Senate
28 May 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1969

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMulIin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1621

PETITIONS

Export of Merino Sheep

Senator MCCLELLAND presented from 108 citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that the decision of the Government to lift the 40-year ban on the export of merino rams will do irreparable harm to the present and future merino wool industry of Australia; that the initial quota of 300 rams will be sufficient to make any future protests worthless; and that the production of fine medium quality merino wool in cheap labour countries will put the Australian merino wool grower and all connected with this industry out of business. The petitioners pray that the Government will cause to be held a referendum of wool growers to determine this issue.

Petition received and read.

Export of Merino Sheep

Senator ORMONDE presented from 106 citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that the decision of the Government to lift the 40-year ban on the export of merino rams will do irreparable harm to the present and future merino wool industry of Australia; that the initial quota of 300 rams will be sufficient to make any future protest worthless; and that the production of fine medium quality merino wool in cheap labour countries will put the Australian merino wool grower and all connected with this industry out of business. The petitioners pray that the Government will cause to be held a referendum of wool growers to determine this issue.

Petition received and read.

page 1621

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICA

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Will the South African Minister for Economic Affairs, Mr Jak Haak, be visiting Australia from 5th June until 17th June as the guest of the Australian Government? If so, does this express Government support for the South African Government and its policy of apartheid? Has not the United Nations recommended a boycott of South Africa until that Government ends racial discrimination? As a member of the United Nations, has not Australia an obligation to boycott that country, including a boycott of visits by a senior Minister? Is this same visitor the Minister who administers the Group Area Act of South Africa, which provides for white zones, Indian zones and black zones?

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

– I am not aware of the nature of the visit referred to by the honourable senator but I shall get the information for him. I suggest that it would be inconceivable that a Minister of State from another country should be the subject of a boycott on i governmental level. No self respecting government could tolerate such a proposition for one moment. However, I shall get for the honourable senator the facts surrounding the impending visit of the Minister concerned.

page 1621

QUESTION

WOOL MARKETING

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that the Government’s past efforts to bring reform to wool marketing procedures have been hamstrung by insufficient support from wool growers? As the Leader of the Opposition has stated that Labor, if elected to office at the next election, would introduce marketing reforms, does this mean that Labor would force such reforms on the industry without consulting growers by referdum?

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

– The answer to the first question would be yes, and the answer to the second question also is yes. I base these answers on what has happened in the past in regard to primary industries. Particularly those of us who were growing wheat at the time will remember that the Labor Government provided cheap wheat to New Zealand at the expense of Australian wheat growers. The statement which emanated from the Leader of the Opposition would be about as correct as the statement that he made in Brisbane recently when he said that the war service homes scheme was being wound up. It would be on a par also with the action taken in this place recently when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate wanted the management of the Australian Wheat Board brought before this House to answer questions about sales of wheat to China. It is on a par also with promises made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place to the Australian nation which would commit us to an expenditure of about Si ,000m. How the taxpayers would find this money I. do not know, but I know that they will never be called upon, to find it because Labor will not be elected.

page 1622

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIPS

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. What are the conditions covering the continuation of Commonwealth university scholarships to students who are legally convicted of breaches of the law? Are such students automatically excluded from the receipt of further allowances and fee payments once the scholarship authorities are aware of such convictions?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I have not precise information on the point raised by the honourable senator but I am fairly firm in my understanding that a Commonwealth scholarship is not forfeited, and certainly not automatically forfeited, because of a civil conviction. I should think that, taking into account the gravity of a conviction, it would be a matter for the university as to whether the student should continue to attend.

page 1622

QUESTION

NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– ls the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the outcome of the vote of members of Federal Parliament on the site for a new and permanent parliament house? Is he aware of the number in total of members and senators who voted for the Capital Hill site, and that that number in fact far outweighed the number who voted for the other proposed site? What does the Government consider was the reason for the Prime Minister’s allowing the time of Parliament to be spent in debating this matter, and indeed, in voting thereon? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister thought fit to allow a debate as to the most appropriate site upon which to build a new and permanent parliament house, and further to allow a vote of members and senators on the subject, can it be accepted that the decision of members of this Parliament was intended to be an instruction to the Government as to the most acceptable site? Will the Minister assure the Senate that no executive action and no decision by any administrative authority will be permitted to frustrate the express wish of the Parliament?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I really believe, with great respect, that the honourable senator’s question is incorrectly timed in the light of the understandings we reached in the Senate yesterday as to what may subsequently emerge as the result of our vote. Both Senator Murphy and Senator Byrne projected yesterday motions in relation to this matter. I presume that Senator Webster was not here when those motions were projected.

Senator Webster:

– Answer the question.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I do not intend to answer - and I am sure that the overwhelming number of senators realise that I could not presume to answer - the series of questions that Senator Webster has posed to me at this time. One statement he made was slightly inaccurate. In the totality, his numbers are quite wrong. If he had referred to the majorities in relation to numbers between the two Houses he would have been absolutely right, but, taking the total votes of the two Houses, because of the fact that the House of Representatives has twice the numbers of the Senate the statement he made could not possibly stand up. I do not think he said what he meant to say. I presume that he meant to say that the majority in another place in favour of the Camp Hill site was only 9 and the majority in the Senate in favour of the Capital Hill site was 27. Therefore it would follow that in the totality of majorities, the numbers are in favour of Capital Hill. We are in the situation that further motions are to come forward in the Senate. I would like to reserve my position and to reflect upon the questions that Senator Webster has posed to me.

page 1622

QUESTION

WEST IRIAN

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which 1 address to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, relates to representations reported to have been made by Mr Malik, Indonesia’s Foreign

Minister, to this Government concerning the presence of West Irianese refugees in the Australian Territory of Papua and New Guinea. My question, which disregards the political merits of the present actions of the Indonesian Government in West Irian, is: Can the Australian Government give an assurance that on the grounds of humanity sanctuary will be given in the Australian Territory of Papua and New Guinea to political refugees from West Irian who are apparently in fear of their lives as a result of their opposition to the present Indonesian Government’s policy in West Irian?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– There have been reports of statements attributed to Mr Malik on this matter. An effort has been made to obtain greater precision in respect of the matters on which he is reported to have made statements. It is true that West Irianese, while waiting for their applications for permissive residence to be considered, are living in camp at Yako near Vanimo. In other instances West Irianese have lived at Administration stations or have been found accommodation in the areas concerned. In no case has there been training in the use of military weapons and sabotage. Reports of the existence of a camp at Kwari, said to have been established by West Irianese, are being investigated by the Administration. The Government is awaiting completion of this investigation before commenting on the reports. I am sure the honourable senator realises that as this is now developing it is very proper that a full report should be available to the Minister for External Affairs before he makes any comprehensive statement about it.

page 1623

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether she can give any further infomation on the continual lag in the availability of Hong Kong flu vaccine in New South Wales, as exemplified in the Evans electorate where Washington H. Soul, chemist, of Ashfield, has many age pensioners subject to a long wait, as shown in the history of prescription No. 46035.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have noticed comment in the Press concerning the shortage of vaccine and because of that I obtained some information from the Minister for Health which may help to clarify a little the question asked by the honourable senator. As honourable senators realise there has been a tremendous demand for this vaccine. Already the laboratories have distributed almost 3.5 million doses of vaccine this year compared with the average annual total of 500,000 doses. At the beginning of April, because of the overwhelming demand, the laboratories were requested to produce sufficient vaccine in single dose ampoules for supply to pensioners under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and to give priority to the supply of vaccine in multiple dose ampoules to doctors and hospitals so that those in greatest need might be able to receive the vaccine first.

The greater part of the vaccine is distributed not through the laboratories, but through wholesale chemists. Wholesale chemists are the normal supply channel for the many retail pharmacies, and they have received the greatest number of orders. Though the laboratories are doing their utmost to observe priorities, they have no control over distribution by wholesalers. The Minister suggests that the pharmacists who have expressed their concern should discuss the question of allocation or priorities with their wholesale suppliers.

page 1623

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. In view of the proposed extension of television services to certain towns in western Queensland by means of low-powered transmitters and also in view of the fact that many people removed from these towns may not be able to receive a reasonable service, will the Postmaster-General give consideration to permitting local authorities in these areas to erect and operate further translator stations within the shires to transmit Australian Broadcasting Commission programmes?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I take it that the honourable senator is referring to television repeater stations, the licensing of which is provided for in the Bill now before the Senate. Any applications made by local authorities for the granting of a licence will be considered but it is pointed out by the Postmaster-General that difficulties may still be present in providing programmes to such centres. Each case would need to be considered on its merits in the light of plans finally worked out for the implementation of the scheme envisaged by the legislation which we will be discussing later.

page 1624

QUESTION

AID FOR THE BLIND

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister investigate claims made in a circular to honourable senators from a blind organisation for what is termed ultrasonic aid for the blind and advise us whether these claims are justified?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am aware of the circular to which the honourable senator refers. He has asked whether I will ask my colleague to have the matter investigated to see whether the idea is sound. He has also asked me to advise him of the result. I shall do this.

page 1624

QUESTION

FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRIES

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Minister seen a report that, at a United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation seminar held in Canberra on support for the performing arts, the Chairman of the Australian Council for the Arts announced that he had recommended to the Federal Government a $lm 3-point plan to assist the Australian film and television industries? Is the Minister aware that most of the recommendations set out by the Chairman of the Council are already embodied in reports that have been made to the Government by the 1963 Vincent committee, by the Weeden committee on educational television and also by Lord Willis of the British House of Lords as a result of a visit paid by him to Australia last year? Has the Government made any decisions on these recommendations? Will the Minister undertake to present to the Parliament a report on the Council’s proposals to enable a full debate on the matter to take place in the Budget session?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Let me answer the last part of the question first. I will attempt to obtain the information, and if I can obtain it 1 will make it available to the honourable senator and the Senate. I am not aware of the circumstances of the representations made by the chairman of the UNESCO gathering. Of course, I am aware of the substance of the recommendations in the Vincent report, which have been the subject of debate here before. I am not aware of how the representations were made; nor am I aware of the consideration that has been given to them. I will seek the information and make it available to the honourable senator.

page 1624

QUESTION

RUM

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that the importation of Bacardi rum is a possible threat to the Australian white rum industry? Have any representations been made by Australian rum distillers for protection of the Australian industry? If so, what action is intended by the Government?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– My brief does not extend to the information for which the honourable senator asks, but I will obtain it without delay and make it available.

page 1624

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories been drawn to a Press report in today’s ‘Australian’ of a comment made by Mr Stuart, an economist with the Reserve Bank in New Guinea, that despite the extension of credit institutions throughout Papua and New Guinea over the past 10 years a high percentage of credit still goes to the white rather than the native community? Mr Stuart is reported to have said that the scales were tipped in favour of whites because native borrowers were not able to provide the type of security acceptable to lending institutions. Does not the Minister agree that this situation calls for planned action to correct this imbalance so that the indigenous peoples may participate increasingly in the economic life of the Territory and so contribute to the development of the Territory as well as to their own advancement?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– My attention has not been drawn to the statement attributed to

Mr Stuart. Before we based any conclusion on that statement naturally it would have to be checked in its context. But. for the assurance of the Senate, I am able, at the instance of the Minister for External Territories, to say that great progress is being made in the development of the economic affairs of the native population and that the banking facilities to which they are resorting are increasing to a marked degree.

page 1625

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government, relates to the notice of motion which is on the Senate notice paper under General Business, which stands in the name of Senator Murphy and in which he seeks to have called to the Bar of the Senate the Chairman and General Manager of the Australian Wheat Board. Has the Leader of the Government received from the Leader of the Opposition any indication as to whether the Australian Labor Party intends to have this matter debated in the Senate this week, before the elections in Bendigo and Gwydir? If not, will the Leader of the Government, particularly in the light of speculation in the Press by political commentators, ascertain from the Leader of the Opposition whether the Labor Party intends to proceed with this matter at any time?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I feel bound to say in all fairness that yesterday I moved that Government Business take precedence over General Business after 8 p.m. In the normal course of events, the passage of that motion denied to the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to bring his motion on yesterday. He has assured me across the table that he does intend to bring it forward at some time in the future.

page 1625

QUESTION

TRADE WITH HANOI

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the element of urgency implicit in question No. 1055 which was put on notice by me 2 months ago relating to trade with Hanoi and the making of arrangements for further shipments of books from that country, can the Minister now give me an assurance that this question will be answered before the Senate rises?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Very properly I do not give assurances unless I first check my facts. I shall seek to obtain an answer to the honourable senator’s question without delay. If it is not made available before the Senate rises I would hope that between now and the next sittings of the Senate an answer will be supplied to him. I shall get the information as quickly as I possibly can.

page 1625

QUESTION

STEEL

Senator GAIR:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is it a fact that the United States Customs Department is investigating whether Broken Hill. Proprietary Company Limited has dumped below-cost steel products in the United States? What prompted this investigation?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I do not know any of the facts relating to an investigation into dumping. This is really more a matter for the Minister for Customs and Excise, and I would imagine that that Minister could not be expected to know offhand what are the circumstances at this point of time. I shall relay the honourable senator’s question to him so that an answer may be furnished by the Department of Customs and Excise.

page 1625

QUESTION

WORKERS COMPENSATION

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. When may the Parliament expect, a new Bill covering Commonwealth employees compensation, as was promised by the Treasurer in the last three sessional periods of the Parliament?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have no information as to that at present, but I shall seek it from the Treasurer. I gather that the matter is still under consideration.

page 1625

QUESTION

RUM

Senator KEEFFE:

– I address a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the approximate amount of revenue derived from the import of white rum in this financial year to date? Can he also tell us the approximate amount of revenue derived from Australian manufactured white rum in the same period? In the latter case, does the revenue collected represent an increase over or a decrease below that obtained in the same period of the financial year ended 30th June 1968?

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

– I surely would not be expected to know the answer to that question offhand, but I shall obtain the information for the honourable senator. In view of the fact that the Senate will be rising, we hops, tomorrow, I shall convey the information to the honourable senator by letter.

page 1626

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the Senate is going into recess, would the Leader of the Government tell us for how much longer it is expected that Australia will continue to be involved in the civil war in Vietnam and whether, in the light of the information given to it, the Government expects that the casualties, both American and Australian, in Vietnam will continue at the same high rate? Will he tell us what initiatives, if any, are being taken by this country to bring the conflict to an end or at least to arrange for the withdrawal of foreign troops from that civil war?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Clearly this is a question blatantly overloaded with politics. The fact is that Australia’s policy with relation to her contribution to and participation in the Vietnam conflict is well known and it has been debated in this place. It has also been pointed out that initiatives aimed at trying to bring this conflict to an end reside in the Paris talks which are currently going on. Australia’s position is wedded to the success of those talks. With great respect to the Leader of the Opposition I suggest that to pose such a question at question time obviously implies that some political mileage is sought to be made. Quite frankly, I think he can do better than that. Nobody wants this conflict to last for one moment longer than is necessary.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Necessary for what?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Necessary for the security of the South Vietnamese people, necessary for them to be free and necessary for them to be as free as Senator Cavanagh is. When we think of the freedoms we have and think also of the insurrection and of what is happening in Vietnam, the position is quite clear that any peace has to be a just peace. The purpose of the Paris peace talks is to try to find a solution that will give justice. Australia is a party to these talks. I think that is where I would like to leave the matter at this time.

page 1626

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I take the liberty of addressing a question to you, Mr President. In view of the increasing number ®f school children now visiting Canberra and Parliament House, will you consult with Mr Speaker with a view to the preparation of a small booklet on the function and operation of Parliament, which could be made available free of cost or for a nominal charge and which would be more comprehensive than the rather humble brochure which is the only literature obtainable at present?

The PRESIDENT:

– A much more extensive publication is available at the front door for the very modest sum of 10c. Some 300,000 copies have been sold. This indicates that it is a sought-after publication. I see no reason why we should change that publication. I think that the activities of both Houses are covered in the free pamphlet that is passed out to visitors. I will discuss the matter with Mr Speaker and see what he has to say about it.

page 1626

QUESTION

VIETNAM: NATIONAL SERVICEMEN

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. What percentage of soldiers engaged as infantrymen in the Vietnam conflict are national servicement?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– I am unable to answer that question at present because I think the percentage has changed during the past 6 months or so. I will obtain the information for the honourable senator and let him have it.

page 1626

QUESTION

KINGSFORD-SMITH AIRPORT

(Question No. 1227)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

With reference to the Minister’s answer on 14th May to Question No. 1155 relating to the

Kingsford-Smith Airport parking facilities, will there be a reduction, at least for some time, in the existing parking facilities when the construction of the new multi-storey car park on the existing site commences?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

There could be some unavoidable reduction in parking space in that area where the building is being erected. This will occur only during the building construction period which is estimated at 3 months. The building is being specially constructed in a manner which will keep inconvenience to the public to a minimum.

page 1627

QUESTION

SMUGGLING OF BIRDS

(Question No. 1278)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice -

Does the Minister intend tightening up the apparent looseness that manifested itself in the recent attempts to export illegally parrots by briefcase in ;in aircraft bound for London?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The export of Australian native birds is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations and the Department of Customs and Excise is paying particular attention to this traffic.

In the past 2 years over forty persons have been detected and penalised for attempting illegally to export Australian native birds. Penalties of over $7,000 have been imposed by the courts for offences under the Customs Act. There are al present six cases awaiting court hearing.

In addition a number of consignments have been seized for which it has not been possible to lay charges.

The Department is using improved methods to detect the illegal exportation of birds and I can assure the honourable senator that all persons detected in the organised trafficking in birds will be prosecuted through the courts.

page 1627

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1188)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

  1. How many migrants did Australia receive from European reception centres at Traiskirchen Neuhaus, Bad Kreutzen and Reichenau during 1968 and the first quarter of 1969?
  2. What was the nationality breakdown of such migrants to Australia?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

A proportion only of the above persons would have been resident in refugee camps in Austria prior to their departure but precise details are not available to the Department of Immigration, to the Austrian authorities or to the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration under whose auspices the movements took place.

Information available does show thai 660 refugees were moved to Australia from camps in Austria in 1968 and 281 in the first quarter of 1969 but details of the nationalities or particular centres from which the refugees came are not available. Statistics are not available to the Department of movements from the ‘Arsenal’ camp in Vienna from which large numbers of Czechs departed, and none of these are included in the foregoing figures of movements from camps.

page 1627

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 1193)

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the Minister studied the statement of Roman Catholic bishops in Australia in which they have suggested the creation of alternative means of national service?
  2. Will any study be made of a wider and more inclusive form of national service which would extend the discipline of national responsibility over a greater number of young people and which might be expressed through a larger number of skills and aptitudes?
  3. Has the Minister noted the statement of a Roman Catholic clergyman agreeing to the right of governments to establish forms of national service?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. and 2. I dealt with the matters raised by the honourable senator in reply lo a question put to me on the 29th April 1969. My statement is reported in Hansard al pages 1406 and 1407. Honourable senators will also be aware of the press statement issued by me on 21st February 1969 following the Government’s review of civilian service as an alternative to national service in the Army.
  2. I have noted some favourable comment on the statement by the bishops. 1 have particularly noted the bishops’ statement to the effect that all nations have the right to life and independence and that countries unable to protect themselves are entitled to call on friendly nations, who have the right to go to their assistance and that governments of such nations have the right to expect the loyal and patriotic co-operation of their peoples.

page 1628

NATIONAL SONG

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 14th May 1969 Senator Marriott asked me to discuss with the Prime Minister the possibility of holding a government-sponsored competition for a national song timed to enable the winning song to be announced during the celebrations honouring the bi-centenary of the arrival of Captain James Cook in Australia. The Prime Minister has now supplied me with the following answer:

Interest in this matter has been reflected in suggestions which have been received from time to time that particular compositions, such as ‘Waltzing Matilda’, ‘Advance Australia Fair’, or Song of Australia’ might be accorded official recognition as our national anthem. It has also been suggested that the Government might sponsor a competition to select a new anthem.

Our national anthem is ‘God Save The Queen’, which is appropriate to a monarchy such as Australia and to those occasions which mark our allegiance to the Crown, such as when His Excellency the Governor-General attends official functions. It is my personal opinion, however, that Waltzing Matilda’ should be our national song. It has rallied- Australians in both war and peace, reflecting a growing spirit of cohesion and pride in Australia amongst Australians. 1 feel it would be appropriate as a salute on occasions- not involving the monarchy, such as the arrival at a ceremonial function of an Australian Prime Minister, or the presentation of a medal to an Australian athlete at the Olympic Games.

While I recognise that my opinion in this matter does not meet with the approval of all Australians I would not expect any greater unanimity in their acceptance of the successful entry in a competition for a national song.

page 1628

QUESTION

TELEVISION

I address my question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. In relation to the proposal to extend television reception to numerous country areas in Queensland, will the Minister ascertain whether the township of Tambo in central Queensland will be catered for in the proposed arrangements? If the answer is in the negative, will the Minister give consideration to adding Tambo to the list of country areas, to be provided with television reception?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply.

As the station to be established will be of low power, it would be unlikely that Tambo would receive an adequate service from the station to be established at Blackall, which is the nearest station to Tambo authorised, under the television extension plans which I recently announced in Parliament. However, as I emphasised when announcing the Government’s plans, it should not be concluded that other centres would not, in due course, be provided with service and that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board would continue its examination of ways and means by which service might be provided to the people resident in other remote areas such as Tambo.

page 1628

QUESTION

BREATH ANALYSIS LEGISLATION

Report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I bring up and lay on the table of the Senate the report of the Joint Committee on the Austraiian Capital Territory relating to the possible introduction into the ACT of breath analysis legislation to assist in detecting and preventing persons driving motor vehicles while their ability to do so is impaired by the consumption of alcohol. I ask for leave to move a motion to take note of the paper.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MARRIOTT:

- Mr President, I move:

The report I have tabled is a comprehensive yet concise document with fact and opinion culled from many pages of sworn evidence, embracing twenty-two public and deliberative meetings of the Committee. We were privileged to hear submissions from a number of experts in the many fields required to be covered by the terms of our reference. To begin with we were supplied with a voluminous research file, perhaps one of the most up to date on this subject, in Australia today. Although members of the Committee may have commenced the inquiry with preconceived ideas on this important and oft discussed subject, I sincerely believe that the report can truly be said to be founded on the evidence we received - evidence we sifted to discover its merits and demerits and which we debated in Committee and in our spare time, which did occur as we travelled to hold public hearings in all the Australian States, except Queensland.

It was obvious to me - and 1 must say very heartening throughout the inquiry - that all Committee members and our diligent and efficient clerk, Mr L. M. Barlin, Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives, were intent on presenting a report aimed at bringing to the Parliament and the people of the Australian Capital Territory, a clear picture of the problem of the drivers of motor vehicles and the ingestion of alcohol. This was done to support our recommendations, required by the reference, on whether breath analysing equipment should be introduced into the ACT to assist in detecting and preventing persons driving motor vehicles while their ability to do so is impaired by the consumption of alcohol. We report a unanimous decision that compulsory breath tests by the breathalyser machine should be introduced but provide, as an alternative, for a blood test should such be requested by the person apprehended.

The Committee advocates the new offence in the ACT of driving a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol level in excess of a prescribed figure, which we name as .05%. We further recommend that there be three stages with appropriate penalties. The lesser offence of a blood alcohol content between .05% and .08%, a more serious offence between .08% and .15% and finally affirm that where a driver has a blood alcohol content above .15% it is conclusive evidence that the person is driving under the influence of alcohol. For this offence we recommend what may be considered a harsh penalty, leading to the cancellation of the licence of that person after the second offence.

It must be remembered that we had the advantage of hearing evidence from legal practitioners, administrators of the law, representatives of motorists organisations, spokesmen for road safety councils and highly qualified medical specialists who were able to inform us not only how the breath analysis legislation is operating in the other States but also what are its weaknesses and, most importantly, what effect, in the comparatively short time it has been in force, it has had on the accident rate. We were told of the severity and type of accidents still proved to be caused by the driver’s consumption of alcohol. This information led us to consider suggestions made to improve the law, have a look at the punishments and to assess any good that could flow from recommending a plan to educate young people on the effect of alcohol on the ability to drive.

The Commitee was impressed by the mass of expert evidence highlighting to an alarming degree the immensity of the accident rate attributable to the problem drinker-driver. It is firmly stated that more than 50% of accidents involving the consumption of alcohol are caused by these drivers. Medical evidence showed that the illness of alcoholism can be treated and it is known that many sufferers are being rehabilitated after specialised medical treatment and group therapy in clinics organised by State Government Health Departments. A monetary fine, or the suspension of a driver’s licence of a problem drinker has little beneficial effect unless treatment is given. Many have lost the power or will to conform to normal social standards of behaviour and responsibility. Mere punishment tends to increase the number of non-licensed drivers on the roads, which in itself is a serious problem.

Evidence given by those who specialise in the treatment of alcoholism has led us, therefore, to include in our. report a suggested new approach. This is aimed at getting the problem drinker out of the driver’s seat and getting him or her the opportunity to undergo treatment. After this, if a medical certificate indicating that the person has shown that the illness of alcoholism has been contained and the driver has shown a return to the realisation of the noma] social behaviour and sense of responsibility required of a person rightly given permission to drive on our roads, then his punishment is lifted and a new licence is issued.

Paragraphs 56, 57 and 58 set out the Committee’s findings on this aspect.

On the vexed question as to whether random testing of drivers should bt introduced, the Committee in paragraph 37 of the report acknowledges that one of the greatest deterrents to a person’s driving a motor vehicle whilst his ability to do is impaired by the consumption of alcohol would be the knowledge that at any time he may be stopped and required to undergo a breath analysis test. However, in paragraph 38 we come to the decision that legislation on this subject should be acceptable to the community. From evidence received it appears that random testing would not at this time be acceptable and we do not recommend its introduction. However, we do state that the Minister for The Interior should keep under review the effectiveness of the legislation and should it prove inadequate to deal with the problem of drinking drivers after a reasonable period of, say, 2 years, random testing should then be considered.

Looking for beneficial effects to flow beyond the confines of the ACT, the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government sponsor the education plan that I have already mentioned. We also suggest that before the introduction of breath analysis legislation in the ACT a survey both of blood alcohol content levels of drivers and of the sizes, power and classes of vehicles that are on our roads and being involved in accidents. Paragraphs 67 to 71 set out our views in detail, and it will be seen that we are heeding a suggestion of Sir Phillip Phillips Q.C., whose 1963-65 Royal Commission findings and whose evidence before our Committee were of great value.

I believe that the Minister for The Interior deserves commendation for having referred this subject to my Committee, as it has given the people of the ACT an opportunity to read and hear much of the evidence we have received, and the news media deserve thanks for the way they have covered our public hearings. Just over 6 months have elapsed since the inquiry was announced and some time must be allowed before legislation can be enacted which will give the people time to consider their attitudes and habits concerning drinking and driving. All will agree that drastic measures are required to help stem the carnage on the roads. It is clear to everyone that alcohol is playing a very significant part in motor vehicle accidents.

I repeat that in my opinion all our findings and recommendations are based on sworn evidence received. Our witnesses in the important fields we had to cover were for the most part leading and nationally recognised experts, with a wealth of experience in the problem that I hope our report will help to solve. Throughout the inquiry the Committee was informed that it would be of great benefit to motorists if breath analysis legislation in Australia could be made to be uniform. It is my hope that our report will be studied throughout the land by those in authority with this end in view. Finally, I believe that the early acceptance and implementation of the report will in the long term be of human and’ economic value to the people of the ACT for it was their continuing and, we trust, improving and longer lasting welfare and safety that we kept in mind throughout the inquiry.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 1630

QUESTION

JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

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

– For the information of honourable senators and at the request of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs I present a report of the Committee relating to the Middle East situation. I ask for leave to propose a motion to take note of the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator ANDERSON:

– I move-

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– As a member of the Committee which prepared the report, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1630

QUESTION

BOOK MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I wish to inform the Senate that the Government intends to introduce legislation in the next session to permit it to pay a bounty to Australian book manufacturers, pending an inquiry and report by the Tariff Board on the question of long term measures of assistance to the industry. This decision was taken because increasing numbers of books are being printed for Australian publishers in overseas countries. The loss of business to Australian printers has caused serious damage to the domestic book printing and binding industry. Employment has fallen significantly and the Government is convinced on the evidence that this trend will continue unless immediate action is taken.

The Government, therefore, proposes to provide short term assistance to the industry pending investigation and report by the Tariff Board. This will be done by payment of a bounty to the manufacturer on all books of Australian production to the extent of 25% of the invoiced price. This level of assistance is designed to permit Australian manufacturers to hold sales at approximately the 1967-68 level. Should this level of sales be exceeded the Government will review the continuation of the assistance granted to the industry. The cost of this assistance is estimated at Si. 7m to the end of the 1969-70 financial year. Assistance would be given only to those books which are registerable for transmission through the Post Office as books.

Normally when an industry faces such disruptive competition from imports it would be referred to the Special Advisory Authority for consideration of temporary protection, pending report by the Tariff Board. The Special Advisory Authority is not empowered to recommend bounties. However, it is a long standing practice, which the Government re-affirms, that there should be no tariff or licensing restrictions which would impede the free flow of books into Australia. The Government, therefore, has taken the decision to introduce this interim bounty after an extensive investigation into the position of the industry, and after careful consideration of alternative methods of assistance.

The bounty will be administered by the Minister for Customs and Excise and will be payable as from 1st June 1969. Enabling legislation will be introduced in the next session of Parliament. An advisory body comprising representatives of publishers, book manufacturers and Government departments will be appointed to maintain a constant review of the situation until the report of the Board is tabled. The reference to the Tariff Board will be made immediately, and will extend to the whole of the printing industry. It is believed that these measures will help maintain the Australian book printing industry until the Tariff Board has completed its investigations.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1631

DRUGS

Ministerial Statement

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– by leave - In response to a request from Senator Byrne I recently undertook to make a statement to the Senate about recent discussions between Federal and State Ministers dealing with the problems of drug abuse in Australia. The Government is concerned that mounting evidence shows that the problem is increasing in Australia. This evidence is apparent from the increasing number of prosecutions and continuing seizures of imported drugs by the Department of Customs and Excise and of locally produced drugs by the police forces in certain States. The trend accords with developments in certain overseas countries. Because the problem involves the laws of both the Commonwealth and the States, the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) took the initiative late last year of suggesting to State Premiers that there should be a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers to examine the problem and the ways in which the Commonwealth and the States could co-ordinate their activities to deal with it.

The State Premiers agreed to this suggestion and a first meeting of Ministers was held, under my chairmanship, in Canberra on the 14th February 1969. Ministers at this meeting indicated their concern at the grave social problem which could result if effective action were not taken and, as a first step, set up a National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence.

This Committee comprised senior Commonwealth and State officials under the chairmanship of the Comptroller-General of Customs. The Committee was asked:

  1. to consider immediately the further steps which could be taken by the Commonwealth and States to combat all aspects of the present drug problem in Australia, including addiction, trafficking, treatment and education; and
  2. to make recommendations to Ministers on legislation and administrative action which should be taken, and to report back to Ministers at a further meeting which was held on the 5th May.

At the second meeting Ministers examined the recommendations made by the Committee and made certain decisions to combat the drug abuse problem. These decisions concerned law enforcement and health measures. In brief, these decisions were:

Law Enforcement:

  1. Ministers agreed in principle to exchange officers between the Customs Narcotics Bureau and the Police Drug Squads in each State. Such an exchange is already operating in Victoria. This should materially improve the existing coordination between these bodies.
  2. ft was agreed that there was a need for a central intelligence source to maintain intelligence information for the Narcotics Bureau and the Police Drug Squads in each State. It was decided that the existing Crime Intelligence Bureau of the Commonwealth Police should be used for this purpose. This Bureau already records other crime intelligence which is frequently useful in uncovering narcotic offenders.
  3. Ministers examined recommendations by the National Standing Committee to overcome deficiencies in existing Commonwealth and State legislation, and agree to have these matters examined by their respective governments. In brief, it has been suggested that there should be greater uniformity in penalties and that legislation should be strengthened where existing laws have proved inadequate in obtaining convictions for drug offences.

Health:

It was recommended:

  1. that a system be established to collect, collate and disseminate information on all interstate movements of licit drugs of dependence. An examination will be made to see if it is possible to extend this system to embrace all intrastate movements of such drugs. This is designed to obtain early information when such drugs are diverted to the illicit area.
  2. A programme be started to collect detailed infomation about persons dependent on narcotic drugs, hallucinogens, amphetamines and allied psycho-stimulants and barbiturates. This will provide most important data from which the size of the drug problem can be gauged. Resources necessary for remedial action can then be mobilised.
  3. Facilities for treatment of drug dependants will be organised within State psychiatric health services to provide in-patient, out-patient and intensive follow-up arrangements.
  4. An intensive health education scheme be instituted, directed particularly to young people and to those who have strong influence over young people. Basically, the education will be designed to promote accurate knowledge about all forms of drugs, to develop discriminating attitudes towards the use of therapeutic materials and more care in the use of stimulants and sedatives. This programme would include teaching in schools and teacher education to the extent of live-in residential courses to train key health educational personnel. As part of this campaign, it is proposed to draw the attention of doctors, dentists and pharmacists to the problems and their responsibilities in the prescription and selling of drugs.

It is but a short time since the first meeting of Ministers, but honourable senators will appreciate that the foregoing decisions represent a desirable blueprint for action in attacking what could become a national problem. I feel that Australia is fortunate that, due to the efforts of the officers of the Department of Customs and Excise, the police drug squads and the various health authorities, the problem has not assumed the proportions it has in other countries. Indeed, the decisions I have outlined represent an all fronts attack to ensure that drugs do not become a problem in Australia, and honourable senators will agree with me that, in the short time available to it, the National Standing Control Committee has very satisfactorily come to grips with the problem. A solid foundation has been laid for future action.

Ministers agreed that the National Standing Control Committee should continue to meet as required. It will carry out the decisions of Ministers and investigate whatever other action is required with the activities I have mentioned. It will report and make further recommendations to Ministers, who will also meet periodically. I have already mentioned that the general responsibility for control and elimination of drug abuse is shared by the Commonwealth and the States and the decisions taken by Ministers will improve the co-operation that already exists.

Honourable senators may be interested also in an outline of the steps being taken by the Department of Customs and Excise to meet its obligations to prevent the illegal importation of drugs into Australia. In this work the Department’s activities are centred in the recently established Narcotics Bureau. The Customs Narcotics Bureau is staffed by highly experienced officers situated in the States and Canberra, supported by an operational intelligence network based in Canberra responsible for the collection, evaluation and distribution of all relevant information. At the present time steps are being taken to recruit additional officers to the Bureau who will be stationed in the States as required after they complete an initial period of training in Sydney and Melbourne.

The statement which I recently furnished to the Senate in response to a question from Senator Marriott showed that customs officers had made over 500 separate seizures of narcotic drugs during the last 4 years and this fact alone demonstrates the efficiency displayed in protecting the community from drug trafficking. Prevention and detection methods are being further improved in keeping with the introduction of other new systems throughout the Department which led to the sensational detection of customs offences recently discussed in this place. lt would not be appropriate to give details of the sophisticated methods being used by the Department to achieve these results. Honourable senators can be assured that very close liaison has been established with narcotic bureaux in other countries. The best equipment in the world is being purchased to detect illegal importation. The Department’s patrol and surveillance work in northern areas is being so intensified that I am now giving consideration to the permanent use of aircraft for this purpose.

As the department continues to achieve successes, so the illegal importers of drugs are resorting to more complex methods to avoid discovery by customs officers. Because drug consignments are small in size they can be hidden in most unusual places. They are being sent through the mails, hidden in cargo and at times carried by innocent dupes. Already in Australia it is obvious that these are not individual efforts. There are very large profits to be made at all points in the chain of distribution of these drugs. There are rings active in this country preying on certain sections of the community, particularly teenagers.

Honourable senators can be assured that the Government is very conscious of the potential problems which will arise unless drug abuse is contained and eliminated. This is a growing social problem requiring both firm steps to prevent importation and distribution and a widely based education programme. It is necessary that it be approached on a national basis. I can assure you that the Government will not hesitate to use whatever resources are necessary to achieve these ends.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I move:

I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Scott) proposed:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of silling.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– by leave - I do not wish to speak to the statement now. 1 merely wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) for his prompt action in preparing this statement, which I suggested in the course of a question I asked a few days ago. It must have required quite some effort. I express my appreciation to him for what he has done for the assistance of the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1634

PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill aims to continue to encourage the search for petroleum in Australia and Papua and New Guinea and their off-shore areas by extending the period of operation of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act, which was originally introduced in the Senate in August 1959. That Act has been amended in 1961, 1964 and 1967 and has been effective in increasing the amount of petroleum exploration which has been carried out by exploration companies and in providing the results of this exploration to interested persons.

Since the introduction of the petroleum search subsidy scheme an amount of approximately S90m has been actually paid or committed for payment through subsidies, and agreements covering 1,155 operations have been entered into by the Commonwealth Government. In addition to the subsidy scheme, the Government continues to assist exploration through the work of the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Division of National Mapping in the Department of National Development and through tax concessions available to per sons investing in petroleum exploration and to companies which carry out this exploration. The work of the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Division of National Mapping required an expenditure of $3. 7m on petroleum exploration during 1968-69.

The results obtained from petroleum exploration during the last few years have been much more successful than many people expected when the subsidy scheme was introduced and we now have large natural gas fields supplying gas to two capital cities, with a third to be supplied later this year. There have also been discoveries of large oil fields, particularly in the off-shore Gippsland Basin area. These oil fields are expected to supply about 65% of Australian crude oil requirements by the end of 1971.

These discoveries have been encouraging and will have a very large effect in reducing Australia’s import bill. Nevertheless, if we have regard to our present reserves and in addition make generous allowances for the possible upgrading of those reserves as knowledge of the fields improves, our position still is that those reserves are only equivalent to about 15 years’ requirements of light crude allowing for the growth in demand. The light crude found in Australia to date cannot supply our full needs for certain heavy products and the light crude requirement is only about 70% of our total crude requirements. For these reasons, the Government considers it essential that encouragement to petroleum exploration be continued.

The Government is concerned with the falling off of exploration activity in Australia’s on-shore areas. We do not think that these should be neglected on account of the superior attractiveness of off-shore areas. Moreover, a wide spread of petroleum producing areas is conducive to the security of supplies and could be of assistance in developing some of Australia’s remoter areas. In the off-shore areas more favourable geological conditions have been found and as a result we believe that the present level of exploration activity there would likely be maintained for at least several more years, even if no subsidy were available for exploration off-shore. In these circumstances we are proposing to limit the general availability of subsidy to on-shore exploration.

We propose, however, to make an exception to this general limitation, in favour of Australian companies. Off-shore exploration is particularly expensive, and the capital resources of most Australian companies are relatively small. We think it desirable that Australian companies should be assisted to preserve their equity interests in off-shore areas. Therefore, the Government has decided to subsidise operations in off-shore areas only if there is an Australian interest in the operation, and having regard to the extent of that interest.

Let me say that the Government is very conscious of the important contribution which foreign capital has made to the search for petroleum in Australia and of our continued need for such capital in this search. Although, as I have just indicated, we intend, in respect of off-shore operations, to extend certain benefits to Australian and not to foreign companies, we do not regard this as a discrimination against the foreign companies. The foreign company will carry on its business and operations on the same footing as any Australian company. What we are doing is extending to the Australian company some special financial assistance at the expense of the Australian tax payer. To do this helps the Australian companies but does not hinder any foreign company. Therefore I think it fair to say that our policy remains one of not discriminating against foreign companies engaged in the search for petroleum. In fact we will continue to encourage them both by the onshore subsidy provisions and by the other features of our petroleum exploration encouragement policy to which I have already referred.

During the period in which the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act has been in force, it has become apparent that having to repay subsidy on a discovery well on demand is a hardship to some companies, particularly small companies, at a time when all their available capital is required for the development of their discovery. For this reason, the Government has decided that, in future, repayments of subsidy may be made out of the income from the field that ,has been discovered.

With the increase in geological knowledge in many areas of Australia, it is becoming less important and increasingly difficult to distinguish between test drilling and stratigraphic drilling as defined in the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act. It is also less necessary to have a category of stratigraphic drilling, which was subsidised at a higher rate and was designed to provide basic stratigraphic information in various areas. Consequently, it has been decided to abolish these two categories of drilling and in future to have only one category to be known as exploration drilling.

As the subsidy scheme is so well-known, I will not elaborate on details, but will turn now to discuss the way in which this Bill will give effect to the Government’s proposals. The Bill will extend the operation of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act for a period of 5 years and will differentiate, in some respects, between operations carried out on-shore and operations which will be carried out in submarine areas in the vicinity of Australia. Clause 4 of the Bill removes the categories of test drilling and stratigraphic drilling from the operation of the Act and includes exploration drilling in their stead. The regulations under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act will be amended to provide that the rate of subsidy for exploration drilling will be 30%. This rate of subsidy will then apply to both exploration drilling and geophysical operations.

The provision that subsidy on drilling operations may be paid on a footage basis has been virtually unused in recent years and, for this reason, the provision for this alternative method of payment of subsidy will be removed by this Bill. This is done by clause 5 (b) and clause 7. These are the only changes to the conditions applying to on-shore operations, with the exception of the altered conditions for repayment of subsidy in the event of a petroleum discovery, which will be provided for in the subsidy agreement.

For off-shore operations, the rate of subsidy payable will depend on the ‘Australian’ contribution towards the cost of an operation which is approved for subsidy. This is provided for in clause 5 (d) of the Bill, which provides that an operation in a submarine area is not eligible for subsidy unless there is an Australian contribution towards the cost of the operation and clause 6 (a) which gives the Minister for National Development discretion to determine the rate of subsidy payable - up to the prescribed maximum - wherethere is an Australian contribution towards the cost of the operation, having regard to the extent of the foreign contribution towards the cost.

For the purpose of exercising this discretion it is intended to define an Australian company as one which is incorporated in Australia and in which the beneficial ownership is at least 51% Australian. It will be up to a company to prove the extent of Australian beneficial ownership, but if the company can show that certain shares are available to the Australian public, these shares may be considered as beneficially owned by Australians. Any company which satisfied this definition, or any Australian individual, carrying out off-shore exploration alone would receive subsidy at the rate of 30% of costs.

For companies that do not satisfy this definition the rate of subsidy would be determined as a part of 30% dependent on the percentage Australian ownership, with the same provision regarding shares available to the Australian public. For example, a company which is 40% Australianowned and which carries out an operation alone would receive subsidy at the rate of 40% of 30%, which is equal to 12% of the cost of the operation.

For partnership arrangements on offshore areas the rate of subsidy would be determined as a part of 30% dependent on the extent to which Australians contribute towards the total cost of the operation, whether this contribution be by an Australian company or through the Australian ownership in a company which does not satisfy the definition of an Australian company. Examples of how this arrangement will work are:

  1. Where the operation was carried out by a partnership consisting of an Australian company and a company in which there is no Australian ownership and each contributes 50% of the cost, the rate of subsidy would be 15%; that is 30% of½ plus 0.
  2. Where an operation was carried out by a partnership consisting of an Australian company and a company in which there is a 20% Australian ownership and they each contribute 50% of the cost, the subsidy rate would be 18%, that is 30% of½ plus 20% of 30% of½.
  3. Where an operation was carried out by a partnership consisting of an Australian company, a company in which there is a 20% Australian ownership and a company in which there is no Australian ownership and they each contribute one-third of the cost, the subsidy rate would be 12%, that is 30% of plus 20% of 30% of plus 0.

In the Bill, the term ‘submarine area’ has been preferred to the term ‘continental shelf. In international legal usage the continental shelf extends only as far as the depth of water permits of exploitation of reserves by existing technology. Exploration, however, may be, and usually is, carried on in deeper waters. The term ‘submarine area’ is less restrictive and will permit operations to be approved for subsidy if they are carried out in areas which are at present beyond exploitable water depths. This is considered necessary because of the rapid advances in technology which, it is expected, will, in the near future, permit exploitation of petroleum reserves in water depths which are not at present exploitable. This is provided for in clause 4 (e) and 4 (g) of the Bill and by the inclusion of the words ‘or in a submarine area’ in various other places.

Section 8 (c) of the Bill provides that subsection 2 of section 10 of the principal Act be omitted. This sub-section provided for a special repayment condition if petroleum was discovered during the course of a test drilling operation. As the category test drilling has been deleted, this special provision for repayment is no longer required. Section 1 1 of the Bill provides that the present subsidy conditions shall apply to all operations, both on-shore and off-shore, if they are to be completed before 30th September 1969 and that the new conditions which are provided for in the Bill will apply to operations which are to be completed after that date.

The Government is gratified with the results that have been achieved by petroleum exploration in Australia. However, it recognises the need for continuation of a vigorous exploration effort and proposes this Bill as a means of encouraging this. It is essential that the level of activity should be maintained, and encouragement should not be withdrawn at a time when further discoveries are probable and could lead to Australia becoming self-sufficient and, eventually, an exporter of petroleum. I commend the Bill to the favourable consideration of the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 1637

THE SENATE

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

That the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m. this day.

page 1637

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 May (vide page 1619), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

- Mr Deputy President, I move:

I had the idea that Senator Willesee intended to speak on the third reading. He is not present now. If he is not to speak on the Bill, I suggest that it be read a third time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1637

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 May (vide page 1216), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– The Bill before the Senate is a Bill to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act. This is one of two Bills. Each of the Bills covers separate ground. I am addressing myself at this stage to the first of these Bills.

Senator Anderson:

– Might I intercede to ask whether there was any suggestion that the two Bills should be debated together? I mention this because the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) who represents the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) has not arrived in the chamber yet.

Senator COHEN:

– It has not been suggested to me. Personally, I would have thought it inappropriate to adopt that course in that each of these Bills covers separate ground and each of them deals with a number of particular matters. It would be difficult, I think, to take them together although there is room on each of them, as I read the title of each Bill, for a comprehensive debate on aspects of broadcasting and television policy.

Senator Anderson:

– I think that the honourable senator is entitled to make his own judgment.

Senator COHEN:

– In answer to the suggestion from the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson), I think that the debate would be tidier and more orderly if each Bill were taken separately. If the Minister is prepared to concur in that course, I will proceed to discuss the first of the Bills.

Senator Anderson:

– Very well.

Senator COHEN:

– This Bill introduces a number of amendments to the Act. I indicate at once that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill although, during the Committee stages, an amendment will be put forward. Senator McClelland will move an amendment which will be designed to encourage and to improve the position of Australian musicians and composers. That amendment will involve section 114 of the principal Act. That is a matter for the Committee stages. I say no more about it at this stage.

In relation to the Bill that we are considering presently, it seems to do several things. It appears that some difficulties have arisen because the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is unable to hold meetings in the absence of its Chairman. It is proposed to amend the Act by the appointment of a full-time member as Vice-Chairman and to enable the Vice-Chairman, in the absence of the Chairman, to exercise all the powers of the Chairman so far as the calling and conduct of meetings are concerned. It follows - and the Bill makes provision for this - that, as the Vice-Chairman will be one of the three full-time members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the Act should be amended to provide that the Chairman may delegate his powers to the Vice-Chairman so that the day to day operations of the Board will not be hampered when the Chairman is absent. It seems to the Opposition that this is a reasonable amendment. We do not want to see the work of the Board hampered. There is too much important work for this body to do to have its activities hamstrung by the absence through illness or for other reasonable cause including absence from Australia of the Chairman of the Board. I do nol wish to debate this aspect of the Bill at length. 1 indicate that we are prepared to fall in with the general intention and spirit of the Bill.

Secondly, the Bill deals with aspects of the licensing system. It appears that although procedures are laid down under the Act in respect of the granting of licences for commercial broadcasting and television stations, no requirements exist with regard to applications for renewals of licences or that they should be in any particular form set out and required by the Minister. Apparently the Government feels - and we can see no objection to this - that to clarify and to bring about conformity applications for licences shall be in the form supplied by the Minister.

The next matter is that there is being introduced an amendment which would prevent unauthorised persons from using or attempting to use the facilities of a station or interfering with its transmissions. At the moment, it. seems that the proprietor or the licensee of a station would be left to some remedy in trespass if there was such use or interference. The Government proposes to seek specific power under this Act to enable the licensees to move in the event of such interference. On the face of it, it seems not unreasonable but we will be seeking from the Minister for Housing who represents the Postmaster-General and who is in charge of this Bill in the Senate some definition of the circumstances that have given rise to this amendment. It may bc harmless or it may carry with it some implications which we would want to examine if they turn out to be, in our view, inappropriate or dangerous. We shall reserve our position on that. [Quorum formed.]

We shall be seeking from the Minister some explanation of the proposed amendment to create specific offences of using or attempting to use the facilities of a broadcasting or television station or interfering with transmissions. Although there does not appear to be in principle anything especially objectionable about it we prefer to wait until we hear what the Minister has to say. Finally, there is an amendment repealing part of section 102 of the Act. prohibiting the broadcasting or televising of any copyright work without the approval of the copyright holder. This seems to be at the request of the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) following upon the Copyright Act itself, and we will not quarrel with the Government over this amendment.

So in a formal sense the Bill does nol raise far reaching problems. The amendments which the Government proposes to insert do not raise fundamental issues of principle for the Opposition, but we do feel bound on an occasion like this with an opportunity to discuss broadcasting and television policy to draw attention to what we feel is the unsatisfactory Government approach to the many attempts that have been made to improve the standards and quality of Australian television and to make genuine attempts to plan for the long term development of television in Australia. Recently the Government has received and has published a copy of the report prepared for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation by Lord Willis of. Chislehurst, who is president of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain and of the International Writers Guild. Senator McClelland referred to this report during question time this morning. This is the third report in recent years which the Government has received and which has offered criticism and advice on the state of television in Australia. There was first of all the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television, which was known, after its chairman, as the Vincent Committee. 1 had the honour to serve on that Committee, as did my colleagues on the Opposition side, Senator McClelland and Senator Cant, and as did the present Minister for Works (Senator Wright). You yourself, Mr Deputy President, were a member of that Committee.

We did our best in 1962 and 1963 to set out considerations which, if they had been acted on by the Government, would have done a lot, we feel and the working people in the industry feel, to improve the standard of Australian television. That report has occupied a very large pigeonhole as far as we have been able to detect, although from time to time aspects of the report in a revamped form are put forward by the Government as though the Government itself had been inspired to do something particularly helpful in the area of developing Australian television. There was the Weeden Committee on Educational Television, which produced a very comprehensive and admirable report about which the Government seems to have done exactly nothing. 1 would remind the Senate that that report, which was ordered to be printed on 12th May 1966, that is, just over 3 years ago, set out a comprehensive series of recommendations for the development of an educational television service in Australia. The Weeden Committee recommended:

  1. The function of an educational television service should be primarily to televise instructional programmes.
  2. Instructional television services should be developed as an integral part of Australian education.
  3. The control and operation of an educational television service should be vested in a separate authority constituted for the purpose.
  4. The separate authority (which might be known as the Australian Educational Broadcasting Authority) should consist of a governing body, which should work through a planning committee in each State; it should have a central administration, and an operational staff in each State.

In relation to technical aspects the Committee recommended:

  1. One frequency channel in the VHP band should be reserved for educational purposes in each capital city, and in each of the provincial or country service areas designated by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Cb) When allocations are made in the UHF band a sufficient number of channels should be reserved in each service area to accommodate the needs of educational television, as far as they can then be foreseen.

That is the substance of the recommendations of the Weeden Committee and it seems to us that the Government has done exactly nothing about that report. It also is in a very large pigeonhole in Canberra.

We are being shown up by other countries in the field of educational television. The United States has moved decisively in recent times to set up a public television corporation arising out of the report of the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television. That Commission, which was composed of high ranking educationists and people in the mass media field, reached the unqualified conclusion that a well financed and well directed educational television substantially larger and far more pervasive and effective than that which has until now existed in the United States must be brought into being if the full needs of the American public are to be served. The firm base upon which educational television is founded, according to the Commission, and the potentiality it possesses to serve the general welfare warrant the investment of public funds and public energies; the public interest in its expansion is unmistakable.

That is a general observation but it is a very powerful one. It is an observation that should be fully applied in Government policy in Australia. It is high time that we recognised that education in Australia, being one of the nation’s top priorities, should be the subject of special attention in relation to the most important of modern mass media, television. We are not going to get anywhere unless we make a frontal attack on the problem. The Advisory Committee on Educational Television Services, known as the Weeden Committee, was a small but important committee. Its members were Mr Weeden, the Director of the Commonwealth Office of Education, as Chairman; Professor Cochrane, Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Politics at Monash University as Deputy Chairman; Monsignor Bourke who was the director of the Catholic Education Office in Perth at that time; the late

Mr Cowan, who was Warden of Trinity College, University of Melbourne; Dr Robertson, Director-General of Education in Western Australia; and Miss Whitehead, Headmistress of Firbank Church of England Girls Grammar School. That was the Committee which in 1964 sat and deliberated upon these questions. It came up with positive recommendations for the Government, but those recommendations have been ignored. It is wrong that they should have been ignored because we will never get anywhere in this way.

We have now had about 13 years of television in Australia. Television started here in 1956 and by 1962, 6 years after it had- started, the problems were sufficiently important for this Senate to set up an all Party select committee to see what could be done to improve the standard of Australian television in its formative stages before we developed such patterns of programming that we would need a very strong implement to break free of the chains. But nothing was done about the report of that Committee at that time. Then followed the Weeden report, but nothing was done about that. It is over 3 years since that report was printed. Now we have an excellent and well documented report from Lord Willis of Chislehurst, who is a very distinguished figure in the British television industry, and we also have the suggestion by the Australian Council for the Arts made public yesterday by the Chairman, Dr Coombs, - Senator McClelland referred to it during question time this morning - calling for an Australian film and television school, a Government-run film and television corporation and an experimental film fund to help the present so called ‘underground’ film producers.

It is contemplated by the Arts Council that the film and television corporation should establish and administer a production fund for film production. Significantly, that is very reminiscent of the Vincent Committee’s proposal for the establishment of an Australian television council and for the institution of a loan subsidy scheme for Australian film producers.

Senator McClelland:

– Made 6 years ago.

Senator COHEN:

– Yes, made 6 years ago, and still nothing has been done about it. Now we have the suggestion made by the Australian Council for the Arts and this comprehensive report from Lord Willis. The Australian Government asked UNESCO to provide a consultant to assist in conducting a national seminar late last year on professional training for film and television script writers, producers and directors. Fortunately UNESCO was able to obtain the services of Lord Willis who came to the conclusion that there exists in Australia an urgent need for the development of some form of training for both the creative personnel already involved in Australian television and films and those young people who wish to enter these fields as directors, writers, producers or cameramen. He pointed out in his report that in his Australian experience, his discussions and meetings with management, producers, creators and educators, he had found that there was general agreement on this matter.

This Liberal - Australian Country Party coalition has been in office in Australia ever since television appeared on the Australian scene, but it has failed to see anything in it other than its value as a trivial light entertainment medium or as a money spinner for the commercial world. I do not want to attack those whose business it is to provide programmes, but I suggest that we are entitled to reiterate the concern that we felt in 1962 when the Vincent Committee was first set up. We are entitled to say that notwithstanding some substantial improvements there still remain many areas in which that concern is valid. Lord Willis points out that Australia at the moment is a consumer and not a supplier, that she spends millions of dollars each year on the purchase of overseas television products, that she is virtually dependent upon foreignmade programmes in many key areas of television and in the cinemas. He points out also that there are other factors operating, that there is a huge world market for television programmes and films for the cinema - a market which is largely dominated by the United States and, to a lesser extent, by Great Britain.

In addition Lord Willis asserted that there was no doubt that television, films and other visual aids would be more widely used in the future and that the probability of the use of cassette tapes in conjunction with television sets would increase the need for educators, script writers, directors, producers, cameramen and others. It is his view that the present recruitment and training of people to a career in television in Australia is unsatisfactory, that it was largely a matter of picking up hints as we go along. He said in his report that although some stations and film companies do make an effort and encourage potential talent and provide a variety of experience for such talent, they are the exception rather than the rule. The other avenues open are the Australian Broadcasting Commission staff training school and courses in university and technical colleges.

The Willis report praises these institutions, but Lord Willis points out that none of them really meets the demand on a high enough level as yet and for a variety of reasons is not adequate. It is Lord Willis’ view that Australia’s prime need is professionalism and that the experience of other countries has shown that the particular needs of Australia cannot be fully met by the type of course that is available today. He came to the conclusion from all the evidence he found here that Australia requires, both in the short and long term, a central system of training for creative personnel which will put its main emphasis upon the vocational, professional and practical aspects of film and television production. He said that naturally such a training must be one of depth and that some theoretical humane studies would be necessary to provide an essential background, but for the most part the need in Australia was for practical training in the techniques of film and television making.

I come now to the nub of the report. Lord Willis said that in has view the Australian need could be properly met only by the establishment of a film and television school and that this must be organised on an all-Australian basis, independent of existing institutions and backed by the full authority and prestige of the Commonwealth Government. That is the main recommendation and a very important one. It provides a great opportunity and a challenge for the Commonwealth Government. Will the Government take advantage of this moment to do something about the problem or will it allow the Willis report to joint the Weeden report and the Vincent report in a series of very large pigeon holes here in Canberra? Something must be done about this. There is a chance to get away from the policy which has led to the squandering of our creative and technical human resources. We are relying heavily on overseas countries to supply us with our demands for the satisfaction of our artistic and cultural needs.

We are doing little or nothing to prepare for the greater use of television and visual aids in the expanding educational field. Entertainment, a strong educational programme and a cultural programme are all linked together. I can only hope that in the interests of Australia this excellent report by Lord Willis will be acted on by the Government and not given the treatment that has been given to other reports.

Those are general observations which are meant to underline the fact that we ought occasionally to take stock of where we are going in Australian television. The introduction of this Bill and the fortuitous recent presentation of the Willis report lead us to the irresistible conclusion that if the Government lets this opportunity pass it should stand forever condemned in the eyes of all those hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens who want to see an improvement in the state of Australian television.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The Senate is debating an amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942- 68. This is indeed a subject to which the Senate and I would wish to devote a great iea! of time. At the outset I wish to direct the attention of honourable senators to some comments made by Senator Cohen just before the suspension of the sitting. He strongly criticised the activities of the Government in the field of television since its introduction to this country. I thought some of his remarks had merit, particularly in respect of the encouragement which the Government has given not only to Australian artists but certainly to the producers of films for television. However, I thought he missed the most important point, and the most interesting to the Australian people.

The Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) in his second reading speech drew attention to the fact that when the sixth stage of television development is completed during 1969-70 about 96% of the Australian population will have access to television. Perhaps Senator Cohen would join with me in congratulating the Government because, in a new medium of communication of information to the Australian people it will be able to achieve in the very near future coverage of about 96% of the population.

Senator Cohen:

– That does not contradict anything I said. I was speaking on a different aspect of television.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator was critical of the Government. He said that it had paid insufficient attention to the various reports on television that have been brought down. Perhaps senators on both sides of the chamber are open to criticism because, as yet, the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television has not been debated at length in the Senate.

Senator Cohen:

– It has, but the Government has failed to do anything about it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If Senator Cohen feels that the report has been debated conclusively, I disagree with his contention, because it has not been debated conclusively in this chamber. I have pointed out that about 96% of the Australian population will soon have access to television. A comment has been made that the remaining 4% of the population is distributed over about 85% of the total land area of Australia. From that, honourable senators will appreciate the great difficulties that face any agency of the Commonwealth in penetrating such an enormous area. My Party, and I particularly, congratulate the Postmaster-General on the current approach to the establishment of television repeater stations. Senator Lawrie and other honourable senators who represent Queensland and Western Australia are particularly cognisant of the great importance of this proposal. Indeed, a most important part of this Bill and a substantial part of the Minister’s second reading speech deal with the amendments which are necessary to overcome difficulties in maintaining a tight rein on the Australian ownership of television stations, a principle which we all supported originally.

The comment is made by the PostmasterGeneral that a number of mining companies have indicated that they are prepared to establish and operate television stations. If my reading is correct, it can happen that the only programme material that will be provided to those companies will be that provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Senator O’Byrne:

– On which Bill is the honourable senator speaking?

Senator Cohen:

– This is not the Bill dealing with licences or television repeater stations.

Senator WEBSTER:

– What I am saying is important because it involves the general area of television explored by Senator Cohen in his speech. I wish to deal with a point which is just beyond the ambit of this Bill. It relates to the use and expansion of production of Australian films by television stations. It is a matter of public interest that within the last week it has been said that the Commonwealth Government could provide about $lm for the Australian television film industry to promote the use of Australian films and to widen the activities of Australian film producers. I have been critical of the fact that a great many programmes shown on Australian television channels are imported from the United States of America. I agree with the comment that the Australian Government has not done enough to encourage the production of films in Australia so that they could be more widely used on Australian television.

In 1969 we are in a somewhat deplorable position because we are still incurring an enormous import bill for films purchased from overseas. Many such films are not worth showing on our screens. Some of them are particularly good. Those which come within the category of United States cast-offs are imported here at a figure with which local producers have no means of competing. For instance, the cost of American films on the Australian market at present could be between $4,000 and $5,000 an hour of viewing. The cost of production of such films in the United States is probably about $200,000 an hour of viewing. I am seeking to show that if the Government intends to follow the suggestion of making available Sim to encourage the productions of Australian films for television, the amount is inadequate for the purpose. It is fair to say that the Australian film industry is very efficient and is conducted economically in producing films, but it does not have the equipment or the finance to film the particular television shows it is producing so that they are finished in a style to make them suitable for export. Nevertheless, the quality of Australian produced programmes is far better than that of many produced overseas.

A recent survey to determine the most popular television programme in Victoria showed that the Australian produced programme ‘Homicide5 rated as no. 1. The survey also showed that the programme rated no. 2 was “Division 4’. Both these Australian produced programmes achieve higher ratings than any overseas produced programme shown in Victoria. They would cost about $45,000 to produce for each hour of viewing. I ask honourable senators to compare that figure with the American production cost of about §200,000 for each hour of viewing. If the Government is to provide Sim for the encouragement of the production of Australian television films it will provide a subsidy for about 30 or 40 1-hour programmes - depending on the cost of production - if a proper basis is to be set down. Such a basis would certainly need discussion. I suggest that the Government give consideration to commencing this encouragement even if it be at the low figure of SI. The money will quickly be returned to Australia as a result of import savings on films.

This would mean encouragement for artists in Australia and certainly a saving of our overseas funds. A proposition such as this, with a subsidy of $20,000 per hour to offset the original cost of $45,000 per hour for an Australian film, would not be an unfair suggestion. I suggest that the Commonwealth could put forward a proposition for the amount that it makes available to be recouped from the export income earned by the particular film. The films 1 refer to that are produced by Australians at present are not prepared in a form that enables them to be readily exported. I speak with pride about the fact that Australia can produce top quality films and documentaries. We should give all the encouragement possible and it must come through Government assistance. I fully support, the several Bills before us relating to broadcasting and television and I urge the Government to do more to encourage Austraiian film producers.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– Senator Webster seems !o have drawn comfort from the fact that by 1970 a television coverage of 96% of the Australian population will have been achieved. However, when one realises that television has been in existence in Australia since 1956 and that it will have taken the Government 14 years to provide coverage for not all but nearly all of Australia, I do nol think the record is one of such achievement claimed by Senator Webster. We must realise that while this Government is still trying to get television to the sparsely populated areas of Australia other countries are now making great strides in the production of colour television programmes. Australian television programmes are still being made only in black and white while overseas films are being made in colour.

We of the Opposition say thai the Government could have acted and should have acted much more expeditiously than it has done to date to get television to the sparsely populated areas of Australia. At least Senator Webster acknowledged that the Government has done insufficient to encourage the production of Australian films. Surely this means that while television is now being taken to the outlying areas of Australia, because of the present Government’s inertia and lethargy so far as the production of Australian films is concerned, the quantity of Australian programmes really is not worthwhile talking about. Frankly, we of the Opposition say that the Government’s record is pretty poor when the Austraiian population is crying out, and has been crying out for a number of years, for better programmes, for more indigenous programmes and for better overseas programmes. We realise that with very few exceptions, any particular Australian who has made good as a writer, an actor or a producer, has had to go abroad to further promote his skills and talents simply because he or she cannot earn a living here. Surely this shows up the lack of Government action that we are so used to in these days.

The Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) pointed out that these amendments are machinery matters relating to the Broadcasting and Television Act and to the general administration of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The amendments provide for a full-time member of the Board to be appointed as vicechairman and for that vice-chairman to be enabled to act as chairman in the absence of the Chairman of the Board. The amendments also relate to the provision for applications for licence renewals to be submitted in accordance with a form supplied by the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme). They relate also to the provision of information which the Board might require in connection with an application for renewal and for other small ancillary matters.

The Opposition, as Senator Cohen said, does not oppose these specific amendments to the Act. Basically we believe that they are in the interests of the better administration of broadcasting and television in Australia. However, during the Committee stage I will be moving, on behalf of the Opposition, an amendment, similar to that moved in the other place. The amendment relates to the employment of musicians.

The Bill is framed in very wide terms and this gives members of the Parliament an opportunity to express one or two opinions on the subject of mass communications generally. There is another Bill before the Senate relating to shareholding interests in broadcasting stations and to the establishment of television repeater stations for certain outlying areas. The Opposition also will be taking advantage of that Bill to make one or two observations about broadcasting and the extension of television by way of television repeater stations.

I take advantage of this particular Bill to express myself once again on the subject of broadcasting and television in Australia. The point of view of the Opposition, which has been put forward so regularly in this chamber, seems to be diametrically opposed to that of the present Government. Let me say quite frankly that over the whole area of this medium hangs the fear of the grabbing hand of monopoly control on the part of a privileged few who have been granted licences by the Government and who have taken advantage of their position and their sphere of influence as a result of the licences being granted to them. Regrettably I have come to the conclusion that so far as the administration of the Broadcasting and Television Act is concerned, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board places the interests and the wishes of the commercial licensees above and beyond the interests and desires of the Australian people. There has been no plan laid down and for 12 years there has been a sort of hotch-potch arrangement with worn our foreign films taking priority over Australian programmes.

I think it is fair to say that we must start on the basis that the dual system of broadcasting and television - a national system and a series of: commercial stations - is here to stay. The man in the street, however, is greatly dissatisfied with the type of programme being pushed into his lounge room like an illich drug day after day and night after night. Saturday night programmes are particularly woeful. The family man - the man who purchased his set on hire purchase and who, in money terms and money values has had to outlay a great deal to provide his family with this outlet which is supposed to inform, to educate and to entertain - is fed up with the type of programme and the poor choice offered to him. I do not suppose one can blame the commercial stations if they can get away with it. After all, they have to operate for profit purposes for the benefit of their shareholders. However, I submit that the Australian Broadcasting Control. Board has a responsibility to the community generally to do much more than it has done to date about this. The average man in the street will agree with me when I say that the Board is not carrying out its statutory obligation to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programmes are provided to serve the best interests of the general public.

The Board is charged by this Parliament with the responsibility of being the watchdog for the Australian public. In my opinion it is not barking enough to ensure that the public interest is protected. Having regard to the attitude of commercial stations, which has been raised in this Parliament with some frequency, I am sure that the licensees of the stations regard the Board merely as a necessary evil. In fact, a recently appointed part time member of the Board once went on record as saying that the members of the Board could not run a milk bar. In fairness to them I must say that perhaps that comment was a little exaggerated. But they certainly are not performing their statutory task of ensuring that the public receives adequate and comprehensive programmes. In this industry the hig boys have the game sewn up.

Let me refer to one or two instances. I refer to educational television, a subject to which my colleague Senator Cohen referred. In January 1964 an advisory committee on educational television was established by the Government, lt became known as the Weeden committee because the chairman of it was the then Director of the Commonwealth Office of Education, Mr Weeden. That committee considered the matter and presented a detailed report to the Postmaster-General in October 1964 - some 5 years ago. The report was nol debated in the Parliament until about 18 months after it was presented to the Postmaster-General, namely, in May 1966. That report was presented to the Postmaster-General in 1964 and certain recommendations were made to the Parliament in 1966, but still nothing has been done in the field of the extension of educational television.

At the time the report was tabled the Postmaster-General acknowledged the soundness of the proposals contained in it, but they were not adopted at that time because, according to the Government, education is the responsibility of the States. In typical fashion, the Weeden report - along with the Vincent Senate select committee report of 1963 and now the Lord Willis report - has been allowed to continue to gather dust in the pigeon holes of the Postmaster-General’s Department. What we say to the Government is that, if education is the responsibility of the States, certainly broadcasting and television is the responsibility of the Commonwealth. When people are doing and have done nothing to face up to their responsibities and to acknowledge that they have in their hands a weapon with which they could add considerably to the extent of education, particularly adult education, they must bear the full brunt of the Opposition’s criticism and the public dissatisfaction.

I have mentioned already the report of the Vincent committee which was made to this Senate in 1964. In 1965 the Australian Broadcasting Control Board mentioned in its annual report that there was evidence of continuing interest in the report of the Senate select committee and went on to say that the Postmaster-General hoped to make a statement on the matter before the end of that year. The Board said in the same report - this was 4 years ago - that at the request of the Minister it was conducting further examinations of the general question of the development of Australian programmes and that two members of the Board - Sir Tasman Heyes and Mr Donovan - were conducting an inquiry on behalf of the Board and on behalf of the Minister.

Having spoken to a great number of people engaged in this industry, .1 know that Sir Tasman Heyes and Mr Donovan conducted very extensive inquiries. I have the highest personal regard for those two gentlemen. Doubtless they presented their report: but what has happened to it? I know that one of the things that came out of it was a credit system arrangement. But the fact is that in the last 12 months Australian programmes, particularly Australian dramatic programmes, seem to have been regarded as something that has to be tolerated rather than as something that has to be encouraged. There are too few Australian programmes employing Australian writers, actors, producers and technicians.

I say frankly that the Australian public is being treated in a most cavalier manner because of the attitude adopted by the licensees - they could not care less - and because the Broadcasting Control Board, on behalf of the Government, is allowing them to get away with that attitude. I want to be quite fair to a number of people in executive capacities in some of the commercial television stations. The Board mentioned in its last annual report the performance of Channel 7 in Sydney. 1 believe that Mr Oswin of Channel 7, Mr Gyngell of Channel 9 in Sydney and the management of Channel 10 in Sydney - since I mentioned in this Parliament towards the end of last session that that channel was being allowed to get away with certain things - are doing as much as they can to present Australian programmes. But their hands are tied because of the policy of the licensees. If the licensees can get away with presenting cheaper and poorer quality programmes, they will do so. If one licensee can get away with such an attitude, the others will try to adopt the same attitude rather than set out to encourage the production of more and better quality Australian programmes.

Frankly, I believe that the Broadcasting Control Board has become a service agency for the commercial licensees. The members of the public are being regarded by both the licensees and the Board as a collection of mere spectators who will watch television because they cannot be bothered doing anything else. In my view, the Board should issue to all stations a policy directive requiring them to acknowledge in their dealings with the public that they, the licensees, are using a public facility under renewable licences granted to them by the Australian Government.

Senator Cormack:

– How many people watch educational television in New York State?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I would not know how many people watch educational television programmes in New York State; but if the honourable senator studies the report of the United States Federal Communications Commission he will see that there is a whole network of educational television stations throughout that country. There must be a substantial number of people watching educational television throughout the United States if there can be a whole network of stations devoted purely to educational purposes throughout the country. But in Australia the Government is relying on the Australian Broadcasting Commission and no one else to do something about educational television. It is allowing the commercial licensees to bring cheap overseas programmes into Australia and to show them at any time they like at the expense and to the detriment of Australians who are engaged in this industry, to the detriment of people who are trying to earn a living from this industry and certainly to the detriment of the Australian public generally.

It is essential in the public interest that the Minister, the Board and the commercial licensees themselves recognise the role of licensees as that merely of trustees, not as the permanent owners of powerful newspapers and broadcasting and television stations. These people are entrusted for the time being with control of the Australian airwaves and they should be reminded constantly that they have great responsibilities to the Australian public and to the projection of a predominantly Australian image. Millions of Australians who live in the coastal capital cities have access to two or more commercial stations. Unfortunately they usually find a slavish imitation of programme content among the networks during the prime viewing times and a preponderant diet of old films during most of the rest, the whole evening programme being interspersed with a smattering of news and any amount of advertising of cigarettes, soap and petrol. One station will put on a variety programme, so another puts on another variety programme in competition with the first station. One station will put on football and another puts on football. Then there is a wrangle in the Equity Court.

Senator Ormonde:

– I like to watch Australian Rules on a Saturday afternoon.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– You might like to watch Australian Rules, but I have better things than that to do - such as to watch Rugby League. One station will put on an amateur show in the form of ‘New Faces’ and another station puts on an amateur programme in the form of Better New Faces’. This is the extent and type of programme that these people are engaging in. They all seem to get their overseas syndicated news from the one source. Recently, in Sydney, I watched Channel 10 news at 6 o’clock, Channel 9 news at 6.30 and Channel 2 news, the national television news, at 7 o’clock. The whole of the foreign news clippings shown in each of those news sectors was exactly the same. I say frankly that what is going on is quite scandalous, and unless we jolt the administrators of the system out of their lethargy or quiescence the system will never improve.

We can examine the annual reports of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board where statistic after statistic is published, and we can talk about statistics as much as we like. They all show a 50% Australian quota in programmes, but the number of Australian writers, artists, producers and technicians employed in the industry is infinitesimal compared with the number who could be and should be earning their permanent livelihood in an industry of this nature. After all, the British Government has an effective 80% British quota for British programmes. We have an ineffective or lightly policed 50% quota, because everything that is Australian, be it football, be it races - in fact the whole lot - is dumped in the overall Australian quota.

Senator Cormack:

– Do you mean to say there is no drama in Victorian football?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– It is certainly not employing actors who should be earning their permanent livelihood in this profession. The Americans can still sell us nonAustralian programmes and very old films and get a much higher distribution price from us than they could get from the British, because they know that we have to have their programmes in order to keep the Australian commercial stations on the air.

Of course, we do not want to shut out everything that is American or everything that is foreign, but we certainly want more Australian programmes for Australians, particularly bearing in. mind that this industry is now nearly 14 years old in Australia. There are men in this country who know the industy backwards, not only from the Australian point of view but also from the overseas point of view. Their services certainly should be used by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, by the Australian Council for the Arts and by the Australian Government to get more Australian culture not only on to our own airwaves but also onto the markets abroad.

Let me just mention the names of two or three men prominent in this industry who I believe would be prepared to give their advice freely to the Board, to the Australian Council for the Arts and to the Australian Government in order to get a production industry of some sort off the ground in Australia. There is Mr Jack Near, and there is Mr Lloyd Martin of NLT Productions. They are very prominent men in the Australian television industry. I understand that when the Australian Broadcasting Control Board sent Sir Tasman Heyes and Mr Donovan to interview people connected with the industry, one of the first people whom they saw was Mr Neary of this company. He and Mr Lloyd Martin are both highly com- petent Australians and men of outstanding ability in the industry. Then there is Mr Reginald Goldsworthy, of Goldworthy Productions, another successful production company in Sydney. Others are Mr Lee Robinson and Mr John McCallum, of Fauna Productions, another production company in Sydney which has had considerable success on the American markets with one or two of the programmes it has produced. There is also Mr Hector Crawford of Crawford Productions, Melbourne. I mention Mr Al Daff an Australian who became head of the worldwide organisation of Paramount Pictures. He knows the film business as well as he knows the back of his hand. He is now living in Sydney. There are also Mr Alexander and Mr Lashwood of Actors Equity and Mr Thomson and Mr Kersey of the musicians’ union.

The advice that these people who are so skilled in, and have such a great knowledge of, the industry could give collectively to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, to the Australian Council for the Arts, to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and to the Australian Government would be of great value in the proper planning of the future of an industry in Australia. They would know more about the film production business, the entertainment business and the entrepreneurial business than any other group of people, including the Australian Council for the Arts, in the whole of Australia. Most have told me in private conversation that it is the story that makes the film and it is the story that makes the star. They also say - and they should know because they earn their living from the industry - that they have found that there are a great number of migrants who have come to this country in recent times who know very little about the history and traditions of this great nation and they are learning nothing about those traditions because of the paucity of Australian programmes televised on commercial television today.

It is time that the knowledge of these expert people was gathered by the Australian Government. It is time that their ideas were heeded. I have spoken to a great number of them. They would gladly give their advice quite freely because they know that the great problem of Australian productions has merely been tinkered with to date. I go so far as to suggest that the Government should ask the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the Australian Council for the Arts and the Australian Broadcasting Commission to get round a table with these gentlemen whom I have named, for I am sure that from such a discussion truly worthwhile propositions, submissions and suggestions would be forthcoming which would do much good to the Australian industry. Television was introduced in Australia some 13 years ago. Principally because of the influence of that medium and because of the type of programme shown, Australia as a nation has become very much Americanised. If the Government does not act very quickly to remedy this situation it will find that future generations of Australians will lose some of their very fine Australian characteristics because of the over-indulgence in the American programmes that are being shown in the loungerooms of Australian families.

This morning Senator Cohen mentioned the report presented to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation by Lord Willis of the British House of Lords, a very famous British script writer. That report has been received by the Federal Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Lord Willis came to Australia towards the end of last year and, as a result of his visit, prepared a report for UNESCO. He advocated, amongst other things, the urgent establishment of a Commonwealth film and television school to provide training for directors, producers, writers, cameramen and other personnel. He estimated that the cost of establishing such a school would be about Si. 5m and that running expenses would be about $250,000 a year. 1 and the other members of the Opposition say that this is cheap enough compared with the general budgetary allocation last year for the Australian Council for the Arts. To date this industry seems to have been run on a hit and miss basis. It is such a vital and influential industry that the Willis report must be heeded by someone. Certainly the absence of any career training is wasteful of talents, costly to management and frustrating to the cultural professions. It is not good enough for the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) to express a belief in the sentiment of Aus tralian nationalism, when we have this slate of affairs in an Australian industry today. When the Government allows this vital industry to be managed in the way in which it has been, 1 say it is time that the Broadcasting Control Board and the Government made another appraisal of the situation and decided to do much more in the interests of this industry than the Government has done in the past.

The Opposition does not oppose the amendments set out in the Bill although, as I have said, during the Committee stage on behalf of the Opposition I will move an amendment relating to the employment of Australian musicians. I take advantage of the wide nature of the drafting of the Bill to express my dissatisfaction with the overall administration of this industry by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and by the Government - a government which has been in office for nearly 20 years, which has had television at its disposal for about 13 years, which has failed to do something for the benefit of Australian musicians and which has not been prepared to grasp the nettle.

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

– I rise to support the Bill, which is a simple Bill in character and which aims at correcting a few weaknesses and anomalies in the legislation. One amendment deals with the control provisions of the broadcasting stations, to make them similar to the provisions existing with regard to television stations. Another is a domestic matter which makes provision for the appointment to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board of a Vice-Chairman to whom powers would be delegated in the event of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman. This is to enable meetings to be held where formerly, in the absence of the Chairman, there would be no quorum and the meetings would have to be postponed until the Chairman was available. That situation was not in any way satisfactory. Another amendment deals with the renewal of licences. Section 82 of the Act provides that application for an original licence shall be in a form suppl’ied by the Minister. It contained no provision for a renewal of a licence to be on the same basis. Another amendment provides for increased penalties to be imposed on anyone who might dare to interfere with transmission, who might trespass or who might offend in other ways of that kind.

All those things are very essential to the proper working of the legislation, but 1 am amazed that these things were not seen and corrected long before this. They are not something new. These anomalies did not occur yesterday or the day before. Surely it was not discovered only yesterday that a meeting had to be postponed because of the Chairman’s absence, there being no provision for the delegation of power to a ViceChairman. The same comment applies to penalties for interference with the proper transmission of broadcast and television programmes. Why did not section 82 contain a provision that renewal of a licence should be on the same basis as application for the original licence? This would have been a simple thing. Was it clumsy parliamentary drafting in the first instance? If so, why did not those who deal with this legislation every day discover this anomaly before? That is a pertinent question. I cannot understand why the Government had to wait until 1969 - after years of experience with this legislation - to amend the legislation.

The other remaining provision in this Bill relates to amendments requested by the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen). Section 102a of the Act provides that no copyright material may be broadcast or televised without the approval of the copyright holder. However, the Copyright Act contains provisions which in some circumstances run counter to this provision and the Bill therefore repeals section 102a. That is a very necessary amendment and one which should have been noted before this. The DLP supports the Bill because we believe that the amendments are essential to the proper working of the legislation.

I take the opportunity to say that I substantially support the remarks of Senator Cohen and Senator McClelland with regard to the broadcasting and televising of a greater measure of educational material. I think there is a great need for that. It could be of great advantage not only to youth but also to parents of youth. We must be realistic on this question. Whilst I advocate the improvement and extension of television services, I also say that the Aus tralian Broadcasting Control Board has an obligation to the viewing public and to the listening public to see that there is not too much of the one thing and that television is not burdened down with just educational matters.

Senator McClelland:

– We agree with that.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. Senator McClelland made reference to a number of these imported films. But it cannot be said that they are not educational. They teach us a lot. From looking at these pictures, I have learned things that would make anyone shudder. Probably our youth are learning these things too.

Senator McClelland:

– lt is probably because the honourable senator is seeing them so many times on television.

Senator GAIR:

– No, I am not saying that. 1 must confess - it is probably due to a lack of leisure time in the main - that I am not an addict of television because the opportunities that offer for watching television are not numerous. Invariably - and I say this not as a plug - I look at the Australian Broadcasting Commission station because this business of continually breaking in on programmes or pictures with advertisements just sends my blood pressure up so high that it does me no good. I invariably get up, walk out and do not come back to the television set. That is why I watch the ABC. In watching the ABC, I am not bugged with these interruptions through advertising. That is why it is important for the ABC to ensure that its programmes are of a good standard. A great percentage of our people react the same way as I do to these repeated interruptions of programmes by advertisements.

Senator Marriott:

– Why do advertisers go on advertising then?

Senator GAIR:

– Because they get money. However, I was saying that I invariably watch the ABC station. I say this - I may sound a little bit childish and probably I am - I get the best value out of television when I watch a programme such as ‘Disneyland’ which brings to the viewer a lot of wholesome information. If one is a lover of nature, one will get a great deal of pleasure from ‘Disneyland’.

Senator McManus:

– That programme is not on the ABC though.

Senator GAIR:

– No. It is one of those I like best. I am saying that I invariably watch the ABC, but the one programme that I do like is ‘Disneyland’. It is the only programme-

Senator O’Byrne:

– Does not the honourable senator watch ‘Showcase 69’?

Senator GAIR:

– I do not watch many of them at all because, as I have told the Senate already, I do not suffer from overleisure.

Senator Ormonde:

– The honourable senator is a busy senator.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes, I am. That is my telegraphic address - ‘Busy Brisbane’.

Senator McManus:

– The honourable senator does not listen to the ‘Labor Hour’?

Senator O’Byrne:

– What about Santamaria on Channel 9?

Senator GAIR:

– That is educational. It could be put on the ABC with effect. Having made those few observations and not wishing to delay the passage of the Bill with a lot of waffling about the importance of the medium, I make the point that everybody knows how important television is, how good it can be for the benefit of the community and how evil it can be when programmes, some of which we on this side of the Senate have complained about, are permitted to be shown for public consumption that are not in the best taste. Some of these programmes, to say the least, were very ill-chosen and were not fit to be put on a screen or relayed into the homes of people where children and those of adolescent age are present. The last incident about which we had cause to complain concerned a segment of a programme that to any adult was repugnant because it was crude and vulgar and it was not fit for production. We made our complaints about it. I hope that we will not have any cause for further complaint in that connection.

This example merely shows how important it is to have, running our broadcasting stations - and in the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for that matter - men who have a proper appreciation of these matters and are not carried away too much with Press idea or publicity idea that the public should be informed of every detail of some organisation or something else even though it is offensive and obscene. At least, it is not cultural. We are emphasising the need for more cultural programmes. Let us see to it that we eliminate those programmes that do not measure up to our standards in that connection.

I wish to avail myself of the opportunity to say again briefly that the Australian Democratic Labor Party has never been very happy with the treatment that it has received from the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Over the years, we have repeatedly registered our protests in this connection. We believe that we have had a pretty raw deal as a political party that attracts a big percentage of public support at elections. The worst case in recent times of this treatment is what happened in Tasmania during the last State elections there when the Australian Democratic Labor Party was given no free time on radio or television at all whereas Mr Lyons, who stood as a member of the Centre Party, was given time chiefly because there was some secret affiliation between his Party and the Country Party here on the mainland.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Senator Webster’s influence.

Senator GAIR:

– 1 do not know whose influence it was but the fact remains that that is the position. The ABC said that at a previous election Mr Lyons had received approximately 5% of the vote. Well, if that criterion is to be taken, the late George Cole received more than 5% of the vote at Senate elections. In any case, the Democratic Labor Party overall at a Federal election secures more votes than the Country Party does. We do not get a member in the House of Representatives, but the Country Party has a total of 26 or more.

Senator Webster:

– When I got 5 1 % of the votes, the honourable senator’s Party got 9%.

Senator GAIR:

– Well, there must have been something wrong with the intelligence of the people of Victoria at that time. That is all that I can say in reply to that interjection. I guess that the honourable senator has not received 51 % of the votes since then because the people of Victoria have been awakened by the existence of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I think that I have described the Country Party before in pretty clear language. It is favoured as against the Democratic Labor Party. If we live in a democracy, there should be something like nearly equal rights in this matter. We have just as much right to get our message over to the people as have the major parties. The fact that they have members in the Parliament is due only to the weakness in our electoral system which does not provide for proportional representation in the House of Representatives. One time the ABC will use the percentage vote against us. Another time the number of members that the major parties have in the House of Representatives will be used against us.

I do not want to pursue this matter any further simply out of respect for the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) to whom we wrote at the same time as we wrote to the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) and to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We do not confine our protests to just one quarter. Out of respect and regard for the Prime Minister who has written to me telling me that he intends discussing -the whole matter with the Postmaster-General with a view to having some correction of the matter about which we have complained, I will say no more but will hope with confidence that a greater measure of democratic treatment will be received by the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– From the Labor side of the Senate we have heard speeches by Senator Cohen and Senator McClelland which covered broadly the whole field of radio and television transmission. I do not intend to make a long speech because I am not expert in most of these things. I am principally interested when television offends me. Then I react. Since I have been in this Parliament I have been using my voice to direct attention to the lack of respect on radio and television for the reputations of people. I recall bringing one very important case of character assassination before this Parliament and I have yet to know that anything was done about it. A lesser known brother of a certain leading sportsman who works in this Parliament House died on the Sydney wharves. He was an official of the Waterside Workers Federation.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The mechanical branch of the Waterside Workers Federation?

Senator ORMONDE:

– It was the mechanical branch.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I know whom you mean.

Senator ORMONDE:

– It was Jack Fingleton’s brother.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– I cannot hear you, senator.

Senator ORMONDE:

– This might be due to the accoustics in the corner. At his funeral a comment was made on his Communist affiliations and this got on to the radio. I think the Minister will remember this well. I believe that she was representing the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) when I raised the matter first and I have since raised it again. A commentator discussed this man and referred to his Communist background. I think Senator Mulvihill had something to do with the protest that was made. I have yet to know that anything was done by the PostmasterGeneral. It was explained to me that action could not be taken because the comment was made on the air and it was over and gone. So one is in a bit of trouble if his character is taken away over the air because the comment goes into the ether. If such a comment had appeared in a newspaper it might have attracted damages of $20,000 because it was untrue of the man. He was not allowed to be buried without an unfounded comment on his political associations. Of course, those were the days of the hot war on the waterfront. If a person even talked to a member of the Communist Party he was regarded as a Communist. It was a case of condemnation by association.

This comment got on to the radio and such comments get on to the radio now. I would not listen for a week without hearing somebody’s character besmirched in some way or other. It is a well known sport amongst the colony of television and radio commentators. It is good publicity for one group to antagonise another by imputation and character assassination. If Hazel Phillips, for example, wants to have a go at another woman, she says something which is of doubtful quality. But that is publicity. If they name one another often enough that helps in the publicity game. I ask the Minister to try to influence the Postmaster-General to prepare a case and to tell the public what redress is available. There has been no redress yet for the family to which I have referred and I have taken up other cases. I was told that a script has to be produced and that the material has to be on tape. Who puts things on tape? Certainly the people being maligned arc not putting things on tape. The person who is ad libbing on television or on radio is not on tape, either. I imagine that the Postmaster-General set out to find a tape record of the accusation against this man from the waterfront and it had gone. There was no evidence. So if one is maligned and his character is taken away he is not in the race to get redress because he cannot gel evidence. In the case of a newspaper there is evidence. 1 have heard it said that a station has to hold on to a script for so long but I have never heard of anybody being dealt with as a result. Of course, in politics the characters of people are taken away every day, but that is part of the political game, as we say. lt is part of the cut and thrust of politics and one’s character means nothing in this cut and thrust of politics. I am not asking the Minister to cure that situation. But over a period of 5 or 6 years I have been waiting for some scheme to be devised which would protect members of the public, whether they are in politics or not.

Senator Branson:

– Can you yourself suggest something?

Senator ORMONDE:

– It is difficult. Off the cuff speaking, for example, is terribly dangerous. 1 know that if serious minded Ministers or leaders of my Party are making prepared statements they will not risk an off the cuff statement. One might apply that rule to lesser people, if 1 should use the term, who speak on radio or television. Most of the annoyance comes from off the cuff statements, which are on the air within seconds.

Senator McClelland:

– Some of it is done deliberately for the purpose of causing a sensation.

Senator ORMONDE:

– lt makes news. Constructive news about anybody is not news at any time. Nobody wants to listen to constructive news. If it is not destructive it is not good copy. That is the general situation in the industry. If one listens for long enough one can always find somebody whose character is maligned to a greater extent than that of the person one has in mind, lt is a problem. I should like the Minister to make inquiries to see whether the Government has worked out a plan whereby people can be protected from another type of individual on television and radio. This is the open line fellow, who appears particularly between 9 a.m. and 12 noon. In this period the whole radio field is taken over by persons who ought to be doing their morning washing or washing the dishes but who argue with anonymous - not always anonymous - individuals. 1 am not thinking of Senator Buttfield. 1. know she is above that. I have listened to her very often but she knows the type that I mean. They are wasting the time of women who have nothing else to talk about and who get a bit of a kick out of getting in touch with John Pearce when he. is on the air and asking him a personal question such as whether he thinks 1 o’clock is too late for one’s daughter to be out. This is the kind of twiddle-twaddle that goes on every morning. I really do not think that: licences were given to stations for that sort of thing.

Senator Marriott:

– You would stop that if you were in government?

Senator ORMONDE:

– Yes. I think that they would be better off working for a living.

Senator Marriott:

– You would really control the programmes.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I think that good taste ought to control all programmes. A leavening of good taste ought to control programmes. I say with due respect, even in the honourable senator’s own home. He would expect to have programmes of good taste but this standard is very often offended against. That is probably the greatest censorship that we could have. I am not a censor; I do not believe in censorship. I could not understand why Senator McManus saw anything offensive or anything that was not in good taste in the showing on television of a fowl being decapitated, but the honourable senator received much publicity from that.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Is the honourable senator saying that he could not see anything objectionable about it?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I said that it was not in good taste.

Senator Byrne:

– Would the honourable senator say no more than that it was not in good taste?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I have killed many fowls in my time and have seen their entrails on numerous occasions. I do not think there is anything objectionable about that.

Senator Byrne:

– But that was not the only cause of complaint; it was the crudity and cruelty of it.

Senator ORMONDE:

– That was the thing that was given publicity.

Senator Gair:

– Did they not pin the genital organs of a rooster on a board?

Senator ORMONDE:

– My mind does not take in that sort of thing. I go suddenly blind. I am merely explaining that Senator McManus’ complaint was an expression of one attitude. There is a wide diversity of opinion on what is good and what is bad television.

Senator Gair:

– I do not think the honourable senator saw the programme. I am afraid he did not see it.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I did see the programme, but the part about which Senator McManus complained was taken off too quickly, or perhaps the explanation is that I did not understand it. That is possible. But speaking seriously, that was Senator McManus’ idea of bad television. Probably it was bad television, but I do not think the public saw it that way. I investigated his complaint and I do not think the public reaction was that it was bad television in the sense of its being immoral or unromantic. Anyway, that is my opinion.

Senator Gair:

– I thought the honourable senator’s standards would have been higher. I am surprised.

Senator ORMONDE:

– They are higher than fowls, anyway.

Senator Gair:

– It sounds a bit foulish to me.

Senator ORMONDE:

– The honourable senator is deliberately misunderstanding me.

What I am saying is that it would be impossible for the Government to cope with all attitudes regarding what is good and what is bad. We live in what has become a very blue society. I am sorry for people who have to make a living from this type of material.

Senator Gair:

– And the ABC is catering for the blue society, is it?

Senator ORMONDE:

– I said merely that it is a blue society. The entertainer who does not sail pretty close to the wind in this blue society will not earn enough for a meal. He will not earn a living and he will have no following because people seem to like blue material. One thing about the industry which is certain is that it benefits only from what comes through the turnstiles. If people want certain material they will look at it, but if that is not what they want they will not watch it. But in the meantime the television stations commit some very severe breaches of etiquette and of what is right for radio and television.

Senator Marriott:

– Does the honourable senator think that this is a good Bill that we are debating?

Senator ORMONDE:

– Yes, I think so. I take it that Senator Marriott is suggesting that I get back to the Bill.

Senator Marriott:

– The honourable senator has not been there yet.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I have found that most speeches made in the Senate are away from the Bill being debated, but that is probably because the Bills are always framed so cautiously. Of course, the acme of a Liberal Party government is the least amount of government is best for everybody. Consequently, the less contention there is in a Bill, the better it is for all concerned. Another serious matter with which I want to deal and which I should think is particularly serious for the Democratic Labor Party is the programme called ‘Meet the Candidates’, which the Australian Broadcasting Commission was conducting 6 years ago. In my opinion that programme represented everything that was good. At present the public see only party leaders on television and during an election campaign it is only the leaders who are given publicity. In a democratic society that cannot be right. The ‘Meet the Candidates’ programme which the ABC showed all over Australia gave the public an opportunity to see representatives of parties with no financial support or with not as much financial support as the Liberal and Country Parties can get at will.

Senator Marriott:

– And the Labor Party.

Senator Gair:

– They get it but lose it. Somebody takes it from them.

Senator ORMONDE:

– We have our limitations; J. think that can be taken for granted. The programme ‘Meet the Candidates’ was taken off the air because of pressure. From whom? It was not from the Labor Party. That programme suited us, it suited the DLP and it suited the Communist Party.

Senator Cohen:

– But it did not suit the Government.

Senator ORMONDE:

– No, the Government did not like it. I have been compaigning for some time to try to interest the ABC in putting that programme on the air again because it provides the one chance that members of the Australian public have to see their candidates on television. There would be contrasts, of course. For example, we could see Senator Gair standing alongside Mr Whitlam. That conjures up some thoughts in one’s mind.

Senator Gair:

– Does that amuse the honourable senator?

Senator ORMONDE:

– No.

Senator Gair:

– Apparently it does. It would amuse me if it did happen.

Senator ORMONDE:

– If I may be serious. I ask the Senate to try to do something to bring about a return of the programme ‘Meet the Candidates’.

Senator Marriott:

– This sounds like political pressure on your part.

Senator ORMONDE:

– No, 1 am only using the Senate for the purposes for which it was insituted - to express opinions. 1 think the public wants this programme and I think the ABC could present the programme. I am not talking about the commercial stations which are in business to make money, but the ABC would be more entitled to provide the money for a ‘Meet the Candidates’ programme during a general election campaign than to spend the money on educational programmes. Somebody said that not many people listen to educational programmes. Probably there is a good deal of truth in that statement. I realise that that is no reason why we should not have educational programmes and I am in favour of the ABC extending its educational facilities, but 1 should like to see them extended to take in something of the nature of the ‘Meet the Candidates’ programme. If the people of this country need education, they need education in politics. They should have the benefit of this programme so that they can see what they are getting for their money. A programme of this type would achieve that purpose.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I shall be very brief. I intervene only because of some remarks which were made by Senator Ormonde in reference to a protest that I made to the Australian Broadcasting Commission about a programme on ‘This Day Tonight’ which dealt with the evil’ eye. Senator Ormonde said, very fairly, that he thought it. might have been bad television but that he did not think it had much effect on the people. I found that there was much public reaction. Judging from the number of people who wrote to me about the programme when I commented on it. judging from the manner in which members of the Italian community protested very strongly about the programme, and judging by the fact that at least one person, if not more, who wrote to the ABC and protested received letters saying that in the opinion of those in charge of the ABC the programme should not have been broadcast in that way, there was a public reaction. The Commission informed me in an answer to a question in the Senate that instructions had been given that that kind of thing was not to be repeated. So it appears to me that there was a strong public reaction.

Senator Ormonde referred also to a matter which is causing many of us concern, that is, the introduction into programmes of material which is described as blue. 1 think there is not much doubt that that has been happening. A couple of months ago the commercial stations protested that the ABC was using blue material which, they said, the commercial stations would not be permitted to use. Senator Ormonde said that he fell that some performers used blue material because they believed they would not get a job unless they did. J am not sure about that. The people who use blue material are usually writers or performers who do not have the ability to make the grade by using clean material. Such writers and performers lack the ability to get to the top. They think that in order to get a job they must employ some kind of gimmick. The fashionable gimmick today is the use of blue material.

Senator McClelland:

– The best way to ensure that a book is read is to have it -banned.

Senator McMANUS:

– Some people make that claim. I think that hundreds of people writing books today incorporate blue material because they do not otherwise have the ability to write a book that people would read. They believe that by including such pornographic stuff they ensure that people will buy their books. My attitude to them is that in many ways they are worse than the people who used to be seen selling pornographic postcards in eastern countries, because in many cases those people were selling filthy pictures because they were poor. It was their only way to make a living. But some of the people who are guilty of using blue material today could probably make an honest living in another field. They want to be in the entertainment field but lack the ability to get to the top without using the gimmick of blue material. 1 do not think that any mercy should be shown to these people. I do not think there is any question of censorship in providing that standards of reasonable, good taste are to be imposed. I believe it is the duly of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the Australian Broadcasting Commission to be very firm in applying standards of good taste. Some people say that there are all kinds of high literary qualities about some blue material. I have never been able to find it, although I did a course in English and Latin literature at the University of Melbourne. I cannot see any high literary qualities in such material. 1 agree with the principle adopted by a former senator when he was Postmaster-General. I refer to the late Senator Don Cameron. He had a very blunt, commonsense outlook. If blue material was used he suspended the performer who used it. I hope that similar treatment will be applied in the future. A few suspensions of people who are guilty of using blue material would have a very salutary effect.

I have been rather surprised lately at the number of advertisements shown in succession on our television stations. I was under the impression that a limit was imposed. On some nights I have been amazed to view six advertisements in succession. Ii seems to me to be too much of a good thing. I do not think that most television stations are so badly off that they have to do that kind of thing. There is a limit to the patience of the ordinary viewer. When an excessive number of advertisements is screened action should be taken. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us of cases where the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has taken action to inform offending stations that such practices have to be stopped. As Senator Gair has said, it can be very irritating. I do not think it is at all fair to the viewing public.

I hope that this Bill will enable Australian television stations to function better than they have been functioning. I have said before that the programme in Victoria which has been the outstanding programme since television began is :In Melbourne Tonight’. I happen to know that one of the reasons why it became the top programme, apart altogether from the abilities of the producer and performers, is that right from the start a firm rule was made that the comedians and other performers were not to use blue material. That is why ‘In Melbourne Tonight’ became the top programme in Victoria.

Senator BUTTFIELD:
South Australia

– 1 would not like to let the opportunity pass for another senator on this side of the chamber to speak on this Bill. I wish to commend the Government for the amendments that are proposed to be made to the Broadcasting and Television Act. However, I hope that in some directions the Government in the very near future will go even further than it has gone in this legislation. In saying that, I refer mainly to the provisions of the principal Act which relate to the televising of election matter. Il seems to me that although the Government has gone some distance towards correcting the situation applying to the broadcasting and televising of election material-

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– That matter concerns the next Bill to be discussed.

Senator BUTTFIELD:

– I thank the Minister for that correction. However, I would like to go on to say that in respect of either Bill some things need to be looked at in connection with the televising or broadcasting of election matter. It seems to me that in this area there is discrimination against the broadcasting and television media. For example, at an election meeting the Leader of the Opposition may make statements which provoke an outcry, or the Prime Minister may pass remarks which are followed by certain incidents. This would be news. Although the Press would be allowed to publish reports of such matters, in a certain period they could not be mentioned by broadcasting or television stations. This anomaly needs to be studied so that the Press is placed in the same position in this respect as broadcasting and television stations.

Section 117 of the principal Act provides that when current affairs programmes are broadcast or televised the name and address of the person who is expressing an opinion must be given. This seems to me to be too broad a provision. Roving reporters for broadcasting and television stations approach people in the street and ask their opinions. For instance, they may be asked whether they think Parliament should be abolished. The people give their opinions in passing, and it would be quite unrealistic to expect that everybody who gives an opinion to a roving reporter should have his name and address taken. I think that is going too far. I think it is reasonable enough to apply the requirement to political matter, but the term ‘current affairs’ covers a very wide range of subjects.

Another requirement in respect of the broadcasting or televising of political matter is that announcements of 100 words or more must include the names of the speaker, the author, and the party on whose behalf the announcement is made. All honourable senators are aware that in election campaigns short advertisements are placed by various political parties. If time is taken up in those short advertisements to give the names of the speaker, the author and the party concerned, the persons concerned are paying very dearly for the privilege of saying a few words on a political subject. When the Prime Minister makes a statement, all honourable senators know that he is not necessarily the author of what he has said. Perhaps somebody in his Department has written it for him, but it has to be said that he is the author. This seems to be quite unnecessary. I believe that it would be sufficient to give the name of the speaker and the party sponsoring the advertisement.

I cannot agree with Senator McClelland or Senator Cohen about the need for a greater Australian content in television programmes. In my opinion Australian content will increase as the quality of matter available in Australia increases. I do not mean that we do not have suitable and very competent actors, writers and even producers for this sort of drama. At present we are building up an industry and I think it would be extremely restrictive if we were to say at this stage that there must be greater Australian content. It has been difficult enough to build the content up to 50%. I agree that this process has brought in a lot of second class matter. But let us build up the quality of our dramatic productions and then, perhaps without the need to increase the content, they will displace the second class programmes which are performed.

We read recently that the Australian Council for the Arts is asking the Government to give assistance to Australian television programmes. This is a very good idea. After all, we hear criticism about the type of advertising on television and radio and surely this is one area where we can start improving the content. If we commence with a minor industry and produce bigger and better advertising programmes this will, I think, result in more people listening to them. Senator Gair will not then feel so obliged to turn off whatever medium he is listening to and tune in to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We may be able to put on better advertising programmes. This is where we can begin. If it is necessary to give some assistance to the budding industry, then let us do it in this field. I think this would lead to better dramatic programmes being broadcast and televised. We need to start in a small way.

Finally, I refer to what Senator Ormonde said about the ‘Meet the Candidates’ programmes. I do not agree with what he said.

I do not think this programme has a wide coverage. Any number of so-called parties will promote one person in order to get their views over to the public. If there is such a programme those people will be able to appear on it and will be able to put their stupid ideas over radio and television without people necessarily wanting to hear them. Surely this would mean giving too much publicity to the lunatic fringe in politics. Let us leave the position as it stands. People who want to put over their ideas will be able to do so. They do not need a ‘Meet the Candidates’ programme to do this. Each party will support the people that it thinks will be able to get a message over for it. I do not think we should make time available for a fragmented party to be able to put its view forward by means of this expensive medium.

I am very much in favour of the alterations proposed to the Act and I will not be supporting Senator McCIelland’s amendment seeking an increase in the Australian content of programmes.

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

.[3.48] - in reply - I would like to reply to some of the matters raised and to specific questions asked. I thank all honourable senators who have spoken for the comments they have made. Certain matters were raised which I will not be able to comment upon but I assure the Senate that I will advise the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) of them. I want to refer first to an inquiry from Senator Cohen. He referred to the second reading speech and a paragraph which stated:

The Bill therefore makes it an offence for any person to knowingly obstruct or otherwise interfere with the broadcasting or televising of programmes or to in any way interfere with the operation of a station.

He asked for a further explanation. To date, in the event of a station being broken into and its operation being interfered with, the station has had recourse only to the normal remedies available at law - that is, an action for simple trespass. It is considered that, as broadcasting and television stations are such powerful media for mass communication, some special provision should be made in the Broadcasting and Television Act to cover cases where premises or the operations of a station are obstructed or inter fered with. Cases have occurred, in fact, in recent years of unauthorised persons entering stations and interfering with, or attempting to interfere with, its transmissions. The amendment in this Bill is aimed at giving the stations some proper redress in cases of this nature.

Senator Cohen, Senator McClelland and, 1 think, Senator Gair spoke about educational television. They raised points of great interest in the comments they made. I think I should reply to the points raised by Senator McClelland concerning reports on educational television. I think he implied that these reports had not been dealt with in any way. Educational television was dealt with at some length in the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30th June 1968. Set out in paragraph 77 of that report was an extract from a statement to Parliament by the Postmaster-General and it expressed the Government’s general policy in regard to educational television. It should be particularly noted that the view is taken that, as education is a sovereign responsibility of the States, a first and essential step is consultation with the State Governments as to the most appropriate way to proceed. A conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers was held in July 1966 but efforts to arrange another meeting in 1967 were not successful because the investigations of some State authorities had not advanced sufficiently far. Further inquiries were made of the States in late 1968 but it is not possible to say when a further conference will be arranged. The matter is still being pursued.

Senator McClelland referred to the report of Lord Willis. I think I should give the Senate some information about this matter. 1 think Senator Cohen also referred to the report of Lord Willis. I can only say that the report has been widely distributed. Its conclusions are being studied by the Board and no doubt by other organisations which have an interest in or responsibility for the production of Australian programme material. I think the Senate also is interested in the points raised by Senator Buttfield about Australian programme material. Senator Cohen referred to personal attacks on people and the possibility of dealing wilh such matters as an attack by a station on a person’s character.

Senator McClelland:

– That was Senator Ormonde.

Senator Cohen:

– It was not I.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am sorry. I knew it was Senator Ormonde bur I was looking at Senator Cohen at the time and used the wrong name. Some time ago I answered this point when replying to a question during question time. I cannot recall when I answered it but because the matter has been raised again today I think I should repeat the information I gave previously. The Australian Broadcasting Commission and the licensee of a station must retain for 6 weeks a script of all matter relating to political subjects or current affairs which are broadcast. On a number of occasions requests have been made for the supply of scripts of programmes transmitted. However, the Act does not authorise the Minister or the Board to make any script available to a private person. Scripts may be obtained by the Minister or the Board purely for official purposes in connection with the administration of the Act. The Act does provide that records of material relating to a political subject or current affairs shall be made and retained for specific periods primarily in order that they should be available in connection with any subsequent legal proceedings.

The whole question of the availability of scripts has been under review for some considerable time with a view to determining whether some procedure could be adopted whereby scripts of an allegedly defamatory statement could be made available to an aggreived party for the purpose of verifying statements made without resorting to legal processes. However, the matter is not straightforward. Firstly there is doubt as to the evidentiary value of a record kept by licensees of stations. Secondly there are the practical difficulties which would be experienced by licensees in keeping and making available to potential litigants records on which legal proceedings would be based. Thirdly there is a question of legal policy as to whether the Commonwealth should, in effect, intrude into litigation between private persons by enacting legislation. Nevertheless, I inform Senator Ormonde and other honourable senators that the matter is still being reviewed and that, if the further examinations which are still being made indicate that some further steps on the part of the Commonwealth are justified, appropriate action to amend the law will be put in hand.

I think it was Senator McManus who raised a point concerning advertising on television and radio. He asked whether stations conformed with the standards for advertising. In general it may be said that stations do conform with the standards. However, there have been occasions on which it has been necessary to take up with licensees their excessive advertising content. I think it was also Senator McManus who asked what the standards were. I have that information. The Broadcasting Control Board’s programme standards provide that on week days the total time occupied by advertising matter during television programmes may not exceed 11 minutes in each hour between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and 13 minutes in each hour at other times. On Sundays the allowable limit is 6 minutes in each hour between 6 a.m. and 12 noon and 9 minutes in each hour at other times. There is no limitation on the number of advertisements that may be televised consecutively during intervals between programmes, provided that the permissible advertising content in each hour is not exceeded; but not more than four advertisements may be televised consecutively in any natural break during the course of a programme.

In the case of radio programmes which are sponsored by one advertiser or by several advertisers jointly, 12 minutes of advertising time is permissible in each hour, and unsponsored programmes may contain individual advertisements to the extent of 18 minutes in each hour. The standards also provide that programmes should be arranged so that not more than four advertisements occur consecutively. On Sundays the allowable maximum of advertising matter is 6 minutes an hour between 6 am. and 12 noon and 12 minutes an hour after 12 noon. I think I have commented on the majority of the points raised by honourable senators. If other matters come up in Committee, I will endeavour to deal with them then.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 7 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 7a-

Senator MCCLELLAND (New South

Wales) [3.58]- I move:

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: 7a. Section 114 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words “works of composers who are Australians” and inserting in their stead the words “works composed and performed by Australians”.’. 1 indicated during the second reading debate that the Opposition would be moving, this amendment to the Bill1, lt relates to the performance of musical compositions by Australian musicians. Section 114(2.), as it stands at present, reads as follows:

Not less than five per centum of the time occupied by the programmes of the Commission, and not less than five per centum of the time occupied by the programmes of a commercial broadcasting station, in the broadcasting of music shall be devoted to the broadcasting of works of composers who are Australians.

In other words, that section of the Act, as it is framed at present, is designed to protect the Australian composer of a piece of music as distinct from the performer of an Australian composed piece. It is interesting to note that even the existing section has not been complied with in full by the broadcasting stations insofar as it relates to the protection of Australian composers. On 25th February last 1 received from the Postmaster-General1 (Mr Hulme) an answer to a question 1 had placed on the notice paper. That answer indicated that during the last financial year ten commercial broadcasting stations did not comply with their statutory requirements under the present section 114(2.). The Minister added that, whereas previously this matter was dealt with by the Australasian Performing Right Association, now the Broadcasting Control Board has assumed complete responsibility for it as from 1st July 1968.

The Act, as it stands at present, certainly provides some protection to the Australian composer, but it provides no protection at all to the Australian musician who is or might be responsible for the performance of the work. By way of illustration I point out that a composition could be composed by an Australian and recorded by overseas musicians. If that were done apparently it would satisfy the terms of the Act; in other words, the Australian composer would be protected. But the Act certainly does not ensure that a minimum of 5% of Australian compositions will be performed by Australian musicians.

Senator Byrne:

– Could not the amendment have the effect of deterring the stations from including Australian compositions? IE they wanted to broadcast an Australian composition performed by the Beatles and they would not receive any allowance for that, would not this amendment deter them from broadcasting the Australian composition at all?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– 1 dp not think it would. Surely, if they wanted to broadcast an Australian composition performed by the Beatles, on the law of supply and demand in the entertainment industry they would consider that worthwhile. But I am talking about musicians. The stage has been reached where very few, if any, Australian musicians are permanently employed in Australian broadcasting. We do not say by the amendment that each and every broadcasting station has to have a musician on its programmes live. What we say is that the insistence on 5% of Australian compositions should also be an insistence that at least 5% of the music broadcast should be Australian compositions performed by Australian musicians.

Senator Little:

– Would that mean that only Australian compositions would have to have Australian artists performing them?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– No. What we are saying, in short, is that at least 5% of all the music played on radio should be composed by Australians and performed by Australians.

Senator Little:

– That would mean that Australian compositions and not other compositions had to be performed.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– That is right - Australian compositions; indigenous programmes. If a broadcasting station wants to go further and have compositions composed by Australians played by overseas artists, so long as it exceeds the 5% applying to Australian compositions, well and good. We say that if there is a requirement that at least 5% of all of the music played in Australia by broadcasting stations must be music composed by Australians then, because of the problems facing the musicians in this country, there should also be a provision that at least 5% of all musical programmes should be played by Australians.

The Postmaster-General made a great play in another place on the fact that in 1956 the Act provided that 2i% of all compositions should be Australian composed. He said that since that time this requirement has been increased from 2i% to 5%. But surely, bearing in mind that television came into existence here in 1956 and that the particular section of the Act upon which we are now concentrating our thoughts relates to broadcasting, that is the minimum that one should expect in these days, especially when we remember that there are fewer musicians employed in connection with Australian radio programmes today. The present 5% applying to Australian compositions certainly does not protect the interests of Australian musicians. If so much has been done by this Government to promote Australians and to encourage the use of Australian musical works, then we suggest that Australian musicians are entitled to the same minimum statutory protection as Australian composers. It is my hope, too, that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, or the Postmaster-General, will not adopt the industrial policy of government instrumentalities who have adopted the general approach that the minimum award shall be the maximum. We say that the minimum is the very minimum that should apply not only to Australian composers but also to Australian performers.

Senator Little:

– Would you think that a provision such as this in the British Act would have prevented the Seekers from ever reaching the top?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Most certainly not because, in 1958, the British legislated to protect the rights of British performers. That Act was the British Performers Protection Act.

Senator Byrne:

– But in the absence of a similar provision in the statute here, would that not be the effect?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I am not suggesting that.

Senator Little:

– If a British composition was performed not by British artists, but by Australian artists such as the Seekers, that would not be in compliance with the Act if the British Act is similar to what you suggest ours should be.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– The point we are making is that the standard we are seeking by our amendment is the minimum standard of protection both for the Australian composer and for the Australian musician. At least at this stage the Australian composer is protected in some small way, however slight it may be - it is only 5% of all of the music played on Australian commercial broadcasting stations - whereas there is no protection whatever for Australian musicians or Australian performers of musical works. We say that if it is good enough to require that a minimum of 5% of Australian compositions shall be composed by Australian composers then at least Australian musicians are entitled to receive the same consideration.

Senator Little:

– But this would relate only to Australian compositions. Australian musicians would be playing far more than 5% of the music over a period.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– They are in fact doing that, according to the last report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, but this is not because of any statutory requirement. In any case, I think the proportion was a mere 13%. What we are saying is that, at the whim of any radio station, an Australian musician can be taken off the air and he has no protection at all under the Act. If you are keen to encourage the use of Australian talent and the development of Australian talent then you must agree that Australian musicians are entitled to some minimum standard of protection under a statute of this nature.

Senator Buttfield:

– What is the percentage in the British Act?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– It is some considerable time since I read the British Performers Protection Act. I could not say what the percentage is, but it related to the protection of British performers when the copyright law of Great Britain was amended in accordance with the Rome Convention. Because the British Copyright Act then extended protection so far as copyright in British compositions was concerned the British Government - incidentally it was a Conservative government at the time - decided to agree to a request from artists and professional musicians engaged in this industry in Britain to extend a similar sort of protection to the British performer. This Conservative Government of Great Britain produced the British Performers Protection Act.

Senator Buttfield:

– But the number would be small in proportion to the population.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– It might be a different proportion. Let us face it: The British have a higher quota of British programmes than Australia has of Australian programmes. So far as television is concerned, the Australian Government provides for only a very small quota of Australian dramatic programmes. So far as radio is concerned the only protection accorded Australians by this Act is the protection accorded composers. We say that if the skills of Australian musicians are to be developed and encouraged then the musicians, too, are entitled to the same minimum protection by way of statute. It is all very well for the Minister in another place to rely, as he did, on paragraph 215 of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s report when he said that approximately 13% - which, incidentally, is the proportion I quoted when I replied to Senator Little - consisted of recorded music either performed or composed by Austalian. We want to ensure that 5% of all music played by broadcasting stations is composed and performed by Australians. As 1 have said, so far as the composition is concerned this 5% is the minimal protection.

The Secretary of the Australian Professional Musicians Union has advised me that one could literally count on one’s hand the number of musicians employed by the whole 1 14 commercial broadcasting stations. Indeed, about 3 years ago the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission set aside that part of the commercial broadcasting award which related to musicians because there were no persons employed in this particular sphere of the industry at that time. Despite all the confusion that was brought into the discussion in another place by the Postmaster-General I submit that it would be very simple, and certainly very practicable, for any disc jockey employed by a radio station to pick up a record and say that it was an Australian composed work, that it was such and such a composition and that it was being performed by such and such an orchestra. If, as he seemed to suggest in another place, the Postmaster-General thinks that it would be a very complicated matter for the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to administer or enforce such a provision and that it would create confusion - he actually did suggest this in the other place - then I suggest it is about time that something was done to get a better administration of the Board.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Drake-Brockman).- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

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

[4.15] - 1 listened with interest to the points raised by the honourable senator. I also noted the words of the amendment which he moved. In reply I say that it is quite apparent that the original intention of this section of the Act was to provide encouragement to Australian composers. To introduce a subsection providing encouragement to Australian musicians would, 1 believe, complicate the objective of the section. In 1956, as Senator McClelland said, the obligation for a certain percentage of music on broadcasting stations to be devoted to works of Australian composers was increased from 2i% to 5%. The level has been reviewed in favour of Australian composers since the original section was introduced. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has already made representations to the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Hulme) on a request from the Professional Musicians Union for a prohibition of the use of imported jingles on radio advertisements. This matter has been the subject of a comprehensive examination by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. These studies will take some time to complete. The studies indicate that the interests of Australian musicians are not being overlooked. I stress that it is in these directions that the best present prospects for Australian musicians seem to lie.

I have noted the points that Senator McClelland raised.. I also have noted the points he made in speaking to his amendment. I inform you, Mr Chairman, the mover of the amendment and honourable senators that the Government opposes the adoption of the amendment. In saying that, I emphasise that the matter will be investigated further and if some further action is considered to be justified it will be taken.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– In view of the apparent uncertainty that accompanies the possible application of Senator McClelland’s amendment, the implications of which could not be estimated; in view of the fact that the originally intended purport of the provision was to encourage Australian composers; and more particularly in view of the assurance of the Minister that the matter is under consideration and will be given further consideration, I have no doubt that if it is considered warranted and justified and if it is practicable and workable, the Government, at the appropriate time, will do something along the lines suggested by Senator McClelland. I presume that that is implicit in the statement the Minister made. The Australian Democratic Labor Party thinks it would be unwise to disturb the existing position by supporting Senator McClelland’s amendment.

Senator McCLELLAND:
New South Wales

-I only wish to add to that which has fallen from the Minister’s lips that I think it is scandalous for the Government to say that the Government is encouraging the use of Australian talent. The Minister said in effect that the best prospects for the employment of Australian musicians are the jingles produced in Australia. We say that Australian compositions and musical works of art are quite different from the jingles that are used in advertising media. I criticise the Government for failing to appreciate the importance of the amendment I moved on behalf of the Opposition. I likewise criticise the members of the Democratic Labor Party for opposing the amendment.

Question put:

That the proposed new clause (Senator McClelland’s amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 30

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole.

Senator McCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I desire to raise with the Minister the question of clause 8 of the Bill. It relates to offences in connection with the interference to the broadcasting or televising of programmes. The clause as drafted in the Bill proposes the addition of a new section in the Act which will be section 124a. It reads:

A person shall not knowingly prevent, obstruct or otherwise interfere with the broadcasting or televising of programmes from a station by the Commission or a licensee, or knowingly interfere with, or with the operation of, a station.

It goes on to provide certain penalties. Mr Chairman, we are concerned that the Bill as drafted is in pretty wide terms. It has been brought to our attention that if an industrial union decides to engage itself in a stoppage and decides to pull out radio announcers or other members of that union engaged in the broadcasting or televising of programmes, these people then, perhaps in the terms of this clause, could be deemed to have knowingly prevented, obstructed or otherwise interfered with the broadcasting or televising of programmes. If the intention of the clause is not directed towards mat type of matter, we would like to know from the Minister for Housing (Senator Annabelle Rankin) to which particular sort of matter it is related. I therefore seek that information from the Minister.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [4.26] - Mr Chairman, I did refer to this matter in my reply to the second reading debate. This clause refers to cases in which stations have been broken into and their operations have been interfered with. Cases in fact have occurred in recent years of unauthorised persons entering stations and interfering with or attempting to interfere with the transmissions of those stations. This amendment is aimed at this particular situation. It gives a station concerned some possible redress in cases of this nature. There have been three cases in which this particular interference has taken place.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– Can the Minister tell me what the provision for offences is? What penalties are provided? Are these to be found under the general penalty provisions of the Act? Are they to be found elsewhere? Nothing is specifically referred to here as the penalty.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [4.28] - These penalties are under the general penalty section of the Act.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I am wondering whether the Minister can take any further the matter that she referred to in answer to the query from Senator McClelland. She will recall that I did raise this question this morning in my second reading speech-

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– And i answered before the honourable senator returned to the Senate.

Senator COHEN:

– I beg the Minister’s pardon. I am sorry; I did not hear it. I still do not understand what it is precisely that has given rise to this amendment at this stage in this Bill.

Senator Little:

– It is probably the jamming of radio stations.

Senator COHEN:

– I would like the Minister to reply.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [4.30] - Representations were made to the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Hulme) by the broadcasters themselves after cases, such as I have referred to, at Mount Isa, at Hobart and at Shepparton, were in fact circum stances of interference by unauthorised persons entering stations did occur. Because this matter was brought to the attention of the Postmaster-General and because these requests were made, this amendment has been proposed in the Bill now before the Senate.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– May I seek from the Minister information as to whether the occasions on which there have been some happenings of this type have been occasions in which it was sought to prevent, obstruct or interfere with the broadcasting or televising of programmes? Prevent’ or ‘obstruct’ have within them some concept of attempt. ‘Interfere’ has a more direct connotation in my mind. I would take some time to separate the distinctions between these offences. I would like a little more guidance. When the Minister replies to my query, will she indicate what the maximum penalty is for this offence?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [4.32] - One incident was a prank by university students-

Senator Cohen:

– A prank?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Yes, in Hobart. One relates to a person who got in and destroyed equipment. Somewhere else, someone broke into a station and assaulted an announcer.

Senator Cohen:

– That sounds to me like a definite interference.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– It was a definite interruption anyway.

Senator McClelland:

– What is the type of penalty?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I will get that information for the honourable senator as soon as I can. It is being checked in the Act.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I take it from what the Minister has said that this particular clause as framed is not intended to relate to industrial stoppages which may occur from time to time in connection with the industry and that when as a result of a direction by an industrial organisation to employees men and women engaged in the industry go ofl the job, as it were, action will not be taken against such people under this clause as framed.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [4.34] - The clause refers to the kind of thing that 1 indicated in my reply at the second reading stage. That is why the Act is being amended. I have the penalties here. The section reads:

The punishment for an offence against this Act shall be -

if the offence is prosecuted summarilya fine not exceeding Two hundred dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or

if the offence is prosecuted upon indictment - a fine not exceeding One thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Senator McClelland:

– What section is that?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– It is section 132(3.) which appears at page 78 of the Broadcasting and Television Act.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) read a third time.

page 1664

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL (No. 2) 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 May (vide page 1492). on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator McCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– This Bill relates principally to the extension to broadcasting stations of some of the ownership and control provisions applying to commercial television stations. It also amends the existing Act to correct a difficulty which, the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) stated in her second reading speech, has been found to exist in relation to the ownership and control of television stations. It provides for the granting of licences for small television stations to serve remote and isolated communities such as the new mining areas that are being opened up in certain parts of Australia. It amends in a small way the provisions relating to broadcasting and televising of election material. The Minister has said quite rightly that this is a fairly complex piece of legislation. Let me say on behalf of the Opposition that it is a great pity that such an important and far reaching piece of legislation as this has to come into the Senate in the dying hours of a sessional period when so many Bills have yet to be discussed and when they seem to be hitting the blocks as though the Parliament had become a mere sausage machine.

In 1960 provisions relating to the ownership and control of television stations were adopted by the Senate in the hectic last week of a sessional period. Again in 1965, when new provisions relating to the ownership and control of commercial television stations were proposed, they too were adopted by the Senate in the last week of a sessional period. True to form we now have the same situation in relation to ownership and control of broadcasting stations. Indeed, it was I who suggested in 1965 that because of the haste with which that particular piece of legislation was being handled and because of the highly complex nature of the then proposed amendments, the Government sooner or later would be forced to come back to the Parliament with new proposals. Now, of course, the chickens are coming home to roost. These amendments relate principally to provisions regarding the ownership and control of broadcasting stations. On 24th September last year the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) mentioned proposals to extend to broadcasting and television stations some of the ownership and control provisions currently applying to commercial television. On 19th March this year he mentioned that difficulties had arisen as a result of the limitations of section 92(l.)(a), relating to the control of television stations by way of voting rights. This Bill is designed to close those loopholes.

The Minister for Housing stated in her second reading speech that the Bill is designed to overcome what has been referred to as an increasing trend towards a concentration of control arising from share transactions in this area of investment. To this extent the Opposition welcomes the legislation, in that it seeks to exercise some form of tighter control, although I personally doubt whether it goes far enough. Proposed new section 90c seeks to place some restrictions on ownership and control. It provides that a person shall contravene the provisions of the Act if he has a prescribed interest in -

  1. more than one metropolitan commercial broadcasting station in any one State;
  2. more than four metropolitan commercial broadcasting stations in Australia;
  3. more than four commercial broadcasting stations in any one State; or
  4. more than eight commercial broadcasting stations in Australia.

I know that the Postmaster-General has fixed a percentage in excess of 15% of the total amount paid on shares in a company as being a prescribed interest, whereas in 1965 the Bill relating to the ownership and control of television stations fixed a percentage of 5%. In explanation of this matter in another place the PostmasterGeneral said that a percentage of 15% was fixed having regard to the greater capital investment generally in television stations than in radio stations. lt appears in some respects that the Government has been somewhat lax in its regulatory control of television stations. On 24th May 1965, Senator Anderson, who then represented the Postmaster-General, stated in a second reading speech:

Another aspect of this matter which requires some comment at this stage is the proposal to repeal section 16 (3.) (c) of the Act which empowers the Board to regulate the establishment of networks of stations and the making of arrangements by licensees for the provision of programmes or the broadcasting or televising of advertisements. There has always been doubt regarding the application of this provision and it is, in fact, difficult to say precisely just what a network is. A similar difficulty has- been experienced in other countries. In these circumstances, it has been considered desirable to repeal this provision in the Act and to provide for the making of regulations in respect of such matters.

As a result of that legislation section 16(3.)(e) relating to statutory control over networks was repealed because, it was said, the matter would be dealt with by way of regulation. On 16th April last I received from the Postmaster-General a reply to a question that I had had on the notice paper for some time in which I asked what regulations had been made in respect of television networks since the repeal in June 1965 of section 16(3.)(e) of the Broadcasting and Television Act. The reply stated that no regulations had been made in respect of television networks since the repeal of section 16(3.)(e) of the Act. We all know it to be a fact that there are television networks in Australia. Apparently now there is no statutory provision for control of them because section 16(3.)(e) has been repealed and no regulations have been made by the Board or by the Government in respect of their control.

Indeed, the coaxial cable for relay purposes that was put down at a cost to the Postmaster-General’s Department of some $14m is now leased to the Channel 9 television network and the standby bearer on the Melbourne-Sydney micro-wave radio system is leased by the Channel 7 television network for television relay facilities. Yet apparently, according to the answer given to me on 16th April last, no regulatory provisions or regulations have been made in respect of television networks since the provision to which I have referred was repealed.

Senator Ormonde:

– Are they a monopoly?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– The coaxial cable and the microwave system are on lease to the two networks. Senator Cohen recently asked a question seeking information about the extent of the lease and how much was being paid for it. The Minister said at that time that it would be a breach of confidence on his part to release publicly the financial arrangements of such leases. I say quite frankly on behalf of the Opposition that this is a wrong attitude which is being adopted by the Minister.

Senator Dittmer:

– The public provided the money to establish them.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– That is so. The coaxial cable was laid down by the Postmaster-General’s Department at a cost of S14m and it is leased to commercial television network Channel 9. The microwave system is leased to commercial television network Channel 7. The Minister said that it would be a breach of confidence to release the financial arrrangements of the leases, and yet on 16th April he said that no regulations had been made by the Board in respect of television networks.

Senator Dittmer:

– Would it be a breach of contract if the public did not provide the money?

Senator McCLELLAND:

– I am not here to answer for the Government. If the honourable senator wants to ask the Government a question of that nature at the Committee stage I suggest that he should do so. Certainly the public is becoming suspicious of these things that are being kept confidential. The public is entitled to know details of transactions of this nature when $14m of public money is involved in expenditure in the first instance. The Minister and the Government are adopting a wrong altitude. There can be no claim of secrecy on a matter of this nature where public moneys are being spent and where leases are being handed out to commercial enterprises. No question of security is involved in the transaction. The Government has a responsibility to tell the Australian people for how much these facilities are being leased by these networks.

The main purpose of the Bill relates to the ownership and control of commercial broadcasting stations. I propose to return to this aspect and to set out the type of tight control that a few people have over the Australian mass media. One needs only to go to Appendix H of the last annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to see the extent of ownership and control of this industry. A cursory perusal will show that the Adelaide Advertiser’, the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’, the Brisbane ‘Courier-Mail’, the Perth ‘West Australian’ and the Melbourne ‘Herald’ are the newspapers which have substantial interests in two or more broadcasting stations or commercial television stations in the capital cities. I have deliberately omitted the provincial newspapers because the list would be far too long. Because of the information contained in the material, with the concurrence of honourable senators [ incorporate in Hansard the first five pages of Appendix H of the twentieth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

NEWSPAPER AND OTHER MULTIPLE INTERESTS IN BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION STATIONS

This Appendix lists newspaper companies and other companies or persons which have substantial interests' directly or indirectly, in two or more licences for commercial broadcasting stations or commercial television stations. The Appendix is divided intofour sections: {: type="I" start="I"} 0. -- Capital City Newspapers. 1. -- Provincial and Country Newspapers. 2. -- Overseas Newspapers. 3. -- Other Organisations. That information shows how substantia] are the stakes that newspaper companies have in both television -and radio. It will be seen that two of the four television stations in Brisbane and two of the four television stations in Sydney have an inter-relationship involving large holdings by three local newspaper companies, the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd and John Fairfax Ltd, and in addition to those there is one overseas company which is known as Associated Newspapers Ltd of England. In Western Australia, West Australian Newspapers Ltd controls four commercial broadcasting stations and has a 44.4% shareholding in TVW Ltd. One of the two principal networks of commercial broadcasting stations in existence at the present time is the Macquarie Broadcasting Network which consists of a proprietary company, Macquarie Broadcasting Service Pty Ltd, the remainder of the shares being held by member stations. Broadcasting Associates Pty Ltd has further interests in the company through its shareholding in certain member stations. The Macquarie Broadcasting Network originates from station 2GB in Sydney and broadcasts over 26 commercial stations throughout New South Wales. The news service operates for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and provides programmes ranging in length from 3 minutes to 30 minutes, lt will be seen that the extent and tightness of control of this medium throughout New South Wales by this broadcasting network is quite substantial. The news service is heard at least once every hour of the day and every half hour in the peak morning and evening periods. Apparently it takes up precisely 3 hours of each week, the programmes being heard on 2GB and most of the network stations The other principal network in existence is the **Major Broadcasting** Network. This is not a company but is an association of stations of which at 30th June last year the following were members: In New South Wales, 2UE Sydney and 2KO Newcastle; in Victoria, 3DB Melbourne and 3LK Lubeck; in Queensland 4BK Brisbane and 4AK. Oakey; in South Australia, 5AD Adelaide, 5PI Crystal Brook, 5MU Murray Bridge and 5SE Mount Gambier; in Western Australia, 6PR Perth, 6CI Collie and 6TZ Bunbury; and in Tasmania, 7HT Hobart and 7EX Launceston. From that one can see that the two networks, the Macquarie Broadcasting Network and the **Major Broadcasting** Network, between them substantially control the commercial broadcasting activities undertaken in Australia. There is a close relationship between the **Major Broadcasting** Network and the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, and between John Fairfax Ltd, the Macquarie Network and Radio 2GB. In Canberra the local news broadcast by the commercial radio station 2CA is taken from the newsroom of the 'Canberra Times'. I have instanced these matters to indicate the extent of ownership and control of the mass media, or at least this particular facet of the mass media as it exists in Australia today. Suffice it for me to say that under the present system of licensing and control, because the mass media has been enabled to get into the hands of such a few who have such powerful influence in the dissemination of news and other material, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has a supreme responsibility to see that the nation's airwaves are used to the best possible advantage in the interests of the Australian people. During the course of this debate earlier this afternoon my colleague **Senator Ormonde** referred to the telephone conversation programmes that are being heard on radio. I join him and say that I am disgusted by the manner in which some comperes of those programmes have been allowed and are still being allowed to conduct them. In my opinion those comperes who are employed by station 2GB of the Macquarie Broadcasting Network particularly need singling out for attention. It seems from complaints I have received that they are viciously anti-Labor in their utterances and viciously anti-trade unionist, lt is no wonder that last year the Australian Broadcasting Control Board said at page 55 of its report that on a number of occasions it had had to take up with stations remarks by comperes in conversation programmes which were not of a standard of courtesy which the Board considered to be called for in the public medium of broadcasting. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- That does not refer to a particular radio station. {: .speaker-K2I} ##### Senator Branson: -- The honourable senator attempted to link those remarks with station 2GB. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND: -- It is in the generality. I am saying that if that comment does not refer to anti-Labor utterances, in addition to being discourteous those comperes are anti-Labor and anti-trade unions. At the very least the Australian Broadcasting Control Board report tackled commentators generally for their lack of courtesy. 1 am saying, in addition to that comment, so far as the Labor Party and the trade union movement generally are concerned, those people employed by station 2GB on that sort of activity are anti-Labor and antitrade unions. I will give one or two instances to support my contention and if honourable senators who are interjecting wish to comment on them later they can do so. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- No. Tell us whether the Board has made any assessment of political parties. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND: -- You have had time to study the report. I am telling honourable senators of the results of my research. Recently a filmed advertisement was shown on commercial television stations on behalf of a large motor company. It showed bank robbers arriving outside a bank in a new car. They entered the bank and a crowd gathered around the car. The bank robbers then emerged from the bank and asked the people in the crowd to excuse them so that they could get into the car. The Australian Bankers Association asked the television stations to remove the advertisement from the commercial networks. ABN2, the national television station in Sydney, in its 7 p.m. news bulletin on Friday 2nd May included a short film clip of that advertisement. At 10 a.m. next day on radio station 2GB **Mr Pearce,** a commentator on the programme, said words to this effect, if not exactly these words, about the showing by ABN2 of an extract from the advertisement: 'That was clever of them. I wonder who got the payola Pacer'. Within a couple of hours I had received four or five telephone calls, one from the Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association and one from the president of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Senior Officers Association. I asked the PostmasterGeneral to investigate the comments of **Mr Pearce** on his programme. I asked that if the Board upon investigation found that there was no justification for such comments **Mr Pearce** be requested to withdraw completely any suggestion of payola to officers of the ABC, and that 2GB be reminded of its responsibilities in respect of that type of programme under the Broadcasting and Television Act. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- What was the expression used? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND: -- 'That was clever of them. I wonder who got the payola Pacer.' It seems that the word 'Pacer' relates to the motor car shown in the advertisement. I requested the PostmasterGeneral to initiate an inquiry into the matter and I suggested that if **Mr Pearce's** comments were found to be unwarranted he be asked to apologise to the people he had offended, certainly by innuendo, and that station 2GB be reminded of its responsibilities to the community under the Broadcasting and Television Act. On 12th May the Minister replied to me and said that in addition to informing me he had informed the manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association and the President of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Senior Officers Association that the powers conferred on the Board by the Broadcasting and Television Act did not authorise the Board to require a broadcasting station or television station to make any records available to a private organisation or individual. He went on to say that neither the Board nor himself has the right to obtain such records other than for purely official purposes in connection with the administration of the Act. Surely if a member of Parliament maintains on behalf of his constituents that the administration of the Act has not been enforced it is the duty of the PostmasterGeneral and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board - an official complaint having been made to them - to obtain for official purposes a copy of the tape and to ascertain for themselves whether justification exists for the complaint. I think it is quite insulting to members of this Parliament and to the public generally for the Postmaster-General and the Board to wave aside such complaints. A large file of complaints has been handed to me by an organisation known as the Australian-British Society. The complaints are about the anti-British utterances of **Mr Pearce.** The Postmaster-General has written letter after letter saying that the matter will be looked at, but such comments continue to be made. The radio station concerned is allowed to shelter under the cloak of the expression that the views expressed are not necessarily the views of the station. Because of lack of control of such programmes they are allowed to get away with blue murder. Last week a large section of the trade union movement went on strike because of the vicious penal powers used against the trade union movement by this Government. Correspondence I have received states that last week the commentators on 2GB derided trade unionists and the trade union movement for taking part in the strike. {: .speaker-K2I} ##### Senator Branson: -- Surely they are allowed to do this. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND: -- If they are allowed to do it then why not insist that the people they deride and smear, either directly or by innuendo, be given the right of reply? If this sort oi one-way traffic is to be permitted to continue by this Government then it will find that the trade union movement will say-- *So* far as the workers of Australia are concerned, we will instruct our members not to purchase any of the products of the people who sponsor this type of programme'. The sooner the trade union movement does this, the sooner this type of programme will return to decency and commonsense. {: .speaker-K2I} ##### Senator Branson: -- You do not believe in criticism. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND: -- We do not mind criticism. We expect it, especially from the type of people that own and control commercial broadcasting and television stations. But when someone is smeared, when an innuendo is cast against someone without the person concerned being given the right of reply, we say that there is something wrong with the Broadcasting and Television Act. A number of people have protested to me about this. I have lodged complaints but frankly it seems to me to be futile to complain. The Postmaster-General and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board apparently do nothing because this type of programme is allowed to continue day after day. I say quite frankly that these people are breaching the air waves of Australia, ft is about time they were told that resort to smear, innuendo and sensationalism, merely to attract a higher rating in order to promote their own reputation, without opportunity to reply being given to the people attacked has to cease. The radio critic for the 'Sydney Morning Herald', in a comment about these two-way telephone conversations and one John Thompson, who was with 2UW. had this to say in an article on 9th April: >Tommo's main competitor at present is the glib John Pearce of 2GB who puts gamesmanship into his phone-in hours. He knows the phone-in act by itself is deader than Macquarie's ghost. He puts life into it by reviving the childhood game of name calling. > >For instance - the simple statement that all women are dangerous drivers' is worth six month's ratings, silly though it may bc. If this is the manner in which the two-way telephone conversations are allowed to be broadcast in the homes of Australian people and if this is the type of stuff being peddled, then it is about time the Government took some action. There are two other matters in the Bill to which I must refer. The first is the extension of television to areas not being served, the extension being by means of television repeater stations. The Australian Labor Party does not object to this provision at this stage because we believe that the reason set out, namely, to provide amenities for those workers and their families in the developing areas of Australia, particularly the new mining areas being opened up, is a worthy one. Naturally men working in those areas want their families with them and television is a great amenity for their women folk and children. I am sure the Postmaster-General and the Broadcasting Control Board will agree with members of the Opposition that the growth and development of these repeater stations and the licensing of them has to be watched carefully to see that there is not overexploitation as the areas develop into larger communities. Proposed new section 105g (3.) relates to advertising on television repeater stations. There are one or iwo matters relating to this aspect that the Opposition wants to raise during the Committee stage. The amendment in this Bill relating to the broadcasting or televising of election material is designed to overcome an anomoly which has existed for some lime. It was found that a by-election in a legislative council province in the north of Western Australia could preclude the broadcasting or televising of election material or of any political matter in any other part of Australia. We do not oppose the provision in this Bill which deals with this aspect but we still maintain that the general intent of the Act ought not be the removal of the 3-day embargo. That 3-day ban should continue to exist because we believe that television these days certainly gives a political advantage to those who have the most money to spend. The Opposition does not oppose the passage of this legislation but we take advantage of it to point out how a few companies have control over the commercial mass media of Australia and to emphasise that the Postmaster-General and the Broadcasting Control Board have to take much greater care to ensure that the control now exercised by them is exercised in the interests of the Australian community. **Senator ORMONDE** (New South Wales) (5.12] - I want to say a few words about the television repeater stations. They are certainly an innovation. It looks as though the Government has decided that the centre of Australia is to be peopled. As well as the lives of those people in outlying areas being made easier to live, companies such as big pastoral companies which employ workers virtually are to be presented with a repeater station. This term repeater station is a new one and I have tried to find out what it means. I do not think any honourable senator present would know what it means. {: .speaker-K2I} ##### Senator Branson: -- 1 introduced a private members bill on this subject over 2 years ago. {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- I may be wrong in the case of **Senator Branson** but I doubt whether anybody else knows what it means. I have the impression that it refers to a type of enclosed circuit. I do not object because they will provide more entertainment and a better news service for workers in such places as central Australia. However, I do not think that employers in the areas concerned should own this medium by which messages can be put over. This really is a novel idea. If honourable senators let their imaginations run they will visualise 1,000 people being employed in some of these places where now only 100 are employed. Are we to argue with this? But these repeater stations virtually are to be given to the meat companies and the mining companies - a great number of those mining companies now being Japanese controlled - and they will have control of this medium of communicating information. I think honourable senators would agree with me that there is something novel about the idea. It has never been tried out in any other country. The Government is to provide a sort of mini service for people living out of range of television stations. Really, many of those people are also outside radio range. I understand that these television repeater stations consist of a small black box which can be manipulated by whoever owns them, whether it be a mining company, a pastoral company or any other group that the Government chooses to do business with. If this happens then it really represents one step towards ownership of the station for the lucky beneficiaries. After all, the first preference for the ownership of repeater stations must be given to the people who receive them free in the first place. I believe that there are aspects of this matter at which the Government should have a look and about which it should be careful. It has probably had a look at them, but this Bill does not show that it has. Maybe I do not understand the mechanics of the Bill, but I cannot find anything in its clauses that tells us what we are doing in the mechanical sense. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- The second reading speech indicates that the Australian Broadcasting Commission will provide the programmes, as I understand it. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- I know that; but what could happen in certain circumstances? Let us visualise the situation in the event of a strike by the workers in Derby or possibly at Katherine meat works, or anywhere else one likes to suggest. Where would the repeater station stand in that situation? Who would have control of the news media? Of course, the management would. I am surprised that our Party has not expressed more opposition to certain aspects of this legislation. We have examined it in our Labor committee. We are prepared to trust the Government to do the right thing. But I believe that this matter will have to be watched very closely, with these stations being under the influence of the type of people who will control and operate our inland industries. I am not saying that with disrespect. These people have been singled out for special treatment. We were also told in our own committee that the idea is to make it easier for companies in the centre of Australia to entice workers to go to their areas and settle down in their industries. That is probably a very good idea. But I still think that the Government is giving too much power to the companies. A company that owns an established radio or television station has responsibilities to the industry including a responsibility to conform with the standards of the industry generally. I am trying to visualise the situation of people who run pastoral stations. I had experience of the operators of one pastoral station who could not be trusted with the ballot box in an election. I do not want to bring politics into this matter; but those people brought great influence to bear on their employees. 1 suggest that if they were given the use of a radio or television station, however small, they would make good use of it. Certainly, the unions, the workers or the listeners who were members of the organised labour movement in those areas would have no influence on policy whatsoever. It may be suggested from the Government side of the chamber that I am drawing a long bow, that all the Government is doing is providing the companies with little parcels of entertainment material which they will play and that the Australian Broadcasting Commission will decide what will be played. If the material becomes so innocuous that the people will not be interested in listening to it, it will make their lives more miserable; they will never listen to the radio or look at the television in their loneliness out in the centre of Australia if it is not worth looking at. So I believe that the Government has a bit of trouble on its hands. I ask the Minister for Housing **(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin),** who represents the Postmaster-General **(Mr Hulme),** to try at some future date to let us know exactly what this all adds up to. **Senator Branson** says that he knows all about it. He may be right. He may have had experience of it. But most senators do not know anything at all about it. We do not know the power that we are giving to the ABC. Even if this device has only mini television output, it could be terribly dangerous to many people. I am speaking politically now. I believe that this is a dangerous proposition for the ABC. It could get the Commission into a lot of trouble. If it is controlled too much nobody will listen to it or look at it. So where do we get to? f believe that this is a dangerous venture. {: #subdebate-34-0-s2 .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER:
Queensland -- I rise in the first instance to offer to **Senator Mcclelland,** on behalf of senators generally, congratulations on the way he has ventilated numerous complaints connected with radio and television in his State. I believe that the people of Australia are indebted to him for ventilating those issues, because they are real. It is very important that the Government take note of what he has said. I do not intend to dwell on the matters he has raised, with the exception of the matter of open line programmes, hot line programmes, or whatever one likes to call them. I have heard some character assassination on this type of programme. I am not blaming the radio stations concerned. I do not suppose they have a great deal of control over what is said by the person who rings up. I believe that it is wrong for this character assassination to continue. I can foresee the day when there will be difficulties associated with this type of radio activity. This happens also on television, although to a lesser extent. 1 refer particularly to programmes such as 'Meet the Press'. I believe that it is entirely wrong for people to have their characters attacked on radio or television when they have not the opportunity to answer the accusations. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Did the honourable senator hear **Mr Newton** and an Australian Broadcasting Commission commentator referring to **Mr Wyndham** the other night? {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- No, I did not. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I think there was legitimate ground for complaint there. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- If anything in the way of character assassination is said by any of my colleagues, I will bc equally as critical of them as I am of any other people. I state quite objectively that if I were aware of: adverse criticism and character assassination by any member of any political party I. would object to the use of such tactics. Let me say that in all the years that radio station 4KQ has been broadcasting 'Labor Hour we have never received one criticism of anything that has been said in that programme. I believe that that speaks volumes for the conduct of our station in Queensland. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- And the tolerance of other people. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: **- Senator Gair** makes a fatuous remark, but on innummerable occasions he took advantage of the courtesies extended to him by radio station 4KQ. I join with others in offering congratulations to the Government on extending television to country areas of Australia. Unlike the representative of the Australian Country Party who spoke earlier today, I do not think the praise belongs entirely to representatives of that Party. I know that Senators Keeffe, Dittmer and Georges, as well as myself, have raised this issue on innumerable occasions. It is to the credit of all the senators who have endeavoured to see that this facility was provided for the people in the outback areas of Australia that this move has been made. It will be to the advantage of all concerned. The Government has introduced this measure belatedly. But that should not stop us offering our congratulations. We genuinely believe that this should have been done years earlier. With regard to television programmes generally, I believe that the standard of programmes on Channel 2 in Brisbane is relatively high. I do not intend to offer criticism of the programmes generally. It *is* true that one could take exception to some programmes. Nevertheless, I believe that the consensus in Queensland would be that Channel 2 does provide a very good service. Unfortunately I, like **Senator McClelland,** do not feel that local talent is used as much as it should be. Only recently I was partly responsible for organising a concert in a Brisbane suburb. There were 250 people present. Numerous artists appeared on the programme and all were acclaimed enthusiastically by the audience. There is ample local talent available and the radio stations and television channels should do their utmost to see to it that this talent is not wasted. I refer in particular to such artists as Kerry Smith, who would be well known to the Minister. She is an accomplished violinist. She has been acclaimed throughout the world as a violinist of world standard. I do not think she has ever appeared on television. She has appeared with the Queensland Symphony Orchestra, and she is an outstanding artist. There are others of great talent in Queensland whose services would be available. I mention for example Eric Jupp and his orchestra. They provide some splendid entertainment on Channel 2. I suggest that the services of both male and female members of that orchestra could be availed of very frequently for individual performances. As I have said, there is a vast amount of talent available and it should be given more opportunities on both radio and television. I am one who likes band music but I cannot recall the Northern Command Band, for example, or any of the other outstanding bands in Queensland ever being on television. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- They have been at football matches. {: .speaker-KUS} ##### Senator MILLINER: -- At least they have been at the right game - Rugby League football - the greatest game of all. But that is not the avenue of entertainment for the vast majority of people. Listeners and viewers should be given the benefit of the outstanding performances that can be rendered by local talent such as I have mentioned. I am sorry to say that I do not think the standards of the commercial television stations are as high as they might be. Their programmes contain too many American films, too many gangster films and things of that nature. This should be restricted. Again, to my way of thinking, advertisements appear all too frequently. As **Senator McClelland** has said, commercial television stations have to pay dividends, but nevertheless I do not think the public should have advertisements inflicted upon them time after time in the present way. I offer one other suggestion to both the commercial stations and the national station. I suggest that they should give more publicity to mouth to mouth resuscitation. Frequently the various television stations find it necessary to use fill-ins. In my opinion it would be far more beneficial if this time were used to educate people in the correct method of applying mouth to mouth resuscitation than in televising swans swimming on the lake in Albert Park, Melbourne. Fillins of the type that I have suggested would be far more beneficial and far more educational than the ones being used now. I ask the Minister to ascertain the procedures and priorities adopted for the setting up of regional radio stations. I have no objection to regional stations. On the contrary, I would encourage their being established wherever possible. Out at Charleville in Queensland there is a most successful commercial broadcasting station operating. I understand that a regional station is also to be set up out there. This will be of great advantage to the people of the area, and I raise no objection whatever to it, but I would like to know the system of priorities followed in setting up regional stations. Another service which I suggest could be put into operation with great benefit is the supplying of scripts of school broadcasts to the many schools that, because of unsatisfactory reception, cannot enjoy the benefits of either television or radio programmes. The supply of scripts of broadcasts to these schools would be of great advantage to the students. I should like to mention another matter. I have raised it before. What standard is adopted with relation to allowing radio stations which hold country licences to operate in the metropolitan area? In Brisbane there are four commercial radio stations and there are numerous provincial stations outside that city. Recently - the Minister would know this to be so - one station apparently was encouraged to invade the city area which extends as far as Redcliffe. I do not know how it got authority to do this, but I do know that when notification that a new radio station is to be set up in the metropolitan area is published, expert evidence is heard as to whether a new station is warranted. That was not done in connection with the radio station to which I refer. Apparently this provincial station had sufficient influence with the Government to be able to project itself into the metropolitan area of Brisbane. This is causing some concern particularly to three of the metropolitan commercial broadcasting stations. Station 4KQ, to which I have already referred, is not particularly concerned about it because, notwithstanding the competition from the Macquarie network, 4KQ is the leading commercial station in the metropolitan area of Brisbane. I conclude on the note that I believe that Channel 2 does a good job for television viewers generally. 1 ask the Minister and the Government to see to it that the services of local artists are used more frequently, and I ask that programmes aimed at educating the public in the correct method of mouth to mouth resuscitation be used instead of the present fill-ins. {: #subdebate-34-0-s3 .speaker-K2I} ##### Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia -- J rise to say very briefly that I am delighted that this Bill is before the Senate. It is about 2 years ago that, in desperation, I introduced a private member's bill hoping to persuade the Government to introduce what in my bill was termed the package station, but which in this measure is termed a television repeater station, to serve isolated areas. I am very pleased indeed to think that what I sought to achieve is now a matter of fact. There are three questions that perhaps I could leave until we discuss the Bill in committee, but as I may not be here 1 shall ask them now and would request that the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral **(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin)** answer them when it suits her. I understand that these repeater stations will be capable of transmitting only one programme. I should like to know what the position will be in, for example, one mining town in Western Australia where people are served by means of a cable to their home. I gather that in this case a magnetic tape is used. By this system, two programmes can be piped into the homes connected to the cable. Where this system is in operation, can the management also instal a repeater station? Again, can the cable system also be used in those cases where management does apply for permission to erect a repealer station and does in fact erect one? Will that be precluded? The second reading speech refers to magnetic tapes being made available free of charge to stations by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think this is a very good idea. I do not envisage any difficulties where the tape has been made by the ABC, but what will be the position in respect of royalties or copyright where a tape with some British Broadcasting Commission or American content is supplied? Who will pav for that? Wilt the Government pay for it? Is this a gesture to help people living in isolated areas? Again I congratulate the Government and support the Bill. **Senator** LITTLE (Victoria) (5.36] - I rise to speak very briefly on the Bill because of the remarks made by **Senator McClelland.** I share with him the fears he expressed about some material - and he objected to a particular station in Sydney - that is sometimes broadcast and that is detrimental to individuals. It is incumbent on me to relate a very personal experience I had in Victoria in 1961, I think it was, after the State elections. On the Sunday afternoon after the elections I was sitting in my lounge room with my wife and children and I had the unpleasant experience of hearing myself discussed on a radio session in which I was nominated a liar, a cheat, a monkey and a scab. This programme was broadcast over station 3KZ and was called 'The Labor Hour'. So bad has this session become in the vilification of individuals and personalities that after the last Victorian State elections in 1967 the State Secretary of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party had to meet an action for libel brought by a gentleman named Devlin who had been accused of certain violent actions in a particular country city, when he was not even in the city; he was somewhere else. I understand that since that time the programme The Labor Hour' broadcast over station 3KZ and produced mainly by Labor politicians in that State, has improved tremendously because the expense of meeting the libel charges has now reached a stage where all material has to be submitted to the show's lawyers 3 days in advance of the programme. So at least some restraint is placed on the broadcasters and they are not allowed to broadcast- {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- The honourable senator does not suggest that the standard now is high, does he? {: #subdebate-34-0-s4 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator LITTLE: -- I would not suggest that it is high, but at least it is less risky from the Labor Party's point of view. At least they are getting some legal advice. I know that in my own embarrassing situation it was difficult to explain to the children that really the criticism, coming from the personalities involved in the programme, was a form of flattery of me; it did not hurt me at all. I have been in the political game too long. That was an occasion on which *the* Broadcasting and Television Act fell far short of what is necessary to protect tha rights of individuals in the community. I am sure **Senator McClelland** would agree with that. When I rang the radio station and asked for a copy of the script of the session 1 was told that one was not available or that it had been lost. I knew that the 'Age' newspaper in Victoria monitors the programme fairly regularly. I rang the newspaper office and asked whether the session was monitored. I was told that even over the telephone I could not be told what was said about me because it was too highly libellous. I did not pursue the matter. I was not intent on obtaining evidence. I let it go at that. It seems to me that the rights of individuals should be protected against this kind of thing. It is all right to say that this can happen in reply to questions asked by commentators or when people are speaking on a direct telephone line. In this instance the person concerned was **Mr Carey** who at that time was President of the Labor Party. The Hon. Douglas Elliot, who was a member of the Victorian Legislative Council, was another on the programme. A gentleman by the name of **Mr Wyndham** - who I understand recently changed his employment from Secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the ALP, having previously been the Federal Secretary of the Party - was also on the programme. At the time about which I am speaking he was the Victorian State Secretary. Possibly he will not be appearing on 'The Labor Hour' any more. I think that in view of the criticism levelled at specific programmes in the course of this debate the Senate should note that there are extreme cases - far more extreme than those referred to already - when things are broadcast that should never be broadcast under the terms of the Act. The Act should give more protection to individuals under these circumstances. {: #subdebate-34-0-s5 .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP (5.40] - in reply - I shall reply briefly to one or two points that have been raised. I thank those honourable senators who spoke in the debate for the interest they have taken not only in the Bill but also in television and radio programmes and for their desire for high standards in all these programmes. I was interested in the new concept of this legislation which takes television, through repeater stations, into outback areas. **Senator Ormonde** asked me to obtain some information about repeater stations. I have some notes here which I think will answer some of the comments he made. Repeater station licences are subject to all relevant provisions of the Act relating to normal stations. The Act gives the PostmasterGeneral power to revoke any licence. As pointed out in the second reading speech, the stations will not originate any programmes. The programmes will be those supplied by the Australian Broadcasting Commission by videotape. **Senator Branson** raised several points. I hope I have them in correct order. He asked me whether repeater stations would show one programme only. My reply is yes, only one programme. Then he asked about a cable service. My reply is that in cases where a cable service is available no impediment is seen to the establishment of a repeater station. However it seems doubtful whether one would in fact be desired. In cases where there is a repeater station in operation the provision of services by cable is not straightforward because the provision of television programmes to subscribers by means of wire lines or cables is, in some situations, affected by the Broadcasting and Television Act and, in others, by the Post and Telegraph Act. The provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act apply in cases where the programmes of stations are picked up and retransmitted over wire lines. The Post and Telegraph Act applies in cases where lines or circuits carrying communications of any kind cross highways or public property. However when programmes which are recorded on tape or film are confined to subscribers residing on private property no legal provisions apply and no objections could be made to the provision of services by this means. A number of points were raised concerning educational programmes and matters which could be described as attacks of a personal nature in television and radio programmes. The employment of local artists was raised also. I think I replied to those matters in the debate on the previous legislation, but I assure those speakers who brought these matter before the Senate today that the points they raised will be put before the Postmaster-General **(Mr Hulme).** Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #subdebate-34-0-s6 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator McCLELLAND:
New South Wales -- I wish to raise only two short matters on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. The first deals with Clause 10 at page 15 of the Bill. This clause relates to television repeater stations. Proposed new section 105g (3.) reads: >The condition upon which a licence for a television repeater station is granted may include conditions as to the televising of advertisements. Clause 11 on page 16 of the Bill proposes a new section 1 13a which provides: >The Commission may make available to a television repeater station, on such terms and conditions as are agreed upon between the Commission and the holder of the television repeater station licence, such programmes of the Commission as the Commission thinks fit. The questions that we pose are: Will all the programmes be provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission? If not, what proportion is it intended will be provided by the ABC and what proportion will be provided by the commercial stations? Will the Australian Broadcasting Commission have to bear the cost of producing programmes for and on behalf of these mining repeater stations. We only say in short that we do not think that the ABC should have to bear the cost of these programmes and that a greater amount should be made available by way of budgetary allocation for the provision of these programmes. We suggest that here is an excellent way in which the production of good quality educational programmes can be undertaken and that these programmes can be made available by the ABC for use by these repeater stations in the far flung outlying mining communities. {: #subdebate-34-0-s7 .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP [5.47] - I am informed that it all depends on the licensee. The Australian Broadcasting Commission will provide programmes. If the licensee wishes programmes from other sources, he can arrange to have these programmes provided from those other sources. {: #subdebate-34-0-s8 .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales -- The Minister told me earlier that the Post master-General bad power virtually to censor a programme, when that programme was brought to his notice - {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin: -- To which clause is the honourable senator referring? {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- Oh, I have not the Bill before me. **Mr Temporary Chairman,** are you tying me to a clause? {: #subdebate-34-0-s9 .speaker-K3J} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull:
NEW SOUTH WALES -- Yes. The honourable senator must refer to a clause. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- It is the clause dealing with repeater stations. I am dealing with the answer that the Minister gave me a little while ago. The Minister has answered me already concerning this matter. Let me outline my question. The Minister said that the Postmaster-General would have power virtually to control the material that was shown on these repeater stations. My first question is: How will he - {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin: -- 1 did not say that he would censor the programmes. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- The Minister did not say 'censor' but it is virtually censoring a programme to have this power. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin: -- No, it is not. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- The PostmasterGeneral is cutting it out altogether if be closes a station down. He has the power to do that. What I ask is this? How does the Minister know? Who tells him? Who complains? The companies will not complain. I doubt whether many of the viewers will he interested enough to complain if the programmes are not really first class news value and they are made up of semieducational material only. What I am getting at is this: At some point or other in the Australian Broadcasting Commission organisation these programmes will be stockpiled. They will be held there. I would say that an officer at that end would decide what goes out to the stations in these outlying areas. I have Queensland in mind now. Will the ABC be responsible for sending these programmes out to the States? Of course it will. It will not require the ordering of these programmes. The ABC has said already that it will be sending these programmes out. Therefore, the Postmaster-General may have to prosecute the ABC. Any action taken will need to be taken against it. I take as an example the Gladstone meatworks. The programmes will go up there. The meatworks does not necessarily have to ask for the programmes. It will be supplied with these programmes for entertainment. What I want to know is: At what point is this control exercised? Is it exercised at the ABC or at the meatworks? I use that example for want of a better way of explaining my query. I ask honourable senators to visualise this situation. The meatworkers are on strike. Meatworkers are on strike fairly often because they are in a hard, heavy industry. What happens? If the ABC is wise at its end, obviously it will not send out any material to Katherine from Jack London on the 'Citadel'. It will not send out any programme of that sort. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- Or Upton Sinclair. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANOrder! Honourable senators will cease interjecting. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- I agree with **Senator Mulvihill.** This is a matter of mechanics. These things happen. Let us take the example of a strike in Darwin. Certainly strikes will occur in the new mines that will be established there. With Japanese management and managers I would think that there would be strikes there. What happens to the system under those circumstances? Probably the PostmasterGeneral has not thought of these things. We arc living in a new world. Strikes will continue. Industrial disputations will occur. Wages and conditions will be established. The mine workers will not be very happy about hearing from their repeater station that they should go back to work. They will kick it out the door. It is not very big at all. I do not think that the Government has considered these aspects. It has considered the entertainment aspect only. Men cannot live by entertainment alone. They must have other thoughts and they will occur in these areas. I ask the Minister to have a look at what I have just said or to try to give some real information about what is in mind. **Senator Dame** ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [5.53] - First of all, I wish to repeat what I said to **Senator Ormonde** concerning repeater stations because it appears to me that he has misunderstood what I have said. I would not want him to be labouring under a misapprehension. I said that repeater station licences are subject to the relevant provisions of the Act relating to normal stations. There is power under the Act for the Minister to revoke any licence. As pointed out in the second reading speech, a repeater station will not originate any programmes. That brings me to the point about which I think the honourable senator is full of concern. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- Who will? {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- This is what I am endeavouring to tell the honourable senator. These programmes will be part of the normal programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and of other stations if the request is for programmes from commercial stations. These are programmes which are part of the normal programme pattern of these stations. The honourable senator is concerned about a certain film arriving at a certain place at a certain time when certain local conditions prevail. I wish to make this very clear. First of all these programmes are programmes of entertainment. Also documentary programmes are included. These programmes will be sent from place to place where they will be viewed by these groups of people. The points that the honourable senator has raised relate to individual matters of every day administration by the people who are particularly concerned with programme distribution. I am quite certain that the honourable senator is worrying unnecessarily. There may be hitches and irritations in relation to these matters. These are unavoidably part of the normal programme distribution pattern. I am always glad to hear the honourable senator's comments and I am quite certain that the Postmaster-General, too, will be interested to read them. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by **Senator Dame** Annabelle Rankin) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1681 {:#debate-35} ### DECIMAL CURRENCY BOARD (ABOLITION) BILL 1969 {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 May (vide page 1218), on motion by **Senator Anderson:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator POYSER:
Victoria -- The Opposition does not oppose this Bill but I wish to make some brief comments in relation to it. The Bill is for the purpose of abolishing the Decimal Currency Board. I join with the Minister for Supply **(Senator Anderson),** who introduced the Bill, in congratulations and commendations on the work that this Board did prior to and during the conversion of this nation to decimal currency. Anybody who has followed the activities of the Board would agree that it did a truly magnificent job in so smoothly converting the Australian currency and, I might add, the Australian people to this new monetary system. But it does disturb me to think that a board of this nature will be virtually going out of existence and its great experience will be lost to the nation. Just over 12 months ago a report was submitted to the Senate by the Select Committee that investigated the introduction of the metric system of weights and measures. That Committee, of which I was a member, stressed that one of the reasons in favour of a decision to convert to the metric system was that such a conversion was a natural follow-on from the decimal currency conversion. The Decimal Currency Board, with its tremendous experience and know-how, may be able to provide a nucleus of the board the establishment of which was recommended by the select committee. The Minister stated that the Decimal Currency Board's main task, apart from its functions in relation to monetary machine conversion and compensation under delegation from the Treasurer **(Mr McMahon),** was to inform the public of the arrangements for the changeover to the decimal currency system. I believe that the task of educating the people of Australia in relation to the metric system will be infinitely more complex. The experience of this Board would be absolutely invaluable to the Government and the Australian people in creating a situation whereby we would be able to convert the system of weights and measures in the smooth manner in which this Board was able to convert to decimal currency. It is true that the Senate Select Committee recommended the establishment of a board far broader in essence than the Decimal Currency Board, but I feel that the latter has tremendous knowledge in both fields by virtue of the fact that decimal currency is so closely associated with the metric system. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1682 {:#debate-36} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-36-0} #### NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE SITE {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales -- by leave - I move: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. That the Senate: . CONSIDERING the difference in point of view expressed by resolutions of the Senate and of the House of Representatives between Capital Hill and the Camp Hill area as the site of the new and permanent parliament house; BELIEVING that the decision as to the site is and remains the responsibility of those senators and members of the House of Representatives who constitute the Parliament of the Commonwealth; RECOMMENDS that a joint sitting of the two Houses or other form of general conference be convened to express, by resolution, the point of view of the assembled members of the Parliament as between Capital Hill and the Camp Hill area; RECOMMENDS FURTHER for the consideration of the House of Representatives - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. that the proposed joint meeting be held on a day and time to be fixed by **Mr President** and **Mr Speaker** and that the joint meeting consist of senators and members of the House of Representatives; 1. that **Mr President** and **Mr Speaker** be joint chairmen of the joint meeting and be empowered, if they think it necessary, to draw up regulations for the conduct of such joint meeting; and 2. that at such joint meeting there be no debate on the subject matter of the alternative sites and that the question be decided by a majority of votes; INVITES members of the House of Representatives to join with senators in the Senate chamber or such other place as may be determined by **Mr President** and **Mr Speaker** for the purpose of the joint meeting; AND FURTHER INVITES the House of Representatives to suggest any alternative to or modification of the Senate's proposal, with a view to the convening of a joint meeting of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to determine finally the question whether the new and permanent parliament house be situated on Capital Hill or the Camp Hill area. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives, by message, requesting the consideration by that House of the resolution. I do not intend to speak in support of the matter at this stage in the light of what was said last night and of the action that is proposed to be taken. {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! Is the motion seconded? {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- I second the motion. Debate (on motion by **Senator Anderson)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1682 {:#debate-37} ### DECIMAL CURRENCY BOARD (ABOLITION) BILL 1969 {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed. {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator POYSER:
Victoria -- Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had indicated that I thought it was a pity that the Decimal Currency Board should go out of existence at thistime because a job of work remains to be done which 1 believe the members of this Board would be well suited to perform. I had indicated also that the Senate select committee which had been appointed to examine matters relating to the conversion to the metric system of weights and measures had submitted a report to the Parliament some 12 months ago. I believe that the members of the Decimal Currency Board, who have had wide experience in the conversion to decimal currency, could well be used to effect the conversion to the metric system of weights and measures. In its report the Committee which inquired into the metric system of weights and measures made an urgent plea - it was unanimous - that the Government indicate its intentions in relation to the Committee's recommendations having regard to the fact that evidence from many witnesses indicated that each year of delay would add 7% to the cost of introducing the metric system in Australia. If the Government made an early announcement of its intentions it would enable the members of the Decimal Currency Board to become the nucleus of the board that the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures recommended should be appointed. The members of the Decimal Currency Board would be ideal for that job because of the excellent work they did in relation to the conversion to decimal currency. If the Government accepted my submission I am sure the members of the Decimal Currency Board would do their job in relation to. the conversion to the metric system equally as well as they did their job in relation to the conversion to decimal currency. I know that they can render valuable service to this country. {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria -- Briefly I want to join with **Senator Poyser** in expressing thanks to the members of the Decimal Currency Board for the splendidly efficient task they performed in supervising the conversion of the currency of this country. I think that everyone was delighted with the manner in which the conversion was effected. It did the utmost credit to the ability and the devotion to their task of the members of the Board. I agree with **Senator Poyser** that in choosing those who eventually will supervise the conversion to the metric system the Government would be well advised to examine the talents of a number of members of the Decimal Currency Board. We all appreciate that the board which will supervise the conversion to the metric system will be different in some respects from the board which supervised the currency changeover because naturally those who supervised the currency changeover were largely experts in one particular field. The changeover to the metric system will involve quite a number of fields, some of them extremely important, and very complex problems. In those circumstances the Government will have to range very wide indeed. Undoubtedly there are a number of members of the Decimal Currency Board whose organising ability and whose ability to cope with serious problems were noticeable, and I feel sure that the Government will have regard to that fact. When the Government makes a decision in regard to the changeover to the metric system I hope that it will adopt one of the recommendations of the Committee of which I was a member, namely, that it arrange for the representation of women on the board because women, as consumers, will be very closely concerned with many of the decisions that will have to be made in the changeover to the metric system, particularly in regard to weights and measures. I feel sure that the presence of women on the board will be very valuable. Finally I agree with **Senator Poyser** that it is most urgent that the Government declare its intentions with regard to the metric system. We had evidence from representatives of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and others to the effect that every year we delayed the introduction of the metric system would increase the cost of the changeover by a very considerable percentage. I therefore hope that we will declare our intentions at the earliest possible moment and save the Government from what would undoubtedly be unnecessary loss. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. {: #subdebate-37-0-s2 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP -- in reply - I thank **Senator Poyser** and **Senator McManus** for the speedy passage of this legislation and for what they have said in relation to the work of the Decimal Currency Board in the switch over to decimal currency. Their remarks were well merited and are readily acknowledged. I have taken on board their references to the metric system and the report of the Senate Select Committee on Metric Weights and Measures. Although that subject is not directly related to this Bill I acknowledge the points they have made and I will see that their comments are referred to the Government in its consideration of the Select Committee's report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1683 {:#debate-38} ### CITIZENSHIP BILL 1969 {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 15th May (vide page 1279), on motion by **Senator Dame** Annabelle Rankin: >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- The Opposition agrees generally, in broad terms, with this legislation. The approach of the Opposition is aptly illustrated by a remark of the late President Kennedy of the United States when, as a senator dealing with immigration, he defined an adequate immigration policy as one that is generous, fair and flexible. I think it is significant that when from time to time a stocktaking is made of our immigration policy, that is the approach of the major parties. In another place the honourable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr Clyde Cameron)** is the spokesman for the Opposition on immigration matters. He paid full tribute to the officers of the Department of Immigration, from the highest to the lowest, for the assistance they give members of this Parliament generally. In this chamber, speaking for the Opposition, I endorse that statement to the hilt. We of the Opposition have always said that immigration is a field in which you are dealing with people and not with statistics. Even if at times we are not successful in our approaches, at least we are listened to, and this is a good basis on which to found our immigration policy. In Australia there is in respect of immigration a form of collective bargaining. Once the legislation and the guidelines are prepared members of the Commonwealth Parliament have access to the Minister to offer their opinions as to the way in which the policy should be made flexible. By contrast, in the United States it is different in individual cases of both landing visas and subsequent naturalisation. In the EightySeventh Congress there were no less than 3,500 private immigration bills. We have not had to resort to that practice in Australia, but one of our problems is the vexed question of Australian nationality. Some viewpoints that are held date back to the period between World War I and World War II. On the question of the Statue of Westminster, whilst the Minister for Housing **(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin),** who represents the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Snedden)** in this chamber, referred to the London Conference of 1947, many of us feel that there has evolved a general sort of parity on citizenship. The word 'Australian' has become lined up with the word 'British'. We have had difficulty for a long while in this area. This difficulty is emphasised in the book The Commonwealth Experience' by Professor Mansergh. In that book he points out, in dealing with the receptivity of British Prime Ministers to changes in citizenship status, that the only progressive attitudes were those of Conservative Prime Minister Balfour to that of Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee. I think **Senator McClelland** will be interested in my recollection of the late **Dr Evatt** when he referred to the famous London Conference of 1947 and to the vision of Lord Attlee. Lord Addison, a Socialist peer, and Secretary for the Dominions was not as keen on the emancipation at passport level as was Prime Minister Attlee. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator McClelland: -- He regarded us as colonists. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -- Exactly. That interjection is very apt. **Senator Davidson** will understand what I mean when 1 say that former Canadian Prime Minister McKenzie King was a man who was very definite on the subject of Canadian nationality. Between World War I and World War II the only worthwhile achievement of Australia towards equality in the British Commonwealth of Nations came on the occasion when Prime Minister Scullin insisted that we have an Australian born Governor-General, in the person of **Sir Isaac** Isaacs. But that is now part of history. The people who thought that the tempo towards the achievement of equality in the then British Commonwealth of Nations was much too slow have been vindicated. I think that at least in this respect we have achieved uniformity with honourable senators opposite. In her second reading speech the Minister dealt in particular with the question of British migrants to Australia in respect of certification and a speeding up of procedures. The Minister stated that it usually takes a few weeks to finalise applications made for a grant of Australian citizenship. I wish to buttress my stand in this matter by referring to the case of Derick Magresson, a resident in the federal electorate of Lowe. In that case the period of waiting was 8 or 9 weeks. It may be significant that **Mr Magresson** is attached to the federal office of the Printing and Kindred Employees Union and is in his early 20s. So his Australian background could be easily verified. I think a more realistic view is that the period of waiting would be generally 8 or 9 weeks, particularly taking into consideration that there are over 600,000 people who are seeking this form of certification. I respectfully suggest that the staff dealing with people in these circumstances may have to be increased. I am not critical of the procedure. I appreciate that details must be checked, such as the name of the ship on which British migrants to Australia arrive. Nevertheless, it is something which will have to be watched. The legislation contains an excellent demonstration of charity in dealing with people who may be mentally retarded and are members of a family group wishing to migrate to Australia. Provision is made for the reunion of families and I am sure that all honourable senators will applaud that step, It means that members of a family, parted and in a distant land, will be given an opportunity to be reunited with the family in Australia so that the family bond may be preserved. The Opposition is very pleased to encourage this provision. The next matter with which I wish to deal is really the crux of the Bill. I think it requires a clearer interpretation than is given in the Minister's second reading speech. I refer to what might be called the compression of the eligibility period for citizenship from the customary 5 years, virtually to 3 years. I have read the general criteria to be applied by the Minister but I would like some further clarification of the matter. I have in mind an Italian businessman who has a middle-sized business and who is anxious to go to Europe within the next 3 months. While there he will be involved in negotiations for finance and discussions on the question of patents to enable him to expand his Australian business. I wonder whether the Minister would consider that this man has sufficient grounds for the qualifying reduced term for naturalisation to be compressed in his case. He has already applied and I think this is a case in which there is much merit. The other case that I have in mind is in a different field. I refer to correspondence dated 23rd December 1968 from the Minister in which there is reference to a construction worker named Roman Hajinger who was employed by an American firm whose work with the Snowy Mountains Authority had ceased. This man was offered work in Canada. He had not lived in Australia for 5 years and is not yet an Australian citizen although his family is in Aus tralia and his fiancee is here also. He wishes to follow this rather remunerative metalliferous mining work in Canada for a couple of years and then return to Australia. In the case of both the businessman and the construction worker a reduction of the qualifying period to 3 years will enable them to be naturalised. I am wondering whether the Minister can give me any help with these cases. I have already made a submission to the Minister in relation to the businessman and I intend to follow it up when the royal assent is granted to this legislation. However, I should like to be clearer on what the position of these men will be. The other matter that I am not clear about is the procedure that is to be followed in relation to a teenager between 16 and 21 years of age who is seeking citizenship of his own volition. I notice that in the other place the Minister instanced what he thought would be difficulties in relation to recognition of this citizenship by Germany, Austria, Italy and the Netherlands. My criticism at the moment is of the Greek Government which I feel shows a tendency to exploit the situation unnecessarily. I feel that overall our policy relating *m* immigrants from other nations has been pretty fair. When situations have arisen we have been able to negotiate. My impression is that in the United States of America, notwithstanding that a person may have acquired American citizenship, there is some form of discrimination in that a person who has refused to testify before a Congressional or Senate inquiry on a matter relating to subversion can have his American citizenship cancelled. In Australia we do not go that far. Whether this is a matter for the Department of Immigration or the Attorney-General's Department I do not know, but when dealing with other countries I think the Department should urge such nations to be less intransigent in dealing with teenagers. I accept that the situation to which I am referring may not arise if the teenager does not go back to the country of his birth, but conversely I know that when he wants to come back to Australia at the age of 21 years there may be problems. I appreciate that in this Bill there is an endeavour to streamline procedures and to meet the wishes of other nations. While on the question of teenagers, 1 ask the Minister whether the Department can exercise some surveillance over the very rare employer who is reluctant to give his employee time off to attend a special naturalisation ceremony. I have in mind a Thomas Sylvester of Girraween in New South Wales who was seeking entry to the Royal Australian Navy. This was one of those rare instances in which both the father and mother were under the impression that the boy had acquired Australian citizenship through their being naturalised. When he checked on the situation he found that he had misinformed the Department of the Navy by stating that he was an Australian citizen when actually he was not. I made representations to **Mr Hitchins** in the Sydney office of the Department of Immigration and that Department, in its usual efficient manner, was able to arrange a speedy private naturalisation ceremony for Thomas Sylvester at Parramatta. This is the sort of service that we always get from the Sydney office of the Department. I was quite pleased that the Department had been able to arrange the ceremony and I thought that others would be pleased also, but to my surprise I received a letter from his mother in which she thanked me and the Department for our help but added that unfortunately when Thomas Sylvester went to work next day his employer, **Mr Tom** Morrissey, Manager of Segrave Pty Ltd of 213 George Street, Sydney, had immediately terminated Sylvester's services. I want to be very temperate in dealing with this matter so I shall add that **Mr Morrissey** did give the boy a week's notice. I do not know the boy's history with the firm until that time, but I think every honourable senator will agree with me that it was a rather poor synchronisation of happenings that the boy should acquire Australian citizenship and on the next day find that he was redundant. The business concerned is a firm of marine outfitters and tailors which operates in the lower half of George Street, Sydney. So I cannot imagine that the boy's absence at Parramatta while he acquired Australian citizenship would have caused a cessation of production for that firm. I suggest to the Minister that he should talk to **Mr Morrissey** and inform him, if he is an Australian, that however he may regret his nationality, others of us would like to feel that when a boy acquires Australian citizen ship decency and fair play should require that he be not dismissed on the next day. I pass on to an even more important subject matter. I refer to the fact that in this Bill we are concerned with procedures to speed up citizenship. However, we must look at the other side of the coin and consider the people who have been denied citizenship. I have prepared a table showing the number of people who have been denied citizenship based on figures that I have been able to obtain from research in the Parliamentary Library covering the period from 1965 to the first quarter of 1969. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate this table in Hansard. For the convenience of the Minister for Housing, who represents the Minister for Immigration in this House, I provide her with a copy so that she might be able to follow the figures under the various headings. 1 have listed the number of rejections under the headings: Inadequate Knowledge of English, Not of Good Character, Not of Full Capacity, Security and Other Reasons. I am pleased to be able to say that the number of people whose application for citizenship has been rejected has diminished. Whereas in 1965 the total number of rejections was 1,205, by 1968 there were only 501. If the rejection rate for the first quarter of 1969 continues, the total number for 1969 should be about 400. This is a matter which touches on civil liberties. I remind the Senate that Labor Party policy on civil liberties provides for a Commonwealth court of review, without cost, administrative decisions taken on the grounds of security. It may be argued that some of the headings in the table that I have incorporated do not relate to security. That is true; but it is also true, as was said by the honourable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr Clyde Cameron)** in another place, that there may be cases where a man has never been convicted but has been on the fringe. I have in mind a case in South Australia of which the Minister is aware in which **Sir Edward** Morgan, a retired judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court, examined the merits of an application for naturalisation and decided that naturalisation should not be granted. The point that I make is that in the figures I have given there may have been cases in which the decision to refuse naturalisation might have been reversed. I say this respectfully knowing that on occasions each of us, on someone's behalf, has approached Ministers including **Mr Arthur** Calwell, **Mr Downer,** as he then was, the late **Mr Harold** Holt, **Sir Hubert** Opperman and our present Minister. The big difficulty is that amidst all those cases there is always an element of doubt. I feel that a tribunal will often sift these cases and it could be found that a number of the cases I have listed coul'd have been miscarriages of justice. I want to be perfectly fair in making this assertion. I am not one of those who feel that every case would end satisfactorily for the applicant. I have in mind that not so long ago, through the agency of the Minister, I visited the Bonegilla migrant hostel. I know that there is a changing pattern, that there are some French migrants in that camp, and if one were to check back I think it would be found that some of them had come from the category known as the Colons of Algeria. Somebody might refer to people from eastern Europe and consider that the politics of a particular person are too far to the left. Then there might be people like the Colons from the far right. Some of these - and I say this advisely but this is not impossible - could have been rather brutal in their attacks on the Algerian independence movement members. I met some of the Algerian people in convalescent camps in Europe. Some of them had undergone torture because of their struggles for independence for their country. I think General de Gaulle himself proved that some of the Colons were very troublesome when they went back to France. Some of them could have come to Australia. If somebody who belongs to a particular political party coul'd be indicted for some war time atrocity I would not like to see Australian citizenship used as a shield of protection for him. On the other hand 1 know of the carelessness which has been shown in respect to some issues. As a matter of fact, **Senator Ormonde** would know of a case in Sydney, a very flimsy case, involving a migrant from eastern Europe. He was a fishmonger. Because he threw a glass of beer over the picture of a certain former European monarch which was hanging in a particular club there was a black mark against him. They said that he was antiroyal'ist. I am just giving instances of some of the situations that arise. I think it would be possible, in the calm of a tribunal hearing, to sift some of them and this would be very valuable. Let us consider a country a little closer to Australia - Singapore - and all the tension that occurs there from time to time. I remember Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew addressing an audience at the Sydney Trades Hal'l. It might have been due to his Cambridge University background but he said that in his country there was a tribunal which dealt with people to the left of his Government, in this particular case, but that it also dealt with people to the right of the Government. There was a tribunal and at least the accusers faced the people whom they accused. With all due respect to our virtually temperate political climate I thinkthat there will be so many of these cases that we should have such a tribunal here. In a question I asked recently I sought information from the Minister about the political complexion of the Spanish migrants. I took the matter a little further, as the Minister is aware, and referred to the Ninos - the children of the anti-Franco people driven out of Spain at the commencement of World War II. If people want to come to Australia and start afresh then I do not believe in pushing too far investigations into the background. At the same time I am a little apprehensive that in the absence of a tribunal some injustices can be done. To take the matter a little further, I remind the Senate that tags applied to people. I refer honourable senators to the book 'A Nation of Immigrants', written by the late **Senator Kennedy,** who quoted cases in the United States Congress which had to be taken up. He referred to one case involving a teen-ager - between 12 and 15 years of age - in a displaced persons camp in Europe who had to steal a few pieces of coal or wood in order to keep her parents warm. Years later, after reaching the United States, this person sought citizenship and the authorities probed into the records in Italy or somewhere else. The report of that case used the term 'moral turpitude'. It took United States Senate action to enable her to gain United States citizenship. These are the things that we want to avoid here. I object to the use of some of these case histories. I am not suggesting for one moment that this sort of thing necessarily applies to the assessment of cases in Australia. However, it is on that basis that I am making this plea that consideration be given to setting up a tribunal in Australia to go into such matters. This idea of having a tribunal is not new. To a degree it has been used by the Government. It utilised the services of Justice Morgan in a case in South Australia and to my way of thinking this form of inquiry should be used more. Quite candidly, I must pay a tribute to the Minister for the work done on a couple of cases. I remember a couple of cases that I investigated with **Senator Ormonde.** He will recall them. I think we were successful with one case but not with the other. I assure the Senate that the case in respect of which we were unsuccessful did not involve a security matter so I have no particular squeal to make about it. I realise that the Minister for Immigration has a big portfolio to handle at times and with a dossier in front of him relating to a particular person it must be very hard for him to make a decision, particularly in view of the time factor involved. I am not taking anything away from the work of the Minister because obviously the majority of these cases are processed by his advisers. I am a great believer in the filtering system. For the life of me I cannot see why it would not be possible to take this matter a step further and have a permanent tribunal before which people could go and feel that justice would be done. I repeat that such a system exists in countries with a much harsher and much more unsteady political climate than we have. It applies in Singapore and I believe it could apply here. I am not differentiating between particular categories of migrants or the countries from which they come but I believe that we will have problems if something is not done. I do not think we now have the McCarthy era that we could have had some years ago but I believe - and I say this deliberately - that some of the security reports we get from other countries unfortunately bring odium upon the Department of Immigration. The Department has to bear this odium because some of the reports that it receives are not as authentic as they should be. I know of one case which involved a demonstration in a town in Italy against the local mayor over an increase in rates. One person who burnt his rate notice at that demonstration, migrated later on to Australia. When an investigation was made as to what sort of citizen he had been when in Italy the Department was told that he was a troublemaker. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- He would have reason to burn his rate notice here too, would he not? {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -- Exactly. I agree with the honourable senator. I am merely making a passing reference to some cases. Some of my colleagues will amplify some of my remarks. I am stating these cases to support the table that I gave to the Minister in charge of this Bill. I concede that there are not a large number of people involved in the Government's handling of this term not of full capacity'. I believe that the Bill proposes to take that category of people out of the rejections. However, I believe that we should take the matter a little further. I think I could do no less than cite a quotation used by the late President Kennedy because it has a certain application to Australia. He referred to what was said by an Irish poet named John Boyle O'Reilly who wrote: >Organised charity, scrimped and iced, > >In the name of a cautious, statistical Christ. The reason I quoted O'Reilly was that he came to Australia, I understand, and worked as a political prisoner in the jarrah forests in Western Australia. He escaped and went to the United States and made his name as a poet. The point is that there is a lot of warmth and humanity associated with immigration but at the same time if people peruse the table I produced I think they will agree that we do not have the perfect system. The Minister in the other place admitted that the Government once utilised the service of Justice Morgan to arbitrate in one case and I think that that method should be enlarged so that we can filter all these cases. One thing worries me. 1 think that we should dig a little deeper into the background of some of these cases. One of my colleagues asked me once whether there was one law for people to the left of centre and another for those to the right of centre. I do not want to invite criticism for my own involvement or difficulties with the Ustashi movement. {: .speaker-K69} ##### Senator Sim: -- Oh! {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: **- Senator, I** think you will agree that there have been bomb incidents such as the Lesic involvement. I think the honourable senator will agree that that was not a mythical case. There have been certain dangerous people involved with this movement. I have never got an answer to my questions about it and 1 do not expect one now as to how many members of the Ustashi have been denied citizenship. I would like to think that the case of those people could be equated with that of other people who, it may be argued, may or may not have posed a threat somewhere else. The plain fact is that we are going to have more of this trouble. Colons and other Spanish people are coming here and we can be faced with all sorts of difficulties. It is not merely a matter of being just; one has to appear to be just. Following the limited utilisation of the services of people like Justice Morgan, and particularly in view of the table that I have incorporated in Hansard, I think it justifies the Minister taking, at this late hour, the next step forward and it is on that basis that I make this submission tonight. {: #subdebate-38-0-s1 .speaker-JTT} ##### Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia -- I would have wished that the debate on this Bill could have taken place a little earlier in the session. There are a number of matters relating not only to citizenship but also to international law relating to people. It could well have been discussed by people with knowledge of international law not only to the advantage of the Senate but with advantage to our entire immigration programme and our immigration relationships. While this Bill comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Snedden)** it also deals with citizenship and the status of the Australian citizen. The Minister, when concluding his remarks in another place, said that he regarded the legislation as being of great importance in establishing the status of an Australian citizen. He also said that he believed the Bill to be of great significance to all Australian citizens. That is a sentiment which I would endorse. When the Minister for Housing **(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin),** who represents the Minister for Immigration, introduced the Bill in this place, her speech reflected something of the importance and the significance to which the Minister for Immigration referred. The Bill is important because it has established for the future what I would describe as the paramountcy of Australian citizenship. The significance to which the Minister referred in her second reading speech is established because the elements of citizenship have been defined in the Bill, thus giving stature to it not only in Australian thinking but also in international comprehension. The Bill has notes of supreme importance. It reminds all of us of the many transitions that have taken place in the two decades of immigration and growth in so many ways and so many spheres of Australia's nationalism. Twenty years ago the Nationality and Citizenship Act provided separate national status for Australian people. There have been eight amending Acts since the original Act. Now we have a Bill to implement changes which are being made in response to present day Australian conditions, which are fundamental to our national status and which give the lead in the concept of Australian citizenship. The Bill is well described simply in the two words 'Citizenship Bill'. Its principal features are well known to people who have given it some study because of their connection with the work of immigration or their general interest in matters of this kind. I take the liberty of drawing attention to one or two of the principal features. It draws a distinction, as is now well known, between being a British subject and having the status of a British subject. It contains provisions which will allow certain children born outside Australia to have Australian citizenship if either the father or the mother is an Australian citizen. It also allows migrants from other Commonwealth countries who have lived in Australia for 5 years to become, subject to certain conditions, Australian citizens as of right by the simple process of giving a notification. It also provides - I believe that this is particularly important - for the amendment of the Act to allow the granting of Australian citizenship by naturalisation to certain persons after 3 years of residence instead of the period of 5 years with which we are more familiar. It contains other matters which are incidental to the processes I have just outlined. The Bill moves on to make more humane provisions regarding citizenship for elderly migrants, those who are suffering from some severe disability and those who unfortunately are mentally incapacitated. The very essence or centre of the whole discussion is this matter of citizenship. I crave leave of the Senate to take a few minutes to discuss this matter not only for the purposes of the record but also because it is not something that comes up very often in legislative discussion. It is something that needs to be set down by a variety of people because, as this Bill becomes law and as its various provisions are applied, the matter of citizenship will come up for definition from time to time. In the next few years certain amendments may well have to be made as a result of our interpretation of the elements of citizenship from the parliamentary point of view. Very briefly - and, I suppose, to those of us who have studied it, fairly obviously - from dictionary and encyclopaedia references 'citizenship' may be defined as a status or relationship existing between a natural person and a political society, which obviously is known as the state. This relationship means that the person owes allegiance and the state owes protection. Citizenship has also been defined as the status of the citizen in a society based on the rule of law. Another definition which appeals to me rather more than do the others is that citizenship is the most perfect form of membership of a political community; a citizen owes unqualified allegiance to his state and, subject to certain limitations, possesses complete civil and political rights. This is the kind of relationship that has always existed since the earliest times, because citizenship has had certain common attributes from the earliest days. Citizens have enjoyed a certain reciprocity of rights against and duties towards the community. It is this balancing of rights and duties that explains the fact that everywhere the personal concept of citizenship preceded the development of what I would call the territorial concept which, with the rise of modern nations or states, has come to prevail in international law. From the very earliest days citizenship included all free persons within the country, the community, the state, the nation or even the empire, and so the feeling grew up that citizenship should be determined by territorial divisions. In the light of the evolution of government through the period of history, citizenship later came to be understood to include voting rights. Most modern definitions of citizenship include specifically the inherent right of the individual to participate in government. Having made those observations on citizenship, I wish to take a moment to refer to the acquisition of this quality. It may be acquired in a number of ways - by parentage or place of birth or by the process with which we in the Australian context are familiar, namely, naturalisation. Other ways have included marriage or adoption or long residence in the particular country. Some countries even bestow citizenship as a result of certain land purchases or entry into the public service. In our own time of greatly increased migration of people throughout the world, great wars which have displaced millions of persons and gaps in international law concerning citizenship and nationality, there have been conflicts between the principles of the law of the blood and of the law of the soil. These have brought in their wake a whole lot of problems for individuals and for nations. Reciprocal treaties and all the related matters have introduced new factors into the whole matter of one country or another bestowing citizenship upon people who, for one reason or another, move from one country to another. As you will be well aware, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** these factors have created a large number of what we describe as borderline cases, overlapping of nationalities, dual citizenship and the existence of those unfortunate people who are sometimes described as stateless people. In Australia we have come a long way since the passing of the first Act dealing with nationality and citizenship in 1903. We have come a considerable way since the passing of the Nationality and Citizenship Act in 1949. The Bill before the Senate tonight brings many of the factors to which I have referred and things related to them to what I would describe as a most satisfactory position. In my view, it spells out very satisfactorily the new elements in Australian citizenship. By its provisions, we are enabled to describe ourselves legally, and with recognition at the international level, as Australian citizens. This means that those receiving naturalisation will know the primacy of being Australian citizens. In addition, they will have the status of British subject rather than being declared to be British subjects. This matter of being a subject or a citizen has occasioned much discussion, especially in latter years. There is not the time, nor is it appropriate tonight to delineate the history relating to the development of the matter of being a subject or a citizen. But the word 'subject' has been used in literature, in description and in history over the years mainly in connection with people who were in colonies or who suffered some form of restricted franchise. In some popular forms of government, people have tended to use the term 'national', but a typical American attitude, described in the 'Encyclopaedia International', says that the term subject' is often used in monarchical countries such as the United Kingdom instead of the terra 'citizen', but in constitutional monarchies the words 'subject' and 'citizen' generally denote the same status. If we accept the principle that the terms citizen' and 'subject' denote the same status, then there is no problem. But, as every honourable member knows, not everyone accepts that particular point of view. Civilisation has not yet moved far enough away from the former colonial era. The term 'subject' still carries rather severe overtones of the civilisation of the colonial era. So perhaps one of the values of the Bill is that it provides something by way of definite guidance - and I think we should acknowledge this - in this matter of being an Australian citizen and having the status of British subject. Australian born people know what this means. Those reared in the traditions, by descent from the United Kingdom, also know what it means. But the post-war world has given us a new international relationship. A significant proportion of our Australian community is of non-British stock. New generations of Australians are growing up against backgrounds entirely different from those of a decade or so ago. This means that the modern Australian community does not necessarily appreciate the views of people who accepted the description of British subject. They do not necessarily appreciate the feelings of people descended in this way and perhaps they do not appreciate the pride of older generations in this particular form of allegiance or form of words. Therefore the Bill assumes a degree of importance because it maintains the continuing links through which Australians have developed a great affection over the years. At the same time it interprets a measure of contemporary thought. As the Minister said in her speech, Australian citizens in future will have, in addition to their citizenship, the status of British subject rather than being declared to be British subjects. 1 think it is important to endorse what the Minister has said when it is pointed out that the status of British subject is still important not only for historic and sentimental reasons but also for the practical purposes of the laws of the Commonwealth and of the States. These laws still use the term 'British subject' in describing status as a qualification for various rights and duties. This declaration that an Australian citizen shall have the status of British subject meets most situations and takes care officially *or* what Australians probably have been doing for a long time in declaring themselves as Australian citizens. Also, very importantly, it meets the situation from the point of view of the British immigration law. When it is associated with the general usage of the term 'British' for 'UK', such as 'British citizen', 'British people', 'British High Commissions'. 'British passports', and so on, the Bill in many ways leads to what may be described as a very useful simplification. While it may provide a solution for people like myself, the term 'British subject' might well undergo yet another change so far as Australians are concerned. Many people might well think that using the words to describe people from a variety of countries - they are prescribed in the Bill where reference is made to members of the Commonwealth, and other countries such as South Africa - might be somewhat unsuitable, I hope, for example, that the fact that we in Australia are still described as having the status of British subject, will not create any misunderstanding between the citizens of Australia and the citizens of Great Britain. Indeed, I predict that this area may well come forward for review at later date. There are a couple of other matters in the Bill to which I should like to refer, and I now move on to them fairly quickly. One is related to this important question of naturalisation. Honourable senators will be familiar with the terms as set out in the Minister's speech. The normal period of residence required prior to naturalisation has been 5 years hitherto. I think every honourable senator knows from experience of many cases in which non-British migrants have been suffering disadvantages in their employment by not being naturalised. Many such people working in the Commonwealth Public Service, the State Public Services or for local government cannot enjoy the same opportunities of advancement that they would have if they were Australian citizens. It is important to point out here that the Government has seen good reason not to delay the granting of citizenship to such persons provided they have the qualities which are required; but, by the same token, the Government also feels that there are sufficient grounds for the retention of the 5 year period which, I would say, does not generally impose a hardship, because most of the people who apply for citizenship do not do so until they have been here for an average of from 7 to 8 years. However, there is a clause in the Bill which provides that under certain circumstances the grant of citizenship can be made after 3 years residence to persons who can satisfy the Minister. Details of the required satisfaction are set out. They are related to the reading and writing of the English language and to other matters. 1 think it is important to observe at this point that most migrants who come to Australia have to go through the processes of interviewing and have to set out their history and many other details in their home country. Those of us who have been overseas in recent years and had the opportunity of visiting any of our immigration posts have been impressed with the thoroughness and also the understanding of the interviewing officers of the Department of Immigration in carrying out this work. We can really say that when they arrive in Australia many of our migrants have already been through the processes which make them, in the main, eminently suitable to take up citizenship at a very early date. Provided they can continue to show satisfactory reports, provided they feel at home and provided they desire to assume Australian citizenship, the 3-year period should suffice. But the rate of naturalisation is not related to their length of residence in Australia. From this observation, a couple of things emerge. One of them is that the people who emigrated to Australia for political reasons, or for reasons of personal safety, probably have a different attitude towards naturalisation than those who come here as what I might describe as voluntary migrants. To the latter group of people, emigration has no air of finality at all. If, in time, a migrant's economic situation improves and he becomes able to return to the country of his origin, he becomes yet another of the international travellers, yet another intercontinental migrant. It is my view that this trend will grow by reason of the way in which the world is developing at the moment with improvements in standards of living in so many countries. I point out that this will have an effect on applications for naturalisation. The other matter that stems from this legislation refers to the increased proportion of migrants who arrive in Australia with better standards of education and with an increased measure of sophistication. Because they have those two things they also have an increased expectation of what the country is able to provide for them or to do for them. All these factors will bring yet a different attitude again to naturalisation. Those with the higher standard of education may well qualify for naturalisation within the proposed 3-year period and certainly will be good additions to the Australian community. I refer to a matter contained in the Bill and to which the Minister referred. It concerns people who will be exempt from former requirements. The Minister said that the Government had decided to exempt from the requirement as to mental capacity any person, of whatever age, who is of unsound mind, but whose father or mother is or was at the time of death an Australian citizen. I think every honourable senator would regard this as a humane, considerate and sympathetic inclusion in the legislation, but it exempts only a proportion of the children who may have mental health problems. This legislation covers only those children whose parents decided to become Australian citizens and consequently the children, through that citizenship, will become eligible for the benefits. There may be some children - it may be a few only - whose parents failed to apply, for one reason or another. Possibly these children would be debarred from benefits because their parents were not able to become Australian citizens. I submit that such children should be provided for. Some of them may be distressed because of their mental condition. They cannot be repatriated and will have to remain in Australia for their lifetime. The Minister may be able to throw some light on this matter in the latter stages of this debate. Another aspect opened up by this legislation is that some examination might be made, although it may not be within the province of discussion on legislation of this kind, of the most recent mental health developments and practices so far as these people are concerned. Every honourable senator would know that migrants of this kind come here under great and serious stress. They have had to survive all the upheavals in their own country, whether those upheavals be political, philosophical or economical, and it is necessary to recognise that these people who might require treatment need encouragement to seek treatment. They should be informed that the treatment will not debar them from Australian citizenship in that they are people, as the legislation says, of unsound mind. In other words, it is very desirable to encourage migrants who have some kind of mental condition or difficulty to seek early treatment on a voluntary basis so that they will be able to enjoy not only citizenship but a full and useful life. At the beginning of my speech I referred to many other features of the Bill. It is a privilege to take part in a debate on a measure of this kind because it refers not only to people who live in Australia now but to those who will live in Australia in the future and who will be our citizens. **Senator LITTLE** (Victoria) (9.4]- I indicate that the Australian Democratic Labor Party supports this Bill. In speaking about the legislation one must be conscious that anything one says about the matter is of fundamental importance to the future of this nation. It is true that we have the potential of some day becoming a great nation. We shall never be a great nation until we have a lot more people utilising this country than we have today. We shall never have a lot more people than we have today unless we have a wise, broad and sensible immigration policy. I look upon this piece of legislation as one which clears up some of the anomalies that have developed and of which we have become conscious as we have applied the immigration policy that we have known to this time. In speaking to the legislation I make some criticism of our past, understandable attitudes because I think that when we, as Australians, ventured on an immigration programme, quite consciously and with enthusiasm, we tended to look at the short range advantages that we were likely to obtain from an expansion of our citizenship rather than at the long range advantages. We were inclined to look very closely at the potential immigrants and to try to weigh in the balance their eligibility to join us in this big venture of making Australia a great nation. I think we rejected, with too little cause, those whom we thought did not measure up to the standard of excellence that we considered proper for an Australian citizen. It is understandable that when we had to begin to administer something about which we were very enthusiastic - something to which we looked for the advantages that would accrue immediately without casting our minds into the future- we should visualise immigration not as a long range programme but rather as a short range programme. We did not realise in the very beginning that in many instances it was almost impossible to integrate entirely a family from another nation, with a different type of culture, in one generation, lt is to our credit perhaps that wc had that in mind. I think in actual practice we are realising that in rare cases this is possible but that in most cases it is not quite possible completely to integrate a family into a new way of life that is constantly changing because of the addition of peoples of different races and of different cultures. In some instances it takes many generations, as the history of immigration in other countries in bygone days will clearly show. I think we are giving more cognisance to that fact than we once did, and that is to our credit. Firstly I pay tribute to the Department of Immigration and particularly to the current Minister for Immigration **(Mr Snedden)** who I think has grasped these problems much more rapidly than any of his predecessors. I think that today our name abroad is beginning to lose some of the odium attached to it because of immigration decisions which hit at a very sensitive and humane relationship that we had with certain countries. Some of the past decisions certainly damaged the name of Australia. I do not think that is so today. I give credit to the current Minister who seems to have grasped the situation with more realism than his predecessors. He seems to understand that it is not what we gain from immigration today or tomorrow that counts but what this country has to gain in 50 or 100 years time. I am encouraged that in this piece of legislation still more attention is being given to the necessities of protecting the family circle. We will not build a great nation simply by getting a lot of people here, but we will build a great nation if we encourage the people who are here now and those who come here in the future to develop the wholesome family attitude that is considered a little old fashioned today. The ties which bind a family are ultimately the ties which bind a great nation. Running through this legislation all the time is the realisation, as **Senator Mulvihill** pointed out, that we are considering the immigrants as human entities and as family people who have problems that families always have. Perhaps one member of the family is not as bright as is necessary to make him, in our opinion, an ideal Australian citizen, but here there is a realisation that the family is sacrosanct, that people have come here to help us with the project of building a greater Australia. In certain instances, if necessary, we have to concede a lot to make sure we get the members of a family here as a family unit, happy and satisfied in their relationships one with the other. Problems arose from this question and from the different ways and habits of people in other countries. I have struck several cases of people from places like Hong Kong where the records of families are quite obscure and where, indeed, the registration of births does not take place in some cases because there are many people in Hong Kong today who are refugees from Mainland China. Those people are unable to find proof in some instances that the children whom they allege to be their own actually are their own. I know that the Department of Immigration has every reason to consider with grave suspicion on some occasions the claim that a particular child of a family indeed may be the child of that family or a child that has been acquired somewhere in the course of the tremendous hardship of life as it exists in that part of the world. It may be the case of a child of relatives, who has been integrated more or less into a family in accordance with some of their traditions and, indeed, in accordance with some of the accepted traditions of that country. Yet, when it comes to an application for residence in this country, the dates that are given, sometimes by husband and wife, as to the birth of the child show considerable discrepancies. This may be because the date of birth has been left to memory. I have even heard of cases of many people in Australia who are a bit doubtful as to the precise date of the birth of some of their children. This applies particularly to fathers who lead very busy lives. I know that a particular case with which I am associated has been held up for a considerable time because there is some doubt as a result of the evidence that has been accepted by the Department itself as to whether the middle child of a family of three children is actually the child of the parents concerned, of whom the father at least has some rights to reside in this country. I do not know whether the position ever can be resolved. No evidence has been presented other than the contrary evidence of the husband and the wife. The birth date of the child cannot be discovered anywhere to solve the situation. I wonder whether, from the point of view of Australia, when everything is done that can possibly be done to establish that no deliberate deception has been engaged in and there is nothing of very great importance as to the actual parentage of the child who perhaps has been reared for years in a particular family in another country, it might not be more important that the family should be allowed to come here. If a family wishes to come to Australia and if a family wishes to share the adventure of developing Australia, there is every reason why that family should be welcomed here, even if some doubt as to some fact has been created, so long as we can ascertain as near as is possible that the deception is not of a deliberate character but has been one that has resulted perhaps from lack of records in the country from which the family comes or indeed because of confusion over what has been traditional family practices. I instance the case, for example, of the child who, perhaps of deceased relatives, has been absorbed into another family. Of course, this is one of those things that, I know, cannot be given expression to in the actual Bill but is an administrative act on the part of the Department. I say this to the credit of the Department: I believe that it is doing the best that can possibly be done with that type of case. This legislation foreshortens the period in which citizenship can be granted. It is possible now for citizenship to be granted after 3 years residence in Australia. I think that **Senator Davidson** put his finger on one of the very cogent reasons for this state of affairs concerning Australia. It is true that today there are international migrants who migrate from country to country. But, mind you, such is the need of Australia that we should not discourage people from taking the step towards Australian citizenship by having a lengthy period of probation, as we may call it, in this country. We should have a short period of qualification to encourage migrants, as soon as it is possible and as soon as a reasonable time has elapsed for them to assure themselves that they like our country and our ways sufficiently to want citizenship, and we have had sufficient time to approve of them as people who will share citizenship in this country, to take the step towards citizenship because this can be the silken thread that will bind them to this country. I hold the view that we need migrants more than any other country in the world needs them. If we need them more than any other country in the world, our provisions and time qualification periods regarding the rights of migrants to apply for citizenship should not be longer than they are anywhere else in the world. Provided the requirement of being sure that everything is in order and is what it should be is fulfilled, the period of qualification for Australian citizenship should be shorter than the citizenship qualification period anywhere else in the world. I wish to refer to an approach to immigration and citizenship that is spoken of sometimes in this country. This is that a sort of probationary citizenship should be granted for a period and that we should reserve the right to exclude those who are guilty of criminal offences even after they have accepted citizenship. The Australian Democratic Labor Party rejects this concept entirely. It is almost hard to understand, when one looks back on the history of Australia and our own origins here, that we should approach citizenship with this concept today. Indeed, it has even been argued that a migrant should disclose to the Department of Immigration any criminal record that he may have had in the country from which he came. I do not know what would have happened if that approach had been applied to the first migrants who came to Australia from the British Isles. A long record would have been obtained of people who stole loaves of bread, handkerchiefs and everything else. I have no doubt that even some of my ancestors stood up on the cliffs of Cornwall and helped to wreck ships. This was' the practice of the people of the country from which my ancestors came. They indulged in the national pastime of the Cornish people and acted as wreckers. The Australian Democratic Labor Party believes that when citizenship is granted to a person it should be like marriage; it should be beyond recall. It should be accepted for better or for worse. If indeed a person is guilty of a major or even a shocking crime in this country after that person has attained citizenship, what right have we to say that we should discard that person then and send him back to the country of his origin to be dealt with there for the criminal offence committed? Is it not our obligation, once citizenship has been granted, to say: 'This is our responsibility. This now is his country the same as it is our country'? I believe that if reservations are placed on citizenship or if citizenship is granted with the proviso of a good behaviour period that extends for months or years citizenship is not being granted at all. Confidence is not being expressed as it should be expressed, if the wish is to gain the co-operation of the people who come here. I say this: The number of people that we would be able to exclude on second thoughts on a matter like this would not nearly equate the disadvantages of this country caused by the number of people who would be offended by such an approach. Should we, in approaching the question of citizenship, ask people to disclose whatever were their records in the countries from which they came? I really believe that this approach should not be adopted in our caution and in our short range view of our original immigration programme. This is particularly so as this country is so drastically short of female migrants. This was the case in the early days of our programme and it still is. I recall being in Germany in 1952. Many women who had been teenagers in the closing phases of a ghastly war had no parents and no relatives because all of them had disappeared in the conflagration of the war itself. They were women who had learned to live on the streets of Germany and, of course, they had no chance of migrating to this country, such was our security on our immigration laws. Meeting many of these people in the company of trade union officials I formed the opinion that, given a second chance to live again, they would have made excellent citizens in a new country, but they certainly would not want to come to a country where they would have had to disclose the tragedies of a teen-age life that was subject to the conflagration of war and to the conditions that succeeded it in a country such as Germany. I believe that Australia, because of its approach at that time, missed a great opportunity from a long range point of view to establish many, many more families with the lonely men who came here as refugees after the war and the women who were abandoned in Europe and who are now, perhaps, lost for all time. That is why I say that we should never again consider that the generation that we bring here has to be perfect in every respect in order to be ideal citizens of this great country. Anybody who has read our history knows that many of the people who came originally as convicts from Great Britain were guilty of things which would not be considered crimes today, while others were guilty of the worst types of crime that one could possibly imagine. These could have been my ancestors or the ancestors of somebody else today, for all that many of us know or care. If we are to build a great nation and need- people as desperately as we do need them, without throwing the gates wide open we must not shut our eyes to the fact that there has to be a lot of give and take. The people that we want to bring here are not angels. They are like the people who were bom here, subject to all of the limitations, temptations and weaknesses of human character. I thought there was some danger in **Senator Davidson's** interpretation of the provision of this Bill that suggests that we will no longer be Australian citizens and British subjects but will be Australian citizens and have the status of British subjects. He equated the word 'subject' with the word 'citizen', implying that we would have the status of British citizen. I understand that the laws of Great Britain now provide for United Kingdom citizenship as distinct from British citizenship and it would not be wise for us to infer that because, by our own enactment, we have the status of British subjects we would have in Great Britain all of the rights of British citizenship, if there is such a thing as British citizenship. If this were assumed to be so, I am sure that some of our young people who go too enthusiastically to Great Britain today would find certain difficulties and might be led astray to think that they could demand all of the rights that they have in this country. That, of course, is not the case. I am not criticising anybody in any way because of this; I am merely facing the fact that it is so. I agree with **Senator Davidson** that there could be changes in the future and I understand why we are writing into this legislation provision for the status of British subject. This is in line with the common cause that we make with other members of the Commonwealth of Nations. There are some advantages to citizens of member countries and certainly reciprocal advantages to Australian citizens, particularly those who visit these countries. I agree with the advantages that go with the status of British subject. Whether there is a better way of framing this provision would have to be decided by the nations which are involved in this common cause. I think that most Australians feel a little uncomfortable about the terminology 'British subject'. It seems to imply that we are subject to something, beneath something, or forced to do something, and this is not in the Australian character. One can easily understand how this term has gradually grown up as a result of the fact that Britain has been a monarchy for so long. Nobody is objecting to our ties with the British monarchy and as long as this definition is accepted by the Commonwealth of Nations I suppose Australia will go along with it. Like **Senator Davidson,** I foresee that from some other countries in the Commonwealth of Nations rather than from Australia action will come to remove this term from legislation. I do not suppose that when it does disappear it will be any great loss to anyone. There are many other ways in which we can express our association with and our appreciation of the standards of Great Britain, from which so many of our ancestors came. I would hope that at some future date the term 'subject' at least will be dispensed with. Underlying the whole of this legislation, as I said at the beginning, is the concept of consideration by the immigration authorities of this country for the family. This is something that we cannot praise too highly. I hope it will colour finally all of those difficult borderline decisions which the Department and the Minister make from time to time on this controversial question. If this concept which permeates this amending legislation is the concept under which decisions are ultimately made there will be little complaint from the citizens of this country. It is for those reasons that the Australian Democratic Labor Party commends the Bill and hopes that it will pass this chamber. {: #subdebate-38-0-s2 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I have found extreme difficulty in determining what the Act is about, in view of the number of amendments which have been made, particularly in 1960, 1966 and 1967. Because the legislation has never been consolidated one has to do the consolidation oneself and apply the amendments of the Bill that is before us in order to understand what it is about. After we have made extensive alterations as a result of the adoption of this Bill I hope that there will be an early consolidation of the Nationality and Citizenship Act. My consideration was not assisted by the fact that clause 4 of the Bill altered section 10 of the Act by adding new sections 2, 3 and 2. This could be a printer's error but it is one of the provisions that obviously needs altering in the Committee stage on this occasion. Clause 17 of this Bill seeks to alter section 30 of the Act by omitting sub-sections (3.) and (4.) and inserting in their stead new sub-sections (3.), (4.), (2.) and (3.). Obviously, where this mistake occurs, some alteration is needed. The first matter to consider is that this is not a Bill relating to migration. The speech made by **Senator Little** would have been a very good speech on a Bill relating to migration, but there is no question here of whom we allow into Australia. Those whom we have allowed into Australia have run the gauntlet of the Migration Act. They have had the approval of the selection officers, the Department and the Minister and they are residents of Australia. It is then a question as to whether we should accept them as Australian citizens after a certain period of residence. **Senator Davidson** explained the benefits of Australian citizenship. He seemed to think that there were great benefits and privileges in Australian citizenship. I do not disagree with him. However, on each occasion that the Act has been amended there has been a relaxation of the qualifications necessary for citizenship. This indicates to me that the Government desires migrants to receive Australian citizenship as quickly as possible. While I agree with the clauses of the Bill which propose to reduce the period of residence, there is an innovation in the repeal of section 1 1 of the Act which provided for naturalisation by registration and the insertion of a new Division 1a which provides for citizenship by notification. According to proposed section 11a, any migrant who has the necessary qualifications may notify the Minister that he wants to become an Australian citizen and he will become an Australian citizen from the date of notification. There is no provision whereby the Minister may or may not grant citizenship. The applicant will become an Australian citizen from the date of notification. One of the essential requirements of citizenship by notification is that the applicant must have the status of a British subject. Previously when naturalisation by registration applied the applicant had to be a British subject. Those who have the status of a British subject are citizens of the countries referred to in clause 7 of the Bill. In the main they are British Commonwealth countries and South African countries. The Bill brings within its ambit Indians, Pakistanis, Malaysians, people from the Republic of Cyprus, Jamaicans and many others. Previously migrants from those countries had to apply in the normal way for naturalisation. Now, having the status of a British subject, and subject to the other requirements of proposed section 11a being met, migrants from those countries can become naturalised simply by notification without fear of rejection by the Minister or the Department. One requirement is that the applicant must have resided for 5 years in Australia or New Guinea, or partly in Australia and partly in New Guinea, and that he is not a prohibited immigrant or a person whose deportation from Australia may be ordered by the Minister under section 13 of the Migration Act by reason of his having been convicted in Australia of an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) of the section. Those paragraphs give power to the Minister to deport anyone who has been convicted within 5 years of entering Australia of the offence of murder or an offence which carries a penalty of more than 12 months imprisonment, or who has been convicted of prostitution or of living on the income of prostitution. From a wider range of countries we possibly could obtain a lower type of migrant and despite the fact that they may have been operating in Australia as prostitutes from the day of their arrival, despite the fact that they may have been convicted of an offence carrying a penalty of imprisonment in excess of 12 months, and despite the fact that they may have been found guilty of murder, they can become Australian citizens by notification provided they have escaped the law in this respect during the first 5 years of their residence. What they do after that does not matter. No longer has the Minister the right to say of an applicant: 'This is not a person whom we should accept as an Australian citizen'. I am not altogether opposed to this. I accept it on the premise that if the crime occurred after 5 years residence we might be guilty in terms of environment or some other condition which led them to become criminals. Perhaps we should take the blame. I am concerned however that section IS, which provides that aliens are subject to the will of the Minister, has not been amended. Whereas every applicant for citizenship previously was subject to the decision of the Minister, we will now extend citizenship by notification without the Minister's intervention to the people of practically one-half of the world. The people of the other half we will line up and say: 'You must reach a certain standard, no matter how long you have been resident in Australia'. With all respect I ask: Is this a fair proposition? What is the difference between a Greek coming from the Republic of Cyprus and a Greek coming from Greece? Different conditions apply. Since I have been in this Parliament I have asked the Minister for Immigration on several occasions why certain individuals have not been granted citizenship and the Minister has told me that the main criterion is whether the person concerned will make a good Australian citizen. Yet if a migrant has run the gauntlet of the Migration Act after having been accepted into Australia, if we have put up with him for 5 years, he will qualify as a good Australian citizen and we will grant him citizenship by notification. However, that will apply only to citizens of the countries mentioned in clause 7 to which I have already referred. If a migrant from a country other than one of those listed has run the gauntlet of the Migration Act and has been accepted into Australia as a resident, why will not the same privilege be extended to him? If there is some reason why the privilege cannot be extended to him, why is the Minister permitted to refuse naturalisation on flimsy grounds which would not stand up to investigation by a court of inquiry? In view of the fact that we are relaxing the laws in relation to citizenship, why is the Minister afraid to state the reasons why citizenship is refused in certain cases? The aliens to whom I have referred still must apply for citizenship in accordance with the terms of section 15 of the Act which provides that the Minister may grant citizenship. The word 'may' is the operative word. Honourable senators may remember that 2 or 3 years ago I mentioned in the House the case of Steve Pappas from South Australia, a Greek migrant who by now has been an Australian citizen for some 40 years. He helped in the development of Australia. He has never taken the easy way out. He carried railway sleepers at the time of the construction of the railway line to the north. He has worked in the farming industry in western Queensland and in the River Murray districts of South Australia. Although he is now aged 68 years he is still working, but he is not acceptable as an Australian citizen. We let him live here and accept his taxation payments. He has paid taxes for 40 years as a single man. We give him all the other privileges available in society but he is not acceptable for Australian citizenship. Everyone who knows Steve Pappas says that he is one of the nicest, most harmless and inoffensive citizens to be found in South Australia. He has been engaged in handing out Communist Party leaflets. He has been a member of the Communist Party for as long as anyone in South Australia has known him. This could be the only reason why Steve Pappas has not been granted naturalisation. At one time naturalisation was important to him because he did not qualify for pension rights or other social service benefits, not being a naturalised Australian. I raised this matter at a Citizenship Convention. I was informed by a member of the Liberal Party Immigration Committee that the case had been referred to the Minister and that he could assure the Convention that this man would qualify for social service benefits on reaching the age of 65. It was said that this was so because the Minister concerned has power to grant a pension irrespective of naturalisation. However, at the present time Pappas is working towards his aim - he is still working for private enterprise at the age of 68 years - to return to see his native country before he dies. He has such an attachment to..Australia that he wants to return to his home country but is concerned that he will not be able to return here as an Australian citizen unless he can achieve naturalisation before going back to see his native country. Surely we should include in the proposed section 15 a provision that the Minister should not have the right to decide whether he will grant naturalisation taking into consideration political or religious beliefs, nationality or colour of an applicant. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- The honourable senator might find that there are no such provisions in the countries that have adopted the same philosophy. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- I hope that the honourable senator would not try to establish in Australia standards based upon those in the countries which he considers to be undemocratic or to have an unacceptable way of life. We should seek to establish standards based on our concept of justice. I would like **Senator Young** to get up and explain how there is any justice in refusing naturalisation to Steve Pappas when we permit him residence here, accept his taxes and allow him to mix in our social life. It is clearly unjust that he has not the same rights as someone from Jamaica who can obtain Australian citizenship without any query or investigation by the Minister although he may have only one-quarter of the residential qualifications that Steve Pappas has. I wish to cite another case to illustrate the injustice of the proposed section 15. It is the case of a Yugoslav woman who is married to a man of Greek parentage but Australian by birth. They live in Adelaide. Her husband was headmaster of the State school at Keith. He is now teaching at the high school at Kingscote on Kangaroo Island. He is obviously accepted as a respectable citizen by the South Australian Government and as fit to teach the children in those areas. His wife was only a child at the time of World War II. She had no political affiliations when she came to Australia and has never taken an interest in politics here. She has never had a conviction of any description. She is of good character and respectable. Anyone would be proud to associate with her and to enjoy her company. The only factor I could discover that could be preventing the granting of citizenship to her is that her husband is a supporter of the militant Greek movement that is operating in Australia. 1 can only say that apparently that is the reason that she cannot get naturalisation after three applications. There is no other evidence that I can discover. The last case to which I wish to refer is that of a market gardener living at Pooraka. On two occasions, on one of which I made representations to the Minister, he has been refused naturalisation. We have searched everywhere in an attempt to discover a reason for the refusal. He claims that although he has no politics, the honourable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr Clyde Cameron)** talked him into handing out Labor how to vote cards at the last elections. That is his only political activity, but the Minister for Immigration has assured me that that is not the reason why he was refused naturalisation. He has good character references and a clean bill of health but he is refused naturalisation. At a time when we are extending the eligibility provisions for naturalisation surely such people are entitled to citizenship. Any political bars that may have operated in the past have disappeared in relation to a bigger section of the community at this time than ever before. I submit with respect to the Minister that that is the case. It is purely a question of the application of justice and an effort should be made to rectify the position. All honourable senators have had experience of similar cases in their own States. Applications for naturalisation may be rejected on the grounds of bad character or a criminal record, or for health reasons. When the application for naturalisation of a migrant is rejected his neighbours are concerned that he may be diseased or have a criminal record. By our silence in not explaining why naturalisation is refused we may be engaged in libelling an applicant. The Bill contains many provisions. I do not wish to take my remarks any further. I ask only that consideration be given to include in the proposed section 15 provision to remove the discretion of the Minister in granting naturalisation so that justice is done to those people who seek to become Australian citizens. Many of the clauses of the Bill would justify investigation but I think they might be more properly dealt with at the Committee stage. Other than in respect of the matters I have indicated I have no opposition to the Bill. {: #subdebate-38-0-s3 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- Let us not deceive ourselves. The assimilation of a European migrant in this country is a hellish procedure. Anything that this Bill does to assist assimilation and the establishment of citizenship is to be welcomed. It should be appreciated that the first generation of migrants, especially those who are unable to speak our tongue when they come here, is sacrificed in favour of the second generation. Because of my own experience I strongly support any move to improve the procedures that enable migrants to achieve citizenship. Briefly I want to attract the attention of the Minister for Housing **(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin),** who represents the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Snedden)** in this chamber, to what is occurring in some of the Greek communities in Australia today. The naturalisation procedure is being used for the political intimidation of some people. For that reason I was concerned by an answer which the Minister gave to **Senator McClelland** on 19th March this year. In answering the question the Minister said that 15 persons were refused naturalisation on security grounds during the financial year 1966-67 and 60 - a sharp increase - for the same reason during 1967-68. No reasons were given and so there were no grounds for appeal. It may be said that this was not a particularly large number of refusals; but the effect of the refusals is pretty widespread, especially in the Greek community which faces a rather tragic position. This is a community that has been polarised by events in Greece where there has been an overthrow of democratic government by a military dictatorship. The Citizenship Act is being used to intimidate people to prevent them from speaking their minds. Within the Greek community and the clubs it is common knowledge that if one speaks out against the present regime in Greece and if one is not naturalised, is about to be naturalised or expects one day to be naturalised, this can be used against one. 1 ask the Government to exercise extreme care to make certain that those who are to be refused naturalisation on the grounds of security are not the victims of informers and pimps. Informers and pimps do exist within communities in Australia at the present time. It is not right or just for us to expect any European community or migrant community to remain apart from the thoughts, philosophies and political differences of their homeland. It is their right to support, discuss or reject those things on any ground; but here in Australia, especially in this community of which I speak, it is now considered foolish to speak of politics. This is a subject which has become a matter of fear for many of these people and I say that this should not be. The military regime in Greece has been permitted certain privileges in Australia which those who oppose it have not been granted. We have spoken about this subject before. I have been told by a Greek newspaper editor in Sydney that money was brought into Australia to bribe newspaper editors to publish articles and news favouring the Greek regime. This is part of an intimidation which is imposed by a regime and by a Government upon migrants who have come to this country. This is something which should be resisted and prevented by the Australian Government. I suggest finally that we should not assist in this intimidation which says, in effect, that if a person speaks outwardly of politics he will be refused naturalisation. I think this is a shameful state of affairs and I feel that it could be avoided if the reasons for refusal on security grounds were stated and those who are refused naturalisation on security grounds were given a right of appeal. {: #subdebate-38-0-s4 .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP :[9.55] - in reply - I thank all those honourable senators who have spoken in support of this Bill tonight. I thank them also for the very real interest which it is obvious they show in this very important matter of immigration. I thank them for their complimentary remarks about the officers of the Department of Immigration who play such an important part in the work which is done to help people settle happily in Australia. I personally join with them in these remarks of appreciation and congratulation. There were one or two matters discussed tonight to which I should like to refer. I refer first to remarks made by **Senator Mulvihill,** The honourable senator mentioned a young Greek person who had become naturalised but still remained a Greek citizen. This, of course, is a matter of Greek law which we cannot change. He spoke of several cases concerning naturalisation which he knew personally and which were disturbing him. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- I was referring to the compression from 5 years to 3 years for qualification. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- Yes, and the honourable senator spoke about a young man who became naturalised and lost the particular occupation which he had. These are individual cases to which I feel one cannot reply on an occasion such as this. If the honourable senator has given sufficient detail in the course of the debate I am sure that the matters will be looked at by the Minister, but if sufficient detail has not been given I suggest that he ensure that details are provided. The honourable senator spoke also of an appeal tribunal. I inform him that the Government has considered an appeal tribunal but has decided that it is not desirable. Citizenship is a matter of privilege and the Government believes that it is properly a matter for ministerial discretion rather than judicial decision. **Senator Mulvihill** was good enough to send across to me a paper which I understand he had drawn up himself. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- It was based on departmental records. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- It is based on departmental records and concerns naturalisation rejects for the years 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. The document has a tabulation of the reasons for rejection, and when one adds them up one finds that a total of 3.205 applications were refused or deferred. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator McClelland: -- Over what period? {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- Over the period that I mentioned - 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. I inform **Senator Mulvihill** that 2,000 applications were deferred until the migrants' knowledge of English or of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship had reached the required standard. Most have since been approved. Another 1,000 were refused because of criminal convictions and the remaining 200 represent a very small number compared with the 150,000 applications which were approved in " the same period. They are interesting figures which answer some of the points raised by the honourable senator. We all were very appreciative of the speech made by **Senator Davidson** who gave an excellent exposition, if I may call it that, of citizenship and its importance. One point which he raised and which I should like to answer concerns mentally defective children and what has been provided in the Bill for these people. He spoke about the future of the child whose parents were not naturalised. The reason why this Bill provides only for children of Australian citizens is that it is desired to observe the principle that the nationality of a child should, in general, follow that of the responsible parent. If the father of a mentally defective child chooses to become naturalised then this BiN will ensure that the child also can become naturalised. So we come back to the point that it is the responsibility of the father. If he seeks naturalisation then the child also is naturalised. I could not quite hear **Senator Little** but I understand that the point he raised related to the possibility of citizenship being withdrawn. I point out to him that the present law already accepts the principle stated, which is that once citizenship is granted it cannot be taken away because of crime committed subsequently. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- I appreciate that. I was saying that argument had been advanced in support of that view but that 1 did not agree with the suggestion. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- I thank the honourable senator. **Senator Cavanagh** raised two matters. Firstly he spoke of the Act being consolidated. I draw his attention to what T said when I presented the second reading speech on this Bill in the Senate a short time ago. 1 said: >When the Bill is passed, and all of the amendments proposed have come into operation, the principal Act will be reprinted in consolidated form, incorporating the amendments. I think that answers one of the problems which concerned the honourable senator. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- So long as the Minister does not forget about it. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- I am sure it will not be forgotten. The honourable senator can rest happily about that matter. I understand that the honour able senator also raised a point about what he thought was a misprint in clause 17 of the Bill, which has three sub-clauses. The first sub-clause repeals sub-sections (3.) and (4.) of section 30 of the principal Act and substitutes the proposed new sub-sections (3.) and (4.). Therefore there are to be two new sub-sections. 1 hope this answers the problem about which the honourable senator was concerned. The second and third sub-clauses of clause 17 of the Bill are substantive provisions of the amending legislation and are not provisions to be inserted in the principal Act. They are transitional matters only and will not appear in the principal Act as proposed to be amended. The normal practice is to show provisions of this kind as footnotes when the principal Act, as amended by the Bill, is reprinted. The honourable senator referred to section 4 of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1966. That section was divided into two sub-sections. The first subsection remade sub-sections (2.) and (3.) of section 10 of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948-60 and the second sub-section of section 4 of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1966 is an application provision and will be shown as a footnote in the next reprint of the principal Act I think most of these points will be clear when the consolidated Act is available. I think another question was raised and it related to clause 8 which deals with proposed section I I.a. Clause 8 of the Bill makes provision whereby citizens of Commonwealth countries may become Australian citizens by notification and this is a natural consequence of the present law regarding deportation. Under the Migration Act, British subjects who have lived here as residents for 5 years without committing any crime cannot be deported. By contrast, the Migration Act contains provisions whereby certain aliens may be deported after any period of stay. For British subjects who are not deportable it is logical that they should have the right to citizenship by notification. I hope that I have dealt with the most important points raised by honourable senators. I again thank them for the comments they made. I have noted the points made by **Senator Georges** and I shall refer them to the Minister for Immigration for his consideration. I thank honourable senators for their contributions and for the interest they have shown, and are still showing, in immigration. I believe that we are all greatly interested in this legislation and that we appreciate how important it is to the future of Australia and to those who live within our shores. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee Clauses I to *A* - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5 (Interpretation). {: #subdebate-38-0-s5 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- First I want to raise a point relating to definitions. These are dealt with in clause 5 which amends the principal Act. One of the difficulties of studying legislation is the number of places one has to look at for definitions. We find that the definitions in clause 8 of this Bill, which deals with proposed new section 11 a, follow those in the Migration Act. For the definitions in the Migration Act we have to look at sections 5 and 9. I. suggest that all definitions should be included under the one heading so that we know where to look for them. The matter I am more concerned about is the alteration proposed to section 5 of the principal Act which is dealt with in clause 5 of the Bill. Clause 5 contains five sub-clauses. Sub-clause (e) seeks to omit from paragraph (b) of sub-section (3.) of the Act the words 'and of full capacity if he is not of unsound mind'. We have had a discussion about the fact that we are deleting the question of full mental capacity. This particular clause embraces 20-year olds and people of full mental capacity but we are now to delete the words 'full capacity'. I am of the belief that somewhere within the processes of the Parliament there is legislation coming forward to confer adulthood in some respects on 18-year olds. As there is a trend for parliamentary action to be taken about relaxing the provisions relating to voting rights and marriageable age T wonder whether this is not now the time to amend this particular section so that it deals with 18-year olds rather than 21-year olds. I ask the Minister to consider amending this clause so that it will refer to 18-year olds rather than to 21-year olds. {: #subdebate-38-0-s6 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- I crave your indulgence, **Mr Temporary Chairman,** to raise a matter following the Minister's remarks about consolidating the Act. {: #subdebate-38-0-s7 .speaker-K3J} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull: -- What clause is the honourable senator referring to? {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -- I relate this matter to the clause that **Senator Cavanagh** referred to but I defer to your ruling if I am dealing with a wrong clause. I did not quite grasp a point mentioned by the Minister in her reply to the second reading debate. In the light of the adoption of this legislation, is the Minister to be precluded in the future from using somebody like the retired judge, **Mr Justice** Morgan, to deal with specific cases of naturalisation appeals? Where the Minister deems it desirable, can he use a former judge to arbitrate on a naturalisation matter? The Minister has rejected the idea of a tribunal. I am trying to get half a loaf, as it were. Is the Government still prepared to use a retired judge on a specific occasion, as it used **Mr Justice** Morgan? {: #subdebate-38-0-s8 .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP [10.10] - I understand that the case to which **Senator Mulvihill** is referring was a deportation case and that on no other occasion has a judge ever been used. The question asked by **Senator Cavanagh** related to the age of 21 years. He suggested that it might be more satisfactory to alter it to 18 years. My understanding is that naturalisation is easier under the age of 21 years and therefore the matter has been left in that form. Clause agreed to. Clause 6 agreed to. Clause 7 (Citizenship by descent). {: #subdebate-38-0-s9 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- This clause repeals section 11 of the principal Act and inserts another section in its stead. Sub-section (1.) of the section we are repealing states: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . a person born outside Australia after the commencement of this Act shall be an Australian citizen by descent if - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. At the time of the birth - 1. his father was an Australian citizen; or . . . Then there is another qualification, I take it, for those who cannot comply with the first one. My interpretation of the existing Act is that if a child is born outside Australia and his father is an Australian citizen he is entitled to Australian citizenship. The second qualification is: {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. in the case of a person born out of wedlock, his mother was an Australian citizen or a British subject ordinarily resident in Australia or New Guinea. We are now deleting that sub-section and inserting: >A person born outside Australia on or after the twenty-sixth day of January, One thousand nine hundred and forty-nine, is an Australian citizen by descent if - > >in the case of a person born in wedlock - at the time of the birth his father or mother was an Australian citizen; That somewhat broadens the provision that we are deleting from the Act - or (b) in the case of a person born out of wedlock - at the time of the birth his mother - {: type="a" start="i"} 0. was an Australian citizen; or . . . So, if his father was an Australian citizen he does not qualify if he was born out of wedlock. Yet under the existing Act he does qualify. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- There would be difficulty in proving parentage. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- The point is that this is after proof. If he can prove it, he is entitled to Australian citizenship. Under the existing Act he is entitled to Australian citizenship if he is born out of wedlock even if his father is not an Australian citizen but provided that his mother is an Australian citizen. But, under this amendment, no matter what citizenship his father has, unless his mother is an Australian citizen he will not qualify for Australian citizenship under this section. As the tendency of this Bill is to make the right to citizenship more generous, I am inclined to think that that is not proper. I wonder why we need this provision in the case of a person born out of wedlock but not in the case of a person born in wedlock. I wonder why the same standards should not apply in both cases and why, if either the father or the mother is an Australian citizen, the child should not have Australian citizenship also. **Senator Dame** ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [10.14] - My understanding of this matter is that it was felt that the existing section was ambiguous and did not really express what was intended. So the new section, which **Senator Cavanagh** has read, says in part: in the case of a person born in wedlock - at the time of the birth his father or mother was an Australian citizen. . . . In effect, it gives a right of choice. If the mother was an Australian citizen and the father was not and they wished the child to have Australian citizenship the child could have Australian citizenship. {: #subdebate-38-0-s10 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- With respect, I do not think the Minister understood the point. An extension is granted in respect of a child born in wedlock. There is no complaint about that. But a child born out of wedlock qualifies for Australian citizenship under the existing Act if at the time of his birth his father was an Australian citizen. If he cannot qualify under that provision, he can qualify under this provision: in the cage of a person born out of wedlock, his mother was an Australian citizen or a British subject ordinarily resident in Australia or New Guinea. It appears to me that under the existing Act such a child has the right to Australian citizenship; but that under the Bill that right is granted only to the child who is born in wedlock. If a child born out of wedlock had the right to Australian citizenship previously if his father was an Australian citizen, why has that provision been deleted from the Act? If a person born out of wedlock can establish who his father was and that his father was an Australian citizen, why should he be in a different position from that in which he would be if he was born in wedlock? Why should there be greater restrictions on him now than there were previously? **Senator Dame** ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [10.18] - I am informed that the provision in the Bill is what the Act was always intended to mean, but the wording of it tends to express the intention more clearly. The existing provision reads: a person born outside Australia after the commencement of this Act shall be an Australian citizen by descent if - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. at the time of the birth - 1. his father was an Australian citizen; or {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. in the case of a person bom out of wedlock, his mother was an Australian citizen. . . . The new provision reads: >A person born outside Australia on or after the twenty-sixth day of January, One thousand nine hundred and forty-nine, is an Australian citizen by descent if - > >in the case of a person born in wedlock - at the time of the birth his father or mother was an Australian citizen; or > >in the case of a person born out of wedlock - at the time of the birth his mother - > >was an Australian citizen. . . . Apparently this was the original intention, but it was not expressed very clearly in the Act. It is felt that this provision in the Bill expresses the intention better. {: #subdebate-38-0-s11 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I thank the Minister for her answer to my question. What she is saying, in effect, is that the draftsman's wording of the Act was not what was intended and therefore we are now putting in what was intended at the time although it was not stated because someone made a mistake in the Act. I see that this sub-section was amended in 1959- {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin: -- It was not a mistake. The provision is being expressed more clearly. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- It expresses more clearly what was intended. This provision has continued in the Act from 1959 to 1969 and has caused no hardship or difficulty. That being so, I see no reason why we should not retain the provision although the Minister says the wording can be interpreted as meaning something contrary to what was intended.I submit that the proposed amendment would restrict the Tight to citizenship of a person born out of wedlock. **Senator Dame** ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [10.21] - I do not know of any hardship that has been caused by the existing provision, but I ask the honourable senator to look at present section 11 again. It says that a person born outside Australia after the commencement of the Act shall be an Australian citizen by descent if, at the time of birth, in the case of a person born out of wedlock, his mother was an Australian citizen. The proposed new provision states that a person born in wedlock is an Australian citizen by descent if at the time of the birth his father or mother was an Australian citizen. All we are seeking to do is to extend the provision to a wider area in the case of persons born in wedlock. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- I say you are restricting it. {: .speaker-K28} ##### Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN: -- Under the provision a person born out of wedlock is an Australian citizen if the mother was an Australian citizen. I think everyone will admit that in the case of a person born out of wedlock it is not always possible or practicable for the mother to say who is the father. I think the proposed provision covers such an occasion should it arise. {: #subdebate-38-0-s12 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I am sorry to be so insistent about this matter, but the Minister has not grasped my point. Obviously her advisers are advising her on the question of right to Australian citizenship, not on the interpretation of the existing provision. I agree with all that the Minister says about the existing provision. 1 agree that there could be difficulty in deciding who is the father of a child born out of wedlock whereas it is easy to say who is the mother. My submission is that under the existing provision if the mother of a person born out of wedlock was not an Australian citizen and if the father of the child could be named, then, if the father was an Australian citizen the child has the right to Australian citizenship under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section 1 1 of the Act. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- That is only one interpretation. That provision has not been changed. The question of a person born out of wedlock is dealt with under sub-section (2.), not sub-section (1 .). {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- A person who does not qualify under sub-section (1.) is covered by sub-section (2.) which says that a person born outside Australia at the time of commencement of the Act shall be an Australian citizen by descent if at the time of birth the father was an Australian citizen. If a person born out of wedlock can establish that his father was an Australian citizen, he has the right to Australian citizenship and he also has the right to citizenship if his mother can establish Australian citizenship. The Minister says that although the present provision can be interpreted in this way, that is not what was intended and that the proposed new provision makes the position clear. I submit that the interpretation I have put forward is the correct one. I submit that under the existing legislation a child born out of wedlock has two opportunities of becoming an Australian citizen. Under the proposed new provision, he has only one such opportunity. Under the existing legislation, if he can establish who his father is, and if his father is an Australian citizen, he has the right to citizenship. Why should he not have that right? If I am right in my submission, the proposed new provision will place a restriction on those born out of wedlock. I submit that even though the existing legislation may appear to be somewhat ambiguous it does give the child born out of wedlock two opportunities of becoming an Australian citizen. However, it is obvious that I cannot convince the Minister. I can take the matter no further. I have recorded my protest. I think the whole question should be looked at. If I am wrong in my interpretation then I submit that the Department should look into the question whether there are any difficulties associated with giving citizenship to the child born out of wedlock where the child can establish who his father is, or was, and that his father is or was an Australian citizen. **Senator Dame** ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [10.26] - I can understand the point the honourable senator is making. In effect, he is saying that the child born out of wedlock should be able to obtain citizenship as a right, through his father. The honourable senator is supposing that it is practicable that when a child is born out of wedlock the father can be identified as a matter of law. The existing Act was so worded as to seem to suppose this also, but the supposition is quite incorrect and the amendment proposed in the Bill corrects the position. Clauses agreed to. Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken together. {: #subdebate-38-0-s13 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- Here I should like to refer to what I said during the second reading debate. By this Bill we are introducing for the first time citizenship by notification. Hitherto we have provided for citizenship by registration. In the existing Act it is provided that, upon registration, the Minister may or may not grant citizenship. The proposed new section 1 1a provides for citizenship by notification. Proposed section 11c says: >Where a person to whom this Division applies gives notice, as prescribed, to an officer authorised by the Secretary to receive notices under this section stating that the person desires to become an Australian citizen, the person is an Australian citizen by notification as from the date upon which the notice is received by the officer. Among the requirements listed is the status of British subject. Of course, the status of British subject is covered in clause 7, the provisions of which apply to the countries listed in that clause and any other countries declared by the regulations to be countries to which it applies. In the main, the countries covered are those within the British Commonwealth, and South Africa. It covers persons who are Australian citizens or who by a law for the time being in force in any of the countries mentioned in the clause are citizens of that country and who by virtue of their Australian citizenship or their citizenship of that country have the status of British subjects. In this instance we do not say that the Minister may or may not grant citizenship. Even if a person is convicted within 5 years of coming to Australia, or even if at the time of notification a person happens to be on trial or even in prison, he may be granted citizenship. I agree with the Minister that, having got over the question of our ability to support them, we might as well grant citizenship to such persons. As we are discussing the remaining clauses of the Bill together, I say that clause IS should contain some provision to cover this situation. What would be the harm if the proposed new clause 11a were deleted? Clause 11b (b) applies to a person who is not an Australian citizen but who is a citizen of a country to which section 7 of the Act applies. If persons qualify under the extended section 7 they are acceptable residents; we permit them to stay here. Why should one section counteract another? What is the need for the retention of clause 11b (b)? Why not make the Migration Act apply to everyone who can meet the qualifications laid down by that Act? **Senator Dame** ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [10.31] - ii refer again to the point I made when I replied to the second reading debate. The Migration Act contains provisions whereby certain aliens may be deported after any period of stay. If the provision were altered it would affect the position to which I referred in my earlier remarks. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment: report adopted. {:#subdebate-38-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Dame** Annabelle Rankin) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1707 {:#debate-39} ### PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1968 {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 15 May (vide page 1281), on motion by **Senator Wright:** That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER:
Queensland -- This Bill seeks to amend the Public Works Committee Act. Once again the Government stands condemned. I do not know whether it is because of an original sin of which it has never been cleansed or because of a series of sins of which it has never been purged. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKellar: -- The honourable senator does not really think that. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- Of course I do. I will give a concrete example. This Bill represents the dilatory approach so characteristic of the Government and its immediate predecessors. The Bill was passed in another place on 27th February. It was passed in one room in this building. In another room in the same building some 3 months later we are considering the Bill. What was the cause of the delay? Was it laziness or inefficiency? Probably it was a combination of both. These are the characteristics of this Government and its predecessors. What has the Government done about the care of the aged? Its approach has been piecemeal. Its attitude to education has been one of bits and pieces. We are sick and tired of its malfunctioning, its lack of planning and its inconsistent approach to consequential items. This Bill, without the amendments which the Minister for Works **(Senator Wright)** will move, would be hardly worth the paper on which it is printed. It is an emasculated structure; it is simply a skeleton of what the Bill should have been. Actually this Bill is a result of the efforts of the Standing Committee on Public Works which for many years made representations about the deficiencies in the existing Act. The Government has taken years to introduce these proposals. It is only through the coming to office of the present Minister for Works, and his co-operation, that the Bill is now before the House. As far back as 1965 or 1966 the Committee made constant representations to the then Prime Minister. It had occasion to find fault with and deficiencies in the Act and to criticise the treatment of the Committee by the Government and the cavalier approach of various departments, particularly the Department of Defence. I shall deal with this in some measure later. What is to be included in the Bill? We admit that there is justification for the Bill. The Government admits that. There was confusion as to the power and role of a temporary chairman. This has been clarified so that the Temporary Chairman, in the absence of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, carrys on until either of those two returns. Previously we had rulings from the Attorney-General about the power and tenure of office of a temporary chairman. It was considered that he could be the Chairman only for the day. Another opinion was that he could have a continuing power of office. This has now been clarified. The Committee was confused as to its authority to consider works which were said to be in and of the Commonwealth and which involved such buildings as overseas embassies. Funds were not provided for the Committee to go overseas, so the opportunity was not available to travel1 overseas and investigate the costs of overseas embassies and other buildings controlled and owned by the Australian Government. Again this point has been clarified now. The Committee has definite power to investigate the cost of such buildings and to investigate the expenditure of public funds in the Commonwealth and in the areas controlled by the Commonwealth. The Bill clarifies the position of statutory bodies. They are exempt from the ambit of authority of the Public Works Committee. There has been an alteration in the light of changing money values. Previously tenders involving expenditure of $500,000 or more, with rare exceptions, had to be submitted to investigation by the Committee This amount has been raised to $750,000. This was done at the request of the Committee. The Committee gave serious consideration to the matter. After investigation it thought the sum should be Sim, in the light of the continued depreciation in the value of money. But it found that in recent years there were so few propositions costing between $750,000 and $lm that it decided to recommend to the Government that the amount be $750,000. The recommendation was adopted by the Government. What are the provisions for exemption of works of a capital nature that are submitted to the Committee? There are those which the House of Representatives deems urgent and declares to be urgent and expedient to be carried out without reference to the Committee. No-one quarrels with that. But I come now to something with which we have a definite quarrel - and I think rightly so. When honourable senators hear the history I think most will agree. Works exempted include those declared by the Governor-General - I take it on the advice of the Executive Council - to be of a defence nature and those in respect of which it would be against public interest to submit to the Committee. In the past years, as many who have been members of the Committee will recall, the defence departments have been the greatest offenders in seeking adroitly to avoid supervision by this Committee. Repeatedly they have avoided submitting their propositions and have utilised this escape clause to avoid investigation by the Committee. In the past they have spent millions of pounds and at present they are spending millions of dollars. They are escaping the scrutiny of this- Standing Committee. As an example I quote the houses built in Townsville. Millions have been spent there. Other establishments have been treated similarly. These projects have not been subjected to the efficient scrutiny of the Committee. What secrecy or what public interest is involved that does not permit scrutiny by the Committee? The successful tenderer was permitted to go on the site. Carpenters, plasterers, electricians and labourers of various types could go on the site, but not one member of the Committee could do so. Not one member could supervise these projects. No statement is made as to the plans. In many cases possibly the money is spent willy-nilly. As I said, the various sections of the Defence Services have been the greatest offenders in relation to seeking to avoid the careful and efficient scrutiny of this Committee. I think that this is one thing in respect of which the Minister might have been fairer and franker. I know that he will have something to say in relation to this matter. We do not quarrel with the right to declare a matter urgent. We realise that there are cases in which there should be this exemption from inquiry. If the House of Representatives in its wisdom says that a work should be exempt from our scrutiny, that it should be declared expedient or that it is an urgent work and should be completed or carried out without the supervision of this Standing Committee, we appreciate that decision. The Minister for Works has been fairly tolerant in relation to the submissions of the Public Works Committee. That is to say, he has given a certain measure of power to the Senate. As honourable senators know, the Public Works Committee used to present a statement to the Senate in relation to the results of each investigation of the Committee. The conclusions of the Committee were read out and a short statement was delivered. But there was never any debate. It was in the other place that the debate took place and it was resolved that it be expedient to carry out a work or that it was not expedient to carry out a work. Now, the Senate has been informed that the report shall be tabled in both Houses of the Parliament and shall be open for discussion in both Houses. The Senate will have the power to declare that it is not expedient to carry out a work. But a further power has been provided in clause 18 (8.) regarding such a resolution. Some measure of justification exists for this approach. The House of Representatives can declare that it is expedient to carry out a work. We must consider this provision in the light of the fact that it is a Government submission and that the House of Representatives is more or less the representative house of the people. If the House of Representatives decides by a resolution, subsequent to the resolution of the Senate that it is not expedient to carry out a work, that it is expedient to carry out that work, the resolution of the House of Representatives will prevail. We commend the Minister for Works. He is the first Minister for Works whom we have been able to approach successfully. We commend him for his co-operation and his consideration. On each occasion on which he has met us, he has been courteous. On all occasions, when he is at his best, he is at his very best. He is particularly nice. We have found that to be true. But I do say that once again we have this dilatory approach of a government that is completely inefficient. It is lacking in a sense of perspective. It has no regard for and gives no consideration to planning. It does not realise that all other businesses in the community, much smaller than the Government business, have their plans for 5 years, 10 years, 15 years or even as long as 25 years ahead. This is the period ahead for which these companies plan. This Government, and its immediate predecessors, have planned from year to year. The whole process will start again next August. We will get a statement as to what the Government proposes to do for a year. The Government does not plan in relation to water conservation. It makes no provision for future health measures. It provides in a piecemeal way for the care of the aged. Its approach to education is a bits and pieces one. This seems to be the constant characteristic of this Government. It cannot plan in an efficient way. 1 do not know whether this is laziness or whether it is inefficiency. Let us concede that it is a combination of both. It is just the possession of a disorderly mind- {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- It is a realistic Government. It takes an appreciation of the facts of the time. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- I do not think that the honourable senator's comment is fair. The Government does plan. In 1949, it planned for 20 years. The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman)** - Order! {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- It took the value out of the £1 after 1949, did it nol? {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- It planned for 20 years of office in 1949. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- The Government came in on 10th December 1949. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- The honourable senator's Party has been out ever since. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator DITTMER: -- How has the Government been ever since? It has survived by misrepresentation and because of a set of fortunate cicumstances. That is why it is still in office. It is in office because of good seasons and our unfortunate arguments. That is why it is still in office. Now, **Mr President.** 1 take the opportunity again, as you are now present, to extend my congratulations to the Minister for Works because he is the first Minister for Works who was considerate enough to listen to the pleadings and the implorings of the Standing Committee on Public Works. I thank you, **Mr Minister.** {: #subdebate-39-0-s1 .speaker-K1R} ##### Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia -- **Mr President, Senator Dittmer** started off in his own inimitable way with a broadside and ended with a note of congratulations. I wish to reverse the proceedings somewhat and to commence with my congratulations to the Minister for Works **(Senator Wright)** in recognition of the tremendously good job that he has done and is doing with regard to this Bill. **Senator Dittmer** has accused the Government of laziness and dilatoriness. I do not know what other terms he used, but the fact is that since the Bill was passed in another place it has been under constant study by the Minister in seeking to reconcile diver.sive points of view. I refer to the request of the Public Works Committee for certain amendments, the attitude of the House of Representatives and the firmly stated requirements of the Senate. This was not and has not been, I am sure, an easy task. I contend that the time has been well spent because the Bill before us is such an advance on anything that we have had previously that I consider it a remarkable achievement for which the Senate owes a considerable debt of gratitude to the Minister. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- The honourable senator should deal with the amendments. He is referring to the Minister. The Bill, with the amendments agreed to by the Minister, is an improvement. {: .speaker-K1R} ##### Senator PROWSE: -- I am not going to split hairs on this matter. I believe that, substantially, the Bill before us is the Bill as it will be amended. That is what we are required to debate. I wish to set out the suggested amendment which came from the Public Works Committee in 1966 when the Committee was asked for its opinion and suggestion as to the way in which the Public Works Committee Act should be amended to meet the requirements of the Committee as we saw them. The Act is a very old one, having been prepared first of all in 1913. It has been amended some ten times. It was a thing of shreds and patches. It needed to be brought up to date and a great deal of work was put into preparing the draft of the Bill. Again, this was not altogether an easy task. But the Bill as it came to the Senate failed miserably in regard to meeting the requirements of the Senate. Perhaps one could express amazement that, ever since 1913, the Senate has put up with a Bill that gave no recognition whatever to the Senate except to appoint 3 of its members of a Committe of 9 people appointed to survey public works. Having regard to the fact that public works are mainly of a capital nature and represent the very sort of expenditure in which this Senate traditionally has had a specific interest, I note that the Senate was given only the courtesy - and it was only an act of courtesy - of having the reports of the Committee read in this place. There was no regular form by which a debate could be sustained and anything practical done in relation to these reports. It was this position which led to the members of the Senate - members of the Public Works Committee - insisting that, when the Bill was to be amended, recognition of the Senate should be one of the amendments written into the amending Bill. I will read what were the requirements written into the amending Bill. I will read what were the requirements that the Public Works Committee suggested should be carried out with regard to the Bill. It reads: >When the Act is being redrafted the role of the Senate in Australian parliamentary practice should be acknowledged by expressing the requirements of the Act in relation to forms of procedure for the Senate in the same way as for the House of Representatives. The purpose of the amendment is stated in these terms: >The Committee is a joint Committee comprised of both members and senators. It is the Com mittee's view that the procedural requirements of the Act should apply equally in both Houses. I must admit that under the amendments contained in the Bill we do not quite attain equality in all phases but we have advanced so much that the Bill marks a significant stage in the history of the Senate and is of very great importance. I hope that eventually we shall gain complete equality. I do not want to cover the ground that has been covered by the Minister and also by **Senator Dittmer** in referring to the broad aspects of changes proposed in the Bill and the improvements brought about by clarification of certain ambiguities that have led to different interpretations by different Attorneys-General. The position has now been set out clearly so as to avoid any ambiguity. I do want to refer, however, to the provision that the cost limit below which works need not be referred to the Committee be raised from $500,000 to $750,000. This is, I think, indicative of both the depreciated value of the $1 and the greater workload that has been imposed upon the Committee by the increasing activities of the Government in regard to public works. Both of these factors have contributed to the situation in which the Public Works Committee finds itself being asked to do a practically full time job. We hope that this amendment will lead to some mitigation of this situation. I should like to remind the Senate that the provision that it is obligatory to refer to the Committee works costing more than $750,000 does not mean that works costing less than that amount cannot be referred. In my opinion, in some cases such works should be referred to the Committee. No works costing less than the prescribed amount have ever been, to my knowledge, referred to the Committee. I believe that this indicates a reluctance on the part of Ministers to submit works of this nature to the Committee, although there is no reason why they should not do so if they believe that it is necessary. I feel that I must refer to the two exemptions that are applied to obligatory references to the Committee. One is on the ground of urgency. The other is on the undefined and indefinable ground of public interest. Looking back on the reports of the Committee we find that over the years there has been a constant stream of complaints from the Committee about the way in which this broad based term 'public interest' has been used to remove works, particularly defence works, from the survey of the Committee. Originally, as appears from the early debates, the Public Works Committee was set up because of the need to look at works connected with defence. It was contended by some that no such supervision should be given but it was agreed that the Committee look at defence works except in cases where security was involved. Now this concept of security has been broadened to the very much broader concept of public interest, which in effect can mean anything that the Minister decides he wants it to mean. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- Did not the Parliament give to Ministers that right at some stage? {: .speaker-K1R} ##### Senator PROWSE: -- The right is certainly exercised, but I am questioning the desirability of using the term 'public interest' which has not been defined. It should be defined so that the Committee can understand clearly which works should be referred to it. I am very happy that other terms that were not defined have been defined, but this remains and will remain a matter of contention between the Committee and the Government. It will now be possible for a motion that a work be proceeded with to be moved in the Senate. The Minister for Works **(Senator Wright)** who is in this place will be able to move that a work be commenced. This is a tremendous advance on the old situation. 1 know that some senators are not completely satisfied with the procedure whereby the Senate may reject a work that has been reported upon and, if the House of Representatives does not differ, this will prevent the work from being carried out. If the Senate twice carries a motion against the carrying out of a work and if the resolution of the other House has been passed after the first motion in the Senate, the work will proceed. This outlines something that in all practicability is a reasonable procedure. I am sure that no Government would lightly continue with a work that has twice been rejected "by the Senate. Only in relation to a matter whereon a very firm opinion was held as to the desirability of the work would a Government proceed in these circumstances, knowing that in the last resort the Senate has power, in the consideration of the Appropriation Bills, to refuse finance for the work. The amendment giving power to the Senate to debate a work and, if it thinks fit, to reject it - with the limitation outlined - is, I believe, a reasonable proposition and should be accepted. Time is short and I am afraid that we have not time to go into the detail of the Bill. The Minister outlined fairly effectively in his second reading speech what is proposed, and he explained the Bill adequately. I again commend the Bill to the Senate and add my congratulations to the Minister on the very splendid work he has done in submitting the Bill in this form. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 1711 {:#debate-40} ### ADJOURNMENT {: #debate-40-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- 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-start } page 1711 {:#debate-41} ### PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1968 {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed. {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
Queensland -- I join with **Senator Dittmer** and **Senator Prowse** in commending the Minister for Works **(Senator Wright)** for his personal identification with the presentation and contents of this Bill. I have something of a personal interest in the presentation of this Bill because of some comments I made in this place very many years ago when, during discussion of a current report of the Public Works Committee, I directed attention to and deplored the fact that the Senate had no opportunity to refer matters on its own initiative to the Public Works Committee for consideration although senators participated in the composition of the Committee. I looked forward to the day when that position would be rectified. It is perhaps ironic that that day having arrived I find myself not in a position to give the Bill the support that I hoped I would be able to give it. The Bill as presented has very many excellent features. First of all, it confers upon this House the equal and coincident right with the House of Representatives to refer matters coming within the area of reference to the Public Works Committee for investigation. That is highly commendable and, as I have said, something that has been required over the years. The difficulty I experience comes with the presentation of the report from the Committee. Under the amendment proposed by **Senator Wright** - it has been circulated - what is now proposed is that when a report comes back to this place from the Public Works Committee, if this chamber should say that the work should not be proceeded with, if subsequent to that the House of Representatives should say that it should be proceeded with, or if the House of Representatives has so said before the negative vote in the Senate was obtained but the House of Representatives reconsiders the matter and reiterates its original decision, then the veto which was imposed by the Senate is overridden by that act of the House of Representatives. I know that the Minister has striven valiantly to confer upon the Senate participation at all stages in the work of the Committee - the power of reference, the power of consideration and the power of determination. I understand the difficulty that he would experience in attempting to persuade another place to accept the proposition that in this matter there should be totally coincident and equal powers in this chamber with the House of Representatives. In spite of his best endeavours it is fairly obvious that the Minister has not succeeded in persuading that point of view. It may be that I have not altogether accurately represented his attitude. It may be that the Minister himself considers that the House of Representatives should have some predominance in this matter, surrounding finance as it does. But the effect of the matter now is that by this amendment we have taken a step which is almost unique in relations between the two Houses. We have taken the step of conferring upon the House of Representatives an effective right of veto of a decision taken in this place. If that is the position, we have conferred on the House of Representatives a power which the Constitution itself does not confer on the House of Representatives. We know that the powers of the two Houses are almost completely concurrent except in the area of finance measures. We know that in that area there is a circumscription of the powers of the Senate in that it cannot, initiate money Bills. We know also that there is a circumscription in that it may not amend appropriation Bills. But if the Senate in its discretion should resist and reject a money Bill that emerges from the House of Representatives, that rejection cannot be overridden by a resolution of the House of Representatives. The procedures are laid down within the Constitution by which the machinery shall roll on to the point, if necessary, of a double dissolution of the Parliament, that is, if the Bill is re-presented and so on. But no power is conferred on the House of Representatives to override the decision of the Senate. If the Senate, not being able to amend a money Bill, should present a request then the authorities may be in some conflict but it always has been the persistent view of the Senate and its advisers that there is power in the Senate to iterate and reiterate the original request and that that cannot be laid aside by the House of Representatives. That is a position that has never been resolved finally. Certainly the Constitution confers no effective power of veto on the House of Representatives in relation to deliberations in this place. Recently the Senate had totally coincident powers with the House of Representatives in a matter which might have been considered to be within the ambit of the House of Representatives rather than of the Senate. That was the legislation relating to the redistribution of electoral boundaries. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have equal power of reference back to the distribution commissioners of any matter contained in the report presented to both Houses of the Parliament by the commissioners. There is no suggestion in that case that the House of Representatives by its veto can overwhelm or overpower the decision of the Senate or that the House of Representatives alone has the power of reference back. It is a case of completely coincident power in the two Houses. In that area of operation no power of veto lies in the House of Representatives. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- But in respect of new appropriations for public works has not the Senate under the Constitution the complete power of either rejection or amendment? {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE: -- I think the point is well made and I shall advert to it to the best of my ability. I am discussing the electoral redistribution because of the Minister's reference in his second reading speech to the fact that this is a matter which lies not within the area of legislation and ergo, perhaps, the reference to the Constitution is not totally relevant and parallel in the area of administration, as this is. That is why I found the reference back of the electoral redistribution an administrative procedure. That is where you have the coincident power and no power of veto in the House of Representatives. Coming to the honourable senator's comment on whether the Senate ultimately has complete and total power by virtue of its ability to reject an appropriation for capital works, that is true. But let us take this position: Suppose a work is proposed for construction and it is referred by the resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives or both to the Public Works Committee. A report is presented to the Senate and the Senate, after due consideration, rejects the report and says that the work should not go on. Under the proposed amendment the House of Representatives can override that negative of the Senate, go ahead and appropriate the funds and re-present the appropriation to the Senate. The Senate then is faced with the position that it must reject a money Bill with all the consequences that flow having regard to the provisions of the Constitution, its hands already being tied by the previous decision which has been arrived at after due consideration. It is an anomalous position. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- If the Senate had rejected it originally, would its hands be tied a second time? {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE: -- I would suggest that of course its hands would be tied a second time because if it had rejected the actual work originally it would be obliged logically and rationally to reject the appropriation for the work itself, and it would not be proceeded with. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- Therefore the problem is with the House of Representatives. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE: -- It may be, but the Senate is faced with a very difficult position, it is a situation which should be avoided if it is at all possible. The Minister has attempted, with due regard for the rights of the Senate, to confer upon it at least some practical participation at all levels of this work. However. it may be that after that courageous attempt the position is not unlike that of the house which was possessed by the devil and then garnished and swept; it was then repossessed by seven devils and its last position was worse than its first position. It may well be that as a result of these amendments the position will be worse than before. That is why we find it very difficult to accept this proposition. However, because it has good features and is a step along the road, and because we feel that after some further consideration it may be possible to discover a formula to satisfy the demands of another place and the legitimate demands of this place, it may act as the unguent that heals what looks to be a very difficult situation. I would therefore propose that after the second reading stage and before the Committee stage a motion for adjournment of the debate on this measure may be moved. It could be laid aside until the Budget session. In the intervening period it may be possible to devise a formula to solve this very difficult situation. We do not want to see conflicts between the two Houses but we do not wish to see the powers of the Senate unduly circumscribed. If I were to come down on one side or the other I think I would prefer to leave the position as it is, with the Senate lacking power of reference to the Committee, being able to receive reports of the Committee but without the power of acceptance or rejection of them, rather than to have the apparent trimmings of power but finally to be presented with a veto written against this chamber in another place. For those reasons I think the Senate should approach this Bill with the very greatest caution. I would be reluctant to be a party to rejecting this Bill, but I feel that I may have to do so. I plead with the Minister to consider the suggestion of a motion for adjournment before the Committee stage of the debate. I would like to hear other speakers on this matter, in fairness, before such a motion were moved. Time might enable us to find a solution to this problem. {: #subdebate-41-0-s1 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP -- in reply - I would be churlish if I did not acknowledge the expressions of congratulations that fell from the Opposition and from **Senator Prowse** who has spoken for the Government. I next refer to criticism of the delay of the Bill. I reject that criticism entirely. Since the suggestion was made by the Committee itself in 1965 or 1966 that the Public Works Committee Bill should be amended it has been the subject of an interdepartmental committee report and also the subject of Government consideration on two or three occasions. The matter has since been referred to the Committee. I have had the responsibility for the Bill in a continuous way so that I could ascertain the viewpoint of the Committee. As I said in my second reading speech, the Bill represents a real improvement upon this piece of parliamentary machinery in that, in respect of important Government proposals for public works, it sets up a joint committee of both Houses comprised of six members of the House of Representatives and three senators. Their task is not to do anything other than to inquire into a project and report upon it. Before this legislation was prepared the report would be made to the House of Representatives. By the provisions of this Bill the Committee will report to each House. After the report is made the question arises of what action should be taken. It has been a provision of this legislation for many years - I think since its inception - that after a report is made to the House of Representatives the work should not be commenced unless the House of Representatives positively passes a resolution that it is expedient that the work should commence. Before the introduction of this Bill the Act provided no procedure whatever for consultation with the Senate by the Government before the work was commenced. This Bill provides that after a report of the Committee has been received by the Senate, the Senate may not only consider the report but it may also pass a resolution that it is not expedient to proceed with the work. That resolution is not final and operative, irrespective of any decision of the House of Representatives, because, if the House of Representatives passes a con trary resolution that it is expedient to proceed with the work, out of that contrariety of the two resolutions comes the legal result that the Government is then authorised to commence the work. In that respect the House of Representatives resolution prevails, but only to the extent of giving the Government legal authority to commence the work. I would have thought that a moment's reflection upon the proceedings of this week would have convinced people of the wisdom of that practice. The Parliament is faced with two contrary resolutions in respect of the site of the new and permanent parliament house and has no in-built mechanism whereby they can be reconciled. **Senator Byrne** has referred to the Electoral Act, a field of legislation in which there is not the slightest analogy with public works. Public works are matters of executive initiation and administration, subject to appropriation by Parliament. Electoral matters are peculiarly the concern of each House of the Parliament and therefore the analogy fails at first blush. With regard to the procedural machinery whereby the Committee has parliamentary authority to inquire into and report upon a project before it is commenced, if after the report of the Committee there is a difference in viewpoint in that the House of Representatives says that it is expedient to carry out the work and the Senate says that it is not, the House of Representatives resolution prevails. I emphasise that that is for the purpose of giving legal authority to the Government, if it thinks fit, to commence the work. But none of those procedures has any impact on or relevance to the Senate's power in its function as a legislative chamber when the Appropriation Bill providing for money to finance the work comes before it. In that respect the Senate has taken a stand and had the complete agreement of the House of Representatives that the Appropriation Bill for matters other than ordinary annual services and capital works is the primary instance of an appropriation. In respect of such a measure the Senate has the power to amend any item by deleting it from the capital works Appropriation Bill, or by rejecting the Bill. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- Or rejecting the item - amending it to the point of rejection. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- If one amended the item by deleting it from the Bill for capital works it would be tantamount to rejecting the item. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- That would be merely a subtlety. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- I am trying to state the position and as quite a few honourable senators are good enough to listen to me I wish to have the opportunity to proceed as clearly as I am capable of doing, because it is a matter of quite legitimate concern to us all. I am saying that the machinery for reconciling inconsistent resolutions as to a particular project concerns only the legal authority of the Government to commence the work. Under this Bill, if the House of Representatives resolves that it is expedient and the Senate says that it is not expedient, there is no legal impediment to prevent the Government from going ahead and commencing the work. But the Government commences the work with the knowledge that it must have the appropriation to finance it. In respect of an appropriation of this character the Senate has to choose to exercise the authority to delete the item from a list of works the subject of an Appropriation Bill. I would be dismayed if there is anybody here who sees in this Bill anything other than a substantial advance along the road of proper recognition of the Senate's function - in the terms used by **Senator Prowse** - in respect of taking part in the reference to the Committee, the report from the Committee and a resolution as to the appropriate action from the Committee, with the qualified right to prohibit the Government's power to commence the work. I stand before the Senate after nearly 20 years experience in this chamber as one in respect of whom the record will show that I have maintained a continuing vigilance for the jurisdiction and authority of this House and as one of whom the record will show that I have never sought on the part of this House the right to assert final authority in areas where it does not belong or to assert that the House of Representatives should be interdicted and that the Senate should prevail. I wish to maintain that record unblemished. These provisions are proper, having regard to the constitution of each House. Let it be remembered that from the practical point of view the report, action on which has to be considered, is a report of a joint committee. My memory fails me when I try to recall a report of this Committee in which there has been any division. My memory similarly fails me when I try to recall any case in which the Committee has divided with the members of the Senate on one side and the members of the House of Representatives on the other. These things, over a history of more than 50 years, indicate to me the extreme improbability that we will be concerned with a dispute where the senators have one point of view in relation to a report of the joint Committee and members of the House of Representatives have another view. As a practising politician with a nose for compromise in what I think you would wish me to say, **Mr Deputy President,** is the traditional pursuit of a practising politician, that would induce me to say that it is not subserving the interests of the Senate to find technical deficiencies whereby in some cases the resolution of the House of Representatives may prevail despite a contrary view on the part of the Senate or to forget the realities of the situation and possibly jettison what both sides have acclaimed as a substantial advance by means of this Bill towards proper recognition of the Senate. I refer next to two other matters that were the subject of some stricture from **Senator Dittmer.** I remind the Senate that the methods by which public works which are required to be referred as a matter of law to this Committee can be exempted from the Committee are stated in these terms: The first is where the House of Representatives has resolved that by reason of the urgent nature of the work it is expedient that it be carried out without having been referred to the Committee. That involves a resolution by the House that by reason of the urgent nature of the work it is expedient to carry out the work without reference to the Committee. The second case is where the Governor-General has by order declared that the work is for defence purposes and that the reference of the work to the Committee would be contrary to public interest - not the disclosure of the work, not the debate on the work, not that the work itself is contrary to the public interest, but that the work is for defence purposes and that reference of the work to the Committee would be against the public interest. That is the time-honoured phrase for committing the judgment of the Governor-General, which is the Cabinet advising the Governor-General, because the Governor-General takes no action in this country on defence matters except with the advice of Cabinet or his Executive Council. Cabinet is the effective organ. There we have committed to the judgment of the Cabinet the decision that the reference of this particular work would be against the public interest. That is language that has been coined for centuries - long before we heard of fifth column, security and intelligence organisations or security in the modern term. If it is a defence work and the reference of it to the Committee is against the public interest then the Governor-General is justified in making a declaration which has the effect of exempting it. 1 do not seek to deny that there may be instances on the record where, if the matter were examined, urgency may have been intermingled in the Governor-General's consideration of the operation of that provision related to defence matters of public interest, but I do go on record as denying that there is any instance in the time of this Government when it could be said that that provision has not been faithfully applied. 1 believe that this measure represents a very workable one for the operation of Parliament, gives the Senate a great deal of satisfaction with regard to its enhanced role in the work of this Committee and creates a Committee in which we all will be justified in having complete confidence as an adviser to the Government upon major public works. I conclude with an acknowledgment, from my experience, of the utmost cooperation I have received from the Committee and an assurance from my Department and myself that we are most vigilant to see that the Committee has every opportunity in relation to the appropriate works committed to the Department, to pass its judgment and to report upon them. I say that because we place great value upon the judgment of this Committee. Therefore I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a *second time.* In Committee The Bill. {: #subdebate-41-0-s2 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP -- As the Bill is being taken as a whole I will proceed to deal with the third of the amendments I have circulated. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- I was going to move at this stage that progress be reported. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- I thought 1 might introduce the amendment, put it on record and explain it; then if the honourable senator expresses a wish that we report progress 1 will move accordingly. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- We will express a wish after the Minister has finished his statement. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- I was about to explain that as we are taking the Bill as a whole it will be permissible for me to proceed with the third of my amendments. That amendment introduces substantive provivisions to which my first and second amendments are merely ancillary. Accordingly I move: >Leave out clause 18, insert the following clause: > >-- (1.) A motion may be moved in either House of the Parliament that a public work be referred to the Committee for consideration and report. (2.) A motion under the last preceding subsection may relate to a public work that has been referred to the Committee as constituted during a previous Parliament. (3.) Upon the moving of the motion, a Minister shall furnish to the House in which the motion is moved - > >a statement in relation to the public work (including the purpose of the work); and > >such plans, specifications and other particulars as the Minister thinks necessary. (4.) The Governor-General may, at any time when the Parliament is not in session or the House of Representatives is adjourned for a period exceeding one month or for an indefinite period, being a time when the Committee is in existence, refer a public work to the Committee for consideration and report. (5.) A public work that has been referred to the Committee in accordance with this section shall not be commenced before a report of the Committee concerning the work has been presented to both Houses of the Parliament. (6.) If. after a report of the Committee concerning a public work has been presented to both Houses of the Parliament and before the work has been commenced, each House resolves that, for reasons or purposes stated in the resolution, the work be again referred to the Committee for consideration and report, the Committee shall further consider the work and the work shall not be commenced before a further report of the Committee concerning the work has been presented to both Houses. (7.) A public work that has been referred to the Committee shall not be commenced unless, after the report of the Committee (or, if there has been a further reference of the work under the last preceding sub-section, the report of the Committee on the further reference) has been presented to both Houses of the Parliament, the House of Representatives has resolved that it is expedient to carry out the work. (8.) If the Senate, after a report of the Committee on a public work has been presented to the Senate and before the work has been commenced, resolves that it is not expedient to carry out the work, the work shall not be commenced unless - > >the resolution of the House of Representatives that it is expedient to carry out the work - > >was passed subsequently to the resolution of the Senate; or > >is confirmed by a further resolution of the House of Representatives passed subsequently to the resolution of the Senate; or > >the resolution of the Senate has been rescinded. (9.) If the Senate bas resolved more than once that it is not expedient to carry out a public work, the last preceding sub-section applies only in relation to the first such resolution. (10.) A public work the estimated cost of which exceeds Seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars shall not be commenced unless - > >the work has been referred to the Committee in accordance with this section; > >the House of Representatives has resolved that, by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that it be carried out without having been referred to the Committee; or > >the Governor-General has, by order, declared that the work is for defence purposes and that the reference of the work to the Committee would be contrary to the public interest.'. It will be noticed that this amendment seeks to leave out clause 18 of the Bill and insert a new clause. Could I just remind the Committee that in clause 18 as printed in the Bill when it came from the House of Representatives, the action that was to be taken by the Parliament upon the receipt of the report was expressed in sub-clause (5.) which read: >After the receipt of the report of the Committee concerning a public work, the House of Representatives may pass a resolution that - > >it is expedient to carry out the work; > >it is not expedient to carry out the work; or > >for reasons or purposes stated in the resolution, the work be again referred to the Committee for consideration and report. It is in respect of sub-clause (5.) that one will find new procedures expressed in subclauses (7.) and (8.) of the amendment. They are in substitution of what is contained in clause 5. In effect those procedures are, as I stated in my reply to the second reading debate a short time ago, that instead of the House of Representatives having the exclusive authority to pass a resolution in respect of a report, after the report is received the Government shall not be authorised to carry out the work unless the House of Representatives has resolved (hat it is expedient to carry out the work. In the consideration that honourable senator's will give to these provisions in Committee, I ask them to note particularly that clause 18 (7.) provides the present position contained in the Act; that is to say, after the report has been received the Act at present provides that the work shall not be commenced unless the House of Representatives passes a resolution that it is expedient to carry out the work. I want to give honourable senators the benefit of my experience over the last 2 or 3 months. I am firmly of the view that the House of Representatives would be unwilling to surrender that right or qualify it. Therefore the likelihood of the enactment of the Bill without a provision to that effect has to be considered by the Senate. If that provision stands in the Bill, the next thing is: What function should be accorded to the Senate? That function is expressed in sub-clause (8.) of the amendment which has the effect of giving to the Senate the right of consultation upon the report and the right to pass a resolution that it is not expedient to carry out the work. That resolution would be effective in preventing the work from being carried out unless there is a subsequent resolution from the House of Representatives in the contrary sense. That is the problem to which **Senator Byrne** addressed himself during the second reading debate and that is the problem to which he wishes to give further thought overnight. Unless any other honourable senator wishes to debate the matter at this stage it would- {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- Have all the amendments been circulated? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- Yes. They have been in circulation for 2 or 3 weeks and are ail contained in the one form. Unless any honourable senator indicates that he or she wishes to proceed with the debate now, I will move that progress be reported. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1718 {:#debate-42} ### COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS BILL 1969 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Anderson)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP -I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. With the concurrence of honourable senators.I incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to new arrangements for Commonwealth assistance to the States for roads during the next 5 years, 1969-70 to 1973-74. The new arrangements were announced by the Prime Minister **(Mr Gorton)** at the Premiers Conference held in Canberra on 13th March. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. They will provide for a very large increase in the Commonwealth financial provision for roads. The total of the proposed grants is $ 1,252.05m- over $500m, or 67%, more than the total for the current 5 year period. 1. The payments of the grants will be phased, so that they increase yearby year in a way that will be consistent with a progressive build-up of road making activities. The amounts payable each year are as follows: 1969- 70- $193m 1970- 71- $2 18m 1971- 72-$242.25m 1972- 73-$279m 1973- 74- $316.8m. 2. After a comprehensive assessment of Australian road requirements had been made, they were designed to bring the amount, distribution and use of Commonwealth roads assistance more closely into accord with relative economic and community needs. 3. Commonwealth assistance, so increased, will be directed more specifically than in the past to the development of particular classes of roads that have high importance from a national standpoint. 4. They will introduce specific allocations for construction of arterial and sub-arterial roads in urban areas, which will help overcome the traffic problems of the larger cities, for construction of rural arterial roads, which are important for the progressive development of an adequate modern highway system spanning the nation, and for planning and research, to promote more efficient roads development in the future. They will provide for substantially increased Commonwealth support for the construction and maintenance of roads, other than the arterial roads, in rural areas. 5. As against the current distribution between States, based upon the somewhat crude criteria of population, area and numbers of vehicles, the proposed distribution would go part of the way in the 5-year period towards putting distribution on an assessed needs basis. But supplementary grants are proposed to mitigate the effects of the transition on the position of the Stales whose propostion of the grants would be reduced. In framing these new arrangements, the Government was greatly assisted by the information and advice furnished by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads which it set up to undertake a thorough survey and appraisal of the existing roads system and of foreseeable roads requirements. The Bureau itself was generously assisted in its work by the various roads authorities of the Slates. We are grateful to them for their help in this great national undertaking. After conducting, in conjunction with State roads authorities, an extensive road needs survey to establish what works would be required to bring the roads system up to standards considered desirable from an engineering standpoint, the Bureau undertook a detailed economic evaluation of those works to assess what expenditure would, in terms of yield to the community, be warranted during the next 5 years and what could be encompassed within the resources likely to be available. On the basis of this analysis, and after estimating the funds likely to be available from State and local government sources, the Bureau of Roads recommended a total Commonwealth aid roads grant for the next 5 years of $ 1,280m. The amount proposed in the Bill is approximately $l,252m. It comprises a principal grant of$ 1,200m, to be distributed among all the States, and supplementary grants to three States. Although the proposed principal grant is 60% greater than the grants for the previous 5 years, we recognised that, if it were to be distributed in a way which in the light of the Bureau's assessments appeared desirable, the flow of assistance to Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania could be too abruptly changed. Accordingly, we decided to provide supplementary grants, totalling approximately S52m, to these States. During the current 5 years, 1964-1969, total expenditure on roads will have amounted to more than $2,500m. That is some 50% more than in the preceding 5 years. It also represents an increase from about 2.1% to 2.2% in the proportion of gross national product allocated for roads purposes. Of the total expenditure of over $2.500m the Commonwealth Government financed approximately $850m and the States and their authorities approximately Sl,650m. This contribution made by the States and their authorities was over 50% more than in the previous quinquennium. If State and local authorities again increase expenditure on roads from their own resources by about 50% over the next 5 years, total roads expenditure could, with a Commonwealth aid roads grant of $1 ,252m,. reach about $3,900m, an increase of about 54%. On the Bureau's analysis, the projects that could be undertaken within such a level of investment in roads could produce returns to the community of 10% or more. It would imply some further increase in the proportion of gross national product going to roads in the period. It would mean that investment in roads would have a higher place in our national priorities. Given a continued strong growth in our gross national product, this should be attainable without creating undue strains on available resources. Provision is made in the Bill to require each State Government to increase its expenditure on roads from its own resources at the rate at which motor vehicles on register in the State increase. This is a minimum requirement and it has been designed so as not to be unduly onerous for any State. It will mean that, if the rate of increase in motor vehicles on register :s about the same as in the past 5 years, the State governments would be required to increase their expenditure on roads from their own resources by about 30%. We hope that the State governments and also local authorities, to which the minimum requirement does not apply, will in fact be able to achieve an increase of at least 50% in expenditures from their own resources. One of the features of the proposed new arrangements is the provision, for the first time, of Commonwealth funds specifically for construction of major urban roads. Some S600m is to be allocated for construction of arterial and sub-arterial roads in the State capitals and major provincial cities. This is a very large sum and it should go far to assist in overcoming the difficult and complex traffic problems of the cities. Besides the allocation for urban arterial roads, there are separate allocations for rural arterial roads and other rural roads. Although it is not proposed to continue the requirement that at least 40% of the Commonwealth aid roads grants be spent on construction and maintenance of 'minor rural roads', the proposed specific allocation for rural roads other than arterial roads should enable a considerable increase in expenditure on these roads to be achieved. The amounts to be allocated for expenditure on the construction and maintenance of rural roads other than arterial roads in each State have been determined by increasing by 5% a year the amount the State is required, under the existing legislation, to spend from Commonwealth funds on minor rural roads from its 1968-69 grant. Over the next 5 years this will yield a total amount of almost $395m. an increase of about $95m on the amount required to be spent on minor rural roads in the 5 years ending in 1968-69. A further amount of almost $1 87m is to be allocated by the Commonwealth for expenditure on arterial roads in rural areas. Thus, there will be a total amount of $58 1m of Commonwealth funds available for expenditure on rural roads under the proposed new arrangements. The States can of course, allocate any portion of their own very considerable roads funds to these roads. Each of the allocations for the three broad classifications is to bc used for the class of roads specified. The amounts are large. In particular circumstances, a State might encounter difficulty in using all of its annual allocation for a particular class of roads because of planning or other delays. Provision has accordingly been made in the new legislation to meet such situations, if they arise. The present legislation requires that any Commonwealth funds not spent on roads by the States during a year be spent within 6 months after the end of that year. In future, a State may, on request, be permitted a longer time within which to spend a particular grant, subject to the Commonwealth being satisfied that every effort has been made to spend the money available within 6 months of the end of the year for which it was available. A State may also be allowed limited transfers between the road classes for which the Commonwealth grants are available. However, it is our firm intention that, wherever possible, the grants should be used only for the class of roads for which they are being made available. We prefer that a State should have a longer time to spend a grant rather than see it transferred for expenditure on another class of road. Transfers will, therefore, be approved only in exceptional circumstances. Honourable senators will see that, in addition to the *allocations* for the three main types of roads, the Bill provides an amount of$1 8m for expenditure by the States on road planning and research. This sum will be available for expenditure on research and planning projects approved by the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Mr Sinclair).** We hope that this will encourage more and better forward planning of programmes of roads expenditure. As to the division of the grants between the States, the Commonwealth agreed with the Bureau of Roads assessment that the present distribution should be modified so as to make a distinct move towards a distribution based to a greater extent on the relative economic road needs. However, as I have said, the Government considered that adoption of either the majority or the minority reports of the Bureau would have meant too radical a change in distribution. In particular, the effect on the existing road construction programmes of the outlying States would have been too abrupt and too drastic. Western Australia's share of $ 1,200m, for example, would have amounted to only$1 60m or less than 20% more than it received in the current 5 years; South Australia would have received only about 40% more. The Commonwealth therefore proposes, as a transitional arrangement, to provide special supplementary grants to these States. These special supplementary grants, which would be 'phased out' by the end of the quinquennium, are meant to ensure that no State receives, over the next 5 years, less than 50% more than in the present quinquennium. That means that no State will receive a smaller percentage increase in its grant than it would have done under the present aid roads scheme. Obviously, roads grants of the size proposed will impose a much enlarged commitment on the Commonwealth Budget. It will involve an average annual rate of increase in the grants over the next 5 years of about 13%, compared with 8% in the last 5 years. That will put it among the fastest growing sectors of expenditure in our Budget. We have necessarily had to weigh financial aspects such as these. But we have also looked at roads development in a much wider context and perspective. Engaged as Australia is today in the rapid up-building of a modern economy, we must see to it that land transport facilities, of which roads comprise a fundamental element, keep up with the requirements of growth. The call on resources is large as roads expenditure is about one quarter of all public works expenditures. But there can be no doubt that, wisely planned and efficiently carried out, roads expenditure can yield big dividends in efficiency of transport and therefore in national productivity. On these grounds, we regard the enlarged financial contribution we are making as being amply justified. Given the co-operation of the States and the municipal and local authorities, we believe that the new arrangements the Commonwealth proposes will open the way to a rapid and rewarding advance in this most important sector of national development. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Cant)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1720 {:#debate-43} ### SUPERANNUATION BILL (No. 2) 1969 {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 22 May (vide page 1486), on motion by **Senator Wright:** That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- This Bill amends the Superannuation Act 1922-1966. It is the result of an undertaking given by the Treasurer **(Mr McMahon)** in November 1968 to make provision for non-contributory units for officers of the Commonwealth Public Service, mainly because of representations from the major Public Service unions. They put to the Treasurer and the Government the disabilities that arise when officers receive increases in salary in the latter stages of their careers in the Public Service and have to contribute for increased numbers of units of superannuation. This can represent a great hardship. In superannuation schemes, when officers are young the cost of superannuation units is comparatively low. A case was made out to such an extent that in November last year the Government decided to make some revision of the scheme. The Opposition regards the revision proposed by the Government as an improvement, but points to a number of anomalies that the High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations has illustrated. While the Council does not seek to hold up this legislation, it is asking that the Government take note of what it says. I believe that it is fair to start on that basis. The Commonwealth Public Service unions argue that the Commonwealth contribution to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund is not at the level of State contributions to superannuation funds. In fact, it is less beneficial than is the case in some of the State funds. When we look at the contribution made by the Commonwealth over the years we find that it has been less then that made by the contributors themselves. The reports of the Superannuation Board reveal that in 1965-66 the amount paid to the fund by contributors was $26,570,117 and the amount paid by the Commonwealth was $22,175,767. In J 966-67 the amount paid into the fund by contributors was $26,307,857 and the amount paid by the Commonwealth was $21,513,562. In 1967-68 the contribution by the Commonwealth increased somewhat to $27,633,207 and the amount paid by the contributors was $28,436,407. The Commonwealth Superannuation Fund is a little different from most other superannuation funds because the Commonwealth Government does not contribute to the fund until the pensions become due. I think most honourable senators have a copy of the representations which were put to the Government and which were dated 12th May 1969. The Public Service unions have put to the Government the submission that the revision which allows an officer to have non-contributory units means that he has to become for evermore an age 65 retiree. Although under the present Act an officer is allowed to nominate whether he will retire at age 60 or age 65, if he takes up non-contributory units he has to retire at 65 years of age. The Public Service unions suggest that this is unjust and should be changed. They suggest that a formula should be worked out which would allow an officer to maintain a retiring age of 60 years. This could be worked out actuarially. Assuredly, superannuation is a very complicated business, but the unions have submitted to the Government and to us that it is possible to provide such a scheme and that such a scheme should be provided. If a contributor takes up non-contributory units, what he is required to do if he decides to retire before he is 65 is to make a lump sum payment representing the amount of contributions that he would have paid until he was 65. This is a disability. Alternatively - this applies to most State superannuation schemes - if he wants to retire before he is 65, although initially he may have been an age 60 retiree he has to take an actuarily reduced pension. The unions say that this is an anomaly which should be corrected. Another anomaly which appears to me to be an important one arises from the fact that this legislation was mooted last November. In November the Government said that it proposed to introduce this legislation. To my personal knowledge and to that of other senators, a number of officers of the Public Service have pointed out the benefits that would have accrued to them. In fact, there are some benefits. They would have liked the legislation to have been passed as quickly as possible. We have a situation in which, because of this long delay from November almost until June in having the legislation passed, a number of officers missed out on the opportunity to receive these new benefits. I do not know what can be done about that; but some concession should bc made to those officers who, in their last years in the Public Service, might have been able to derive some benefit from taking up these non-contributory units. The Government agrees that many officers would experience hardship in paying the amount that they would be required to pay, according to the scale of contributions, in order to receive their entitlement. I do not know what can be done about the matter of retrospectivity. I know that a number of important people have been deprived of benefits because of the long delay that has occurred. It seems to me that what the Public Service unions have argued is substantially correct. If consideration cannot be given to the request from the High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations now, I hope that the Government will consider doing something along the lines I have mentioned at an early stage in the future. After all, the High Council is the ACTU of the Commonwealth Public Service. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate in Hansard the representations of the High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations contained in the letter of 12th May. The High Council, which is a national employee council representing 24 unions with 77,000 members employed in the Public Service of the Commonwealth, has examined the Bill which was presented in the House of Representatives on 1st May 1969. The Council directs your attention to certain provisions of the Bill which in its view are unfair, unjust and unreasonable. At the outset it is of importance to note that The Superannuation Act 1922-1968 is in principle a unitary scheme. Each unit entitles the contributor on retirement, due to maximum age or invalidity, to a pension of $91 per annum, of which the contributor contributes $26 (2/7ths) and the Commonwealth $65 (5/7ths). Expressed in weekly amounts the pension is $1.75 per unit made up of $0.50 contributor and $1.25 Commonwealth. The Superannuation Act also provides for optional retirement at age 60 years or age 65 years. Irrespective of the retiring age, a contributor, on retirement, presently receives the same amount of pension for each unit viz SI. 75 per week. In other words, the Fund contributes $0.50 and the Commonwealth $1.25. The above is a correct statement except in the circumstance where a contributor electing to retire at age 65 years subsequently retires at age 60 years or before age 65 years and accepts an actuarially reduced pension. The provisions of the Bill which my Council find unjust, unfair and unreasonable are - {: type="a" start="i"} 0. all non-contributory units will be age 65 units, {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. an election by an age 60 contributor to take up a non-contributory unit will be to make him thereafter an age 65 contributor for all future contributory units he may take up. All Non-Contributory Units will be Age 65 Units This provision forces an age 60 contributor who meets the hardship test to continue to take a contributory unit. If he desires to retire at age 60 years he would, by accepting a non-contributory unit, automatically extend his retirement date for all future contributory and non-contributory units to age 65 years. In such circumstances, the majority of contributors for pension at agc 60 years would be forced to endure hardship rather than be disadvantaged concerning their date of retirement. Approximately one-third of all contributors to the Superannuation Fund have elected to retire at age 60 years. If the hardship, caused by high contributory rates, eventually forces them to take a noncontributory unit then such a unit is heavily reduced in pension value below the $1.25 per week. I understand that, in certain circumstances, the value could be as low as 5 cents per week. I recommended to all members/senators that they study the examples of the effect of the legislation which I understand the Treasurer is to supply. In particular, I would suggest that a comparison should be made of the pension which a contributor taking a non-contributory unit at age 59 years and retiring at age 60 years would receive as compared with a contributor taking a noncontributory unit at age 64 years and retiring at age 65 years. An Election by an Age 60 Contributor to take up a Non-Contributory Unit will bc to make him Thereafter an Age 65 Contributor for all Future Contributory Units. Section 25 of the Principal Act enables a contributor who elects to retire at age 60 years to take, at any time, future units based on a retiring age of 65 years. It is my Council's view that non-contributory units should be distinguished from contributory units and that contributors at age 60 years should continue to have an option in regard to future contributory units. Unless such an attitude were to prevail, the Fund would eventually become in fact one based on a retiring agc of 65 years because of the cumulative effect of the adverse non-contributory unit provisions as they concern persons who desire to contribute for a retiring age based on 60 years. Having regard to what the Treasurer slated on page 4 of his Second Reading Speech - . . 'AH non-contributory units will be age 65 units - that is, their standard value of $65 a year per unit will be payable on retirement at age 65. This will be so even though all the officer's contributory units have been taken up on the basis of retirement at age 60. To give the age 60 contributor the right to take up non-contributory units on an age 60 basis would give rise to anomalous and unfair situations'. . . . my Council recognises that to grant an age 60 contributor a pension value of $65 per annum for each non-contributory unit would create an anomalous situation in relation to certain provisions in the Principal Act concerning contributory units. However, we see no reason why a noncontributory pension should not have a fixed value at a retirement age of 60 years. The Bill permits the value to range from as low as 5 cents per week. Legislation which it is stated is designed to alleviate hardship and which is allegedly designed to avoid a situation where the Commonwealth makes a saving at the expense of the contributor can hardly claim to do much in that regard when the additional Commonwealth contribution is so low. A suggested appropriate minimum contribution for age 60 contributors is 89 cents per unit or $46 per unit per annum. The figures are arrived at by fixing the pension for a non-contributory unit at age 60 at 5/7lhs of a non-contributory unit at age 65 years. I might add that my Council does not accept that s non-contributory unit for an age 60 years contributor should have a lower pensionable value than a non-contributory unit for an age 65 years contributor. Because of the other provisions in the Bill which are generally beneficial to contributors as a whole, we would not want to firmly press that point at this stage. We would however, want to raise at a later dale the matter of whether the Fund should pay an age 60 years contributor a $1.25 pension for a non-contributory unit. Acceptance of such a principle would require further amendment to the Principal Act. My Council therefore suggests that the Bill would more adequately give effect to the intention of the legislation if: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. non-contributory units were provided at age 60 years, 1. age 60 non-contributory units were fixed at a minimum value of 89 cents per week or $46 per annum, (c.) the provision which requires an age 60 contributor who elects to take a noncontributory unit to take all future contributory units at age 65 rates were deleted from the Bill. In your consideration of the legislation I would be obliged if you would give support to the views expressed herein. Other measures are contained in the legislation, but its main object is to provide the basis of the non-contributory superannuation units. Three tests are to be applied, but I do not intend to discuss them tonight. Having regard to the fact that the Commonwealth superannuation scheme should be the best of all superannuation schemes, it seems to me that the Government should provide a model scheme, as we have argued in relation to workers compensation. I hope that the Government will do that in the future so that the benefits under the Commonwealth Act will be the best applying anywhere. There is no doubt that in the future superannuation schemes will not be almost restricted to a number of governor semi-government employees, as they are now. The number of superannuation schemes is growing every day. Many organisations in industry generally are adopting superannuation schemes. At some time in the future this Government has got to accept some system under which an employee will be enabled to transfer his superannuation rights from job to job even though he may transfer from the public service to a private enterprise shop. Having made those comments, I repeat that the Opposition does not oppose the legislation but hopes that the Government will consider what has been proposed by the High Council. **Senator Dame** IVY WEDGWOOD (Victoria) [11.51] - As **Senator Bishop** has said, the Bill before the Senate is consequential upon a statement made by the Treasurer **(Mr McMahon),** in the House of Representatives on 21st November last. It provides for non-contributory units within specified limits in the Commonwealth Government's superannuation scheme. It also reduces the degree of tapering off of eligibility for pension benefits under the scheme. If I understand the Bill correctly, its provisions do not apply to all contributors but only to some in certain salary ranges. As the principal Act is being amended, I wish to take the opportunity to raise a matter of considerable importance to those married female officers of the Commonwealth Public Service who are compelled under the Superannuation Act 1922-68 to contribute to the superannuation scheme and to those female officers who may marry and be subject to the Act. On page 1 of the small blue booklet issued by the Commonwealth Superannuation Board, under the heading 'Introduction' is set out the basis of the scheme. It reads: >SUPERANNUATION', a pension annuity benefit payable - on retirement (maximum age benefits) on retirement due to ill health (invalidity benefits) on death of contributor or pensioner for: - the contributor's widow (or dependent widower) and children - orphan children on retrenchment The Superannuation Act imposes a dependency qualification on the payment of a pension to the widower of a female contributor. The same qualification exists in relation to the Provident Account. In effect, this dependency qualification imposes a means test on the pension payable to a widower. It also places a widower in the position of having the Board determine that he depended upon the earnings of his wife prior to her death. I contend that this is a mid-Victorian concept and that it is unjust in its application. It negates completely the modern acceptance of the principle of economic partnership in marriage. Paragraph 35 of the booklet to which I have referred reads: >Commonwealth Superannuation provides benefits by a 'benefit purchase' method under which specific contributions are paid to meet twosevenths of the cost of specified amounts of pension. All administrative charges are met from Consolidated Revenue and the employer's share - in this case the share met by the Commonwealth of Australia - is fixed under the Act and is known as the Consolidated Revenue share. The Superannuation Board issues a table which shows the number of units of pension that can be contributed for at each salary level. It is the responsibility of the actuary appointed by the Board to ensure that the fund will be sufficient to meet the cost of its share of pension and other benefits. Spelling out the scheme simply, it is a contributory scheme, it is an investment purchase scheme, contribution rates are related to salary, and pensions are related to units purchased by contributors. A little earlier, **Senator Bishop** said that the subvention was not sufficient, but a subvention is made by the Commonwealth in respect of contributors. The contribution rates of females are lower because of salary differentials. Therefore the pensions paid either to a woman on retirement or, after her death, to the widower or children, are, of necessity, proportionately lower. I would hope that it is assumed that if equal pay for the sexes were to operate in any area of the Public Service contributions would immediately be brought to parity. But, with with or without a salary differential, I believe that the entitlement to pension of a spouse following the death of a married officer should not be qualified by the sex of the deceased contributor. The rate of pension should at all times be related to the rate of contribution. I do not know whether all honourable senators are aware of the fact, but there are curious features within the Commonwealth wage and salary structure. Male positions are created as such at male rates of pay, but those positions may also be occupied by females subject to appropriate pay adjustments. On the other hand, female positions are created as such and are occupied solely by females. I sincerely hope that before long some of the major causes of the dissatisfaction felt by women inside the Public Service will be removed. What I say applies also to areas of dissatisfaction outside the Public Service. For the information of some of the newer members of the Senate I should like to refer very briefly to the ridiculously long struggle that took place before the Public Service Act was amended and the marriage bar deleted, thereby entitling women to permanent office in the Public Service and to superannuation. Prior to 1966 the marriage bar expressly excluded married women from all permanent positions inside the Public Service and the Superannuation Act denied superannuation to married women. The offending section of the Act was inserted in 1922. It was carried into that Act from one that was drafted and became operative in 1902. I have already said that section 4 of the Superannuation Act denied superannuation rights to married women entering the Service since it was passed and abrogated the right to superannuation of all female officers after marriage. Since the end of World War II this has been a cause of great dissatisfaction to women who entered the Services or the work force of the country and remained at work after the war. In 1959 a committee of inquiry into Public Service recruitment was set up under the chairmanship of a very distinguished man, the late **Sir Richard** Boyer. The report to Parliament recommended that section 49 of the Public Service Act be repealed and that the Superannuation Act be amended. It was not until 6 years later - in 1965- that the first hopeful announcements were made. First **Sir Robert** Menzies, then later **Mr McMahon** intimated that an announcement would be made very shortly or that a decision was imminent. In March 1966 the present Prime Minister **(Mr Gorton)** made a similar announcement. In May of the same year **Mr Chipp,** at a conference of women at work, in Melbourne, also forecast that an announcement would be made. At the time a woman journalist wrote a highly amusing article in which she said: >The heralding of the announcement was more appropriate to a performer discarding veils in a Kings Cross strip tease. I thought that was a very good description - the heralding of an announcement. The announcement was made on the second last day of the 1966 sittings of Parliament when the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Bury)** introduced into the House of Representatives a Public Service Bill repealing the offending sections of the Public Service Act and a Superannuation Bill granting superannuation benefit to permanent married female officers in the Public Service. The point I wish to make is that the Senate passed the Bill on the very last day of the sitting prior to the general election in 1966. At that late hour it would not have been appropriate to suggest that the Bill be held over, particularly in view of the fact that such a long time had been taken to get it to the stage at which it was then. The Minister for Labour and National Service has made a number of statements about married women in the Commonwealth Public Service, one being that as a result of the 1966 legislation married women would have career opportunities available to other officers. By that I take it he meant male officers. He said: >The Commonwealth will benefit by being able to retain trained and experienced female officers and to recruit married women. Thus the talents and abilities of these women will be fully used and recognised. The question I pose to the Senate is this: How well have the talents of women in the Public Service been recognised? 1 have here an analysis of the total Commonwealth Public Service employment as at June 1968. The table reads: From those figures it is easy to see that promotion for women in the Public Service has been very stow. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Thursday, 29th May 1969 {: .page-start } page 1725 {:#debate-44} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-44-0} #### Innisfail Experimental Station Motion (by **Senator Anderson)** proposed: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- 1 beg the indulgence of the Senate for a few moments because 1 do not think the matter I am about to mention can be left in case tomorrow no opportunity arises to set the record straight. I do not think any honourable senator would deliberately set out to be unjust, so it was with surprise that I read the Hansard report of question time yesterday. A question, which virtually branded a member of the House of Commons as a liar, was asked by **Senator Sim.** In fairness to the honourable senator, today I sought from him the basis upon which he asked the question. He stated that it was the editorial in the 'Daily Telegraph' of 27th May. In this editorial about **Mr Dalyell** the following statements appear: >He arrived in Australia with the statement that **Mr Fairhall** was lying when he said that no biological warfare equipment had ever been tested at the centre. > >Who is the liar? I decided to seek from representatives of the 'Daily Telegraph' the information on which this editorial was based. I have been in the company of **Mr Dalyell** for practically the whole time that he has been in Australia. I was with him until 6.30 yesterday morning. I was not in his company when he gave the interview at Sydney airport at 7.20 on Friday, 23rd May. The representatives here of the 'Daily Telegraph' searched and found the material upon which the editorial was based. Honourable senators must admit that the editorial is a particularly harsh one. It is based upon two articles, one in the 'Australian' and one in the Sydney Morning Herald' on 24th May. I say that it is particularly harsh treatment of the statement made there by **Mr Dalyell. Mr Dalyell** was endeavouring on his own initiative to seek out why there was conflict between the evidence or information that he had received from Ministers of his own Government - the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Science and Technology - and why these statements continued to conflict with the statement which was made - {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -The honourable senator means **Mr Wedgwood** Benn and **Mr Healey?** {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: **- Mr Morris,** I would say. These statements continued to conflict. **Mr Dalyell** was on a trip to Tokyo and Djakarta. He wrote to me and said that he would like to come to Australia to see the Great Barrier Reef and, at the same time., to investigate Innisfail to find out what the truth of the matter was. That is why I asked a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, The Minister for Supply **(Senator Anderson)** as to whether facilities would be made available to him. Incidentally, I gave the Minister pre-knowledge of the question, a thing that I will never do again, because preknowledge of that question was used to harness material and to use it actually as a club. I suffered that day as a result of that answer. It was all an honest attempt on my part to resolve the matter once and for all. If honourable senators will recall, my questions on chemical and biological warfare were never directed at Innisfail. They were directed to Maribyrnong. The first question that I ever asked on this subject was during the Estimates debate last year. I asked the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator McKellar),** who was in charge of the Estimates debate at that time, whether any money had been allocated or spent on biological warfare. The Minister referred to his Public Service adviser alongside him and he replied to me: No. If at that time I had been as brash as **Senator Sim** was yesterday I would have been free to state then that the Minister was a liar. But I took it for granted that the information that he was giving was perhaps not correct. I followed the information up with another question concerning certain experiments taking place at the defence standards laboratory. It was then that it was admitted that these experiments were being carried out at Maribyrnong. The only time that I raised the question of Innisfail was when **Mr Dalyell** indicated to me that he was coming here. I myself did not believe that any experiments in chemical and biological warfare were being carried on at Innisfail, but were being carried out at Maribyrnong, and the truth of events has since come out. I say that, in fairness to the whole question, **Mr Dalyell** should have been given the facilities to go to Innisfail. The Government refused. I then took the step- {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Anderson: -- Refused? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- No, wait a minute. The Government refused to provide facilities for him to go there. The Minister said: If he is going there, he can go there on his own steam'. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Anderson: -- That is not refusal. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Are members of the Government interested in seeking out the truth of this conflict of information? Apparently not. In any case the Minister for Supply did indicate that he was prepared to allow **Mr Dalyell** to go there and that he was prepared to give a clearance for the place. I took advantage of this. I made an arrangement not only for **Mr Dalyell** to go to Innisfail with the authority of the Minister for Supply. I also sought permission from the Minister for the Army **(Mr Lynch)** to go to the tropical trials testing unit in the Tully complex because, for my own part, I wanted to be absolutely certain that this sort of crossfire of misinformation should be brought to an end. So, we went to Innisfail. We inspected this place. **Mr Dalyell** was satisfied that the unit there had not the capacity to carry out any of the work that it was supposed to be carrying out. He was prepared to admit it. He has admitted it already. Incidentally, we also saw the suit. We took a look at the suit. If honourable senators are interested, there is possibly more than one suit. This suit was kept in the toolshed in an old cardboard carton and alongside that carton there happens to be a map, a bucket and the gardener's tools as well. This is how important that particular chemical and biological suit is. That is an indication of the importance that it has in this area. As far as the British people are concerned, there is a suit at Innisfail under test or under trial. **Mr Dalyell** has a letter from the Minister for Science and Technology which indicates that the suit is under test at Innisfail. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Is that a classified document? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- No, it is not. I will get a copy of it and I will present it to the honourable senator. **Mr Dalyell** has that copy. I did not think that it was necessary to bring it wilh me. He has a copy of this letter which particularly states that this suit is under test. The only test that it has come under is the test that I think the Minister indicated, which is some sort of storage test. It is in the toolshed. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator Anderson: -- For a period of 10 years. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Yes, for a period of 10 years. But there were other questions which had to be asked concerning Innisfail. Questions concerning rumours which persisted concerning an area of 100 acres had not been asked by anyone who went there. There are 100 acres of tropical jungle to the rear of the research unit. The answer that we got was a reasonable answer. The jungle there is kept for environmental purposes, for the study of mould and for the study of the various fungi that grow in that section. I asked a question of **Mr Hindson,** the director of the establishment. I asked: Had any defoliation experiments been carried out in this area? Had any misting experiments been carried out? He said no. He continued: 'Nor will they ever be because it would destroy the area for what it was intended'. This is virtually accepted. At least, it gave me the opportunity to deny what other people were saying. They were saying: Somebody went there and looked at the unit, but what about the 100 acres at the back? What are they doing - here?' We were able to clear that particular area. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- The honourable senator was able to say that at last he believed our Minister? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I will check out any information that is given to me. I think the Minister will agree that I will check any information whether it be by way of the Parliamentary Library or by way of personal inspection. I had the opportunity to go there. I checked it. Let me say also that we went from this unit down to the tropical testing unit at Inarlinga in the Tully area. We saw the colonel in charge. He stated that he could vouch for the area for the last 2 years but not previously to that. He said that certain ad hoc experiments had been carried out previously in that area. He could not vouch for the area prior to that 2-year period. At the present time, no experiments with any equipment capable of CBW were being tested in the area. But he did state that they were carrying out lethality trials in the area. In other words, there was an area of 5 square miles separated out into which high explosives were introduced by shell and other means to measure the penetration. It is possible that these lethality trials are the trials which caused the conjecture in the area that defoliation tests were going on. So, there is reason for investigation and explanation. I asked one more question of **Mr Hindson,** the director of the establishment. This was whether any approach had ever been made for defoliation tests in the area. He said: 'Not any more'. He said that the Department or the defence standards laboratory had made a survey with a view to performing defoliation tests in the area, that certain tests had been undertaken but that they had not proved successful and had been discontinued. I was not able to check this out. So, honourable senators can see that there were certain activities in the area which have never been properly explained and which could have led to the rumours which persisted. In any case, I am quite satisfied that nothing of a chemical or biological warfare nature is being done, with the exception of the testing of clothing, in the area or at the tropical trials testing unit, and I wish that to be placed on record. I think that **Mr Dalyell** was unjustly treated yesterday by way of the questions asked. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- What about the House of Commons? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I do not think it is a fair thing to discredit a person to destroy his case. **Senator Corinack's** question had that tendency. I have read **Senator Wright's** statement. I would submit that when an overseas parliamentarian visits this country for the purpose of checking on the accuracy of information given by responsible Ministers of the Australian Government to their Parliament and their people, the Australian public and members of the Australian Parliament are entitled to be informed as to the credentials of that person, his public capacity and so oh. **Mr Dalyell** was not here - I vouch for this - to check on the information given by the Australian authorities. He was here to check on the information that he was given in the British Parliament. {: .speaker-K69} ##### Senator Sim: -- He had the denial of the Australian authorities. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- He was here- and he will say so - to check on the information that he was given in the British Parliament. Incidentally, the whole paradox of it is that **Mr Dalyell's** views are diametrically opposed to my own. In fact, his views as far as chemical and biological warfare are concerned are those of the Government and this is the astounding thing about it. Reading what he has said, one sees that he agrees that these tests ought to be carried out, that while Russia has stockpiles of these weapons we should be carrying out these tests wherever we can, as long as they are not kept secret. This is the person that the Government has endeavoured to discredit over the last 2 days. His viewpoint is the Government's viewpoint. It certainly is not my viewpoint. In spite of the fact that I do not agree with this gentleman, I was prepared to take him 1,000 miles up the Queensland coast, show him around, and give him the facilities and the courtesy of seeing the establishment. {: .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator Young: -- And be disappointed when you did not find what you hoped you might find. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Nothing pleased me more than to find out that nothing was there. Nothing pleases me more than to see that the Government is taking some initiative at the United Nations level to update the agreement. This is the sort of initiative needed by small nations such as Australia in this particular field of insane warfare. **Mr Dalyell** will be here on Friday. Perhaps some honourable senators opposite will meet him. He is a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. From my experience in the 3 days that I have been with him I accept that he is a man who is truthful, who would not accuse any other person of deliberate lying. I would suggest that the Government acknowledge this and perhaps give some measure of comfort to **Mr Dalyell,** who will be subjected to having to read what is in Hansard and to further attack. I know that he was subjected to a privilege investigation in the House of Commons but what was this for? He was found guilty of a breach of privilege, but the House of Commons is far stricter than we are. We have breached privilege of a similar nature time and again over the last few weeks. He was found guilty of using certain information to wage a campaign against secrecy in experimentation in biological warfare in Great Britain and he won out on this one. Porton Down is now open to public inspection on certain days. I hope that soon the Maribyrnong establishment also will be open to public inspection so we can see what sort of experimentation we are doing in chemical and biological warfare. I think that **Mr Dalyell's** opposition to secrecy in chemical and biological warfare experimentation is sincere and honest. The Government should accept it and in some way alleviate the damage that was done yesterday. {: #subdebate-44-0-s1 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
'Minister for Supply · New South Waits · LP -- in reply - This story originally emerged in the United Kingdom Press before **Mr Dalyell** came to this country. The Press in Australia look it up and referred it to me as soon as it could. The statement was denied by me and it was denied by the Minister for Defence **(Mr Fairhall).** Despite those denials, the story was stilt persisted in by the gentleman in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that he persisted with his denial of our statement. I would be the first to admit that there is clear evidence that he based his original statements on some information that was in the records of the House of Commons, but this was corrected subsequently in the House of Commons by the Minister concerned. Still, there was a persistence in a disbelief of what was said by responsible Ministers in Australia. It so happens that I too saw andheard the telecast in which he appeared when he arrived here. It is my understanding that he gave a qualified statement which he wrapped up, saying: 'If the Minister for Defence says there never has been such and such, he is not telling the truth', or words to that effect. If I were found to be wrong in my hearing and recollection I would be the first to jump in my place to say that I had misunderstood him. Whilst it is true that he qualified his statement, as I understood him he said in effect that if the Minister for Defence said that there had never been any biological and chemical warfare experiments there this was not true, which is a polite way of saying that the Minister was telling a lie. The honourable senator himself admits that the daily newspapers - he cites the 'Daily Telegraph' - stated that **Mr Dalyell** accused the Minister of telling a lie. In all those circumstances, I think **Senator Sim** was perfectly at liberty to say that **Mr Dalyell** was accusing the Minister for Defence of telling a lie. So much for that part. As for the remainder, it is true that **Senator Georges** indicated that he was going to ask a question about it. As I do in similar circumstances with all honourable senators, I got the facts. That was why he told me in advance of his intention. I cannot help it if the facts revealed do not suit him when I give them. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- You mistook my motive. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- I did not mistake the honourable senator's motive. I brought out in evidence a letter addressed to me - I have a copy of it here - signed by **Mr Morris,** the Minister for Defence Equipment. I quoted from it in my reply and the Senate is entitled to have that information. As for the rest of the story, I do not think that we need to go any further. The honourable senator made some reference to defoliation work that was done some distance away from the Joint Tropical Research Unit. It is my understanding that this was a testing of ordinary commercial stuff that one can buy in a shop in the same way as one buys a weed killer. This was a testing of that kind of material. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- But it was done. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- That was never denied. It was a long time ago, and I understand they even got the approval of the local town clerk. I do not think the honourable senator is suggesting that there was any impropriety in that. The member of Parliament from the United Kingdom made it abundantly clear in an interview at the airport on his arrival that he had come here for the purpose of visiting the JTRU to see whether we were telling the truth. To his credit, after he had been there he said that we were telling the truth. He made that abundantly clear. In all the circumstances I think justice has been done all round. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 12.31 a.m. (Thursday)

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 May 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690528_senate_26_s41/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant