Senate
3 June 1969

26^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- HMAS ‘MELBOURNE
HMAS ‘MELBOURNE
- Ministerial Statement
QUESTION
- WEST IRIAN
QUESTION
- FILM CENSORSHIP
QUESTION
- HEALTH
QUESTION
- AMP BUILDING, ADELAIDE
QUESTION
- TOURISM
QUESTION
- WAR VETERANS HOMES
QUESTION
- NUCLEAR ENERGY
QUESTION
- MAXWELL NEWTON PTY LTD
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- LAMB
QUESTION
- LIBRARIES
QUESTION
- TOURISM
QUESTION
- WEST IRIAN
QUESTION
- CENSORSHIP
QUESTION
- CENSORSHIP
QUESTION
- WEST IRIAN
QUESTION
- SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY
QUESTION
- WATER CONSERVATION: COPETON DAM
QUESTION
- IMPORTS OF LAMB
QUESTION
- HIGH PRESSURE GAS CYLINDERS
QUESTION
- SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDROELECTRIC AUTHORITY
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE: FREIGHT RATES
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORT
QUESTION
- RUM
HOURS OF MEETING
GENERAL BUSINESS
- Suspension of Standing Orders
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1968-69
- Third Reading
APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1968-69
- Second Reading
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1969-70
- Second Reading
SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1969-70
- Second Reading
CHICKEN MEAT RESEARCH BILL 1969
- Second Reading
MEAT CHICKEN LEVY BILL 1969
- Second Reading
MEAT CHICKEN LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1969
- Second Reading
PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY BILL 1969
- Second Reading
CANBERRA ABATTOIR
- Appointment of Select Committee
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
- Precedence
PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY KILL 1969
- Second Reading
- In Committee
- Third Reading

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

page 1901

QUESTION

HMAS ‘MELBOURNE

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Has the Government any statement to make on the disaster which occurred in the China Sea, as the result of a collision between HMAS ‘Melbourne’ and an American warship?

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

– It is regrettably true that there has been a very serious collision at sea, involving HMAS ‘Melbourne’. The Minister for Repatriation, who represents the Minister for the Navy in this chamber, has a statement on the matter and I think it would be appropriate if he were to make it now in answer to the honourable senator’s question.

page 1901

HMAS ‘MELBOURNE

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - The Royal Australian Navy aircraft carrier, HMAS ‘Melbourne’ has been involved in a collision with the United States Navy destroyer USS ‘Frank E. Evans’ approximately 650 miles south west of Manila in the South China Sea. USS ‘Evans’ was cut in two in the collision but the exact number of casualties is not yet known. Preliminary reports from the collision scene indicate that there are 216 survivors from the after section of the ‘Evans’ who have been taken aboard HMAS ‘Melbourne’ and one confirmed casualty. USS ‘Evans* was last reporated to be carrying 273 officers and men. This means that, so far as is known at the moment, the casualties or those missing number 57. There were no casualties aboard HMAS ‘Melbourne’.

HMAS ‘Melbourne’ and USS ‘Evans* were involved in an anti-submarine phase of the South East Asian Treaty Organisation maritime exercise ‘Sea Spirit*. The sea was calm and it was a bright moonlit night. At approximately 3.15 a.m. local time - 6.15 a.m. eastern Australian time - ‘Melbourne’ ordered the ‘Evans’, which was ahead of her in the anti-submarine screen, to change course to a rescue destroyer station astern of her. ‘Evans’ approached on a collision course and despite urgent action by ‘Melbourne’ a collision occurred. The captain of ‘Melbourne’, Captain J. P. Stevenson, was on the bridge at the time.

In the collision ‘Evans’ was cut in two. The bow section sank about 10 minutes later. ‘Melbourne’ was able to secure the after section of the destroyer to her starboard side. Sailors and officers made a search of the after section and all personnel were taken on board ‘Melbourne’. The captain of the ‘Evans’, Commander A. S. McLemore, and the ship’s executive officer were among the survivors. After the search was completed the after end of ‘Evans’ was cast off.

Melbourne’ has been holed above the waterline. Her flight deck has been distorted and the catapult is unserviceable. She is able to make a speed of between 8 and 10 knots. Temporary repairs will be made to the ship before she returns to Australia. The Naval Board is awaiting further reports before deciding ‘Melbourne’s’ immediate programme.

The Chief of Naval Staff, Vice-Admiral V. A. T. Smith, has spoken by telephone from Canberra to the Flag Officer Commanding the Australian Fleet, Rear-Admiral G. J. B. Crabb, aboard ‘Melbourne’. Admiral Crabb is discussing with a United States Navy admiral the action necessary to begin an inquiry to ascertain the facts. The Naval Board will consider proposals regarding the nature of the inquiry and will decide what action the Royal Australian Navy will take. SEATO authorities have called off the exercise. Messages of condolence are being sent to the American authorities. On behalf of the members of the Senate I should like to express condolence to the relatives of those who have suffered injury or are missing.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - On behalf of the Opposition I express support of what has been said by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar). I assure the relatives of those who have suffered in this collision of our sympathy in their loss and that we wholeheartedly agree with the messages of condolence which have been sent on behalf of the Government.

The PRESIDENT:

– I assume that you wish me to communicate those expressions to the right quarters?

Senator McKellar:

– Yes.

Senator Murphy:

– Yes.

page 1902

QUESTION

WEST IRIAN

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Minister seen newspaper reports of alleged large scale slaughter in West Irian by the Indonesian Army? Did he note that the reports in question stated that Indonesian officials had come to realise that the West Irianese might actually want independence? Did he note further that the threat to the unity of Indonesia had prompted Indonesian military commanders in West Irian to take steps to ensure the right result from the act of free choice? In view of the disclosure of recent events in West Irian, does the Australian Government still support the United Nations’ approval of Indonesian plans for the so-called act of free choice?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As to the first three questions, I have seen the Press reports to which the honourable senator appears to refer. I am not aware of any hard evidence of large scale slaughter in West Irian by the Indonesian Army. In reply to the fourth question, I point out that on numerous occasions the Government has made clear its attitude to the act of free choice. Indeed, I myself have referred to it in reply to earlier questions. The Government understands the procedures by which Indonesia intends to implement the 1962 agreement with the Netherlands. Those procedures have been cleared with representative councils in West Irian in accordance with this agreement and have been accepted by the United Nations representative who has been stationed there since August of last year. The Press reports to which the honourable senator refers have not led the Government to change its present attitude to the act of free choice.

page 1902

QUESTION

FILM CENSORSHIP

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

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

– Does the Minister remember replying to me in this place on 9th May 1968 concerning the FI IIA aircraft and saying that the payments were made monthly, that the next payment was due on 15th May 1968 and that it would amount to S8.904m? Did he make that statement and, if so, who is trying to mislead whom?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I trust that the honourable senator is not suggesting that I was trying to mislead the Senate or him. I am not quite certain whether it was 8th May or 9th May 1968 that I answered the question. In any event, what was said then would be superseded by answers to a whole welter of questions which were asked of me last week in relation to the Fill. In the circumstances I should think that the whole of his question would need to be brought up to date in relation to information that I have given subsequently to Senator Cohen. There is still some information sought by the honourable senator to which I have not been able to obtain a reply.

page 1905

QUESTION

MAXWELL NEWTON PTY LTD

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of a television interview with Mr Maxwell Newton in Melbourne last Sunday when Mr Newton stated that he held numerous Government documents styled ‘confidential’, ‘strictly confidential’, ‘secret and confidential’ and otherwise bearing restriction notices on circulation, and when he stated also that he had in his employment public servants who worked for him at the same time as they held their Public Service appointments? Does the Minister regard this as a matter of grave public concern? Is the Government prepared to institute an inquiry with the most extensive powers to ascertain the extent to which a situation suggesting corruption of the Public Service has developed? If not, is the Government proposing to take any action?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have not had the advantage of hearing the statements made and I have read only some comments on them made by a certain section of the Press. If the honourable senator is directing his question to the morality crf a situation whereby public servants working under the Commonwealth Public Service Act are acting contrary to that Act, that would be a matter of very grave concern to any government and would be a matter of grave concern to this Government. However, I think it would be very wrong of me to give a constructive answer to the question as it was posed until such time as the Government has had the advantage of seeing a full transcript of what the person concerned actually said. At this point of time, therefore, I cannot make any further comment.

page 1905

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. What specific steps have been taken so far by the Federal

Government to integrate Tasmania in the overseas container shipping service?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice. In view of the fact that the Senate will rise this week I shall obtain the answer from the Minister and write direct to the honourable senator.

page 1905

QUESTION

LAMB

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Australian Government has taken any action to protest to the United States Administration over the lamb import quotas proposed by the United States Senate. If the proposed quotas are imposed, will this mean even greater competition between New Zealand and Australian fat lamb producers for the already limited markets?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not fully informed of the implications of the proposed import quotas but I shall obtain an answer from the Minister for Trade and Industry and make it available to the honourable senator.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it true that our Defence Department suspects that the Fill swing wing mechanism is still inadequate even after recent modification? Can the Minister tell us why the Commonwealth Government has asked for a testing period of 16,000 hours compared with the 8,000 hours which the United States Government accepts for its Fill aircraft? Is it because of fear of the wing deficiency? Finally, if this plane is the greatest available, why has the United States Government cut its order from 1,500 to 493 and why is it that this order might still be further reduced?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Many of the questions asked by the honourable senator were asked last week and I replied to them in considerable depth. I pointed out several times that the 16,000 hours requirement was part of the original agreement. This was made clear in the Prime Minister’s statement which I read, not once, but twice. In those circumstances, I do not feel a need to reply to that part of the honourable senator’s question. The other part of his question is purely hypothetical. Because somebody has said something, he suspects something. I do not think I am obliged to reply to that, either.

page 1906

QUESTION

LIBRARIES

Senator COHEN:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science been drawn to a Press report of a statement in a Library Week address by a senior lecturer at the Melbourne Secondary Teachers College, Mr J. D. McLaren, to the effect that Australian public libraries needed a Federal grant of $44m to bring them to minimum effective standards? Does the Minister not agree that this suggests a most disturbing situation as well stocked libraries are essential as a source of ideas and information for people of all ages? This being Library Week in Victoria, I ask whether the Government has any plan to do something to remedy this state of affairs or whether it regards public libraries as being generally outside its sphere of interest or responsibility?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator will know that only within the last 12 months the Government has made an appropriation for the advancement of school libraries. It is only within the last decade that the Commonwealth Government has entered directly into the field of assistance to education. In this field, it places great emphasis on assistance to schools. I submit that the improvement that has taken place in public libraries throughout the whole of Australia reflects great credit on the State governments which have been working in this field and on the library boards who also have been working towards this end. We will be watching with great interest anything that comes out of special weeks such as Library Week and will study carefully any informed comment that we may receive on these matters from the National Librarian and his Board.

page 1906

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator RAE:

– My question is directed to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. Is the Minister aware that the Hobart Trade Fair is being opened on 1st August next and will continue for the following 8 days? Does the Minister agree that this fair is an important event not only for the business community but also to all tourists and those interested in tourism?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– My colleague from Tasmania, Senator Rae, naturally rejoices in some degree of achievement, even on the part of Tasmanian industry, and I am glad that he has brought to my attention the trade fair that will begin on 1st August and go on for a matter of some weeks. It is a matter that will attract the attention of tourists as well as industrialists, because it is not very well understood that Tasmanian industry is very diversified and in some particular respects makes a contribution to exports to the mainland that is of very much value.

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY

(Question No. 874)

Senator ORMONDE:

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

Is it a fact that Riverina irrigation officials take the view that the River Murray and the Murrumbidgee irrigation industries have been jeopardised by excessive demands on the Snowy River water storage system to produce peak load electricity for Victorian and New South Wales grids?
Will the Government consider increasing coal production in New South Wales to make electricity supplies independent of the Snowy, or cutting coal exports, to meet the same need?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

It would appear from the honourable senator’s question that he is not clear on the purposes of the Snowy Scheme and the method of its operation. I shall be glad to provide him with a brief explanation in the course of which his questions will be answered.

The Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme as its name implies is primarily for the production of electricity. It is designed to produce peak load power for the New South Wales and Victorian grids and for the Australian Capital Territory. It also provides very valuable standby services to the major thermal stations as its hydro machines can come on and off load far quicker. Finally it provides interconnection between the two State systems.

Electricity consumers in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT meet the whole of the cost of constructing and operating the Scheme.

Although the Scheme is primarily designed for the production of electricity it also has very valuable irrigation characteristics. It diverts the Snowy river and several of its tributaries through the mountains where the water is made available in the western flowing streams without charge to irrigation authorities. On the average 1 million acre ft of water a year is diverted westward; however, through the regulation and control provided by the Snowy works and the downstream storages the additional water which can be made available for irrigation is nearly 2 million acre ft a year.

The scheme is operated and maintained by the Snowy Mountains Council which works within the terms of a Commonwealth/State Agreement. This Agreement provides certain rights to irrigation authorities for water. In fact, however, the Snowy Mountains Council has provided far more water than the basic legal rights. In particular during the recent drought it made special additional releases which were of critical importance to irrigation industries in the Murray and Murrumbidgee Valley. It is for reasons such as this that I would be surprised if Riverina irrigation officials have taken the view the honourable senator appears to attribute to them. In fact the senior officers of both the New South Wales and the Victorian Irrigation Commissions have stated that far from jeopardising irrigation industries the special assistance provided by the Snowy last year was of critical importance in saving irrigated crops.

In the light of the above the honourable senator can understand that electricity is not produced in the Snowy area merely to eke out coal production. There is ample coal produced in New South Wales to meet all its electricity needs; but it is more expensive to produce electricity for purely peaking purposes from coal than from the Snowy hydro plant. Thus the use of the Snowy not only saves costs but in addition enables far more water to be made available for irrigation purposes.

page 1908

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION: COPETON DAM

(Question No. 1097)

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Has the New South Wales Government submitted to the Commonwealth Government a comprehensive and detailed engineering evaluation for Commonwealth aid in the construction of the Copeton Dam?
When was this proposal first received by the Commonwealth Government?
Did the Minister state, in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald on 22nd January 1969, that the proposal required more time for studies on whether the project was attractive from a national point of view?
Is the Minister aware that Senator McClelland presented a petition to the Senate on 26th March 1969, signed by 611 residents of New South’ Wales, urging the Commonwealth Government to make sufficient funds available for the construction and early completion of the Copeton Dam?
How much has been made available to each of the States to dale under the $50 million national water resources development programme?
When is it expected that the Commonwealth Government will be able to make a decision on the Copeton Dam?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

Yes.
The first comprehensive report was forwarded by the New South Wales Government on 11th October 1967. Since that time additional information relevant to the proposed scheme has been provided by the State in supplementary submissions or at the request of the Commonwealth Government to clarify the proposal.
Yes.
Yes.
Legislation has been passed by the Parliament to provide grants as follows:
1. Up to $20 million to Queensland to construct the Fair bairn Dam as part of the Emerald Irrigation Project.
2. Up to $3.6 million to Victoria for salinity reduction works for the Murray River.

The Government has also announced that it will provide up to $6 million to South Australia for the Tailem Bend-Keith Pipeline Scheme. On the 17th April 1969 the Minister for National Development announced that the Government had agreed to provide up to $20 million to New South Wales to assist with construction of the Copeton Dam, up to $4 million to Victoria for the construction of the King River Dam and up to $750,000 to Tasmania for the construction of the Cressy-Longford Irrigation Works.

The inclusion of the Copeton Dam in the national water resources development programme was announced on 17th April 1969.

page 1908

QUESTION

IMPORTS OF LAMB

(Question No. 1150)

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

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

What quantity of New Zealand lamb, both frozen and fresh, has entered the Australian market in the past 6 months?
Into which States has the lamb been imported?
Is it considered by the Government or by representatives of lamb 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:

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 Iamb from that source during the period. The quantities involved were 55 tons and 43.2 tons respectively.
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 1909

QUESTION

HIGH PRESSURE GAS CYLINDERS

(Question No. 1207)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minis ter for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Is it the intention of the Government to permit the importation of high pressure gas cylinders into Australia free of tariff duties?
As similar cylinders are at present manufactured by British Tube Mills in South Australia, and as any overseas supplies would threaten the livelihood of employees of this industry, will the Minister have inquiries made and take appropriate action to secure the continued employment of skilled employees now engaged in the manufacture of such cylinders?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

and 2. High pressure gas cylinders of the kind manufactured by British Tube Mills (Australia) Pty Ltd, are duitable at present at the rate of 121/2% General and free Preferential.

However, the question of protection for this industry is under review. The Minister for Trade and Industry referred the matter to the Tariff Board in March 1968 and the Board has completed its public inquiry. When the Board’s report is received it will be considered by the Government without delay.

page 1909

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDROELECTRIC AUTHORITY

(Question No. 1209)

Senator WEBSTER:

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

Is the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority developing its services in the fields of professional consultant work?
Is the Authority at present increasing its staff quite substantially in this area of professional advice?
Is the Authority currently advising not only Commonwealth Government Departments but also State governments, municipal authorities, private enterprise ventures and overseas governments?
Need there be any concern by the Senate or by private consultants throughout Australia that work is being taken away from, or not being granted to, private consultants by this activity of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The Authority has for some years been carrying out various engineering tasks at the request of other organisations. This work has been going on concurrently with the engineering work necessary to complete the Snowy Scheme. As was announced to Parliament last November, the Government intends to set up a statutory corporation to ensure that the Authority’s special skills as a team will continue to be available.
The Authority is not increasing its staff numbers to carry out work for other organisations. In the last 12 months, the Authority’s technical staff total has decreased from 772 to 753. There has been some recruitment of technical staff to fill vacancies caused by resignations and retirements.
The Authority’s assistance to other organisations in Australia is in the main to State Government departments and instrumentalities, with a smaller amount of assistance being given to Commonwealth Government departments. Very little work is being done for municipal authorities or private enterprise. In the overseas field, all the Authority’s present work is for the Department of External Affairs on Colombo Plan aid assignments.
No. The Government believes that the work carried out by the Authority for other organisations and the work to be carried out by the new corporation will not be to the detriment of Australian private consultants. The activities of the proposed Corporation will be complementary to rather than competitive with those of private consultants; already the Authority is using private consultants to assist it in its present work for other organisations and will continue to do so. In the several major fields of work overseas, the Government believes the Authority has earned a reputation second to none for Australia. Some of these fields are difficult for private consultants to enter. The Authority should be of considerable assistance to them by being able to obtain top class engineering assignments and then using private consultants to assist it on these assignments. This should ultimately enhance the reputation of the private consultants and thus enable them to obtain more work in their own right.

page 1910

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE: FREIGHT RATES

(Question No. 1262)

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

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

In view of the acknowledged profitability of the Australian national shipping services to and from Tasmanian ports, will the Minister stress to his colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, that Tasmania would be unfairly disadvantaged if its shipping cargo rates were increased to make up for losses experienced by the Australian National Line on its other services, and can some indication be given that trade to Tasmania will not be so disadvantaged? .

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission is required by the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act to make its shipping services available at the lowest possible rates of charges.

Within this policy, the services to and from Tasmanian ports are provided at freight rates which permit the Australian National Line to obtain a reasonable return on the cost of providing those services, without compensating for losses sustained in other services, such as the service to Darwin from Melbourne/Sydney/Brisbane.

Should the Commission be of the view that an increase in its freight rates is necessary, the approval of the Minister for Shipping and Transport, in accordance with the Act, would first need to be obtained before any increase could apply. There is no suggestion that freight on the services to and from Tasmanian ports should be increased to compensate for losses sustained in other areas.

page 1910

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORT

(Question No. 1263)

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

What are the names of hire car agencies which are used to supplement the activities of the Commonwealth car pool in Sydney?
What are the terms and conditions of the contracts under which they operate?
In each of the past 2 years, what was the percentage of journeys made by (a) hire cars, and (b) Commonwealth cars, and what was the aggregate number of miles involved?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

Kingsford Smith Hire Cars

Kingsgrove Hire Car Service

Legion Hire Cars

Hurleston Park Hire Cars

Broadway Hire Cars

Ambassador Hire Cars

Hughes Motor Services

Mays Hill Hire Cars

Carlton Hire Cars

Mosman Cremorne Hire Cars

Gymea and District Hire Cars

Earlwood Hire Cars

Balmoral Hire Cars

Kings Hire Cars.

The contracts are arranged by the Department of Supply as a result of competitive tender and the essential terms are -

Duration of Contract- 1 April 1968 to 31 March 1970.

Bases of Payment - Payment is made according to time and mileage from pick-up to set-down except where the job involves travelling outside a 20 miles radius from the G.P.O., when payment is made ‘depot to depot’ on miles plus waiting time basis.

Rates of Hire - The hourly rates charged vary from $1.80 to $2.40 and the mileage rates from 12 cents to15 cents. In addition there are various minimum charges and some contractors offer discount rates for prompt payment of accounts.

For work outside the 20 miles radius the bases of charge include waiting time rates varying from $1.50 to $2.40 per hour and mileage rates varying from 10 cents to 16 cents per mile. There are also various minimum charges and prompt payment discounts.

page 1910

QUESTION

RUM

(Question No. 1292)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

What is the approximate amount of revenue derived from the import of white rum for this financial year to date?
What is the approximate amount of revenue from Australian manufactured white rum over this same period, and is this amount an increase or decrease of that obtained for the financial year ended 30th June 1968?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The statistical classifications for imported and locally produced rum do not allow for dissection according to the colour of the rum.

The revenue figures for all imported rum for the period 1st July 1968 to 31st March 1969 according to the main countries of origin are:

Excise revenue derived from Australian manufactured rum for the period 1st July 1968 to 31st March 1969 amounted to $3,879,442. This compares with $3,980,093 for the corresponding period of the previous year.

page 1911

HOURS OF MEETING

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

That unless otherwise ordered the times of the meeting of the Senate for the remainder of the present period of sittings, be as follows: 10 a.m. until 1 p.m., 2 p.m. until 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. until 1 1 p.m.

page 1911

GENERAL BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Murphy moving a motion relating to the order of General Business after 8 p.m.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr President, I move:

That intervening General Business be postponed until after consideration of order of the day No. 9.

This order of the day relates to the Canberra abattoirs. The motion will have the effect of bringing on for discussion at 8 o’clock notice of motion No. 9. I indicate that some amendment will be made to that notice of motion or that the form of the proposal will be changed. It stands in the names of Senator Devitt and Senator Toohey. When discussion of that notice of motion is disposed of, according to the understanding which has been reached we will facilitate a return to the consideration of Government Business.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1911

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

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

That, in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Australian National University Act 1946-1967, the Senate elects Senator Rae to be a member of the Council of the Australian National University to fill the casual vacancy in that Council caused by the death of Senator Laught.

page 1911

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from the Prime Minister appointing Mr Calder to fill the vacancy on the Foreign Affairs Committee caused by the resignation of Mr Ian Allan.

page 1911

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1968-69

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 30 May (vide page 1884).

The Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Drake-Brockman). -I remind the Committee that we are taking the Bill as a whole. Before I call Senator Cavanagh, may I remind each Senator who rises to speak that he should indicate theitem to which he relates his remarks.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Mr Chairman, I wish to speak on the Department of Social Services and also on the Department of Air. I take Division 500 - Administrative as the item on which to base my remarks concerning the Department of Social Services. I wish to bring up the question of the administration of this Department as it relates to the Aged Persons Homes Act. As the Committee will know, for some time I have been concerned about the deposit that it is necessary for an aged person to pay for the purpose of acquiring possession of an aged person’s home. At the time of purchase, the aged person has no equity in the property.I have pointed out that it was commonplace to charge $3,000, which I termed key money, in order to gain possession of a home. If it was found that a tenant was not a satisfactory tenant and that tenant was evicted or if the death of a tenant occurred, the amount of $3,000 was sacrificed from the estate of that tenant although that tenant may have occupied the dwelling for a short time only.

The matter goes further than this. The Act provides that the Government will subsidise the cost of the dwelling to the extent of $2 for each $1 provided by the organisation that controls aged persons homes. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) sends out numerous returns. I wish to highlight particularly the return sent out in January of this year. It showed the payments that have been made, As a result of the information that the Minister supplied then, I placed a question on the notice paper showing that a number of organisations were receiving payments in excess of the amount that they contributed towards the cost of aged persons homes. The payments consisted of money received from Government subsidy and from donations by residents of the homes. I asked the following question:

. . . 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 self-contained cottages in the electorate of La Trobe, Victoria?
Were the cottages limited to housing two aged persons?
For the construction of the cottages was $6,400 donated by the residents?
Was the total capital cost of these two cottages $11,000?

The organisation received $2,700 in excess of the capital cost of the dwelling. Then I asked:

. . . 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 for residents’ donations in excess of the capital cost of homes provided?

While previously we were told it was necessary for donations by residents and the Commonwealth grant to meet the full cost of the construction of the homes, we find that money received for the construction of homes is in excess of the actual cost of the homes. Before this question was answered the Minister for Social Services (Mr Sinclair) rang me and said: ‘Do you want to discuss this?’ I said: ‘No. Is this a fact?’ He said: ‘Do you know of anyone who is making a profit out of the scheme?’ I said that I did not know of anyone who was making a profit out of the scheme; all I know was that some organisations were getting more than the capital cost of the homes.

When we find an organisation, such as the Age Cottage Homes Incorporated, which is a private company in South Australia, receiving payments in excess of the actual cost of the construction of the homes, we wonder where the money is going to. I am suggesting that there is some exploitation. The Minister pointed out that any amounts received in excess of the capital cost of the homes possibly could be used to provide additional homes for non-donors. In other words some people who are successful in getting homes have to pay high deposits so that other people can get homes on a lesser deposit. It would be unfair if only the privileged few who have the amount of money necessary for a deposit can enter aged persons homes, especially when we find that organisations are receiving payments in excess of the cost of the construction of homes. The Department should take this matter up, bearing in mind that the Act provides for payments to meet the capital cost of the homes, not for something additional, such as administrative expenses and the upkeep of the homes, for which the tenants are charged a weekly rental. I should like the Minister to comment on this matter.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Minister for Housing) [3.18] - When Senator Cavanagh was speaking I asked him which organisation he was referring to, but he did not hear me, so I cannot reply specifically to that matter.

Senator Cavanagh:

– 1 referred to the Commonwealth Age Cottage Homes Incorporated,

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Thank you very much. I cannot give the honourable senator any particular information on that organisation, but I can refer him to the answer which was recently given by the Minister for Social Services concerning the point he raised about various homes and the amounts of money which have been paid to them. I bring the honourable senator back again to the point made by the Minister when he said:

Commonwealth grants may only be made under the Act to religious and other non-profit 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 movable equipment and furniture, which is not eligible for Commonwealth subsidy, to provide additional homes for nondonors, to build nursing accommodation or to meet the cost of other services for the aged residents.

am certain that all honourable -senators appreciate that in the field of aged persons homes a great service is being provided for our senior people. The honourable senator implied by his comments that the majority of residents pay a contribution towards the homes. That is not my impression. There are some who pay, but that does not mean that people who have not made a contribution are not, able to enter the homes. In fact, they can do so. The honourable senator made a point about a particular home, and I shall make inquiries for him in that regard.

Senator BISHOP (South Australia) (3.2 1] - I wish to raise two matters. The first relates to defence. I refer to a report which was circulated last week to the effect that the Sabre jet aircraft were encountering a number of difficulties occasioned by failure of the compressor blades. The report stated that the failure rate was very high and that the relevant department was carrying out research into the use of various metals other than the metal usually used for compressor blades in the Avon engine, and also a plastic. Can the Minister inform me whether the failure rate for this part of the engine is in fact very high? Does the failure of a compressor blade in a Sabre jet engine present the same kind of hazards as it would in other aircraft, including a very serious fire risk, and so on?

My next question relates to a reply which I received from the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) concerning the provision of inter-system rail passes for dependants of national servicemen. Employees of the Commonwealth and State Railways who are called up for national service do not earn recreation leave during the period of national service, but all other rights are preserved. Thus, they maintain their superannuation rights and the various other rights that they have as employees of the Railways, but their dependants lost the right to interstate rail passes. The case that I put to the Minister for Shipping and Transport was in relation to an employee who had gone to Vietnam. During his service in the Army overseas the wife of such a man is entitled only to rail passes for travel within the State. She cannot enjoy the use of an interstate pass in order to visit her relations or friends, as she would in normal circumstances.

This seems to me to be a most unfair situation. We are conscripting men to undergo national service overseas, and there is no doubt that they are doing a good job, but the fact is that the dependants of employees of the Commonwealth and State Railways are losing something which they would receive if the men concerned were serving in their own States. I raised this matter in a letter which I sent to the Minister for Shipping and Transport on 2nd December 1968. On behalf of the Australian Railways Union and some other unions I asked him whether he would take action to see that the dependants of national servicemen were accorded the position which they would enjoy if the national serviceman concerned were working for the Railways. On 23rd January 1969 I received a long reply. I shall not read it, but with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate it in Hansard.

Dear Senator Bishop,

On 2 December you wrote to me regarding the provision of intersystem passes to dependents of railway employees during the period the employees are undergoing National Service training.

Railway officers or employees qualify for the issue of intersystem rail passes only in respect of approved recreation or long service leave accrued by service with the railway system by which they are employed. In addition, employees are granted certain travel privileges on their particular system but these privileges are not associated with leave entitlements.

In common with the policy adopted by other public service organisations, absence on National Service does not count as service for recreation leave purposes, although the employee retains other entitlements such as continuity of service, promotion and appeal rights, and superannuation and incremental advancements, where applicable. Consequently, during “ the period of National Service neither the employee nor his dependants qualify for the issue of intersystem passes. However, during his term of military duty the National Serviceman is granted leave by the Army and periodical free travel is provided when leave is taken.

Where an employee has a credit of accrued leave when commencing National Service he may arrange for his dependants to utilise the intersystem pass during his absence, or alternatively he can arrange for the entitlement to be deferred until such time as he returns to duty with the railways.

The conditions governing the issue and control of intersystem passes to employees and their dependants were agreed upon following discussions between the various Australian, railways systems, and any variation or amendment thereto would require the concurrence of these systems.

I regret that I am unable to offer any worthwhile assistance, nor does there . seem to be any way in which my colleague the Minister for Defence could help the Union achieve its aim. I can only suggest that the South Australian Branch might consider asking the Australian Railways Union to present the mutter to the next meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Railways Conference.

Yours sincerely, IAN SINCLAIR

It will be seen that the Minister’s reply states, as I have already indicated, that absence on national service does not count as service for recreation leave purposes but that during his term of military duty the national serviceman is granted leave by the Army and periodical free travel when leave is taken. However, the important point is that his family loses something because of his service to the nation.

The Minister suggested that the union or unions concerned might refer the matter to the annual meeting of the railways commissioners. It seems to me that the Minister and the Government ought to initiate some action. The Minister for Shipping and Transport could ask the Commonwealth Commissioner for Railways to urge upon the State commissioners that past benefits should continue to be enjoyed by the dependants of national servicemen. The Minister could grant the extra privilege - that is, passes for dependants of national servicemen who retain their service in any State railway - for travel on the Commonwealth railway system, and could further promote the objectives of the unions through direct discussions with the State commissioners.

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

– The reference to the Sabre aircraft was based, I presume, upon a Press article written by Mr John McDonald, the aviation writer of the ‘Age’. There have been some engine failures, but such failures are by no means peculiar to the Sabre aircraft. The purpose of investigational work is to determine over a long period the reason for such failures and to ensure against future failures. There is no suggestion of grounding the Sabre. The investigational work to which I have referred indicates the part that is played by my Department in safe life studies of various aircraft.

The assessment of the safe life of any RAAF aircraft is a matter of continuing research, and our assessment is passed on to the Department of Air. The investigations are undertaken by the Aeronautical Research Laboratories. Such investigations have covered not only the Sabre aircraft but also the Winjeel, the Hercules, the Neptune, the Vampire, the Canberra and the Mirage. The story in question has tended to take this work out of perspective. I suspect that it stems from an open day which was held and a question that was asked. 1 have before me a list of the investigations normally carried out, but I do not think there is any need for me to have it incorporated in Hansard. Suffice it for me to say that there has not been a recent upsurge in failures. The number of failures in the last 10 years with the Avon engine used as it is in the Sabre aircraft has not been unusual.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– Senator Bishop asked a question relative to Division 490 - Commonwealth Railways. I have not the information available, but I shall obtain it from my colleague the Minister for Shipping and Transport and pass it on to the honourable senator direct.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I refer to the proposed appropriation for the Department of Air and the provision of $253,000 far freight and cartage in Division 694. I would like a breakdown of this item. I am concerned as to whether any of this sum will be used to bring to Australia spare parts for the ill fated Fill aircraft. My information is that for some months the Royal Australian Air Force has been carrying spare parts from America to the air base at Richmond for an aircraft which we may never own. I put a question on notice to which I received a reply on Friday in these terms:

The assessed quantities required for the first year of operation of the aircraft have been received in respect of 37,000 identified spares items.

This is a plane that we may never get, but if we do succeed in getting it it will necessitate - it is anticipated - 37,000 spare parts in the first year of operation. I take it that despite long testing great quantities of spare parts will be necessary for this aircraft, and this relates only to its first year of operation. As to the cost, the reply stated:

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 $20m.

We are getting these parts - 37,000 of them - at a price which we do not know. We think that it may be $20m. I want to know what is the actual cost to Australia of this ill fated plane. Senator Cohen asked a question as to what we have paid in purchase price. Now we have notice that we are up for approximately S20m for spare parts for the first 12 months of operation when we get these aircraft. Does this amount of $20m include the freight and charges involved in bringing these spare parts to Australia, or are these costs covered up in this item of $253,000 for freight and charges under Division 694?

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

– Item 06 of Division 694 does not refer to the F111A aircraft.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where do we find what it is costing?

Senator McKELLAR:

– First of all, I should like to mention the near impossibility of giving detailed replies to questions on appropriations when they are fired at Ministers in the manner that has been adopted. I am not criticising the Opposition at all. If it is possible for a Minister to sit here and have his advisers near him he can give detailed information, but this is not possible when there is one question on Supply, another on Air and so on. The only thing that can be done under the circumstances is to give the replies that are provided to the Minister on paper and then provide any further detail required at a later date. I just mention that by way of explanation. In relation to the item that the honourable senator mentions, in the year 1968-69 the appropriation amounted to $1,682,000 and the additional appropriation is $253,000. This item covers sea, air, rail and road freight and removal expenses. The additional appropriation is required to allow for a change in procedure regarding the debiting of freight costs. As from 1st March 1969 expenditure on freight for equipment, stores and aircraft components purchased in North America and Europe will be charged to this vote, instead of, as was the case previously, to the appropriations to which the equipment was charged. This additional cost, it is estimated, will require an appropriation of $200,000, and $53,000 additional will be required for freight paid in Australia.

Senator TURNBULL (Tasmania) (3.33] - I have several things that I want to beef about. The first one I relate to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, Division 130, subdivision 1 or sub-division 2. The Minister need not bother looking it up because I am merely pinning my remarks on that division. I want to refer to the rudeness and - as I have often said in this chamber before - the arrogance of Ministers. It will not hurt honourable senators to hear it again - not that the Ministers in this chamber have ever been rude or arrogant. I think that they have done a very good job, facing great difficulties in that they have to be the meat in the sandwich. They get all of the kicks and no praise. They do a wonderful job in the Senate. I refer to the other Ministers and on this particular point to the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Bowen). As a representative of the electorate, when I write to a Minister I expect an answer and I expect some action, not 2 months after I write to him. I wrote to the Attorney-General for someone who was not even an elector of Tasmania about some divorce proceedings. It took 6 weeks for the Minister, with his Private Secretary, the Private Secretary’s secretary, the three assistant typists and secretaries attached to the office, to give me an answer and say: This does not really concern me’.

Senator Little:

– He could get married and divorced again in that time.

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

– Not under our laws; but he could try. I was only seeking information for a man who knew I was interested in this problem. I had to wait 6 weeks before I could reply to him saying: The Minister is so dilatory, or should I say that he is so busy with affairs of state, that he cannot even get a secretary to write and say: “This really does not concern me or my Department. This is a matter on which I cannot give advice”.’ That is what the Minister said. It took 6 weeks. This goes on all the time.

I refer now to the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) in regard to the same subject.

I will pin this on Division 290. This Minister is so puffed up with importance - regrettably so in view of the fact that he is not a medical man - that he thinks his departmental officers are paid so much that noone anywhere in this country can give any opinion or make any suggestion that might be acceptable to the Department of Health - unless it comes from that Department. This applies not only to the Department of Health; it applies to any department, if we want to analyse the matter. I am just pinning this on the Department of Health. I raised questions on three different matters. Because I raise something, or anyone else in this country raises something, it is of no use or consequence whatever. The head of the Department is paid $19,000 a year. He is supposed to think of these things. But he is so busy doing something else that he just has not the time to think of it. One would think that he would be grateful to someone who made a suggestion that he could follow up.

Let us take a simple thing such as the palm and turn container for tablets, which I showed honourable senators. It is not the complete answer to the problem, but it is partially an answer to the problem. It is better than what we have at the moment for the prevention of deaths of children or the accidental poisoning of children. What do we get from the Minister? I have received from him three letters saying that this is not the answer. In the last letter, he turned it down, saying that it was only partially the answer. But is it not an answer until he can get his minions, who are being paid these high salaries, to think of something better? Why do we have to suffer because the Department is so jealous of its rights that it cannot listen to anyone who has a suggestion? One would think that the Department would be grateful for any suggestion that came, no matter from whom it came.

In the end I was told that the National Health and Medical Research Council would consider this matter. If it is worth that body considering it, and if it will save the life of even one of the children who have to go to our children’s hospitals - there are two or three of them a week - as a result of swallowing tablets from containers with lids that come off or can be taken off easily, surely it should be used.

But the Department does not do a thing about it because this was not suggested by it. What does the Minister or his Department care about people dying? Not a thing. If they were interested they would do something. Children do take tablets and they do get sick or die. Every year children die from accidental poisoning. I have not the statistics, but Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, who represents the Minister for Health, could quite easily find out the number from her statistics. She has the staff; I have not. Children do die, or if they do not die they become ill. This means added cost to the Commonwealth. But the Government does nothing, except that the Minister writes three letters saying, in the end: Perhaps this is something we should think about’. This is months and months after the matter was first raised.

Let me refer now to drugs. In this chamber I moved an urgency motion to the effect that the Minister for Health should call a conference of all State Ministers for Health and Attorneys-General to go into this question. Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin stood up and, on behalf of the Minister for Health, read out a statement saying: ‘This is not necessary’. But a year later such a meeting was held, was it not? Why does the Government wait? It cannot bear to think of anyone else thinking of anything first. What I am getting at is the arrogance of the departments and the Ministers. They will not accept suggestions from anyone. They do not care two hoots about the matter. Their attitude is that they did not think of it first so the suggestion cannot be any good. The departments and the Ministers should be ashamed of the way that they go on. One could cite case after case of this kind involving not only the Department of Health.

There has now been a conference on drugs and the Commonwealth and State Ministers have admitted that there is a problem. Even the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) had something to say about it. But when I raised the subject in the Senate a year ago I was told that there was no need for a conference. I suggest to the Minister representing the Minister for Health that she should read her speech on this subject. I do not have with me the copy of Hansard containing her speech as I did not know that we would be debating the

Supply Bills today, but I remind her that her remarks are worth reading. She said that there was no need whatever for a conference. Yet now that another year has gone we have the conference, and the problem is still just as acute as it was then.

I refer next to smoking, a subject which has been raised time and again. But you on the Government side of the chamber are frightened of this subject. You are absolutely dead scared to offend the people who pour money into your funds. That is the answer. Otherwise you would do something about smoking. People do not have to stop smoking altogether. I am reminded of that idiotic recommendation of the National Health and Medical Research Council that APC tablets and pain killers should carry a label warning that they are dangerous, that they may make a person ill. But when the Government is asked to issue a warning in relation to smoking, which has been proved time and again to be harmful, what does it do? It says that it will leave it to the National Health and Medical Research Council. But what does the Council do? It leaves it to the Government. No-one does a thing. And why not? Can you of the Government give me one good reason why you do not do anything? I do not want to be shoved off; I just want to know why you do not do anything.

The first time we raised the question of smoking you said that you had no control over it. Of course you have control. You have control through customs and through excise duty. You can increase the price of cigarettes. It has been proved beyond doubt that cigarettes cause the greatest morbidity in Australia of any disease. Take any disease you like to mention - heart disease, lung disease - it is always increased by cigarette smoking. But what do you do about it? You sit passively by because British Tobacco Company (Australia) Ltd and Rothmans of Pall Mall (Australia) Ltd are so powerful. You are not prepared to do anything about it. Other countries prohibit cigarette advertisements on television, but you allow it because your Party stalwarts provide funds for your Party and a ban on cigarette advertising will affect their trade. You do nothing about advertising in ‘the newspapers or on television. You just sit there as smug as smug can be with the attitude: ‘We administer, so what the hell? It does not matter. We are here and you cannot shift us. We have a lousy Opposition, so what the hell? Let us do what we like.’ That is your attitude and you will not lift a finger to do something about the situation. You have been asked to do something about it, not only by me, but also by other people who are even more competent that I am. If you were to do something about these matters you would be saving the lives of Australians, but you will not do it.

Will the Minister kindly tell us why the Government will not act but continues to shelve the problem onto the National Health and Medical Research Council or onto the State Ministers? The Federal Government has power to act, either directly or indirectly. It has power through the Postmaster-General’s Department, which the Minister representing the Minister for Health also represents in this place, to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act to prohibit the advertising of cigarettes on television. Smoking is not a joke, but it is treated as a joke. People think it is a wonderful thing and just laugh it off. They do not realise what they are doing to the young people and how they are setting them an example. Yet they wonder why there is a permissiveness in society. The reason is that we tell youngsters that they must not do what we do, but at the same time we continue to do it.

I have mentioned these three points in my opening remarks concerning the Department of Health to show the arrogance of Ministers and departments. Before I finish my remarks on Ministers I refer to answers to questions. Since Senator Anderson has been Leader of the Government in the Senate we have been able to get quicker answers to some of our questions. All praise to him for that. We do not now have to wait a year before receiving a reply. But could it not be passed on to Cabinet that, in the first place it is rude, in the second place it is dilatory, and in the third place it is an example of incompetence, when a Minister cannot answer a simple letter? I know that in some cases it is necessary to telephone all over the Commonwealth to find out what is happening, but normally that would take only a day or so. I remember that on one occasion I could not get an answer from the Minister even after 3 weeks of questioning. I then rang the library at Duntroon and got an answer within 5 minutes. Of course, the Minister’s secretary was too busy. Ministers’ secretaries are always much too busy to answer questions by honourable senators. I say to the Minister: ‘Would you take it to Cabinet? Would you behave in a reasonable manner? You are only elected by the people and by the grace of your own Party. You are elected by the people just as we are. Would you mind doing something about it?’

I come now to Division 350 which relates to the Department of the Interior and wish to ask a simple question about one matter in which I am interested as a former alderman and former mayor of a city. I should like to know how the city of Canberra can afford the bus shelter sheds that are to be seen in National Circuit just across the way from Kings Avenue. There are three such shelter sheds. 1 think they took about 8 weeks to build. I should like to know how long it did take to build those asbestos cement and wooden structures and how much they cost. When I get an answer I might have something more to say about them.

I come now to item 11 of Division 430 under the heading of the Prime Minister’s Department. I refer in particular to public relations officers. I cannot take this matter up fully today, but I hope to do so during the Budget session. I did ask how many public relations officers and Press officers were employed by the various Ministers and their departments. The number is an absolute scandal. No-one has worried about the huge number, but an answer has been given. I do not think everyone realises just how many there are. Do honourable senators know that there are twentytwo Press officers in the Army and that every article they read is censored and therefore has to go through one central command? These twenty-two, I think, are in addition to the one which the Minister has. The reply I received is not clear on that point. I suppose the Royal Australian Air Force does not want to talk about the Fill, so it has only two such officers. Five are employed by the Department of Air. The Royal Australian Navy has no Press officers, but five are employed by the Department of the Navy. Can the

Minister get for me information as to what these twenty-two public relations officers are doing in the Army? How do they fill in their time? Where can we see their handiwork? What sort of rank do they hold? I suppose they are all captains and majors. What do they do? Can we have an answer some time tonight as to what they do?

In the Department of the interior sixty-nine public relations officers are employed. That is all! Of course, sixtyfive of them are employed by the Australian News and Information Bureau I suppose they would be spread throughout the various States. I have not had time to go into the details relating to them. It would seem to me that the total number of public relations officers employed in al] departments, including the Army, would be 150. If that is not a scandal, tell me what is. I should like the Minister to point to what they do. Let him show us some of their work. What are they achieving? Is their employment worth while? Does not the Government take an interest in these matters? Does it not inquire as to why twenty-two such officers should be employed by the Army or why, for example, the Department of Immigration should employ twenty-seven? Probably the twentyseven employed by the Department of Immigration would include officers employed at overseas posts. I suppose each overseas post has a public relations officer. How he can fill in his time on migration matters, I do not know.

One more question: It relates to item 02 of sub-division 5, Division 430 - Historical Buildings. I did ask the Minister whether he would take to Cabinet the question of Elizabeth Farm, a historical museum. I asked whether this was the oldest house standing in Australia.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

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

– I think I should comment here upon some of the points raised by Senator Turnbull. He referred to a whole series of departments and asked a number of questions. I remind him that we are now merely seeking appropriation of short term supply to carry us on from 30th June. The main Appropriation and Supply Bills will be dealt with during the Budget session. I am sure therefore that the honourable senator will acknowledge that it is not possible for Ministers to get answers to the whole series of questions he raised today. No doubt each Minister will extract from the Hansard record any point raised by the honourable senator which concerns his particular department and will seek the required information for him.

I do not subscribe to the strong views the honourable senator expressed concerning the discourtesy of Ministers. But he was expressing his personal view on that matter. I remind him that Ministers in this place who are only representing Ministers in another place are faced with administrative difficulties when questions are directed to them. As I pointed out during question time, any answer that is given has to be based on a study made within the department concerned. All I can say to the honourable senator is that the Ministers concerned will extract from the Hansard report points relevant to their responsibilities and submit them to the departments concerned. Then, at a subsequent meeting of the Senate, or during the Budget session, the honourable senator will have the opportunity to say whether he thinks the answers supplied have been satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I could not allow the attack which Senator Turnbull has made upon the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) to go unanswered. The honourable senator complained about rudeness and arrogance and then, as the whole of his audience could judge, proceeded to give a display of unparallelled rudeness, arrogance and ignorance. He complained that the AttorneyGeneral did not answer a letter relating to divorce within 6 weeks of its having been addressed to him by Senator Turnbull. Senator Turnbull did not have the courtesy to examine the correspondence in detail before coming into this chamber and taking advantage of all the public mass media to refer to one of his little matters - on one of these occasional instances when he sits down and devotes some attention to business.

I would suggest that a moment’s reflection would remind the honourable senator that the Attorney-General is probably one of the most hard worked members of the Government. He is not required merely to advise upon complicated constitutional matters which arise daily although almost every proposal before the Government requires his careful consideration of the legal implications from the point of view of our constitutional power. In addition, when emergency requires it, he has to turn his attention to other matters which come before Cabinet for decision. In those circumstances, I claim on behalf of the Attorney-General that it is within the province of his judgment to accord Senator Turnbull’s correspondence a priority which may well go to a period of 6 weeks before sending a reply. One can be concerned in this Parliament with much more purposeful proposals than this display of spleen to which we have been treated by the honourable senator.

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

[3.54] - I want to refer briefly to one point raised by Senator Turnbull because I feel that the information I have will be of importance to him. It has to do with cigarette advertising. A report on smoking attitudes has been prepared by a committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. That report is to be considered by the Commonwealth and State Ministers at their next conference which is to be held in Adelaide this month. The question of action to be taken by the States and the Commonwealth in respect of its Territories so far as cigarette advertising is concerned will be considered in the light of that report.

I should like also to mention one further point which is of interest to Senator Cavanagh. When replying to the honourable senator earlier, I said that a large number of aged persons in aged persons’ homes had not paid a donation to the home concerned and that a number were receiving pension benefits. I should like to give further details. Sixty-five per cent of aged persons in homes have not paid a donation and 78% of the residents are receiving age pensions.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– I want to direct my remarks to the appropriation for the Department of the Army, Division 670, Arms Armament and Equipment, item 04, Weapons and Ammunition - an amount of §4m. I think the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) will be able to answer my questions without going too deeply into all the details. I have just returned from attending a conference in Cambodia. Last week while I was there there was on the British Broadcasting Corporation news service an item that Prince Norodom Sihanouk was proposing to appeal through the International Court of Justice for reparations in respect of defoliation damage caused to rubber trees in Cambodia. So I took the opportunity to approach the Government and ask whether it would be possible to inspect the area which was complained of for my own information and the information of Australians generally. This request was agreed to and I was flown to the south east corner of Cambodia. 1 then flew back and forth over an area of some 2S0 square miles and landed at one place in order to have a look at the defoliation. I was shocked at what had happened, and I think most honourable senators would also be shocked at the scene. Some thousands of rubber trees are dead or apparently dead. They are not capable of producing rubber, and as a result of this in one plantation alone 2,000 workers have nothing to do. The workers and their dependants, some 15,000 people, are without any means of support. The situation is quite tragic.

We also flew along the border with Vietnam and certainly on the Vietnam side the position is much more depressing. But the rubber trees are being ruined in a neutral country, and this disturbed me because 1 wondered to what extent Australia might be involved in this destruction. My question relates to the amount that is being spent here on weapons and ammunition, and I would like to have an assurance that no money from our appropriation is being spent on defoliants or that our planes are not being used to drop defoliants anywhere in the Vietnam area. Apparently the wind is blowing the defoliants across the border into Cambodia and causing this trouble.

From my observation the most sensitive trees are rubber trees, and they are destroyed before anything else. They are the first to succumb to the effect of 2-4-5-T and they are on the other side of the border in neutral Cambodia. Can the Minister give me this assurance, or is he able to find out whether ‘ we are providing any of the defoliant gases or assisting in the distribution of them?

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

– I did not interrupt the honourable senator when he was speaking because I would not like him to think that I was singling him out for any discourtesy, but in truth the points he has made are not relevant to the appropriation to which he referred. I should think that there are other means that he could use to bring out the point he wants to make. If we are to make some progress with the consideration of the Appropriation Bills and Supply Bills the technique of using an item as the basis for making an inquiry of that kind cannot be employed; otherwise we shall be involved in a long debate lasting many days. I suggest with great respect that all the Minister can do by way of reply is to say that he is not able to give an answer at this time and will refer the matter to the Minister concerned and try to obtain a reply. If an honourable senator considers the reply to be unsatisfactory he can use the forms of the Senate to raise the matter again.

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

– Division 670 deals specifically with weapons and ammunition, and has nothing to do with the subject raised by Senator Wilkinson. I am quite happy to give the explanation of it, which I have here if the honourable senator needs it, but there is no information about the subject which he raised - not a thing.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I refer to Division 520, sub-division 3, item 02 in the appropriations for the Department of Trade and Industry. This item refers to the subsidy paid to the South American shipping service amounting to $60,000. As these are supplementary appropriations, I would like to know what was the total amount of subsidy provided for the whole year for this shipping service. I would also like to know whether the subsidy is granted in toto for the whole of the Australian service or whether the subsidy is for the individual States according to the shipping from those States. If there is a breakdown I would like to know how much of this subsidy for a full year will be appropriated for shipping services ex Port Adelaide, South Australia.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I want to refer to Division 390, Administrative, Department of National Development. I wish to refer to the remarks made by the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson), and round off the comments made by Senator Turnbull with respect to the answering of questions upon notice. I think the way that the Government carries on when honourable senators put questions on notice is a disgrace. The questions are allowed to remain on the notice paper until the answers to them are of no use to the honourable senators who asked them.

I instance one case. I asked Senator Scott, as the Minister representing the Minister for National Development a question on 23rd March. I received an answer to that question on 24th May. That is an interval of 2 months. A colleague of mine asked a similar question of the Designated Authority in Western Australia, and he is a member of a different House. But my colleague asked the question on a Tuesday and he had the answer on a Wednesday. This illustrates the difference between the promptness with which questions are answered in another parliament and the delays which occur in this Parliament. I do not altogether blame Ministers for the long lists of answers to questions upon notice which they bring into the Senate because they cannot get the information outside, but when one looks at the methods which are resorted to to avoid the answering of long questions, such as the incorporation of them in Hansard, this reflects upon the efficiency of the Government. I make the protest and suggest that Ministers should impress upon their colleagues that honourable senators are entitled to expect to be given answers more speedily than they receive them at the moment.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to direct a couple of questions relating to Division 330 under the Department of Immigration. My questions relate to sub-division 3, item 02, Commonwealth Hostels Ltd, hostel tariffs for unemployed migrants and their families. The information I seek, and I do not expect to be given it immediately, is a breakdown of the amount of such payments to the two New South Wales hostels, one at Berkeley on the south coast and the other at Dundas in the metropolitan area. I also refer to the reimbursement of passage assistance made by migrants on temporary departure from Australia. I wonder whether there is a great amount of bad debts involved in respect of this repayment and also I should like to know the criterion on which approval is granted for such payment. Finally I want to turn to the Department of Social Services. I refer to the grant made to the ‘Australian Council on the Ageing’. Although the amount is only $40,000, I am curious to know the function of the Council and its components.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [4.7] - I am sorry but I do not have the details of the last matter Senator Mulvihill has raised. I will answer the question on the Department of Immigration. The honourable senator referred to the additional appropriation of $222,000 under the heading ‘Hostel Tariffs for unemployed migrants and their families’. These payments comprise the difference between normal hostel tariffs and deductions from social service benefits towards accommodation costs until breadwinners have been placed in initial employment. The reasons for increased expenditure are as follows: Firstly, there is an increase in the average per capita cost of the subsidy. Factors which have given rise to the higher average per capita costs are increased tariffs from October 1968, and a higher adult proportion in the intake. The second reason for increased expenditure is that more migrants now proceed direct to hostels instead of to the Bonegilla migrant reception centre. Thirdly, there has been an increase in the proportion of special social service benefits retained by migrants awaiting first employment over the period 15th December 1968 to 1st February 1969 thus increasing the amount of subsidy to be paid by the Department of Immigration to Commonwealth Hostels Ltd.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– Senator Turnbull asked a question about the cost of the erection of three bus shelters in National Circuit, Canberra. The cost of the shelters, including paving and footpaths, was $11,631. The contracts were of 3 months duration. The bus shelters serve the

Barton offices, the Patent Office and the Tariff Board. Senator Cant asked me a question in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. His question concerned the delay in answering questions. I will take this up with the Minister and advise him.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

I think we also must look at the position of some people in this trade at the moment who are filling the bird with all the things that the normal housewife throws away when she cooks a chicken in her kitchen. I understand that some years ago a person who sold chickens would have sections of the bird in a separate bag. The liver, the legs and the giblets would be sold separately in bulk at a far lower price than that at which the bird itself would be sold. Now we know that if we pick up a chicken today we find that it has two legs stuffed inside it and that we can pull out also from inside the chicken a little plastic bag that contains a heap of broken liver, giblets and the neck of the bird. I presume that these things are provided for the purpose of making some kind of soup or broth. But I think that 80% of housewives look at this conglomeration with horror when it is pulled out. A housewife who has a cat quickly disposes of these things by feeding them to it

I hope that in helping this industry to become more efficient by assisting it in research into the various matters that affect it, such as the diseases of which I spoke earlier, as a result of which perhaps heavier birds will be produced in a quicker time, we will find that the industry itself will play the game with the consumer by ensuring that the consumer is not robbed by these spurious methods of increasing the total weight of the frozen bird and trying thereby to convince the housewife that birds are being sold at a lower price per pound. Some birds sell at 45c per pound. But by the time the ice has been removed and the entrails have been thrown to the cat the housewife finds that she is paying approximately 60c per pound for the bird instead of 45c per pound. With those few comments, I commend the Bills to the Senate with the exception of those matters concerning which amendments will be moved by the Leader of the Opposition during the Committee stage.

Senator WEBSTER (Victoria) 4.20- Madam Acting Deputy President, a part of the chicken meant industry has recommended that a research organisation be set up. I fully support these Bills, as do other members of the Country Party. It is estimated that some 50% of hatcheries throughout Australia are likely to contribute towards the amount of $80,000 which, it is intended at this stage, will be raised. The amount does not appear to be particularly high. My calculations show that it will be more or less a minimum nominal contribution by the hatcheries which will be levied - those that raise 20,000 birds or more a year.

Research is certainly needed in this industry particularly in relation to diseases. Great benefits will be achieved if attention is directed to the advantages of force feeding and the great growth and scientific progress that has occurred in the stock feeds industry over the last few years. I believe that the breeding of various types of birds probably will be improved a great deal by the benefits that can be contributed in this way. Senator Poyser mentioned some of the problems of marketing. We have seen that this industry has forced its product onto the market with great success. Probably the greatest problem that the industry faces at the present time is the competition that is abroad to the extent that, indeed, some marketing or retail prices which are being gained for poultry meat must be very near to the bone as far as profitability is concerned.

I would wish the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) to make clear regarding the Chicken Meat Research Trust

Account exactly what is meant by clause 5 of the Chicken Meat Research Bill. This clause makes some comments regarding the amounts that are to be paid into the Chicken Meat Research Trust Account. There seems to be some inconsistency there. I would be pleased to know the way in which the amounts payable into that account will be regulated. As the industry has requested these measures, it is with great pleasure that I support the Bills.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– Madam Acting Deputy President,I, too, support the legislation. I also wish to support some of the comments that have been made by Senator Poyser in relation to this matter. This industry is to be commended upon not only the efficiency with which its growth has taken place but also the attitude which the industry has adopted towards its problems and towards overcoming those problems. As I understand it, this research scheme is to be set up at the instigation of the industry. I hope that the industry which last year was responsible for the slaughter and sale of 76 million chickens, most of which were frozen before sale, will do something about overcoming the problem of excess moisture in frozen chickens.

The technique of slaughtering and then freezing chickens involves the use of machines which vary in their types and in their techniques. With some of them, as I understand the situation, the tendency exists to include a greater amount of water in the final product. Consequently, there is a tendency to leave a greater amount of water frozen in the chicken. Some tests which were conducted by the Australian Consumers Association, the results of which were published in December 1967, give an indication of the variation which exists in the amount of water left in frozen chickens. I make no mention of the brand names which were published at that time because the producers of those brands may have altered their methods since then. Brand ‘A’ contained 21% water. Brand ‘B’ contained 17.4% water. Brand’C’ was found to have 15.1% water. Brand ‘D’ contained 2% water. The differences are very, very significant. A number of other brands were tested and great variations between 20% and 2% were found. If some people can produce frozen chickens with a moisture content as low as 2%, it may well be that there is no good reason why other people should produce chickens with a moisture content as high as 20%. In some States people who are buying chickens are buying very large quantities of frozen water at a very high price.

The Australian Consumer’s Association at the time of its investigation recommended to consumers that they should avoid buying frozen chickens and buy only fresh chickens. It might well be that that will remain good advice until some steps are taken by the industry to overcome this particular problem and voluntarily to impose upon itself the type of restriction which has been imposed by force on chicken producers in Tasmania where only 5% moisture content in chickens is permitted, and in South Australia and Victoria where restrictions have also been imposed. I understand that the matter has been considered by the Food Standards Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, and that a recommendation was made at a meeting of that Committee on 30th April last. The recommendation is to go forward to the Research Council’s meeting in October next. But in the meantime the sale of chickens containing excess moisture will apparently continue. I can only join with Senator Poyser in urging the industry to adopt a responsible attitude with regard to this aspect of its operations, as well as with regard to other types of research.

There is one other matter on which I wish to comment. Clause 9 of the Meat Chicken Levy Collection Bill provides that: . . a person authorised in writing by the Minister to exercise powers under this section may, at all reasonable times and on production of that authority -

enter any hatchery . . .

A moment ago I received a copy of a proposed amendment. I have not had time fully to consider the amendment, but it does appear to me that possibly it answers the objections which I intended to raise. I simply draw attention to the fact that this type of power of entry given by the Minister to any person, whether that person is concerned with the administration of the scheme, or whether he is a police officer or some other officer, is an invasion of the liberty of the subject which may or may not be warranted. This is something which must always be borne in mind in relation to the problem which has to be overcome.

Senator Cormack:

– Commodity boards take no notice of civil liberties.

Senator RAE:

– As Senator Cormack points out, commodity boards take no notice of civil liberties. For some time 1 have been concerned about this question of the growth of the powers given to people to enter premises and to require people to do things which criminals or people who are thought to have committed crimes are not required to do. We give greater protection to the criminals in the community than to honest producers. 1 simply raise my voice to express concern about this tendency which has been going on, particularly in relation to marketing organisations and marketing schemes.

Senator O’BYRNE (Tasmania) 4.29] - .1 want to address a few remarks to the Senate concerning the meat chicken industry. 1 should like to take the opportunity to issue a warning to the industry that on every occasion on which legislation which is designed to impose levies has come before the Senate for sanction by the Parliament, complaints have been raised about the standard of the chickens that are being made available to the public. Senator Poyser, Senator Webster and Senator Rae have referred to this matter. I think the industry should be informed that if it continues falsely to present a commodity to the public it can expect some opposition from this Parliament to legislation which is designed to collect levies which are used in the interests of the industry. After all, it is the consumer who eventually pays the levy in extra charges for chickens. Therefore, it is the consumer who should be protected against dishonest practices.

I refer to the practice of pumping - or whatever is done - to put moisture into chickens for the purpose of deceiving the public. This practice should be stamped out. The Tasmanian Government had to legislate to forbid people pumping moisture into chickens in Tasmania. I believe that the Commonwealth should take similar action in its own Territories. This matter probably is more noticeable in the meat chicken industry, because after a person buys a chicken from a store he puts in in his refrigerator and then it has to be de-frozen before it is placed in the oven. One sees the bird visibly shrinking and there are many wrinkles to the square inch where the iced water was located. The chicken sags as though it is emaciated. It becomes a poor unfortunate looking thing. I want to make this protest against this practice of adding to chickens water which turns into ice and which is sold to the public. The public is being deceived.

Senator Rae:

– I think that the water usually is the residue of the washing.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No, 1 do not believe that. The water seems to be injected into the flesh of the chicken in some way or other because the water is not in the form of solid ice inside the bird itself. People cannot see these things when they buy chickens. 1 have never in my life seen anyone eat chicken legs. I have heard that people eat frogs legs. 1 believe that the French think frogs legs are a delicacy. But you could not feed a bandicoot on chicken legs. There is not enough on them, unless one eats toenails, because that is about the only part of the chicken leg that could be eaten. Then there is the scraggy looking thing which is called the neck. It is distorted. Senator Poyser said that the neck could be given to a cat. I do not think that any self-respecting cat would eat it. It is not meant to be anything to eat. It is put in the chicken so that people will pay 50 cents or 60 cents a lb for it. The industry should take this as a warning that if this practice is continued 1 will do my best among my colleagues - and I hope that I will get support of some decent thinking honourable senators opposite - to encourage them to give a second thought as to whether the meat chicken industry should continue to get support from this Parliament if the industry allows this practice to continue. I am sure there are decent thinking people in the industry who do not approve of this practice which is going on. Let us take the example of the Department of Customs and Excise which has introduced a system which it calls ‘commodity control*. The Department is asking people with whom it deals to submit returns, and the Department trusts these people. More trust is coming into dealings in the community. This practice which has been adopted by the Department of Customs and Excise is admirable and it is very acceptable to the public. I think that we should try to reduce to a minimum the mistrust which can develop in our community in relation to certain matters.

The final point I want to raise relates to inspectors. It should be the duty of this Parliament to try to reduce to a minimum the practice of people having big brother breathing down their necks. I do not believe that sufficient attention is given to training inspectors in public relations. After all, many inspectors have a nine to five job. Possibly it is not a very pleasant job to tell people that they are wrong all the time or to snoop about finding out things about people. I do not suppose that it is a job which attracts university graduates. Nevertheless, the inspectors are officers of the Public Service who make contact with the general public. I believe that they should be specially trained in making contact with the public.

Primary producers in the main live isolated lives. They run their own business. Many of them are battlers in the industries in which they are engaged, and they do not like being pushed around. I believe that primary producers object to people being given wide powers to walk in and inspect books. The man whose books are being inspected no doubt feels that he is carrying on a legitimate business. Nevertheless, he gets the impression that he is under the scrutiny and observation of an inspector. That is not a very good situation. I think that more thought will need to be given to this aspect of the levy and also to the matter of contact between officers of the Public Service and the people engaged in the industry.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– Very briefly, I wish to commend the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony), on his acceptance of the representations of the chicken meat industry through its Federal organisation, the Australian Chicken Meat Federation, regarding the establishment and operation of a joint Commonwealth and industry research scheme for the chicken meat industry. The Government has again pursued its excellent policy of fostering rural industry and of undertaking research into the problems of rural industry. In this instance it will provide funds on a $1 for $1 basis to match those raised by the chicken meat industry. This is the seventh rural industry which will have such a scheme. As I have said, it is another excellent example of the willingness of the Government to help industries which are prepared to help themselves.

There has been great growth in the chicken meat industry in Australia in recent years. It has the potential for much greater growth, provided that assistance is given to enable research to be carried out into breeding, processing and the other aspects of the industry. I have no doubt that good results will flow from the establishment of the research committee which will consist of six members from the Australian Chicken Meat Federation, two from the Australian Agricultural Council, and one each representing the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, universities and the Department of Primary Industry. I have no doubt that the committee will give a boost to the industry and that as a result of its efforts the industry will rank very highly amongst the industries producing meat in Australia. Very briefly, I have taken the opportunity to pay my tribute to the Minister for the policies that he has implemented in rural industry research and to indicate my very warm support for the Bill.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I wish to indicate that the members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party support this legislation which seems to have been generated by representations by the industry. It is easy to share the fears that have been expressed in this chamber concerning the unscrupulous methods of marketing which sometimes are adopted. However, I think that the people who use those methods are in the minority. After all, this is a highly competitive industry. It is a booming industry these days. Nowadays it is common for people to eat chicken two or three times a week whereas once upon a time they ate chicken only at Christmas time or at Easter. The industry has met challenges in the past. Today there is a high degree of competition, and I think that that in itself keeps the majority of producers honest. The fact that there are three Bills dealing with the industry at present before the Senate and that a chicken meat research committee is to be established may indicate that the industry itself is well aware of the problems stated by honourable senators who have spoken during this debate.

It is hoped to create a major export industry in chicken meat. I suggest that we cast our minds into the future and consider the circumstances that may well arise if we have millions of bushels of wheat which we cannot sell to anybody because we have hopelessly overproduced in the light of world demand. In that event we could conceivably send away meat in the form of chicken carcasses if the industry has the capacity to do so and sufficient initiative to develop alternative methods of production. It may be possible to reduce the cost of production and thus make it possible to produce quality chicken meat at the reduced price that will be necessary if we are to demand a place in the world market.

This matter is of particular interest for those who have sought information about Asia’s food requirements and trade arrangements, because chickens already are widely eaten in Asia, lt would not be a matter of sending to Asia something by way of an experiment, nor would it be like trying to popularise the eating of crumpets so that we could sell the Asian people butter to put on the crumpets. A market for chickens already exists and it could be expanded if Australian producers were able to produce a quality product at a lower price. I believe that development of the industry and research into the production of better chicken meat are well worth while, and for that reason we approve of the legislation. Two of the Bills are consequential upon the establishment of the research committee, and for that reason they cannot do otherwise than meet with the approbation of the Senate.

I wish to say a few words concerning the comments of honourable senators to the effect that individual liberties should be preserved and of the rights that may be established under this legislation. I suppose that a person who runs a factory or an industry has no civil liberty to fail to disclose his wages book to a factory inspector upon demand. How else could the law which provides that proper wages shall be paid to employees be administered? The civil liberties of the person who runs the factory and is required to produce his wages book are limited by the civil liberties of the people who work for him. They have an entitlement to protection that is afforded through examination of the books and by other means. I do not know that a good case in this respect can be made out when the authority concerned is a board. Heavens above! Under the Act which covers the functions of an egg marketing board a producer has not the civil liberty to own the eggs that a fowl lays. He may own the fowl which lays the eggs; he may own the sheds and everything else, but he does not own the eggs. Most of us agree, I think, that industries today cannot exist and prosper unless there is a certain degree of organised selling. As we know, the various boards organise the selling. When such boards are established the liberties of the producers are limited. Whatever rights an egg producer may have over the eggs that he produces, they are limited by the rights of the rest of the community who are assisting in the orderly marketing of the eggs.

We of the Democratic Labor Party would be prepared to examine these amendments at the appropriate stage. However, I want to say that when an organisation is established to undertake research into an industry, and it is established at the request of the people in the industry who are most likely to be affected by the research and to be involved in any examinations or payments that are necessary, the liberties of each person involved in that industry are limited by the liberties of everyone else in the community. We support the legislation.

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

– in reply - The Chicken Meat Research Bill and the Meat Chicken Levy Bill are not subject to the amendments proposed by the Opposition. They will apply only to the Meat Chicken Levy Collection Bill. I wish to reply to some of the matters that have been raised during the debate. Senator Webster inquired about the amounts that are to go into the research fund. I inform him that they will consist of, firstly, an amount from the Consolidated Revenue Fund equal to the levy raised from the industry; secondly, amounts contributed by the Commonwealth equal to one-half of the expenditure, up to an amount equal to the contribution by the industry; thirdly, any donation by people interested in furthering research; fourthly, amounts recouped by the sale of chickens or eggs, or by the sale of assets; and fifthly, interest.

Senator Rae and Senator O’Byrne expressed concern about water and other things that are found in frozen chickens. Senator O’Byrne sounded a warning to the chicken producers.I understand that the water content of chicken frozen for home consumption is a matter for the States. It is already controlled, as Senator Rae said, in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. I understand that legislation is under consideration in New South Wales and that the position in Western Australia is being considered. The Australian Agricultural Council also is looking at the matter. The question was raised as to what would happen in the Australian Capital Territory if the States took action to prevent excessive water content. The answer is that the Territory would fall into line with the States. Senator Lawrie said that he supported the proposals contained in the legislation and pointed out that the Bills had been introduced at the request of the industry.

Civil liberties have been referred to. I remind honourable senators who are still a little fearful about any curtailment of civil liberties that Senator Little provided a rather good explanation of certain proposals being contained in the legislation. Senator Cormack said by way of interjection that similar provisions were contained in legislation relating to other commodity boards. We could scarcely expect this industry to be singled out for exclusion from such provisions. I shall not go into the matter in detail now, I shall be able to do so at the Committee stage when the amendments are moved.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to refer to clause 12. I point out, first, that clause 9 provides for the appointment of eleven persons to the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee. Clause 9 (1.) provides:

The Committee shall consist of -

six persons to represent the organisation known as the Australian Chicken Meat Federation;

two persons to represent the organisation known as the Australian Agricultural Council;

one person to represent the Commonwealth scientific and Industrial Research Organisation;

one person to represent Australian Universities; and

one person to represent the Department of Primary Industry.

Clause 12 (1.) states:

The Minister may remove a member or the deputy of a member from office for incapacity, incompetence or misbehaviour.

I can see serious dangers in the Minister’s having power to remove a member from office for incapacity. Who will decide whether a member is incapable? Incapacity is not defined. An organisation might decide that a member is not incapable, but the Minister will be able to override the organisation. Why should the Minister be able to say whether a person is incompetent? Surely it is for the organisation that elects a member to say whether he is competent or incompetent. The Australian Chicken Meat Federation may elect a member of the Committee, but the Minister will be able to say: ‘I will not have that man on the Committee. In my opinion he is incompetent’. Is the Minister to determine what constitutes misbehaviour? Disagreement with the Minister or with the Minister’s representative on the Committee might be construed as misbehaviour. What the Minister regards as being misbehaviour might well be behaviour that is supported by the organisation that appoints a member. This could lead to dispute.

To my mind, this clause places too much power in the hands of the Minister. What constitutes incapacity, incompetence and misbehaviour should be spelt out. There are some things for which a member might well be removed from office, but different people would have different opinions as to what constitutes incompetence, for example. This is a new provision; it is not the normal provision that one finds in legislation relating to other such bodies. I am wondering what is the reason for its inclusion in this legislation. I was very pleased this afternoon to hear what Senator Rae had to say. I said to myself: ‘We seem to have another one who goes along with us in regard to the civil rights of individuals’. An organisation should have the right to appoint a representative without interference from the Minister.I have not any specific proposal to put forward; I merely ask the Minister why this provision is contained in the Bill and voice my opposition to it.

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

– Senator Cavanagh has referred to clause 12(1.), which provides:

The Minister may remove a member or the deputy of a member from office for incapacity, incompetence or misbehaviour.

I point out that sub-clause (2.) limits the Minister’s power. It provides:

The Minister may, at the request of the organisation or organisations that a nominated member represents, terminate the appointment of that person as a member.

I imagine that if it were found necessary to remove a person from office the request would be made under sub-clause (2.). Surely only in very exceptional circumstances would the Minister, without any request from an organisation or organisations, take it upon himself to dismiss a member of the Committee. Senator Cavanagh suggested that it might be better if the offences, misdemeanours, or whatever we might call them, for which the Minister may remove a member were spelt out. To do that would be rather cumbersome. I do not know whether the same provision is contained in other legislation. After all, the Minister is responsible to the Parliament, and that in itself provides a check. I cannot conceive of a Minister acting irresponsibly in dismissing a member of the Committee. I think he would act only at the request of an organisation or organisations. I cannot see any danger in the provision.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I think that the Minister’s explanation has made my point more forceful. Under clause 12 there are two methods of dismissing a member from office. Subclause (2.) states:

The Minister may . . .

I do not know why the word ‘may’ is used instead of ‘shall’. The provision continues:

. at the request of the organization or organizations that a nominated member represents, terminate the appointment of that person as a member.

That provision is understandable. The member is the representative of an organisation. It may decide that it has no confidence in him and it may appoint another representative. It will then approach the Minister and request him to terminate the appointment of the first representative and appoint the new nominee. That is only one method of replacement. The other provision makes no reference to the organisation. Sub-clause (1.) provides:

The Minister may remove a member or the deputy of a member from office for incapacity, incompetence or misbehaviour.

There is no provision for reference to the organisation and the removal of the member may be contrary to the wishes of the organisation that he represents. It will be the Minister’s decision, not the decision of the organisation that nominated the member, that the member has an incapacity, that he is incompetent or that he has been guilty of misbehaviour. The Minister relies on the fact that he cannot visualise a Minister taking this action without proper cause. Neither canI. But a Minister should not have the right to do this. We do not know what will be the future of the Committee or whom we may have as Minister in the future.

Senator Little:

– A person could take civil action if he were wrongly removed from office.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator may be a better legal man than I am but I know of no civil action that such a member could take, because he would not have a case. In the Minister’s opinion the member may be incompetent if he makes what the Minister thinks is unjustifiable criticism of the Minister’s representative on the Committee. In the Minister’s belief, this may be misbehaviour but in the belief of the organisation that nominated the member the criticism may be justified and in support of the aims of the organisation. If the Minister’s opinion is that the member’s conduct amounts to misbehaviour, I do not see what right of civil action the member would have. Surely the provision can be clarified and tightened up so that it will not be necessary for a member to have recourse to civil action to establish his right to continue, when he has the support of the organisation that nominated him.

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

– I know from bitter experience how hard it is to convince Senator Cavanagh about something on which he has made up his mind pretty firmly. He acknowledges that he, too, could not envisage a Minister acting in this capacity without cause but he wants to make quite sure that it could not possibly happen. I am informed that the same provision exists in other Acts.

Senator Withers:

– If that is sufficient justification.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I am just stating that this provision is not something entirely new. It is in existence in other legislation. Surely some trust must be placed in a Minister. He cannot be just tied hand and foot and told: ‘You can do this and you can do that, but you cannot do any more’. After all, as I said earlier, if the Minister abuses that trust action can be taken against him. I have no doubt that it would be taken and, what is more, it should be taken. I have not any fears at all about this provision.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

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

page 1930

MEAT CHICKEN LEVY BILL 1969

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 May (vide page 1579), on motion by Senator McKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I seek some clarification of clause 7, which reads: (1.) The rate of levy is-

in respect of meat chickens hatched before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-two - one-tenth of a cent in respect of each chicken; and
in any other case - such rate not exceeding a rate of one-quarter of a cent in respect of each chicken, as is prescribed.

I am not sure of the meaning of the words in any other case’ in that provision. Clause 11 provides:

The Governor-General may make regulations for the purposes of section 7 of this Act.

If I am right, this means that the GovernorGeneral may prescribe the levy of additional amounts in respect of chickens born after 1972, and the rate could be increased from one-tenth of lc to one-quarter of lc. I ask the Minister whether that is a correct interpretation.

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

– The levy will be constant for 3 years, that is, to 1972. That disposes of one of the honourable senator’s points. After that, the operative rate may be varied on the recommendation of the Committee? The other question was as to when this chicken was born, was it not?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I think it comes after the egg.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I had an idea that the honourable senator had a query regarding the date, but if this answer satisfies him I will not worry any further.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That satisfies me.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

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

page 1930

MEAT CHICKEN LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1969

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 May (vide page 1579), on motion by Senator McKellar:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

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

– I move:

That the Committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.

An amount of levy that is payable, and an amount that is payable by way of penalty . . . may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt due to the Commonwealth.

Then clause 6(2.) provides:

In proceedings for the recovery of an amount referred to in the last preceding sub-section–

I have just read that out - an averment or statement in the complaint, claim or declaration of the plaintiff is evidence of the matter so averred or stated.

What I would like to know - Senator McKellar might be able to obtain assistance on this matter - is why this Bill should be selected for a departure from the general law of the Commonwealth; why these chicken hatchery operators should be put under some special provision when the general law of the Commonwealth is that if the Commonwealth is recovering a debt the law operates in a certain way? A statement may be set out in a statement of claim or in a declaration. That is either denied or admitted. The matter is dealt with according to the principles of the law. Why should a special provision be put in this enactment? Why should the chicken hatchery operators be singled out?

– Yes. There may be precedents for this, but that will not be sufficient answer for me. It seems to me that the important question is: What is the necessity for this? Why should the chicken farmers be singled out for this special departure from the law? If this should be the law, why is it not the law in respect of all debts? As Senator McKellar apparently would prefer to obtain his advice before I outline the reasons for the other proposals, I will not do that now.

Senator McKELLAR (New South Wales - Minister for Repatriation) - by leave - I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) for his co-operation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

page 1932

PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 May (vide page 1637), on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– This is a Bill to amend the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959-1967. It creates some problems for the industry, the Government and the Australian people. In the first instance, it sets out to outline in some form Government policy with respect to overseas investment in Australia. I simply ask whether the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has approved this approach to overseas investment and, if he has, whether the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) has approved it. It seems to me that the Government is at sixes and sevens on overseas investment in Australia. Yet the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) has now come into the picture with a policy on overseas investment in the oil industry. The Government has belatedly adopted a policy of encouraging Australian ownership. I say belatedly’ because there is very little acreage left for new operators. I propose to illustrate how the Australian sedimentary basins have now been let out to various operators. As I develop my argument honourable senators will understand that although the Government is setting out as its policy the encouragement of overseas investment in Australia, in fact its policy is rather negative and it is now necessary for the Government to do something to rectify what it has allowed to go on over the years.

Senator Wright:

– If the honourable senator will identify the paper to which he is referring it will help anybody who wants to refer to it.

Senator CANT:

– It is ‘Petroleum Search Subsidy in Australia’, a publication of the Petroleum Information Bureau (Australia) containing a petroleum title map as at 7th October 1968. That is the latest one available. It can be seen from the map that leases for prospective areas, both off-shore and on-shore, have already been taken up and that whatever Australia’s share is at this stage is likely to remain our share for some time to come. I might add that Australia’s share will remain as it is unless there is some wheeling and dealing between companies during the life of the legislation which is now before the Senate. This is an example of the Government’s ineptitude and of its closing the stable door after the horse has gone.

The whole of the Commonwealth Government’s activity with regard to off-shore exploration is open to attack. I do not want to develop that aspect because I am a member of the Senate Select Committee on Offshore Petroleum Resources, but the Government’s policy is open to attack. There is much eminent legal opinion to support the view that the submerged lands surrounding Australia are wholly the responsibility of the Commonwealth. But the Commonwealth allowed the States to give this area away before it thought of entering this field. Some areas have been let out by State governments for a great number of years - in some cases, for as long as 19 years - and the areas extend not only to what is commonly termed the continental shelf but also beyond that region.

The Commonwealth has found that it has rights to this area but that the States have usurped those rights and given away the assets. It might be argued that these areas still belong to Australia, but I remind the Senate that Australia’s interest in them is very little because overseas companies have been given rights to prospect in these areas and if they find something to give them away to someone else. We saw evidence of this in this place in November 1967 when so-called mirror legislation was passed through the Parliament to regulate the industry or to put it in chaos, whichever might be the final outcome of an examination, on terms which are likely to return to the Commonwealth the amount that it had invested in the industry.

From off-shore exploration the Commonwealth will receive a return in royalties of 4%, but it will receive no return from that part of the industry which is on land. The return of 4% represents approximately $9m at the peak of production from the off-shore oil resources which -are known at present, yet since 1959 the Commonwealth Government has invested $90m in oil search subsidies to help this industry both on-shore and off-shore. In addition the Commonwealth has carried on extensive work through the Bureau of Mineral Resources. In his second reading speech the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) said that during 1968-69 $3.9m had been spent on this work by the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Division of National Mapping. If this amount is added to the $llm which the Commonwealth will provide this year for oil search subsidies - I think that is the amount for this year - it wilt be seen that the Commonwealth will spend about $15m this year on oil search and will receive a return, not this year but at the peak of production from off-shore areas, of approximately S9m.

Senator Scott:

– Is that all, Senator?

Senator CANT:

– That figure is based on the presumed daily production of 350,000 barrels per day by Esso Exploration Australia Inc. It is not known what the well head price of the oil will be, but the price of S2.06 per barrel after 17th September should mean that the price at the well head would not be very much less than 52. A calculation of royalties based on that level of production reveals that between S9m and $10m will accrue to the Commonwealth Government from this source, in return for an expenditure in 1968-69 of $15m.

The Commonwealth now says that unless there is a 51% Australian interest in the offshore area the full subsidy wm not be paid. The effect of this would be that even a company like Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, which is an Australian company but which has only an 84% Australian ownership, 16% of its shares being held overseas, would not qualify for a full1 subsidy in this area. Consider also Woodside (Lakes Entrance) Oil Company N.L. which is operating off the coast of Western Australia and which has a 40% interest in 104,000 square miles. That company will not be entitled to a full subsidy. If we examine the formula set out by the Minister in his second reading speech we find that the subsidy that would be payable to Woodside would amount to about 14% or 15%, yet the Bill sets out to allocate a subsidy of 30% for oil exploration.

When we see what has happened in this industry it becomes apparent that the Government’s announced policy of encouragement of Australian participation in this industry is an attempt at face saving. All prospective areas have been taken up and are held in very large areas. For instance, one area of 104,000 square miles has been taken up; there is another area of 63,000 square miles and yet another of 60,000 square miles. These areas are in different States; I have not had time to trace through to see whether the companies or consortiums that hold those areas hold areas in other States also. It is known that Woodside has 104,000 square miles off the north-west coast of Western Australia, and has areas also off the coast of Victoria. There is no doubt that some of the other companies would be in a similar position. The area off-shore is very much more expensive for exploration than the area onshore, but this does not mean that exploration on-shore is cheap. For this reason it is likely that large overseas companies - the big seven, if I may refer to them as such - will dominate the off-shore areas.

The Government knows that it is only face saving in legislating to encourage a greater Australian share, lt wants to be able to say: ‘We tried to assist the Australian companies. Now it is up to them.’ No matter what they are given, I should like to know where they can get acreage to explore and how they can get it. It is dishonest for the Government to say to the people that it is going to encourage greater Australian participation in this industry when it fails to make provision by which Australians can undertake exploration.

Senator Greenwood:

– What do you say should be done? You criticise but you do not come up with anything constructive.

Senator CANT:

– I would say that the first thing we should do is reduce the areas that are now held. Is there any justification for any exploration company holding 104,000 square miles of off-shore leases? Is there any justification for any company holding 60,000 square miles off the coast of Western Australia? Is there any justification for the Esso-BHP group tying up the whole of Bass Strait, an area of 63,000 square miles? If the Government really wants to encourage Australian companies to come into the industry, if it really wants to see them engaged in the industry, then it must make available to them the acreage which will enable them to do so. By its policy of confirming the permit areas that have been let, over the years, quite invalidly, by the States to overseas companies, the Commonwealth has created a position where it is impossible for its so-called policy of encouraging more Australian participation to operate. It has created this position by agreeing to the illegal acts of the States and by agreeing to confirm the areas granted by the States and, knowing that the cost of off-shore operations is very high, by limiting the payment of subsidy to a 51% Australian interest in the holding or operation.

Examples of the weaknesses of Australian companies are numerous. I need mention only one as an example. It is Australian Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd, an Australian company which is operating in Queensland. It has generated a cash flow from oil and gas at Moonie and therefore must be considered to be one of the stronger of the Australian companies. But it also holds per mit areas oil the Queensland coast and is not able to take any great part in exploring there. It has had to farm out to the Gulf Oil organisation 95% of its area off the Queensland coast. How. therefore, can the smaller, less rich Australian companies hope to get in to explore these areas? So much for the Government’s policy and its effectiveness in this direction. 1 come now to on-shore exploration, which is within the province of the States. We find that here practically all the prospective areas have been taken up. Unless there is some redistribution of these areas, the Australian share in this sphere will remain as it is at present. In any case, no attempt is made to give preference to Australian companies. At least, I do not know of any legislation that gives preference to Australian companies. It is proposed in on-shore areas to give assistance by way of an oil search subsidy irrespective of whether the search is being carried out by an Australian company or an overseas company and the rate of subsidy will not be governed by the amount of Australian shareholding in the operating company. If the Government feels that the on-shore areas are being neglected, if it wants to encourage exploration on-shore rather than off-shore, then it should give favourable consideration to the Australian companies.

The large overseas companies which hold any areas on-shore will qualify for subsidy irrespective of whether they have been active. We believe that in this less expensive area preference should be given to Australian companies. We also believe that the same conditions as apply to the payment of subsidies off-shore should apply to the payment of subsidies on-shore, and when the legislation is being considered in Committee we propose to move amendments designed to give effect to that policy.

In any case, one must ask: What is the value of the subsidy? It is known that the large overseas companies are not attracted by the subsidy at all. What attracts anyone exploring for oil, especially the big companies, is the prospectiveness of an area. It does not seem to matter very much whether a subsidy is payable or not; if the area is prospective, there will be exploration, whether it be done by aero-magnetic survey, seismic survey, or drilling. But if an area is not prospective, there will be no exploration, no matter what strings the Government may attach to the payment of a subsidy. It is my belief that the Government is just trying to boost the morale of its supporters and that the subsidy will not be worth anything. I remain unconvinced that the subsidy has made any material difference to the exploration programme. I say that with a little diffidence because it probably has made some difference to the smaller companies. But overall, it has made very little difference to the search for oil because, in the main, the search for oil is being carried on by the large overseas companies and they are not particularly interested in subsidy payments.

Senator Webster:

– Do you think the subsidy has made some difference, or no difference?

Senator CANT:

– It has made some difference to the smaller companies but no difference to the large companies.

Senator Webster:

– Do you agree that that is what we should be aiming at?

Senator CANT:

– If you can find the acreage for them, I will be all with you. i cannot find it. As I said before, the companies have stated that they are not particularly interested in whether a subsidy is paid; they are interested in whether the area is prospective for the production of petroleum, and where this prospect is greatest is where you will find prospecting going on.

I do not believe that exploring for oil in Australia, whether it be on-shore or offshore, is an industry that attracts the small operator because, even if allowance is made for the extra cost of rigs and other equipment necessady to drill in great depths of water off-shore, there are still great logistic problems which increase the cost of onshore exploration. This means that there has to be a considerable amount of capital available even to explore on-shore, which is probably more expensive than it is in most other countries, because of our small population, our large area and the concentration of so much of our population into one relatively small area in the south eastern corner of the continent.

The lines of communication get pretty long when one gets into the Amadeus

Basin in the centre of Australia, and into the Canning Basin in Western Australia.

In addition to this, the geology of Australia is so complex that it takes a considerable amount of research work after primary exploration or magnetic and seismic work has been conducted to be able to interpret the geology and to know whether or not an area is prospective. So it is my opinion that there is little room in this industry for the small operator. It may be that a number of small operators could combine, but whether or not they will do this I do not know. That is a matter for them, and we cannot compel them to do so. But certainly they will not forsake the off-shore areas for the on-shore areas while off-shore areas remain the most prospective. Therefore I believe that the policy to be implemented by this legislation will do nothing to add incentive to oil exploration on-shore. I am convinced that the amendments will not do anything to increase the Australian share of the industry on-shore or off-shore.

– 1 might have a different policy. They might not have any of it if I were deciding this matter. It might all belong to the state. By the action of the Victorian

Government, Esso-BHP has been given a monopoly over the Victorian gas market. It appears from the statements of Sir Henry Bolte that no gas can be sold from the Bass Strait area at a lesser price than that which Victoria has to pay - I do not know how he gets around section 92 of the Constitution - thai no one else will be able to have any gas from Bass Strait.

Senator Dittmer:

– If their experience is the same as that of the Brisbane gas consumers, no one will want it.

Senator CANT:

– 1 do not know whether that would be right. But the simple facts are that a closed market or a monopoly has been given to a group of companies - EssoBHP - and no-one else can get in. I say simply that the legislation, good and all as the intention of the Minister may be, will not be effective for the purpose which he envisages until such time as smaller Australian companies are given areas to explore and sufficient assistance to carry out exploration.

Australia, in addition to paying a subsidy over the years, has been very generous to the oil industry and the mining industry because of its taxation policy. The Government allows the oil industry the whole range of deductions available to other industries, such as royalty payments, wages, interest, depreciation on plant, general running expenses and other expenditure. It has also allowed deductions on unrecouped capital expenditure and expenditure on the acquisition of prospecting or mining rights. This means that a strong financial company could, if it wished, go out and buy up the whole of the continental shelf of Australia. The costs of doing this would be regarded as capital expenditure and would be allowed as a taxation deduction.

The oil companies are allowed a 20% depreciation allowance on pipelines. Also, the general rate of withholding tax, which is 30% with respect to overseas companies and is applicable to the dividends paid to overseas shareholders, is 50% in the case of these companies. I consider that this is a very generous policy for the Government to adopt with respect to any industry. I know that this does not apply only to the oil industry. It applies to the mining industry generally. But the Cil industry is able to take advantage of this policy. In addition the Commonwealth sets out to pay a subsidy. However, unless the Commonwealth can find places for smaller Australian companies to explore, the policy of subsidising will not add incentive to oil exploration.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The occasion of the Senate debating this measure to amend the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act is an appropriate one on which to give consideration to those measures which the Government over the years has promoted and which have resulted at present in Australia being some way along the path towards self-sufficiency in its crude oil requirements. It should be remembered that the original Petroleum Search Subsidy Act was enacted in 1957. It was expressly enacted to promote the search for oil. The purpose of its provisions was to subsidise exploration. At that time just under £50m had been spent throughout Australia over the years in the search for oil. The only discovery of significance which had occurred up to that time was at Rough Range in Western Australia. Despite the intense speculation which that discovery engendered when it was announced, it was quite apparent after a short time that the discovery was not a commercial one. Obviously, in 1956-57 the search for oil was at a low ebb. It was in these circumstances that the Government brought forward its measure to promote exploration for oil by giving a subsidy. The Government recognised a clear need at the time and the Opposition recognised that same clear need. Indeed, the Opposition gave its support to the general principle of the Bill.

Since that time the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act has been amended in a variety of ways. It has been amended on each occasion to give expression to some new circumstance which has arisen. But I feel it should be stressed that the purpose of the original Act was to promote the search for oil. There were two ultimate objectives which it was hoped the search for oil would achieve. The first was that Australia would have an Australian oil industry. The second was that, by virtue of the establishment of the industry, there would be a saving in the cost of importing crude oil from overseas. It was also hoped that there would be the stability and the reliance upon local supplies which were so useful in defence strategic planning. I think, when we look at the position in 1969, that the measure which the Government enacted in 1957 has played some part in developing what at present is a very widespread and very costly search for oil in this country. I suppose that it is fair to say that this encouragement of exploration engendered the interest which was displayed by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and its partner, Esso, and led to the discovery which took place in Victoria in about 1966.

I wish very briefly to survey the way in which the Government has approached the necessity of amending the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act in accordance with the circumstances which have changed in oil exploration over the last 1.2 years. The 1 957 Act provided for expenditure of Sim by way of a subsidy and also for Sim to be made available for the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Division of National Mapping. The intention of the original measure was to encourage a particular type of stratigraphic drilling by which the geological sequences at various levels could be determined. Subsequently, there were various amendments to the Act. The next amendment was enacted in 1959 and it increased the amount of the subsidy by a further S2m. It is interesting to note that the attitude of the Opposition on that occasion was to oppose the measure. I think it is significant that it was opposed by the Opposition, not because it felt this was a project which should not be carried through, but because the Government was not giving enough money to support this proposal. On that occasion Senator McKenna referred to the Government’s effort as a ‘paltry gesture’ of help and as ‘an approach which was hopelessly inadequate’. He indicated that the Opposition would vote against the measure, as it did. on the grounds that the subsidy was not enough.

The next amendment was moved in 1961. This amendment concerned the type of drilling for which the subsidy was available. It was extended to include test drilling and detailed structure drilling. On that occasion there was an additional commitment of $3,600,000. Again, on that occasion, Senator McKenna indicated that there was a need for the discovery of oil. I am interested to see that Senator Dittmer is in the cham ber because on that occasion he referred to this whole approach as a ‘threepenny bit approach’. The measure again was opposed by the Labor Party because sufficient money was not being made available.

In 1964, a further amendment occurred. That arose because of the great increase in geophysical surveys and drilling. By that time Government disbursements had risen to S27m and, indeed, in the year 1963 the Government had provided $10m. The amendment widened the scope of the drilling which could be carried through with the support of a subsidy. At that stage, for the very first time, there was an expression at opinion by the Australian Labor Party that the Government had vacated the field in favour of overseas companies. There was no suggestion, as I understand the debates at that time, for the particular plea which Senator Cant has made now. True, it was a complaint that overseas companies were receiving the subsidy and that the Government itself should have gone into the field, but this was the first time upon which the Australian Labor Party utilised that argument as an argument against this measure. It is interesting also to note, in the light of subsequent events, that the Labor Party said at that time that the refineries in Australia must absorb and refine every gallon which comes out of the ground in Australia.

In 1967, a further amendment indicated that the operation of the Act was to be extended to 1969. At that time, the amount which had been paid by the Commonwealth in subsidies amounted to $60m. Indeed, for the year 1966-67, $12m had been expended. It is interesting to note that at this stage, which was at the time the discoveries had taken place in Bass Strait and after the Tariff Board had made its recommendation as to the price for locally produced crude oil and the Government had added its own incentive margin to this price, Senator Cant in speaking to this measure commended the Government for adding the extra US50c to the recommendation of the Tariff Board and indicated in his speech that it was an amount which should have been added because it would protect and foster the exploration industry.

It is because of that particular increase following the recommendation of the Tariff Board and subsequently the finding of tremendous quantities of, as it were, low cost produced crude that the necessity arose for the Government to make some arrangement in the years before the price which had been fixed in 1965 expired in 1970. It was precisely for that reason that the agreement was negotiated in October of last year between the Government and the EssoBHP partnership. It was an obvious step which the Government had to take because of the changed situation from what had been the position in 1965. Although there has been much criticism from members of the Opposition about what the Government did in October of last year, basically, if Senator Cant was their spokesman in this place - and on this occasion he was - the Australian Labor Party approved of what the Government had done with regard to fostering and encouraging local industry in 1965 by fixing the price at SUS3.50 per barrel.

Senator Milliner:

– Had any State government criticised the legislation?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am not sure to which legislation the honourable senator is referring. But certainly the petroleum search subsidy legislation which we are discussing has not excited, as far as I know, opposition from the States. After all, they receive substantial benefits from the exploration which is being carried out. It is exploration which is being subsidised not by State governments but by the Commonwealth Government.

Senator Cant:

– Was not the attitude of the Opposition to the subsidy and to the report of the Tariff Board consistent?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am unable to say whether there was consistency because I must say that I have looked only at the speeches of Opposition members on the occasion of the last Petroleum Search Subsidy Bill that was before the Senate. I have quoted what Senator Cant said in which he complimented the Government for adding the incentive price to the recommendation of the Tariff Board. I know that Senator Cant has been a consistent Labor supporter over the years. I do not imagine him adopting any inconsistent attitude on that score.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. (General Business Taking Precedence of Government Business)

page 1939

CANBERRA ABATTOIR

Appointment of Select Committee

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

- Mr President, on 28th May 1969 Senator Toohey and I, as members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, placed a motion on the notice paper, which appears as notice of motion No. 9. It reads:

That the Senate considers -

that the question of the future of the Canberra Abattoirs should be referred to the Joint Committee on the Australian “ Capital Territory for examination and report with the widest possible terms of reference; and

that slaughtering at the Canberra Abattoirs be continued pending the report of the Joint Committee; and therefore the Senate requests -

that the Minister for the Interior make such reference, and

that such steps be taken as may be necessary to ensure that the Abattoirs be con.tinued in operation pending such report.

It will be recalled that subsequent to placing that motion on the notice paper - in fact, last Friday during question time - I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) whether he would facilitate the bringing on of that notice of motion to enable the Senate to discuss the matter; to go into the pros and cons associated with the decision which had been taken by the Government to close the Canberra abattoir on 27th June next. I made this request to the Leader of the Government in view of the fact that the Senate was about to rise for the winter recess and that if the matter did not receive consideration before the rising of the Senate, the act of closing the abattoir would be consummated on 27th June and following that there would be no opportunity to take any action to restore the abattoir to its current field of operations. So it became necessary in the circumstances to raise this matter and to endeavour to bring it forward for debate.

Members of the Australian Labor Party would have been satisfied if the notice of motion had been brought forward for debate, but the Government did not see fit to facilitate bringing the matter on to enable the Senate to debate it and, one would have hoped, to have it referred by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory so that the whole question could be opened up for public examination and determination. In the circumstances there was no other alternative to us but to take the constitutional steps provided for in the practice of this chamber, and I now propose to move for the establishment of a Senate select committee to examine this question. In the circumstances, since the original motion cannot now be proceeded with, I seek leave of the Senate to move the motion which has been circulated to honourable senators.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DEVITT:

– I move:

I do not propose to canvass at any great length the reasons why we put this proposal forward, because only last Friday the question was deliberated on at some length. Honourable senators will recall that as we could not have the motion on the notice paper brought forward we took the only other course available to us and that was to raise the question during consideration of an appropriation Bill. What we said in that debate as to the reasons why we put this proposal forward ought, in the main, to suffice, apart from one or two supporting observations which I should now like to put to the Senate.

It seems to me and to other honourable senators on this side of the chamber that the Canberra abattoir should not only be providing a very important and necessary service to the people of the Australian Capital Territory, but also be doing that as a paying proposition. Reference to page 23 of the Auditor-General’s report for the year ended 30th June 1968 indicates that for the year ended 30th June 1968 the Canberra abattoir made a profit of about $12,900. When we bear in mind what appears to me to be mismanagement and maladministration on the part of the Government, I think it becomes very evident that if the abattoir came under proper managerial practice, and if the facilities which ought to be available at the abattoir were provided there, this utility would return quite a handsome profit. Entrepreneurs come to Canberra from Sydney and collect from the abattoir and the butchers waste products from the slaughtering process. They take those products back to Sydney, process then there and no doubt make a reasonably good profit. If that can be done surely it must be obvious to any thinking person that with better facilities, or if the facilities were brought up to a suitable standard, there would be no problem from the financial aspect.

Let us turn to the question of service to the community. During my speech on Friday last I said that the abattoir, in the current year’s operations, gave indications that it would produce 1 0 million lb of boning meat. 1 point out once again that this is nol a small back country butchery but a very important part of community life in the Canberra area, serving Canberra and Queanbeyan, lt is estimated that consumption of meat per capita in Australia is about 185 lb per annum. Having regard to the population here, a quick calculation will show that the total consumption in this area generally is approximately 22,200,000 lb of meat per annum. We should take into account also the fact that 48 butchers in this area, servicing 60 outlets, are currently using this facility. There is also the fact that another local butcher with 12 outlets cannot get his meat slaughtered here. Having regard to those facts one can readily come to the conclusion that improved facilities at this abattoir would extend the range of: service to the people of the area generally. In this respect I am speaking from the point of view of the consumers.

I pointed out on Friday, and I stand by what I said in this regard, that if meat is to be brought in from any distance there will be an increase in price to the local con sumer. I stated then that as a very conservative estimate a rise of lc per lb in the price of meat would mean an additional impost on the people of the Australian Capital Territory of at least $100,000 per annum. Therefore, I ask: In arriving at the decision to close the abattoir, what regard has been had for the inhabitants of Canberra? As a result of the decision of the Government, taken one assumes on the evidence gained by the inter-departmental committee of inquiry - a secret inquiry - the abattoir is to be closed in the face of all the other evidence that ought to have been available affecting the welfare of the people of this community.

For 39 years there had been in the Australian Capital Territory an Advisory Council carrying out the functions of a local council, lt was the local authority in this area. It advised the Government and acted as the mouthpiece of the people of the Territory for 39 years. However, it was frustrated by the decision of the Government, which did not give it one tittle of evidence to support the closing of the abattoir and no hint of the reasons upon which the inter-departmental committee had based its decision. To this point the ACT Advisory Council has not been given one piece of evidence to support the decision to close the abattoir. Therefore, I say that this is an act of contempt by the Government for the elected representatives of the people of the ACT.

There was a time when, in the main, this was a sheep raising area. Because of the outlet which was provided by the abattoir and with the growth of population in the area, some local graziers changed to beef production to serve the Canberra community. This has been a continuing process. Not only were the graziers prepared to attune their production to the local conditions, but also the local councils round about went to great expense to themselves and their ratepayers to provide selling yards and facilities of that kind. The decision of the Government to close the abattoir on 27th June means that those councils will be left with the additional expense that they have inclined, while the graziers and others who breed cattle and sheep to provide meat for the local market will have to go elsewhere.

Another aspect of this matter that concerns me very greatly is the volume of production of the Canberra abattoir. Again I say that I stand by the figures which were given by me on Friday, despite the assurances of the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) who gave the views of the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) concerning the quantities of meat produced by the abattoir. I refer the Minister for Housing to a statement made by the Minister for Health to the effect that he did not know what proportion of meat supplied to the Canberra community passed through the Canberra abattoir. It is questions of this kind that ought to be examined, and any decision that is made ought to be made in the light of all the evidence that is available. Up to the moment no evidence at all has been provided. Yet, here we are bandying percentages and figures in the Senate, although there is no real confirmation in fact for them. I suggest that a committee of inquiry ought to be able to glean the facts and to make a report to the Senate that is based on those facts.

During the debate on the Appropriation Bill last week the Minister for Housing said that prices in the Australian Capital Territory and those in Sydney were approaching parity. I direct attention to the fact that so far as the price of mutton is concerned there is a disparity between Canberra prices and Sydney prices of between 22.6% and 25% according to the various cuts of meat purchased. So far as beef is concerned there is a disparity of between 7% and 8%, if my figures are correct. If provision is made for additional transport loadings on meat transported to this area the disparity is even greater. There is also the question of the industrial situation which will arise if the abattoir is closed, and this is no small consideration. There are fifty-seven employees at the abattoir at the present time. It is reasonable to assume, I think, that with the increased activities which would result if the facilities were upgraded as they should be, even greater employment would be provided. In any event, there will be quite an upheaval for fifty-seven families as a result of the Government’s decision to close the abattoir. My colleague, Senator Toohey, pointed out on Friday that one would not expect the people of Canberra to take this situation lightly.

It seems, therefore, that the whole business has been characterised by mismanagement and maladministration on the part of the Government. I think that the abattoir operations ought to be considered by the Parliament. We of the Opposition maintain stoutly that no action should be taken to close the abattoir until all the facts have been assembled and a report has been made on the basis of those facts. To seek to deny a House of this Parliament the right to know the basis on which a summary decision has been made is so contrary to my conception of responsible parliamentary practice as to be completely and totally unacceptable. To pretend to give credibility to the elected representatives of the Canberra people through the ACT Advisory Council while withholding from that Council the evidence upon which the decision to close the abattoir was based, ought to be as unacceptable to us as it was to the members of the Council. It was an ex parte decision. The refusal by the Government to take the Council into its confidence and its further refusal to agree to refer the subject to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory ought to be completely unacceptable to this responsible House of the Parliament.

I do not want to go into the right of the people of this Territory to have a voice in their own affairs. I merely say that it is quite wrong for the Government to act upon some report which the Senate knows nothing about. We are being asked to agree to an ad hoc decision made outside the Parliament and in one of the government departments in Canberra without our having an opportunity to make our own judgment upon the merits or otherwise of the facts which led to the making of that decision. I do not want to labour the matter any further. The facts have been laid fairly and clearly before the Senate. The matter ought to be discussed without any heat or rancour. It is of tremendous importance to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. In justice to the parliamentary system we ought to be able to say: ‘Tarry a while. The matter is not so important that somebody outside should decide now to close this abattoir which was established to meet the needs of a population of 250.000.’ The Parliament ought to perform its proper and natural function and inquire into all the facts before a final determination is made on this matter which affects the day to day lives of approximately 150.000 people.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - fs the motion seconded?

Senator O’Byrne:

– I second the motion.

Senator BULL (New South Wales [8.21] - 1 rise to oppose the motion. I, like Senator Devitt, hope that this will not become an emotional issue. The matter is of great consequence not only to the people of Canberra but to other people as well. Senator Devitt has dealt with it as a local issue and has not looked at the wider aspects of the slaughtering of meat and the price to the consumers.

Senator Byrne:

– Do you not think a committee is necessary to investigate this?

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– No, 1 do not, and I will try to indicate why. We must remember that the present abattoir was established a few years ago to replace a bad local abattoir then in existence. This has been all to the good. I think that, as the present abattoir is not suitable from a health point of view, the Government has been correct in looking at the wider aspects of the slaughtering of meat and how they affect Canberra in particular. The Government has looked at the present trends in slaughtering, the price to the consumer, and the economics of the industry. We may well ask ourselves whether, if the abattoir were rebuilt at a cost probably of several million dollars to bring it up to a proper standard-

Senator Branson:

– Did you say several million or seven million dollars?

Senator BULL:

– I said several million dollars. I have in mind future requirements and so on. Would the rebuilding of the abattoir be in the interests of the consumers and of the producers? In my judgment, it would not be in the interests of either. 1 have had some experience in the production, of meat, particularly beef, and also in the marketing of it through organisations with which I have been associated. I have been particularly interested in the marketing and distribution of. meat to the public to the best advantage. Again I say that the Government, in making the decision we are now discussing, has acted wisely and in a manner that is consistent with present trends in the slaughtering and marketing of meat in Australia and with due regard to the economics of the industry. As has been mentioned, the whole matter was thoroughly investigated by an inter-departmental committee. I respect the judgment of members of the committee. I believe they were on very safe ground in coming to their decision.

– Will the honourable senator let me finish my speech? The small abattoirs are unable to take full advantage of the production of by-products. I wonder whether the Opposition has looked at this aspect of the matter. As I said earlier, Senator Devitt has dealt with it purely as a local matter. One has to look at a much wider area really to understand slaughtering and abattoirs generally in Australia. I think that many people in Canberra have looked at the subject in a highly emotional manner and have little regard for economic considerations. I have been interested in the abattoir position and slaughtering arrangements in Australia because of the importance of the meat industry. It is one of the few primary industries that are making a profit at the present time. We are under tremendous pressure all of the time from the cattlemen’s association in the United States which seeks to stop imports of Australian meat into that country. Because of this our abattoirs have to be properly supervised and brought up to the required standard. The history of local government abattoirs is largely one of disaster. In Victoria there has been a long history of uneconomic abattoirs and bankruptcies. Honourable senators might recall an organisation called the Direct Meat Supply Cooperative in which producers were interested a few years ago. It operated in a big way but either went bankrupt or had to close for 2 or 3 months and then get some financial arrangement to enable it to carry on on a restricted basis.

Although many people have approached me with what I believe is good information on why the abattoir should be retained, tonight we have heard from an authority in the person of Senator Bull, who provided to the Senate information on why, in his learned and experienced opinion, an abattoir should not be retained in Canberra. I believe that in fairness to the people of Canberra there should be a public inquiry into this matter. I am not prepared to say which way the decision will go. It must be remembered that the people of Canberra are in a completely different situation from that of the people of any other city in Australia. They have not a voice of strength, power and decision in respect of many of the amenities they have in this city.

In reality, all we have been told in support of the proposition that the abattoir should be closed is that an interdepartmental committee of inquiry was appointed in 1966; that in 1968 it reaffirmed its opinion that the abattoir should be closed; and that in 1969 it has reaffirmed that opinion again. It is not likely that the members of an inter-departmental committee, having made a decision in 1966, would willingly change their view in 1968. They had no need to. Certainly they would make idiots of themselves if they changed their view in 1969. As far as I know, the only information available to the citizens of Canberra, who fear for the future of their meat supplies in the years to come, is that the inter-departmental committee thinks that the abattoir should not be retained.

I do not believe that that is good enough in a democracy. The people, having the right to know the facts, can get to know them only if a committee of some sort is set up; it takes sworn evidence; it then makes its report to the Parliament; and on that report the Government takes whatever action it thinks fit. Then, whether the report is for or against the retention of the abattoir, at least the people of Canberra will know what are the facts and what they can expect in regard to future supplies of meat in this city. 1 am not at all happy with all the phrasing of the motion before the Senate. Actually, it is the third edition of the suggested Opposition motion on this matter. I am not one who receives secret documents which normally are not available to me. I have not seen any secret documents in this instance at any time. I query the advisability of including paragraph (2) of the motion, unless the committee - if it is set up - goes about its business very quickly and presents a report in quick time. Paragraph (2) states:

That, pending the Select Committee’s report, the slaughtering facilities at the abattoir should be continued.

That would be regardless of the health consequences if the proposed committee lingers over the summer months before it makes a decision. I believe that the right to close the abattoir at a moment’s notice must remain with the health authorities of this city. That is the only fair attitude that can be taken, having regard to the need to protect the health of the people of Canberra. Would not the health authorities have an overriding authority? 1 come next to paragraph (7). The Opposition obviously is suspicious of whether the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate will nominate three members of the Committee. I do not know whether they will, as I have heard no discussion on that point. My understanding of paragraphs (7) and (8) of the motion is that if the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Government in the Senate declines to appoint three senators to the committee, but one of them does do so, the Committee shall consist of three senators, one of whom shall be the chairman. I understand that a quorum of the committee would be two senators. Consequently, we would have the situation in an important inquiry of expert evidence being given on oath before a quorum of the committee consisting of two senators. 1 refer next to paragraph (12) which in my notes I have labelled as dangerous. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) that the motion would not be harmed in any way if that paragraph were deleted. Paragraph (12) of the motion states: that the Senate authorises the publication of all documents which may be laid before the select committee. . . .

In case honourable senators have any doubt about it, this paragraph would give the select committee power to order the publication of any document that it receives. So under this paragraph two senators from one political party would be given authority to order the publication of ail documents which were presented as evidence. My fairly long experience of committees of the Parliament and the Senate suggests to me that if this paragraph is retained in the motion it will stulify evidence, it will restrain people from producing evidence, either for or against a proposition, particularly if the publication of the evidence or documents will be left to the discretion of two or more senators. This is a dangerous provision to write into a motion setting up a select committee of the Senate which would be taking sworn evidence, probing the facts, viewing documents and otherwise getting information in order to enable it to report properly to Parliament. Therefore, I urge the Opposition to take note of what 1 have said and to consider whether it would rather not delete that paragraph. I propose to delay the Senate no longer. For the sake of consistency in carrying out a belief that I hold with all sincerity possible, that there should be a public inquiry and that evidence should be taken on oath in respect of the abattoir, I indicate that I shall support the motion.

Senator TURNBULL (Tasmania) [8.531 - I propose to say only a few words to make my position clear.

Senator Gair:

– Hear, hear!

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

– I am glad to hear that some honourable senators are interested. My first comment is on the < fact that advice given by the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council has been overridden by a department. I can understand its advice being overridden by the Department of the Interior because it is from that Department that it gets its authority, but to be overridden by the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) on a non-health matter seems to me to be the absolute acme of bureaucracy.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He is a doctor.

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

-! agree that he is a doctor, but the Department of Health has no justification or right in interfering in an economic problem which does not concern that Department. If a matter of health were involved the Department would have every justification for stepping in and saying that something must be done about a certain situation, but this autocratic handling of the whole position is literally disgusting. Admittedly only one Government supporter has expressed opposition to the motion. I presume that all other Government supporters will support the motion, because what has happened goes right against the principles of the Liberal Parry. We find here a Government department rushing in on a matter that does not concern it in the least, apart from the fact that certain conditions are required by the American meat industry. I would have expected the abattoir here to be required to undertake some alterations, but we find that it is to be closed down without being given a chance to carry out those alterations. If Launceston, with a population of 50,000 or 60,000, can maintain a successful abattoir, so can Canberra. The population here is going up in leaps and bounds and certainly could be well over 200,000 people within a short time. To stop private enterprise in this way amazes me, especially when there is no opposition from Government supporters to the closing of the abattoir.

Senator Buttfield:

– It is not a private enterprise.

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

– I agree thai it is not a private enterprise.

Senator Buttfield:

– It is a Government show.

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

– It is run by the Government, although I think it is what we usually call a semi-governmental instrumentality. I believe that this motion does not go far enough. I believe it should demand also that the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) reinstate the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council.

Senator Marriott:

– The members cannot be reinstated; they have resigned.

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

– I know they have resigned, but if the Minister were a big enough man he would ask them to recom.sider their resignations and to take the job on again. They were elected by the people of Canberra and they are people of whom the Government should take notice. I have heard arguments against this motion from only one honourable senator, and every argument put forward by Senator Bull seemed to me to be contrary to what his Party believes in.

Senator Bull:

– I can assure the honourable senator that he is wrong.

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

– I must admit that I heard only the last half when the honourable senator was talking about the abattoir being uneconomic, but every uneconomic primary industry that I can think of is the subject of a demand for a subsidy by the Australian Country Party.

Senator Webster:

– What a lot of rubbish.

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

– What about the dairy industry and the wheat industry?

Senator Webster:

– What are the subsidies for? They are for the consumers, not the industries.

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

– That is the most naive remark I have ever heard in my life. The honourable senator is suggesting that these hand-outs are not for the growers. By not allowing an abattoir in Canberra we are to a minor extent hitting against the principle of decentralisation. No doubt in Goulburn there are interested people who are trying to boost their industry at the expense of Canberra. I fail to see how as a matter of Government policy there could be opposition to an inquiry into the Canberra abattoir. After all, it will be only an inquiry. 1 presume that there would be Government senators on the committee. I hope that they will be big enough to serve on the committee if the motion is carried against their wishes and will add something concrete to the committee’s work so that we can have more knowledge of the abattoir and be able to vote on the matter later. I repeat that if the Minister for the Interior were big enough he would reinstate the Council.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The matter which is now before the Senate, concerning as it does the Australian Capital Territory, again highlights the particularly unfortunate position into which the Territory is drifting by force of circumstances. We have now a totally artificial position continuing to exist in relation to the Australian Capital Territory. We have a growing urban population with no orthodox municipal or local indigenous government. We have an advisory body which recently has found it necessary, for reasons good and sufficient to itself, to resign. There is in the Australian Capital Territory the permanent effect of the appropriate Government departments - the Department of the

Interior and the Department of Health - and above these lies the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The time which is now occupied on matters coming before this Parliament affecting particularly the conduct of the Australian Capital Territory is becoming a matter of some concern. A few nights ago I brought a group of 100 schoolchildren from Queensland into the Parliament. At one stage 50 of them were in the House of Representatives and 50 were in the Senate. The debate proceeding in the Senate during the half-hour they were in the Senate gallery was a debate on the imposition of the cistern pedestal tax in the Australian Capital Territory. When they went over after half an hour to the other place to listen to the debate there, the debate proceeding in that place was a debate on the imposition of the cistern pedestal tax in the Australian Capital Territory. In other words, the whole of the Commonwealth Parliament was occupied at the one time on this matter concerning the Australian Capital Territory.

This experience highlighted the fact that perhaps the normalisation of the position of Canberra may now be becoming a matter of some urgency. Insofar as the Parliament finds it necessary to intrude in the administration of the Australian Capital Territory, let us look at the matters which very recently have come before this Parliament. Only very recently this chamber disallowed an ordinance governing the conduct of the legal profession in the Australian Capital Territory, for reasons good and sufficient to this chamber. Again, as I say, there was the imposition of the cistern tax. We have legislation now before the Parliament in relation to the imposition of stamp duties, duties on transfers and cheques, and things of that nature. In other words, the Parliament is assuming more and more responsibility in normalising the situation in Canberra.

But, of course, if we are going to normalise it then it must be normalised totally. It is not fair to the Australian Capital Territory to expect it to assume the financial responsibilities of normal areas which are subject to normal municipal and State authority control and at the same time not to give it the right of self-government within the area available to a city of this kind. Therefore, when we get a matter of this character, it highlights the fact that there should now be a concerted effort to normalise the position of the Australian Capital Territory. Otherwise, we are going to have this Parliament constantly occupied with these domestic matters. We are going to have people or parties constantly dissatisfied, and we are going to have frictions which arc indicated by the matter which is now before this Parliament. After all, it should be normally within the disposition of an area such as this, by the exercise of its own local governing powers, to determine whether or not there should be an enterprise of the character of the Canberra abattoir in the Territory and in a city of this size. But it is left to the intruding department to intervene and say: ‘You shall not have such an enterprise’. Now it comes before this Parliament to determine to what extent that decision should be allowed to remain.

After all, if the Parliament is going to impose these persistent taxation obligations and other things of that character on the Territory, then at the same time we must display sympathetic solicitude for the Australian Capital Territory, and that solicitude is displayed in the motion which the Senate is now discussing. That is why it is important that this matter should receive further consideration and that the best endeavours that are available should be directed to ascertaining all the facts so that the best decision might be arrived at.

Having said that, I want to indicate what I have no doubt made obvious - that- the Australian Democratic Labor Party supports the proposition for a select committee. Senator Gair was consulted as to whether the Democratic Labor Party would serve on the committee. Unfortunately, because of the limitation of our numbers, because our four senators were recently serving on standing committees or are heavily engaged on committee work of the Senate which will occupy weeks of their time during the recess, it is not possible to do so. Otherwise, we would have been quite happy and disposed to serve on this committee as we have on others. Nevertheless, we would trust that the committee, directing itself to the problem, will discover by the best evidence available the best solution of this unfortunate situation.

There is one final matter to which I wish to refer. It relates to paragraph 2 of the proposed amendment which reads:

That, pending the select committee’s report, the slaughtering facilities at the abattoir should be continued.

This is a very important matter. Suppose the Senate is disposed to appoint an investigating committee of this chamber. I remind honourable senators that the Executive Government has apparently already decided that the abattoir should be disposed of. The question that now emerges is this: If a decision is taken by the Senate to establish such a committee, with this prayer that nothing should be allowed to permit of the disposal of the abattoir until the committee has brought in its report, is that decision of the Senate going to be accepted as an injunction by the Executive Government? Or is the Government going to do in this case what we unfortunately saw it do last week in relation to the new and permanent parliament house? If it is, then we have one further defiance by the executive government of the expressed will of the Parliament, or certainly of one House of the Parliament.

Therefore I draw the attention of honourable senators to this provision in the proposed amendment which is now before the chamber. I would trust that if this proposition is carried the Executive certainly would postpone any plans it may now have in mind to dispose of this utility and that it will not go ahead in any spirit of defiance or disregard of the expressed opinion of the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in the way in which, unfortunately, the opinion of the parliamentarians of the Commonwealth of Australia was bluntly and brutally disregarded last week. Having made those observations, I commend the amendment to the support of honourable senators and regret that owing to circumstances such as limitation of facilities and personnel the Democratic Labor Part)’, while approving the principle, is unable to be identified by personal service on the committee.

Senator BUTTFIELD:
South Australia

– I should like to add a few brief comments to this debate. I have not had very much time to examine the case which has been put forward by the former members of the Australian Capital Territory

Advisory Council, but I should like to congratulate them on their zeal; in trying to look after the people of Canberra. They certainly have done a great deal to bring the facts before the Senate, and I think very properly so.

It is unfortunate that the people of Canberra do not have local government and therefore have not the normal outlet that most people in Australia would have for airing their views on a subject such as this. Therefore I believe that the Senate is a right place to consider their point of view. But I consider that there is a danger that this issue is becoming a little emotional, perhaps politically emotional, because there may be a trend among the housewives of Canberra to feel they are not getting fair treatment. Therefore anyone who takes up their cause may gain some political1 support - certainly at this time.

– Where there is a will there is a way. A great many people do it in this way. However, in spite of what the opposition has said about the Government not making sufficient inquiry into this matter, I do believe from my own investigation that the Government has made every inquiry. It is quite logical that the report of the interdepartmental committee presented to the Government is kept secret because people who gave evidence to it understood that they were giving evidence on that condition. I think it is a pity that such reports cannot be made public, but if people are encouraged to give evidence on that condition we have to accept the fact that it is not possible to make the evidence public. I congratulate again the ex-members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council on the report that they presented after having taken evidence from many people. I think it is an extremely interesting report and that it was very enterprising of them to produce the document, but I am not critical of the Government for having kept the report of the interdepartmental committee secret.

– The Government spent money some time ago to try to bring the abattoir up to a reasonable condition. Chillers were put in and they are adequate, but it is now found that manual killing is not sufficient. It would cost another $0.25m to bring the abattoir up to a reasonable condition now. I agree that it would be better for private enterprise to undertake this sort of work, and quite obviously if a realistic bid came in from private enterprise it could be done.

– Whose figures are they?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

I want to stress the next point again. This Government has given every possible consideration to all aspects of the matter in making its decision. It has, as 1 have brought to the notice of the Senate tonight, considered this matter over a long period. It has considered the representations that have been made to it. It has considered the report of the interdepartmental committee. Its decision has not been arrived at quickly or suddenly. It has been reached after a very great deal of consideration of the matter by the Government. The Government was unable to obtain a satisfactory offer for the purchase or lease of the abattoir as a going concern. Clearly, the expenditure of large sums of money by the Government to modernise the abattoir could not be justified. I. emphasise that by weighing all of the matters which have been brought to its attention the Government has made its decision after very deep consideration and, indeed, in the best possible interests of those concerned. I have placed all ot these matters before the Senate. I cannot see that any real purpose would be served by the establishment of a Senate select committee which, 1 believe, would only traverse again the ground which has already been exhaustively covered in all these ways that I have mentioned to the Senate tonight. So, in opposing the motion for the establishment of this Senate select committee, I strongly urge that it be rejected by the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– The Senate may well ask: ls there no limit to the arrogance of this Government? The Canberra abattoir is a matter which concerns the people of this Territory. It concerns the people of the surrounding areas. It is a matter not only of whether the abattoir should be continued, whether the people of Canberra are entitled to have their meat slaughtered at that abattoir, whether those interested in the meat industry whether on the side of butchering or on the side of the employees of the abattoir should be entitled to the continuance of this facility; but also is it an important matter concerning representative government. We have the fact before us that the elected members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council resigned in protest against the activities of the Federal1 Government in regard to this abattoir. So, it becomes a matter beyond the question of how meat is to be slaughtered in Canberra.

Here is what the Advisory Council said earlier this year. I think this statement was made on 31st March of this year. The members of the Advisory Council said that they regarded the Government’s decision to close down the slaughtering facilities to be so gravely detrimental to, and a blatant disregard for, the welfare of the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory that, in discharge of their responsibility to those citizens, they resigned in protest against the Government’s decision to reject the Council’s recommendation. Also, they referred to the Government’s refusal to take their advice on financial and other matters and stated that, because of the rejection of their considered advice on the retention of the abattoir and the repeated failure of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) and the Government to have any regard for the advice tendered by the Council on other matters pertaining to the government of the Territory, they had no other course but to resign.

They said that they concluded that as such a crisis has never before been precipitated in the 39 years history of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council the gravity of the present situation of the administration of this Territory of 120,000 citizens should be apparent to all and that, by their resignations, they earnestly hope to bring about an honest reappraisal of the government of the Australian Capital Territory, a change of attitude on the part of the administration and an opportunity for the future elected representatives of the citizens of the Territory to have an authoritative say in the conduct of their own affairs as is enjoyed in all other democratic communities, and that to continue in office in the present circumstances would not only be intolerable but also be a disservice to the citizens of the Territory who, by the Council’s mere existence, would be deluded into thinking that the Government was allowing them, through the elected members of the Council, to participate effectively in the Territory’s legislative and administrative processes. The elected members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council said that the citizens of the Territory are being governed by decree and administrative processes over which they have no control1, either electorally or otherwise, and which have completely denied them their democratic rights.

Notwithstanding that, the Government, through its Minister for the Interior and, I think principally, its Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), just wiped the elected members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council aside like a dirty rag. The elected members of the Council who represent the people of this Territory - some 120,000 citizens - meant nothing to the Government. That was not the end of it, because joined to the protest of the Advisory Council on this matter were the protests of the surrounding local councils of Queanbeyan, Cooma, the shires of Yarrowlumla and Goodradigbee as well as those from district graziers associations, representatives of stock and station agents, and members of Parliament including the Australian Labor Party member for the Australian Capital Territory, Mr J. R. Fraser, Mr Munro, the Liberal Party member in the other place for the surrounding district and the member for the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, Mr Mauger. Protests came also from the Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council, various trade unions and public service associations, butchers associations, wholesale and retail bodies, other community associations, the executives and branches of the Liberal Party, the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democratic Labor Party, chambers of commence and the newspapers in the area - the ‘Canberra Times’, the Courier’ and the ‘Sunday Post’. The Government is prepared to wipe aside like a dirty rag all of these organisations and representative bodies. I suppose this is the first time that a Federal Government has succeeded in getting itself up against every political party. The Government has done a really fine job on this occasion. Not only is the Labor Party and the Australian Democratic Labor Party against it. but the branches of the Liberal Party in the area are against it. Every organisation is against it.

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

– I am against the Government on this matter.

Senator MURPHY:

– As Senator Turnbull reminds me, here in the Senate itself the Independent senator is against the Government.

Senator Greenwood:

– It is surprising that we are doing so well outside Canberra.

Senator MURPHY:

– Senator Greenwood is a man who always comes forward with a good thought on these occasions. He says: It is surprising that we are doing so well outside Canberra’. He says, in effect: ‘What does it matter what the people of Canberra think? It does not matter whether the whole community is against us on this issue. We can afford to forget these people. Let us run them over because the latest gallup poll shows that, we are in front. Let us steam ahead. Let us steamroller over the people and forget them.’ How long do honourable senators opposite think any government is going to last when it adopts this attitude towards the people? Here is the overwhelming opinion of the people of Canberra on a matter which is surely a local matter. Honourable senators will remember that because of the attitude of the Government on taxation matters, the people of Canberra are not allowed to have any control over how their taxes are raised. Yet on this matter of local concern honourable senators opposite want the Federal Government to steamroller over the people when virtually the whole opinion of all the representatives in the Territory is one way.

The Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) gets up and says: ‘Let us forget that because we have had an interdepartmental committee*. That is the magic thing. This is very interesting. The document which I have before me, which was issued by the former elected members of the Advisory Council and which was supported by all the bodies supporting them, refers to this interdepartmental committee as a secret one. So far as I am concerned, it is a secret committee. I have not been able to read its report. Senator Devitt, who is a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has not been able to read it. When does the report of this secret committee become available? Senator Bull told us tonight - and I would accept what he says unless he wants to correct it - that the committee is on strong grounds. I asked him: ‘Have you read the report?’ He said ‘Yes’.

Senator Bull:

– I will correct my earlier statement. I have read the findings of the interdepartmental committee.

Senator MURPHY:

– Senator Bull says that he has read the findings of the committee. I do not know whether the report has been made available to anyone else. The people in the area have said that it is a secret report, that it has not been made available to them. Why should the Government, on a local matter which is of importance to the people of Canberra, proceed on the basis of a secret report? That is where it is rich. The Government says: It does not matter what you want. We have a secret interdepartmental committee report and we will act on that.’

We come to the stage where representations are made to various members of Parliament. Representatives of various bodies have come along, no doubt to members of the Liberal Party, the Country Party and the Labor Party. The Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, as he was, and others have come along and said: ‘This is a terrible injustice we are suffering. Can you do something for us?’ The two Labor senators on the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and. the Labor Party took the view that this matter ought to be looked into. We took the view that it was reasonable to give notice of a motion that the matter should be referred to the Joint Com*mittee on the Australian Capital Territory. We know that the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) has to refer the matter to the Committee, but we asked that in the meantime the Canberra abattoir should continue because we wanted to debate the matter in the Senate.

What happened when notice of motion was given requesting that the future of the Canberra abattoir be referred to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory? Before that matter could come on for debate, a junior Minister in the Government announced outside the House that the Government would not accept the proposal. This was before the matter was debated in this legislative chamber - one of the coordinate Houses. The Minister said, in effect: ‘The Senate can be treated in exactly the same way as the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council. We are not interested in what you resolve. We are not even interested in the arguments you put forward. We are not even going to bother to wait until you debate the matter.’

Senator Wood:

– Who announced this decision?

Senator MURPHY:

– The Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) announced it. One reads it with disgust at its impudence. If ever there has been impertinence and contempt of a House of Parliament, it was the way in which that announcement was made after a motion was placed on the notice paper in the Senate. Before the Senate even had a chance to consider or debate the matter, the Minister said: ‘I do not care what you say. We are not going to do it. It is not going to be done by the Government.’ So now the Government is saying, not only to the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council but also to these other bodies: ‘It is immaterial what the House of Parliament says, what arguments can be advanced here or what commonsense might arise. The Government is going to close, the abattoir whether you like it or not.’ If that is not arrogance, what is? Faced with that situation - the Minister not being prepared even to await the decision of the Senate on a motion to request the Minister for the Interior to refer the matter to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory - the reasonable course seemed to be to seek the appointment of a Senate select committee. Could anyone imagine a more reasonable motion being put forward by Senator Devitt and Senator Toohey than to ask the Minister for the Interior to refer the matter to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory? We were left with the alternative of saying: ‘If the Government is not going to do that, the alternative is for the Senate to set up its own committee to inquire into the matter.’

The Government is ashamed to join the committee. It is suggested that there should be six members on this Senate select committee. As I understand it, because of other commitments, neither the members of the Democratic Labor Party nor the Independent senator are desirous of joining this committee. Therefore, it is left to the Government and the Opposition to appoint six members to the committee. The Government is to be given the opportunity to supply the chairman who, in the case of equality of voting, would have the casting vote. There is provision that if the Government does not see fit to appoint any members to the committee, the committee may proceed.

The question of the publication of evidence was raised by Senator Marriott. The Senate has power to authorise the publication of evidence given before a committee and the documents laid before it. In this instance it is proposed that the evidence be published, but the committee is to be authorised to determine whether it is in the public interest that certain evidence should be published. Someone may say that the evidence he is to give is a private matter or that it is a matter of business which he does not want revealed, and the committee may determine that that evidence or certain documents should not, in the public interest, be published. It is a matter of cutting down rather than making it worse for witnesses who come before the committee. The whole matter is left so that the committee, whenever it thinks it desirable in its discretion, acting in accordance with public interest, may determine that particular evidence ought not to be published. Otherwise, whatever is said or laid before the committee “may be published.

In terms of the motion the committee would be expected to proceed promptly and expeditiously to inquire into this matter which has become, not a mere local matter, but a question of whether this Government is entitled to treat the representative bodies as it has treated them; whether it is entitled to treat this House of the Parliament as it has so far treated it; or whether the Senate is going to insist upon its supervision of the administration, and whether it will step in and curb the arrogance of the Government in administering a local body as it has been administered in this instance. I ask the Senate to support the motion moved by Senator Devitt.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– in reply - I do not wish to detain the Senate for any great length of time, but there are one or two things that I think I should say. First of all, I wish to mention Senator Bull’s reference to the report of the interdepartmental committee. It was my understanding that earlier in the debate Senator Bull had in fact indicated that he had had access to the findings of the committee and had read the report. However, he was good enough to confer with me on this matter and to indicate to me that that was not so and that that was not the intention of his comment. What he intended to convey to the Senate was that his comment was based on the findings as given to the Senate on Friday last by the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) in replying to the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3). I accept Senator Bull’s assurance.

Nevertheless, the report of the interdepartmental committee is a secret document. One would have thought that this chamber, having regard to its position in the parliamentary system of this country, had an obligation, apart from anything else, to weigh all the facts of the issue. On the one hand there appears to be a secret interdepartmental committee report which is not available to us. On the other hand there is a report prepared by a responsible elected - I underline the world ‘elected’ - body. I refer to the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council. That report is available for public examination, and as I have already mentioned on two occasions it involved the labour of 600 hours, so I do not think we ought to dismiss it out of hand. The fact that there are two reports in existence in relation to the one matter, one of them being available for public examination and the other not being available, ought of itself to be adequate and sufficient reason for this chamber to take upon itself an examination of the issue.

Senator Turnbull raised the question of decentralisation. From the time of my first speech in this chamber I have lost no opportunity to raise the purported approach of this Government to the very important question of decentralisation. Yet, in this instance, by one stroke of the pen it is proposed to wipe out that concept in a community which has no voice in its own affairs. That must surely be wrong. It is important for the good government and good management of the Australian Capital Territory that the Advisory Council be reinstated by some means or other and at the earliest possible opportunity. I sincerely hope that if the Senate agrees to the establishment of a committee to inquire into this matter, we may see as a result of its activities a return to the situation where the Australian Capital Territory has an elected voice in its own affairs.

I turn now to the amendments which I have put forward, and I refer particularly to the second of them. This relates to the possibility of a health hazard arising should the abattoir continue to operate. In regard to that matter, I suggest that the Senate select committee if appointed could go into the situation at an early date, and I imagine that it would not take very many months to produce a report to the Senate. We have gone through the recent summer with the abattoir operating under the present conditions. That being so, it is not asking too much that for the few months of winter when the health hazard would be substantially reduced, the abattoir should be permitted to operate.

There are many things that one could say, particularly in regard to the speech of the Minister for Housing who represents the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), in regard to statistics of one kind or another. I think it should suffice if I simply debunk one of the theories put forward and leave the rest of the matters to the judgment of honourable senators. The Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council in a statement on 31st March, under the hand of its Chairman, Mr Jim Pead, commented on a statement attributed to the Minister for Health, who, be it remembered, had issued the instruction that the abattoir was to close on 27th June. The Minister had stated in a Press release:

It has been assessed that Canberra abattoir was now providing no more than 36% of the meat consumed in Canberra and Queanbeyan.

Later, in the same statement the following appears:

Dr Forbes said it was not possible to state exactly what proportion of Canberra’s meat consumption was slaughtered at the abattoir.

What is the position? Is it 36%, as the Minister said in the first place, or is it an indefinite and inconclusive figure, as he said almost in the next breath? I listened very attentively to Senator Bull’s comments. He spoke as a representative of or a spokesman for the graziers. As his speech proceeded I thought that he made out a much better case than I did for the retention of the abattoir in Canberra. I know something of the problems of the country abattoir, but surely an industry which puts through 10 million lb of meat cannot really be regarded as a small country show.

In my days as a local government administrator I had as one of my responsibilities the management and control of an abattoir, and I know something of the problems that exist in relation to the operations of a public utility of that kind. Much emphasis has been placed on the economic viability of this undertaking but nobody who has spoken against the proposition that we on this side have put forward, has come up with an answer to my contention that right up to this time the abattoir is an economic undertaking and, I think, is still making a profit. I suggest that under proper managerial control it will make a quite substantial profit, and this surely must completely debunk any argument that can be brought forward on the basis of the economics of the abattoir.

I come to my final proposition. We have two reports on the one subject, one of them a secret report which has not been made available to us but which probably should have been made available. However, I am not going to canvass that point at the moment. Then we have a report by the representatives of the people of this community, and that report has been made public. So far as I can determine from what has been said here in the course of debate, the two reports are in conflict in regard to figures of production and various other matters. I think that there is only one way in which to resolve this situation. A responsible House of the Parliament of this country, having a responsibility that is thrust upon it because of the fact that the people of the Australian Capital Territory have no elected representative body, surely is bound to accept the obligation to determine who is right and who is wrong.

Senator BULL (New South Wales)- by leave - I wish to make a personal explanation.I refer to the interjection by Senator Murphy when I was speaking about the inter-departmental committee. The honourable senator asked me whether I had read the report and I believe I said yes, but I was referring actually to the report that Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin had read. It will be remembered that she read some of the findings of the inter-departmental committee on Friday last. I had a copy of that. It was not the inter-departmental committee findings that I had, and I would like to correct any impression to the contrary which honourable senators may have gained. I wish to thank Senator Devitt for referring to the matter in the way that he did.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Devitt’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1961

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That further consideration of General Business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business.

page 1961

PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY KILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1939 ) .

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinnerI had been detailing the way in which the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act had been amended over the years. 1 pointed out that over a 12-year period there had been changes in the way in which oil exploration had been carried on in Australia and that the Government’s legislation had been responsible for those changes. Since 1953 approximately $548m has been spent on the search for oil in this country. Of that sum approximately §90m has been provided by way of subsidy by the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth has provided an additional sum of $3.7m which has been allocated to the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Division of National Mapping.

Senator Webster:

– Do you think that money has been well spent?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am grateful to Senator Webster for his interjection. Whatever facilities the Government has provided have undoubtedly been of encouragement. I was about to say that the facilities of the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Division of National Mapping have been available to those who have been interested in examining the geological structure of certain areas. From the information obtained such people have been able to further their own researches.

The present situation is distinctly different from that which prevailed in 1967 and in the earlier years when the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act was amended. Let me illustrate the difference. In 1961 a sum of $500,000 was spent on off-shore exploration and a sum of $I7m was spent on on-shore oil exploration. In 1967 expenditure was heavily in favour of on-shore exploration. The annual statement for 1967-68 presented pursuant to the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act showed that in 1967 a sum of $47m was spent on on-shore exploration and a sum of only $28m was spent on off-shore exploration. The figures for 1968, expressed as estimates in the statement for the year 1967-68 - I assume they were fairly close to the mark - show that in that year a sum of only $24m was spent on on-shore exploration while a sum of $56m, or double that of the previous year, was spent on offshore exploration. It will be seen that there has been increasing activity in the off-shore areas. Doubtless this was precipitated and encouraged by the tremendous successes which had been achieved in the Bass Strait area and the more recent discoveries off the coast of Western Australia.

The growing interest off-shore has changed significantly the type of research which has been undertaken in more recent times. Therefore there is need for a reassessment of the way in which the Act operates. There is an obvious need for further discoveries. A statement made quite recently by the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) indicates that, whilst Austrafia is on the way to self sufficiency and therefore on the way to saving each year a considerable proportion of the cost of importing crude oil, there is a need for further discoveries. In a Press statement of 22nd April, the Minister said:

On the present expected indigenous crude oil production the reduction in f.o.’b. payments for imported crude oil in 7 fiscal years 1967-68 to 1973- 74 would approximate to the nearest million dollars:

At the last mentioned amount the figure would remain stable and unless there are further discoveries of crude oil in Australia it may be suspected that not only will there be a further increase in the savings on our balance of trade but also there is likely to be a drop in the savings which the Minister indicated in the figures that he gave. So it is absolutely imperative that what has happened so far should not be regarded as the achievement of self-sufficiency. There is still a positive need for more discoveries to occur and until these discoveries are made the objective of an Australian oil industry cannot be realised. It is for this reason that every incentive, I believe, must be placed in the way of those who are interested in pursuing the search for oil in this country. The Petroleum Search Subsidy Act is one positive Government inducement to people to undertake the search, knowing that they receive from the Commonwealth Government a proportion of what they spend.

The measure very shortly provides these things: Firstly, the subsidy will apply broadly as before to all on-shore exploration. Secondly, it will apply to Australian companies or companies with an Australian interest engaged in off-shore exploration but to no other companies. It is assumed, of course, that overseas companies, or Australian companies with a large overseas component or partnership, will continue the interest which they have long displayed and pursue the search for oil in off-shore waters. It is obvious that these companies are prepared to spend enormous sums of money not readily available from the Australian loan market in this search for oil. If I may refer, Sir, to the statement which was made by the Chairman of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd at the annual general meeting of that company held on 8th September 1968, there is an illustration of the enormous costs involved not only in searching for oil but also in promoting the necessary facilities for discovery. The Chairman said:

The combined expenditure of Esso and ourselves on oil and natural gas exploration and development in the areas in which we are mutually interested, from the commencement of work to 30th June. . . .

That is, to 30th June 1968 - . . amounts to approximately $73m, and a lot more money has to be spent before any revenue will be obtained. Because of the terms of our agreement with Esso, the great bulk of the cost of exploration work has been borne by that company so that our expenditure is a good deal less than one-half of the $73m. However, the initial development expenditure of which we pay half will include a further $2l0m, made up of $31m for the Gippsland Gas Processing Plant, and $24m for the Long Island Point Fractionating Plant, on top of off-shore expenditure exceeding $93m and pipelines costing in the order of $62m. In addition to this initial expenditure, it is likely that further investment of the order of $55m will be required to complete the overall development plans for the Martin, Barracouta, Halibut and Kingfish fields to cater for anticipated production requirements after production commences.

So it can be seen that there is an amount of approximately $300m to be expended before any of the Bass Strait oil and natural gas will return revenue to those who are producing it. When we recognise that these are the money terms which are involved in the search for oil, this shows up in sharp relief those who maintain that Australia ought to be interested or that there should be an Australian equity in these companies.

Senator Byrne:

– Is that $300m from now or S300m from the beginning?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It is $300m from the beginning up until the time when revenue is being produced by the company. I am certainly in favour of Australians having an opportunity to participate and encouragement being held out to Australians to participate in the exploitation of Australian resources, but it is a pipe dream to suppose that that objective can be readily secured where the amount of money which has to be spent is of the order which the Esso-BHP partnership has had to expend in order to produce revenue. Even when the cost of the exploration with which EssoBHP was concerned amounted to $73m we could not find that sort of money readily available on the Australian loan market. Accordingly we recognise that the bulk of the exploration in our off-shore waters must come from overseas companies. This must be the pattern if we are to have as part of our exploration process the intensive exploration which is the only way in which it is likely that we will be able to find oil.

That, Mr President, was by way of some explanation of the fact that it is anticipated and believed that off-shore exploration will be continued by overseas companies - we hope in conjunction with Australian interests - because they recognise that the prospects of finding oil after the discoveries in Western Australia and Bass Strait are promising. The Bill provides for certain repayments of subsidy to be made out of income when the income is earned and not on demand. It brings all types of drilling into one category and describes them as exploration drilling. It also provides for continuation of the operation of the Act for a further 5 years. The positive benefit which will flow from this measure is that it will indicate, first, the Government’s desire to continue this subsidy and to promote, as far as it can, a continuance of the search for oil. Secondly, it will indicate that on-shore exploration is to be encouraged, because there is no alteration to the traditional subsidy arrangements for on-shore exploration. Thirdly, it will indicate that in the off-shore areas hereafter the subsidy will be available to Australian companies and not to overseas companies. The Bill, of course, lays down a formula as to how that distinction is to be made.

The essence of the Government’s proposal is that the off-shore exploration will continue in any event and therefore there is no need for the subsidy, but because of the limitations imposed upon Australians who seek what is essentially risk capital from the Australian public they will get some assistance in the way of subsidy. I consider that it is a proposal which indicates a desirable Government objective and also brings into focus the broad policy which the Government is endeavouring to encourage with regard to Australian participation. It will not assist overseas companies when they do not require assistance but it will assist, in the hope that there will be benefit flowing from this and an increased participation by Australians, those Australian companies which are engaged in off-shore exploration. I think it is further relevant to place the petroleum search subsidy proposals alongside the other allied activities and decisions of the Government over the past few months.

I stressed earlier, when I was detailing the various amendments which had been made to the Act over the years, the fact that in 1965 a price of SUS3.50 had been fixed as the price which the refineries were to pay for Australian crude oil. I think the relevant Australian price at that time was $3.19. It is significant to appreciate that that price was fixed by the Government after a Tariff Board hearing because the local producers at Moonie and Barrow Island were having difficulty in finding purchasers for their crude oil since the purchasers who normally purchased from overseas were able to import oil at about $1 less than the price the Moonie and Barrow Island producers were requiring and therefore were refusing to take the crude oil from the Australian sources.

It was for that reason that a Tariff Board inquiry was held and that the price was fixed, with the Government incentive added, at SUS3.50. That ensured that the Australian product could be used because it was allied to an excise which ensured that it would be used. As the quantities coming from the Barrow Island and Moonie fields represented something less than 8% of the throughput of the Australian refineries, that was a production that the refineries could take and absorb without choosing to pass on any increased cost which might have flowed from the fact that they were paying more for a segment of their crude oil. When the discoveries were made in Bass Strait and the refineries in Australia were required to take much larger quantities than they had been receiving previously - indeed they are required to take all the Australian oil pro duced - it was obvious that there would be an increase in the price of petrol if the refineries had to take approximately 60% of their throughput from Australian sources.

Therefore, the Government was faced with a situation in which it could have said: Let there be an increase in the price of petrol. We are pursuing the objective of an Australian oil industry. Although we can import crude oil more cheaply, in the interests of promoting our own industry it is desirable that the price of petrol should rise.’ Of course, that is a pattern which has been followed in the United States of America and which has been followed in this country with regard to other commodities. Alternatively, the Government could have taken some other course whereby, instead of raising the price of petrol, the price payable by the refineries to the local producers was reduced in some way. A difficulty with which the Government was confronted was that the price that had been fixed in 1965 was to run until 1970.

It was in those circumstances that the Government negotiated with Esso-BHP to see whether there could be some reduction in the price. Esso-BHP agreed to reduce the price from SUS3.50, which had been the fixed price, to SUS2.48. In return, it received an assurance that from 1970 until 1980 there would be a formula price and there would also be an assured market in Australia for all the oil the company could produce in this country, subject to the limit of Australia’s requirements. It was in those circumstances that the Government took one of the practical steps open to it and achieved a rationalisation of a position that otherwise could have been damaging to Australia both politically and economically. As I see the matter, the Government is to be complimented on what it has done.

As far as the future is concerned, from 1970 onwards a formula price fixed after consultation with all the persons concerned in the production, refining and distributing of petroleum products in this country, which has been fixed at SUS2.06 a barrel, assures a return to the local producers and at the same time permits the refineries to purchase on a basis which those who have examined the position say will involve no increase in the price of motor spirit.

It is in this context of a continuing appreciation of the objective of an Australian oil industry and of the necessity to consider from time to time the various decisions that are part of the pursuit of that objective that the Government now introduces these amendments to the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act. I have indicated the broad outline of the Bill. I believe that it will serve the obvious purposes that it is designed to serve. But I believe that above all else it indicates the awareness of the Government of the continuing changes in the search for oil in this country and the willingness of the Government to adapt its measures to the requirements of the particular situation.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - I rise to support this Bill, which is designed to continue the subsidised search for oil in Australia for the ensuing 5 years. With that aim in view, the Government has brought down this legislation, which makes some amendments to the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act. I start by saying that this subsidy, which the Government introduced in 1959 to encourage the search for oil, was introduced following the discovery of oil at Rough Range in October 1953 and the exultation that took place immediately following that discovery but after which a further seven or eight holes drilled immediately adjacent to the Rough Range No. 1 hole were unsuccessful. In fact, following the Rough Range discovery the search throughout Australia was unsuccessful and was diminishing.

It was only by granting a subsidy of up to 50% of the cost at that time in respect of drilling and seismographic work that the Government was able to keep not only overseas companies but also some Australian participants interested in the search for oil in Australia. The next discovery was made in 1963 or 1964 at Cabawin. That was followed by the Moonie discovery, which in turn was followed by the discovery at Barrow Island by West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd. Then, 2 or 3 years later there was the discovery of the very rich Bass Strait oil and gas fields by Esso-BHP. I say to the Senate that had it not been for the Government giving the incentive for oil search in Australia by way of subsidy we may not have had the com panies that were operating continuing their search, and oil could have been a dead issue in Australia today.

So, the reason why the Government has brought down these new amendments to the Act is to continue the payment of subsidy for a further 5 years. I have a lot of material that I wanted to use but in view of the fact that Senator Cant and Senator Greenwood have delivered very interesting speeches here today I do not think I shall speak any further. Whilst I cannot agree with everything Senator Cant said, I agree that the debate has been useful. I thank all honourable senators for the support they have given to the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 - by leave - taken together.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– If it is convenient to the Committee, I will take together the amendments I propose to move to clauses 5 and 6. If this course is followed only one division will be necessary. Clause 5 reads in part:

Section 7 of the Principal Act is amended - (a)…….

by inserting after sub-section (4.) the following sub-section - (4a.) A proposed operation that is to be carried out in connexion with the search for petroleum in a submarine area is not eligible for approval under the last preceding sub-section unless the Minister is satisfied that natural persons ordinarily resident in Australia -

are to pay, in whole or in part, the costs incurred in or in connexion with the operation; or

are beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in the capital of a corporation that is to pay, in whole or in part, those costs.’.

Clause 6 reads in part:

Section 9 of the Principal Act is amended -

by inserting after sub-section (1.) the following sub-section - (1a.) An agreement in respect of an approved operation that is to be carried out in connexion with the search for petroleum in a submarine area may provide that the subsidy shall be an amount equal to such specified part (not exceeding the part that would, but for this sub-section, bc applicable) of the costs referred to in the last preceding sub-section as the Minister thinks fit having regard to -

if natural persons not ordinarily resident in Australia are to pay those costs in whole or in part - the extent to which it appears to the Minister that such persons are to pay those costs; and

if natural persons not ordinarily resident in Australia are beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in the capital of a corporation that is to pay those costs in whole or in part - the extent to which it appears to the Minister that such persons are or may be so interested, and the extent to which the corporation is to pay those costs.’; and 1 move:

In clause 5, in proposed sub-section (4a,) leave out ‘a submarine’, insert ‘any’.

In clause 6, in proposed sub-section (1*.) leave out ‘a submarine’, insert ‘any’.

The purpose of the amendments is to make the conditions for the oil search subsidy on-shore the same as they are off-shore. I suggest that if the Government thinks that it is good policy to encourage a greater Australian content of or interest in offshore areas, which are the most expensive areas for exploration and the ones that would be most difficult for the small Australian companies to go into, it is equally right to encourage the Australian companies to have an interest in the on-shore areas where perhaps they are more capable of undertaking exploration work. That remark is subject to what I said in my speech on the second reading of the Bill, that there are areas available for Australian companies.

It seems to the Opposition that the Government’s policy should have been the reverse of what it is, that it should have provided encouragement for a greater Australian equity in areas into which Australian companies were more capable of entering, that is, those areas where exploration is less expensive, rather than insist on paying no subsidy or very little subsidy in respect of areas where the small Australian companies would have very little ability to operate or even to pay a 51% share of the operating costs. When it is considered that the operating costs off-shore are four or five times greater than they are on-shore, it seems to us that there will be very little opportunity for a small Australian com pany to become active in this area. It seems to us that the off-shore area will be dominated by the large companies which have the resources and the risk capital to enable them to go into this expensive area. If the subsidy is payable in respect of an on-shore area, where operating costs are cheaper, on a similar basis to the payment of a subsidy for off-shore exploration, it is probable that sufficient risk finance will be generated in Australia to encourage Australian companies to take a greater share of the onshore areas. That is the purpose of my amendments which I hope will commend themselves to the Committee.

As we will be dividing on these amendments very soon and there will be no opportunity to discuss them further as they will have been passed, I should like the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) to tell me what is meant in clause 5 by the words ‘are beneficially interested, directly or indirectly’. Proposed sub-section (4a.) of section 7 reads:

A proposed operation that is to be carried out in connexion with the search for petroleum in a submarine area is not eligible for approval under the last preceding sub-section unless the Minister is satisfied that natural persons ordinarily resident in Australia-

are beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in the capital of a corporation that is to pay, in whole or in part, those costs.

What is meant by ‘indirectly interested’? I have gone through the Minister’s second reading speech and all I can see that may give a lead to what is meant by this expression is where he says, referring to the discretion of the Minister in respect of whether the subsidy is payable:

For the purpose of exercising this discretion it is intended to define an Australian company as one which is incorporated in Australia and in which the beneficial ownership is at least 51% Australian, lt will be up to a company to prove the extent of Australian beneficial ownership, but if the company can show that certain shares are available to the Australian public, these shares may be considered as beneficially owned by Australians.

This is extraordinary language for a Minister to use. He says that if the shares are available for beneficial ownership they will be counted as going towards making up the 51%. He continued:

Any company which satisfies this definition, or any Australian individual, carrying out off-shore exploration alone would receive subsidy at the rate of 30% of costs.

In the first place there is a very big discretion reposing in the Minister to decide whether the subsidy is payable, what the amount of the subsidy will be and what works may be subsidised. But in addition to that the Minister says in his second reading speech that if the shares are available to the Australian public those shares may be considered as beneficially owned by Australians. I cannot understand what is meant by that expression. The shares may be offered on the open market, in which case an Australian shareholder might need to have a lien over them in order to purchase them. They would need to be shares which are not open for sale to the general public; otherwise they could be bought by overseas investors. They would almost need to be in the hands of people who had the beneficial ownership in the enterprise. I cannot understand the language used by the Minister, nor can I understand what he means by the expression beneficially interested’. He does not say owned’; he. says ‘beneficially interested, directly or indirectly’. I think the Minister should give an explanation of what is meant by this term in both clauses.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I have listened with interest to the arguments introduced by the honourable senator in support of the proposed amendments to clauses 5 and 6 of this Bill. In effect, the Opposition wants a subsidy to be paid only to Australian companies whether they be engaged in off-shore exploration or on-shore exploration. The Government’s purpose in introducing the Bill is to pay a subsidy to all companies searching for oil on-shore in Australia but to pay a subsidy of 30% only to Australian companies searching for oil off-shore. The Government is anxious to encourage the continuation of exploration on-shore and it feels that the best way of doing this is to offer a subsidy to all companies engaging in this activity. Despite the fact that the search for oil in Australia has been going on since, one might say, the end of the Second World War, as yet no large quantities of commercial oil have been found on-shore. The only significant discoveries have been those off-shore in Bass Strait. Therefore the Government believes that it should subsidise all companies search ing for oil on-shore, and that is why we are not prepared to accept the amendment.

The honourable senator asked the meaning of proposed new sub-section (4a.) of section 7, which reads:

A proposed operation that is to be carried out in connexion with the search for petroleum in a submarine area is not eligible for approval under the last preceding sub-section unless the Minister is satisfied that natural persons ordinarily resident in Australia -

are beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in the capital of a corporation that is to pay, in whole or in part, those costs.

By way of example I mention the interest held by Broken Hill Company Pty Ltd in Haematite Explorations Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of BHP which is doing the exploration work in Bass Strait. The honourable senator said that he believed that Australian companies would not be able to participate in any of the areas off-shore because they had all been taken up. I remind him that after the first 6 years, 50% of the area for which an exploration permit has been granted must be surrendered. After a further 5 years, 50% of the remaining area must be surrendered. The surrendered areas then become available to others, including Australians and Australian companies if they desire to tender for them.

I should like to mention also that in view of the fact that the search for oil off-shore has been so successful many companies with large amounts of capital have been floated in Australia with a view to undertaking farm-in oil exploration propositions in certain areas. In this way, Australian companies are gaining an interest in off-shore operations. Each well or geophysical survey may earn them an opportunity to participate in a farm-in proposition in a particular area if they so desire. I think the honourable senator will agree that in the last 6 months a large number of companies have been floated for the specific purpose of obtaining an interest in an off-shore area. I repeat that, as we have been so successful with off-shore operations in Australia, this method is being offered to Australian investors of obtaining an interest in off-shore areas. I regret to say that, on behalf of the Government, I am not able to accept the amendments proposed by the honourable senator.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise to support the viewpoint put forward by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott). It appears to me that what has been proposed by Senator Cant does have some of the attributes of an unreasoning and unexplained prejudice against overseas companies being eligible for any subsidy assistance. The position is that the Act, as it will be amended by the clause as it stands, will ensure that on-shore exploration will continue to receive a subsidy, as it has done since 1957. The figures in the last statement issued in accordance with the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act clearly discloses that expenditure on onshore exploration has dropped by almost 100% over the period from 1957 to 1968. In those circumstances, if the Act is to be looked upon as an Act designed to facilitate exploration in an area where exploration is lagging, then obviously the area in which it is required is on-shore exploration.

If it is a fact that both overseas companies and Australian companies are showing less and less interest in on-shore exploration, then the interest which is being shown by overseas companies will be still further diminished if they are to be denied any part of the subsidy which is being made available. This situation does not apply in the off-shore areas because there is every indication that there is a tremendous incentive for people to get into off-shore exploration. For that reason, which is additional to what the Minister has stressed, I feel that there is sound policy behind this particular provision even though, superficially and without examining the underlying reasons, it might appear that there is a particular provision applying to on-shore operations which does not apply to off-shore operations, without any apparent logical reason for it. I suggest to the honourable senator that a consideration of the matter will indicate there is a sound policy behind the clause as it stands, wherein it limits the ability to give only part of the subsidy to exploration in off-shore areas. There is another matter which I desire to raise. I wish to ask the Minister, in the light of the wide discretions which are given to him under this clause, how it is proposed to indicate the guide lines or the criteria upon which the Minister operates. What is currently intended is set out in the Minister’s second reading speech, but it may be that with the passage of time those intentions will manifest themselves in another way.

Senator Little:

– There might even be a change of Ministers.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– lt might be for the reason which Senator Little suggests.

Senator Little:

– Or a change of government.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Or, as he also suggests, a change of government, but 1 am surprised that he would be interested in that eventuality. It does appear that all that the Minister is to do under the section is to make such application of part of the subsidy as is required to be paid as he thinks fit having regard to a number of variable criteria, and one of them is to what extent a person is beneficially interested directly or indirectly in the capital of a corporation, where that person lives out of Australia. In these circumstances it is a very broad and, I say with respect, a somewhat vague way of imposing the limitation which the Act is designed to impose. I suspect that the matter is quite clear from what the Minister has said in his second reading speech, but I would like some assurance from the Minister, if he is able to give it, as to how this will be publicised and made known so that people will appreciate that there is a fixed rule which the Minister will operate.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I was not quite satisfied with the answer given to me by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) with respect to the meaning of the words beneficially interested indirectly’. As I raised it earlier, I join with Senator Greenwood in questioning the wide discretion that is given to the Minister under this legislation and the vagueness of that discretion. I think that this is a matter that should be cleaned up so that not only can it be publicised to the general public and the people who are interested in the industry but also so that this Senate will understand what the legislation is that it is asked to agree to. Senator Greenwood said that my proposition had an element of discrimination in it. Now, the amendments that I have moved are to make the on-shore conditions exactly the same as those that apply off-shore. That is the purpose of the amendment; to get the conditions uniform in the whole of the industry and to encourage Australian ownership both on-shore and off-shore.

In case there is any thought in anyone’s mind that the Opposition is attempting to discriminate in this, I point out that the Minister has said that what he proposes to do with respect to the off-shore operations was not to subsidise in any way the overseas investor and not to subsidise in any way the foreign capital that is brought in to do exploration work off-shore, but to subsidise only the industry off-shore - I will speak in the maximum without going down the scale - to the extent provided by the Act if there is a 51% Australian content in the beneficial ownership of any exploration operation. The Minister does not think that that is discrimination, because in his second reading speech, as I have just indicated, he says:

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

Now, how can the honourable senator say that because I moved an amendment which will apply exactly the same conditions onshore as apply « off-shore - and the Minister says that off-shore he does not discriminate against the foreign companies - =1 am discriminating against the foreign companies?

I think the honourable senator would have to put some more forceful argument than that to convince anybody that the Opposition is attempting to discriminate against the overseas companies. However, when the Minister spoke he mentioned the number of oil companies that had been floated in recent times. Approximately $33m has been subscribed through the stock exchanges with respect to oil exploration companies, but I think the Minister should give this a little more consideration, because I consider that the great bulk of these corn- are gambling on the provisions of section panies are gambling at the casino. They 77a and 77aa of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act. They cannot lose by taking out shares in the oil exploration companies. This is not risk capital being put in for this purpose; it is being put in for the purpose of saving taxes. There would not be more than 10% or 15% of the companies which have been floated for oil exploration purposes which would be genuine exploration companies. I join issue with the Minister holding up to the public the number of companies being floated as an indication of the activity in this industry, because it is an activity at the casino, not an activity in an industry.

The Minister also said that Haematite Exploration Pty Ltd was the exploration company in Bass Strait. The simple facts are that Haematite farmed out its areas to Esso to do the exploration work, and when Esso found oil Esso took out a licence to operate in that area. Haematite, as the subsidiary of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, had to farm back into its own area, and it was able to farm back in on the basis of a 12i% royalty or a 50% interest, bearing its fair share of the development costs but not the exploration costs. It is quite wrong for the Minister to say that Haematite is the exploration company in Bass Strait. Esso is the exploration company in Bass Strait.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Byrne:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

– This is the point of the subsidy - to encourage people to take it up.

Senator CANT They will be encouraged to go anywhere where the prospects of finding oil are good. Irrespective . of what subsidy is paid they will go to the prospected areas to search for oil. The Government can pay as much subsidy as it likes. It can pay the whole cost if it wants to in the areas that are not prospected. But the companies will not waste their time going there; they will go somewhere else. So it is quite useless to make these suggestions. Mr Deputy Chairman, I commend the amendments that I have moved to the Senate.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– Senator Cant stated that companies are floated in Australia with no intention of searching for oil. I would like to advise the honourable senator that this is a rather broad statement because many companies have been floated in Australia, as I mentioned earlier, with the sole intention of searching for oil in this country. I admit that companies engaged in oil1 exploration receive tax concessions under section 77a of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act. Companies also receive concessions for the amount of capital they contribute by way of payments made upon allotment of shares or upon calls. This is a total deduction against income tax for the year in which they spend the money. This is one encouragement that the Government has given to companies for a number of years to encourage people in Australia to invest in the search for oil in this country.

I think it is gratifying to see that we have people in Australia now who are interested in putting capital1 into companies that are anxious to search for oil and which have every intention of spending money to get farm-in propositions off-shore and onshore. I believe that through this legislation which will encourage people to put capital into oil search Australia will be able, in the near future, to participate in some oil strikes. Senator Cant asked me to comment on the percentage of Australian companies engaged in oil search. He wanted to know the participation of Australian companies and others in this field. I shall give the- honourable senator full details from the second reading speech of the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) which I think covers the whole of the subject.

Senator Cant:

– I have read the second reading speech.

Senator SCOTT:

– The second reading speech sets out quite cl’early what is happening.

Senator Webster:

– Do not read it again if the honourable senator knows what the speech is about.

Senator SCOTT:

– I think in fairness to the Minister whom I represent I should read it as an answer to Senator Cant. The Minister said:

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

For partnership arrangements on off-shore areas the rate of subsidy would be determined as a part of 30% dependent on the extent in which

Australians contribute towards the total cost of the operation, whether this contribution be by an Australian company or through the Australian ownership in a company which does not satisfy the definition of an Australian company. Examples of how this arrangement will work are:

where the operation is carried out by a partnership consisting of an Australian company and a company in which there is no Australian ownership and each contributes 50% of the cost, the rate of subsidy would be 15%, that is half of the 30%.
where an operation is carried out by a partnership consisting of an Australian company and a company in which there is a 20% Australian ownership and they each contribute 50% of the cost, the subsidy rate would be 18% (i.e. 30% of1/2 plus 20% of 30% of1/2).

That is, half the 30% plus one-fifth of the remaining15%, which would be another 3%, and that would make up the 18%.

where an operation is carried out by a partnership consisting of an Australian company, a company in which there is a 20% Australian’ ownership and a company in which there is no Australian ownership and they each contribute one-third of the cost, the. subsidy rate would be 12% (i.e. 30% of1/3 plus 20% of 30% of1/3 plus 0).

Now that I have answered the honourable senator, I hope that we can go to a division.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I would like to know whether the Minister will refer to the publicity which will be given to the guidelines under which the Minister for National Development is proposing to work?

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

– We will be putting out instructions in the form of guidelines to operating companies as to how these percentages will operate.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Cant’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 27

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Senate adjourned at 11.15 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 June 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690603_senate_26_s41/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 3 June 1969

QUESTION

HMAS ‘MELBOURNE

Senator MURPHY:NEW SOUTH WALES

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

HMAS ‘MELBOURNE

Ministerial Statement

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

Senator MURPHY:New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McKellar:

Senator Murphy:

QUESTION

WEST IRIAN

Senator LAWRIE:QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

FILM CENSORSHIP

Senator COHEN:VICTORIA

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

Senator Cohen:

Senator SCOTT:

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator DAVIDSON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

AMP BUILDING, ADELAIDE

Senator BISHOP:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator LAUCKE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:LP

QUESTION

WAR VETERANS HOMES

Senator CAVANAGH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MCKELLAR:CP

QUESTION

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Senator CAMERON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SCOTT:LP

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

Senator Hendrickson:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

MAXWELL NEWTON PTY LTD

Senator GREENWOOD:VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator WRIEDT:TASMANIA

Senator SCOTT:LP

QUESTION

LAMB

Senator RAE:TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

Senator FITZGERALD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ANDERSON:

QUESTION

LIBRARIES

Senator COHEN:

Senator WRIGHT:LP

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator RAE:

Senator WRIGHT:LP

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

WEST IRIAN

Senator GEORGES:QUEENSLAND

Senator ANDERSON:LP

Senate
3 June 1969

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

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

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

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

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

Senator CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SCOTT:
LP

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

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

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

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

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

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

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

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

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

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