Senate
30 May 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (SirAlister McMullin) took the chair at 10 a.m.. and read prayers.

page 1833

QUESTION

MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, because I know of his interest, and of yours, Mr President, in the physically and mentally handicapped people of Australia. In view of the resolution carried last night in Sydney at the National Rehabilitation Conference of the Disabled asking for an inquiry by the Commonwealth Government into and report upon the problems of the mentally and physically handicapped people of Australia - a resolution similar to the motion of which J gave notice in the Senate last Wednesday - will the Minister bring the matter to the attention of Cabinet and request that it set up such a national inquiry with the object of overcoming many of the problems of these unfortunate sufferers and their families?

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

– I believe in the first instance that this matter would be dealt with by the Minister for Social Services. [ can do no more than say that 1 will draw the Government’s attention to the question and the implications of it.

page 1833

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question relating to the debate on the statement about the site of the new and permanent parliament house. Can he advise the Senate whether the Government is prepared to introduce a Bill to give effect to its decision so that, if a disagreement arises between the two Houses of Parliament, the matter may be resolved in accordance with the proper constitutional procedures?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Last night we dealt with a statement by the Prime Minister which made abundantly clear that the Government had decided on the site, having regard to the impasse that had arisen because of the different views expressed in the two Houses. The Government will not bring in a Bill. The Government having already made the decision, that decision remains.

page 1833

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE INVESTIGATION

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Can he say whether an officer of the Department of Trade and industry was interrogated at his office yesterday afternoon by Commonwealth police? Was the officer a clerical officer class 6 in the International Trade Organisation Division of that Department? Was a search warrant subsequently taken out and did some six police officers search the officer’s home and remove certain documents from it? Was the raid carried out at the direction of the Government? Was it in any way related to the search last week of the home of a well known journalist?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I am unable to give the honourable senator any information on the matters he raises, other than that which can be read in the newspapers and that, of course, I do not give. I ask him to put the question on the notice paper.

page 1833

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has he had any discussions this morning with the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? If not, could he do so almost immediately with a view to coming to some decision as to the possible length of the current sitting of the Senate so that all honourable senators now here may be able to finalise their personal arrangements for next week in the event that the Parliament is not going to meet?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is true that a few moments ago I had a discussion with the Leader of the Opposition. I have not yet had an opportunity to have a discussion with Senator Gair, Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, but that is not meant to be discourteous to him in any way. 1 did indicate to the Government Whip this morning to let it be known that it is proposed to suspend the sitting of the Senate at 4 p.m. this afternoon in order to enable honourable senators to return to their home States. If we did not rise at 4 o’clock we could have a situation in which those from far distant States could have to remain in the capital for the entire weekend. In the normal course of events, if we do not conclude our business by 4 o’clock this afternoon, the Senate will reassemble at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday next in order to finish the business paper.

page 1834

QUESTION

ROADS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport whether it is a fact that successive South Australian governments have requested financial aid from the Commonwealth in order to seal the last section of the great national road between Ceduna and the Western Australian border and that those requests have been supported by the Western Australian Government and various tourists and road user organisations. Is it also a fact that originally, during the Second World War, the first construction of this road was done at the expense of the Commonwealth by private and Army engineers? Is it a fact that requests from the South Australian Government recently have been put on the basis that completion of this work would be brought forward many years if it had Commonwealth aid? Has the recent application for assistance been refused?

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

– All honourable senators know of the importance of major highways linking the States and the State capitals. We also know that there is a section of the Eyre Highway, between Penong, I think, and the Western Australian border, which requires surfacing with bitumen. We know also that finance made available to Western Australia under the Commonwealth aid roads programmes is expected to enable that State to finish its road sealing programme. That work covers a distance in excess of 900 miles from the city of Perth to the South Australian border. We know that the Western Australian Government, because of the formula used for the distribution of these Commonwealth road funds, had greater access to them than did South Australia. I understand that because of lack of finance, approaches have been made by the South Australian Government to the Commonwealth for financial assistance. I would think that at this moment that request is being considered. I have not heard that it has been refused. Because of the generous treatment to all States by the Commonwealth under the new aid roads programme, no doubt there will be sufficient funds to carry out extensive road works. If this assistance is not sufficient, no doubt the Minister for Shipping and Transport, on behalf of the Commonwealth, will be looking at ways and means of assisting South Australia to complete its programme.

page 1834

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Was a clerk of the Department of Trade and Industry this morning suspended from duty? Has any charge under any Act of the Commonwealth or of a State been made against this person? If he was suspended and has not been charged, why was the suspension ordered?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have no information on the matter raised by the honourable senator. For that reason I suggest that the question go on notice. If it happens that the Senate concludes its sittings today, I would hope to be able to get a reply to the honourable senator subsequently.

page 1834

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND LAMB

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry give detailed information about imports of New Zealand lamb for the first 4 months or 5 months of 1969? If the Minister cannot give this information now, will he obtain the information for the Senate should it be sitting on Tuesday next?

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

– I do not think I have the information that is sought in the question asked by the honourable senator, but I will get the information for him. I would hope to have it on Tuesday, if the Senate sits on that day.

page 1834

QUESTION

CANBERRA ABATTOIR

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Will he facilitate a debate on the notice of motion in the names of Senator Toohey and myself on the proposal to refer the question of the proposed closing of the Canberra Abattoir on 27th June next to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory before the Senate rises for the winter recess? If the Minister will not agree to a debate on this matter now, will he give an assurance that the Abattoir will remain in operation until the proposal has been debated?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not prepared to facilitate a debate today on this subject. But the affairs of the Senate under General Business, if the Senate sat next Tuesday, would be in the hands of those who have put this motion down. Equally, 1 cannot give any assurance in relation to the substance of the notice of motion.

page 1835

QUESTION

FOOTBALL POOLS

Senator MARRIOTT:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the Minister noted the long distance plea through the Press by the Premier of Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte, expressing the hope that the Federal Government will take action to ban the operation of Nauru-based football pools in Australia? Is the Minister able to inform the Senate what powers, if any, the Federal Government has to ban the operation of Nauru-based football pools in Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have noticed the Press discussion on this matter and Sir Henry Bolte’s keen interest in the conduct of pools in areas in the Pacific adjacent to Australia. I have not come prepared to indicate the powers that the Commonwealth Government may have in respect of this matter, but those that occur to me to mention at the moment are our powers with respect to the Post Office and foreign exchange. As I said on Tuesday in answer to a similar question, the Government is watching the situation carefully.

page 1835

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In the light of my specific question a few days ago regarding the continued delays in the distribution of Hong Kong influenza vaccine in the western suburbs of Sydney, I have received further communications from chemists in that area insisting that supplies virtually are non-existent, and I now ask the Minister: Has this question been investigated specifically?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 note the point that the honourable senator raises that the difficulty is still there. I will take this matter up with the Minister for Health to see what action can be taken.

page 1835

QUESTION

STUDENT DEMONSTRATORS

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that recently the President of the New South Wales Branch of the Returned Services League advocated that student demonstrators should be hit over the head? Will the Minister make a statement deploring this open incitement to violence in an area where the authorities are ever ready to blame the demonstrators?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I did see portion of a news item in relation to this matter. As I understood the statement, in one sense the honourable senator has taken it a little out of context. I would not wish to make a comment on it beyond the general comment that primarily university management itself has a responsibility to ensure that students at universities exercise a form of selfdiscipline in relation to all matters, including demonstrations. The Government as such does not say that it objects to demonstrations. I have said that in this place before. I recall that Senator Devitt and J once had some discussion on this matter at question time. The Government’s view clearly is that the right to demonstrate is a right under our democratic system. But we believe that any demonstrations on any subject should always be conducted within the framework of the civil law. I do not feel disposed to say any more than that at this time.

page 1835

QUESTION

CANBERRA AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Is it a fact that the eight elected members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, who recently resigned in a body because of the Cabinet decision to close the Canberra abattoir and for other reasons, cannot legally be replaced until the term for which they were elected expires late in 1970? What provision is to be made to give the people of Canberra a voice and a vote on local questions affecting their interests and welfare in the meantime? Does the Government believe it proper to take decisions on questions of very great local importance when the basic essential of a democratic society, namely, elective representation of the community interest, is virtually nonexistent?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I ask the honourable senator to place his question on the notice paper. In view of the fact that the Senate will be in recess for some time, I will obtain an answer from the Minister for the Interior and send it to the honourable senator.

page 1836

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Is the Minister for Customs and Excise aware that firms engaged in the manufacture of motor tooling parts are putting off employees for want of work because the manufacture of these parts, which previously was carried out in Australia, is now being done overseas? What tariff protection is given to Australian firms manufacturing motor vehicle parts to allow them to compete with overseas firms with cheap labour conditions?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I had not heard that any Australian manufacturers of tools are putting off employees because of lack of orders. But I can advise the honourable senator that if firms are finding difficulty in competing with overseas imports they have open to them the machinery under which they can apply for assistance or ask the Special Advisory Authority to look into their problem. An immediate decision can then be given while the Tariff Board makes an examination of the matter. That is the method of overcoming this problem.

page 1836

QUESTION

CANBERRA AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator DEVITT:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government or the appropriate Minister in the circumstances. Is the Minister aware that elective representation on the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council can almost certainly be restored speedily if the Government agrees to refer the question of the closing of the Canberra Abattoir to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory? Would this not be a highly desirable situation, particularly since the Minister for the Interior has invited the representatives on the Advisory Council to continue in office for the remainder of their terms?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As I understand the position members of the Advisory Council resigned of their own volition. In the circumstances it seems to me that it would be completely inappropriate for them to say that they will come back under certain conditions.

Senator Devitt:

– The Minister has invited them.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Exactly: The Minister has invited them to accept their responsibilities again. I would be very surprised if the basis for that invitation was that the Government would vary its decision. I think the proper thing to do is to leave this matter at the level of discussions between the members concerned and the appropriate Minister.

page 1836

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE FORCE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Will the Minister representing the Attorney-General ascertain whether six Commonwealth Police officers yesterday invaded the privacy of a Canberra citizen’s home and took possession of private articles that could have been of no use in launching a prosecution? Was the person concerned told that if he attempted to leave Canberra he would be arrested? Will the Minister insist on the return of this person’s private papers and the restoration of his freedom to travel, having regard, to the fact that he has not been charged with an offence?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator has referred to police interrogation and matters associated with it. I wish to make it quite clear that it is not the practice, nor will I initiate such a practice, to answer questions on current police investigations. We all know that it is impossible to be informed as to the whole scope of a police officer’s inquiries from hour to hour and day to day. Questions about legitimate matters of public concern will be answered but not as to details of police investigations that will lead to a report and possible action. Such a report is for the consideration of the Commissioner of Police and may give rise to a decision to prosecute. If there is any public complaint with regard to impropriety by the police at any time, by all means ask a question; but questions which, if answered, would interfere with the efficacy of police investigation of suspected crime are not appropriate for parliamentary debate.

page 1837

QUESTION

INCOME TAX

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Does the Minister representing the Treasurer feel that sound reasons exist for the request that payments by ratepayers for road making, kerbing and footpaths should be made allowable deductions for income tax purposes? Will he urge the Government to give close consideration to such a request during the forthcoming Budget discussions?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have some personal views about this matter which I. would not project at question time. I will refer the question to the Treasurer.

page 1837

QUESTION

SMOKING

Senator ORMONDE:

-I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Government decided to engage in an extended advertising campaign drawing attention to the danger of excessive smoking? Can the Minister give the Senate any information about the Government’s general activities regarding an anti-smoking campaign?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I understand that advertising is primarily a matter for the States. I do know that there have been conferences between the State Ministers and the Commonwealth Minister. I shall place before the Minister for Health the point raised by the honourable senator.

page 1837

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

(Question No. 1136)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Did a Mr W. A. McKinnon, an officer of the Department of Trade and Industry, call at night at the home of Mr J. F. O’Brien, another officer of the Department; if so, was the purpose of the visit to persuade Mr O’Brien to submit bis resignation to the Department?
  2. Was Mr McKinnon acting on instructions from senior officers of the Department of Trade and Industry?
  3. Did Mr O’Brien agree, subject to certain assurances, to resign?
  4. Was one of the assurances sought by Mr O’Brien that Mr G. C. Hoffmann, an officer of the

Department of Customs and Excise, who was being charged with an offence under section 55 of the Public Service Act, should be dealt with leniently?

  1. Was the assurance of Mr Alan Carmody, the Comptroller-General of Customs, on the extension of leniency to Mr Hoffmann sought and obtained?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 and 2. The Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry, has informed me that Mr W. A. McKinnon was present at Mr O’Brien’s request for most of the time while the Commonwealth police interviewed Mr O’Brien. Mr McKinnon subsequently called at Mr O’Brien’s home. He did this on a purely private and personal basis and not on instructions from senior officers.

  1. The Secretary has informed me that the resignation was submitted unconditionally.
  2. The Secretary has informed me that Mr O’Brien did not seek any assurance in relation to the treatment of Mr Hoffmann as a condition of hisresignation.
  3. No.

page 1837

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND LAMB

(Question No. 1150)

Senator WEBSTER:

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

  1. What quantity of New Zealand lamb, both frozen and fresh, has entered the Australian market in the past 6 months?
  2. Into which States has the lamb been imported?
  3. Is it considered by the Government or by representatives oflamb producers that the volume of lamb has affected or is affecting local lamb prices, both wholesale and retail?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 and 2. The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that during the 6 months ended March 1969 imports of fresh, chilled or frozen lamb from New Zealand amounted to 98.3 tons, of which 32.7 tons were imported in March. New South Wales and Victoria were the only States which imported lamb from that source during the period. The quantities involved were 55 tons and 43.2 tons respectively.

  1. Imports during the 6 months ended February 1969, which is the latest period for which production statistics are available, were equivalent to less than 0.1% of Australia’s lamb production of 167,832 tons during the same period. Such a small quantity of imports could not have had any significant effect on the prices received by Australian producers.

page 1838

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 1177)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. In January 1966, were ten Aboriginal girls in their early teens, at Yuendumu Native Settlement, accused by the Superintendent of having broken into an old disused store and, without a trial, compelled as a punishment to pick up stones from the roadway and place them in drums at the side of the road?
  2. Did this punishmentlast for 2 days and was the temperature in the area in excess of105 degrees?
  3. On the third day, were these girls compelled to pluck with their fingers the lawn in front of the office?
  4. Was a protest against this treatment made to the Superintendent of the settlement who refused to discontinue this inhuman punishment?
  5. Did the Superintendent refuse a request that the Assistant Director be called to the settlement to receive a protest against such punishment?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1.Ten teenage Aboriginal girls, several of them married, admitted breaking and entering into a cottage occupied by an Aboriginal family, entering an unoccupied staff residence, and breaking louvers in the pre-school and infant welfare centre. These offences occurred during the weekend of 8th and 9th January 1966. Several of the girls had been involved in conduct of an undisciplined nature on an earlier occasion. Because of their age and problems of transport to and accommodation at Alice Springs, the Superintendent decided that the best course of action was to discuss the behaviour of the girls with their husbands and parents rather than referring the matter to the police in the first instance. The guardians of the girls and previously suggested that the girls be sent to Ernabella Mission or to Areyonga settlement. The Superintendent considered this action too drastic and the husbands and parents concerned agreed that the problem should be dealt with by disciplinary action within the settlement. Each girl was given the task of picking up pebbles from the roadway outside the settlement office and placing them in drums provided. This task was alloted because it was not arduous and the girls were working where the Superintendent could exercise some supervision. The ‘Superintendent reported that the girls were in good spirits as they worked.

  1. The girls worked at this task for 2) days. The temperatures at the time, as provided by the Bureau of Meteorology, were: Monday, 10th- maximum 88, minimum 77; Tuesday, 11th- maximum 84, minimum 74; and Wednesday, 12th- maximum 97, minimum 69.
  2. No. During Wednesday, 12th January the girls were given the task of hand weeding the lawn outside the settlement office.
  3. Mr R. W. Nichols, senior mechanic at Yuendumu at that time, made a protest to the Superintendent about the work assigned to the girls. The Superintendent took no action over this protest as Mr Nichols was not aware of the circumstances of the matter.
  4. Mr Nichols requested that the Acting Assistant Director for the southern area be asked to visit the settlement. He was informed that the Acting Assistant Director was to visit the settlement the following weekend when Mr Nichols was free to take up the matter with him. Mr Nichols did lodge a formal complaint with the Assistant Director on 13th January 1966. This complaint was discussed by the Assistant Director with Mr Nichols who was subsequently given a written reply to the effect that the Assistant Director was not prepared to pursue the complaint any further with Mr Nichols.

page 1838

QUESTION

LAMB PRODUCTION

(Question No. 1246)

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Will the Lamb Industry Panel, which is investigating lamb production in New South Wales, visit other States to study production conditions and costs so that it will have an appreciation of problems in all States?
  2. When will this panel be making its first report, including views on the effect of the importation of New Zealand lamb?
  3. Will this be before the main production periods for Australian lamb so that necessary steps can be taken if it is found that the importation o New Zealand lamb is having an adverse effect?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

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

  1. The Lamb Industry Panel, established by the Minister for Trade and Industry in January last is not concerned with the survey referred to by the honourable senator. As announced by the Minister for Primary Industry on 23rd April 1969, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is carrying out a survey of prime lamb producers in the Oberon Shire of New South Wales. The purpose of the survey is to collect information on costs and returns of prime lamb producers, but it is in no way concerned with imports of New Zealand lamb. The results of the BAE survey in the Oberon Shire cannot be finalised until the full financial details in respect of 1968-69 become available from the properties surveyed. As the work proceeds it is proposed to extend the survey to other major lamb producing areas. 2 and 3. The Lamb Industry Panel was established to maintain a constant review of the Australian lamb market as it might be affected by imports of lamb from New Zealand. The Panel is to assemble all relevant information and provide advice to the Government on the impact, if any, on the Australian market of future imports of New Zealand lamb.

page 1839

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I present the eighth report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 1839

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION 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:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act empowers the Commission to acquire and hold shares in an incorporated company. The Commission was given this authority by a 1968 amendment to the Act which was introduced on the occasion of the Australian National Line’s proposed entry into the Australia - Japan shipping trade, the purpose of the amendment being to enable the Commission legally to enter into joint ventures in shipping.

The Government’s joint venture arrangement with the member lines of Associated Container Transportation Ltd, which provides for the operation by the Australian National Line of a container ship in the Australia - United Kingdom - Continent trade, is of this type. However, the Government is also proposing to acquire a share of the Australian land based facilities which are used to service the container ships, and which are owned by the ACT Lines, so as to ensure access to all costs and revenue details of the container ship operation.

Three companies, up to the present, have been formed to own, operate and manage land based facilities of the ACT group in Australia. These companies, which are Trans-Ocean Containers Ltd, Freightbases Ltd, and Terminal Properties Ltd, have been formed fairly recently and are not yet fully operational or fully capitalised but will eventually own and control substantial assets in the form of land, buildings and container handling equipment.

The Commission’s investment in these Australian land based facilities will be effected by taking a one-third share of the ACT lines’ equity in the three companies. In consequence the Commission will hold one-third of the equity in Trans-Ocean Containers Ltd and Freightbases Ltd and one-sixth of the equity in Terminal Properties Ltd, the equity in Terminal Properties Ltd representing the same share of the ACT group’s half equity in this company. The total cost of buying into these land based facilities in Australia is yet to be finally assessed, but will be in the order of $250,000.

The companies formed to establish the land based facilities are substantially owned by shipping interests but they will not be engaged in the provision and operation of shipping services as such and it is doubtful whether the present powers of the Commission are sufficiently wide to enable it to acquire the desired interest in these facilities. The purpose of this Bill, therefore, is to ensure that the Commission has the necessary powers. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 1839

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment to the States in 1968-69 of special revenue assistance totalling $14m. This includes assistance of $12m which was announced at the Premiers’ Conference held in Canberra on 13th March and which is to be divided between the States in proportion to the financial assistance grants payable to them this year under the formula laid down in the States Grants Act 1965-1968. It also includes $2m which, following representations from the Premier of South Australia concerning the financial position of his State, the Government proposes to pay to South Australia in addition to its share of the $12m.

Pinal estimates of the financial assistance grants payable to each State in 1968-69 are not yet available. However, it can be expected, on the basis of current estimates, that the distribution of the grant of $12m will be approximately as follows:

With the proposed additional grant of $2m, the estimated amount of special assistance to South Australia would thus be $3.35m. As these grants are non-recurring, they will not be added to the base for purposes of calculating the 1969-70 financial assistance grants.

As honourable senators will be aware, the bulk of Commonwealth revenue assistance to the States is in the form of general revenue grants which increase every year under the formula laid down in the States Grants Act 1965-1968. This formula virtually ensures that, over a period of years, the grants grow at a higher rate than the economy as a whole. For 1968-69 it is currently estimated that the formula grants will amount to $995m, an increase of $88m, or 9.7%, compared to last year.

Despite the substantial estimated increase in the formula grants the States made representations to the Commonwealth before and during the Premiers’ Conference that they were faced with difficult budget problems this year. They emphasised particularly the effect on their budgets of the timing of wage awards. As the grants formula includes an element which reflects increases in wage costs, the Commonwealth did not regard increases in such costs as a ground justifying the provision of special assistance. In view of current economic trends the Commonwealth was also anxious to avoid taking any action which might stimulate a further increase in Government spending.

At the same time, the Commonwealth appreciated that the States were faced with budgetary difficulties this year and that some further Commonwealth assistance should be provided. Accordingly, it was agreed that the special assistance of $12m decided upon at the Premiers’ Conference in March should be made available on the understanding that it would be used to improve the States’ prospective budget results rather than to add to State expenditure this year. As I have already indicated the decision that South Australia’s share of the $12m should be supplemented by the payment of a further $2m has been taken following representations from the Premier of South Australia. The Government considered that special budgetary difficulties being experienced in that State warrant the provision of this additional help. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 1840

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill, in conjunction with six associated Bills which I shall introduce shortly - to interpolate here, I may well incorporate in Hansard the second reading speeches on those Bills - is to provide for the imposition and collection of stamp duties on a range of instruments and transactions connected with the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay. In making the decision some time ago that stamp duty should be imposed in the Australian Capital Territory, the Government took the view that, with the marked growth of Canberra both as a city and as a centre of business, it was fair and reasonable that residents of the Australian Capita! Territory should bear certain taxes comparable with those levied on residents of the States.

One influential factor in the formation of this view was the general consideration that residents of the Australian Capital Territory are provided with Governmental services the range and standards of which compare favourably with those provided to residents of the States. There was also the special consideration that, although efforts have been made by State Governments to prevent it happening, the Australian Capital Territory is being used as a ‘Tax Haven’ through which transactions are put to avoid certain State stamp duties. Some of the State governments have made strong representations to the Commonwealth seeking its cooperation in preventing this loss of State revenues.

In considering which instruments and transactions should be made subject to duty, the Government has regarded as an important matter the probable costs of collection in relation to the revenues likely to be produced. It has concluded that it would not be appropriate to impose duties in the Territory on the same wide range of instruments and transaction as is generally liable to duty in the States. The proposed duties are, therefore, confined to those that will diminish the use of the Territory to avoid State duties, or that can be justified in terms of expected revenue yields.

It is necessary, for technical reasons, to enact a number of measures to give effect to the proposed duties. However, each of the measures is an integral part of the one legislative scheme and I think, therefore, that it would be most convenient for honourable senators if in my speech on this Bill - which provides all the administrative machinery - I explain the scope of the proposed duties as a whole.

It is proposed that the duties will be administered by the Commissioner of Taxation and that they will be collected by means of systems similar to those used by State authorities for collection of State duties.

An enterprise in the Territory that is regularly involved in dutiable transactions - such as a bank, insurance company or hire purchase company - will generally be able to make a monthly return to the Commissioner setting out dutiable transactions for the month and forwarding with the return the duty payable for the month. In other cases, payment of duty will be shown by affixing duty stamps or by the impressment of a duty stamp on a document produced to the taxation office.

As is usual in our taxing laws, there are provisions obliging the Commissioner and his officers to maintain secrecy as to the affairs of taxpayers. There are also provisions giving a taxpayer dissatisfied with an assessment of duty a right to lodge an objection against it with the Commissioner. If the Commissioner disallows the objection wholly or in part, the taxpayer may request that the decision be forwarded for review by a taxation board of review constituted under the Income Tax Assessment Act. An appeal against a board’s decision involving a question of law may be made to the Supreme Court of the Territory.

The duties will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed and will not in general affect instruments or transactions completed before that date. I mention at this point that a general exemption from all the proposed duties is to be provided for public hospitals, public benevolent institutions, religious institutions, public educational institutions and for visiting diplomatic personnel and their families. The exemptions for a diplomatic mission in Australia are conditional upon reciprocal treatment being afforded an Australian mission in the country represented here.

Referring now to the various subjects and rates of duty proposed, I mention first the duty to be imposed on cheques drawn on a branch of a bank in the Territory. The proposed rate is Se for each cheque. Dutiable cheque forms issued by a bank will bear an authorised imprint indicating that duty has been paid. The duty on cheques will be paid by the issuing bank in the first instance and the bank will account for it to the Commissioner by means of monthly returns. The bank will be authorised to recover the duty from its customers. It is also proposed that hire purchase agreements made in the Territory be subject to duty. The proposed rate is H% of the purchase price payable by the hirer in accordance with the agreement, but not including the amount of his deposit or any terms or insurance charges. No duty will be payable where the purchase price does not exceed $100.

Companies or persons who carry on in the Territory a business of letting goods on hire purchase may have their names recorded by the Commissioner of Taxation as registered owners. The liability to pay the duty on agreements will be imposed on the registered owners who will, as is the case under corresponding New South Wales law, be able to recover it from hirers of goods. The duty will be paid monthly by the registered owners who will be required to lodge returns with the Commissioner giving details of dutiable agreements that have been made during the particular month. Owners who do not wish to be recorded as registered owners may, however, pay the duty by affixing stamps to hire purchase agreements.

As to insurance business, it is proposed that duty be charged at the rate of 5% of premiums received in the Australian Capital Territory by insurers in respect of insurance of real or personal property located in the Territory and of other classes of insurance that are effected in the Territory. There are, however, specific exemptions proposed for some classes of insurance. Exempt classes will include life insurance, personal accident insurance that is undertaken solely in connection with life insurance, compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance and workers compensation insurance. The monthly return and remittance system will apply in respect of the duty on insurance premiums, in much the same way as for the other duties I have described. While initially liable to pay the duty, insurers will be authorised to recover it from their clients.

A duty is also proposed for transfers of shares and debentures of companies and of rights to take up such securities. This duty will be collected by two different methods. For the moment, however, I will speak only of duty which will be collected through what is known as the broker return system. The broker return system will apply in respect of transfers through brokers of securities listed on a stock exchange, where the transfer is made for full consideration. Duty will be payable where a purchase or sale Of this kind is made in the Territory by a broker on his own account, or is made anywhere in consequence of an order given to a broker in the Territory by a client.

Under the broker return system, duty is payable separately on the purchase and sale sides of a transaction. The system is in use in all the States and there are uniform rates of duty in all States. It is proposed to adopt these rates also in the Territory. The system is designed so that when one side of a transaction is dutiable in one State and the other side in another State, the two States share the duty between them, but the aggregate duty does not exceed what would have been payable if the transaction had been wholly dutiable in one State. With the Territory’s adoption of the system, State duty will be payable on the side of a trans-action dutiable in a State, and Territory duty on the side dutiable in the Territory. Full duty will, of course, be payable in the Territory where both sides of the transaction are arranged in the Territory.

The general rate of duty proposed for transfers of marketable securities under the broker return system is 40c in each $100, or part thereof, of the value of the securities transferred. Where the value of the securities is, however, less than $100 the rate will, in effect, be 10c for each $25 or part thereof. These are, of course, the aggregate rates, half of which is payable on the sale side of the transaction and the other half on the purchase side. Brokers will be liable to pay the duty but may recover it from their clients. As with other duties referred to earlier, brokers will be required to lodge a monthly return and remit with the return the duty payable for the month. It is not proposed to levy duties on transfers of Government bonds or stock, or of securities issued by local government bodies or by public authorities constituted under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth.

As part of the comprehensive stamp duties to be imposed by this legislation, conveyances of freehold land in the Territory and grants and assignments of leases of land in the Territory will be subject to duty. The stamp duty will take the place of the transfer fees at present charged on conveyances and transfers of estates in land under the real property ordinance of the Territory. Payment of duty on conveyances will be shown by adhesive or impressed stamps on the relevant instruments. For a transfer of freehold land the proposed rate of duty is $1 for each $100, or part thereof, of the value of the interest transferred. This basis of duty will also apply in respect of a transfer of a Crown lease granted for more than 5 years. For other transfers of leases, including Crown leases granted for 5 years or less, the rate of duty will be the same as I have just mentioned, but it will be imposed on the consideration given by the transferee.

The remaining dutiable case is the grant of a lease, other than by the Commonwealth. For a grant of a lease, it is proposed that duty will be payable at the general rate I have mentioned on the consideration given by the grantee, other than by way of rent, and at the rate of 30c for each $100, or part thereof, on the total rent payable for the specified period for which the lease is granted. In each case the liabilitity for duty will fall on the grantee or transferee. There will be no duty on the grant of a Crown lease.

Duty is also to be imposed on other classes of instruments, which I mention separately because, while they are of the same nature as cheques and transfers of listed securities, they cannot readily be brought within the systems devised for imposition and payment of duty on cheques and transfers of listed securities. Payment of duty on these classes of instruments will be indicated by means of adhesive or impressed stamps. Duty is to be payable at the same rate as for cheques - 5c per instrument - on bills of exchange and promissory notes either drawn, made, negotiated, presented for payment or paid in the Territory.

Transfers of securities of a company which are not dutiable under the broker return system, for example because the securities are unlisted or the transfers are for less than full value, will be dutiable at the rate of 5c for each $12.50, or part thereof, or the unencumbered value of the securities subject of the transfer. This duty, which is effectively at the same rate as for transfers coming under the broker return system, will be payable in respect of transfers of securities on a register maintained in the Territory by the company that issued them. A memorandum giving comprehensive explanations of technical details of the legislation is being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1843

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (CHEQUES) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As copies of my second reading speech have been circulated, with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate the speech in Hansard.

The basic purpose of this Bill is to impose a duty of 5c on cheques drawn on branches of banks in the Australian Capital Territory. I have already outlined the scope of the cheque duty in my speech on the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1843

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAX (HIRE-PURCHASE BUSINESS) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

The purpose of this Bill, in association with the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Bill which I introduced a short time ago, is to impose a duty on hire-purchase transactions entered into by registered owners of goods in the Australian Capital Territory. As I said in my speech on the earlier Bill, the rate of duty is proposed to be H% of the purchase price of the goods, excluding any deposit paid and certain other charges. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1844

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAX (INSURANCE BUSINESS) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable seantors I incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

This further Bill associated with the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Bill which I introduced a short time ago has as its primary purpose the imposition of a duty on certain insurance premiums received by insurers in the Australian Capital Territory. The rate of duty proposed is 5% of premiums received. As I explained in my speech on the associated Bill, duty will be payable in respect of insurance on real or personal property located in the Territory and on certain other classes or insurance that are effected in the Territory. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1844

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAX (SALES OF MARKETABLE SECURITIES) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

This is another Bill associated with the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Bill. As I explained in my speech on that Bill it is proposed to impose duty separately on the sale and purchase sides of transfers of listed securities made through brokers for full value. This Bill will declare and impose the rates of duty in respect of the selling side of these transactions. The rates proposed are 5c for each $25, or part thereof, of a sale price of less than $100, and 20c for each $100, or part thereof, of a sale price of $100 or more. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1844

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAX (PURCHASES OF MARKETABLE SECURITIES) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

This Bill, also associated with the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Bill, deals with the rates of duty in respect of the purchasing side of transactions in listed marketable securities. It thus complements the preceding Bill introduced, and it imposes the same rates in respect of purchases of securities as the preceding Bill imposes in respect of sales. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1844

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY STAMP DUTY BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As copies of the second reading speech have been circulated, with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate the speech in Hansard.

This Bill is the final measure necessary to complete the legislative scheme of the proposed stamp duty for the Australian Capital Territory. It imposes duty on conveyances of freehold land and on grants or assignments of leases of land in the Territory. I gave full details of the proposed rates of duty on these conveyances in my speech on the principal associated Bill, the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Bill.

It also imposes duty on bills of exchange and promissory notes, other than cheques, that are drawn or made in the Territory and on hire purchase agreements and instruments of transfer of marketable securities where duty is not payable on the basis of monthly returns under any of the other taxing measures I have already introduced. The proposed rates for these were also stated fully in my speech on the Australian Capital Territory Taxation (Administration) Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1845

PATENTS BILL 1968

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

page 1845

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 May (vide page 1799), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

Senator O’Byrne raised one or two points, which I will answer quite briefly. He said that he should get additional information, and in reply to this I can say that we in the Department of Customs and Excise have really nothing to hide. If he wants additional information we are only too happy to give it to him. As he knows, all customs tariff proposals have to be introduced into the House of Representatives because they are financial measures. For that reason, when we discuss them in this chamber, they have already been introduced with second reading speeches in the House of Representatives. If the honourable senator wants information additional to that which is provided in those speeches we are only too pleased to co-operate with him. I undertake to discuss the problem with him, if he so desires, before a future Bill is introduced so that this problem can be overcome.

The honourable senator raised the question of the duty on rotary lawnmowers coming in from New Zealand. He mentioned that it did not seem quite fair that although we are reducing the duty on lawnmowers and phasing it out over the period of the next 4 years from 221/2% down to nothing in 1971 or 1972, during this period the New Zealand manufacturers could bring their lawnmowers, which are made with engines imported into New Zealand, into Australia to compete with the Australian manufactured machines. The proposal is that only lawnmowers which are imported from New Zealand without engines will receive the benefit of the concessions provided by the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Therefore, there will be no change in the duty referred to in Part II of the First Schedule, which relates to lawnmowers with self-contained power. Part V of the Fifth Schedule refers to cylinder lawnmowers imported from New Zealand without engines. The duty on lawnmowers which are driven by an air-cooled engine not exceeding 10 horse power is 30%. The duty on lawnmowers which are imported from New Zealand without engines is 22i%. That duty will be phased out over a period of 4 years. From 1st January 1972 there will be no duty at all. That means that there will be a reduction of 71/2% each year. But the lawnmowers must be imported without engines. The Government hopes that Australian engines will be used in these lawnmowers.

Senator O’Byrne also raised the matter of the duty on sorbitol. He said that the Australian manufacturer of sorbitol, the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd, advised the Special Advisory Authority that it wanted protection because of a large increase in imports at very reduced prices. It appears that certain manufacturers can obtain sugar at a very cheap price for the manufacture of sorbitol. I understand that about seven-eights of a ton of sugar is required to manufacture a ton of sorbitol.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The ratio is ninetenths of a ton of sugar to a ton of sorbitol.

Senator SCOTT:

– The honourable senator informs me that nine-tenths of a ton of sugar is required to manufacture a ton of sorbitol. The price of sugar in Australia is about four times the price of sugar available to manufacturers on the open market. As a result the Australian manufacturers were experiencing great difficulty in competing with other countries. In fact, in 1966 Australian manufacturers supplied about 90% of the market in this country, but by 1967- 68 that figure had fallen to below 40%. The Special Advisory Authority has introduced special concessions to assist the Australian manufacturers until such time as the report of the Tariff Board is received. Those are the three main points raised by Senator O’Byrne. I thank him for informing me that the Opposition does not object to the Bill. I also thank him for his cooperation on this occasion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1846

EXCISE TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 May (vide page 1493), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This Bill amends the schedule to the Excise Tariff Act 1921-69 and its purpose is to reduce the rates of excise duty on canned apricots, peaches, pears and mixtures of these fruits. It is rather an interesting development in this day of subsidies and assistance to primary industries that reductions to the extent of 30c per dozen 29 oz cans to 5c per dozen 29 oz cans with equivalent reductions for other can sizes should be proposed. It is also of interest, and perhaps honourable senators would be pleased to know, that since 1963 the funds that have come to the Australian Canned Fruits Board as a result of this excise duty have provided the wherewithal for the Board effectively to compete by way of advertising on the international market The campaign was so successful!, particularly in penetrating the West German market, that it led to a complaint from our main competitor, the United States of America, and an agreement was reached last year with; the United States that the payment of market development allowances would be discontinued this year in certain significant markets for the chief variety exported, namely, peaches.

The industry itself has built up and maintained a very high standard of canned fruit of this nature and it should be complimented on this standard. The market that has been achieved is a substantial contributor to our export trade, particularly now that the Board has reached the point where it can finance its advertising and its market penetration. The fact that it can advise the Government that a reduction in the excise duty is possible reflects credit on the administration of this industry. As the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) pointed out in his second reading speech, there has been consultation with our main competitor countries, particularly the United States of America and South Africa, and there will be more consultation with the object of exploring areas of cooperation between the various countries to see how much more reciprocity can be achieved in developing the export of canned fruits. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. We feel that it concerns a most important industry which is maintaining its position well in a time of difficult competition. We wish the industry well and we wish this measure a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1846

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1968-69

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 May (vide page 1575), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I have the indulgence of the Senate to suggest that in debating the second reading of this Bill honourable senators might also debate Appropriation Bill (No. 4), Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2). At the conclusion of the debate separate votes can be taken on each Bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Is the suggestion made by Senator Anderson acceptable? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator CANT (Western Australia) 111.21] - The Opposition will not oppose any one of these four Bills, but I take the opportunity to speak on matters that are not really connected. This is an opportunity for an open debate. I want to address myself to conditions that apply in the remote areas of Australia, particularly in the mineral industry, and I refer to conditions affecting the employment of the workforce.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! I point out to the honourable senator that this is a second reading debate. We are not debating the first reading of the Bills so he cannot roam over a wide area. He must restrict his remarks*

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I bow to your ruling, Mr Deputy President, and cease my remarks, but I will continue them on the first reading of the taxation measure.

Senator CAMERON:
South Australia

– Through you, Mr Deputy President, I should like to express my thanks for the welcome I have received to this chamber. It was a very warm welcome. The circumstances leading to my sudden appearance in this place were very sad, particularly for me personally as the late Senator Keith Laught was our family lawyer and a very close family friend. I cannot replace him within his family circle. However, I shall do my utmost to replace him within this House. I hope that I shall be able to attain the high standing and the same reputation that he obviously enjoyed here. I realise, Mr Deputy President, that the very important matter of appropriation is before us, but I understand that in a senator’s maiden speech the accepted custom is for that senator to be shown some indulgence in respect of the subject matter of his remarks, and I accept your indulgence.

I should like to speak, firstly, about the connecting link between Port Pirie and Adelaide, which will connect Adelaide to the trans-Australia railway from Perth to Brisbane. The project to construct the link from Port Pirie to Adelaide so far has the appearance of a rudderless ship. The time has come when, unless South Australia is to be left out on a limb, action must be taken. The Broken Hill to Cockburn section will soon be completed, as honourable senators are probably aware, and this will leave South Australia in an invidious position in relation to markets for the products of its secondary industries. A large proportion of our secondary industry relies on interstate markets, particularly our consumer goods industries. I have been quoted a figure of 80% for the consumer goods that are produced in South Australia that are marketed interstate. There is a very good reason for this. South Australia enjoys a central position in relation to the major markets for these goods. However, this central position will be of no advantage to us unless we have a connecting link to the markets both to the east and to the west.

These days Australians are being urged to think nationally, and I understand there has been some criticism of my fellow South Australian senators about their parochial attitude. This is understandable because South Australia is a small State. Of necessity our case must be continually pressed. I feel that if this rail link is not completed as soon as possible South Australians could tend to become even more isolated in their outlook. I know that I have the support of my fellow South Australian senators in this matter. I know that they share my concern about the possibility of industries passing us by because of the lack of a rail link and lack of access to markets. The South Australian economy is now on the mend under the able administration of Premier Steele Hall. To support that claim I wish to quote from the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ of Wednesday, 28th May. Under the heading ‘Signposts to South Australia - Upsurge’ the Premier is reported to have said:

One company, Briotex Plastics, had considered moving to Sydney but now believes that South Australia is the up and coming State.

It would be very disappointing if at this stage any setback to the South Australian economy was suffered because of the lack of a rail link. We are improving in all areas. I refer particularly to employment, migration and job opportunities where improvement is taking place, but these developments could easily be frustrated by a lack of progress on the rail project.

While I am dealing with transport I turn to a matter that was raised in the Senate today at question time. I believe it is of great concern to all South Australians and should be of concern to all Australians. I refer to the sealing of the final section of the Eyre Highway to provide a continuous road link on Highway 1 between Perth and Sydney. The people of South Australia were most concerned after the Commonwealth Aid Roads conference when the Premier of South Australia said that he was bitterly disappointed about the treatment that South Australia had received. I have a close knowledge of this man and I know that he would not make that statement without some justification. A comparison of the special grants quickly shows the justification for the Premier’s remark. The grants were loaded towards Western Australia, which received $40.8m, while South Australia received $9m.

South Australia has been very careful in the past with its resources and road grants. I believe that under the proposed new formula South Australia is receiving a setback because of its careful attitude in the past. The section of the Eyre Highway to which I have referred has given us as a nation some extremely bad publicity in recent years. I refer, for example, to the recent London to Sydney car rally. This section of the road was mentioned in headlines all over the world, I imagine, and particularly all over Australia. It was referred to as the horror section of the national highway link. I consider that the conditions that gave rise to that publicity are a national disgrace. The cause of it should never have existed and should be rectified as soon as possible. We tend to show our lack of national spirit by not ensuring that the highway is completed.

In yesterday’s edition of the Adelaide News’ there was a report that the honourable Murray Hill, the South Australian Min ister for Roads and Transport, had said that the sealing of the Eyre Highway between Ceduna and the Western Australian border had become a national issue. I believe that to be entirely correct. Mr Hill is reported to have said:

I find an immense amount of interest in this subject both in Melbourne and in Sydney where tourists complain bitterly about this section oi road.

Criticism has also come from the South Australian General Manager of the Royal Automobile Association who said that the Eyre Highway is clearly a Commonwealth project and not a State project, and that it is unfair to expect South Australia to complete this work of national importance from its own road grants. South Australia cannot be expected to put a high priority on this road, for two major reasons. One is the lack of population in the area, and that reason would be obvious to all honourable senators. The second reason is very well explained by the governments of South Australia and Western Australia in a joint submission. They point out that over 80% of vehicles using the road are registered in other States. In other words, South Australia does not receive much revenue from that particular section of the road. In recent years the use of the road has increased by about 70%. I am citing the figures used by the South Australian and Western Australian Governments in their joint submission. I hope that the recent refusal of the Commonwealth Government to proceed with work on the road is not connected to a possible loss of revenue by the Commonwealth Railways after the road link is completed. The figures used in the joint submission were, of course, prepared by the South Australian and Western Australian Governments. After studying them, I believe that they are correct. One figure cited showed what I thought to be a degree of conservatism. It referred to an annual consumption of motor spirit calculated on the basis of vehicles obtaining 25 miles per gallon. They must be very good vehicles, because I have yet to see a modern vehicle that will average that petrol consumption. So I believe that the figures used must be to some degree conservative.

The honourable member for Grey (Mr Jessop) in another place has been pressing this issue consistently and I give him my support. He is reported in Hansard to have said about the Eyre Highway:

This road is a classic example of where the Commonwealth interest should override State interests. I think it is fair to say that this road is of greater importance to interstate travellers than road users within the State.

He went on to say as I have just said, that 80% of the vehicles using the road are registered in other States, and that about 62% of the people using the road do not live in South Australia. I support him entirely in this matter and I expect to continue to support him in his move to get this connecting road link completed.

I wish to comment on the supplementary grant of $2m recently granted to South Australia to overcome budgetary difficulties brought about by circumstances beyond the control of the South Australian Government. I feel that it was unfortunate that the announcement of the grant was followed so closely by the Commonwealth Government’s refusal to consider completion of the road link to which I have just referred. The grant cannot help but be regarded in South Australia as a sop. To overcome this attitude I urge the Government to add this amount to the base amount given to South Australia each year.

It may seem to some honourable senators that all South Australian senators have a complex about water, but the facts of life in South Australia make such an attitude inevitable. It is the driest State of Australia and over the years water has become increasingly a major problem, I draw the attention of the Senate to an aspect of our water supply obtained from underground in the south eastern area of South Australia. It is essential that that water resource be used in that area, as quickly as possible. There is a great opportunity in that area of South Australia for expansion of both primary and secondary industries, based on the use of this major water resource. We have already seen this year the establishment in that area of a new pea processing factory, at Millicent. Undoubtedly it is only the beginning of a large vegetable processing industry that will be able to compete on favourable terms with the competition that is obviously arising from New Zealand under the New Zealand-Australia Free

Trade Agreement. There is a very cheap and readily available water supply in the area, which is also very handy to the markets for the goods produced by this industry.

In the past some drainage work has been carried out in the area to correct certain problems that arose from surplus water. However, some rethinking is being done about this and an investigation has now been started by the State Government. The results will not be known for some time. Undoubtedly this subject needs a lot more thought than was put into it in the past and I know the present State Government will give it much more consideration. I support the Bill.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I want to address myself to the conditions of employment of the work force in remote areas of Australia, especially in the mineral industry. Many of the ventures to which I will refer were established as a direct result of overseas investment and the use of overseas contractors to carry out work in this country. Overseas investors come here and purposely set themselves to break down the industrial standards that have been built up by the workers and their organisations over a long period of years. This should cause concern, but it has not been raised in this place on a previous occasion.

The only objective of overseas investors is to exploit Australia’s resources for the purpose of making profits. How they make their profits is of little concern to them. The safety, health and welfare of the Australian work force is of little concern to them. Their only interest is in making profits. This situation should cause concern to every one in this place and it should be of special concern to those who sit on the other side. The past efforts of the workers and their organisations created the situation that allows all of us here to sit in this place. The conservatives who first came to this country never intended to allow democratic government here. The feudal system was intended to operate. However, the activities of the political rebels who were transported to Australia eventually resulted in the adoption of the form of government that we enjoy today, and there can be very much criticism of that form of government. All I say to honourable senators opposite is that that which went before constitutes that which exists today, and they should never forget it.

It is timely for attention to be drawn to the activities of those who control the industries to which I refer, especially those in isolated areas. Such activities are increasing every day in the outback areas where they cannot be policed. Over the years, overseas investors have been encouraged to come here. The Government has relied upon the funds that they have brought so that it could achieve a reasonable balance of payments. We are living in a hire purchase system with a standard of living that we cannot afford. We mortgage ourselves every day to continue our standard of living. The companies engaged in the work to which I am referring adopt an air of benevolence. They do not attempt to explain that the weekly income of the worker is arrived at by acting in complete contempt of the principles of a 40 hour week and a 5 day week. These conditions in Australian industry were won by the long and expensive work of the workers’ organisations, by the loss of many millions of dollars in wages and by the loss of the lives of many Australian workmen. The epitaphs of many people who fought for the conditions that exist here now are carved on the gum trees in the outback of New South Wales and Queensland. The people who enjoy these conditions should remember that they can lose them quite easily if they allow the present activities of the companies to continue.

The conditions laid down for the Australian work force are being completely ignored by the large exploiters. In some industries the employees work for 7 days a week and 12 hours a day. In other industries they work for 6 days a week and 10 hours a day. I think I will be able to explain my point much more easily if I deal with the industries that work a 10 hour day for 6 days a week. The employers point to the amount of money in the pay packet. In most of these industries it ranges from $100 to $130 a week.

Senator Sim:

– They are quite happy about it.

Senator CANT:

– I am not happy about it. They receive no more than the minimum award rate and in many instances the rate the employees receive is less than they would be entitled to receive if they were in a place where proper supervision could be provided. The benefits that accrue to the employers from this system of work are not taken into account. To get 120 hours of work each week, under this system the employers need only two employees instead of three. The consequence is that the employers make immense savings. They must pay overtime rates for the extra hours worked by the two men, but in the final analysis the true ‘benefit flows to the employer and not to the worker. The worker surrenders the benefit of his leisure time, which could be spent with his family, for the convenience and benefit of his employer. Quite recently an employee who had worked for 60 hours during a week was required by ‘his employer to work for an extra day, but he had already arranged to take his family on a picnic. The employer told him: ‘If you do not go to work today, you may lose your house.’ This is an example of the stand-over tactics that are used when workers are engaged in these one horse towns with one employer and nowhere else to go.

The employer benefits by having to make provision for the payment of only two lots of annual leave instead of three. He has to make provision for the payment of only two lots of holidays instead of three. He has to make provision for payment of only two lots of long service leave instead of three. I might add that it would be very unlikely when one considers the enormous turnover of labour, that anyone would have an entitlement to long service leave. The employer has to make provision for payment of only two lots of sick leave instead of three and pay workers compensation premiums for two workers instead of three. If any over-award or bonus payments apply in the industry, he has to make provision for only two lots instead of three. Bonus payments are not considered, generally, in overtime payments. Therefore the worker does not get anything extra from this.

Under many awards additional allowances are payable for work done in certain conditions. Where these payments are applicable, the employer has to pay only two lots instead of three. Most awards in these areas provide that, under certain conditions, the employer must pay fares to and from the place of engagement. Where this situation exists, the employer has to make provision for only two workers instead of three. By working long overtime the employer avoids the necessity for shift work and the payment of shift work allowances. In these remote areas in certain circumstances the employer must pay the cost of transportation of the worker’s household goods to and from the place of engagement. Where this happens the employer is liable in respect of only two workers instead of three.

There are other matters to be considered, such as the supply of tools, protective equipment and loss of clothing, etcetera, where the employer has to make provision for two workers only instead of three. Most of these towns are company towns where, by agreement with the State governments, the company provides everything - houses, police stations, schools and all amenities. In the case of single men, the companies provide all living quarters, catering facilities and toilet facilities etcetera. By working shifts, as these companies do, they have to provide for only two single men instead of three. This represents a considerable saving for the employer. With respect to married men, the employers provide housing and therefore have to provide only two houses instead of three.

When we add all these savings we find that the employer makes a profit on the work and the overtime. This is not a profit as a result of production in the industry but a profit made as a result of avoidance of the obligations set out in awards and industrial agreements. The worker does not share in the profit. He gets the bare minimum rate and, overall, this costs the employer nothing. In order to make profit, employers in these industries ‘break down the conditions that workers’ organisations have built up over the years. Are these the type of industries that we want in Australia? I do not hear anybody on the Government side saying yes. Do we want overseas funds coming to this country and being used to exploit our resources while at the same time these people break down our standard of living? What do we gain in these circumstances? The import of these funds may have the effect of giving face value to our balance of payments but in the process of covering up the economic ineptitude of the Government we should be ever vigilant to protect that which we have established over the years.

Senator Greenwood:

– Established with the aid of those very funds you now want to deny to us.

Senator CANT:

– I do not want to deny anything. All I want to do is to see that these people act responsibly and obey the laws of the land to which they come.

Senator Sim:

– ‘What action has been taken by the trade unions?

Senator CANT:

– Plenty of action has been taken by the trade unions and the honourable senator is the first one to condemn them when they use their industrial strength to try to force the employers to grant them some equity in the industry. It is said by some people that unless overtime is available workers will not go to these isolated areas. To me this only provides an excuse for what is being done. It is a clear indication to me that ordinary wages paid in these industries in isolated areas are depressed. In answer to Senator Sim, I would point out that it is said that there are boom conditions in Western Australia at this time and that they are mainly in the mineral industry. He knows as well as I do that since Christmas there have been fourteen strikes at Kambalda and ten strikes at Mount Tom Price. Each of those strikes represented the efforts of the workers to get a share of the socalled boom conditions that exist in Western Australia. The honourable senator should walk along the streets and ask the ordinary people of Western Australia what they are getting out of the boom. They will tell him that they get nothing. Whilst it is advertised that the average wage in Western Australia is $68 a week, there are many thousands of workers living on less than $50 a week. The basic wage there is $38.50. These are the sorts of boom conditions said to exist in Western Australia.

The very high rate of labour turnover in these industries tends to prove that the wages paid in them are depressed. If the wage rate in an industry is adequate for the service given and the conditions under which it is given, then the workers will be attracted to it. They will not be attracted: otherwise.

Senator Greenwood:

– The honourable senator is not suggesting that workers have not been attracted to all these mineral developments in north west Australia, is he?

Senator CANT:

– I would say that these industries have been a big attraction for workers all over Australia but the rate of labour turnover in them is an indication that, having arrived at these localities and secured employment under the conditions existing in the industry, the workers have quickly left.

Senator Greenwood:

– Yes. They make a lot of money in a short time.

Senator CANT:

– If the honourable senator believes that a 300% or 400% labour turnover is an indication that they are making a lot of money in a short time then I dispute that idea. To me it is an indication that they go to these areas thinking that they are going to make a lot of money in a short time but when they see the conditions under which they have to work they are not satisfied to remain. They leave very quickly. By leaving after a short time only, they relieve the employer of the obligation to pay their return fare. Surely it is not thought that a married man would not like to have some leisure time to spend with his family? Married men who work for these lengthy periods have not very much time available to spend with their families.

Only within the last few days, legislation has been passed by the Senate to allow these mining companies to establish television stations. So, this amenity is to be provided. It is not being provided for the benefit of the worker. He is not home to look at television. It is provided for the purpose of keeping his wife happy so that she will not be agitating to get out of the place.

Senator Webster:

– Why does the honourable senator say that it is not provided to keep the worker happy?

Senator CANT:

– Because the worker never sees it.

Senator Young:

– Does the honourable senator mean that the man works for 24 hours a day?

Senator CANT:

– Unlike the honourable senator, the worker does some work and occasionally has to have some rest. He can not spend all the time that he has away from work looking at television. By depressing the wage rate, the employer is able to apply an economic lash to exploit the work force. Do not get any ideas that we have moved very far away from the days of the caveman when the lash was applied to those people who did not conform. The capitalist society does not use a rawhide lash but it uses an economic lash on the worker. It is a part of the compulsory arbitration system that keeps the workers in subjection all the time. We do not hear any howls from honourable senators opposite when the grocer puts whatever price he likes on the pound of butter on his shelf or charges for that commodity or any other commodity that may be in short supply whatever amount he wishes. But, if the worker wishes to put a price on his labour when it is in short supply laws are applied against him and his organisation. He is not allowed to do it. We cannot have a free economy and at the same time tie one section of it. That is what some people are trying to do in this country today.

Senator Wright:

– There is no law that prevents anyone from putting his own price on his labour.

Senator Webster:

– Of course there is not.

Senator CANT:

– Of course there is. If the Minister wishes to be fully aware of the industrial conditions which operate in this country - he thinks that he is aware of them - he should examine not only the Commonwealth legislation but also the State legislation. If he looks at the legislation passed in Western Australia in 1952, which followed the 1951 legislation enacted by this Government, he will find that a strike exists if two workers discuss the withdrawal of their labour.

Senator Wright:

– I do not believe it.

Senator CANT:

– The Minister does not have to believe it. It is in the Act. He may read it.

Senator Wright:

– I will send for it.

Senator CANT:

– I hope the Minister is able to read. I know that he is able to talk a lot of nonsense at times. The provision is there if the Minister wishes to have a look at it. The Act is No. 5 of 1952. The exploitation of the work force allows an employer to increase his profits. It seeks a ball and chain work force and introduces the process of eroding labour conditions.

Senator Webster:

– The worker did not have to accept the job in the first place. What is wrong with the honourable senator?

Senator CANT:

– Of course he did not have to accept the job. Unfortunately, he has to eat. Senator Webster, with all his brains and ability, to date has not been able to find a way to enable men to exist without eating. If he could, probably the capitalist system would adopt it.

Senator Gair:

– He could always be put on the grass.

Senator CANT:

– A licence would have to be obtained from the Country Party to do even that. The fact that the employment conditions are unsatisfactory is borne out by the number of strikes that occur. I have just referred to that fact. Kambalda is a nickel venture which will return to the Western Mining Co., and those associated with it many, many millions of dollars. The workers are unable to get a share of that return. They have had to go on strike in order to try to get a fair share of it. But, as soon as they do, the restrictive laws are applied against them.

Senator Wright:

– Every issue on which they go on strike is subject to arbitration.

Senator CANT:

– It is subject to the penal provisions. I do not know whether the Minister calls that arbitration or not. I certainly do not call it arbitration.

Senator Wright:

– That comes much later than arbitration.

Senator CANT:

– I do not think that it does. I have been engaged in this jurisdiction a little longer than the Minister has. I know that the first thing that happens in Western Australia is that an application is made to the court for an injunction to stop a threatened strike. Never mind about whether the workers are on strike. Even if they have threatened to go on strike or someone assumes that they will threaten to go on strike, an application is made to the court. I know that applications have been made to the court in Western Australia and the unions have not known that a strike existed. Yet, the employers are able to make applications to the court to force workers to go back to work. I have referred so far only to overseas investors. I wish to refer now to the contractors who come to this country and exploit the work force by avoiding the conditions that we have built up over the years and the arbitration and conciliation procedures with which, I take it, my colleagues opposite concur. For some weeks now, there has been industrial strife with the divers employed in the oil industry. The Australian Financial Review’ of 27th May reports:

Attempts to end the strike by deep sea divers on oil rigs, now in its fourth week, appear to have collapsed and other unions have moved towards a tougher position.

A meeting of unions affected in Perth yesterday approved use of sanctions against the drilling ship Glomar Tasman, drilling for the Woodside-Burmah group at the Madeline No. 1 site on the northwest shelf, unless the divers’ union is recognised.

Honourable senators opposite talk about arbitration and conciliation. Here is an organisation that comes to this country and will not even recognise that there is a union involved in this matter. It will not negotiate with the union in any way. All it wants to do is pick off one diver, and talk to him, then pick off another diver and talk to him, but not to talk to the union that represents the organised work force. The newspaper report states that the dispute: . has already led to about 100 metal tradesmen on the Barracouta platform in Bass Strait stopping work in protest against company actions against the divers and against a Seamen’s Union ‘black ban’ on boats manned by its members supplying the Barracouta platform on Glomar III. . . .

The strike is against Divcon International, subsidiary of a United States owned diving company. The other diving contractor on oil projects, Deep Sea Divers, is not affected.

The company to which I refer is Divcon International. The report goes on to state:

Divcon has refused to recognise the association or negotiate with Mr McDonald, a free lance union official, as it claims neither represent the men.

This is not a wild cat strike. It has been taken up by the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council. The report states:

Secretary of the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council, Mr J. Coleman, said yesterday’s meeting of unions had agreed to use sanctions, such as refusing to supply equipment and goods other than food to the Glomar Tasman, unless Div- con recognised the union.

The transport, watersiders, seamen’s, Australian Workers and metal trades unions were involved.

How can conditions of labour be negotiated with these people if they are not prepared to recognise the recognised organisations of the work force? These people are allowed to come to this country, to. operate in this country and to break down all of the conditions for which we have fought. We may pay for it in the long term if we allow this to continue and if action is not taken to tell these people, when they come to this country, that there are industrial standards in this country and that those industrial standards must be observed.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– We are dealing with four Bills which have been joined together for the purpose of debate. There are two Appropriation Bills and two Supply Bills. The Appropriation Bills deal with the updating of the economic and financial situation to June 1969 in what may be called an operating sense in the first instance and a capital sense in the second instance. The Supply Bills, on the other hand, make provision for a sum of money which, it is estimated, will cover the expenditure required to be undertaken in a period of approximately 5 months from 1st July 1969, subject, of course, to adjustments to be made in the Estimates and the full Appropriation Bills and Supply Bills when the Budget is brought down. The Supply Bills are also in two groups - opering supply and capital supply.

Having regard to that, I believe that we in this chamber of review are entitled to look at the general economic situation as it appeared last year and as it appears looking ahead, because unless the economic situation as it appears looking ahead is one that gives us confidence we should give serious consideration to whether we are justified in appropriating supply at a certain rate. So, the past has some bearing on this matter and .the future has some bearing on it, too. The past has some bearing on it because it is the carrying forward of economic factors that allows predictions to be made of levels of income and expenditure. I believe, as I have said before, that the Senate is a very good place in which to look at the economic problems of the country and the trends that come out of an examination of the economic situation.

I suggest to the Senate that it is very useful for anybody who is interested in this matter to have regard at this stage to the Treasury White Paper which was issued in April and which made a review of the country’s economic performance up to 31st March - that is, a period of 9 months. This allows one to make judgment on the way things have been running and the kind of situation we may have at the end of the financial year. When we look at the Budget presented by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) last year, we find in it a number of estimations of what would happen, a number of policy ideas, a general assessment of how the economy should operate and what the economy should be able to achieve, and a statement of the total Government measures that should be adopted in an economic sense to achieve a certain range of results.

This may be summarised by saying that the Treasurer was aiming at achieving a continued high rate of economic growth; he was aiming at achieving increased employment; he was aiming at achieving increased earnings; he was aiming at achieving and hoping for, with the aid of the weather and overseas markets, increased rural income; he was predicting increased mining income; and he was trying to see whether he could achieve some slowing down of the rate of increase in total government expenditure, particularly in the Commonwealth Government sector.

I have had a fair amount of work done on this matter. I do not want to go through the results of it in detail, as time is precious to us all. But there are honourable senators who have an interest in this matter, as I have. I asked the Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service to go through the White Paper presented as at the end of March and to prepare for me a schedule setting out the general aims of the Budget presented on 13th August test year and alongside them the situation as at 31st March this year on the best available evidence. I wish to make some brief comments on this schedule, but with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate it in Hansard.

for discipline on the part of all of us in all levels of government, I point out that the Commonwealth Government, with which we deal here, has done its best to reduce its rate of expenditure. I think the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) is to be commended on having achieved that in the face of tremendous demand. International reserves increased by $198m, equal to 4.7 months of imports at the 1967-68 rate - a traditional method of looking at the reserves position. The position was a slight improvement on that of 12 months earlier. Credits with the International Monetary Fund had increased again and represented 2.3 months of imports, giving an import cover of 7 months. This is a remarkably high figure for a country with the pressure on development funds experienced by Australia. It must be borne in mind that funds in the International Monetary Fund are not normally available for import cover. They are a last line of reserve to protect the currency. But added together they give a total view of a country’s economic strength. Our strength in that regard is quite good.

Net apparent capital inflow continued at a high level and, as has been said, permits us to maintain our rate of growth, our development, our living standards and our migration rates. There has been an increasing proportion of portfolio investment in the capital inflow and of institutional loans. This, in 1964-65, represented about 7.5% of the total inflow whereas in 1967-68 it was of the order of 44.7%. The employment situation is tightening. There is the usual shortage of skilled labour but some slack remains to be taken up. This is happening with the use of increased overtime and the increasing use of female labour, including married women. The migration target of 160,000 is likely to be exceeded by 10,000. Commercial building is booming but this type of activity has a sort of cyclical character, tending to surge and level off. The comment given to me is that an additional factor adding to the commercial building boom is the uncertainty surrounding building restrictions likely to come into force in Sydney under the town planning scheme. To avoid these restrictions applications for approvals for new buildings have been made fairly well ahead. Investment in mining is booming. There is some unused capacity in other industries, particularly glass and machinery manufacture.

Turning briefly to the rural sector the comment would be that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated that the gross value of total rural output for 1968-69 will be $3,567m compared with $3,069m in 1967-68 - an increase of $498m or 16%. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard a table showing production statistics in respect of wheat, barley, oats, wool, cattle slaughtered, sheep and lambs slaughtered, sugar cane and whole milk.

I submit that the appropriation and supply position - how the money we appropriated last August is balancing up at the end of this financial year in the Appropriation Bills; how the supply we propose to allocate forward for the next 5 months should be examined - must be seen in the context of an economy that is running extremely well and is being extremely well managed. The conclusion I draw from this is that we are justified in agreeing to the appropriation. We are fully justified in our confidence in appropriating supply forward at the rates indicated. To put it in simple terms, as I see the situation at the moment it is not one that calls for any expansionary budget or expansionary force in the economy. The need would rather be for a budget and for economic management by all governments which would sustain the high growth rate but at the same time do everything to maintain price stability.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I wish to refer to three matters. I trust that I will not unduly delay the Senate. I am disturbed by the answer that I received yesterday to a question that I asked on 22nd May about a contract that had been awarded to a Mr Ron Barassi of Melbourne. I think Senator Little is suggesting facetiously by interjection that I am taking up this matter because Mr Barassi is coach of a certain football club in Melbourne. This has nothing to do with the matter that I place before the Senate. The answer that I received yesterday seems to indicate that the normal procedures followed by Commonwealth departments in obtaining furnishings and other departmental requirements were not followed in this instance. The answer clearly indicates that tenders were received only from six firms. I am raising this matter because one of the persons who tendered - this is a matter of confidence between him and me - feels that the system adopted in this instance did not provide for top security of tenders submitted. I would like to know whether this claim is true. Probably the normal procedure would be for tenders to be placed securely in a box or other receptacle until the closing date and then for tenders received to be considered.

Senator Webster:

– Were tenders called by newspaper advertisement?

Senator POYSER:

– Tenders were not called. Six persons were invited to tender. I stress this point because i it seems to be a departure from the established system whereby the Commonwealth enters into contracts with suppliers. To clarify this matter for Mr Barassi and other people concerned I would like to see tabled the documents relating to the contract that was let The answer to my question reveals that the factory of the successful tenderer was examined by an officer of the Department of Works to ascertain whether the company which supplies Mr Barassi’s company was able to supply furniture and furnishings of the standard required under the contract.

Senator Wright:

– What point do you make of that?

Senator POYSER:

– I do not know whether the same facilities were available to other companies that submitted tenders. I do not know whether the Department of Works investigated them to see whether their work was up to required standard. I submit that all tenders should have received equal treatment.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why did you not ask for that in your question?

Senator POYSER:

– Because this information has now been made available to me in reply to my question. I asked whether tenders were called. I was told that tenders were not called. Additional information has now been given to me to indicate that a departmental officer visited the furnishings manufacturer to ascertain the quality of his product. The answer to my question does not reveal that everybody who tendered had the advantage of having his work inspected by an officer to see whether it was suitable.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The manufacturer could have tendered.

Senator POYSER:

– It is worth inquiring why a manufacturer was not invited to tender.

Senator Greenwood:

– You are smearing without seeking information.

Senator POYSER:

– I am seeking information. I am concerned, just as Senator Greenwood should be concerned, to see that dealings between the Commonwealth and its suppliers are carried out as we believe they should be carried out and as we understand they used to be carried out - by providing specifications and calling tenders in the normal way. I would like the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) or the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) to tell me whether the furnishings involved in the order that was placed are very costly. I do not expect to receive this information today but I would like it by letter or by way of an answer in this Senate next week or during the Budget session. I have been told that a table that is to be placed in the Commonwealth members’ rooms is costing a fantastic amount. I do not propose to quote it because I cannot verify it but I am asking the Minister to look into it. The information that I have been given - and again I cannot verify it - is that each leg of the table cost about $800. I am asking for information about the matter. I do not know the facts myself and cannot verify them, but the person who has been in touch with me in confidence as a member of this Parliament has requested me to ask about these matters and 1 am hoping that the whole matter will be cleared up to the satisfaction of everybody associated with the contract. If it can be cleared up to the satisfaction of the Senate, I shall be pleased.

Another matter to which I wish to refer relates to the decision of the Senate some weeks ago rejecting a proposal to lift the embargo on the export of merino rams. lt was clearly indicated in a Press statement in the last week or so that the Minister had no intention of accepting the decision of the Senate. In fact, he has given every indication that the ban will be lifted despite the decision by this place that the ban should remain at least until such time as a referendum of the growers has been held.

I do not propose to canvass all the points raised during that debate. A full report of the debate on all issues involved is to be found in Hansard if honourable senators care to read it. But I do want to raise the question of the propriety of a decision by the Senate being overlooked as it has been. We were told that the ban was being lifted because that was the wish of the Australian Wool Industry Conference at which the voting was 37 in favour of lifting the ban and 17 against it. We argued the relative merits of the question on another occasion.

I believe that the Minister is dealing in double standards in connection with these decisions made by various conferences. I propose to illustrate this by quoting a reply that I have received from the Minister in connection with this matter. In order to substantiate my assertions, it is necessary for me to go back to the decision by the Conference *a** to whether there should be a statutory wool marketing board or a nonstatutory wool marketing board. <I think it is common knowledge now - this will be apparent from answers to questions which will appear in the next issue of Hansard - that on the first occasion on which the Conference voted on the question the voting was almost identical with that recorded in connection with the lifting of the ban on the export of merino rams. The Conference voted 37 for and 17 against the establishment of a statutory authority. On the second occasion on which a vote was taken, which was some weeks later, the Conference again voted in favour of a statutory authority. There were then two decisions by the Conference in favour of a statutory authority. The third decision of the conference - and it may not be the final one - favoured a non-statutory board. 1 have been reliably informed by at least three members of the Conference that on both occasions when the Conference voted in favour of a statutory authority Sir William Gunn, who, I think, was Chairman at the time - if he was not Chairman he was certainly President - said that the Government would not accept anything less than a 90% vote. When making this statement to the Conference, Sir William Gunn clearly inferred that he was speaking with the authority of the Minister on this matter. It was by virtue of this strong inference by Sir William Gunn that the situation was altered. The Conference was forced to alter its decision and to favour a non-statutory board because of the attitude of Sir William Gunn who indicated to the Conference that in fact he was expressing the Minister’s opinion.

Senator Young:

– That is not correct.

Senator POYSER:

– I hope that Senator Young was present and is in a position to refute what I say because I have this information from at least three members of the Conference. I have talked with these men. All three of them are men of honour and principle. The position now is that when it comes to the lifting of the ban on the export of merino rams the Minister accepts a vote of 37 for and 17 against as being a vote disclosing an overwhelming majority in favour of lifting the ban. When it comes to the question of a statutory board, however, the Government does not accept a similar majority as being great enough to warrant its taking action. If that is not dealing in double standards, I do not know what is.

I am terribly disturbed at the information that has been conveyed to me that Sir

William Gunn was able to use his influence at the level he did at this Conference. Virtually, he was able to convey to the Conference the decision of the Minister on the matter prior to the Minister’s even having the scheme before him. This type of thing is discrediting the Conference in the eyes of the wool growers in general. It is the type of thing that is forcing the woolgrowers to demand a reconstitution of the Conference on a democratic basis. We are going to hear more of that as time goes on. lt is the type of thing that will discredit primary producers’ organisations amongst the people concerned, especially when they find out that the real decision of their organisation is going to be rejected on the basis of somebody being able to indicate in advance to the body concerned that the Government will not accept this, that, or the other thing. This fact is conveyed to the organisation before the Minister has even had an opportunity of examining the proposition from the growers.

I hope that during the recess the Minister for Primary Industry will not lift the ban on the export of merino rams against the decision arrived at by the Senate 3 or 4 weeks ago. I hope that if the ban is to be lifted at all it will be lifted only after the producers themselves have had the opportunity to have a referendum on this very vital question. It seems obvious to me that the Minister intends to take some action before the next major sale is held but I think it would be almost contempt of the Senate if the ban is lifted, especially while the Parliament is in recess and we have no opportunity of debating the matter.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– 1 I wish to raise the question of the intended closure of the Canberra Abattoir on 23rd June. This is a matter of very great importance to the people of the Australian Capital Territory for it involves one of their local industries. I think it can be quite correctly said that the subject is one having implications for the whole of Australia. I would have preferred to have been able to debate the motion which was placed on the notice paper a day or so ago in the joint names of Senator Toohey and myself, but thu morning, in reply to a question which 1 directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), I was told that a debate on this question would not be facilitated. Therefore, because the abattoir is to close on 27th June according to instructions which I understand have gone out, and because the Senate will not reassemble and therefore no opportunity will be afforded us to debate this question in the interim, I am left with no alternative but to raise the subject at this time.

I think this is a most important matter which warrants deep and reasoned consideration. In view of the fact that this item stands on the notice paper, I was amazed to read in the Press and to hear it announced over the radio that the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) had made a statement to the effect that the abattoir would close. It made me wonder whether we have a function in the parliamentary system of this country when, despite the fact that a debate is to ensue on a matter of considerable public importance, a Minister in another House of the Parliament can make an announcement that the matter has been finalised and is closed. I just wonder whether we, as elected representatives to this Parliament, have any say in the affairs of this country at all, particularly when we remember the sort of thing that happened yesterday when, by Cabinet decision, a vote recorded by a majority of the elected representatives in this Parliament was overridden. I understand that the decision of the Cabinet to close the abattoir was taken against the weight of the available advice and information. Once this facility is closed-

Senator Branson:

– I raise a point of order. Standing Order 125 states:

No motion or amendment shall anticipate an order of the day or another motion of which notice has been given.

I understand that there is a notice of motion on the notice paper dealing with the Canberra Abattoir.

Senator Murphy:

– I speak to the point of order. Senator Branson is relying in his point of order on standing order 125 which states:

No motion or amendment shall anticipate an order of the day or another motion of which notice has been given.

If Senator Branson were to look again at the content of the Standing Order he would realise that there is no point of order, because the prohibition is against another motion or amendment anticipating an order of the day or a motion of which notice has been given. I do not recall Senator Devitt putting forward any motion or amendment. The only motion now before the Senate is that the Bills be given a second reading. I think Senator Branson’s point of order, to be valid, would have to go to the length of claiming that the motion for the second reading of the Bills was out of order because the motion anticipated the proposal put forward by Senator Devitt. I do not think it is the intention of Senator Branson to seek to prevent the Appropriation Bill being dealt with by the Senate on the ground that the motion for the second reading is out of order. That would hardly be a proper result. If Senator Branson reflects upon this he might concede that that cannot be the end result of standing order 125.

Senator Branson:

– What about standing order 419?

Senator Anderson:

– I want to say, Mr Deputy President, that irrespective of whether the point of order is raised under standing order 125 or standing order 419, earlier today a ruling was given by the Chair as to honourable senators speaking at the second reading level on the Appropriation Bill. By mutual consent it was decided to take a very wide and liberal interpretation of that ruling because it was felt that if some honourable senators were not speaking strictly to the Appropriation Bill they would be speaking on related matters, and that if they did not speak on these matters in the debate on the Appropriation Bill or the Supply Bills they would be able to deal with them on other levels. I have listened to the speeches which have been made to this Bill, and with one exception they dealt with matters outside of the Appropriation Bill and Supply Bills. I suggest to Senator Branson that Senator Devitt is doing no more than what was done by several of the previous speakers to this Bill, and that with a little tolerance, provided the debate does not get out of hand, it would be fair to permit Senator Devitt to continue in this way. After all, we ourselves agreed that other speakers might move very wide of the Bill. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate on what we did.

Senator Branson:

– I am not objecting to the procedure that has been adopted. I am asking the Senate to observe the rules.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT:
Senator Bull

– As Senator Anderson has said, there has been a general debate on matters unconnected with the Bills. However, I ask Senator Devitt to confine his remarks as closely as he can to the Bills now before the Senate.

Senator DEVITT:

– I thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for giving me the opportunity to speak in this way. When the point of order was taken I was about to deal with the involvement of the Treasury in this matter. It is my understanding that the Appropriation Bill does relate to the activities, the functions and the administrative responsibilities of the Treasury.

Senator Toohey:

– And the Parliament.

Senator DEVITT:

– And the Parliament, as Senator Toohey points out. Therefore, my remarks are related to the financial affairs of the Government and also to wider aspects. I suggest that a very good reason would be required for a decision to close down a facility like the Canberra Abattoir, which has operated in the Australian Capital Territory for many years. In attempting to understand fully what the situation is in relation to the possible continued existence of the Abattoir one would need to have regard to all the considerations that led to the decision to close this industry. I have attempted to do this for many reasons, and in the course of my speech I will detail those reasons to the Senate. One of those reasons is that fifty-seven employees in this industry will become redundant if the Abattoir closes down. Those employees would then need to seek employment elsewhere, and, as specialists, many of them highly skilled in the meat industry, would have considerable difficulty in restoring themselves in other employment in an industry of this kind, particularly when there are not a great many abattoirs, at the level of employment at which they left this facility. I think that that is a pretty important consideration. It is an important consideration from the outlook of the community at large when an industry which provides the sort of facility which an abattoir provides for a community is to be closed down.

This industry has been in existence for many years and is a viable proposition in a city which has a population of 120,000. Having regard to the workings of an industry of this kind, the fact that at the turn of the century there will be a population in excess of 250,000 in Canberra is surely an argument which could be advanced for the deepest possible consideration of the reasons for the decision to close the industry. I have attempted to find the area of responsibility where the decision to close down the Canberra Abattoir was made. My inquiries have led me to believe that the decision did not emanate from the Department of the Interior. In the light of what has happened in the Australian Capital Territory in recent months one does not wonder that the Department of the Interior would not have involved itself in a matter of this kind, where a decision to close down a local industry would result in the loss of employment to skilled workers, particularly when this action has brought about the resignation of the eight elected members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council.

I suppose we would be deluding ourselves if we did not concede that over a period of time there have been differences of opinion between the Advisory Council and the Department of the Interior concerning approaches of one kind or another on many local issues in this Territory. However, this matter was one in which the Advisory Council was very deeply concerned, so much so that some years ago it carried out of its own accord an inquiry into the Abattoir. That inquiry entailed about 600 hours of work in the compilation of the final report. The Council made certain recommendations and on all the available evidence and from the extensive inquiries it made it was led to believe that the continuation of the life of this abattoir was a viable proposition and that it ought not under any circumstances to be closed down. I think one can dismiss the possibility that the Department of the Interior instigated the action which has now led to the decision to close the Abattoir on 27th June. One should examine the area from which the decision came. It came, in the first instance, from the office of the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes).

Sitting suspended from 1.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator DEVITT:

– I hope that honourable senators deduced from what I had said up to the suspension of the sitting that I did not regard the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) as culpable or responsible for the decision to close the Canberra abattoir. I had begun to examine the position of the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) in relation to the decision to close the abattoir, since the decision emanated from the office of and was issued under the hand of the Minister for Health. When we consider the physical condition of the abattoir, I do not think we can wonder at the decision of the Minister for Health. I understand that the killing section of the abattoir falls far below the acceptable standard, either for export meat or in fact for meat for local consumption. Certainly the Minister for Health, who is responsible for local health laws in the Australian Capital Territory, would have to ensure that a facility of this kind met local health standards. In those circumstances, the Minister for Health in my view had little option but to take the action that he did. However, I regret and in fact deplore the fact that the Minister issued a statement finalising a matter which had not been the subject of proper consideration of the issues by this chamber of the Parliament, especially when the matter was listed on the notice paper of the Senate.

When one looks at the condition of the Canberra abattoir, it is surprising to learn that some years ago the Government appropriated a sum in excess of $300,000 to upgrade to a proper, modern and acceptable standard the chilling facilities at the abattoir. The expenditure at that time was based upon an assessed requirement for servicing a population of 250,000 people; in other words, the population which it is expected the Australian Capital Territory will reach by the early 1980s. Having launched upon expenditure of this magnitude, which was calculated to bring that section of the Canberra abattoir up to standard to meet the needs of that period of time, would it not be a reasonable proposition to expect that a similar measure might be proposed to bring the killing section of the abattoir up to an equally acceptable standard to meet the requirements of the community for the same period? I come to the conclusion - and I think it is the inevitable, logical and sensible conclusion that one can reach in all the circumstances - that the decision as to the future of the abattoir was determined by a refusal, if that is the correct word, on the part of the Department of the Treasury to provide sufficient funds with which to bring the killing section of the abattoir up to the standard to which I have referred.

I understand that this would entail an expenditure of perhaps $250,000. This seems to be a fairly considerable sum of money in all the circumstances, but I put to the Senate the fact that this abattoir is currently operating at a capacity of 10 million pounds of boning meat - which is the meat we buy over the counter, as I understand it - in a year. This is a substantial quantity of meat to handle. I believe that it is approximately 60% of the output of the slaughtering facilites in the area. As I say, it is a substantial quantity of meat. The Canberra abattoir is not a little back country abattoir at all. In fact, it represents a substantial and extremely important industry in the area. This is one of the main reasons why I pose the question: Why cannot the question of the future of the abattoir be referred for proper consideration, based upon an examination of the factors involved? A decision could then be reached as to the future of the abattoir.

I remind the Senate that one of the jobs undertaken by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory some few months ago was to examine the whole question of the wholesale and retail distribution of fruit and vegetables in the Territory. These are items of food and to my mind are in the same category as the meat supplies of the Canberra community. It has been put to me - not in any light way and not until after quite deep consideration of all the factors involved - that if, on the basis of the estimated consumption in the Australian Capital Territory of meat from this abattoir, the price of meat rose by lc per lb, this would represent a figure of $100,000 a year. This figure has to be considered in the light of what it would cost to restore the killing area at the abattoir to an acceptable standard and to enable it to meet the requirements of the community for a number of years in the future. If the operations at the abattoir were to be carried on, I suggest there would be a substantial saving to the Canberra community, because if the abattoir is closed and meat has to be imported from outside areas, it has been calculated that this could lead to an increase of between 7c and 10c per lb for meat sold in the Territory. I think that this consideration has to be taken into account in this matter, because if the price of meat rose by 5c per lb, the Canberra community would be up for an additional §500,000 per year for the purchase of meat.

I think that any decision that has been taken to close the facilities available to the Canberra community could not have been taken lightly. The Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council has operated in the Territory since 1930, and its decisions, no doubt, have been of tremendous value to successive Ministers for the Interior over the years. It surprises me that that Council was not supplied with the information upon which the decision to close the Canberra abattoir was taken. It is a remarkable situation, when one considers that the decision was taken on the basis of an interdepartmental inquiry involving the administration of 3 or 4 departments and without any reference being made to the Advisory Council which represents the people of this community. In all the circumstances of the case, is this a fair go for the people of the Australian Capital Territory? Of course, the situation has now arisen where, because of differences between the Minister and the Advisory Council which represents the people, and because the ultimate decision to close down the abattoir was taken without spelling cut to the Council the reasons for the decision, the Council saw that there was no purpose to be served in being a rubber stamp and in fact that there was no purpose to be served in making a protest, if the protest fell on deaf ears. What else could the members of this responsible Council, which is the mouthpiece of the Canberra community, do but to tender their resignation to the Minister? What point was there in continuing in these circumstances?

Senator Gair:

– Any self-respecting body would have done the same thing.

Senator DEVITT:

– The members of the Council could not have done otherwise. They had been frustrated over the years on decisions involving the’ Canberra Hospital

Board and other matters. The people of Canberra are without a mouthpiece, apart from my Labor colleague, Mr J. R. Fraser, in the other place. The people of Canberra have no say, no voice in their own affairs.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They are politically dispossessed.

Senator DEVITT:

– They are politically expendable. They just do not count, so far as the Government is concerned. It has been estimated that there are sixty butchers operating in the Canberra area, and practically every responsible organisation in this community is against the decision which the Government has taken to close the abattoir. The decision was a remarkable one. Among the organisations which have objected to the closure are the ACT Advisory Council and the Queanbeyan Municipal Council. Many of the adjoining municipalities have spent considerable sums of money to provide saleyard facilities. The graziers in this area have gone to a great deal of trouble to re-organise their activities in sheep and cattle breeding to serve the local market and they have expended many thousands of dollars in re-organising their activities to meet a local demand made possible by the existence of the abattoir at Canberra. Other people and organisations which have objected to the closure are the Cooma Municipal Council, Yarrowlumla Shire Council, Goodradigbee Shire Council, district graziers associations, stock and station agents, Mr Jim Fraser, M.H.R., Mr Dugald Munro, M.H.R. - whom the Government must consider expendable because he has no hope of retaining his seat in the next parliament unless the Government reverses its decision - Mr Steve Mauger, M.L.A., the ‘Canberra Times’, the Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council, trade unions generally, Public Service associations, wholesale butchers associations, retail butchers associations, many community associations, executives and branches - and I ask the Senate to pay particular attention to this - of the Liberal Party, the Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party, the Chamber of Commerce and the ‘Courier’ and the ‘Sunday Post’. That is a very formidable list of people and organisations which require the retention in their own community of a facility to which they consider they are entitled.

We have heard a good deal lately about the payment of rates and other contributions which the people of this community pay for the privilege of living here. My view is that these people are entitled to some say and, having expressed their opinions, they are entitled to be heard by this Government. Twice in the last 24 hours decisions have been taken by Cabinet and very little regard has been given to the wishes of the people at large, the Canberra community or members of this Parliament.

Senator Mulvihill:

– A few years ago the Minister was very terse with the Meat Employees Union.

Senator DEVITT:

– 1 do not know. I cannot comment on that.

Senator Cotton:

– Can we hear the conversation, too?

Senator DEVITT:

– Yes. I will let the honourable senator know all about it in a moment or so. In future Mr Conkey, who operates an abattoir at Cootamundra, is to be given the right to use the chilling facilities at the Canberra abattoir. At the moment he supplies 30% of the meat consumed by this community. This will mean he will have a monopoly of the supply of meat in the ACT. He will use the chilling facilities, but no slaughtering operations in the killing section will be carried out. No attempt has been made to process the end products of the slaughtering operations, which is where the profit lies in butchering and slaughtering operations. With the expenditure of §250,000 the abattoir could be brought up to standard and could be a highly profitable organisation. Page 93 of the 1968 AuditorGeneral’s report shows that the Canberra abattoir, even under the archaic conditions that existed there, still managed to make a profit of $129,000.

Senator Bull:

– Does the honourable senator know that many Australian abattoirs are closing because of loss of throughput?

Senator DEVITT:

– Here we have a growing market and an abattoir attuned to the local need which is growing all the time. Honourable senators should not be fooled by figures for the few drought years, when the figures for slaughtering dropped. This year the figure has reached practically 10 million lb throughput. If that figure can be achieved under the archaic conditions that exist at the moment, then surely with modern practices and modern technological procedures a higher figure could be reached. Somebody has been given a right to operate the chilling facilities at the Canberra abattoir. The facility, as a facility serving this community, will go by the board and the people will have to take meat from outside the ACT. This meat is not subject to health inspection in Canberra but is subject to health inspection outside the Territory. The people will be sold meat which could have been in chillers for days on end. Fresh meat supplies will not be as readily available. Under the monopoly system there will be no guarantee that the quality to which the people have been accustomed for some years will be maintained. The whole thing is a farce.

I suggest it is time that we stood up in our places in the Senate and took some action. As a matter of fact, I am not too sure that we ought not to suggest to the Government that it should listen to the pleas of these people, made through us as their spokesmen, and should give serious consideration to setting up a Senate select committee to examine this whole project. Nobody can deny that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the ACT, which is a responsible Committee, has undertaken a number of references and has carried out its tasks honourably, successfully and in a manner acceptable to the Minister. Surely in a situation in which 1 20,000 people have no say in their affairs, we, as a Senate, ought to accept the responsibility to give these people some democratic representation. We should advocate the appointment of a Senate select committee or a similar committee so that the views of these people may be heard.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

Mr Deputy President, it is very pleasing to see you presiding over the Senate. I will be brief. I enter into the debate on the Appropriation Bill only because I want to follow my Tasmanian colleague and my colleague on the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, Senator Devitt, to give my view about the Canberra abattoir. I have made all the representations that a government member can make for reconsideration of a government-announced decision. I have had many representations made to me by the

Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, by individual members and by manyother people. 1 am of the firm opinion that a city that will grow to the size to which Camberra will grow cannot rightfully be robbed of the facility of an abattoir. I am not in a position, because I have not examined the facts, to say whether or not it is possible or right to keep the existing facility open while an inquiry is made. That is for the health authorities and for the experts to say. If the Canberra abattoir is closed I believe the Government will bring upon itself a bigger problem than it has at present. Its present problem can be solved in a few words. Refer the question of the right of the people of Canberra to have an abattoir and, if so, how and under what conditions, to the Committee that is provided by Parliament to inquire into matters referred to it by the Government. That is an easy decision to make. The Committee has just finished a reference and published its report.

If the abattoir is closed and if Parliament does not press for some further action, governments, to follow this Government will have a very heavy burden to bear. I support practically all that Senator Devitt said. I will not repeat the figures he quoted but, to my mind, he has given the Senate sufficient facts for it to say at least there is a case to be answered and a matter to be inquired into not for today but for the future of this city that ultimately will have a population exceeding 250,000. Its very geographic position and its assured growth rate mean that it needs fruit and vegetables, food and meat markets and adequate and modern facilities therein. The people living in the area around this inland city, who produce its requirements, need to be taken into consideration. I hope that the Government - and the decision was a Government one; no one Minister was to blame - will heed the remarks made in the Senate. The Government is adding to the clamour that is being heard from outside.

I support the views expressed by Senator Devitt about the ACT Advisory Council. The elected members of the Council may not have been the most efficient members over the years. This may not be the most efficient Senate that Australia has had. But at least the members of the Council made a sincere approach to their task of helping to solve the difficulties of the people v. horn they represent. I believe it can truthfully be said that they resigned not because they were annoyed and not because they were frustrated. They have borne frustration for too long to resign for that reason. They resigned, in my belief, to make an impact on the people and the Government and to press the point that the abattoir should be built up, maintained and kept open in a fit condition to trade for the’ welfare of the people of Canberra. I believe that the Government should have said: ‘All right, we will let you have a free and open inquiry with evidence taken on oath, and then we will consider your report’. 1 believe that if the Government were to have clone that the members of the Advisory Council would have notified the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) that they were prepared to continue serving the city and to bear the frustrations which a powerless committee has to bear while the Government approaches its next hurdle, that is, to decide on some form of local government for the people of Canberra, the national capital, which is continuing to grow and is a great credit to the people of Australia. But though it is a great credit to the people of Australia, it is the citizens in this city who deserve and must have a form of government. But until that form of government can be introduced other action should be taken to keep the Advisory Council in operation. It is a safety valve, even if frustrated, for the people of Canberra.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– In view of the fact that when Senator Devitt made his remarks on this Bill there was some suggestion that he was out of order in dealing exclusively with the Canberra abattoir, 1 want to make it clear that I intend to devote my remarks almost exclusively to the closure of the Canberra abattoir. I point out that I am speaking under that section of the proposed appropriation for the Department of the Interior which involves an expenditure of S4,745,000. I make this point at the beginning because I do not want to be caught in the position of trying in some snide way to relate my remarks to the Bill itself. I hope I will be permitted to proceed on those lines and to develop and support the arguments which Senator Devitt so ably placed before the Senate and which were so forcibly supported by Senator Marriott. If ever there was an occasion when the Government ought to have second thoughts on a decision this is the occasion.

I stress the point that was raised by both the previous speakers that the proposed closure of the Canberra abattoir was the major reason behind the resignation of the elected members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council. The elected members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, as it was constituted, were not a group of irresponsible people. The Senate perhaps does not need to be reminded of the fact that of the six elected members two represented the Liberal Party and three represented the Labor Party, and an independent was the Chairman. These men came from all walks of life in Canberra. Some were prominent businessmen and others were men who took a leading part in the trade union activities of the Australian Capital Territory. But they all were regarded as men of great responsibility, and the action they took when they resigned en masse was not taken lightly by them. But it was, as I said, contributed to largely by the decision of the Government to close the Canberra abattoir. As one who has taken more than a passing interest in the affairs of the Australian Capital Territory, I inform the Senate that the reaction to the decision of the Government is one of widespread resentment and concern throughout the Territory. The organisations which Senator Devitt mentioned as having registered their opposition to the proposed move by the Government covered every stratum of society and every section of the community in the Australian Capital Territory. In the last few days there has been a considerable amount of activity and a certain amount of lobbying on this question by organisations representing the people of the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Devitt knows, as I know, that there was a deputation from the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union to the Minister for Health this week to ask that, if the decision were not reversed, at least some period of grace be permitted so that further discussions could take place before the final step was taken.

I must at this time express my very great regret that the Government did not see fit to debate the motion submitted by Senator

Devitt and myself. Had it done so, the debate would have conveyed a greater sense of urgency in what I consider is a very important matter. In the process of discussions which Senator Devitt and I had with representatives of the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union, there was a suggestion that if this action were persisted with it could precipitate a considerable degree of industrial unrest in the Australian Capital Territory. I do not say that in the sense that any threates were made, but the indications on the part of the people who spoke to us were that there was widespread resentment and it could be communicated into some form of action. It is because of the possibilities which are inherent in what I regard as being a most hasty and, at this time, somewhat ill advised decision that I hope wiser counsels will prevail.

Senator Devitt:

– We want to avoid that.

Senator TOOHEY:

– We want to avoid that. I think this is something the Senate ought to pay due regard to. Perhaps those members of the Cabinet who are here today will prevail upon their fellow members to have another look at this matter. The deadline is 27th June, and once action is taken there is nothing which we can do about it. It is worth reminding the Senate that only in 1957 the sum of $320,000 was expended to provide chillers at the Canberra abattoir to provide for a population increase of up to 250,000 people, without provision being made for improving slaughtering or the production of byproducts. I raise this point because I want to tell the Senate that it is my considered opinion - I have looked at this matter objectively - that, if the reason given foc the closure of the abattoir is that it is not an economic or viable proposition, there has never been any genuine attempt by the Government to make it so. I also point out to the Senate that it is the considered opinion of some of the most prominent and experienced businessmen in Canberra that if the Government desired to make it an economically viable proposition this would be quite easy to achieve. So there can be no question of the economics of the matter having forced the closure.

The question of health has been raised and it has been suggested that the conditions which exist at the abattoir at the present time cannot be permitted in the light of certain health ordinances. Nobody will convince me that whatever hazards exist in this field cannot be corrected by some intelligent, commonsense approach to the matter. I think the Senate ought to give some thought to what responsible sections of the community in the Australian Capital Territory think about this matter. It is because of this that I want to have recorded in Hansard the editorial of the Canberra Times’ of Tuesday, 15th April this year, under the heading ‘Taxpayers in the Middle’. It referred to the decision which will result in the closure of the abattoir on 27th June. It is in these terms under the sub-heading ‘Decision must be reversed:

The resignation of the Advisory Council is, however, only an added problem for the Government: the original and central question of whether Canberra should have its own abattoir remains whether the Government likes it or not. The question relates not only to today but to the notsodistant tomorrow, when a million or more people will live in the Territory.

Elsewhere in Australia every major city and almost every large country centre has its own abattoir. The reasons are self-evident; killing centres ought to be near markets; killing facilities should be decentralised for the benefit of stockowners and to provide employment; the spread of abattoirs discourages the formation of monopolies and ensures the continuance of supplies during isolated labour disputes. These and other arguments apply to Canberra’s case for an abattoir. To ignore them is to create a precedent which makes little or no sense.

For the Cabinet to reverse its decision to close the killing floor would require wisdom and courage but it would be logical. Furthermore, it would add to the shrinking stature of the Administration, allow the resigned members of the Advisory Council to accept the Minister’s invitation to return - < -

Surely everyone must recognise the importance of that - and give this badly treated electorate the satisfaction of knowing that on this occasion at least its voice was heard. This newspaper believes the Government should make this decision. It should then seek expert commercial advice on the upgrading of the abattoir and establish a partly elected statutory authority to bring the killing floor up to standard and to manage the operation. The authority should have the responsibility of producing sufficient revenue to pay off the written-down cost of the abattoir and its improvements and of running it on a profit.

There you have the considered opinion of the responsible ‘Canberra Times’ stated in its editorial of 15th April 1969. Surely there is sufficient meat and sufficient common- sense in that editorial for the Government to reverse its decision on this matter. I think that Senator Devitt and Senator Marriott have put the proposition adequately to the Senate. It is not my intention to detain the Senate by senseless repetition. My purpose in rising is to assist and perhaps to add to some of the remarks made by those two honourable senators.

Finally, I suggest to Cabinet that if it wants to proceed with the decision to close the Canberra abattoir on 27th June this year it can do so. It has the necessary authority and power. But how can members of the Cabinet convince themselves and this Parliament that by so doing they are acting in the interests of the community in the Australian Capital Territory and that they are contributing anything towards overcoming the already delicate situation which exists between the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory and the Government? Tha sensible thing for them to do would be to reverse this decision and wait until a select committee, such as has been proposed by my colleague Senator Devitt, has had a look at the situation and has presented an accurate and intelligent report to the Parliament.

The Advisory Council asked the Minister to refer this matter to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory but the Minister, in his wisdom or otherwise, decided that he would not accede to that request. As Senator Marriott, the Chairman of the Committee, well knows, the Committee wanted the Minister to refer the matter to it because it believed that a proper examination of all the facts should be embarked upon, but the Minister saw fit to ignore the approaches that were made. If the Minister, the Senate or the Cabinet feels that the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is not the proper body to examine this matter, let us accept Senator Devitt’s suggestion and appoint a select committee to do so. To allow the Minister’s decision to stand will do less than justice to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator WEBSTER (Victoria) (2.50]- I support the Appropriation and Supply Bills before the House. At the outset I should like to extend my hearty congratulations to Senator Cameron on the delivery of his maiden speech to the Senate today. He follows a wonderful man in the late Senator Laught. We will miss Senator Laught greatly from this chamber but we look forward with confidence to the contribution that Senator Cameron will make to our activities. The Government of South Australia has seen fit to send to the Senate a man of very high calibre. I am sure we will enjoy working with him in the years to come.

I believe that Senator Cotton’s remarks this morning were of great importance. Anyone who did not hear the facts about the administration of this Government spelled out in that speech - I refer particularly to members of the Opposition and to people outside this Parliament - would do well to look at what this Government has achieved over the past years. In this year 1969 Australia is in a sound economic position. For this, much credit is due firstly to the people of Australia because it has been demonstrated that despite problems associated with flood, fire and drought such as this country has experienced over the past few years, their resilience and great strength of character have brought the Australian economy to the excellent position in which it stands today. This is of great benefit to Australia and its people. I am proud to be a part of the Administration which has been in office now for nearly 20 years.

Senator Cormack:

– What part of the Administration do you fill?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Exactly the same part as the honourable senator does. He has been here a little longer than I have.

Senator Milliner:

– Do you believe that the Government has done a good job on decentralisation?

Senator WEBSTER:

– The area in which Senator Milliner is interested relates to employees. I, too, am interested in that area. He must agree that the position in which we find ourselves today with an unemployment rate of approximately 1.14% is outstanding. I doubt whether any ether country in the world has achieved that situation.

Senator Milliner:

– There are other countries.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I should like the honourable senator to spell them out to me. They are probably Portugal. Uruguay and countries like that. Last month we bad the lowest number of unemployed persons for any April since 1965. It must be realised that there is a sector within the community which is unemployable. That is an aspect into which the Government must look very closely in the future. Let us consider the present position from the point of view of employees. In the past decade weekly earnings for the average worker have risen by over 66% whereas consumer prices have risen by only 27%. Tt is obvious that the employee sector of the community has benefited greatly over the past decade from this Government’s administration.

I wish to direct a remark to the primary industry section of the community because I believe that for the past 12 months it has faced greater problems than has any other section of the community. Government assistance, I believe, will be needed in a variety of fields. We must realise that we live in a private enterprise community and if people choose to go into a particular area of business they must accept responsibility for the decisions they make. The Government has within its control ways of giving assistance. One of these is tariff protection for secondary industries which places a heavy burden on sectors which are not able to pass on the cost increase. These sectors must be assisted. I would advocate now, as I have advocated to the Government, that consideration should be given to issuing a Government direction regarding the rate of interest that is chargeable to the primary industry sector of the community. Greater credits also should be made available. We hear, as we go through our electorates, that the dairying industry or some other industry receives great handouts in the form of subsidy from the Government. I suggest that while the community does not accept this as a general proposition, a great many people listen to the comment. It is fair to say that many other areas of industry receive as great or, considering the benefit that they put into the community, perhaps greater assistance than is given to primary industries.

Whilst I do not criticise in any way the advantages and benefits that are handed to some other areas of industry, I point out that, up to April, payroll tax rebates, which are allowed to enable manufacturers to increase exports, amounted to 816,996,000 for the current year. I think it is worth noting that whilst the great dairying industry, for instance, is criticised by many sectors of the community because allegedly it receives a $22m handout annually, the fact is that manufacturing industries receive very nearly as great a benefit from the community. These benefits .are paid to the dairying industry for the good order of our own society. They are paid to maintain good wage levels and good business returns and so are enjoyed by employers and employees alike in the industry.

Senator Greenwood:

– Do you think they still do that?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think so. Senator Greenwood is well aware that the dairy industry subsidy, as it now is, was originally paid to the dairying industry so that prices would not be increased to the consumer. It is not a contribution to the dairying industry; it is a consumer subsidy. I know that the senator is well aware of that because he represents the whole of his State. But an important point is involved here. I say that all sectors of Australian industry must be very alert to what is taking place both inside and outside Australia. I refer in particular to attempts that might be made to wreck our Australian industries. We know that fluctuations in prices of most of our important primary products are not caused within Australia but are caused by the food policy decisions of other countries. We have no control over the policies of overseas countries or of large foreign companies. At the moment actions are being promoted against the dairying industry.

Within the last few weeks news media in at least several States have openly carried a story that a professional lobbyist will be paid over $20,000 a year to obtain certain ends for a group of companies. Initial reports of this person’s first address indicate that his remuneration will be mainly for an attack on the dairy Industry. I believe that this action must prompt governments, both State and Federal, to be bold and to see that no damage will be done to the dairy industry, which is a great Australian primary industry. Our industries must be assisted to expand. I believe that the action the Commonwealth Government has taken over the past years certainly indicates that in 1969 we have achieved a level of success in expanding our industries.

There are many matters on a Supply Bill which one would like to discuss, but I propose to mention only one other point. The Senate has debated on a number of occasions in the last year the field of Australian investment in our own industries. It has been said that insufficient money is generated within our own community to enable us to cope fully with what needs to be done in industry. I wish just to give a word of warning to the investing public generally on the great influx of companies in the mining and oil industries which are proliferating at present on a very speculative basis. Undoubtedly many of these companies are well founded and have an opportunity for success, but I believe that a number of them could be regarded as not having sufficient backing or ability to be able to achieve something for those who are willing to invest their money.

It is interesting to note that in oil floats over the past year $33m has been provided by the Australian public in subscriptions to companies. Whilst that is a sizeable figure it is a very small amount in relation to the enormous sums that are needed for the proper exploration for oil and minerals. One point that concerns me is that the direct cost to the public of subscribing money, that is, the cost of promotion of such ventures, has been of the order of $2m in the past year. I would advocate that the public watch very carefully the construction and management of companies which are entering this particularly exciting and interesting field. Some companies may have the capability to succeed in this business, but it is one which does require specialised knowledge. If we are to retain a good investment potential within Australia, those people who are floating companies and the possibility of those companies succeeding must be watched very closely. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bills before us.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– In the course of his remarks in this debate Senator Poyser referred to a tender which the Department of Works had accepted for some furniture in Melbourne. I take this opportunity of advising him that the ordinary system which the Department adopts to obtain tenders for ordinary domestic or office furniture is to advertise for tenders from the public, but in the case of contracts such as the one referred to by the honourable senator, where quality control of workmanship is required, it is our practice to invite tenders from selected persons and companies. In this instance we invited tenders from six companies, four of which submitted tenders. lt is important, in view of one of the implications in Senator Poyser’s submissions, to note that the quotations were invited on 27th March 1969, that they closed on 15th April 1969 and that the departmental order was placed with the successful tenderer on 26th April 1 969. The opening to which Senator Poyser referred took place a week or so later on 7th May. The honourable senator raised some question as to the security of tenders. I inform him that tenders are received in sealed envelopes which are placed in a tender box, that they are opened before a committee which constitutes the Tender Board, that they are immediately entered in the records and posted in the tender room in the order in which the prices of the tenderers appear, lt is interesting to note that in this case it was implied in Senator Poyser’s question that the tender price was $35,000. Actually, the offer of the lowest tenderer was accepted at the price of $23,499, and the quotes submitted by the other three tenderers ranged from $38,000 to $41,000. So here we have an implied complaint about the acceptance of a tender of $23,499 when three competing tenders ranged between $38,000 and $41,000.

Senator Webster:

– Can the Minister assure the Senate that all the tenderers quoted on the same basis?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I certainly do. I would not have it submitted to me that the tenders were not put on a comparable basis.

Senator Webster:

– But tenders can very often be framed in a manner that is difficult to follow.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It never occurred to me that I would be invited to consider tenders unless they were on a similar or comparable basis. But as my colleague has raised the question I will certainly have that confirmed.

Senator Gair:

– Are you suggesting that they are pulling the wool over your eyes.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I will pass by that comment.

Senator Gair:

– Is the Minister not sure whether they are or not?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I never am, whether they be experts or amateurs. Senator Poyser raised the question of a table costing $800. It has been suggested that somebody is pulling his leg. But I do want to indicate that in this tender tables were quoted at $25, $23, $38, $29, $34, $46, $88, and there was one conference table, in three sections, which was priced at $1,649. If there is any other information which the honourable senator thinks it is needful to have he has only to inquire and it will immediately be made available to him.

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

– in reply - I thank honourable senators for the consideration they have given to the two Appropriation Bills and the two Supply Bills, which were taken together for the purposes of the second reading debate. Just to refresh our memories on the Bills, the first Appropriation Bill is to appropriate an amount of $76,034,000 and the second Appropriation Bill for capital works is for the sum of $21,754,000. Of course, they are appropriations to 30th June. The two Supply Bills appropriate certain amounts to cover expenditures for the first 5 months of the next financial year. The amount appropriated in Supply Bill (No. I) is $1,020,715,000 an the amount appropriated in Supply Bill (No. 2) is $221,540,000.

The second reading debate has covered a very wide area. I take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Cameron on his maiden speech. It is not an easy thing to come to the Senate and be called upon to make your maiden speech in the first week. But I am sure that everyone would agree that Senator Cameron acquitted himself quite well. Senator Cameron replaces in this chamber a very distinguished senator, the late Senator Laught. The late Senator Laught was a very strong advocate for his own State of South Australia. Obviously Senator Cameron has the same approach. 1 do not think that 1 should respond to the various matters that have been raised by various honourable senators.

Senator Milliner:

– Why not?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Because they were discussing matters which are outside the direct context of the Appropriation and Supply Bills, although I did not object to their doing so. For instance, Senator Cant made quite exhaustive references to industrial matters, if the Senate were debating a Bill concerning industrial matters his may perhaps have been a very forceful contribution. I do not necessarily agree with his views. I believe that basically industrial laws, either State or Commonwealth, should be administered by the various State or Commonwealth authorities. Indeed, it has always been the claim of the trade union movement that not only did it fight for better industrial conditions but it also made certain that the industrial laws in existence were maintained and preserved. Inherent in what Senator Cant had to say was a tendency to criticise certain unions for not ensuring that the terms and conditions of awards were nol circumvented, if not defeated. I think he directed the main force of his argument more to the circumvention of awards.

Reference was also made to the lifting of the embargo on the export of merino rams, which is a matter that is on the business paper of the Senate. The future of the Canberra abattoir was also raised. This matter is also on the business paper. There was also debate on the general economic position. In all, the debate was a very interesting one. I thank the Senate for permitting passage of these four Bills through the second reading stages. I hope that they get through the Committee stage this afternoon.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I refer to the appropriation of $2.056m for pay and allowances in the nature of pay for the Permanent Air Force, which comes under Division 690 - Royal Australian Air Force, and to the appropriation of $707,000 for airframe, aero-engine and aircraft ancillary equipment, which comes under Division 700- Equipment and Stores. I should like some information about the payment of the expenses of the team of experts which was appointed to evaluate the Fill aircraft and about the arrangements that were made to investigate the faults that have developed in this aircraft. Will the advice that we will need in order to make proper arrangements for our defence forces be adequate? I draw attention to the fact that a considerable sum has been spent on training air crew and in securing equipment and stores in preparation for the time when the Fill becomes operational. Considerable cost has been involved in the modifications that have had to be made. There is little chance that the original target dates will be reached or the original specifications met. For instance, the plane’s top speed has been reduced from about 1,500 miles an hour to below 1,000 miles an hour. Its maximum ceiling has been lowered and its bomb load has been reduced. In the opinion of the experts, it is no longer of any use to the Royal Australian Air Force because it is inferior to other aircraft which are readily available now from other manufacturers.

Senator Webster:

– Who said that?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am referring now to an article which appeared in ‘Inside Canberra’ by Don Whitington.

Senator Webster:

– You are right in the trap.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No. He is a well informed and highly esteemed journalist. At this time when attacks are being made on the journalists of this country - it is to bc expected that they will be picked off one by one - Don Whitington will be able to hold his own against the barrage of disparagement. There has been an expenditure of considerable sums, and I want to know what proportion of the $707,000 that has been spent on equipment and stores can be apportioned to the purchase of equipment in anticipation of the Fill being brought into service. What amount of the $2.056m provided for pay and allowances for members of the permanent Air Force has been spent on the training of Air Force personnel in anticipation of the acquisition of the Fill?

I referred to the team of experts. Will this team be visiting the United States and remaining there? Is provision being made in these appropriations for the expenses of that team? Have the men in the team had sufficient experience of metal fatigue and the other complicated faults that have developed in the swing wing component? How long is it. expected that Australia will be subjected to the considerable expense of providing not only a team of experts to go to the United States but of training personnel, especially if the Fill is not to be an acceptable part of our Air Force?

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

Senator O’Byrne asked a series of questions about Division 690 and 700. With regard to Division 690 I shall give the main reasons for the increased requirement of $2,056,000, as an additional appropriation. Part of it relates to increased costs arising from trade regroupings within the Royal Australian Air Force, and part relates to the national wage case decision. A detailed split up is as follows: Increased costs of new system of trade regroupings of RAAF musterings $1,145,000; national wage case $832,000; increased provision for pay in lieu of long service leave and recreation leave $335,000. It is necessary to subtract the reduced appropriation for Royal Air Force officers on loan to the Royal Australian Air Force by $5,000.

The following adjustments are also necessary: Increased provision for Air Force emergency force $156,000; increased provision for rentals to South Australian Housing Trust and Department of the Interior $95,000; increased deductions for rent from pay of servicemen, a deduction of $250,000; increased recovery from other departments, minus $41,000; increased provision for settling in/settling out allowance overseas, $70,000; lower average strength of the RAAF, a deduction of $428,000; increased average rate of pay, an increase of $288,000. The total thus arrived at is $2,056,000. The estimate is based on a terminal strength of 22,727, with an average of 22,040.

I turn now to Division 700. The additional appropriation is required mainly because the overall rate of deliveries against orders placed in previous financial years has been greater than was anticipated.

In addition, recoveries arising from spares issued to the Weapons Research Establishment have been less than was originally estimated. I hasten to assure Senator O’Byrne that in the additional estimates there are no items relating to the FI IIA. I give to the honourable senator the further information that it is anticipated that recoveries will be $100 - I think that is correct - less than was anticipated at the time the Budget was formed. This is due to recoveries from the Weapons Research Establishment being less than was anticipated.

In the outstanding liability field, the increased expenditure requirement is estimated at about $2,100,000 covering thousands of orders. These figures are offset to the extent of approximately $1.5m by shortfalls in expenditure against new authorisations. In the capital field a shortfall of $.33m is expected in the provision for arrester barriers for F111C aircraft as progress of the project has slipped behind schedule. A shortfall of about $1.2m covering a large number of maintenance orders is due to new authorisations being much less than planned, due to the usage data becoming progressively available from electronic data processing. One significant component of this amount not affected by electronic data processing is the provision of $.45m for F111C spares which will not be spent this year. The honourable senator asked whether I could inform him of how long our crews would be required overseas. The only answer I can give is that they will be overseas for as long as they are required to be there.

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

– I would like to make a few brief comments on the proposed closure of the Canberra abattoir, which was raised by Senator Devitt, who was supported by other honourable senators this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN:

– To which division are you referring?

Senator GAIR:

– I am referring to the Department of the Interior. I have taken this opportunity to speak on the subject because I have waited in vain for a spokesman of the Government to try to rebut the case made by Senator Devitt against the closure of the abattoir. Before proceeding, permit me to congratulate the new senator from South Australia, Senator Cameron, on his admission to this august chamber and on the contribution he made in his maiden speech. I hope that this contribution to the welfare of his State and to the welfare of Australia generally will be distinguished.

Having read a good deal for and against the proposal to close the Canberra abattoir, I am left with a very serious concern about the administration of many phases of life in Canberra, industrially and domestically. Not until today have we had any evidence that the Government has ever seriously considered setting up any authority here that might resemble a municipal council or any form of local government. But today in one of the newspapers - I think it was the Canberra Times’ - I read a suggestion that the Government is now considering doing something about this matter. It is long overdue. I think that is the basis of a lot of the trouble and the dissatisfaction in the Australian Capital Territory. When speaking on the sewerage tax in this chamber recently, I said that I would think the Department of the Interior, the Minister particularly and the Cabinet generally, would be very anxious to set up a local authority and so take the responsibility for the domestic life of Canberra away from Government departments, where it rests today. Whether the abattoir is conducted by the Department of Health or the Department of the Interior matters very little in the ultimate.

Senator Anderson:

– For the purpose of this debate, I suggest that the honourable senator refer to the Department of Health.

Senator GAIR:

– Either of them will do. 1 am speaking of Canberra matters in general. They are both very busy departments and I would think that matters relating to Canberra would be dealt with at the fag end of the day. Whilst the Department of Health plays a very important part in hygiene matters and accepts the responsibility for ensuring that beef and other meats are properly handled and are hygienically treated before being sent from the abattoir for human consumption, it is not the appropriate department to handle a business undertaking such as this. I repeat that I am at a loss to understand why the Government is deliberately disregarding the recommendation of its Advisory Council in this connection. The Council had gone to great pains to examine this decision. It made certain recommendations to the Government but they have been ignored; hence the resignation of that self-respecting body. I congratulate Senator Devitt for raising this matter. I am conscious of the fact that he has a specific resolution on the notice paper but that resolution has not been reached.

The taxpayers’ money was spent on this abattoir - some of it relatively recently - but then we learned that the Department of Health had decided that it should be closed. Who is to benefit from this action? It certainly will not benefit Canberra, the capital city of Australia, whose population is growing at about 10% per annum. This city can look forward to a very big population. But now the Government proposes to take this retrograde step and close down an abattoir which has served these people and the surrounding district for a considerable time. Evidently it has served them well.

Is this being done with a view to assisting abattoirs outside this district? What effect is it going to have on the price of beef to the consuming public of Canberra? That is a very important factor and one which always must be considered. Let us consider some of the statements that have been made over this matter. In 1958 the Government spent $300,000 to provide the abattoir with chillers to serve a Canberra population of 250,000. In 1969 the same Government has decided to close that abattoir because it refuses to find $250,000 to bring the killing section up to the interstate standard. The sum of $250,000 represents the premium for only one service station site sold at auction in this city. That is peanuts, as they say. Because the Government is not prepared to find $250,000 to bring the abattoir up to the interstate standard it has decided to close the works. Is that an attitude that one would expect from a government-

Senator O’Byrne:

– It is a defeatist attitude.

Senator GAIR:

– Of course it is a defeatist attitude. If the abattoir is not up to that standard then the Department should modernise it and so retain a service which, I believe, is in the interests not only of the people of Canberra but of the surrounding district. No doubt most honourable senators received a letter from the Shire Clerk of the Goodradigbee Shire Council. His letter states:

Council is most concerned at the Minister for Health’s statement of 28th March 1969 that the slaughtering facilities at the subject abattoirs would be closed in June this year.

My Council has in thelast 3 years spent $80,000 on improving the stock selling facilities at the Yass saleyards with the aim of providing an efficient stock selling centre close to the evergrowing Canberra market. Much of the stock sold in these yards is purchased by Canberra butchers who would naturally prefer to have same killed at the nearest killing centre to their market, i.e., Canberra.

Council considers that the closure of the Canberra abattoirs will mean that these butchers will now buy stock at Goulburn saleyards for subsequent slaughter at the Goulburn abattoirs as they will save approximately 60 miles of transport costs. The absence of these butchers from the Yass sales will no doubt result in lower prices for stock and vendors will be inclined to send their stock to the Goulburn saleyards where the buying strength and higher prices will be.

Council feels that the market potential of meat sales in Canberra warrants the retention and improvement of the Canberra abattoir and as the operations of this abattoir will reflect on the Yass saleyards and the stock industry in this area, you are requested to press for the retention of the Canberra abattoirs most vigorously.

That is only one instance to illustrate how the closure of the Canberra abattoir will affect this district. This is a contradiction of a statement made by the Minister for Health who said that Canberra butchers import most of their meat. This is not the case of course. This was contradicted by those who were engaged in the trade.

The Minister for Health issued a statement dated 28th March of this year in which he said that Canberra butchers had shown a clear preference for imported meats. Only a few days later, forty retail butchers in the Canberra-Queanbeyan area issued a signed statement declaring that they had never indicated any such preference to the Department and that the Minister’s statement was ‘false and misleading’. Further, these retail butchers demanded that the Minister withdraw his comments referring to retail butchers’ preferences. Have Ministers descended to such a depth that they must resort to untruth to try to win their point of view? Here are forty butchers contradicting what the Minister claims to be the case.

I do not want to impose on your generosity in allowing me to discuss this matter at this stage, Mr Temporary Chairman, but I think that all of these matters are important to this city and to its community. If we are to run away from challenges such as are contained in this issue, where will we get? I think that the public of Canberra is entitled to a fair go in this matter. I sometimes wonder whether some of the Government Departments here are top heavy. The longer I remain in Canberra the more I am confirmed in my belief that this is so.

Senator Dittmer:

– The public is entitled to its killing, is it not?

Senator GAIR:

– It is indeed. Some of the Departments are top heavy. There are too many small dictators in the Departments and they are not prepared to listen to the case of the other fellow. They are pushing up under the noses of Ministers who are prepared to take notice of them a lot of ideas that are not in the best interests of the community life of this place or, indeed, of any other place. I do not say this concerning all Ministers, but I know from experience that if some of them were told by some of their departmental advisers that Santa Claus was real they would believe them.

Senator McKellar:

– You are thinking of the Queensland Ministers who were under your jurisdiction.

Senator GAIR:

– You would not know.

Senator McKellar:

– I think I might.

Senator GAIR:

– You would not know.

Senator McKellar:

– I repeat: I think I might.

Senator GAIR:

– You would be one Minister who just would not know how to administer a department of state whether it be in the Federal sphere or in the State sphere. So, do not win my wrath because I will be compelled to tell as much as I know about your deficiencies as a Minister of the Government.

Senator McKellar:

– You have not the time. The Senate is rising at 4 o’clock.

Senator GAIR:

– I could carry it on into another day. Senator McKellar should not provoke me, because I have had greater experience as an administrator of government departments than he has. In fact, I have had greater experience than most Ministers in this chamber. I know how important it is to have in control of departments men who have minds of their own and who are not just puppets for bureaucracy.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

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

[3.40] - We have heard comments concerning the Canberra Abattoir both with reference to an item in the Appropriation Bill under the Department of Health and earlier today. There are a few comments that I believe I should make. I want to stress, first of all, that the decision on this matter was reached by the Government after detailed and careful consideration of all the facts.

I would like to give quite clearly the correct assessment of the output of the Canberra Abattoir, as it relates to the meat consumed by people in Canberra and Queanbeyan, because this is a point that has been raised this afternoon. We have heard from time to time that the figure was as high as 70% . I want to make it clear that nothing could be more incorrect. A close examination has been made of these claims. I can assure the Senate that they have been based on incomplete information. One assessment which was circulated widely disregarded the large amount of noncarcass meat that comes to this area from approved abattoirs. The correct assessment was 36%. That was based on well established information such as the known throughput of the Abattoir, the Commonwealth Statistician’s figures for average annual fresh meat consumption and the population figures for Canberra and Queanbeyan. Statements have been made that the average consumption figures should have been lower because of the larger proportion of young children in this area, but that must be balanced by the lower number of older people and the fact that there are great numbers of visitors to the city of Canberra.

Senator Toohey:

– What has this to do with the question?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I think it has a lot to do with it and with some of the points the honourable senator raised. It has been well established that the Australian average figures are quite conservative for this area, where living standards are relatively high.

Senator Gair:

– It took the Minister a long time to stand up and speak on this matter.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

Senator Gair was the first honourable senator to speak on this subject on this Committee item, and when he had made his speech I rose to my feet immediately. Noone could do more than that. I believe that these points should be made, lt is quite easy to make all kinds of other points, but I believe that I have the right to raise, on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), these points which are points he himself has made. I believe that it is very important that, in replying to some of the comments that have been made in this chamber, these points should be made again.

Let me continue to deal with statements that have been made by people who have raised criticism of the assessment of the output of the Abattoir in relation to meat consumed by the population of Canberra and Queanbeyan. A point made by the Minister for Health is that as the populations of Canberra and Queanbeyan increase the output from the Canberra Abattoir will continue to represent a decreasing percentage of the total meat required. The Abattoir’s importance as a means of meat supply will become less and less. This leaves no justification for spending relatively large sums of money when we are quite satisfied that alternative means of supply are adequate and will continue to be available.

I make the point that, as all honourable senators know, the inter-departmental committee which was established presented a report which was made available to and considered by the Government in detail in August 1966. In view of the conclusions reached by the Committee, and after giving the matter full and careful consideration and taking all factors into account, the Government decided that the undertaking could be conducted and developed more appropriately by private enterprise than as a government instrumentality. It was considered that private enterprise would have a greater degree of flexibility of operation and would be in a better position to develop the undertaking, to diversify its operations and to take full advantage of business opportunities not as readily available to a government instrumentality. The Government accordingly decided that tenders for the sale or lease of the abattoir as a going concern would be called. Some honourable senators are very prone to make comments about this matter but they seem to be disturbed when 1 endeavour to give some facts supplied by the Minister for Health.

Senator Gair:

– The statements are not dependable. They are not acceptable.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– This seems to be a good time to reply to Senator Gair, who, I thought, displayed a very keen and correct interest in this important matter. The Government had an obligation to ensure that tenders submitted for the purchase or lease of the abattoir were considered in the light of such factors as the value of the assets, the improvements required to be effected by the successful tenderer and the capacity to operate the undertaking as a going concern. Tenders were widely advertised by the Government on two occasions but on neither occasion did the Government consider that the tenders were acceptable. Surely the Government should not have to accept other than a reasonable offer for the disposal of any of its undertakings.

The future of the abattoir was further considered in the light of the inability to dispose of the undertaking on reasonable terms as a going concern. The Government concluded that tenders should be called for the sale or lease of the chilling facilities for use as a meat hall or other food preservation activity. This decision was announced concurrently with the announcement in February that tenders received in response to the second advertisement were not acceptable. Further representations were made to the Government, which decided to reconsider the matter. It arranged for the matter to be reviewed by the interdepartmental committee which had originally considered it. This was done. This action is evidence of the full consideration that was given to this matter by the Government, and I concede that it is of real concern to those who have dealt with the subject today. The committee reported to the Government that in general terms the overall circumstances governing the operation of the abattoir and the supply of meat to Canberra and Queanbeyan had not changed in any material way since the committee’s report in 1966. The committee reported that the greater proportion of the local wholesale meat supply was still coming from sources other than the Canberra abattoir at competitive prices. Because of the relative stability of throughput at the abattoir and population increases the percentage of supplies coming from outside sources had increased. I again emphasise that the abattoir is providing no more than 36% of the meat consumed in Canberra and Queanbeyan compared with 48% in 1964-65 and 42% in 1965-66. There is every reason to believe that this trend will continue.

We must also look at the situation in country areas. This was a point raised by the Minister far Health. There is considerable excess capacity in many country abattoirs in New South Wales, particularly those established on a regional basis. These abattoirs are going through difficult times, and this state of affairs could continue for some years. As we know, these country abattoirs are, in many cases, the lifeblood of the town or district in which they are situated. They have been established in these areas in the interest of regional development and decentralisation. Without the abattoirs some of these districts would suffer untold harm. It is extremely important for the country that they become economic and viable units. Their capacity to serve the national capital will be extremely beneficial to them and will help to provide continued employment for the persons working in them and a livelihood for their families. The Canberra abattoir does not serve the same purpose. It was provided as a source of meat when the country abattoirs did not exist. The production of meat in these country regions for the people of Canberra is a most worthwhile enterprise for the regions to take up.

I should like to mention one other point. Honourable senators opposite have referred to meat prices. The Government’s considered view is that the closure of the slaughtering facilities at the abattoir will not be the cause of increased meat prices. This view is based on carefully assessed trends evident over a number of years. During the period from December 1958 to December 1968. retail meat prices in Canberra generally increased at a slower rate than those in Sydney - this in an environment where an increasing percentage of meat was coming from sources other than the Canberra abattoir.

Many statements have been made by a variety of people to the effect that with the closure of the abattoir, prices for meat in Canberra will increase. Some people have even mentioned certain levels, such as 10% . These statements have not been backed up by evidence. As I have just said, the Government is satisfied that the closure of the abattoir will not be the cause of higher prices, as increasing supplies coming to the capital and the very competitive nature of the industry will ensure stability vis-a-vis Sydney prices. I finish on the note that well qualified meat wholesalers have recently confirmed these judgments made by the Government. 1 put these matters forward for the attention of honourable senators because i believe they answer some of the points that have been raised. Let me repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks. The Government’s decision in relation to the Canberra abattoir has been taken only after efforts to dispose of the abattoir as a going concern on a satisfactory and acceptable basis proved unsuccessful and in the light of the very detailed and careful consideration of the various aspects to which I have referred by persons who have very real responsibilities in this field. These points have been considered also by my colleague, the Minister for Health, and the Government.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether the Minister for Health is correctly reported as having said yesterday that he would not have the future of the Canberra abattoir referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory or recommend that its control be transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of the Interior. Has he been correctly reported as having said that he was going to close down the abattoir some time towards the end of next month? I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that two honourable senators have seen fit to give notice of a motion concerning this matter for the consideration of the Senate, namely, that the future of the abattoir be referred to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory for examination and report and that slaughtering be continued pending the receipt of the report of the Joint Committee, the Minister will at least have the grace to listen to whatever considerations might be put forward and to whatever views might be expressed in the Senate on this matter. ls the Minister for Housing prepared to wait and see whether the Senate itself in the discharge of its functions of supervising the administration might consider that this matter should be referred to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and whether the Minister for Health will see fit not to close down the abattoir before this Senate has had the opportunity of discussing the matter and reaching a decision at the very feast on that preliminary matter? Or, is the Senate to understand that notwithstanding its desire to consider this matter the door will be closed, the eggs will be scrambled or the convicted person hanged even though he may have instituted some form of appeal? Will the Minister for Housing tell the Senate whether the Minister for Health is so little concerned with what I have expressed in this House as to the course of action that might be taken that he is prepared to ignore completely the desire of this chamber to discuss the matter, and whether he intends to press on and use his powers to close down the abattoir? In replying to these questions will the Minister for Housing consider the fact that the elected representatives of the people of the Australian Capital Territory have been so concerned with this issue that they have resigned en masse in protest against the decision to close down this abattoir?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [3.57] - The first part of the honourable senator’s question related to a statement made by the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) yesterday in reply to the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr J. R. Fraser). The reply is very clear. The honourable member there asked the Minister:

  1. . will he take the steps necessary to enable the Minister for the Interior to have (he whole question of the future of the Canberra abattoir referred to the Joint Committee on the Australian

Capital Territory with the widest possible terms of reference and with no limit on the right of members of that Committee to probe and to question?

In reply to that part of the question the Minister for Health said:

No. The Government has considered this matter but it is not proposed to refer the whole question of the future of the Canberra abattoir to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. The Government’s decision was taken only after careful and objective consideration of all factors, including the several representations made by interested parties as well as the further report from the inter-departmental committee representing the Departments of Health, Interior, Primary Industry and Treasury and the National Capital Development Commission. The Government is satisfied that its decision on the abattoir is soundly based and quite reasonable in the overall situation.

In the same question the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory also asked this question of the Minister for Health:

Alternatively, will he recommend to the Government that control of the Canberra abattoir be transferred immediately from the Department of Health to the Department of the Interior?

The Minister’s reply was:

No. The reasons for non-continuation of slaughtering facilities at the abattoir would be the same irrespective of which Government department administered it and in the context of the decision taken by the Government in this matter no purpose would be served in transferring control from one department to another.

I think those replies answer not only the questions asked by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory of the Minister for Health, but also the further questions asked today by Senator Murphy.

It is very plain that a decision has been made.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

Mr Temporary Chairman-

Senator Anderson:

– Will the honourable senator ask for leave to make his remarks at a later stage?

Senator TOOHEY:

– Yes, I do so.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Leave is granted.

Progress reported.

page 1884

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

Mr President, I ask for leave to present the text of an international treaty and to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Murphy:

– No. Senator Toohey was prevented from speaking by the action of the Leader of the Government in having progress reported. It seems hardly fair to keep the Senate going when Senator Toohey was prevented from speaking.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Having been refused leave to make a statement, I present the following paper:

International Labour Conference - Convention Concerning Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery in Agriculture.

Senate adjourned at 4.1 p.m.

page 1885

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Answers to the following questions upon notice were circulated:

page 1885

VIETNAM

(Question No. 978)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports that 50,000 United States troops are to be withdrawn from Vietnam?
  2. If, in fact, United States troops are withdrawn from Vietnam, will Australia also withdraw troops from this conflict, particularly those who have been conscripted?

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

  1. and 2. 1 refer the honourable senator to the ministerial statement made in the Senate on 15th May 1969 (Hansard pp. 1324 to 1328).

page 1885

COMPUTERS

(Question No. 1008)

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

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

  1. How many computers are owned and/or leased by government departments?
  2. What is the cost of annual leasing?
  3. How many officers have become superfluous as a result of the use of computers?

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

For the purpose of this question a computer has been defined as including the central processing unit and all on-line equipment.

The information provided in the answer relates to digital computers used for data processing purposes. Analogue computers, which are special devices of a completely different order used for scientific purposes, and digital computers used for special purposes such as in aircraft, mission simulators, weapon trainers, message switching and so on have been excluded. This is in line with the practice in relation to computers adopted in the Auditor-General’s annual report.

The relevant Ministers have provided the following in answer to Parts 1. and 2. of the question -

  1. I am advised by the Public Service Board that the introduction of computers has resulted in some positions becoming superfluous but no officers have become superfluous to the overall needs of the Commonwealth Public Service and none has been retrenched.

page 1885

TRADE WITH NORTH VIETNAM

(Question No.1055)

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact, as allegedly claimed by a Mr Francis James in a report in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 22 February, (a) that his company recently imported from Hanoi a shipment of books and paid for them in Australian currency, (b) that he has made a deal for further shipments and that these are authorised by both the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Trade and

Industry, and (c) that a Mr Sayers. who, Mr James claims, is a member of the Liberal Party, is at this moment in Hanoi for the purpose of arranging the importation of plywood and cigarettes from North Vietnam?

  1. If these statements are true (a) will the Prime Minister supply details of the size and value of the shipments, and (b) does the Government propose to allow such imports from North Vietnam?

Senator ANDERSON- The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question: 1. (a) I do not know but as the only authority 1 have seen for this allegation is a statement by Mr Francis James, I would doubt if it were true.

  1. This is not a fact and is quite untruthful. New regulations under the Customs Act 1901-1968 came into force on 31 January 1969. These regulations prohibit exports to or imports from North Vietnam without the written permission of the Minister for Customs and Excise. The Minister for Customs and Excise informsme that no request has been received from Mr James and no permission has been given to him to import. The Treasurer has also advised me that there have been no approvals given by his Department or the Reserve Bank for either Mr James or Mr Sayers to make payments for any imports from North Vietnam since the introduction of the new Customs Regulations. The Department of Trade and Industry is not concerned in the matter at all.
  2. If Mr Sayers is in Hanoi, or was in Hanoi, to arrange the importation of plywood and cigarettes, he will receive no permission to import them and no foreign exchange to pay for them and if they are detected entering Australia, they will be treated as a prohibited import.

    1. There has been no commercial trade with North Vietnam in recent years and the regulations made in January last were designed to remove any doubts about the Government’s policy in the matter and the adequacy of measures to implement that policy.

page 1886

MILITARY TRAINING

(Question No. 1094)

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. In each year from 1945 to 1967, how many people from the various Asian countries have received military training in Australia, excluding those affected by mutual arrangements under SEATO?
  2. What type of training have these persons received, and which branches of the services supplied the training?
  3. What agreements were entered into with each country, the members of whose armed forces received such training and what was the date of each agreement?
  4. If various type? of training were given, what was the cost of each type?
  5. What administrative responsibility was undertaken for such military training by (a) the Department of External Affairs (b) the Department of Defence (c) the Department of the Navy (d) the Department of Air, and (e) the Department of the Army?
  6. In each year from 1945 to 1967 was this training budgeted for under the estimates for the Department of External Affairs or the Defence estimates?

Senator ANDERSON- The Minister for External Affairs has provided the following answer:

The honourable senator will appreciate that considerable research is involved in providing the information sought, particularly in view of the time span involved. This research, which involves several Government Departments, is still continuing. I will make available the information obtainable as soon as it is ready.

page 1886

RICE

(Question No. 1123)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

  1. At what price per ton does Australian grown rice sell on the home market?
  2. At what price per ton does Australian grown rice sell on the export market?
  3. How much long grain rice is imported for consumption in Australia, and from what countries is it imported?

Senator ANDERSON- The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

  1. The current miller’s price to wholesalers for milled short/medium grain rice is $214.20 per long ton.
  2. Export prices vary over time and according to individual markets. In 1967-68, however, the average f.o.b. value of exports of milled rice was $139 per long ton. The comparable average value in the first 9 months of 1968-69 was$1 48 per long ton.
  3. Imports of long-grained rice are not recorded separately. However it is believed that almost all imports of rice are of long-grained varieties. The main sources and quantities of imported rice in 1967-68, as advised by the Commonwealth Statistician, were as follows:

page 1887

CIVIL AVIATION: QUEENSLAND SERVICES

(Question No. 1117)

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. When will the extensions to the Rockhampton Airport for the use of jet aircraft be completed?
  2. When they are completed will the Minister ascertain from the airline companies whether they will give consideration to running feeder services from central western Queensland into Rockhampton to link up with the jet services running north and south rather than into Brisbane via southern airports as at present?

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

  1. The extensions to Rockhampton Airport and installation of the associated landing aid should be completed by September-October 1969.
  2. Both airlines have undertaken to give consideration to the honourable senator’s request to link up the central western Queensland ports with jet services through Rockhampton. This situation is not expected before March 1970 when the airlines will each add further DC9s to their fleets enabling jet services to be introduced to Rockhampton. In the meantime their jet aircraft are expected to be fully committed on existing networks.
Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for

Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. How many permits have been granted for the import of steel in recent weeks and how many permits are likely to be granted in the immediate future?
  2. What are the names of the firms which have secured or are likely to secure such permits?

Senator SCOTT - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Imports of steel into Australia are not subject to any import restrictions and accordingly no permit to import is required.

page 1887

STEEL

(Question No. 1286)

page 1887

CONTAINER SHIPPING

(Question No. 1271)

Senator BISHOP:

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

What consideration has been given to the implementation of the following recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes:

No. 1, proposing a joint Commonwealth-State consultative committee to supervise the container method of handling cargo; and

No. 6, proposing Commonwealth-State discussions, involving port authorities, in respect to port revenue problems, including new high capital investments necessary to meet container shipping requirements’?

Senator SCOTT- The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The recommendation that there should be a joint Commonwealth-State consultative committee appointed to supervise the introduction and early operation of the container method of handling cargoes has been accepted by the Government in substance but it is considered that the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which exists to deal with domestic transport matters and has in fact already considered some regulatory aspects of container transport is a suitable organisation for the purpose.

Having regard to the Select Committee’s intention that any matter related to the introduction and early operation of the container method which involves Commonwealth-State relations should be referred to a joint committee, the matters which are the subject of Recommendation 6 could also be raised for discussion by the Australian Transport Advisory Council.

At the 28th meeting of the Council held in Hobart in February of this year, State members agreed that matters relating to the introduction of container shipping necessitating consultation and joint action by the Commonwealth and the States should be submitted to the Council for discussion and that, where appropriate, these matters should be examined by ad hoc committees appointed by the Council.

page 1887

SEMI-TRAILERS

(Question No. 1260)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

In view of the mounting number of major road fatalities involving semi-trailers, has the Department of Shipping and Transport undertaken any recent examination of semi-trailer design, road performance, etc., and, in conjunction with State authorities, sought to curb the excessive hours worked by non-union owner-drivers of semitrailers?

Senator SCOTT- The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As part of a continuing programme of motor vehicle safety studies, the Department in conjunction with the Australian Motor Vehicle Standards Committee has examined such features of semitrailers as braking, jack-knifing, lighting, rear end visibility, dimensions and turning characteristics. A current study is being undertaken on the requirements to reduce the effects of other vehicles under- running the trays ofsemi-trailers. The latter aspect of the question is primarily a matter for the States, most of which have legislation limiting the number of hours for which the driver of a commercial vehicle may drive and I am sure that the State authorities enforce the legislation.

page 1888

REDLINE OMNIBUS SERVICES

(Question No. 1238)

Senator ORMONDE:

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

  1. Is the Minister concerned about the sequence of fatal accidents, involving Redline Coaches Ltd, that have occurred recently?
  2. Are bus services between Sydney and Melbourne and return run on too tight a schedule, particularly in bad weather?
  3. Is maintenance on Redline buses up to standard?

Senator SCOTT- The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. I am concerned with all road accidents, particularly those involving fatalities. Accidents involving fatalities are subject to investigation by State Government authorities in the State in which the accident occurred.
  2. I am informed that provided suitably designed and equipped long distance vehicles arc used, the advertised schedules appear to be feasible within legal speed limits.

The schedules would appear too tight during inclement weather but it seems that the scheduled times are exceeded under these conditions.

  1. Redline buses are subject to 6-monthIy inspections in Queensland where they are registered. Their standard of maintenance has been found satisfactory.

page 1888

WOOL: SHIPPING METHODS

(Question No. 1181)

Senator BULL:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: in view of the fact that there is some disquiet in the wool industry about the involvement of Australia in international container shipping to North America, United Kingdom and Japan, can the Minister give an assurance that the strong recommendation of the Senate select committee on containerisation of cargoes that shippers of wool should have a clear-cut choice of shipping methods and arrangements, will be adhered to?

Senator SCOTT- The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government’s decision that the Australian National Line should enter overseas shipping in the trades between Australia and United Kingdom/ Europe, Japan and the east coast of North America in no way inhibits the freedom of shippers to make such arrangements for the shipping of their goods as they judge best in the light of their own commercial considerations.

The Government, for its part, continues to support the operation of efficient closed shipping conferences which it believes to be in the long term best interests of Australian exports as a whole.

These conferences are designed to provide regular and efficient services at stable rates to Australian pons. This is essential to Australia’s export industries, including the wool industry.

page 1888

YUENDUMU NATIVE SETTLEMENT

(Question No. 1175)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. What has been the turnover of labour at the Yuendumu Native Settlement since the appointment of the present superintendent?
  2. Has the turnover of labour atthe settlement greatly increased since the appointment of the present superintendent?

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

  1. It is assumed that the question relates to staff of the settlement and not to Aboriginals undergoing training at the settlement. Since the appointment of the present superintendent on 16th November 1965, 27 staff members have resigned or been appointed to positions elsewhere in the Territory. This figure excludesteaching staff who are subject to periodic transfers and other movements to meet needs and demands of the teaching service.
  2. No. The figure for staff changes is also not abnormal in comparison with figures for other large settlements over the same period of time.

page 1888

YUENDUMU NATIVE SETTLEMENT

(Question No. 1174)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. During the Christmas period in 1968. were twenty-two pigs slaughtered at Yuendumu Native settlement and distributed to prominent citizens of Alice Springs?
  2. Was this free distribution made at some sacrifice to the families at the settlement?

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

  1. No. About twenty pigs were slaughtered between Christmas 1967 and 12th March 1968. This and other piggeries on settlements are conducted as part of the training programme for Aborigines and the animals in question were surplus to requirements following a culling of the piggery. The meat was distributed to settlement staff as the Aboriginal people in the area do not have a liking for pork and eat it only on rare occasions. 2. See answer to (1) above.

page 1889

CANBERRA WATER SUPPLY

(Question No. 1253)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Is there any proposal being mooted to have a dam constructed in New South Wales on the Queanbeyan River to meet the future water supply requirements of Canberra? If so, what area of land is likely to be required, and what restrictions, if any, will be placed on the remainder of the catchment area?

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

Proposals for the construction of a dam at Googong on the Queanbeyan River in New South Wales to augment the water supply to Canberra were included in recommendations to the Parliamentary Works Committee in 1954. The further development of the Cotter River at Bendora was preferred at that time. This proposal is one of several currently under consideration by the National Capital Development Commission.

The area of the land required for the storage itself would depend on the details of the scheme but would be of the order of 1,700 acres.

No decisions on restrictions if any in the remainder of the catchment could be made until detailed proposals are developed and discussed with the authorities’ concerned. The practices and policies pertaining to water supply catchment are already established in that State.

page 1889

PASSPORTS

(Question No. 1126)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

On how many occasions during the years 1966 to 1968 did the Minister exercise his powers under sections 7 and 8 of the Passports Act to withhold, cancel or refuse applications for Australian passports?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

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

In the years 1966 to 1968 a total of five applications for the issue of Australian passports which had been fully completed in the required manner were refused. In three of these cases, however, documents of identity in lieu of passports were issued.

In the same period six passports were cancelled under section 8 of the Passports Act.

In addition, passports are withheld from persons who are unable to comply with the full requirements. A married applicant, for instance, is asked to obtain the consent of his or her spouse unless the latter is making a simultaneousapplication for a passport. Failure to furnish this written consent does not mean that a passport will necessarily be withheld from the applicant; in such a case the spouse from whom consent has not been obtained is given notice that the passport will be issued in 2 weeks’ time (or 3 weeks if the parties are residing in different States) unless a court order is produced restraining the departure of the applicant from Australia. If such a court order is produced, the passport is, of course, withheld.

Passports are also withheld in cases where court orders exist in respect of children and the circumstances are such that it would be in conflict with these orders to provide a passport. For example section 62 of the Migration Act 1958-1966 prohibits the taking of a child out of Australia where there is in force in relation to the child an order entitling a person, either wholly or partly, to the custody or guardianship of that child; in such a case it would clearly be wrong to issue a passport which would enable the child to leave Australia.

No statistics are available in respect of passports withheld from persons who are unable to comply with the full requirements.

page 1889

CIGARETTE ADVERTISEMENTS

(Question No. 1168)

Senator ORMONDE:

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

Is the Government unable to restrict cigarette advertising by newspapers, radio and television, as an aid to reducing smoking, because of constitutional and policy reasons? If so, will the Government institute an advertising campaign pointing out the dangers to health from smoking?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

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

I have stated previously that the Commonwealth would be willing to co-operate with the States in uniform health education programmes, in respect of its own Territories. I expect the whole question of smoking and health to be discussed at the 1969 Conference of Health Ministers, to be held next month.

page 1889

TARIFF BOARD

(Question No. 1161)

Senator SIM:

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

  1. When are appointments likely to be made to fill the vacant positions on the Tariff Board?
  2. Is the delay in making these appointments affecting the Tariff Board’s review of areas of high protection?

Senator ANDERSON- The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The appointment of Mr L. R. Dudley to fill one of the two vacancies on the Tariff Board was announced on 25th April.
  2. The process of reviewing rates of duty in the tariff is a continuing one which is not confined to examining areas of higher protection. The Government is conscious that vacancies on the Board impose an increase in the workload on the present members and every effort is being made to fill the remaining vacancy as soonas possible.

page 1890

KOREA

(Question No. 1162)

Senator O’BYRNE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s statement in Sydney on 21st April 1969 that Australia and America will stay together in ‘rough or smooth weather’, what are the views of the Australian Government on the situation off North Korea, where American flights have resumed under strong air and naval support, which could lead the United States of America into another major military involvement on the Asian mainland?
  2. Is Australia prepared to follow the United States of America into a full scale resumption of the Korean War, and was the Australian Government, as a former ally in the Korean War, consulted or told about the current American strategy off North Korea?

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

The Australian Government deplores the recent aggressive actions of the Communist regime of North Korea. The destruction on 15th April 1969 by North Korea of an unarmed propeller driven reconnaissance aircraft, which the United States Government has categorically stated had at no time intruded into North Korea air space and which was approximately 90 miles from the shores of North Korea when it was shot down, was entirely contrary to international law. The Governments of the United States and the Republic of Korea have acted defensively and with great restraint in the face of North Korea’s repeated use of force directed against the territory of the Republic of Korea, and of the attacks on the USS ‘Pueblo’ and the reconnaissance aircraft and consultations between Australia and the United States in relation to the Korean situation are frequent.

page 1890

TRADE: AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Question No. 1184)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. What are the final corrected figures of the balance of trade between Australia and the United States of America in each of the past 15 years?
  2. Why has the Government failed to correct the adverse balance?

Senator ANDERSON- The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following details of the balance of trade between Australia and the United States of America for each of the past 15 years:
  1. The Government is anxious to improve the balance of trade with the United States, but does not necessarily expect a strict balance of trade with any individual trading partner. The Government’s aim is to expand exports generally and to achieve an overall balance in trade and international payments. In the United States, however, expansion of Australian exports is inhibited by limited access to the market for some of Australia’s major export commodities. The problems for Australia have largely been caused by United States protectionism. They have been repeatedly outlined to the United States by Minister and officials in formal representations and informal discussions, both in respect of the general principles involved and the impact on individual commodities. The Government is continuing its efforts to achieve better access for Australian products on the United States market. At the same time concerted efforts are being made to expand the range and increase the volume of manufactured goods exported to the United States. As a result the value of manufactured goods as a proportion of total exports to the United States has risen from 4% in 1962-63 to some 16% in 1967-68.

page 1891

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

(Question No. 1186)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. How many senior officers of the Department of Trade and Industry haveleft the Department in thelast two years?
  2. What are the names and the positions they held?
  3. In each case what was the reason for leaving?
  4. What percentage of the senior staff has resigned in the past 2 years?

Senator ANDERSON - The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 18 officers of Class 10 level and above have left the Department since 29.4.67. 2 and 3-

Deputy Secretaries

  1. Callaghan - resigned to take up position outside Public Service.
  2. J. Campbell - resigned to take up position outside Public Service.
  3. P. Phillips - resigned to take up position outside Public Service.
  4. M. Summers; - promoted to Department of Shipping and Transport.

Special Commercial Adviser

  1. P. Fleming- promoted as Parliamentary Librarian.

Assistant Secretaries

  1. Back - resigned to take up position outside Public Service.
  2. O. Dickinson - retired.
  3. F. Felgenner- promoted to Department of the Interior.

Textiles Adviser

  1. Binkowski - resigned to take up position outside Public Service.

Class 11

  1. Kneipp - resigned to take up position outside Public Service.
  2. Mathams - resigned to take up position outside Public Service.
  3. Reid - promoted as Collector of Customs, Queensland.

Class 10

  1. F. Backen - promoted to Prime Minister’s Department.
  2. Kerridge - resigned to take up position outside Public Service.
  3. Reddy - promoted to Prime Minister’s Department.
  4. R. E. Tooker - resigned to take up position outside Public Service.
  5. Vincent - retired.
  6. P. Witting - transferred to the Department of Immigration.

    1. 9%.

page 1891

UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS

(Question No. 1199)

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Prime Minister seen a newspaper report from Washington in which Dr Frank McKeowns, of the United States of America Geological Survey, referring to underground nuclear explosions, stated that ‘as the shots have become bigger we have recognised that they do trigger seismic activity (that is, minor earthquakes) farther and farther out from the explosions,’ and that about a year ago an underground test of 1.2 megatons in Nevada caused a fracture in hard rock 4,000 feet from the explosion that gave rise to a fault almost 3 miles long?
  2. Will the Prime Minister bring the results of this new research to any organisation carrying out feasibility studies connected with the use of underground nuclear explosions anywhere in Australia?

Senator ANDERSON- The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 and 2. The report to which the honourable senator has drawn attention has been noted. Full information on United States experience with the safety aspects of peaceful nuclear explosions is available to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission through the United States Atomic Energy Commission. It is one of the functions of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to make the information available to interested parties. The honourable senator may therefore be assured that the report to which he refers will not be overlooked.

page 1891

BOMB EXPLOSION AT MONA VALE

(Question No. 1202)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Have the appropriate Commonwealth authorities conferred with the New South Wales police in inquiring into the recent bomb explosion involving the Solunac family at Emma Street, Mona Vale, New South Wales?
  2. Is this incident regarded as a resurgence of Ustashi terrorism?

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am informed that there has been nothing to suggest that the incident signifies any political activity.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 26th March 1969, Senator Devitt asked me a question without notice concerning the light aircraft industry. He asked whether there is, in Australia, any system whereby the manufacturers of light aircraft can be helped and encouraged to establish the industry on a viable basis in competition with overseas manufacturers.

The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided me with the following reply:

Following representations by Australian manufacturers of single engined aircraft for bounty assistance, the Government has had the Tariff Board conduct two full public inquiries into the industry within the last four years. In its first report of 21st December 1966, the Board con- cluded that there was little possibility at that time of light aircraft being produced profitably without a level of assistance out of proportion to the probable gains to the economy. The Board’s recommendation that assistance be not accorded the light aircraft industry was accepted by the Government. At the time of the first Tariff Board inquiry, one of the firms seeking assistance had not reached production capability and its case was therefore based on various estimates and projections of future costs and sales levels. However, by May 1967, the firm was in full production, and in order to ensure that its case for assistance was thoroughly examined, the matter was again referred to the Tariff Board.

In the resulting report dated 2.1st June 1968, the Tariff Board gave a firm recommendation that assistance be not accorded. After a most careful examination of the report, the Government concluded that it should accept the Tariff Board’s recommendation. It would be difficult to justify a further investigation into the question of assistance to the manufacture of light aircraft unless the industry could establish that its circumstances had changed substantially since thelast inquiry by the Tariff Board.

page 1892

LIGHT AIRCRAFT

page 1892

QUARANTINE : AUSTRALIAN TRACKER DOGS

(Question No. 1269)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What are the details of the quarantine procedure which will be followed if some Australian tracker dogs, now being used on operational duties in Vietnam, are returned to Australia?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

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

Under the quarantine law, a dog from Vietnam would be permitted to enter Australia only if it had first been sent to the United Kingdom and domiciled there for 6 months and had subsequently passed health tests and been transported from the United Kingdom to Australia by sea. On arrival in Australia, it would be quarantined for a further period of at least 2 months. These quarantine requirements, which are always enforced, are designed to ensure that Australia is kept free of rabies - sometimes known as hydrophobia - a fatal disease which is conveyed to man from the bite of an infected dog.

page 1892

AGED PERSONS HOMES

(Question No. 1280)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. During the month of January 1969, was a Commonwealth grant of $7,400 made under the Aged Persons Homes Act to the Church of England Homes for Elderly People for two selfcontained cottages in the Electorate of La Trobe, Victoria?
  2. Were the cottages limited to housing two aged persons?
  3. For the construction of the cottages was $6,400 donated by the residents?
  4. Was the total capital cost of these two cottages $11,000?
  5. Did the organisation, therefore, receive from the Commonwealth grant and residents’ donations, a total in excess of the capital cost of $2,700 for the provision of homes for two aged persons?
  6. During the month of January 1969, did Age Cottage Homes Incorporated for homes in the Electorate of Sturt, South Australia, Vaseys House Auxiliary for homes in the Electorate of Isaacs, Victoria, Murray Lands Homes for the Aged Incorporated for homes in the electorate of Angas, South Australia, and Dale Cottage Homes Incorporated, for homes in Canning, Western Australia, also receive moneys from Commonwealth grants and residents’ donations in excess of the capital cost of homes provided?
  7. Does this indicate a profit in providing homes for aged persons?
  8. Will the Government take action to stop exploitation of residents?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 to 6. The information sought is set out in the January schedule of approvals under the Aged Persons Homes Act, circulated to all honourable senators.

The figures shown for capital cost and for the amount of the Commonwealth grant in each case are provisional, based on estimated building costs, and are subject to review when the projects are completed and actual costs known. 7 and 8. Commonwealth grants may only be made under the Act to religious and other nonprofit organisations, thus all amounts received are applied towards the cost of accommodating aged residents. Any amount received in excess of the capital cost of the building is usually used either to help meet the cost of moveable equipment and furniture which is not eligible for Commonwealth subsidy, to provide additional homes for non-donors, to build nursing accommodation or to meet the cost of other services for the aged residents.

page 1893

WOOL MARKETING

(Question No. 1257)

Senator POYSER:

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

Is it a fact that the Australian Wool Industry Conference voted on two occasions for the establishment of a statutory wool marketing authority?

Senator McKELLAR - The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s -question:

On 7th August 1968 the Australian Wool Industry Conference voted 37 to 17 in favour of a statutory authority to administer the wool marketing proposals recommended by the Australian Wool Board. However, this was not intended to be a final decision of the Conference. It was merely a vote on a recommendation to be referred back to woolgrower organisations for further consideration before the Conference met again to take a final decision on the matter.

The subsequent vote of the Conference taken at its meeting on 17th October 1968 resulted in a majority of 30 to 25 in favour of a statutory body. However, this resolution was never conveyed to the Government. It is understood that the Conference considered that such a majority would not be sufficient to. encourage the Government to act upon the proposal. With this in mind, the Conference ultimately adopted a modified proposal calling for the setting up of a non-statutory body. This proposal was adopted by a majority of 48 to 7 of the Conference at its meeting on 28th November 1968.

page 1893

AUSTRALIAN WOOL BOARD

(Question No. 1254)

Senator O’BYRNE:

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

  1. What are the purposes of the expenditure of $ 1.1 9m on wool stores by the Australian Wool Board for the year 1967-68?
  2. What is the breakdown of the $2m from wool stores, the $17,000 from Wool House and the $68,000 from other income for the year 1967-68?
  3. What are the details of the provision of reserves of $5,600 and $72,000 for Wool House maintenance and Wool House replacement for the year 1967-68?
  4. Will the Minister provide details of the receipts for (a) interest on investments $124,000; (b) sale of wool and sheep, $101,000; and (c) sale of assets, $23,000, in the Wool Board Trust Account for the period 1st July 1967 to 30th June 1968?

Senator McKELLAR- The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Australian Wool Board administers 282 wool stores preserved from the World WarII United Kingdom/Australia wool purchase scheme. The stores are vested in the Wool Board under the Wool Industry Act 1962-67 on condition that they will be surrendered to the Commonwealth Government if required in the event of a war emergency. Against such an eventuality, the Act requires the Board to maintain the stores in a good condition. The stores are let by the Board to wool firms and other interests and the net income obtained from store rents forms a useful contribution to the Board’s funds.

The figure of $1.19m cited by the honourable senator actually refers to expenditure on wool stores during the year 1966-67 and not 1967-68, as do the figures mentioned in Parts 2 and 3 of his question. Assuming that the senator is interested in details for 1967-68, the figures given below for the items in question are for that year.

The expenditure on wool stores under the subheading ‘Other Expenses’ in the Australian Wool Board’s statement of income and expenditure for 1967-68 was $1.082m (cf. $1.197m in 1966-67). This expenditure is made up of the following components:

Item (d) above represents a sum set aside by the Wool Board each year for the renovation or redevelopment of the stores. Most of the stores were built over 25 years ago and require ever increasing maintenance and in some cases redevelopment.

  1. The gross income from wool stores in 1967-68 was $2,293m (cf. $2.057m in 1966-67); from Wool

House $17,000 (cf. $17,000); ‘Other Income’ $117,000 (cf. $69,000). The components of the above figures for 1967-68 are as follows:

  1. Income from Wool House of $17,000 represents gross rent paid by outside tenants occupying the fourth floor of the building.
  1. The reserve for Wool House maintenance in 1967-68 was $7,000 (cf. $5,700 in 1966-67). This is an account into which the Wool Board pays $1,500 a year to build up a fund to meet any major maintenance charges for the building that arise from time to time.

The reserve for Wool House replacement in 1967-68 was $87,000 (cf. $72,000 in 1966-67). This is an account which has been built up from net rentals received from tenants in former years when the Wool Board occupied only a small part of the building. To this has been added in later years the money derived from the funding of the depreciation charge on the building. The purpose of this reserve is to provide funds for any major alterations that may be necessary as well as a contribution towards the ultimate replacement of the building if and when it becomes necessary.

  1. The details in respect of the Wool Research Trust Account are as follows:

    1. Interest on investments, $124,000. This interest arises from the investment of money in the Wool Research Trust Account which is not required for immediate use. The investments are in the form of Government securities for varying periods and in fixed deposits.
    2. Sale of wool and sheep, $101,600. This amount represents income paid into the Wool Research Trust Account from the sale of wool and sheep from CSIRO research stations and other institutions which receive grants from the Account.
    3. Sale of assets, $23,000. This item represents the proceeds of sale of sundry items of equipment which have been purchased by grants from the Account but are no longer required.

page 1894

WHEAT: GIFT TO INDIA

(Question No. 1218)

Senator MILLINER:

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

  1. What price per bushel did the Commonwealth Government pay the Australian Wheat Board for the most recent gift of wheat to India?
  2. What price per bushel did the Comonwealth Government receive from China for the most recent sale of wheat to that country?
  3. Why cannot Queensland dairy farmers be supplied withsecond quality wheat at a price comparable with that paid for prime quality export wheat?

Senator McKELLAR- The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. As previously announced by the Minister for External Affairs the most recent purchase (in November 1968) of wheat by the Commonwealth Government for donation to the Indian Government was 70,000 metric tons valued at approximately $3.7mf.o.b. This was part of the Australian commitment under the International Grains Arrangement to supply developing countries with 225,000 metric tons of wheat or flour as food aid in 1968-69.
  2. As has been repeatedly stated the Australian Wheat Board does not reveal the price at which it makes commercial sales of wheat to any buyer. This is in accord with normal commercial practice that the prices at which contracts are made are strictly confidential between buyer and seller. The Government supports the Board in this policy.
  3. The complementary Commonwealth-State legislation, under which the Australian Wheat Board derives the sole responsibility for the marketing of wheat, does not empower the Board to sell wheat at other than the price determined by the legislation for all home consumption purposes. However the fixed price relates to f.a.q. wheat bulk f.o.r. at a port of export and the Board is enabled by the legislation to make a proper allowance in the price for wheat not attaining f.a.q. quality.

As part of the generous overall financial assistance which the Commonwealth has announced it will provide to Queensland this year, arrangements have been agreed with the Queensland Government whereby farmers may purchase wheat for feeding purposes, on up to 12 months credit terms, at country terminals or depots at seaboard rates less freight from country terminals to seaboard. It is understood that the Queensland Government will convey, free of charge anywhere in Queensland, wheat consigned for drought relief purposes.

page 1894

FIJI: WILD DOG DESTRUCTION

(Question No. 1228)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: 1 Did the Australian Government provide strychnine baits to the Fijian Government to enable that Government to deal with wild dogs?

  1. Did the Fijian Government subsequently refuse to use such baits, preferring to use a more merciful form of extermination?
  2. Has the Australian Government learnt a lesson in humanity as a result of this action by the Fijian Government and is it seeking to replace the use of strychnine baits with something less drawnout in its agonising effect?

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

  1. No.
  2. The use of poison baits is banned in Fiji.
  3. Fijian experience is not relevant in the Australian context. The term ‘wild dog’ in Australia customarily refers to the dingo. The only practical methods of control in Australia are by trapping or poisoning. I understand that CSIRO is undertaking a study of the biology of this animal which could suggest other methods of control in the future.

page 1895

NORFOLK ISLAND: COMPANY PROMOTION BUSINESS

(Question No. 1116)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Mr H. G. Pearce is no longer allowed to carry on the business of company promotion on Norfolk Island?
  2. Is it a fact that an agent of the said H. G. Pearce is still operating on the Island, allegedly using an assumed name?
  3. Are there any persons still carrying out company promotion from tax-free Norfolk Island? If so, what are the names of the persons and what action is being taken to prevent the future registration of new companies based on the Island?

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for External Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. Not so far as is known.
  3. So long as they comply with the provisions of the company law of Norfolk Island, there is nothing to prevent persons wishing to register new companies based on Norfolk Island from doing so.

page 1895

F111 AIRCRAFT: SPARE PARTS

(Question No. 1220)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

Has Australia taken delivery of spare parts for servicing F111 aircraft? If so, (a) what quantity has been delivered; and (b) what is the value of these parts?

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

The answer to the first part of the question is yes’.

The answer to the second part of the question is:

The following reflects the position as at 1st May 1969:

  1. The assessed quantities required for the first year of operation of the aircraft have been received in respect of 37,000 identified spares items.
  2. The exact value of the quantities received cannot be given because claims for payment are not made until some time after deliveries. It is estimated that the value would approximate $20 million.

page 1895

NEW ZEALAND LAMB

(Question No. 1246)

Senator YOUNG:

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

  1. Will the LambIndustry Panel, which is investigating lamb production in New South Wales, visit other States to study production conditions and costs so that it will have an appreciation of problems in all States?
  2. When will this Panel be making its first report, including views on the effect of the importation of New Zealand lamb?
  3. Will this be before the main production periods for Australian lamb so that necessary steps can be taken if it is found that the importation of New Zealandlamb is having an adverse effect?

Senator McKELLAR - The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Lamb Industry Panel, established by the Minister for Trade and Industry in January last is not concerned with the survey referred to by the honourable senator. As announced by the Minister for Primary Industry on 23rd April 1969, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is carrying out a survey of prime lamb producers in the Oberon Shire of New South Wales. The purpose of the survey is to collect information on costs and returns of prime lamb producers, but it is in no way concerned with imports of New Zealand lamb. The results of the BAE survey in the Oberon Shire cannot be finalised until the full financial details in respect of 1968-69 become available from the properties surveyed. As the work proceeds it is proposed to extend the survey to other major lamb producing areas.
  2. and 3. The Lamb Industry Panel was established to maintain a constant review of the Australian Lamb Market as it might be affected by imports of lamb from New Zealand. The Panel is to assemble all relevant information and provide advice to the Government on the impact, if any, on the Australian market of future imports of New Zealand lamb.

page 1896

GREAT BARRIER REEF

(Question No. 1203)

Senator DITTMER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

In the light of research observations made recently by a Japanese survey ship which revealed further extensive destruction of the Great Barrier Reef outside Townsville, will the Prime Minister take urgent steps to expedite his answer to the request of the Premier of Queensland for Commonwealth assistance in the protection of the Reef?

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

The Premier of Queensland has written expressing concern at the damage being caused to coral reefs by the Crown of Thorns Starfish, and requesting that the Commonwealth consider joining the State in considering measures which might usefully be taken towards meeting the emergency. The Premier also sent material on the limited scientific investigations that had been carried out into the problem.

The Premier’s request and the material he sent were referred to a number of Commonwealth authorities for examination and advice. These authorities have been asked to expedite their advice so that a reply can be sent to the Premier on this matter soon.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 20th March Senator Cohen asked me if the attention of the Minister for Education and Science had been drawn to a statement by Mr M. K. Vogt, President of the high schools branch of the Victorian Teachers Union, that fewer than 2% of Victoria’s high schools have enough science and mathematics teachers and that in many high schools science is not being taught to Forms I and II students. The honourable Senator continued: ‘Mr Vogt is also reported to have said that because of the shortage of science and mathematics teachers thousands of students will be left behind in the race for the honours necessary to ensure entrance to a University ‘.

The honourable senator did not say when or where this statement was reported. In response to his question, the Minister for Education and Science asked his department to make further inquiries. The department, I understand, was not able to trace any public record of the statement alleged by the honourable senator to have been made by Mr Vogt. Mr Vogt was then approached himself through the Victorian Teachers Union for some guidance. I have to report that Mr Vogt has no knowledge of a public statement or report having been made on these specific matters in the terms used in the honourable senator’s question.

I replied to a number of points raised by the honourable senator but there are two matters calling for further comment.

The honourable senator asked if the Minister would seek a report on the shortage of science teachers generally and make that report available to the Senate. I did indicate then that the honourable senator was referring to departments of state within the responsibility of the State Government. Further to this I would direct the honourable senator’s attention to a decision of the Australian Education Council, held in Adelaide in March this year which was released to the Press and given some coverage. Its opening paragraph reads, ‘Each State will take appropriate action to set out the needs of that State for the education of children up to the completion of secondary schooling and for the education of teachers’. I think it reasonable to assume that the needs of science teaching will not be overlooked in this survey.

The honourable senator also asked the Government to review its approach to the teacher training recommendations in the Martin Report. Many of the recommendations regarding teacher training contained in the report of the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia were purely matters for the State Government rather than for the Commonwealth Government. However, since that time the Commonwealth Government has provided assistance to the States for teacher training under a scheme which was originated at the request of the States themselves and under which $24m is being provided by the Commonwealth in unmatched capital grants over a 3-year period. The purpose of the grants is to enable the States to provide additional teachers college places, which may involve the building of new colleges and the alteration and extension of existing ones. Some assistance is given under this scheme to the independent schools, because a condition of it is that 10% of places provided with Commonwealth funds must be reserved for teacher trainees who are not bonded to a State education department. No doubt many such places will be filled by students who intend to teach within the independent school system.

Unbonded teachers are eligible for Commonwealth advanced education scholarships to assist them to take advantage of places in government teachers colleges.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 28th May Sena tor Gair asked me the following question, without notice:

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?

The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following additional comments on the honourable senator’s question -

A scholarship holder who is convicted of a breach of the law does not automatically lose his scholarship. Under the Commonwealth University Scholarship Scheme a scholar may continue to hold his award and receive benefits from it provided that he is in attendance at an approved institution and makes satisfactory academic progress. Should a scholarship holder, as a result of penalties imposed by the courts, be unable to meet these conditions then his entitlement to scholarship benefits would be reviewed. If he failed a year of his studies then he would be in the same position as any other scholar who fails a year of his course. If it were a first failure then his scholarship would be suspended for a year to enable him to retrieve his failure at his own expense. A second failure, under the normal conditions of the scheme, would lead to the withdrawal of the scholarship. A student who was excluded from his course by the university authorities could not, of course, continue to receive scholarship benefits.

page 1896

EDUCATION

page 1897

UNIVERSITY SCHOLARSHIP

page 1897

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 1279)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Will the Minister make available to Parliament a complete list of names and addresses of all persons charged for various reasons under the provisions of the National Service Act?
  2. Will the Minister also make available complete details of the penalties imposed?

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

  1. No. In the interests of registrants personal details are not disclosed.
  2. I refer the honourable senator to the answer which was provided by the Minister for Labour and National Service on 28th May in reply to Question No. 1229 on the notice paper for the House of Representatives (‘Hansard’ p. 2434). (Question No. 1281)

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

Have any prosecutions for refusal to serve been instituted for non-compliance with section 51 of the National Service Act against persons who have not been examined as to fitness to serve as required by PartIII of the Act?

Senator. WRIGHT- The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Presumably the honourable senator has in mind prosecutions for failure to obey a call-up notice under section 51 since the passage of the amending legislation last year. Three men have been convicted under this section. All were examined and found to meet the Army’s standard of fitness.

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister:

  1. How many ex-servicemen, who are suffering from war disabilities and are employed in Government departments, have been rejected from membership of the Provident Fund?
  2. Is it the intention of the Government to reject all ex-servicemen who have suffered physical damage as a result of involvement in the various wars in which this Government engages from time to time from Provident Fund and other benefits of a similar nature to which they would normally have been entitled had they not suffered injuries as a result of war?

Senator ANDERSON- The Public Service Board and Commonwealth Superannuation Board have provided the following in answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Statistics are not kept nor could they be readily obtained.
  2. Ex-servicemen who may be suffering from war-caused disabilities are not rejected for admission to either the Provident Account or the Superannuation Fund on the grounds of suffering from war-caused disabilities, as such. There are specified medical standards which are required for contributors for both schemes, those for the Provident Account being much lower than those for the Superannuation Fund. The essential purpose in establishing the Provident Account was to provide a benefit scheme for returned soldiers who could not meet the higher medical standards required for the Superannuation Fund but who could be expected to provide a reasonable minimum period of service. Although it is not known how many were suffering from war-caused disabilities, about 4,040 ex-servicemen and women were appointed to the Commonwealth Public Service during the years1964-1968 inclusive. Of these, 79% were accepted ‘as contributors to the Superannuation Fund, the remainder being accepted as contributors to the Provident Account.

page 1897

PROVIDENT ACCOUNT

(Question No. 1133)

page 1898

COMMONWEALTH CARS

(Question No. 1250)

Senator WHEELDON:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. Which categories of Commonwealth public servants stationed in State capital cities are entitled to the use of Commonwealth cars and in what circumstances?
  2. Is it a fact that certain Commonwealth public servants are entitled to the use of ‘large black’ cars which is apparently meant to imply that the users of such vehicles are of a superior status to other less highly regarded users of Commonwealth cars, such as members of Parliament?

Senator ANDERSON- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. In April 1966 the then Acting Prime Minister issued rules governing the use of official transport and these rules apply to all Commonwealth Departments. Official transport is available for use where the nature of the occasion demands that the Commonwealth should provide its own transport or where in the interests of economy and efficiency it is desirable that a Commonwealth vehicle be used. Responsibility for control of the custody and use of official vehicles rests with the Permanent Head of the department concerned.
  2. The Stores and Transport Branch of my department operates passenger-carrying vehicles in all capital cities outside the Australian Capital Territory to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth. The fleets comprise some prestige type vehicles, some large sedans and in the main medium sedans. There are no prescribed rules for the allocation of these vehicles. However, the prestige type vehicles are used for either ceremonial purposes or for the transport of present or former Occupants of high offices of the Commonwealth. The large sedan vehicles are mainly used for VIP and ministerial purposes. When these vehicles are not required for such purposes, they are mad: available for general pool work so that the vehicles are fully utilised rather than be standing idle. In these cases, drivers of these vehicles are assigned jobs as orders are received. There is no allocation of particular types of vehicles to particular classes of passengers.

page 1898

SHIPPING

(Question No. 1245)

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

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

  1. What progress has been made in the negotiations, under the Trade Practices Act, between shipowners of the Australia-Singapore and West Malaysia Outward Shipping Conference and the Singapore-West Malaysia Shippers Association?
  2. Have the provisions of the Trade Practices Act in this respect been found workable and generally satisfactory?

Senator ANDERSON- The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. In accordance with section 90M of the Trade Practices Act notices requesting undertakings to negotiate with the shipper body were served on the twelve shipowners who comprise the Conference. Subsequently one of these lines has notified me that it is no longer carrying on business, and therefore will not be required to provide such an undertaking. The other eleven have given undertakings, but certain of the wording of these undertakings requires clarification, and this is now under discussion with solicitors acting for the shipowners concerned. It is anticipated that the desired clarification will be obtained within the near future.
  2. The provisions of the Trade Practices Act in relation to overseas cargo shipping are being found suitable and are generally satisfactory, although, because of the complexity of the issues involved, the formation of the first shipper bodies and other procedural matters has taken some time.

page 1898

PUBLIC SERVICE

(Question No. 1211)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Do any resignations from the Commonwealth Public Service have to be approved by the Governor-General? If so, what grades of personnel have to receive such approval?

Senator ANDERSON - The Public Service Board has advised that the answer is:

Yes; officers of the First Division.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 30th April

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 26th March 1969 I undertook to refer to the Prime Minister a question by Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood concerning the provision of Commonwealth transport for pensioners during ambulance strikes. The Prime Minister has provided the following in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Repatriation Department has advised that medical treatment is provided under the Repatriation regulations and that the definition of medical treatment includes ‘ . . . transport in relation to such treatment . . . ‘ Public transport is normally used, but where the medical condition of a patient warrants the use of other means, the transportation is arranged by civil ambulance or by car through the transport pool of the Department of Supply or, in special circumstances taxis may be used. As an administrative safeguard in such cases a medical certificate is required before approval is given.

Except in respect of people receiving treatment provided under the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, there is no provision in the Social Services Act 1947-1968 under which the cost of conveying pensioners from hospitals in emergency circumstances could be met by the Commonwealth.

Although the provision of ambulance services is primarily the responsibility of the State governments, the honourable senator’s views will be kept in mind when next the social services legislation is under review.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 27th March 1969 1 undertook to refer to the Prime Minister a question asked by Senator Rae concerning the employment of British exservice men and women in the Commonwealth Public Service. The Prime Minister has provided the following in answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 am advised by the Public Service Board that restrictions on appointment, for reasons of age, do not apply to all categories of staff in the Commonwealth Public Service. For a wide range of professional, technical and specialist positions, persons up to, and even over the age of 51 years are appointed. In some recruitment categories such as Mail Officer, Motor Driver, and Postman, there is a general age limit of 51 years. In some other categories, general age limits below 51 years have been specified.

Where, however, an upper age limit of less than 51 years is determined, the Public Service Act 1922-1968 provides a special concession for returned soldiers as defined in that Act. This concession was introduced in 1917 and has been extended to cover Australian returned soldiers (as defined in the Public Service Act) in subsequent conflicts. It provides that a returned soldier, who has not attained the age of 51 years, will not be prevented by reason of his age only, from sitting for examinations or obtaining appointment to the Service.

The concession was introduced as pan of an accepted national policy of giving special assistance to this particular group in order to provide, to a reasonable extent, for the need to reestablish in civilian life, ex-servicemen who had returned to Australia. Under these circumstances, it has always been considered inappropriate to extend to British ex-servicemen those concessions in employment opportunities introduced specifically for the benefit of Australian soldiers.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator Bishop, on 15th May 1969, asked me a question without notice concerning the bitumenising of the Woomera road. I now inform him that under present Commonwealth-State arrangements the Commonwealth already provides financial assistance to State governments to enable them to carry out their constitutional responsibilities for the construction and maintenance of roads, and while the Commonwealth is prepared to contribute, as in the past, to the maintenance of the Port Augusta-Woomera road, its improvement is the responsibility of the State Government. I am informed that over the past 21 years, the Commonwealth’s contribution to maintenance of the Woomera road has been approximately $1m, which is the major proportion of the total expenditure on the road during this period, and that at present annual expenditure by the Commonwealth is about $60,000. It is not proposed at this time that the Commonwealth Government should provide additional finance for the bitumenising of the Port Augusta-Woomera road.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 6th March Senator Greenwood asked me a question without notice concerning an address which the Minister for Trade and Industry had given to the Australian Mining Industry Council. I undertook to seek some expansion of the views which the Minister expressed on that occasion. The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided me with the following reply:

In my address to the Australian Mining Industry Council, I referred to the limitations of the local loan market in relation to the mining industry’s massively growing needs and the further large scale capital requirements for industrial developments founded on these great new resources. Senator Greenwood has asked if I would cite recent examples of opportunities available to the local loan market to finance such ventures, and of the inability of the local loan market to take advantage of these opportunities. My own knowledge of the circumstances of individual cases rests on what has been conveyed to me in confidential discussions. The point I was making can, however, be illustrated quite well in other ways.

For many years, the existence of relatively favourable interest rates in Australia has meant that there is a financial advantage in obtaining locally the maximum proportion of the loan funds for an Australian project. Added to this, restraints on the outflow of capital from Britain and the United States of America have placed pressures on British and American companies to ensure a maximum Australian sourcing of funds for projects in which they are engaged. Nevertheless, most of the loan finance for large-scale mineral ventures has in practice been obtained from abroad.

New money raised by companies from the investing public through fixed interest borrowing in Australia, as published by the Commonwealth Statistician, has in recent year averaged around $250m a year. There are, of course, considerable variations in this level from year to year, but this is a figure which relates to borrowings by companies engaged in all kinds of business activity in industry and commerce.

If, in the light of this, we consider the financial needs of massive new mineral ventures requiring loan funds of perhaps$100m for a single project, the inference will be clear. To meet the new capital needs created by a. continuing sequence of new discoveries either we must be prepared to see capital diverted from other uses - the rural sector, manufacturing development, essential services, or the services industries - or else capital must be obtained from abroad to enable the development of resources to go ahead.

My concern has been to see if there could be found a way of obtaining more of our requirements of loan finance from overseas without a concomitant loss in Australian ownership of our resources and industries. That is the problem to which 1 alluded in my speech.

page 1898

DECENTRALISATION

Senator Webster:

asked me without notice:

Was a Commonwealth committee on decentralisation originally formed under the supervision of the Department of Trade and Industry? Has that committeee met at frequent intervals? When will the committee report to the Minister? When will the advice of the committee be conveyed to the Senate?

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

The honourable senator is no doubt referring to the Commonwealth/State Officials’ Committee on Decentralisation which was established as a result of a decision reached at the 1964 Premiers Conference. Whilst the Department of Trade and Industry is represented on the Committee, the convenor is the Prime Minister’s Department. A number of other Commonwealth departments, as well as the States, are represented.

The full Committee has met three times, the most recent full meeting being in February of this year. The various studies decided upon by the Committee are conducted under the supervision of a technical sub-committee and various working groups which meet as required.

The Committee’s studies are essentially of a fact finding nature and involve detailed and complex research. Some studies have been completed while others essential to the Committe’s work are still in progress. AH concerned with the Committee’s work are anxious to progress as quickly as possible, but as work is being carried out by State authorities and persons and institutions outside government, a firm indication cannot be given at this stage as to when the Committee’s report will be completed.

The studies which have been completed are individual components of one overall exercise and they have to be considered in this light. As the work of the Committee is a State as well as a Commonwealth activity, the question of the release of the studies is a matter for decision by all the governments.

page 1899

PENSIONERS: TRANSPORT DURING AMBULANCE STRIKES

page 1899

PUBLIC SERVICE

page 1899

WOOMERA SPACE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY

page 1900

MINING INDUSTRY: FINANCE

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 May 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690530_senate_26_s41/>.