)

AYES: 21

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– In my speech at the second reading stage I referred to the definition of Aboriginal’. The Minister told me that the definition was contained in her second reading speech. That seems rather a peculiar place to have a definition of ‘Aboriginal’ when we have a Bill before us. Why is the definition not in the Bill so that anyone who picks it up will know exactly what an Aboriginal is? It is unsatisfactory for the

Minister to tell the Senate that a definition is elsewhere than in the Bill. It might just as well be in the various State Acts as in a second reading speech in Hansard. The Minister said also that remarks in relation to the advancement of Aboriginals were contained in a statement she made some time ago in reply to a question and that the statement was in Hansard.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– lt was a ministerial statement.

Senator CANT:

– Very well. But it is not contained in this Bill. I think it is a disgrace for the Minister to say that we can find something on a certain page of Hansard. People who want to look at these matters do not have Hansard available so that they can ascertain just what is happening. Matters of the kind I have mentioned should be in the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States ®r in the schedule to the Bill or the Act. The definition should be in the Bill or the Act.

Senator Lawrie said that the loan in respect of the Jardine River project would not be made to the Aboriginal people but would be made to the Queensland Government. He said that it was repayable and that it carried a rate of interest. I am referring now, Mr Chairman, to clause 4 of the Bill. Is the rate of interest that will be applied to the Queensland Government the the same rate that will be applied to the Aboriginals developing the Jardine River project? I have vivid recollections of what happened here in 1965. The Commonwealth made money available free of interest to the Governments of Queensland and New South Wales for drought relief. However, the New South Wales and Queensland Governments charged drought stricken people a rate of interest on loans made to them, in the present case, if interest is charged to the Queensland Government, will that Government make a profit by charging the Aboriginal people participating in this project a higher rate of interest?

These are pertinent questions which should be answered. It is insufficient for the Minister to stand and say that the rate of interest will be determined by the Minister concerned. It is insufficient to say that it will not be a high rate of interest. In financial transactions today an interest rate of 10% is not considered lo be high. No satisfactory answer has been given as to the holding period. When speaking of the holding period I was speaking not merely about the period in respect of the interest payable but also in respect of the repayment of the capital. After all, if the people participating in the project receive a grant under this legislation in order to help them develop their areas, it will be some months, or even some years, before the project becomes profitable and money will be available to enable them to begin repaying the capital. I ask: is there any holding period?

Are these matters contained in the agreement that we wanted made available to the Senate? It is only right that these matters should be revealed. It is some 18 months since the Australian people carried the referendum concerning the Aboriginal people. 1 know the energy of the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) and I know of his great interest in the Aboriginal people. Yet the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), has told us that after 18 months of examination of ways and means of helping the Aboriginals there are still details that are not yet settled and this is one of the reasons given for not tabling the agreement. Those are the only remarks I. want to make in connection with the Bill before us.

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

[10.44] - Senator Cant has referred to the definition of ‘Aboriginal’ and 1 again refer him to the second reading speech which indicates a very wide definition. This is important. The main thing is that we help the greatest number of people who come within this definition. If there were a very tight or finely drawn definition we would not be able to assist many of the people whom we wish to assist. By defining ‘Aboriginal’ in this way we are assisting the people who come within this definition, it is a definition recognised and agreed to by the State officers concerned. This means, I believe, that the scope of the legislation is not limited in any way. More people will be assisted under this definition.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But why is the definition not included in the Bill1?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Because by not doing so we will accomplish this purpose. This is the whole pur pose. The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Wentworth) has made it very clear, on more than one occasion, that he wants to assist those people who can come within this definition. If the definition were fined down and very limited I believe the Aboriginal1 people would not get the full benefit.

Senator Cant:

asked about the rate of interest to be applied in connection with the Jardine River project. 1 want the honourable senator to understand that this money is to be made available to the State Government, not to individual people, because the State Government is to build the facilities associated with the project. If a government goes into an area and builds a dam, or whatever it may be, which is of advantage to the area, then this is the way that the assistance is given to the Aboriginal, people. Interest is not charged to the people of the area. The State Government provides the facilities. Indeed, this is being done. The honourable senator also asked about what happens when the money is repaid. As the Minister made clear, the money goes back into a capital development fund and is used again.

Senator Cant:

– Does this mean that only the State governments will use this money for development works and that the Aboriginals will not get anything?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Not at all. I have already explained to the honourable senator and have provided a perfect example of cases where money is given to individual people in order to start them off in a particular business or whatever enterprise they might wish to engage in.

Senator Cant:

– This is what we want to know. We want to know about the rate of interest and whether there is a holding period.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– This matter again is completely flexible and I cannot state a particular rate. The point is that this money is being provided for the benefit of the people concerned. This is the whole purpose of the exercise.

Senator Georges:

– Will it be kept lo a minimum?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The money certainly will be of the greatest benefit to those receiving it. 1 believe there was another point which I have omitted. If that is so then the honourable senator concerned may care to repeat his question.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– In respect of the Go-operative which the Minister announced, and which we acknowledged with great pleasure, have any terms been worked out for the agreement involved?

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– Is the honourable senator referring to an individual person?

Senator GEORGES:

– No. I am referring to the co-operative that the Minister mentioned earlier. What we are trying to ascertain from the Minister is the anticipated rate of interest. We believe the interest rate should be merely nominal. We are looking for an assurance to this effect.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [10.48] - I have just been informed that this money for the Yuendumu copper project is interest free.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) read a third time.

page 2580

ABORIGINAL ENTERPRISES (ASSISTANCE) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November (vide page 2360), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– 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 2580

STATES GRANTS (SPECL4L ASSISTANCE) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 November (vide page 2427), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This Bill authorises the payment of a final adjusting payment of $582,000 to Western Australia in respect of its special grant for 1966-67, and a special grant of $16,810,000 to Tasmania for 1968-69. A serious position has arisen in Tasmania. This Bill makes an historical point in the period of existence of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. By degrees over a period of years the other claimant States of Western Australia and South Australia have managed to move out of that category. Tasmania remains as the only claimant State. The suggestion has been made in some quarters that Tasmania is a mendicant State, but it should be remembered that Tasmania suffers from special disabilities as a State of the Commonwealth. The first of its disabilities is its isolation - its separation from the mainland by Bass Strait. Unfortunately that stretch of water, the seabed of which will produce such wealth, does not belong to Tasmania. It has been determined by some method that the oil bearing seabed beneath Bass Strait falls within the ambit of Victoria. That is one of our disabilities. Victoria can get richer while Tasmania remains a claimant State.

The disabilities that are being experienced in Tasmania are partly due to the overall policy of the Commonwealth Government. Tasmania must take its place in the new scale of development of our natural resources which necessitates the construction of roads into previously inaccessible areas. An unfortunate period of drought involved not only a shortage of water and reduced generation of hydro-electricity, but also the provision of a thermal generating electricity plan. The provision of schools, hospitals and other facilities for migrants who are attracted to Tasmania as a result of government policy places an extra burden on Tasmania. Tasmanians do not feel that because Tasmania is the sole remaining claimant State it is a matter of disgrace. All the other States receive substantial assistance from the Commonwealth. The stage is being reached at which a complete review will have to be made of Commonwealth and State relationships. Each State is getting further into debt through paying interest on loans made by the Commonwealth Government. Many of the loans should be Commonwealth responsibilities but they are being placed on the shoulders of the States.

The fact that Tasmania is the last claimant State does not mean that Tasmanians are beggars. We believe we are making our contribution towards the development and advancement of the nation. Tasmania incurs disabilities because of its small population and separation from the mainland. A stringent financial year faces Tasmania with the prospect of a deficit of $5m. That is a very big figure in the finances of the Tasmanian Budget. Tasmanians will never feel that they are obliged to beg from anyone. We will make our way as we have done in the past. The special grant on this occasion is of a lesser amount than in previous years. The expenses of the State have been cut to the lowest possible level. Although the grant on this occasion is inadequate, we must be thankful for any handouts given by the Commonwealth. We will not delay the Bill any further. We wish it a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2581

CONTINENTAL SHELF (LIVING NATURAL RESOURCES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2569).

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– 1 would like to indicate that at the Committee stage of the debate the Opposition intends to propose an amendment. This Bill has been introduced in the closing stages of the sessional period. Earlier in this sessional period the Opposition raised the subject of this Bill as a matter of urgency. We impressed on the Government that it should speedily act to bring the waters of the north under some control. We are pleased to see that legislation has now come forward. However, it is a pity that it has come at this late stage of the sessional period. The problem which arises is that we are unable to take time off to investigate the consequences of the legislation, especially in reference to the terms ‘living organisms’ and ‘nonliving organisms’.

It is very important to the conservation of the area of the continental shelf and the Great Barrier Reef and similar areas that legislation on non-living organisms be introduced quickly. It is indicated in the second reading speech that such legislation will be introduced quickly. I am quite certain that, unless the exploitation of non-living organisms is controlled, dead coral will affect the control and conservation of living coral and other living organisms. Unless this legislation follows quickly we may have instances in which the Reef will be exploited for commercial purposes. Dead coral may be exploited for the production of limestone. We may find that this will affect the living organisms, and particularly the Great Barrier Reef. I believe that it is necessary for this matter to be investigated so that the necessary legislation will come forward quickly. Honourable senators will recall that this debate was adjourned earlier tonight. In so short a time it is impossible to give this Bill the justice that it really deserves.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I. sense that at this time of the year and at this time of the night we are all appreciative of difficulties which we face and which the Government has had to face with regard to its legislative programme. I regret very much that this measure has been introduced into the Senate at this stage. This is a Bill of historic quality. Echoing what Senator Georges has said, I would have liked the opportunity to give to it greater consideration than I have been able to. It purports to give to the Commonwealth jurisdiction and control over the resources of the seabed outside the coast of Australia. Never before has the Commonwealth asserted for itself this sort of control.

Honourable senators will recall that in 1967 the Parliament passed the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, which is now the subject of reference to a select committee of the Senate. In that legislation the Commonwealth and the States, resolving their differences as to who had jurisdiction and control, constitutionally and internationally, in respective areas, united to pass legislation. That legislation is unique. But the legislation, which we are now considering and which reates to the continental shelf, is an assertion by the Commonwealth of control over the resources of the seabed from the 3-mile limit out from the coast as far out as an area can be exploited. This can properly be termed an historic occasion.

Once the Commonwealth has determined that it will assert its control, is it proper that the Commonwealth should limit its assertion of control to the area beyond the 3-mile limit, or, once this initial step has been taken, should it decide to assert control from the low water mark as far out as one can go? Traditionally there has been recognition of the 3-mile limit, in respect of which certain rights of passage have been recognised by the adjacent State. But there has never been any occasion for the assertion of any form of sovereignty or control over the resources of the seabed of the territorial sea. It may be. that the Commonwealth should have given consideration to this matter. I suppose that it has done so. As a result of the researches that it made, it could well have decided to seek the authority, which is now to be taken by legislation, from the low water mark out.

I am not posing as in any sense a lawyer with qualifications to express firm views on these matters. But 1 would think that once one type of control is asserted there is at least justification for having the other type of control from the low water mark out. I appreciate that with regard to the resources of the seabed of the territorial sea area the States may well have said: ‘This is a power that the States, as distinct from the Commonwealth, may exercise’. I imagine that broadly that would be so in the area of the Great Barrier Reef. Even if the States did assert that control and even if they passed legislation that, appeared to be inconsistent with Commonwealth legislation, I cannot see how that would create an insuperable problem. If on some occasion action was taken either under Commonwealth law or under State law and the issue ultimately had to be resolved in the High Court of Australia, the position would be that there would be competing legislation and one or the other would be valid.

I have indicated some of the concern that I have. This is a complex and far reaching Bill. It certainly is one that is replete with technical difficulties. As I said earlier, I regret that it has been introduced at this stage. But, inasmuch as the general intention of the legislation is one that would command acceptance, 1 am in the same position as Senator Georges. There are obvious problems which will be resolved by the passage of this legislation at the earliest stage. But it is regrettable that greater time was not available for consideration of whether the scope of the legislation should be wider than it is. However, for the purposes for which it is designed, for the scope of its provisions and for the benefits that one might suppose will flow in the immediate future from the ability to exercise this control, the legislation is desirable legislation and certainly has my support.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– Like Senator Georges and Senator Greenwood - the two honourable senators who have addressed themselves to this Bill so far - I criticise the late arrival of such an important piece of legislation. The Government has been jolted by adverse public criticism into taking some action. It now places members of the Opposition and Government senators in the position of having to accept the Bill as it is or to reject it. I venture to say that if we accept the Bill as it is we will not have examined it in the way that its importance demands, because we have not had the opportunity to do so. On the other hand, if we opposed the legislation the Government could accuse us of trying to stop something which we have been saying for quite a long while should be introduced. In those circumstances I believe that it is most unfair that we should be put in the position we are in tonight. However, as has been indicated, we will not oppose the passage of the Bill. 1 desire to address some remarks to one or two clauses of the Bill. I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) to advise the Senate subsequently whether the intention of the Bill is to provide for only live organisms. My understanding of the Bill is that it does. I draw the Minister’s attention to the definition of sedentary organism in clause 7 of the Bill, which states:

Where the Governor-General is satisfied that a marine organism of any kind is, for the purposes of the Convention, part of the living natural resources of the Australian continental shelf, or the continental shelf of a territory, by reason that is, for the purposes of the Convention, an organism belonging to sedentary species, he may, by Proclamation, declare the organism to be a sedentary organism to which this Act applies.

I believe the emphasis is on the words ‘part of the living natural resources of the Australian continental shelf. Perhaps the Minister would indicate whether that is so. If it is I propose to say more in the Committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I refer to clause 12 which reads, in part: (1.) The appropriate Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette -

  1. Prohibit the removal of sedentary organisms of a specified kind from the Australian continental shelf, or the continental shelf of a Territory, being a Territory specified in the notice, unless the organisms are dead.

I move:

I support the expressions of concern by Senators Greenwood and Milliner about the haste with which the Bill has been introduced.I think we all agree that the Bill is a step in the right direction. We have been seeking some legislation to protect the waters of the north. We are prepared to support the Bill and we shall endeavour to give it a reasonably speedy passage. The Opposition’s concern is that the exploitation of the Great Barrier Reef may continue because of the definition placed uponliving or dead organisms. For that reason and to protect the reef until such time as legislation is introduced. I have moved my amendment. I have indicated already why we think the amendment should be carried at this stage. We may find that exploitation by mining companies, after having been granted mining leases, will cause erosion of the reef and destruction of actual living coral.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I congratulate the Government on introducing this most important measure for the control of the exploitation of living natural resources in submerged lands. I agree with the other speakers that it is regrettable that the Bill was introduced only today. Apparently the Government requires the Bill to be passed today. Probably very few more important matters than this will come before the Senate during this session. I would wish to speak on the Bill at some length, but in the Committee stage I take one point with the Minister. Perhaps he may be able to give the Government’s view on it. In the Minister’s second reading speech the following description of the area which we purport to control is given: the continental shelf of a coastal country comprises the seabed and subsoil of the seabed adjacent to that country but beyond its territorial limits, to where the depth of the sea above is 200 metres, and even beyond that limit to where the depth of the sea above admits of the exploitation of the natural resources.

From earlier discussions in relation to the recovery of hydrocarbons I believe we may have been somewhat out of touch in believing that the Convention on the Continental Shelf allowed a continuing line or a continuing limit to be extended beyond our continental shelf as we gradually gain proficiency in being able to exploit deeper waters. The wording that the Minister used - and I do not doubt that there is some authority behind his statement - indicates that the Parliament will be expected to accept the term ‘where the depth of the sea above admits of the exploitation of the natural resources’. The appropriate words from the Convention of the Continental Shelf -I will not quote the whole text - are:

  1. . to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said . areas; to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands.

I point out to the Senate that within recent weeks the United Nations has been busily discussing the matter. I hope we are quite up to date in our definition. The general contention will be not only that the Convention on the Continental Shelf took the rights of the adjacent State to the edge of the continental shelf but that the United Stales of America, Canada and probably Australia will seek to take control to that part of the continental shelf which gradually slopes down to the seabed but not beyond. I express to the Senate my understanding that perhaps the wording which we find inthe second reading speech is not quite accurate for what will be required in future.

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

– I rise at this point of time because I think that some of the answersI can give might provide answers to questions that honourable senators may intend to ask. Perhaps that could save a little time. There has been some criticism about the so-called delay in introducing the Bill. On several occasions in this chamber I have mentioned that negotiations in connection with matters of this kind have been proceeding with other countries. lt was not until those negotiations were concluded that a Bill of this kind could be introduced. Important Bills are introduced at the last moment. That has been so ever since I have been a member of this House. I am very much afraid that this will always bc the case. The Government regrets it, but it is inevitable. We recognise it is not good, but I have given the reason why this measure is brought in at this late stage. Senator Georges has moved an amendment and questions have been asked about dead organisms. In my second reading speech, 1 said:

The Hill is concerned with living sedentary resources o[ the. continental shelf. Legislation of a different nature is required to deal with non-living continental shelf resources. Already, as honourable senators will recall, legislation lo deal with the petroleum resources of the continental shelf off Australia and the Territories is on the statute book. The Government is considering the preparation of appropriate legislation lo deal willi other nonliving resources. Wilh the passage of the Bill-

That is this Bill - now under consideration, and Iiic legislation in relation to the non-living continental shelf resources other than petroleum, Australia will be in a position to exercise full legal control over all of ils continental shelf resources, both living and nonliving, covered by the Convention.

In addition lo that I can say that the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) is in the course of preparing a scheme which will provide for the protection of non-living resources such as dead coral.

Senator Georges:

– When can we expect to have legislation on that?

Senator McKELLAR:

– Here I can only hazard a guess, but I would say that it would surely be in the autumn session, and ] think that this does away with the need for the amendment which the honourable senator has proposed.

Clause 12(l)(f) was included in the Bill to give effect to a provision in the Pearl Fisheries Act which- is to be repealed by the present Bill to control the removal of live pearl shell from an area of the continental shelf for pearl culture purposes and to prevent such removal of live pearl shell to places outside Australia where it would be used for pearl culture purposes. It is not intended to be used to permit the removal of dead coral, which can be more adequately controlled under separate mining legislation, as I said earlier. The purpose of clause 7 is to enable the Act to be applied to all living resources of the continental shelf that could be included within the definition of ‘sedentary resources’ as provided by the Convention. I understand that as our technology improves we can move into the deeper areas mentioned by Senator Webster.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– The Minister’s explanation merely emphasises in my opinion the difficulties that may confront us, but he may be able to satisfy me on this score. Once this Bill becomes law, then we have no complementary legislation dealing with non-living substances. Assuming this Bill receives the Royal Assent and we have no complementary legislation. I would suggest that under this legislation it would be possible for any mining company to go to the Great Barrier Reef and mine dead coral. Who is to determine which is dead coral? Already overtures have been made in this direction. Some scientists say it will have no adverse effect on the Barrier Reef. Others are equally positive that it will. How are we to determine who is correct?

I would suggest that unless complementary legislation in relation to non-living organisms is available then it is dangerous to proceed with this measure at this stage. I can appreciate the fact that the Government wishes to do something about protecting the Great Barrier Reef. Nevertheless, are we doing that very thing when the position is as 1 have suggested?

Whilst I am speaking perhaps I may be permitted to refer to sub-clause 10 of clause 13, which reads:

Where -

a person authorised to grant a licence under this section is satisfied that there has been a contravention of, or failure to comply with, a condition specified in such a licence; or

the holder of the licence has been convicted of an offence against this Act or the Fisheries Act 1952-1968, the person so authorised may cancel the licence.

We are dealing here with one of the great wonders of the world and if we grant a licence to a person and that person offends the laws of the country we say in this Bill that we may cancel his licence. I believe that it should be obligatory that the licence should be cancelled with no qualifications whatever in the Bill.

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

– As to the first question asked, the information given to me, and which 1 have already put before the Senate, is that a ‘mining company could not go on to any reef that is an island or within 3 miles of any island. This is controlled by Queensland legislation. Legislation will be introduced in the autumn session to cover the position beyond 3 miles.

As to the cancelling of a licence under sub-clause 10 of clause 13, surely it is only reasonable to feel that if there is flagrant abuse of the regulations the licence will automatically be cancelled. Of course, this position will obtain only until the autumn session when complementary legislation will be brought down.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– In view of the fact that this legislation has come before the Senate so very belatedly - perhaps unavoidably so - and in view of its importance and the complexity of its character, and also because complementary legislation to deal with the non-living resources of the Great Barrier Reef will be introduced in the New Year, I was wondering whether the Minister might suggest to the Attorney-General’s Department that some sort of aide memoire in the nature of a survey of the general position on the continental shelf might be prepared for the guidance of members of both Houses so that they can approach the advent of the intended legislation with more knowledge. This is a most obscure situation. It has national, interstate and international implications. It is complex in law. It is complex from the point of view of trade and the association between nations.

It is unfortunate that this matter, in this form, comes before this chamber so very late. It is certainly a subject that would warrant the close scrutiny and attention of honourable senators and I do think that, at the appropriate time, with the appropriate opportunity for debate, honourable senators would be more than interested to participate in such a discussion. Particularly for those who are not professionally qualified in the field of law - and few of us are qualified in the field of international law at least at an appropriate level - an aide memoire of the character I have mentioned would, I am sure, be of tremendous interest and value to honourable senators who may desire to approach such a discussion with some advance information as to the nature of the problem.

I was going to suggest that perhaps a paper might be tabled in the Senate early next year, even before the presentation of the legislation, and that that might occupy the Senate by way of formal motion for debate; but in view of the projected presentation of legislation, the other suggestion which I propound might be more effective. That is that honourable senators be given an opportunity by a professionally prepared document to inform themselves so that when the intended legislation comes before the Senate the whole question of the continental shelf will be disclosed to the Senate. Honourable senators will then be able io make that type of contribution and to give it that type of attention that I think the Senate appreciates should be given to a matter of such great national and international moment.

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

– Senator Byrne’s suggestion appeals to me very much. I will pass it on to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) with a recommendation that it be carried out as early as possible.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– The title states that this is a Bill for an Act relating to the living natural resources of the continental shelf, but throughout the Bill reference is made to sedentary organisms. Proposed section 5(1.) defines a sedentary organism as:

  1. . an organism of a kind declared by Proclamation in force under section 7 of this Act to bc a sedentary organism to which this Act applies;

Proposed section 7 states:

Where the Governor-General is satisfied that a marine organism of any kind is, for the purposes of the Convention, part of the living natural resources of the Australian continental shelf, or the continental shelf of a Territory, by reason thai it is, for the purposes of the Convention, an organism belonging to sedentary species, he may, by Proclamation, declare the organism lo be a sedentary organism lo which this Act applies.

Just what the Bill applies to is left up in the air. The effect of the Bill relies completely upon some subsequent proclamation. We do not know at this stage what that proclamation will be. 1 know that there is difficulty in defining sedentary organisms. But it seems to me to be unsatisfactory that legislation designed to deal with sedentary organisms has to rely upon some future proclamation. We do not know when that proclamation will be made, lt may be made in 10 years time. But this legislation is ineffective until such time as a proclamation is made defining sedentary organisms. I would like the Minister to explain this to me. Proposed section 12 (I.) prohibits the taking of sedentary organisms of a specified kind or in a specified part or area of the Australian continental shelf or an area of the continental shelf of a Territory that is a controlled area in relation to sedentary organisms of that kind. But proposed section 13 (1.) states:

The appropriate Minister or the appropriate Secretary may grant to a person a licence authorising the person to search for and take sedentary organisms of a specified kind in, or in a specified part of, an area of the Australian continental shelf, or an area of the continental shelf of a Territory, that is a controlled area in relation to sedentary organisms of that kind.

In other words, the appropriate Minister or secretary may grant a licence to a person or to persons to exploit sedentary organisms. The Australian Labor Party has been concerned for some time that the Great Barrier Reef will be exploited in this way. We are all aware that some time ago a company made application to the Queensland Government to mine a part of the Great Barrier Reef for limestone. This provision would mean that in certain circumstances a Minister or Secretary could grant a licence to someone to exploit part of the Great Barrier Reef for this purpose. The object of the Opposition I think it is also the object of the Government although the legislation does not make that clear - is to protect the Great Barrier Reef. The Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities (Senator Wright) is in the chamber at present. He is well aware of the value of the Great Barrier Reef as a tourist attraction. 1 think all honourable senators are aware of .the devastation that has taken place over a number of years on the Great Barrier Reef. Oil rigs are at present operating along that part of the Australian continental shelf. If there is any escape of oil onto the Reef the coral will be killed. What provisions are there to protect the Reef in such circumstances? I have had the opportunity of having only a very quick look at this legislation. It has been dealt with in a similar manner to the legislation which was introduced at the last minute a year ago in regard to the exploration for and exploitation of petroleum resources on our continental shelf. On that occasion the Senate did not have an opportunity to examine the legislation thoroughly. The Government appreciated this fact and subsequently set up a Senate select committee to inquire into the legislation that had been passed. The present legislation we are considering is important to Australia as a whole, but it is particularly important to Queensland. There may have been difficulties that the Government could not overcome, but I think that we should have been given greater time to examine this legislation so that we could make constructive suggestions to the Government. 1 think we all have the same interest at heart, which is the protection of this fascinating part of the continental shelf. If there is any further information available .on the two matters that I have raised. I shall be pleased if the Minister will inform. me accordingly.

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

– Senator Cant will no doubt recall that I dealt with the provisions of proposed section 7 earlier. In addition to that, I said in my second reading speech:

I shall not attempt to provide an exhaustive list of the resources which belong to sedentary species within the meaning of the Convention. There can be no doubt that pearl shall, trochus, clams, abalone, live coral, seaplants and beche-de-mer organisms are found in large quantities on many parts of Australia’s continental shelf, and in particular on the Great Barrier Reef, arc organisims that arc within the Convention definition.

I inform the honourable senator that there are others as well. The idea behind this reference to certain organisms has not been to constrict the position at all. I understand that there are certain’ other organisms that take part in the formation of the Great Barrier Reef which would also come under the list that I have already read out. I appreciate Senator Cant’s concern for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. The protection of the Reef has been causing the Government a good deal of concern. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has expressed very strong views on the protection that should be afforded for the preservation of the Great Barrier Reef. The other question was whether it would be possible for somebody to get permission to go in there.

I am informed that this is not likely at all - that no permit for exploration of the type that was mentioned would be issued. I say again that I regret that it has not been possible to allot more time for the consideration of this Bill; 1 regret also that it has come in late. But for reasons that I mentioned earlier that was unavoidable.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill (on motion by Senator McKellar; read a third time.

page 2587

FISHERIES BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2569).

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– We propose to submit two amendments in the Committee stage. The purpose is to achieve something for which we pressed in a previous debate on a matter of urgency. I think the memory of all senators will go back to that debate and what was said in it. It is not necessary, therefore, for me to repeat the arguments or to canvass the situation again. We merely indicate strongly that the waters of the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Great Barrier Reef should come within the definition of the Act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I refer to clause 3, which reads, in part: (2.) Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from the definition of ‘ the Minister ‘ the words ‘ Commonwealth, includes the Minister of State for Territories;’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ Commonwealth (other than the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands), includes the Minister of State for External Territories;’.

I seek leave to deal with both the Opposition’s amendments together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is there any objection? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GEORGES:

– I move:

  1. In sub-clause (2.), after ‘amended’ insert the following paragraph:

    1. by inserting in the definition “the declared fishing zone”, after paragraph (b), the following paragraph: “(c) the waters of the Gulf of Carpentaria,”; and’.

  2. In sub-clause (2.), after ‘amended’ insert the following paragraph:

    1. by inserting in the definition of “the declared fishing zone”, after paragraph (b), the following paragraph: “(d) the waters of the Great Barrier Reef,”; and’.

The purpose ofthe amendment is self evident. I leave the matter at that.

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

-I am afraid that the Government cannot accept these amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2587

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1968

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill. .

page 2587

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1967-68

Statement of Expenditure In Committee

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That the Committee approves the Statement for the year 1967-68 of Heads of Expenditure and the Amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1966.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2588

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (DEMOCRATIC ELECTION OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES) BILL 1968

Bill, by leave, presented by Senator Murphy and read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - I move:

My second reading speech has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate it in Hansard. This Bill proposes a referendum to alter the Constitution by inserting a requirement to provide for equal representation of the people of the several States in the House of Representatives. If the people so desire, by the procedure for amendment laid down in the Constitution, there will be inserted in the Constitution, after the existing words in section 29, the following sentence: ‘The Divisions of the several States shall be so determined that in each State the number of people per member of the House of Representatives in each division of the State shall bc, as nearly as practicable, equal. This new section will guarantee the democratic election of the House of Representatives. If carried this amendment of the Constitution 1. will provide for a greater equality of population of the proposed divisions than had occurred in any previous distribution; 2. will provide that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote is worth as much as another’s; 3. will achieve the Constitution’s plain objective of making equal representation for equal numbers of people a fundamental goal for the House of Representatives; 4. will implement the basic human right set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the Government, such will to be expressed by elections which shall be by equal suffrage.

In view of the inequalities that still persist in the electoral divisions for the House of Representatives, I have introduced this Bill to permit the people to alter the Constitution so as to provide specifically for the election of the House of Representatives on the basis of equal suffrage - to ensure so far as practicable, that each vote shall be of equal value. Section 24 of the Constitution provides as between the States that the number of people per member is to be equal. This is achieved by the quota provisions and is modified only to the extent that there is a minimum of five representatives for each State. This Bill will extend the same principle into the States, that is, intrastate, so that the number of people per member in all divisions shall be, as far as practicable, equal. It will thus achieve in each State what is now provided as between the States. The Bill uses the term ‘per member’ to allow for the possibility, provided in the Constitution, of multiple electorates. The present distributions have opened the way for continued inequalities in electorates, and inequalities in representation - in short, for a departure from democracy in Australia. As Earl Warren stated: ‘The complexions of society and civilisations change, often with amazing rapidity. A nation, once primarily rural in character, becomes predominantly urban. Representation schemes once fair and equitable, become archaic and outdated.’

It is one thing for electoral districts to become unequal with the passage of time; it is another to legislate such inequalities, or perpetuate them by legislation. This Bill will remedy the failure to pursue the Constitution and the law in providing for redistribution on the basis of equal representation and equal suffrage. The recent redistribution was 7 years overdue: This Bill is many years overdue.. The right to equal suffrage has been too long dented in Australia. I stated before in this chamber that justice delayed is justice denied. Equally, electoral justice delayed is electoral justice denied. Insofar as there is an improvement in the present situation it is a delayed improvement; and to that extent the people of Australia are denied justice. This will ensure that the citizens of this country will have a chance to demand that justice for themselves by altering the Constitution in this way. No matter the changes in society - in political attitudes, pressures and influence, the basic principle of democratic government remains, and must remain, unchanged - the weight of a citizen’s vote should not depend on where he lives, what he grows, or what he contributes to the nation’s wealth.

Every citizen is qualified to vote. He is no more or less qualified because he lives in a city or on a farm, or in one place or another. His vote is as good as tre next man’s. The idea that every voter is equal to every other voter when he casts his ballot for a candidate is the underlying factor in most United States judicial decision in electoral disputes. The important decision of the United Slates Supreme Court (Wesberry v. Sanders, 1964) determined that the constitutional test for the validity of Congressional districting schemes was one of substantial equality of population among the various districts established, in Australia, the Commonwealth Parliament determines its electoral districts. We have no recalcitrant States to fight to ensure that the Federal Houses of Parliament are democratically elected. In the same case the United States Supreme Court decided that an apportionment of Congressional seats which ‘contracts the value of some votes and expands that of others’ is unconstitutional, since ‘the Federal Constitution intends that when qualified voters elect members of Congress each vote be given as much weight as any other vote . . .’. The Court concluded that the constitutional prescription for election of members of the House of Representatives ‘by the people’, construed in its historical context, ‘means that as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is to be worm as much as another’s.’ . . . Our Constitution’s plain objective was that ‘of making equal representation for equal numbers of the people the fundamental goal

Section 24 of The Australian Constitution states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen ‘by the people’. There is controversy whether the United States decisions would apply to our Constitution so that these words in our section 24 alone in the context of our Constitution would ensure the object which would be achieved by the new words sought to be introduced by this Bill. That controversy will be unnecessary if the words are inserted. The division of the States into equitable and therefore democratic divisions will be ensured beyond argument. No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a free and equal voice in the election of those who make the laws under which we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, arc illusory if the right to vote is undermined. There is no room in a democratic country for the classification of people in a way that substantially abridges this right.

This Bill does not envisage the impossible - that equal electoral divisions can be adhered to with mathematical precision. It has been well said: ‘While it may not be possible to draw Congressional districts with mathematical precision, that is no excuse for ignoring our Constitution’s plain objective or making equal representation for equal numbers of people the fundamental goal for the House of Representatives.’ This is the goal set by this Bill for the Australian House of Representatives. As yet we have no Bill of Rights in our Constitution - that is a set of basic guarantees for individual liberties and social claims similar to those which appear in the first 10 and 14 amendments of the United States Constitution. The Australian courts have no such basis on which to enforce the right of electoral justice. The principle of one man one vote, one vote one value in Australia can be put beyond question only by a decision of the people invoked by a referendum Bill. This Bill will give the people of Australia the right to decide whether such a referendum to amend the Constitution should be passed.

The necessity for such an amendment is illustrated by the recent report of the distribution commissioners of New South Wales who stated in paragraph 9 on page 3:

Strong representations were also made to your distribution commissioners concerning the principle of ‘one vote one value’. While your commissioners had regard for this principle, they were, of course, obliged to give due consideration to the factors specified in section 19 (2) of the Act. Under your commissioners’ proposals all divisions contain a number of electors within the limits specified in section 19 (1).

These factors are:

  1. Community of interests within the division, including economic, social and regional interests;
  2. Means of communication and travel within the division, with special reference to disabilities arising out of remoteness or distance;
  3. the trend of population changes within the State:
  4. Density or sparcity of population of the division;
  5. The area of the division;
  6. The physical features of the division; and
  7. Existing boundaries of divisions and subdivisions.

The report reveals that the distribution commissioners set out to look at permissible numbers, going 20% one way or 20% the other way as allowed by section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, instead of setting out with the goal of establishing an equal number of voters in each electorate. What have these factors which now confuse the commissioners to do with the basic democratic principles? We should insist here on application of the rule that:

Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislators are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representing the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bed-rock of our political system.

The Bill is concerned with a right that is basic to our political system and to our political philosophies which honourable senators on both sides of the chamber espouse. Why then is it taking so long to implement this concept in our electoral system? Surely no honourable senator doubts that equal suffrage is fundamental in a free and democratic society? The right to exercise this franchise freely and without limitation or restriction is the basis for all other civil and political rights. Any infringement of the right of the citizens to vote must be scrutinised carefully and with suspicion. I hope we would all denounce a Bill which permitted enactment of law providing that certain voters could vote two, five, or ten times for their representative, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once, lt is inconceivable that this chamber would vote for a law to that effect. And yet many honourable senators concur in a law providing that the vote of citizens in one part of the country is up to 50% more than votes of citizens in another part; that is, immediately upon redistribution. Of course, as time passes the maldistribution generally becomes much worse than 50% .

The effect of distribution which gives unequal numbers of electors the same amount of representation is the same as multiplying votes. Over weighting and over valuation of the votes of those living in one place has the certain effect of diluting and under valuating the votes of those living in another place. The resulting discrimination against voters in less favoured areas is easily demonstrable mathematically. Their right to vote is simply not the same as the right to vote of those living in a favoured division of the country, lt is party considerations that prevent all members of this Parliament acting to ensure these rights. But we should not be concerned here with the rights of political parties. We should be concerned with the rights of the people of Australia, lt is in this light that the Bill before the Senate must be considered. When one departs from equality of voting, those who benefit from the inequality are the most reluctant to give up the power they gain from it. This Bill will ensure that the uniformity of the value of every Australian’s vote will be maintained. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Anderson) adjourned.

page 2590

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

– by leave - I move:

For the information of honourable senators I inform them that a notice has been circulated to them stating that it is proposed that the sittings resume on 25th February 1969. Upon the resumption it is proposed to have two periods of sittings for 2 weeks with 1 week off, with the periods then becoming a little longer.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2590

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

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

page 2591

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Answers to the following questions upon notice were circulated:

page 2591

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

page 2591

TRADE WITH RHODESIA

page 2591

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE RESEARCH

page 2592

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 671)

Senator BISHOP:

asked the Minister representing the Ministerfor Defence, upon notice:

  1. In the last 10 years, how many servicemen who had served in prescribed special areas, became recipients of repatriation benefits and what was the number for each of the prescribed special areas?
  2. In the last 10 years, how many servicemen serving overseas in other than special areas, have become recipients of benefits under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act?
  3. In the last 10 years, how many servicemen serving in Australia have become recipients of benefits under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act?

Senator ANDERSON- The Minister for Defence has provided the following information:

Records of the Service Departments and the Repatriation Department are not maintained to provide readily the information in the form requested. The following figures are furnished: 1. (i) At 30 September 1968 war pensions gran- ted under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act . 1962-1968, operative from 28th May 1963 were:

  1. At 30 September 1968 war pensions granted under the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956-1966, operative from 1st September 1957 to 27 May 1963, in the Malayan area were 447.

Detailed records of repatriation benefits other than pensions are not readily available.

  1. & 3. Successful claims under the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act over the last 10 years were: Navy 1206; Army 10,778* and Air Force 575.

These are claims in which Commonwealth liability has been admitted. In some cases benefits have not been received either because they were not applicable, or because it has been necessary only to record liability against the event of a recurrence or deterioration of the condition concerned which may incur benefits in the future.

The services do not record separately claims lodged by personnel serving overseas but estimate that the numbers would be small.

page 2592

ARMED SERVICES

(Question No. 713)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

  1. Have many persons made application to join the Army, Navy and Air Force in the years 1966, 1967 and 1968?
  2. What was the total number accepted in each of the services?
  3. What was the total number rejected on (a) medical, (b) educational and (c) unsatisfactory civil record grounds?

Senator ANDERSON- The Minister for Defence has provided the following information:

page 2592

METRIC SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

(Question No. 725)

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is being done to implement the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures that the use of imperial units of measurement be discontinued over a period and that at the end of that period the metric system of units become the sole Commonwealth legal units of measurement, and that the metric system to be adopted be that recommended by the General Conference of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and known as the International System of Units (SI)? (Question No. 726)

What steps have been taken to implement the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures that legislation be introduced to provide for the conversion to the metric system and, in particular, to empower a Minister of the Commonwealth to facilitate and co-ordinate this conversion? (Question No. 727)

What is being done to implement the recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures that, in converting to the metric system, the programme should aim at effectively completing the conversion within 10 years of the announcement to convert but that shorter periods should be set, as appropriate for particular sectors? (Question No. 728)

What is being done to convene an early conference, at the instigation of the Prime Minister, of all State Premiers, at which steps should be taken to ensure the co-operation of State Governments with the Commonwealth on the question of the introduction of the metric system? (Question No. 729)

Will the Prime Minister make an early announcement as to whether the Government intends to convert to the metric system so that an opportunity can be given to the community, industry and commerce to prepare for such a change? (Question No. 730)

In view of the fact that, although no precise estimate could be obtained of the overall cost of a conversion, many witnesses, giving evidence before the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures, agreed that this cost would increase significantly with each year’s delay in undertaking the change to the Metric System, will the Prime Minister undertake to have the recommendations contained in the report implemented as quickly as possible?

Senator ANDERSON- The Prime Minister has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s questions Nos 725, 726, 727, 728, 729 and 730:

The report of the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures is at present being studied. When the Government has completed its consideration and the matter is capable of some public announcement, a statement will be made covering, inter alia, the various matters to which the honourable senator has referred.

page 2593

ARMED SERVICES

(Question No. 760)

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Is it a fact that an 18-year old Maltese born youth who has resided in Australia for the past 14 years was recently rejected at the Royal Australian Air Force Recruiting Office in Sydney after having passed educational and physical examinations?
  2. Was the youth told that he was not eligible to enlist in the Armed Services as his country was now independent and therefore not British?
  3. Is it a Government decision not to accept Maltese born persons residing in Australia for enlistment in the armed Services?
  4. As this youth is the son of a Maltese exserviceman, who in World War II was awarded the George Cross for gallantry, will the Minister have an investigation made in order that any injustice to this youth, and to all Maltese who have accepted Australia as their adopted home, may be rectified?

Senator ANDERSON - The Minister for Defence has provided the following information:

  1. The youth in question applied for enlistment for trade training with the Royal Australian Air Force in September 1967. He was not accepted because he did not meet the required standards of enlistment for this training.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. The circumstances of the application have been investigated and there has been no injustice, The advice given the youth was that he should carry out further study and consider re-applying in about 12 months time.

page 2593

VIETNAM

(Question No. 761)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

As Australian soldiers are in Vietnam to assist the Saigon Government, which Government now, contrary to the advice of its allies, refuses to attend talks seeking to settle the war, is Australia justified in continuing its participation in that war?

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

Honourable senators will have learnt from the statement tabled in the Senate on 27th November, 1968 that the Government of South Vietnam has announced that it will be attending the talks in Paris.

page 2593

GREAT BARRIER REEF

(Question No. 779)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a joint Japanese and Australian study of the Great Barrier Reef will commence in the near future?
  2. Can the Minister inform the Parliament of the amount of Commonwealth finance involved in the project?
  3. Is it a fact that the Australian part of the study will be carried out and financed by the Commonwealth Bureau of Mineral Resources because the real purpose of the project is a search for mineral resources and not a survey of marine life as stated for public consumption?

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Australia’s share of the cost of this study is expected to be about $18,000.
  3. Information on the project is contained in a Press statement issued by the Minister for National Development on 20th October 1968. The salient points from the statement are:

The Bureau of Mineral Resources of my Department is drawing up a joint programme of research willi the Japanese scientists who will accompany the submersible to Australia.

The research programme will be conducted in the Arafura Sea, Torres Strait and the Great Barrier Reef area.

The studies of the Great Barrier Reef are expected to begin in the first week of January.

The Bureau of Mineral Resources and the group of Australian scientists will have the use of the ‘Yomiuri’ for 1 month each, while the Japanese scientific team will conduct research and photography in Australian waters for a further 2 months.

A team from the Bureau will use the ‘Yomiuri’ for a programme of basic research on the geology of the Continental Shelf.

It will also study the structure of the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef.

In addition, it will provide the opportunity for eleven other Australian scientists to conduct individual research projects including studies of sea-bed sediments, the biology of life on and near the Reef and the Crown of Thorns pest.

All the information obtained by Australian and Japanese scientists will be shared and published.

The Press statement gives a true and accurate statement of the objectives of the survey. The Australian part of the survey is being financed by the Bureau of Mineral Resources because the Bureau is the major Commonwealth participant.

The honourable senator may also wish to know that, at the request of the Government of Queensland, the ‘Yomiuri’ is being made available for 2 weeks specifically for the study of the Crown of Thorns starfish pest which is damaging the Great Barrier Reef in the Townsville area. Australian scientists, assisted by Japanese scientists, will undertake this special investigation which is aimed at learning more about this pest so that it may be eradicated. On the remainder of the cruise the Japanese and Australian scientists will, in addition to their other work report any sightings of the Crown of Thorns starfish at other points on the Great Barrier Reef.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 5th November 1968, Senator Keeffe asked if, in view of the continued operations of foreign fishing vessels in Australian waters off the north Queensland coast, I would use my influence with the Prime Minister in an endeavour to have at least three of the new Navy patrol vessels stationed at Townsville or some other northern port for the purpose of policing effectively Australian territorial waters. At the time I said that I would direct the honourable senator’s question to the Prime Minister who has now provided me with the following answer:

The Government is keeping the fisheries patrolling programme under regular assessment with a view to maintaining effective and continuing safeguards for our fishery resources. No patrol boats are at present permanently stationed at Townsville or other north Queensland ports, but there are arrangements for sea and air patrolling as required.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 17th September 1968, Senator Marriott asked whether I would have discussions with the Prime Minister with a view to ‘greater encouragement being given to those committees in each State which are striving to obtain a wider and more earnest celebration of Australia Day. I undertook to refer the honourable senator’s question to the Prime Minister and he has now provided the following answer:

The Government takes the view that expressions of national sentiment should, as far as possible, arise spontaneously from the people themselves and I applaud the efforts of those who have formed committees to arrange celebrations of Australia Day. The question of encouragement in the form of direct assistance is one which has been for the State Governments to determine and 1 understand that assistance, including financial aid, is provided in a number of cases.

The Commonwealth contributes to the celebration of Australia Day through the News and Information Bureau which makes maximum use of the occasion for national publicity overseas, through the Australian Broadcasting Commission which devotes considerable programme time, in the days leading up to Australia Day, to matters having an Australian theme, and through the participation of the Services in various ceremonies.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 5th November Senator Cavanagh asked whether the Government has disposed of the talking chairs which were exhibited in the Australian pavilion at Expo 67. Inquiries have been made and I have been informed that the

Government has not disposed of any of the chairs or associated equipment that comprised the sound-chair system in the Australian pavilion at Expo 67 in Montreal. Some of the chairs and equipment have been transferred for use by certain Commonwealth Departments and authorities.

page 2594

FISHING

page 2594

AUSTRALIA DAY

page 2594

TALKING CHAIRS

page 2595

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

(Question No. 639)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

When is it now expected that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will have its headquarters in the national capital?

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

The Government has not determined a timetable for the transfer to Canberra of the headquarters of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

page 2595

DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 640)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Pime Minister, upon notice:

When is it now expected that the Department of Labour and National Service will have its headquarters in the national capital?

Senator ANDERSON- The Prime Minister has provided the following answer:

The Government has not determined a timetable for the transfer to Canberra of the headquarters of the Department of Labour and National Service.

page 2595

HIGH COURT

(Question No. 638)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

When is it now expected that the High Court will have its headquarters in the national capital?

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

I refer the honourable senator to the ministerial statement made in the Senate on 26th March 1968 - Hansard pps. 288-9 - concerning the decision of the Government to approve in principle the transfer to Canberra of the principal seat of the High Court. The Government is not yet in a position to make the further announcement referred to in that statement.

Mr MAXWELL NEWTON (Question No. 169)

Senator CAVANAGH asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Will the Prime Minister inquire into payments made to the journalist Maxwell Newton by foreign governments to ascertain whether these payments justify the accusaticn of him being the agent of a foreign government?
  2. If the payments do not justify this accusation, will the Prime Minister make a statement exonerating the journalist from the statement made under the privilege of Parliament?

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to No. 1.

page 2595

VIETNAM

(Question No. 695)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Can the Minister inform the Parliament if the gas known as ‘C.S.’ results in a mortality rate of 10% among adults and up to 90% among children?
  2. Is the gas issued to Australian soldiers, serving in Vietnam, as a weapon of war and is it used as such by the Australian Force?

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

  1. ‘C.S.’ is a quick-acting incapacitating tear gas classified as non-lethal causing irritation to eyes, nose and respiratory tract, pains in the chest and coughing. It is used widely overseas by metropolitan police in civil disturbances. Its effects last from 5 to 10 minutes after exposure.
  2. C.S.’ is used occasionally in tactical operations and particularly when conventional weapons might cause civilian casualties.

page 2595

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES

(Question No. 806)

Senator LITTLE:

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

  1. Has the Minister any knowledge of persistent shortages of supplies of veterinary vaccines and products produced by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories?
  2. Have there been serious losses of sales as a result of slow delivery of products?
  3. What products were in short supply during the month of June 1968, and what was the expected delay in respect of each item?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply:

  1. There have been no persistent shortages in the supply of veterinary vaccines and products of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The Laboratories manufacture 48 different veterinary products which are marketed in a total of approximately 100 different packs, sizes and containers. To consistently maintain the highest standards in the testing and quality control of these products it is occasionally necessary to delay the issue of some batches.
  2. No.
  3. Only three veterinary products were in short supply in June this year. These were Tuberculin SM, Brucella Abortus (Strain 19) and Leptospira Vaccines, and the delays were 2 weeks, 2 weeks and 8 weeks respectively.

page 2596

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 775)

Senator FITZGERALD:

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

What action, if any, has been taken by the Australian Government to bring about a reciprocal agreement with the Government of Malta on social service benefits, similar to those which operate with the United Kingdom and New Zealand?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following answer:

Questions of reciprocity are under consideration in consultation with the Department of Immigration and any action proposed will be announced by the Government in the usual way.

page 2596

MENTAL RETARDATION

(Question No. 573)

Senator COHEN:

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

  1. What research is being carried on in Australia into the cause of congenital and other mental retardation?
  2. By whom is such research conducted and how is it financed?
  3. To what extent are governmental authorities involved in the research?
  4. Is any machinery available (a) to co-ordinate research and (b)to avoid duplication of research in this field?
  5. Have the results of any substantial research projects been published; if so, in what journals?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply:

  1. There is considerable research being carried out in Australia into the varied causes of mental retardation. The following are examples of the type of work being done:

    1. Dr G. Storey (Sydney): clinical studies into hypercalcaemia and hyperbilirubinaemia associated with mental retardation.
    2. Dr A. Stoller, Dr J. Krupinski and Dr R. D. Collmann (Melbourne): investigating the possible association between viral infection, notably infectious hepatitis, and mental retardation.
    3. Dr J. Harley’s group (Sydney): mental retardation subsequent to intra-uterine rubella.
    4. Dr B. Turner (Sydney) and Drs M. Fowler and R. Elliott (Adelaide): chromosomal and biochemical studies into mental retardation. 2 and 3. Workers in this field are associated with hospitals, universities and mental health institutions and these are primarily supported by the State governments.
  2. The Australian group for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency has recently been formed to serve as a forum for discussion among workers in this field. This is done through regular newsletters and an annual conference and this contact leads to co-ordination of research and avoids duplication of effort.
  3. Recent publications in this field include:

Area relationship between the incidence of infectious hepatitis and the births of children with Down’s Syndrome nine months later. A. Stoller and R. D. Collmann (Journal of Mental Deficiency Research Vol. 10 Part 2 1966).

Incidence of infectious hepatitis compared with incidence of children with Down’s Syndrome born nine months later to younger and to older mothers. A. Stoller, R. D. Collman and I. Krupinski (Journal of Mental Deficiency Research Vol. 10 Part 4 1966).

Studies of 782 cases of mental deficiency. P. Roboz and D. Pitt (Australian Paediatric Journal June . 1968).

An analysis of birth weight and period of gestation in relation to mental deficiency. K. A. Hockey and D. V. Hawks (Journal of Mental Deficiency Research September, 1967).

A survey of mental retardation amongst Victorian children. A. Stoller, J. Krupinski, C. H. MacMillan, Patricia Polke (Journal of Mental Deficiency Research Vol. 10 Part 1 1966).

Screening tests for biochemical defects in infancy. D. Pitt (Medical Journal of Australia, 19th March 1966).

page 2596

HOSPITALS

(Question No. 580)

Senator ORMONDE:

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

  1. Does the Health Department supervise the staffing of private hospitals in Australia; if so, how is this done?
  2. How many fully trained nurses and trainee nurses should be employed in a hospital of SO patients?
  3. If there is a set ratio between trained and trainee nurses, is the ratio the same in general private hospitals as it is in private psychiatric hospitals?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply:

  1. to 3. Responsibility for the staffing and stan dards of private hospitals in Australia comes within, the jurisdiaction of the Stale health authorities by virtue of the State Private Hospital Regulations. However, where a private hospital applies for approval as a private hospital under the National Health Act for the purpose of payment of Commonwealth hospital benefits, the Commonwealth Director-General has a responsibility to ensure that the premises are adequately fitted, furnished and staffed for the purpose of providing accommodation and treatment. The Commonwealth Department of Health conducts regular inspections of approved private hospitals to ensure that the necessary numbers of trained nurses are maintained. This is done by physical inspection and by examination of staff rosters and wages books. For Commonwealth approval as an approved hospital, a hospital of fifty patients would be required to have a general trained nurse on duty at all times and sufficient trained nurses to provide adequate hospital care.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-(New South Wales - Minister for Supply) - by leave - lt is customary at this time to pay tribute and to extend the compliments of the festive season to those who have helped us through the year. It has been a difficult year with a heavy work load which has been increased by an enlarged group of committees surveying a series of important questions. Six committees met this year - the largest in any year since federation. In this Budget session we have dealt with a heavy legislative programme, but we still have found time to debate a number of controversial topics. I believe that this has been to the benefit of all. Debate at times has been intense, but the compensating factor has been that win, lose or draw,, we have been able to settle our differences and begin the next task with a clean slate.

At the outset 1 should like to thank you, Mr President, for the manner in which you have guided the Senate this year. The impartiality that you have shown, despite the most persuasive and sometimes fierce submissions, and in the turmoil of debate, is typical of that which you have shown throughout your record term of office.

One of the keynotes of good government, 1 believe, is the orderly processing of legislation consistent with free expression of opinion. This orderly management of business could have been seriously compromised by the state of the chamber in regard to numbers. However, the business of the Senate has been successfully carried out, despite some interruptions. I have to thank here the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cohen) and the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) for their help as leaders in the management of the conduct of the Senate. They have given me great assistance, with a few notable exceptions, in the difficult task of keeping the Senate legislative programme working freely. I should like now to say ‘thank you’ to my colleagues in the Ministry and on the Government side who have been of tremendous help to me and have given me exceptional loyalty. This has assisted me in carrying out my responsibilities. We are a good team. I should like to thank also members of the Government parties who also have given me wonderful help. I could not let the opportunity pass without paying a tribute to the hard-working men who keep the wheels moving - the Whips, Senator Cotton, Senator O’Byrne and Senator Byrne. They often are unsung and it seems to me that most of the lines they carry on their foreheads are because of the problems we give them. I must give credit also to Senator Drake-Brockman. the Chairman of Committees and Deputy President, and to his team of Temporary Chairmen.

No Leader of the Government could propose this motion without giving an adequate sign of appreciation of the work of the staff of the Senate. My thanks must go to the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Odgers; the Deputy Clerk, Mr Bullock; the Clerk Assistant, Mr Bradshaw; and other members of Mr Odgers’ staff. Mr Odgers is at present recovering in Canberra Hospital from a painful illness. I am sure that all honourable senators will join me in wishing him a speedy return to good health. In addition, we are indebted to the other officers of the Senate staff, not only for their duties within the Senate but also for their endeavours in the administration of Senate committees. We must not forget either the attendants who tend to our needs in this chamber, the stewards and waitresses in the dining room and refreshment room, and the maintenance and cleaning staff. My thanks go also to those patient but precise men of Hansard who record for the future our deliberations of today. I thank also the Parliamentary Library staff which comes up with the answers on all occasions.

Finally I wish to record my thanks to those members of the Press who, seated up there in the gallery, peer down on us solemnly, and sometimes somnolently, each day and night seeing and hearing things wilh which they may not always agree. They serve as a reminder that at all times we are under public scrutiny, and we respond manfully to that scrutiny. I hope I have not missed anyone. At this point I extend my particular thanks to Mr Cumming-Thom who has been of tremendous help to me because he has been made available to give me assistance on the administration side in the parliamentary sessions. I wish all honourable senators the happiest Christmas and a successful and rewarding New Year.

Senator McClelland:

– That was the most important.

Senator GAIR:

– It was, because it was revealing to some people. I heard one honourable senator say that he thought Magna Carta was the name of a race horse. He had not heard of it.

Senator GAIR:

– I suggest that some member of the Senate staff be detailed to explain the Magna Carta to Senator

Cavanagh. I do not mind helping people who acknowledge that they do not know something. The honourable senator has been frank enough to say that he does not know what Magna Carta is. I suggest that one of the Clerks or Deputy Clerks of the Senate give the honourable senator a hand. This has been a momentous year inasmuch as we saw a member of the Senate elevated to the position of Prime Minister, something which I do not think has happened before in the history of the Commonwealth Parliament. In the interests of Australia and its people I hope he is a success. This year we have also seen the election of a President-elect in the United States of America. A change of leadership in that country could have its effect for good for evil so far as Australia is concerned. We have seen a continuation of the war in Vietnam - there was the Tet offensive - and we have seen very sincere and conscientious efforts made to bring peace to that country. It is very pleasing to note that some success is attending the efforts of those trying to bring about peace in Vietnam.

Senator GAIR:

– I beg the honourable senator’s pardon.

Senator GAIR:

– I do not mind if people interrupt me so long as I can hear what they say because then I have a chance to reply. If people mumble I get irritable and am apt to say what I am inclined to say. In the political sphere - and I might be pardoned for mentioning these things - we have seen resignations of leaders such as accompanied the Harradine affair. There was the Cairns and Whitlam contest. There were strikes and riots. We have seen a lot of other things.I mention these matters only to refresh our memories about what took place during the year. But the real questions are: What has been the effect of this year on our economic life? What has the season done for us? What is the state of our primary industries such as the wool industry, the beef industry, the sugar industry and the wheat industry?

Senator GAIR:

– They are shaky and this is not due to the primary producers. This is due to the changed conditions; to our markets; to the fall in prices. If they do nothing else these things must remind us of just how important it is for our primary industries to be successful in order for our economy to be buoyant.

Senator GAIR:

– Will someone take that young man in hand and teach him at least to respect his superiors and his seniors? I think there must be some deficiency in the Queensland education system if it produces a young man like that. It is important for us in these days to be mindful of the fact that our primary industries are still the basis of our whole economy and that we have to see to it that the export earnings from primary industries are maintained in a healthy state. There are many factors associated with the Australian economy that many of us are inclined sometimes to slip over. The fact remains that unless we have a properly balanced economy this country cannot succeed and cannot hope to maintain the comparative prosperity which the people of Australia have enjoyed.

I am not normally given to flattery, as most people know, but I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) on the excellent manner in which he has led the Government in the Senate. I am prepared to confess that he has done a great deal better than I expected him to do. He has done an excellent job of work, and he has battled with tenacity and plenty of determination. He has mixed it with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) better than I thought he would. 1 pay him a very sincere compliment on the excellent manner in which he has discharged his duties as Leader of the Government in the Senate. Whether or not Senator Anderson has been responsible, I do not know, but there has been a marked improvement in the answers to questions. Some answers to questions are still outstanding. One or two of the questions concerned are my own, but I am not one to complain. Questions have been answered with greater regularity and with less delay than they have been formerly. I do not know, but I take it that Senator Anderson has had something to do with that. Obtaining information is an important phase of our work here. I have given up asking a lot of questions, because the delay in receiving answers is too great. The questions go here, there and everywhere for answers to be prepared. I ring up now. I can get the information all right. I have outlived the idea of trying to make political capital. I do not get it anyway; so what is the use. 1 can get all the information I want from the night watchman.

Senator GAIR:

– Mr Wally Lee can always tell me on the day I arrive in Canberra when I will be going home. That is more than anyone else can do. I join with the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing my gratitude to you, Mr President, for your impartial administration and control of the Senate. I extend my thanks also to the Chairman and Temporary Chairmen of Committees. If they have not been hard on me it is only because I am more than servile to the Chair and give in easily. Perhaps I should add, with all respect, that T do so only out of regard for the decorum and prestige of the Senate. I think a great improvement could be effected in the management of the Senate chamber, particularly at the Committee stage of debates. Quite often it is necessary to look for an honourable senator to take the chair. There are frequent delays. As a former Chairman of Committees 1 am often tempted to take the chair myself. I will do so one day to fill in the gap. I suppose there will be protests. An honourable senator should always be standing by to act as Temporary Chairman of Committees. There should be better understanding than has been shown in the past. Someone should be available to fill the bill without any delay. There is a regular practice of running off to find somebody. One day, when nobody can be found the Clerk will adjourn the Senate. I offer this suggestion as a result of my observations. Whenever the Temporary Chairmen are wanted, they are not here. Quite often it seems that Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood is the only one who is here when she is wanted. I pay her a particular compliment in that connection.

All the Senate staff are to be congratulated. They are always co-operative and I think they find a great deal of pleasure in their work. They find no difficulty in giving information and advice when required. I am sorry that Mr Odgers is not with us tonight. I sincerely trust that his illness will be short and that he will make a speedy recovery. I have found nothing to complain about in regard to the staff. They are always very courteous and willing to help. I include in that respect the staff of the dining room and the bar. Occasionally I go to the bar to buy a drink but I do not see many senators there. I think they must have a secret drinking place. 1 remind honourable senators that it is very important to assist the revenue of the dining room and the bar. If we do not do so, the subsidy paid by the taxpayers will have to be increased.

I want to make it clear that members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party are conscious of the good service given by the staff. We are appreciative of the courtesy that is extended to us and we try to return it in every way possible. I again thank you, Mr President, for your impartial control of the Senate and your treatment of myself and members of my Party. Now that 1 am recognised as Leader of the second nongovernment Party we will expect more latitude than we have had in the past. Whether we get it is another matter. It goes without saying that I join with others in expressing a spirit of goodwill to all of you and to yours during the festive season of Christmas. Let us hope that the new year will bring peace, prosperity and success to Australia, to its people and to the underdeveloped countries in which we are interested and in which we desire to see an improvement in the standard of living. The people in these underdeveloped countries should win our support, and 1 think that Australia is willing to give it. Mr President, I thank you for your tolerance.

Hie PRESIDENT- Honourable senators, I cannot let the occasion pass without making reference to the fact that we have three new officers in senior positions. They are Mr Hillyer, Mr Bridgman and Mr Fleming. We welcome them and congratulaet them on their advancement. We recognise the work that they do. I particularly draw the attention of honourable senators to the work of the Parliamentary Library, and I inform them that during the coming year we intend to enlarge considerably the activities in the Library.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.27 a.m. (Friday) fen a date and hour to be fixed by the President

page 2597

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Motion (by Senator Anderson*) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - Honourable senators, we are at the end of another year’s operations. This has been an interesting year and, from the point of view of the Senate, a successful year in which we have dealt with much legislation. To be quite fair to honourable senators, the legislation has been well canvassed and well debated. As a humble person I make the general observation that the standard of debate and the amount of research that has gone into the speeches in this chamber has been of an interestingly high standard this year. I have been very pleased with the way that business has been dealt with in this place.

I thank honourable senators for the cooperation that they have given to me during the year. By and large there has been no difficulty that has not been overcome. There have been some very pleasant occasions. In one or two ways we have made history with some of the unusual things that we have done with regard to our procedures and other matters. But we have survived the session and so we go on. I thank the Clerks for their co-operation and the help that they have given to me. 1 thank also not only the members of the staff whom we see in the Senate chamber but also those people who are in other areas, such as the kitchen and dining room. I thank those people right through the building who have helped to make this machine of Parliament work in the efficient way that it does. During the year I have been away and have looked at many other parliament houses. I would like to say on the question of the genera] standard of cleanliness and the way in which this House is kept that I think we have no need to be ashamed of it when it is compared with other houses of parliament, lt is a compliment to the cleaning staff and to those people who do these unpleasant jobs to see the way that they have kept this establishment going.

I am mindful also of the assistance the Press representatives have given to us during the year. This year they have given us more publicity and reported our proceedings more fully. I attribute that to one thing only, that there is more real news taking place in the Senate now. That causes the Press to put more value on what is happening here than in other days. So it is in the spirit of appreciation of all that has happened during the year and with a feeling of satisfaction with the way we are going along that I say to you: Thank you very much for your assistance during the year.

Friday, 29 November 1968

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I join with the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) in his remarks tonight. I do not propose to list all the people he has mentioned. He referred to his own colleagues in the chamber and to various officers. I too would like to thank you, Mr President, for your impartiality. At times we have given you some concern and at times you have given us some concern, but we seem to have coped with it satisfactorily. I should like to thank especially the officers of the Opposition. Firstly, there is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Cohen, who is showing some signs of temporary disability at the yoke which has been put on his shoulders. Secondly, there are Senator O’Byrne and Senator Poke who seem always to come up without showing any signs of the difficulties with which they are confronted and to which I am sure I add.

I am very thankful for the co-operation and loyalty of members of the Opposition, and I thank them again. I join with the remarks of the Leader of the Government about the staff inside this chamber and those outside - the drivers and the people who work day and night to see that our tasks, and therefore the tasks of the Parliament, are carried out faithfully and well. 1 would like especially to join in wishing Mr Odgers a speedy and full1 recovery. It is regrettable that he is not with us tonight. He is in hospital in a condition which I hope will be relieved soon.

We of the Opposition wish everyone here a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. 1 should like to add that if the Leader of the Government thinks we have been helping him this year, I am glad. We assure him that we will give him plenty of the same help during next year and, if the burden becomes too heavy for him, as I think it might, we will relieve him of it at the end of the year.

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

– I join wilh the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) in extending to you, Mr President, on behalf of Australian Country Party members in the Senate our very great appreciation of the impartiality and forbearance you have shown us and the help you have given to us. That applies also to the Chairman of Committees and those who have been called upon to act as Temporary Chairmen. Members of the Opposition can go into recess in the knowledge that they certainly have kept the Government on its toes. 1 hope that gives them pleasure because at times it has not given us a lot of pleasure, but still we have managed to survive. I for one do not want to have to work harder in the next session than I have worked during this session. However, we have had some recompense for that in the last week or so and that is something to reflect upon and something that perhaps will sooth the wounds we suffered during the past 12 months.

To all who have been mentioned previously we, too, wish to extend our best wishes and thanks. I congratulate you, Mr Leader, on the job you have done and thank you for the co-operation you have extended to the small team that I have the pleasure and privilege of leading. I thank also the members of my own Party for their forbearance, loyalty and co-operation. 1 join with the previous speakers in wishing everyone in the Senate a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year and ask them to come back next year not so full of fight as they were this year.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– I rise to speak on this occasion with a greater measure of confidence than I have in the past. I speak as the Leader of the second . non-government party, a party that is recognised and appreciated by the Government. This has been a great year for the Party I am privileged to lead. We have had a year of. achievement. In the first place, we had a. 16®% improvement in numbers. About this time last year there was an election, and from 1st July the Senate was strengthened by the addition of two members of the Democratic Labor Party. I am sure all . honourable senators would agree that the Senate has been strengthened greatly. Both of the new senators have distinguished themselves in many ways. They have assisted me greatly and for that I am thankful.

This has been a strenuous year. We have had a lot of heavy debates which have taken up a great deal of time. Whether they have been profitable is a matter of opinion. We had the torture debate; the debate on the setting up of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs: and we had the no confidence debate on repatriation. We debated the Czechoslovakian invasion and passed a unanimous resolution. During that debate I .am sure a lot of honourable senators spoke with tongue in cheek. There was the tabling of the papers relating to the Fill aircraft. We dealt with the redistribution of electorates in Queensland on two occasions. There was the famous debate on where the new and permanent Parliament House should be sited. That was a momentous debate. There was almost a repetition of it last night in a debate on the copy of the Magna Carta.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What is it?

Senator Georges:

– In spite of some of the efforts.

Senator Ormonde:

– I did not interject.

Senator O’Byrne:

– They are pretty shaky.

Senator Georges:

– What item is Senator Gair talking on?

Senator Georges:

– Or from Mr Wally Lee.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 November 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19681128_senate_26_s39/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant