Senate
19 September 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session



The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1107

QUESTION

STEEL

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for National Development seen a report in the ‘West Australian’ of 18th September that an amount of §1 ,500m will be spent on a steel processing plant at Jervis Bay? Has his attention been drawn to the statement in that report that one member of the consortium that will construct this steel plant is Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd? ls he aware that Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd has entered into an agreement with the Western Australian Government to construct a steel works with a capacity of 1 million tons per annum within 25 years of obtaining the leases at Mount Tom Price? What effect will the entry of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd into the project in New South Wales have on the steel industry project in Western Australia?

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

– I have read the report. I noticed that it stated that Sir Maurice Mawby, on behalf of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, had seen the Prime Minister some months ago and that as a result of that interview he was ready to make an announcement that a consortium would establish a steel industry in Australia, subject to certain financial policy arrangements of this Government being announced. The policy arrangements in regard to overseas capital have been announced by the Prime Minister and have been accepted with much appreciation by overseas investors and companies and the Australian public; so much so that Sir Maurice Mawby has been able to announce that the consortium will be establishing a steel industry which he thinks will not affect the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd at all in the manufacture of steel in Australia. He mentioned that Jervis Bay is a site that he considers may be satisfactory, but no definite arrangement has been made in relation to Jervis Bay because the consortium is still looking at other sites. In regard to that part of the question which deals with the promise by Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd to establish within Western Australia a steel industry capable of manufacturing 1 million tons of steel a year, I think I should take that up with the Minister for National Development and obtain an answer for the honourable senator. Therefore, I ask him to place that part of the question on the notice paper.

page 1107

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that an announcement in today’s ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ regarding the gigantic steel works to be established in New South Wales states that Australians will be offered shares in the new consortium? Is it also a fact that this is a clear indication of favourable reaction to the Prime Minister’s policy speech on guidelines for capital investment in Australia?

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

– I have read the morning Press and I have seen comment consistent with Senator Cotton’s statement. I do not think there is any doubt that the recent statement made by the Prime Minister, which was the culmination of a series of views that had been expressed in the past by the Government and the Prime Minister on the need for Australian content in these big investments, is bearing fruit. 1 think we all would realise that it is most desirable and essential that where there is a willingness on the part of Australian investment groups to go into these big undertakings they should be given the opportunity to do so.

page 1107

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE STAFF

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. When will improvements be made to Parliament House staff areas? Will the improvements be extended to the Parliamentary Library to enable Library staff to work in greater comfort? Has a date been set for a review of Parliament House staff salaries? If not, when will a date be set?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Mr Deputy President, as you will appreciate, these are matters which in the first instance are to a large extent the responsibility of the Presiding Officers. I submit that I should merely put the question on notice. No doubt the Presiding Officers will have a look at it and will be able to assist in providing an answer to the honourable senator.

page 1108

QUESTION

OIL

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. 1 refer to recent Press reports that the Stale of Alaska in the United States of America is to receive $900m for the sale of some oil leases plus 121% royalties on production. How much a year does the Commonwealth receive from leasing rights and royalties from the vast off-shore oil fields handed over to huge corporations? Is it not true that if the Australian Government was receiving as much for the use of our national resources as Alaska is receiving many crucial areas such as education, health and Stale works would not be critically short of finance and the Slate Premiers would not need lo launch constant attacks on Commonwealth and State financial relations?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– lt is true - and I have read reports to this effect - that a company, T think it is the British Petroleum Company, has found large oil deposits in Alaska which are worth many thousands of millions of dollars to that company and the American people. American policy is announced, of course, after the finding of oil. When one has something that is worth thousands of millions of dollars one can get a lot of revenue. At the moment the Commonwealth and the States receive a combined royalty on oil produced of between 10% and 121%. This is, I think, a satisfactory return as far as the Government is concerned, because as yet we have not found an oil reservoir in Australia anywhere near the size of the one that has been found in Alaska. Therefore, if the honourable senator is not satisfied with private enterprise looking for oil in Australia he ought to announce what he thinks would be a more satisfactory arrangement.

page 1108

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– 1 ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is a correct interpretation of the provisions of section 96 of the Constitution that the Federal Government could make a special grant to the Stales for the purpose of assisting municipal councils through their present extreme financial difficulties. If the answer is yes, will the Government give full and sympathetic consideration to adopting such a course of action?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I would be a very brave man indeed if ] were to stand here and as a layman set out to give a precise interpretation of section 96 of the Constitution. I could quote its words, but when lawyers get to work on ils definition and interpretation, that is their business. I am sure that every honourable senator recognises that my approach Ls a very wise one to adopt. 1 do not think that the honourable senator’s question cuts across the comment I made the other day that there is a quite clear approach to local government which can be made by the national Parliament, lt is through the States, which have sovereignty and which by legislation bring local government authorities into existence. Local government bodies exist only because they are created by an Act of a State Parliament, and to that extent they are answerable to State Parliaments. But that is not to be taken to mean that the States will not convey lo the Commonwealth Government requests for assistance received from local government authorities. Indeed, they did that at the last meeting of the Loan Council, when the Council was allocating loans for the coming period. The Loan Council said: With the concurrence of the States, and on the understanding that the States will do the allocating, we grant authority for local government bodies to borrow up to $200,000 at a time without reference to the Loan Council.’ The honourable senator is trying to persuade the Senate by way of his question that the Commonwealth can intercede, ignore the States and go direct to local government authorities. I suggest that it should not do that.

Senator Devitt:

– I did not say that.

Senator ANDERSON:

– But that is the clear implication of the honourable senator’s question.

page 1108

QUESTION

YUGOSLAV CONSULATE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– J preface my question, which I direct to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by reminding him that I raised with him in the debate on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs yesterday the subject of the recent bombing of the Yugoslav Consulate in Sydney. Will the Minister agree that the Minister for Immigration, in the utterances he made yesterday at the Australian National University, had in mind the perpetrators of such deeds when he said that some right wing extremists are denied Australian citizenship?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I find it difficult to follow the connection between my answer yesterday to a question asked by the honourable senator during the debate on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and a report of a statement made by the Minister for Immigration at a function yesterday. Because I cannot establish that connection between the two issues 1 have nothing to add to what I said. As I understand the situation. Senator Mulvihill asked me about certain grievous and very improper acts that took place outside the Yugoslav Consulate in Sydney. I expressed my regret that such things had happened and agreed completely with him that they were quite improper. I expressed the hope that those deeds would not be repeated in Australia, and that is all I can say on the matter.

page 1109

QUESTION

WATER

Senator MARTIN CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. It refers to the subject matter of a question I asked recently. Has the Minister any further information regarding the possibility of using water draining into the sea in south eastern South Australia to recharge the vast underground water basin shown by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to exist in that area of South Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– It will be remembered that the honourable senator referred to a report of the CSIRO which stated that there was enough water beneath the Mount Gambier plain to irrigate up to 350,000 acres of pasture a year. The honourable senator then asked whether the drainage could be diverted. The CSIRO Soils Division, which undertakes this research, considers that at present this could be done only in local situations as, in the main, the aquifers are full. The volume of unfilled storage is very small and the flow of water in the drains, were it diverted, would quickly fill this small volume. Indeed drainage of the area has been necessary to take away efficiently that part of the floodwaters which could not be accommodated by natural percolation to the aquifers.

The Division believes that increasing utilisation of underground water for irrigation and urban development in the south east of South Australia almost certainly would cause the level of water in the Gambier limestone to fall. There could be a stage in this development when it might be desirable to divert water from the drains to selected spreading areas from which, by percolation, the aquifers could be recharged.

page 1109

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Has the Department the means to assess the number of false returns submitted for the national service ballot? If so, can the Minister inform the Senate as soon as possible of the number of false applications received for the last ballot?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator should know that the administration of the National Service Act is committed to the Minister for Labour and National Service and not to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is concerned only with enforcement proceedings arising out of that Act.

page 1109

QUESTION

PREMIERS CONFERENCE

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In respect of future Premiers Conferences at which financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States are decided, will the Commonwealth consider making available to members of the Parliament a verbatim report of the discussions leading up to those decisions so that they will be better able to assess the implications of Commonwealth and State financial arrangements? These reports formerly were available to members. Can the Minister tell us the reasons for their discontinuance? Is it correct to say that all Premiers who attended the Conference at which it was agreed that portion of (he allocation to the States for roads should be specified for urban development were in agreement with the proposition? Was any strenuous opposition offered to the proposal by any Premier?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– My understanding of the Premiers Conference is that the Commonwealth and the States go into committee sometimes and have open discussions at other times. Naturally there would be no report of discussions of the deliberations in committee but there would be a report of discussions in the open sessions. There is nothing odd about that. Adverting to Senator Devitt’s real interest in local government, I point out that this system operates in local government in which field discussions are held in committee and in the open. That is normal procedure in a lot of organisations of which I have knowledge. As to the particular matter of the availability of reports of Premiers Conferences when Premiers hold discussions in open session, I will have to check the position. I did think that the report of discussions in open session was circulated.

Turning to the Commonwealth’s grants to the States for roads, I believe that the Commonwealth’s offer requires the support of the States to become effective. Indeed, complementary State legislation is required. If that is so, the answer to the honourable senator’s question is: Yes, the States would have agreed to the arrangements for the new agreement between the Commonwealth and the States on roads.

page 1110

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA PARTY

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

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question. Has the Minister seen the results of a poll conducted at the Sydney University by the Students Representative Council? If not, will he peruse the results of the poll and inform the Prime Minister of the outcome? Iri view of the fact that the poll showed that the support for the Australia Party was 2% more than support for the Australian Democratic Labor Parry, will he ask the Prime Minister to concede that the Australia Party should have the same rights as other political parties?

Senator Branson:

– It was 4%.

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

– Yes. That percentage should be 4%.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– If the Leader of the Australia Party who sits in the Senate, Senator Turnbull, can get any comfort and joy out of that poll he is entitled to them. My own view is that a poll which was taken of a large number of people - and I have said this in relation to other matters - and which resulted in only a microscopic vote for a Party does not give much comfort to people who want to deal with real issues.

page 1110

QUESTION

PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Does the Minister recall my alerting members of the Senate and my attempt to alert members of Federal and State governments to the likelihood of a publicity campaign to be promoted in an attempt to sway legislators throughout Australia? Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to full page advertisements inserted by a body known as the Australian Margarine Manufacturers Association yesterday in the Tasmanian newspapers, the ‘Mercury’ and the ‘Examiner’? I have a copy of these advertisements in my hand. Does the Minister recall that I suggested that a significant volume of overseas funds had entered this publicity campaign in an attempt to disrupt existing Australian industries? Does the Minister consider that my prompting was timely and that very large funds apparently are directed now against the Tasmanian Government? Does the Minister know that one of the advertisements of this size costs in excess of $500? Is the Minister aware that in Tasmania as in Victoria all political parties supported the legislation now being attacked - legislation which was aimed at protecting consumers from unfair practices? Will the Minister alert all members of State and Federal parliaments that this type of campaign was described in the Victorian Parliament as political blackmail and that it poses a threat to all political parties by the very strength of its financial backing?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator asks me to alert all members and senators- in relation to an advertising campaign obviously being conducted on an issue. I assume that most members and senators, certainly those from the States where this big campaign is being launched, would become alerted to it by the normal processes of looking at the newspapers published in their respective States. We have seen these large campaigns before. Apparently this one has moved out of New South Wales into other States. I will not comment upon the issues involved in this matter. I do not think there is any doubt that a tremendous amount of money is being spent to bring to the minds of the public and parliamentarians a point of view.

page 1111

QUESTION

INDIAN OCEAN

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: Has he seen a statement made by the Treasurer, Mr McMahon, when addressing a Liberal Party meeting in Brisbane in which the Treasurer said that any Russian penetration of the Pacific region would be regarded as a hostile act but that Russian penetration into the Indian Ocean was not regarded as serious? Does the Government believe that the Pacific Ocean is the only important area in the future defence of Australia but that the Indian Ocean is not so important to Australia’s defence? How can the Minister reconcile this statement with the recent statement made by the Minister for External Affairs, Mr Freeth?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As I have not seen the text of the statement made by the Treasurer I ask that the question be put on the notice paper.

page 1111

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior see that the attention of the National Capital Development Commission is directed to the traffic lights at the junction of Kings Avenue and Queen Victoria Terrace, as these lights give guidance only to the vehicular traffic and there is no guidance whatsoever to pedestrian traffic? As this is a very dangerous junction, and cars travel at a fast speed in this section, will the Minister see that the National Capital Development Commission takes action to recognise that there are pedestrians in this city as well as people who use vehicles?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The National Capital Development Commission is erecting traffic lights in many parts of Canberra, but as the honourable senator is worried about a particular site for traffic lights at the intersection of Kings Avenue and Queen Victoria Terrace I shall raise this matter with the Minister and see what he can do about this request.

page 1111

QUESTION

WEAPONS RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Supply: To what extent are technical systems imported from overseas for the Weapons Research Establishment in South Australia which could be produced by that Establishment either alone or in concert with Australian manufacturers? Has the Department recently imported from Italy or another country a radar system which in the view of the local administration could have been manufactured at Salisbury?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– When the honourable senator says, ‘which in the view of the local administration could have been manufactured at Salisbury’, I would think he should be more precise in his question to me. If he is telling me that somebody in my own Department has made a statement to that effect I would be very surprised.

Senator Bishop:

– No, I am telling you that you have imported a system.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I shall be coming back to that. I think that the question rates a considered reply from the Department but the generality of the position is this: It is true that in certain instances we can manufacture in Australia, either under licence or by the use of our own Research and Development Establishments and our own technical people, but we inevitably come to the point in all of these things as to whether it is in any way a reasonable economic proposition so to do. We have to make a judgment on whether it is in the best interests of Australia for the preservation of its technical know-how, whether it is desirable in our best judgment to make certain that we always have a viability and capability in this direction, whether to do it in Australia would cost in terms of money and in terms of time an inordinate amount and whether it would be more economical to import from overseas. These are all questions which have to be dealt with on an individual basis. I would like to take the question back to my Department, have it analysed and see whether we can pick some examples to form the basis of a reply which will give a fair picture of the position.

page 1112

QUESTION

WILD ANIMALS

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– ls the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of a report that two lions and two lionesses escaped yesterday from a travelling circus in central Australia?

Senator Cohen:

– Western Australia.

Senator BUTTFIELD:

– In Western Australia, ls he also aware that these lions are at large on a one million acre property?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– They have been recaptured.

Question not finished.

page 1112

QUESTION

ILLEGAL EXPORT OF AUSTRALIAN PARROTS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise and it is prompted by the recent imposition of a $500 fine on a person tor attempting illegally to export Australian parrots. I ask: Have such recent fines for similar offences been paid promptly? Further, does the Department of Customs and Excise co-operate with the State National Parks and Wild Life Service to ascertain the areas where such illegal trapping occurs and to ensure that these areas are more effectively patrolled?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– 1 have to advise the honourable senator that all fines imposed have been paid within the time allowed by the court. I point out that the enforcement of a judgment is within the jurisdiction of the court. As to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, close liaison and co-operation exist between the Department of Customs and Excise and the State authorities. However, the policy relating to the patrol of areas where illegal bird trapping is suspected falls within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the State fauna authorities.

page 1112

QUESTION

MELBOURNE UNDERGROUND RAILWAY

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– .My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, ls it a fact, as reported in today’s Melbourne ‘Age’, that discussions occurred this week between the Prime Minister and the Victorian Minister for Transport concerning the prospect of Commonwealth finance in the sum of $40m as a half cost contribution towards an underground railway for the city of Melbourne? ls it proposed, and if so when, that a statement will be made as to whether or not this financial assistance will be forthcoming? Is the Minister able to state the nature of the outstanding problems which have prevented an earlier announcement of the Commonwealth decision being made?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have not been informed of a recent conference between the Prime Minister and the Victorian Minister for Transport. I am very much aware, and I am sure that the Senate also is aware, of Senator Greenwood’s constant interest in obtaining assistance for the underground railway in Melbourne, flowever, I ask the honourable senator to put the question on notice so that I may obtain information from the Prime Minister’s Department as to the current position.

page 1112

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct another question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Am I to infer from the Minister’s answer to my previous question that the Attorney-General has no interest in breaches of the National Service Act? ls it not a fact that a false application submitted for the national service ballot is a breach of this Act? Is it not a matter of grave concern to the Attorney-General that many such applications have been submitted? Can the Minister assure me that if the AttorneyGeneral has made no investigation of the number of such applications he will do so? Will he inform the Senate of the number?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

-I shall refer the honourable senators question to the appropriate department - perhaps both the AttorneyGeneral’s Department and the Department of Labour and National Service - in an attempt to get a comprehensive answer so that F may advise the Senate.

page 1112

QUESTION

WILD ANIMALS

Senator BUTTFIELD:

– I should like to revert to my unfinished question which was addressed to the Leader of the Government as the Prime Minister’s representative in this chamber. The fact that I was not aware that the lions had been caught, although they were at large on a 1 million acre property, is quite incidental to the remainder of my question. When wild animals are to be transported through Australia, either through the country or through a city, by circus owners, lion park operators or zoo operators, would it be possible to make sure that the carriages in which the wild animals are placed will be securely bolted and locked before they are allowed to move?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I. believe that authorities of the State in which the animals were being transported would be responsible for ensuring that they were caged properly. The exception to that statement would be when the animals were being transported on a Commonwealth railway. The Commonwealth would be responsible then. In the normal course, the responsibility for ensuring the safe transport of animals clearly is a responsibility of the sovereign States.

page 1113

QUESTION

SENATE: QUESTIONS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. When can I expect answers to questions I have asked of Ministers? I refer to a question dating as far back as 27th May 1969 and to questions asked on subsequent dates. I refer in particular lo a question I asked the Minister about 13.000 new spanners which were offered for sale by the Department of Supply. T provided the honourable senator with details. As yet 1 have received no answer to the question.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Among my papers I have a reply to the honourable senator’s question about the spanners. If a formal reply is not prepared before question time is over, I certainly will have a reply for him on the next day of sitting. As this Parliament will be dissolved after the end of next week Ministers are making very conscious efforts to furnish replies to all outstanding questions in the hope that as many as possible will be answered in (he Senate before we lift next Friday.

page 1113

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister I refer to the welcome news of the proposals for a new Steel works complex at Jervis

Bay. Can the Minister assure the Senate that the Commonwealth will take all possible steps to ensure that effluent from the proposed steel works will not be discharged into Jervis Bay unless it has been fully treated and rendered harmless to the marine life of the bay?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– In all undertakings such as this studies are done, preliminary investigations are made and all relevant matters are taken into account. In all such matters, works have to conform to requirements and standards laid down by local government and statutory authorities. No organisation can say that it wants to build a factory, that it will, have trade waste and that it will discharge the waste into a river, stream, bay or, for that matter, the sewerage or drainage systems in the area. The procedures do not work in that way. The control of effluent is considered as part of the preliminary planning and with various other matters is examined before the contract is let and before decisions are made. I think we can take it as certain that the New South Wales statutory authorities, and Commonwealth statutory authorities if they are involved, will ensure that a circumstance such as the honourable senator suggests does not occur.

page 1113

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. As reported on this morning’s Australian Broadcasting Commission radio news service, did the Minister for External Affairs, when speaking to the United Nations yesterday, state that the conflict in Vietnam was both unnecessary and brutal? In view of the Minister’s utterance on this conflict, will the Government lake action to terminate Australia’s participation in an unnecessary and brutal war?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Until such time as the Senate and I have had an opportunity to read the whole text of the speech, I think it would be very wrong to make comments about a Press extract of what the Minister said. When I say that, I make no suggestion of any impropriety on the part of the Press. However I think we have to look at such a statement in relation to the complete context before we can comment on it.

page 1114

QUESTION

SALE OF VHP FLIGHT AIRCRAFT

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Air. What was the highest tender received for the two VIP Flight Vickers Viscounts? What was the difference between the tender price and the reserve price? Have the aircraft now been placed in the hands of a private firm for the purpose of effecting a sale? What is the name of the firm?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I shall get those detailed particulars from the Minister and advise the honourable senator.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I should like to point out that I think that is more a question for the notice paper. I might rule that way in future in relation to such questions.

page 1114

QUESTION

OIL

Senator POYSER:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, lt is supplementary to that asked by me about royalties to be received by the State of Alaska for oil production. How much has the Commonwealth Government received in royalties from oil already discovered and developed in Australia? How much has been received in taxation by the Commonwealth Government from oil companies operating oil and gas finds in Australia? If no royalties or taxes have yet been received, when will the Commonwealth commence to receive these payments?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– These are all very technical questions requiring the taking out of a terrific amount of detail. I ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice.

page 1114

QUESTION

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science whether it is a fact that at Telopea Park High School in the Australian Capital Territory nearly fifty sixth-form students have been seriously limited in their studies because they have no agricultural science teacher? Is it a fact that the headmaster’s efforts to obtain a teacher in this subject have proved futile? Is the Minister aware that the students have written to a Sydney newspaper about the situation, voicing their concern about failing their examinations? As the Federal Government shares with the New South Wales Government the responsibility for Telopea Park High School, will the Government take immediate action to rectify this grave deficiency in the teaching staff at this school?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am aware that there is some dislocation with regard to teaching in this particular form, and I wish to inform the Senate that the Department is advertising at the weekend, and next week, to try to get a teacher living in Canberra.

page 1114

QUESTION

FAMILY COURTS

Senator RAE:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Can the Minister indicate whether any further consideration has been given to the proposal for the introduction into Australia of a system of family courts? Will the Minister consider listing this matter for consideration by the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am reminded of my colleague’s continuing interest in this matter. I have not a precise recollection of t’ie present position but, as I informed the honourable senator recently, this subject was before the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral within the last 9 or 12 months. It has not yet reached the stage when any useful announcement can be made.

page 1114

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration whether any specific date has yet been selected for the next meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers for Immigration.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am not aware of whether a date has been fixed, but I shall ask my colleague the Minister for Immigration and inform the honourable senator.

page 1114

QUESTION

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

Senator COHEN:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I direct his attention to the Senate notice paper and to the fact that there is still on that notice paper a large number of unanswered questions which were placed there not only in the early part of the present Budget session of the Parliament but as far back as last March in the autumn session. I can see about half a dozen questions which have been asked by my colleagues and which would seem to be capable of prompt answer. I ask the Minister: Is it not disgraceful that the Government has failed to provide answers promptly? Can he see any good reason, looking at some of these questions, why they should not have been answered months ago?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is true that there are some unanswered questions on the notice paper. It is also true that some of them were asked a fair while ago.I suspect - I cannot speak with any authority on this point - that some of those questions should have been taken off the notice paper because replies to them have been sent to honourable senators. Perhaps that would not be the fault of the recipient of the answer. Perhaps it is because the system has broken down. But I can only say, as I said to Senator Milliner a short time ago, that where there are unanswered questions the Ministers in the Senate will make an effort to obtain the answers to them. We can request the answers and make representations for them.I think it will be found that the questions are in the jurisdiction of other Ministers. So, we can do no more than that.

page 1115

QUESTION

WHEAT

(Question No. 1333)

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Did the Minister for Trade and Industry go to Washington in July to have discussions with representatives of. the United States. Canada, Argentina and the European Common Market on the critical over-supply of wheat.
  2. Did the discussions produce any workable solution to the great problems confronting wheat producing countries.
  3. Since the discussions have both Japan and Brazil declared that they will not purchase any more wheat from the United States until wheat prices are lowered.
  4. Will the Government bring down a Ministerial Statement on the Washington discussions so that the matter can be fully debated in the Senate.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The meeting which was held in Washington on10th and11th July was most successful. Ministers reaffirmed their support for the International Grains Agreement and expressed their determination to strengthen its provisions. It was recognised that market distortion bad occurred as a result of the operation of the agreement and that corrective action would be taken by some exporters to bring prices into proper competitive relationship in the interests of orderly marketing and price stability. It was also agreed that Ministers should maintain continuing consultations to deal with problems as they arose in the future.
  3. The price adjustments made by the United States and Canada after the meeting in Washington were primarily designed to meet the competition from non-member exporters mainly in the European market. These adjustments were subsequently extended to all markets and in recent weeks both the United States and Canada have made large sales to Japan. The United Stales has also made substantial sales to Brazil.
  4. The outcome of the Ministerial meeting in Washington and subsequent developments have been the subject of comprehensive public statements released by the Minister for Trade and Industry on 13th and 30th July and 5th August. The Minister has also elaborated on developments in answers given in the Parliament to questions without notice on 13th, 27th and 28th August.

page 1115

QUESTION

RELATIONS WITH SOVIET UNION

(Question No. 1430)

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Russian Embassy called an unprecedented press conference to inform Australia, Russia and the world of their great satisfaction at the change in Australia’s foreign policy which, the Embassy stated, welcomed Russia’s growing strength and interest in the Indian Ocean.
  2. As the Prime Minister now says there is no change in policy, does he propose to inform the Russian Embassy that they have wrongly interpreted the statement to mean that Russia was invited to occupy the position now being vacated by Britain in South East Asia.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. No. I am aware that the Russian Embassy called a press conference but according to my information and to the press statement made, the Russian Embassy did not refer to any alleged change in Australia’s foreign policy, nor did they state that Australia welcomed Russia’s growing strength and interest in the Indian Ocean. In fact of course Australia does not.
  2. It has been made abundantly clear that Russia has not been so invited and that it would be regarded as dangerous to Australia if Russia did seek to occupy the position now being vacated by Britain.

page 1116

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 1474)

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

What was the gross operating revenue, to 30 June 1969 of-

The Australian National Line’s total operations;

The Searoad Service to Tasmanian ports; and

The vessels ‘Bass Trader’ and ‘Princess of Tasmania’.

What were the operating expenditures of each of the above operations.

How much net profit was earned by each operation.

By how much has the freight rate to northern Tasmanian ports been reduced since the introduction of the ‘Bass Trader’.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) The report and financial statements of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission for the year ending 30th June 1969 will be submitted to each House of the Parliament in accordance with section 39 (4) of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956-69. The Commission operates as a commercial undertaking actively competing with other lines. It is not therefore the practice to disclose to the public and its competitors such details as those sought of the results of its individual operations.
  2. Since ‘Bass Trader’ was commissioned, two reductions in freight rates on the Melbourne to northern Tasmania service have been made by the Australian National Line. They were:

    1. On 1st January 1963 the Line’s general freight rates on the Searoad Service from northern Tasmania ports to Melbourne were reduced by 15c per square foot. This represented a reduction of between 12½% and 27% depending on the height of the cargo involved. The reduction did not apply to dense cargoes and other cargoes which enjoyed concessional freights, such as timber.
    2. On 1st January 1966 a 1% reduction was made on all freights in the Service, excluding freight on trade vehicles.

page 1116

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 1475)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Does the Australian National Line not allow seasonal reductions in fares on the ‘Empress of Australia’ during the school holidays.
  2. Are intending passengers advised of this fact by the Australian National Line or its agents.
  3. Is it a fact that some passengers have not been so informed and have then been charged the full fare.
  4. Should not fare concessions be granted during school holdays, simply because loadings are much higher.
  5. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that passengers who have been misinformed are refunded the difference in their fares.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. This is the first year in which the New South Wales school holiday period has been excluded from the concessional winter tariff season which the Australian National Line normally operates for passengers travelling on Empress of Australia’ between 1st June and 31st October.
  2. Intending passengers should be advised by the Australian National Line’s agents for the Searoad service of the exclusion of the New South Wales school holiday period from the winter tariff season. All Searoad agents were advised to this effect by circular on 7th February 1969. The change was also included in Searoad brochures published on 1st March 1969.
  3. Some passengers have claimed that they were not informed of the change in conditions applicable to the winter tariff period until they finalised their travel arrangements.
  4. It is common for transport operators to offer fare concessions in off-season periods, and the Australian National Line has adopted this practice. The fare schedule during the winter school holidays is the same as that which operates during other school holidays.
  5. The Line has had discussions with its agents on this matter. Any passengers who consider they have been misinformed should contact the agents through whom bookings were made.

page 1116

QUESTION

SMUGGLING

(Question No. 1367)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. In the light of the recent convictions of persons who sought to smuggle in birds from Singapore can the Minister advise what cooperation Australian authorities have received from the Singapore police and Customs authorities.
  2. What co-operation is manifest by Dutch authorities in view of the lucrative market in that country for rare varieties of birds.
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. Close co-operation exists between the Department of Customs and Excise and Singapore police and Customs officials on matters such as bird smuggling, narcotics and other areas of mutual interest. Singapore Customs representatives have attended courses conducted by the Department of Customs and, likewise, Australian Customs Investigators have visited Singapore in an official capacity.
  2. Australian fauna is not, by legislation, a prohibited import of the Netherlands. Such traffic therefore infringes Australian legislation only. As I have previously advised the honourable senator liaison is maintained with overseas Customs authorities on the subject of bird smuggling. However it is not in the interests of the respective Investigation services to divulge specific details.

page 1117

QUESTION

CANADIAN PIG MEATS

(Question No. 1451)

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Will any attempt by Australia to restrict imports of Canadian pigmeats bring retaliatory measures by Canada to restrict exports of lamb and beef to that country.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

This would be a matter for the Canadian Government to decide. In the circumstancesI am not in a position to say what the Canadian reliction might be. but I know of no instance where Canada has taken retaliatory action of the type suggested.

page 1117

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1442)

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Have any requests for the use of VIP aircraft been refused because no aircraft were available; if so, what was the place of embarkation and destination, and the date in each case.
  2. Has any approach been made to the Government by private airline operators to provide a subsidiary service for VIP operations.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Only one instance can be recalled over the last 9 months in which a request for VIP travel from Brisbane to Canberra on 23rd June 1969, had to be refused on the grounds that no VIP aircraft were available.
  2. Over the last18 months details of executive aircraft charter services have been received by my Department from two companies. However, it is considered that the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron RAAF are adequate for VIP transport purposes, and no action has been taken by my Department to seek the use of privately operated aircraft.

page 1117

QUESTION

CONTAINER CARGOES

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– On 13th August Sena tor Lawrie asked me a question without notice in the following terms:

Is it a fact that cargo shipped in containers to the United Kingdom cannot be landed in that country owing to longstanding industrial trouble and must be unloaded and unpacked in Rotterdam and other ports on the Continent? If this is so can the Minister inform the Senate who bears the extra cost of transport of these goods?

I undertookto obtain the information for him from the appropriate Minister. The Minister for Trade and Industry has now provided the following reply:

As a result of industrial trouble in the port of London the consortia have not been able to use the United Kingdom terminal at Tilbury and containers have been diverted to Rotterdam and Antwerp. However, the through transport rates which were scheduled for direct United Kingdom shipment have not been increased, and the extra cost involved has been borne entirely by the shipping companies concerned.

page 1117

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 21st August in response to a question concerning assistance to dried fruit producers asked by Senator Webster, I undertook to obtain further information from the Treasurer. The Treasurer has provided the following information:

As you know the primary responsibility for the provision of direct financial assistance and relict for those affected by natural disasters, such as the storms in the Sunraysia and mid-Murray areas, rests with the State Governments. Where, however, disasters have been on a large scale requiring relatively large relief expenditures, the Commonwealth has assisted the State Government concerned in financing such expenditure. This was the case during the recent drought when the Commonwealth reimbursed the Governments of the drought affected Slates in full for their expenditure on agreed drought relief measures.

While the request of the Victorian Government for Commonwealth financial assistance for dried vine fruit producers has been given careful and sympathetic consideration, the Commonwealth feels that the estimated cost of a scheme of carryon loan assistance to dried fruits growers is within the capacity of the State Government to meet from its own resources. In fact, I understand that the State has announced the introduction of a scheme to assist growers.

H might be added that the Commonwealth is not unmindful of the interests of the dried fruits industry- Recently for example, the Commonwealth provided, in respect of the 1967-68 crop, some $217,000 for compensation to the industry on exports to Britain following the sterling devaluation in 1967. A large part of this compensation would be received by growers in Victoria. In addition the Commonwealth is also participating in a price stabilisation scheme for the industry and a new scheme is currently under discussion.

page 1118

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN: RIGHT TO ENTER AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 21st August 1969 Senator O’Byrne asked me a question without notice concerning the difficulties which it is claimed delayed the return to Australia of an Australian citizen when he sought assistance from the Trade Commission in Christchurch, New Zealand. The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

I can only presume that the honourable senator has been misinformed. Rather than restraining Mr Young’s departure from New Zealand, the Trade Commissioner’s Office did everything to facilitate it.

As to passport and other requirements for travel between Australia and New Zealand, an arrangement made between the two countries in 1920 enables British subjects to travel between them without passports; but persons of non-European descent (other than Maoris) seeking to enter Australia from any country have to show to carrier companies evidence that they are entitled to enter Australia. In the case of Australian citizens, this can be in the form of evidence of birth in Australia; usually passports are produced as the normal evidence of citizenship. If the passenger does not have sufficient verification, the airline may refer the passenger to the nearest Australian Government representative.

Mr Young did seek such verification of his citizenship from the Trade Commission in Christchurch on 13th August. The Trade Commissioner, after explaining the background, undertook to cable Australia immediately for verification. However, because Mr Young wished, subject to the availability of a plane seat, to depart on 14th August, he undertook that, if no verification had been received from Australia when Mr Young wished to depart, he would give his personal assurance to the airline that he believed Mr Young to be Bn Australian citizen.

Mr Young did, in fact, seek this verbal assurance on 14th August and it was given to him immediately. At no time was Mr Young’s departure delayed by any official action or lack of it.

As to the allegation of officiousness or bureaucratic action leading to the question of whether an apology or compensation is warranted, I suggest that if any apology is due, it should be to the Trade Commisisoner who took prompt and helpful action when requested.

page 1118

QUESTION

CREDIT UNION

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– -On 9th September 1969 Senator Marriott asked me a question without notice concerning payments to credit unions from the fortnightly pay of Commonwealth public servants. The Treasurer has provided the following answer:

Over a period of years many requests have been made for extension of the list of approved voluntary deductions from Commonwealth payrolls. Among these have been requests that Commonwealth employees be permitted to authorise the deduction of amounts from their earnings for deposit with credit unions. These requests have necessitated a comprehensive review of policy with regard to voluntary payroll deductions. The review is nearing completion and it is expected that the outcome will be announced in the relatively near future.

Public servants are at present permitted to authorise deductions from earnings in repayment of small loans made to them by credit unions with a wholly public service membership. About fifty credit unions currently enjoy this facility.

page 1118

QUESTION

DISPOSAL OF SPANNERS

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 13th August Senator Milliner asked me a question concerning the disposal of spanners by my Department at an auction sale at Moorebank. I promised to obtain the facts for the honourable senator. The spanners were of various sizes and the Department of the Army, which declared them for disposal, advised that they were non-standard, did not conform to current Army specifications and were residues of war time stocks. Although the spanners were referred to in the auction catalogue as new, they were in fact a mixture of new and used. New and used spanners had been stored together and it was impracticable to segregate them for the auction. Therefore to meet sales tax requirements it was decided that all items should be offered as new, particularly as the new spanners had been classified as serviceable and in good condition. Buyers were warned prior to the auction that as the items could not be segregated the buyers would need to pay sales tax on the lot, even though some spanners were second hand.

page 1119

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

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

-I present the following reports by the Tariff Board:

Gang slitting machines.

Citrus fruit juices.

The Tariff Board’s report on citrus fruit juices does not call for any legislative action.

page 1119

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CANBERRA ABATTOIR

Report of Select Committee

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I present the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Canberra Abattoir, together with minutes of evidence.

Ordered that the report and minutes of evidence be printed.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I move:

The Senate Select Committee on the Canberra Abattoir was set up by a resolution of the Senate on 3rd June 1969, pursuant to which action the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) nominated myself, Senator Milliner and Senator Toohey as members to serve on the Committee. On 6th June, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) indicated that the Government did not propose to nominate members. The Committee met and was formally established on 13th June, at which meeting I was appointed Chairman. It is to be noted that the Committee was constituted notwithstanding advice from the Acting Minister for the Interior tendered to each of the three nominees of the Leader of the Opposition on the preceding day, namely 12th June, that negotiationsfor the sale of the abattoir to Red Hill Meat Supply Pty Ltd., under acceptable conditions, had been satisfactorily concluded.

The Committee believed that notwithstanding this development it was still required to proceed with the inquiry as directed by the Senate, and thereupon it proceeded in accordance with the terms of reference set out in the resolution referred to.

In relation to the taking of evidence, it is recorded that where evidence was offered in camera the opinion was expressed that the nature and circumstances of this inquiry were not such as to warrant adoption of this course unless in those circumstances which have been the subject of authoritative writings in the past. No such circumstances arose in the course of the inquiry.

The Committee sat on 25 occasions and examined 40 witnesses to all of whom, whether appearing as individuals or as representatives of organisations and government departments, the Committee extends its sincere thanks and appreciation. Due acknowledgment of this assistance appears as Part VIII on page 31 of the report. As Chairman of the Committee I would add a further word of appreciation of the cooperation and valuable assistance of my colleagues, Senator Milliner and Senator Toohey. To the Secretary, Mr Arthur Higgins, and many officers of the Parliament, the help of all of whom greatly facilitated our deliberations, I offer the Committee’s thanks.

The Committee’s conclusions are set out in summary form as Part II at page 5 of the report and in greater detail as Part VI at pages 29 and 30. Fromthese conclusions it will be seen that areas of management and administrative practices at the abattoir have caused the Committee deep concern particularly since, firstly, there was abundant evidence of serious neglect to ensure the observance of the highest possible standards of health and hygiene on the slaughter floor and throughout other areas of the works, and secondly, there was evidence of failure to ensure that valuable installations and machinery were properly maintained and serviced to enable the abattoir to operate in the most efficient manner possible and with a proper regard for economic performance. I am pleased to be able to report that the new operator has taken speedy action to remedya number of these problems and deficiencies. Indeed, had they continued there would have been no alternative to closure. There is evidence that further substantial improvements will be proceeded with and that the continued operation of the abattoir will confer a benefit on the Australian Capital Territory community and throughout the region.

Particular attention is drawn to the fact that a public asset whose value, based upon expert advice, was $500,000 was sold for $1 00,000 to a wholesale butcher who did not want to buy it but believed, as did a number of witnesses, that it should have been conducted as a public enterprise, especially since such a proposal had been put forward in a completely responsible manner by the former Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council. The Committee believes that in all the circumstances the Government’s action represents a serious neglect of the public interest. The only evidence supporting the closure of the Canberra works came from witnesses from the meat industry based outside the Australian Capital Territory.

On the question of profitability, attention is directed to the repeated requests of the Department of Health for funds - earlier approved but subsequently withdrawn - to enable improvements to be made to areas of the abattoir of such a nature as to improve greatly the facilities and, therefore, the throughput and economics of the undertaking. Nevertheless, in all the prevailing circumstances and disregarding notional interest, the abattoir was still able to show a profit in 6 of the past 8 years and a net profit over the 8 years of almost $53,000.

The final pointI wish to make here relates to stock availability concerning which the Committee gave much attention. While the report deals with this subject in some detail it should suffice to indicate that, based on the wealth of evidence provided, the Committee believes there is no problem of stock availability, and maps showing cattle and sheep numbers in the region have been included in the report.

The report may be briefly summarised as follows: The abattoir is a sound and worthwhile structure suitably located and capable of operating as a viable economic undertaking serving the interests of the Australian Capital Territory community, in particular, and the region in general. There is a sufficiency of suitable stock quite readily available to meet the present and future needs of the abattoir. The slaughtering facilities must be extended as previously planned to match the capacity of other sections of the works. Prior to sale on 12th June 1969 the works were in a neglected and run down state with the hygiene level, in the words of the Medical

Officer for Health, at zero. Sale was effected at $100,000 for an asset worth $500,000.

An opportunity to examine the report of the inter-departmental committee upon which this Committee assumes the Government made its decision to sell the works was denied to the Committee. For an expenditure of a further $225,000 the abattoir can be brought to the Department of Health standard having a value of $800,000. The present operator has demonstrated an ability to effect substantial improvements, increase throughput and meet the stipulated levels of health, hygiene and sanitation, and operate the works profitably. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1120

INSTRUCTIONAL BUILDINGS AT HMAS ‘CERBERUS

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I present the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the following proposed work:

Instructional Buildings at HMAS ‘Cerberus’, Westernport, Victoria.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

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

Senator DITTMER:

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

  1. There is a need for the accommodation and facilities to be provided in this reference.
  2. The sites selected are satisfactory in each instance.
  3. The Committee recommends the construction of the buildings in this reference.
  4. The estimated cost of the work when referred to the Committee was $1.35m.

page 1120

RAAF BASE, WAGGA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I present the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the following proposed work:

RAAF Base at Wagga, New South Wales.

I ask for leave to make a short statement

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

Senator DITTMER:

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

  1. There is a need for the buildings in this reference.
  2. The sites selected are suitable.
  3. The Committee recommends the construction of the work in this reference.
  4. The estimated cost of the work when referred to the Committee was S5.5m.

page 1121

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Repre.senatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

[11.39] - I move:

Honourable senators will recall the proposals in the field of social services which were announced in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr McMahon), proposals which provide still further evidence that the Government intends to honour its pledge to provide relief for those most in need of it, whilst at the same time encouraging thrift, self-help and self-reliance. Honourable senators will be well aware, of course, that these principles have been central to the development of Australia’s social services since the present Government took office nearly 20 years ago.

This Bill will give effect to those proposals covered by the Social Services Act and provides for the following increases in basic pension rates: An increase of SI a week in the standard rate of age and invalid pensions, bringing the basic rate to $15 a week; an increase of $1.50 a week in the combined pensions payable to a married couple, bringing the bassic rate of these pensions to $26.50 a week; an increase of SI a week raising the basic rate payable to a class A widow to $15 a week; an increase of 75c a week raising the basic pension payable to widows without children to SI 3.25 a week.

These basic rates are exclusive of mother’s allowance, guardian’s allowance, additional pension for children and supplementary assistance where such additional amounts are payable. Further increases in pension rates addition to the basic rates will be an increase of $1 a week in the rate of additional pension for the second and each subsequent child of pensioners, bringing these payments to S3. 50 a week; and an increase of $2 a week, that is, from $4 to $6, in the rate of mother’s allowance payable to a widow pensioner, or guardian’s allowance payable to a single age or invalid pensioner, where the pensioner has a child under 6 years of age or an invalid child requiring full-time care.

This Bill contains two important modifications of the means test on pensions, the first of which, in fact, constitutes an entirely new means test. These modifications are: introduction of a tapered means test reducing age, invalid and widows’ pensions by $1 for each $2 of means above the permissible means as assessed: this will halve the present reduction of $1 for $1; an increase of $1 a week in the deduction from income for means test purposes in respect of a dependent child of a pensioner, bringing this deduction to $4 a week.

Other provisions liberalising pensions are: extension from 12 weeks to 30 weeks of the period for which age, invalid or widow’s pension may be paid in respect of a temporary absence from Australia; modification of the residence qualification to permit a widow whose husband dies overseas to obtain a widow’s pension immediately on return to Australia if she has resided in Australia for a continuous period of 10 years at any time.

In the area of unemployment and sickness benefits the following increases and liberalisations are proposed: increases in the rates of unemployment and sickness benefits as follows: adult, or married minor, by $1.75 to $10 a week; dependent wife, by $1 to $7 a week; unmarried minor 16-17 years, by $1 to $4.50 a week; unmarried minors 18-20 years, by $1.25 to $6 a week. In addition, where an unmarried minor, 16 years or over, has no parent living in Australia he is in future to be paid the adult rate of benefit - $10 a week. The first or only child of an unemployment or sickness beneficiary in future is to attract additional benefit of $2.50 a week - an increase of $1 a week. The additional benefit payable in respect of the second and each subsequent child is to be increased by $2 a week to $3.50 a week.

Increases in the allowable income for unemployment and sickness benefits will be as follows: adult or married minor, by $2 to S6 a week; unmarried minor, with no parent living in Australia, by $4 to $6 a week. Discretion will be given to waive recovery of sickness benefit from compensation in special circumstances, and the waiting period of 7 days for unemployment and sickness benefits will be served once only in any period of 1 3 weeks.

Honourable senators will be aware also of the recent measure which amended the Aged Persons Homes Act to grant additional assistance for certain organisations which provide approved services for residents who have passed their eightieth birthday. When this measure, and the benefits conferred by the Bill at present before the Senate, are considered in conjunction with the States Grants (Home Care) Act which, with associated Acts making provision for paramedical services in the home and for more State nursing home beds, was passed during the autumn session, and the forthcoming Bill to subsidise health insurance for needy families, it is manifest that the Government is making giant strides in its programme of development of the welfare system of this nation.

I shall now move to the more detailed analysis of the benefits conferred under the present Bill. The increases in age, invalid and widows’ pensions and additional pension for second and subsequent children will directly benefit more than a million people. Consistent with its demonstrated policy of improving the situation of the less fortunate members of our community the Government has decided to make, over a wide range, particularly substantial pension increases this year. The increases which are provided under this Bill are, as they were also last year, considerably higher than would have been needed merely to absorb increases in living costs, and will enable pensioners to enjoy more of the comforts that the Government believes each and every member of the community is entitled to expect.

The present basic pension rate payable to a single pensioner - the standard rate - is $14 a week. It is proposed to increase this rate by $1 to $15 a week, to which may be added supplementary assistance of $2 a week in appropriate circumstances, together with any guardian’s allowance and additional pension for children which may also be payable. Class A widows will receive a similar increase in the basic rate of their pensions.

The rate of pension to be paid to married age or invalid pensioner couples, or to class B or class C widows, will rise by 75c a week each to $13.25 a week - an overall increase of $1.50 a week for married couples, who will now receive basic pensions amounting to $26.50 weekly. When these increases are considered in conjunction with the other measures I shall shortly be discussing, the position of pensioners today can be more than favourably compared with their situation when this Government took office nearly 20 years ago.

The increases in the basic rates of pensions tell only part of the story. For some time now the Government has been concerned about a particular aspect of the means test. Under the present system, where means do not exceed the ‘threshold’ - if I may use that term to describe the sum of $520 a year, or $10 a week, for a single person, or $884 a year, that is $17 a week, for a pensioner couple - a full pension is payable. I use ‘threshold’ as a more meaningful synonym for ‘permissible’ means as assessed. On the other hand, if the person’s means exceed the threshold the excess is deducted in full from the pension. This situation applies right up to the vanishing point, at which the amount of the excess equals the appropriate pension rate and at which point entitlement is extinguished altogether. Between threshold and vanishing point there is, in effect, a 100% tax on pensioners, where any increase in means as assessed is of no benefit to them since it brings about an exactly corresponding decrease in pension. Above vanishing point, however, the normal situation obtains, namely, what ever extra they have they retain subject only to whatever rate of tax applies to their particular circumstances.

This has created a situation where potential workers have not worked, or potential savers saved, because it would profit them nothing to do so unless they could lift themselves out of the pension field altogether. Quite apart from the considerable losses which are, therefore, suffered by the community in terms of work force and of volumes of saving, this disincentive to work or save must have a serious effect on the dignity and pride of the individual and the Government has quite rightly been most concerned about it. The proposed solution at present before this chamber represents the most significant development in the means test since the introduction of pensions 60 years ago.

Henceforward only half of a pensioner’s means exceeding the ‘threshold’ will be deducted from his pension. In effect this means that the ‘Vanishing Point’ will now represent the limit of means, or ‘threshold’, plus twice the applicable rate of pension. Using new pension rates this will mean that a single pensioner will now be entitled to receive some pension until his means as assessed reach the equivalent of an income of $40 a week, while a pensioner couple’s entitlement to pension will not be extinguished until their means as assessed reach the equivalent of an income of $70 a week.

For persons without income - other than income derived from property which is, of course, exempt - the introduction of the new form of the means test will mean that the limits of property which may be owned without extinguishing pension entitlement will rise dramatically. For example a single person without income will now be able to own property - other than his home, furniture and personal effects - to a value of $21,200 before losing pension entitlement, while a married couple without income will retain an entitlement to pension if the value of their assets does not exceed $37,200.

The obvious effect of this ‘tapering’ of the means test is that pensioners will always benefit by having made independent provision for their retirement. By this improvement in the legislation the Government hopes to encourage present members of the work force to provide for their retirement, secure in the knowledge that in later years they will benefit by having done so. The ‘tapered means test’ will thus contribute to the solution of problems at both the economic and the social levels and I am sure that all senators will welcome this most progressive measure.

The Government expects that over a quarter of a million people will benefit from the new means test. About half of this number consists of people whose means preclude them from pension entitlement at present. In addition, every existing age, invalid, widow and service pensioner presently receiving less than the maximum rate on account of means will receive an increase in pension. The numbers of persons affected are estimated to be as follows:

It has truly been said that an illustration is worth a thousand words. Therefore, with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard a few examples which will demonstrate, better than any words of mine, the dramatic improvements which may be expected in the financial situations of persons with means which affect their pension entitlement.

These improvements, we feel, will be particularly gratifying to reduced rate pensioners whose means consist of a fixed income such as superannuation or war pension; no longer will any increase in these incomes mean an automatic and corres ponding reduction in social service pension. Once again with the indulgence of the Senate I incorporate in Hansard a short table which shows the advantages which some war pensioners and war widow pensioners will derive from the tapered means test.

Honourable senators will be aware of the measure increasing the age tax allowance to all men over 65 and women over 60 years of age. The new tax scales, of course, have been so arranged that substantial additional tax relief will be given to people in a position to derive benefit from the tapered means test. Under these tax proposals a single aged person will pay no tax on a taxable income up to §1.300 per annum and will pay tax at reduced rates on an income of between $1,300 and $2,275 per annum. A married couple will pay no tax when their combined taxable incomes are less than $2,262 per annum and will pay tax at reduced rates on their combined taxable incomes between $2,262 and $4,121 per annum. With the Senate’s permission, I incorporate in Hansard a few examples of the tax concessions which will be received by the aged.

I turn now to the pensioner group which probably is more hard pressed at times than any other. I refer, of course, to those age, invalid and widow pensioners who have dependent children, and particularly those with very young, or invalid, children. At present a pensioner may receive additional pension of §2.50 a week for each dependent child in his custody, care and control. In addition single age and invalid pensioners with one or more children may receive a guardian’s allowance, and class A widows a mother’s allowance, of §4 a week. It is proposed that in future the rate of pension payable in respect of the second and each subsequent child in a pensioner’s family will be S3. 50 a week - an increase of SI a week. Moreover, recognising that many mothers and guardians are unable to supplement their pensions by earning because of their family obligations, the rate of mothers’ and guardians’ allowances will be increased by $2 to $6 a week where there is a child under 6 years of age, or an invalid child requiring full time care.

The particular needs of pensioners with children have also been recognised in the decision to increase from S3 to $4 a week the deduction from the income of a pensioner in respect of each dependent child. This deduction is made before the pensioner’s income is taken into account for means test purposes. When these measures are considered in the light of the new means test, it will be seen that very considerable improvements have been effected in the position, both real and potential, of pensioners with dependent children.

To illustrate the effect of these improvements let me compare the situation, before and after their proposed introduction, of a widow pensioner with one child. At present she may receive a basic pension of $14 a week, plus additional pension of $2.50 for her child, together with a mother’s allowance of $4 a week, making a total weekly income from pension sources of $20.50. Assuming she has no property affecting, she may also receive income of $10 a week in respect of herself plus $3 for the child from other sources, making an overall total of pension plus other income of $33.50 a week. The position of a widowed invalid pensioner with one child is similar. Under the proposals the extra income allowed for the pensioner’s child will increase from $3 to S4 a week, bringing the ‘threshold’ to S14 a week. The basic pension will rise to $15 a week and the mother’s or guardian’s allowance will move from $4 to $6 a week if the child is under 6 years old or an invalid in need of full-time care. Including $2.50 additional pension for the child, the total pension payable will increase to $21.50 a week, or S23.50 if the child qualifies his parent for the additional mother’s or guardian’s allowance. Using the formula I expressed earlier - that the limit of income at which pension entitlement is extinguished is represented by the ‘threshold’ plus twice the applicable pension rate - honourable senators will see that a class A widow (or other unmarried pensioner), with one child, will now be able, before losing pension entitlement, to receive a total income of $57 a week from all sources, or $61 a week if the higher rate of mother’s or guardian’s allowance is payable.

Whilst I am still on the subject of pensions I shall mention two other matters which, although perhaps less significant than the measures of which I have already spoken will nevertheless be especially welcomed by those persons whom they will benefit. First, opportunity has been taken to further liberalise the residence qualification for a widow’s pension. Since 1968 no residence test for widow’s pension applies where the woman and her husband were residing permanently in Australia when the husband died. Where this condition is not met, 5 years’ residence is required immediately preceding the claim for pension. It occasionally happens that a woman widowed abroad returns to reside in Australia. Under present circumstances she must wait 5 years for grant of pension, unless widowhood occurred during a temporary absence, notwithstanding that she may have lived in Australia up to or even beyond the date of her marriage. The amendment introduced by this Bill will ensure that in future a widow whose husband died overseas will qualify for pension if she has, at any time, resided in Australia for a continuous period of 10 years.

The second matter concerns the period for which age, invalid or widow’s pension may be paid in respect of a temporary absence from Australia. At present this period is restricted to 12 weeks of any such absence. Payment of Australian pensions may not be made outside Australia except where reciprocal arrangements exist. Because of the rapid growth of Australia’s immigrant community there have been increasing numbers of pensioners who have expressed a wish to revisit the land of their birth - a sentiment with which the Government is entirely in sympathy. However, many of these good people have found it impossible to make the trip in 12 weeks, with the result either that they have been unable to go, or, having decided to revisit their land of origin, have thereby suffered a loss of pension. The decision to extend from 12 weeks to 30 weeks the period in respect of which Australian pension may accrue during the temporary absence from Australia of a pensioner will, therefore, I am sure, be welcomed both by this chamber and by the pensioner community.

Whilst 1 am still on the subject of pensions I will mention, briefly, clauses 3 (g) and 3 (i) of the Bill, which are designed to prevent anomalies which would otherwise become evident under the tapered means test. Clause 3 (g) is intended to avoid an anomaly whereby the upper limit of income for married couples with children could, otherwise, be extended by four times the amount of the full rate of additional pension for children, instead of by twice. Clause 3 (i) is meant to preclude a device by which the limit of means could in some circumstances be extended to S77 instead of $70 by one partner of a married couple claiming as a single person.

Mr Deputy President, I turn now to the improvements which will be effected in the’ field of unemployment and sickness benefits. It will be seen that these developments follow closely the pattern of improvements in the pensions field. First, the rates in all categories of unemployment and sickness benefits will be increased. For an adult, or a married minor, the new weekly rate will be SIO as against $8.25 at present. The dependent wife of a beneficiary will attract additional benefit of $7 a week compared with the present weekly rate of $6, and, following the principles I mentioned earlier in respect of pensioners with children, there will be substantial increases in the rates of additional unemployment or sickness benefit payable in respect of dependent children. The first or only such child will now attract a further $1 a week, bringing the benefit payable in respect of him to a weekly amount of $2.50. The second and each subsequent child will attract benefit of $3.50 a week, which represents an increase of $2 from the amount paid at present. These increases are all substantial and will be of much assistance in relieving the pressures which beset a family whose breadwinner is unemployed or temporarily incapacitated. A family consisting of husband, wife and two children will in future receive a maximum of $23 a week by way of unemployment or sickness benefit, which represents an increase of $5.75 from the present weekly maximum of $17.25.

Some of the people who find themselves in need of unemployment or sickness benefit are young unmarried people. These include young migrants who have come to Australia without their parents. Whilst it is doubtless reasonable to expect some measure of family support for an unmarried Australianborn minor who is temporarily unemployed, the young migrant is usually thrown entirely upon his own resources. The same may well apply, of course, in the case of orphaned Australian-born young people. In view of the particular diffculties which confront these young folk the Government has decided that in future where an unmarried minor has no parent living in Australia he is to be paid the adult rate of unemployment or sickness benefit. The rates payable in respect of other unmarried minors have also been increased. In future the rate to be paid to a beneficiary of 16 or 17 years will be $4.50 a week - an increase of $1 - while single beneficiaries between 18 and 20 years will receive a weekly rate which, at $6, will be $1.25 a week higher than at present. The Government will improve the position of unemployment and sickness beneficiaries still further by raising the limits of income which may be received without affecting the maximum rate of benefit. The amount an adult beneficiary or a married beneficiary under 21 years may receive by way of other income without effect on his entitlement to maximum rates of unemployment or sickness benefit will rise from $4 to $6 a week. This will also apply, of course, to those young people I have just mentioned to whom the adult rate of benefit is in future to be paid.

To illustrate the application of these new limits I will refer once again to the position of a typical family of husband, wife and two children. At present this family unit, as I mentioned earlier, could attract benefit totalling S17.25 a week. In addition they may receive, from other sources, income amounting to S4 a week without affecting benefit entilement - a total weekly income from all sources amounting to S21.25. This limit of benefit plus permissible income will now rise to $29 a week, $23 by way of benefit and a further $6 a week from other sources - an increase of over 36%. For the remaining unemployment and sickness beneficiaries who are single and have not yet attained 21 years the allowable income will be raised from $2 to $3 a week.

As was also done with pensions, the opportunity has been taken to introduce two less significant amendments to the Part of the Social Services Act under which unemployment and sickness benefits are provided. The first of these concerns the recovery of sickness benefit from compensation or damages. At present the Director-General of Social Services is required to take action to recover the amount of sickness benefit paid where a payment in the nature of compensation or damages is received in a lump sum and is in respect of the period and the incapacity for which sickness benefit has been paid. It is recognised that from time to time this has caused hardship, where, for example, because of contributory negligence, damages have proved inadequate. Provision is now being made to allow some discretion in this matter.

The second amendment concerns the waiting period for unemployment and sickness benefits. The concession under which a waiting period will be required once only in each thirteen weeks is directed primarily towards assisting people anxious and willing to work but who lose time from work because of a chronic or recurring conditions - asthma, for example - or who, because of unusual characteristics, are not acceptable to employers except in casual situations. As the law is at present, these people find themselves at a considerable disadvantage when compared with full time workers not only in the respect that their employment and remuneration lack regularity but also since, in the result, they lose a week’s benefit for each period of unemployment or sickness.

The present proposal will relieve this situation by enabling benefit to commence from the date of unemployment or of lodgment of the claim, (whichever is the later) in the case of unemployment benefit, or from the date of incapacity in the case of sickness benefit provided a claim is lodged within thirteen weeks after that date, in any case in which a week’s waiting period has already been served during the previous thirteen weeks.

The additional benefits conferred by the Bill before this Chamber will add an estimated $72m to the 1969-70 expenditure under the Social Services Act, and will cost in the order of $96m for a full year - approximately 10% of the estimated expenditure of over $983m for this year from the National Welfare Fund on social services items alone. Even after making allowances for increases in national productivity stimulated by the introduction of the tapered means test, it will be seen that the additional benefits flowing from this Bill are very considerable, exceeding, as they do, the Treasurer’s estimate of a 6% increase in Australia’s national productivity.

In arriving at the decision I have explained, the Government has been careful to keep in mind the criterion of assisting those in greatest need without imposing any penalty on thrift and independence. Indeed, honourable senators will agree that the provisions of this Bill probably go further than any previous measure in permitting and actually encouraging pensioners and beneficiaries to improve their situation by their own efforts. The Government is determined that this pattern of development will continue, and as Australia’s productivity as a nation increases, so will social services improve, as a natural corollary.

In addition to their pensions, many pensioners enjoy what are commonly known as fringe benefits. Those fringe benefits which are provided by the Commonwealth will not be available to those pensioners whose pension eligibility arises solely because of the provisions of the tapered means test. These fringe benefits include funeral benefits, and also the pensioner medical service, under which eligible pensioners and their dependants receive free general practitioner medical treatment and free pharmaceutical benefits; under an arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States these pensioners and their dependants also receive free inpatient treatment in public wards of public hospitals.

In addition, eligible pensioners enjoy telephone rental concessions, paying only twothirds of the rental normally payable; obtain radio and television licences at concessional rates and, where required, hearing aids on loan, for a nominal hiring charge of $10. Other authorities offer additional concessions, such as reduced fares on public transport and remission or deferment of rates on homes occupied by pensioner home owners.

In accordance with practice, the increased rates of age, invalid and widows’ pensions will commence to be paid from the first appropriate pay day after the date of royal assent. Increases arising from the new tapered means test and from the increased income deductions for children will also be paid on these pay-days and the Department of Social Services already has these arrangements in hand. Persons becoming eligible for pensions for the first time solely because of the introduction of the tapered means test may also receive arrears from the first pay-day following the royal assent provided they have tested their rights by lodging a claim on or before 31st December 1969.

We hope that not only will as many people as possible take advantage of the opportunities which they will now have to improve their situation by their own efforts, but also that people who feel that they may now come within the field of pension eligibility will obtain a claim form from any post office or office of the Department of Social Services and lodge it with the Department as soon as possible. The Department’s officers will be only too happy to answer any inquiries which may arise and I urge all prospective applicants for pension or anybody who wishes to clarify any aspect of the tapered means test to have no hesitation about making contact with any office of the Department. The amendments giving effect to the increases in the rates of unemployment and sickness benefits will apply in full to weekly payments falling due on and after the day on which the Act receives the Royal Assent.

Mr Deputy President, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poyser) adjourned.

page 1128

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

[12.12] - There are two Bills relating to Aboriginal affairs, but I propose to make only one second reading speech. It will cover both measures. I ask for leave to do that, and I ask that both Bills be debated together.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - ils it the wish of the Senate that that procedure be followed? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I move:

This Bill is to some extent interlocked with the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill No. 2, and I therefore suggested to the Senate - and the Senate concurred - that it might suit its convenience to debate both Bills together, although, of course, separate votes would be taken.

In presenting this legislation I think I should give honourable senators at the same time a brief account of Commonwealth policies and activities towards Aboriginal advancement during the past year, and make clear the principles on which we have worked. First, the Commonwealth did not wish to move precipitately into a new field of responsibility. We preferred rather to build a firm base for progressively positive action. Through the Office of Aboriginal Affairs and the Council for Aboriginal Affairs we began to collect and collate the best existing information, and to fill the many gaps in it, in order to identify the problems and to measure their causes, scale and incidence more accurately. We consulted as widely as possible with the Aboriginals themselves as to their real as distinct from their supposed wishes. We sought the knowledge, experience and suggestions of all people known to be interested in Aboriginal advancement, including voluntary bodies, church and mission organisations, and academic scientists. We conferred with the State administrations and with Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities. These tasks involved my colleague, the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs and his officers and the Council for Aboriginal Affairs in very extensive travel and discussions in every part of the continent. Although much remains to be done we are already in possession of a store of reliable information of a kind, quality and range that no Commonwealth government has hitherto possessed.

Second, we have been at pains, while this necessary work was being done, to avoid interrupting or inhibiting the good work already being done by the States, private organisations, and the Commonwealth itself in respect of its own internal Territories, lt seems to the Government wrong in principle for the Commonwealth, even if it could, to assume total responsibility for all the affairs of the day to day life of one ethnic group of the population. The new legislative powers which the Commonwealth possesses as the outcome of the 1967 referendum are of course only concurrent powers. But, more than that, very different circumstances exist in each State or region. It seems to the Government obvious that if Aboriginal policies are to be effective they must be implemented on a regional - that is, State or Territory - basis. Our approach has been in keeping with this view of the realities. The Commonwealth wishes to act co-operatively, pragmatically, and in a complementary way, in this aspect of its role. It tries to respond to existing and developing needs as they become apparent, or are brought to our notice by the States. We do not seek to enter unnecessarily into the fields of State responsibility or activity but to give substantial financial and other support to State programmes which are acceptable to the Commonwealth. In so doing the Commonwealth exercises a policy co-ordinating role to an extent.

Third, and quite apart from its administrative task in the internal Territories, the Commonwealth conceives that it has a particularly important role towards Aboriginal citizens within its responsibility for Australians generally. This is rapidly taking shape in the form of specific Commonwealth activities, which are already many and varied. I would like to give honourable senators a brief account of the more important ones before dealing with the Bill which is now before the Senate.

Our aim is to restore Aboriginal initiatives and independence in both the social and the economic sense. Indeed, I do not believe that it is possible to achieve either of these two objectives in isolation. Social independence cannot be effectively exercised unless it is built upon a secure economic foundation. Conversely, economic independence can end in frustration and contradiction unless the social infrastructure exists to sustain it in the eyes both of the Aboriginals themselves and of other Australians. We seek, therefore, to advance on each of these two fronts simultaneously. We aim to get rid of the ‘mentality of the handout’ and to make our Aboriginals selfsupporting in the economic sense. At the same time we hope that they will retain a pride in themselves and that other Australians will share this feeling with them.

One of the most significant of the Commonwealth projects has been the establishment of the Capital Fund under the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Act 1968. The Fund has a nominal capital of $5m, of which $350,000 was earmarked in 1968- 69 for a special irrigation project at Bamaga in Queensland, to which I will again refer later. The guiding concept of the Fund is to provide capital and technical help for individual Aboriginals or groups of Aboriginals who wish to undertake productive enterprises which are or have prospects of becoming successful.

In accordance with the requirements of the Act, my colleague, the MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affiairs will shortly submit to Parliament a report on the activities of the Fund up to 30th June 1969. 1 will not anticipate all that is contained in the report but I would like honourable senators to know that the experience so far has been distinctly encouraging and that since that date - 30th June last - progress has been made at an accelerating rate. Approximately 200 applications for assistance have been received - most in a quite undeveloped state - and some 23 of these have been approved, the commitments entered into respecting them totalling $328,096 at 31st August 1969, exclusive, of course, of the Bamaga project. ‘

At the present moment there are a number of major projects in the pipeline. As a result of a recent visit to Arnhem Land, my colleague, the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, had an opportunity of meeting Aboriginal councils on the spot. He obtained a list of the projects which they had in mind. On the basis of that list he put certain proposals to the meeting of Arnhem Land Aboriginal councils which took place on Goulburn Island this month. As soon as he receives a report of that meeting’s views, he shall, I hope, be making a statement to Parliament and approving a definite plan of action.

Similarly he visited the Aboriginal communities in the north and west of South Australia and hopes to put forward similar proposals for that area. He is not endeavouring to impose a Government scheme of development upon them; but rather he is endeavouring to ascertain their views and to frame for their acceptance a plan which is based upon the initial expression of their views.

His officers have been investigating a number of major projects for Aboriginal missions where we hope that we can finance ownership by Aboriginals of economic developments. In three or four cases the initial difficulties now seem to be ironed out, and capital projects involving some millions of dollars and designed to make some thousands of Aboriginals eventually selfsupporting will shortly be coming forward for approval. May I take this opportunity of thanking the missions, both Catholic and Protestant, for the spirit of co-operation and dedication which they have shown here. They are working most genuinely in the real interests of the Aboriginal people, and we should all be grateful for their efforts.

As the operations of the Capital Fund gain momentum, I look forward to an increased rate of lending for a great diversity of projects all over Australia. It is only 8 months since the Fund was set up. Since the legislation was passed in December we have had, without a permanent staff, to develop procedures and techniques for an unprecedented type of banking operation while at the same time studying closely and sympathetically all the applications flowing in. I must record the Commonwealth’s gratitude to the trading banks which generously made available on secondment officers who have helped us to organise the working of the Fund and to process the applications.

A second important achievement has been the development of the closest liaison between the Council and Office of Aboriginal

Affairs and those Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities which have had increased responsibilities placed upon them by the 1967 referendum. These include the Departments of the Treasury, of Labour and National Service, of Housing, of Health, and of Education and Science. I would like to acknowledge the great assistance we have received from the Ministers and their staffs.

The basic aim has been to develop with them, in their respective fields, the precise lines and kinds of Commonwealth policy towards Aboriginal citizens throughout Australia. Their advice, and that of others, has been sought on State proposals to be funded through the appropriations made available by the Commonwealth Parliament for Aboriginal advancement generally. Honourable senators will readily agree, I believe, that by bringing the wisdom and competence of such departments to bear jointly on the problems and circumstances facing Aboriginal Australians we are more likely to make a measurable impact in a shorter time than would be likely if we were to try to set up an omnibus organisation to carry out all these different functions.

The fruits of this approach are already apparent. May T recall to honourable senators that an outline programme to assist Aboriginal employment was developed in this way with the Department of Labour and National Service and, after consideration and endorsement by Ministers, was announced by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) on 1st June 1969. My colleagues and I have great hopes that this programme, and particularly the plan for assisted employment for Aboriginals newly entering or trying to enter the work force, will have a markedly progressive effect.

In the field of housing, most of the building is carried out of course by the State Housing Commissions, but officers have developed with my Department of Housing the conditions which will ensure that Commonwealth grants for housing in the States will be applied on the best possible basis. At the moment the Office and my Department of Housing are engaged in further developing an overall Commonwealth policy towards housing. Some fundamental questions are under review. One of them is the question whether the Commonwealth and States between them, and voluntary organisations too, are utilising to the full all the approaches and facilities that exist. The MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs is at present in consultation with the various State Ministers concerned with Aboriginal affairs on two important projects in this field, and I would hope to be in a position to make a statement to the Senate upon them before the end of the session. The problem of keeping pace with the increased rate of demand for Aboriginal housing is a very real one.

In the field of Aboriginal education, the Office of Aboriginal Affairs is working in close concert with the Department of Education and Science to develop broader lines of Commonwealth policy. One product of this joint consideration was the announcement by my colleagues, the Ministerincharge of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), on 19th November 1968, of a scheme of study grants for Aboriginals at the post-secondary and tertiary levels. Already more than 1 00 Aboriginals are being assisted under this scheme. We are also financing some action-research studies through the States. In the course of the present year it is our joint intention to undertake some special work in community schools in the Northern Territory. At the same time we are pushing ahead with inquiries into some major questions which remain unanswered in the technical aspects of Aboriginal education.

Likewise, the Office and the Department of Health are seeking to develop a specific line of Commonwealth policy in particular fields of physical wellbeing in which it is believed the Aboriginals are at disadvantage or disability. We are financing two significant research projects into infant care and mortality, and we expect to develop and endow further projects both for research and for remedial or preventive activity during the course of the present financial year.

Honourable senators will, I believe, appreciate that until recently there was no Commonwealth centre for the collection, coordination and interpretation of reliable information about Aboriginal life conditions throughout Australia. The Office is trying to remedy that deficiency as rapidly as it can. On 10th September the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs tabled in another place the annual report of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. The work of this body is tradition oriented, but it is still not with out relevance to the research of the Office of Aboriginal Affairs, which is welfare oriented.

It was apparent from the start that there would be a continuing - indeed, an expanding - need for special research in this welfare field to produce the data and the critical assessments without which major decisions of policy may go awry. A strong research section is therefore necessary within the Office of Aboriginal Affairs. The establishment scale of the section is still very modest, and even so its staff remains incomplete. However, considerable research has been or is being undertaken either directly by the Office or by contract with individual scholars or consultant firms. The research ranges from relatively straightforward studies of proposals made to us by the States or by the Northern Territory Administration to complex longer term studies which possibly have major implications for policy.

Among the latter are three regional studies of areas which present characteristic assemblages of problems for substantial Aboriginal communities. Each is designed to examine a whole region, to identify its special problems for the Aboriginals, and to indicate possible solutions. One is in a previously undeveloped region in which a major mining enterprise is taking place; another is on an extensive coastal strip which contains a number of depressed Aboriginal communities; another is in a country town with a large ‘fringe’ community of Aboriginals and apparently poor employment opportunities. In each case a basic aim is to try to match the existing and anticipated Aboriginal work force with the life and job opportunities in the region. We will do what we can to equip the Aboriginals to take fuller advantage of the opportunities and, if it is possible and necessary, to expand the opportunities.

We are also undertaking research into the feasibility of developing craft industries for Aboriginals who are at present unemployed. One such project is the utilisation of a semi-precious stone known to a group of Central Australian Aboriginals. Some quite extensive research, often in association with State or Territory officers, is part and parcel of our capital fund investigations, and the investigations themselves frequently highlight the need for particular types of research. Further, we have begun to finance or support other researches through the State programmes; for example, in South Australia we are contributing half the cost of research into social problems resulting from the abuse of alcohol, and have made a grant to the Service to Yourth Council to assist its effort to place Aboriginals in the urban work force. More widely, we are encouraging and supporting generously policy oriented researches by individual scholars and academic institutions. In sum, the research effort carried out or stimulated by the Council and Office of Aboriginal Affairs is already quite extensive and promises to be very fruitful.

I believe profoundly that the future of Aboriginal policy can be no better than the future of consultation with the Aboriginal citizens themselves. We are seeking to bring this about in a fuller fashion by two means. One is to assist wherever possible with seminar-type discussions, in particular those in which Aboriginals themselves take part. We have already given considerable help in this respect, and we have found the information and comment provided by such occasions very valuable. The other and more important is to push on with direct consultation with representative groups of Aboriginals by the Office and the Council for Aboriginal Affairs. The Government believes it is essential to provide Aboriginal citizens with regular opportunities to make their desires and views known to those at the centre of policy formation and as far as practicable to help in the formulation of policy. Members of the Council and the staff of the Office, which now includes amongst its Aboriginal members four distinguished and well known Aboriginals, have travelled over the whole face of Australia and have made direct touch with thousands of Aboriginals. I am sure that honourable senators will sympathise with my wish to place on record my particular appreciation of the work of the Aboriginal members of the Office. In particular Mr Saunders, Mr Roberts, Mr Perkins and Miss Lawrie, have travelled far and wide, have worked indefatigably, and have made an already invaluable contribution. I see them as the forerunners of a new time for their people.

In addition to .ad hoc consultations which have occurred in the course of visits by councillors or officers to various areas, the Council has by now convened meetings of Aboriginals in all States, except Queens* land and the Northern Territory, as well as a conference in Canberra last March of Aboriginal representatives from all over Australia. Meetings with Aboriginals from Queensland and the Northern Territory are scheduled for the next 2 or 3 months.

I now come to the last of my introductory remarks. Parliament last year made available $100,000 for grants-in-aid to Aboriginal welfare organisations. The judicious allocation of this amount has assisted some of these bodies materially. Most of them have in the past depended largely on their collections from public appeals, and this has not given them adequate finance to enable them to undertake the full role which they see for themselves and which could contribute so much to the well being and advancement of Aboriginal Australians in certain circumstances.

I now turn to the substance of the Bills before the Senate. I deal first with the major Bill. By way of background, I would recall that, as I indicated in my statement of 27th August 1968, an amount of $3,650,000 was made available to the States in 1968-69 for Aboriginal advancement in the fields of housing, education and health. These funds have already been spent or committed, and have contributed substantially to an improvement in the three fields that have been tackled. The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, members of the Council and staff of the Office and my Department have visited throughout Australia numerous houses, schools, hostels, hospitals and clinics financed with these funds. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard a brief statement setting out details of the expenditure by the States of the funds made available in 1968-69.

For 1 969-70 I seek a substantial increase in the grants to the States. As compared with the basic grant of $3,650,000 last year,I now seek approval for basic grants totalling $5m for 1969-70 to support State activities in the fields of housing, education, health and, now. employment and vocational training activities complementary to those of the Department of Labour and National Service. The legislation also includes provision for certain other grants to the States totalling $410,000, the nature of which I will describe later. The legislation provides for grants to the States during 1969-70, the 1968-69 grants being set beside them for purposes of comparison. With the concurrence of honourable senatorsI incorporate in Hansard a table showing the grants to the States.

Of the global amount proposed as grants for 1969-70, by far the greater proportion will be devoted to the four fields of housing, education, health and employment and vocational training. The approximate allocation envisaged as between these categories is as follows:

It is intended that the amount available in each of these four categories will be divided between the States as shown in a table which, with the concurrence of honourable senators,I incorporate in Hansard.

In addition, the proposed legislation contains provision for some smaller grants which may be made to particular States specifically for expenditure on Commonwealthinspired projects. Thus, an amount of $120,000 is being provided for what I will call special work projects, divided as between the States on the basis of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia each receiving $35,000 and South Australia $15,000. The purpose of these grants is to allow governments, shires or other authorities in particular regions of Aboriginal unemployment to provide employment for

Aboriginals on necessary projects, thereby enabling these Aboriginals to undertake useful community work and regain their self respect. A further $250,000 is provided for what I. will call relocation projects on the basis of New South Wales receiving $220,000, and Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia $10,000 each. As I mentioned earlier, the Council and Office of Aboriginal Affairs have been undertaking regional studies in certain areas, and these grants are intended to provide for the next stage of development of the projects, namely, the undertaking of certain work, mostly of a capital nature, in these particular regions, lt so happens that two of the regions already studied or under study are in New South Wales, and it is for this reason that the allocation to that State is substantially larger than that in others. However, as honourable senators will see from the preceding figures, this has been taken into account in dividing the rest of the available funds with the other States, so that the total is fair as between them.

The bulk of the funds envisaged in the case of New South Wales will be expended on the provision of additional housing in those urban areas close to employment opportunities, with the object of assisting Aboriginal families to move from their present hovels and take up normal community life. A further amount of $40,000 has been included for special adult education projects on the basis of $10,000 each to New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. The need for such adult education speaks for itself, if the parents of the new generation of Aboriginal children are to be assisted to see the value of education and other benefits of our society for their children. It would be our intention to arrange the adult education projects in full co-operation with the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science and the State Departments of Education.

The States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill (No. 2) relates to the Bamaga irrigation project on Cape York Peninsula. Honourable senators will recall that an amount of $350,000 was provided in the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Act 1968. but in the event, due to the shortage of time remaining after the passage of the Act. it did not prove possible for the details of the terms of the loan to be concluded ;th the Queensland Government. The pre sent Bill amends the earlier one by providing that the amount may be made available in 1969-70 instead of 1968-69. I am confident that the details will have been concluded very soon enabling us to pay this money over to Queesland. However, I am glad to say that these formalities have not been allowed to hold up the actual work. The Bamaga project, for which these funds are provided, is now nearly complete. The main pipeline is operating, water is already in the big reservoir at Bamaga itself. Only minor reticulation is still incomplete, and work on this is proceeding. 1 have very great hopes that the present Bamaga irrigation project will succeed and justify future extension, (f so. it should open up new horizons for the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the community in the north of Cape York Peninsula and perhaps eventually in other parts of that area.

In conclusion I would merely say that our objective is that all Aboriginal Australians shall come to enjoy the same benefits of our society as do the other members of the community. It is evident that in order to achieve this we shall have to extend certain privileges to Aboriginal Australians - on a temporary basis. Our aim is to break the existing vicious circle of paternalism, dependence and pauperism which has become self reinforcing and self perpetuating, sapping Aboriginal integrity, self respect and vitality. We seek to create conditions, as far as they can bc attained by public agencies, under which the Aboriginal citizens of Australia can be helped and put in a position where they can help themselves to develop a dignity of life, a command over their own activities, a full opportunity for their aptitudes and a place in the nation’s counsels equal to those of any other Australian citizens. The provisions of the present Bills are an important step in the direction of attaining these objectives. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1136

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL (No. 2) 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

[12.36] - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The second reading speech that I delivered in respect of the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1969 related both to that Bill and to this Bill. I had the consent of the Senate for that procedure.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1137

FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill stands as recognition by the Government of the growing importance of the fishing industry to the national economy, as an earner of export income, as a generator of employment both at sea and ashore and of domestic income and as a producer of wealth from the resources of the seas and oceans surrounding this continent. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a fishing industry research account which will support projects of research, education, extension and development for the benefit of the Australian fishing industry, and to provide machinery for the management of the Account. Fishing joins the other significant primary industries, such as wheat, wool, dairy, meat, tobacco and poultry, that contribute money for their own research and development which the Government matches in accordance with its long-held policy of aid to primary industries that help themselves.

The research account which the Bill will establish will operate in a similar manner to the others I have mentioned. That is, the Consolidated Revenue Fund will match moneys raised from the industry and there will be a committee to advise the Minister on expenditure from the account. However, there is one significant point of difference between this proposed account and most of the others. The Commonwealth will not itself collect the industry contribution; this will be done under State legislation. The methods employed by the States to collect the industry contribution range from special licence fees to production charges. Several States have already enacted legislation to collect contributions from the fishing industry. I am pleased to see this initiative by the States, indicating as it does the importance with which they regard the development of this industry, and I look forward to early enactment of similar legislation in those States where it has not already been done. The Parliament is thus considering only one Bill in contrast to the three Bills usually required for measures of this sort in relation to other primary industries.

The Bill is the culmination of a series of events that began in 1967, when my predecessor informed State Ministers responsible for fisheries matters that if the fishing industry were to contribute funds for the purposes I mentioned a moment ago, he would be ready to go to the Government with a proposal that the Commonwealth match those amounts. Since that time, there has been continuing discussion and negotiation between the Commonwealth and States aimed at bringing this scheme to fruition. The States are completely in agreement with the overall scheme of arrangement that has been developed. The fishing industry, through its representative body the Australian Fishing Industry Council, has given full support to the scheme. The research account will support projects of benefit to the fishing industry throughout Australia as a whole. It may well happen that a particular project will be supported by a State or a group of States in company with the Commonwealth. Co-operation of this sort is desirable whenever it can be arranged but the Commonwealth Account will as a matter of principle be reserved for projects of -nationwide benefit.

The present Bill makes no reference to the Northern Territory. Nevertheless, the Government intends that funds collected from the fishing industry there will be matched. The appropriate authorities have been informed that when a scheme for collecting the industry contribution has been developed to meet the special feature of the

Territory’s fishing industry, the necessary steps will be taken to bring these contributions within the purview of this legislation.

I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. The methods of collecting the industry contributions make it necessary for those contributions to be specified in the Bill. Clause 4 empowers the Minister to approve a State fund for purposes of calculating the Commonwealth matching amount. This approval may be made retrospective to the beginning of the present financial year. Only one fund in each State will be approved at any time. As well as approved funds in the States, clause 5 empowers the Minister to approve certain kinds of moneys in those funds. This provision is necessary to separate industry contributions, which the Commonwealth will match, from moneys derived from gifts, interest on investment, proceeds from sale of goods or equipment and similar matters, which the Commonwealth will not match. The Commonwealth Consolidated Revenue is appropriated in Clause 7 by an amount equal to the payments of approved moneys into approved State funds and this appropriation is paid into the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account established under Clause 6. Moneys derived from gifts, interest on investment and similar matters in relation to the Commonwealth Trust Account may also be credited to that Account.

Clause 8 provides that funds held in the Research Account may be expended by the Minister, on the advice of the Fishing Industry Research Committee established in Clause 10, on projects of research, education, extension and development for the fishing industry. For example, biological research is used to describe the fish stocks and the most appropriate regimes for their exploitation as well as to predict future catches. Another important application of biological research is in the provision of information on which decisions concerning the management and conservation of the fish stocks can be based. Australia’s position in international fisheries negotiations will be significantly strengthened by having this information. The Research Account will be available to support projects additional to the current activities. Coastal countries claiming exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries have a responsibility to manage and conserve the resources which they claim.

Research projects such as the Research Account might support will be of fundamental value in describing the patterns of rational exploitation of the fish stocks in accordance with sound management and conservation practices.

Another example is technological research on fishing boats, gear and methods, on handling and processing of fish products and on development of new methods of utilising or presenting fish products to the consumer. In addition there will be economic and market studies. To provide the fishing industry with information on research findings, from Australia and overseas, extension services will be provided, while special attention will be given to the provision of vocational training and technical education to equip operatives with the necessary skills to apply up-to-date technologies. All these matters are integral parts of fisheries development and in addition, direct developmental activities such as exploratory fishing and introduction and trials of new or prototype equipment might also qualify for financial support.

Naturally, there will have to be a system of priorities developed along with the programme of expenditure and the Committee will require to have an eye to the overall needs of the fishing industry and how they might be satisfied in the best interests of the nation. Iiic Research Account will not be available to provide finance to fishermen, processors or marketing authorities for acquisition of new equipment which might be financed by normal commercial lending sources. On the other hand, Universities and private research bodies of good standing may apply to the Research Committee for assistance from the Research Account.

The membership of the Committee has been proposed with the full agreement of the States. 1 am particularly pleased that the industry voice on the Committee will be provided by the Australian Fishing Industry Council. In addition, there will be one member representing the State fisheries authorities on the nomination of the Australian Fisheries Council and one representing the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The representative of my Department will be the chairman. To foster ideas and broaden the perspective of the Committee, provision is made for each member to be accompanied by a personal adviser. The Minister may also appoint expert advisers to the Committee in connection with any particular programme.

Machinery provisions for matters such as entering into agreements for the conduct of research, the appointment of deputies of members, the removal of members and deputies, the quorum and voting of the Committee and the payment of fees, expenses and allowances to members, deputy members, personal advisers and expert advisers, follow similar lines to those in other legislation of this kind. The Bill provides for an annual report to be presented by the Committee and tabled in each house. It is intended that my Department will provide the Committee with necessary administrative and clerical support as well as operate the day to day management of the Research Account. I believe that honourable senators on both sides of the Senate will welcome this Bill as an expression of the encouraging disposition of the Parliament towards an industry whose potential benefits to the nation are waiting to be more fully achieved through the application of research. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.49 to 2 p.m.

page 1139

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1969-70

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 18 September (vide page 1099).

Department of National Development

Proposed expenditure, $39,839,000.

Proposed provision, $38,233,000.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– When consideration of these estimates was interrupted last night Senator Cant and Senator Young had queried the Commonwealth’s expenditure on the water resources research programme and I should like to clear up those matters now. The amount of $130,000 is appropriated for the water research fund which is administered by the Australian Water Resources Council. The purpose of the fund is to foster and support research into all aspects of the hydrological cycle and factors influencing it. The fund is intended to complement research work being carried out by Commonwealth agencies, universities and other organisations. Funds normally would not be made available for work undertaken by Commonwealth agencies such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Bureau of Mineral Resources which can be expected to undertake appropriate work from their own resources. Expenditure by the CSIRO falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and I am unable to say how much is spent on water research by that Organisation. It has a fund of its own and it carries out a great variety of work throughout the Commonwealth. Currently it is spending large sums of money. I cannot state the exact amount but possibly it is somewhere between $500,000 and $lm. So it will be seen that the Commonwealth Government is actively engaged far and above the amount allocated for water research to the Water Resources Council.

Without taking a lot of time I should like to mention some of the projects that are in progress under the Commonwealth water research programme. These projects were announced by the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) on 30th March 1969 when he indicated that the Commonwealth had decided to increase the initial allocation from $130,000 to $400,000 and to extend the period to 3 years ending on 30th June 1971. The projects at present under study or set down for study are as follows: Hydrology of small rural catchments; effects of land management on quantity and quality of available water; improved techniques of stream flow measurement; stream gauging station model rating; field study of evaporation; evaluation of existing desalination plants; interpretation of geophysical logs in bores in unconsolidated sediments; extraction of water from unconsolidated sediments; evaporation from vegetated areas; provision of soil moisture measuring equipment; conjunctive use of surface and ground water storage; investigation of soil moisture conditions associated with different forms of land use in tropical north Queensland; efficacy of on-farm water conservation, and expansion of suspended sediment data collection network or catchments. A little information is given in relation to each of those items which I believe will be of interest to the Commonwealth so with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate the relevant document in Hansard.

PROJECTS IN PROGRESS UNDER COMMONWEALTH WATER RESEARCH PROGRAMME

  1. Hydrology nf small rural catchments

This is a major project involving collection processing and analysis of rainfall and runoff data held by many authorities in respect of small catchments not greater than 10 sq. miles in area. e.g. farm dam catchments. The aim is to arrive at a better understanding of flow conditions of these catchments which influence, for example, the design of farm dams and road culverts.

  1. Effects of land management on quantity anil quality of available water

To prepare an annotated bibliography and a critical evaluation of the literature on the effects of land use and management on the components of the hydrologic or water cycle. Various forms of land development such as pasture improvement, afforestation, land clearing, etc. can have a great influence on the quantity and quality of surface and underground water. A survey of previous and current work is being carried out. in order to provide a sound basis for further studies in Australia.

  1. Improved techniques of streamflow measurement

At present, streamflow measurements are taken manually by cumbersome and generally unsatisfactory methods. Automatic equipment is used to measure river height, but stream velocity, the other component in calculating total discharge, involvesconsiderable man-hours per measurement. Scientific and engineering specialists are examining the possibilities of developing direct recording equipment which would combine the two measurements and automatically calculate discharge.

  1. Stream gauging station model rating

To convert water levels to river discharges, a relationship must be established which is known as “rating” a station, lt is possible to do this with hydraulic models. The research will involve the construction of a small-scale model of part of a river where a measuring station has been established and the checking of measurements on the model against those obtained on the river, Measuring high flows on large rivers is difficult with conventional methods because of the problem of getting equipment into the river. If successful, this study should provide a means of calculating discharge under circumstances where it is not now possible.

  1. Field study of evaporation lt is not a simple matter to determine the evaporation from a water storage. This research item involves the installation of a variety of scientific equipment using different methods of measurement on a few storages in different parts of Australia, in order to determine the most appropriate method or methods under the various conditions.
  2. Evaluation of existing desalination plants

A field survey of existing plants in Australia is being carried out paying .particular attention lo capital, operating and maintenance costs and oper ational problems. The resultant report should bc of considerable interest and value to those considering the use of desalination equipment in Australia.

  1. Interpretation of geophysical logs in bores in unconsolidated sediments

Better methods are needed to analyse geophysical borelogs in river valleys which often contain useable water. This involves the application of oil industry techniques in searching for underground water. A probe lowered down a borehole measures various electrical and chemical properties which are a guide to the availability of water. The aim of this study is to show how best use can be made of the technique in underground water exploration which should be speeded up as a result.

  1. Extraction of water from unconsolidated sediments

Extraction of water from fine sands and silts is often difficult, uncertain and costly, and various forms of screen, gravel packs and other forms of construction are used. With the aid of studies both in the laboratory and the field, it is hoped to arrive al a better understanding of the basic processes, and hence point the way to improved equipment and procedures.

  1. Evaporation from vegetated ureas

Al present, there is no known practical method for measuring evaporation from natural vegetated areas e.g. scrub and forest lands. In this programme, evaporation at selected points in a sample area is to be measured by installing and testing various types of equipment. In addition, the behaviour of the aerodynamically rough surface will be studied in a wind tunnel. The aerodynamics of air-flow affect evaporation rates, and it is known that rough surfaces viz. forests disturb the air-flow. lt is hoped that these two phases of the study will throw some light on this broad problem.

  1. Provision of soil moisture measuring equipment

Specialised soil moisture measuring equipment is In be used to study the rate at which water enters and passes through different types of soils. This is of significance in a wide range of water studies.

  1. Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater storage

The combined use of surface and groundwater in a river valley is to be studied to obtain optimum results and allow appropriate designs In be developed. This involves the study of underground water supplies replenished directly by rivers, lt is important to know how much water may be drawn from bores tapping such underground supplies without adversely affecting downstream supplies in the river itself. The combined use of river and underground supplies from the same source is becoming increasingly important in Australia.

  1. Investigation of soil moisture conditions associated with different forms of land use in tropical north Queensland

Soil moisture measuring equipment is being provided as part of a study of soil moisture under different land use conditions. Little soil moisture work has been carried out in tropical forested areas in Australia. These areas are being cleared for pastures and pine plantations.

  1. The efficacy of on-farm water conservation

Flow and rainfall measuring equipment is being provided for a study of the economics of spray irrigation from a farm dam in the Hunter Valley. 1.4. Expansion nf suspended sediment data collection network or catchments

Equipment is being provided for a study of river sedimentation in the Hunter Valley over a large number of land systems.

Those projects represent only a small portion of what the Government is doing and spending on its water research programme throughout the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is financing the States and 1 believe that a sum well in excess of S20Om or S300m has been allocated for this purpose.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cormack:
VICTORIA

– Order! I wish to issue a mild rebuke to honourable senators occupying the ministerial bench if it will be accepted in these terms. Individual senators ask questions in I he context of the Estimates on behalf of the whole Committee and Ministers should reply to the Committee and not lo individual senators.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– 1 thank the Minister for the information he has given in relation to water research. 1 join issue wilh him. of course, when he talks abour the $400,000 which will be spent over a 3-year period because that works out at approximately $130,000 a year. So little progress is being made in that regard. He referred to the Bureau of Mineral Resources, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other organisations which are carrying out research work in relation to water. I went to the trouble of looking at the document Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure’ which was presented by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). The only place in which I could find anything associated with waler research was in the estimates of the Department of the Treasury, not in the estimates of the CSIRO or the Bureau of Mineral Resources although I concede that the Bureau is supplied with all kinds of information as a result of oil exploration.

In the estimates for the Department of the Treasury which appear on page 27 of the document to which 1 have referred there appears (he following item: “Water Resources investigations and Measurement (Act No. 127 of 1964 and Act No. 73 of 1967)’. The estimate for 1969-70 is $1,615,000 which includes the $130,000. That is as far as J am prepared to concede anything to the Minister in relation to investigations into water resources. Substantially, the $1,600,000 is for the measurement of water. This would be associated with surface water. But what is being done with respect to underground water?

Some publicity was given some time ago to the fact that oil drilling operations in the centre of Australia disclosed the presence of huge resources of water. In fact, Magellan Petroleum (NT) Pty Ltd, which was doing this drilling, is considering whether it will use part of the gas resources that it has discovered in the Amadeus Basin and Palm. Valley for the production and use of this water for irrigation. This is one project wilh respect to underground water. Exploration for underground water is a much more expensive thing than the measurement of streams. i know that Senator Young mentioned the Ord River project. The gauging of the Ord River commenced in 1952, and the measurement continued up to the time it was decided to commence the diversion dam and, subsequently, the main dam on the Ord. The measurement of the flow of streams, particularly the flow of streams in the northern part of Australia, is something that must take place over a considerable number of years. The rivers are big bodies of water when they flow, but they flow for very short periods. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether any gauging has been done on the Ashburton River, Fitzroy River, Fortescue River or the De Grey River? In the summer rainfall season, as the Minister well knows, these rivers empty a very large amount of water into the Indian Ocean. The difficulty which presents itself with respect to these rivers is finding places for conservation. But do we know what water is flowing from these rivers? What research has been done in this matter? What research has been carried out on underground water supplies?

The Minister mentioned that there are State activities connected with water research. As the Minister well knows, the eastern areas of Western Australia unfortunately are suffering a severe drought at this time. In some areas stock is relying on any feed that is available and farmers are being forced to turn sheep onto their crops which, because of lack of water, will not yield any grain. Water is the all important fl.:.- - Yet, in those areas no boring plants are available. Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly are endeavouring to persuade the State Government to get boring plants down into these areas in order to find out whether there is any water, or sufficient water, available there. These are the sorts of projects to which a lot more attention should be paid at this time. We should not wait until we are in the period of crisis when there is a shortage of water. We should know where water is and where we are able to get it any time we want it. Water is a vital commodity in Australia. Now-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Cant, are you moving onto another Division now?

Senator CANT:

– I have been dealing with Divisions 390 and 392 jointly. I raised a query last night about the large increase in the salaries and allowances in relation to the Northern Division, which is covered by Division 392. The advice given to me by the Minister was-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! Senator Cant, I ask you to resume your seat for a moment in order to permit me to direct the attention of the Committee to the problem in which we are involved in the discussion of these estimates. Water resources research to which the honourable senator has been addressing his remarks is item 03 in subdivision 3 of Division 390. It is very confusing both to the Minister and to the Minister’s advisers and officials if honourable senators, in addressing themselves to these estimates, do not identify the Divisions and parts of Divisions in respect of which they wish to raise matters of interest to the Committee. Senator Cant, are you agreeable to conform to that pattern?

Senator CANT:

– I have one more query on Division 390, and then I will move on to Division 392, with your permission. Having dealt with water resources, I raise a query with the Committee as I did last night on the subject of documentary films and publications in respect of which the appropriation shows an increase of approximately $16,000. The amount appropriated this financial year is quite small, lt is $45,000. I did query with the Minister of whether publications were to be distributed and circulated, and the advice of the Minister to me was that they were publications which would be sold at cost price plus a service fee-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! ls the honourable senator referring to Division 390, subdivision 2, item 05 - Documentary films and publications?

Senator CANT:

– Yes. If an amount of $45,000 is allocated for the production of documentary films and publications, and the publications are to be sold, I would have thought that the correct way to set out that item in the estimates would be, as was done at one time, to add all the costs and subtract from the total the amount recouped from sales. If $45,000 is to be appropriated for books which will be produced and sold, some of the money involved in production will be recovered from the sales of those publications. In other words, the public purse is not up for the full $45,000. This item leaves the Committee somewhat in the dark. We are appropriating $45,000 for this purpose but some of that money will be recovered. We are not given any estimate of what the amount to be recovered will be.

I move now to Division 392 - Northern Division, and refer to subdivision 1, item 01 - Salaries and allowances. I was advised by the Minister that the increase of approximately 22i% in the appropriation for this year will be associated with an increase in staff of 38, mainly engineers and scientists. Despite the fact that this is the Northern Division of the Department of National Development, the staff that is to be engaged is to be stationed in Canberra.

Senator Webster:

– Where did the honourable senator get the idea that it will be increased by thirty-eight?

Senator CANT:

– That was the information given to me by the Minister.

Senator Scott:

– No. It will be increased to thirty-eight.

Senator CANT:

– The staff will be stationed in Canberra. I wonder why some of these people who are so actively associated with the Northern Division and who are concerned I take it with the development of northern Australia will not be stationed in northern Australia so that they may study and understand the problems there? I. know that these people go to northern Australia, have a look at projects there and probably return to Canberra to do some research work. There are all sorts of things going on at odd times in this part of the world and I should have thought that it would be a much more economic process to have these people stationed in the area on which they are supposed to be doing their studies. Also under Division 392 there is a decrease of $163,000 in the proposed appropriation for contract investigations. The Minister said last night that the Northern Division examines projects that are put forward by the States of Queensland and Western Australia for development works in the north. But there is not very much of that sort of thing going on at the present time.

The only project that is being looked at is the proposed power house in central Queensland and that is being investigated by the Snowy Mountains Authority. Large expenditure last year was associated with an evaluation of the Port of Darwin. 1 remind the Minister that the Commonwealth Government is responsible for the Northern Territory. Not only Queensland and Western Australia are associated with northern development. The whole of the Commonwealth territory has to be looked at. If the $6,000 proposed appropriation for contract investigations is for the Snowy Mountains Authority’s investigation of the Queensland power project, it seems that there will be no contract investigations in the Northern Territory.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I wish to refer to the provision for water resources research under Division 390; contract investigations under Division 392; aerial survey and photography including hire of aircraft, contract mapping, hydrographic surveys, and incidental and other expenditure under Division 394; oil search subsidy under Division 396; and sirex wasp research and containment under Division 398.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The

Committee will be able to follow you more easily if you mention the lines as you come to them.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I have mentioned them in advance so that the Minister’s advisers may be able to have the relevant material available when it comes to finding answers to some of my probing queries. I seek some enlightenment front the Minister on a question asked by Senator Milliner yesterday, as recorded on page 1097 of Hansard. The Minister referred to expenditure on the Maraboon Dam and went on to say:

In addition, expenditure on investigations into surface and underground water resources in Queensland is estimated at $S28,(HK) for 1968- 69. This allocation will bc provided under the Slates Grants (Water Resources Measurement) Act.

Am I to assume that this is the only money to be spent on water conservation in Queensland in the whole of this financial year, excluding the expenditure on Maraboon Dam, which is a continuing sum granted to Queensland as election bait before the last Senate elections? I am always very critical of the fact that Queensland is starved of any hand-out of Commonwealth grants for water conservation, although it has a better conservation potential than any other State. 1 have just concluded an extensive tour of the drought areas of Queensland. The Minister probably recalls that last Thursday morning in a question I requested that the Government reassess the effects of the drought in Queensland. The area from Townsville right across to the Northern Territory border and south into the central west is in the grip of a drought the like of which has not been seen there in the last 15 or 20 years. One grazier in the Richmond area recently sold 600 sheep for lc a head, shot another 1000 because they were too poor to shift anywhere, and is struggling along with a few hundred head in the hope that rains will come and he will still have some stock to carry on with. The Minister said that the proper procedure was for the State government to look at this as a national emergency and ask for additional help.

I understand that apart from the drought relief that was granted a few months ago no other assessment has been carried out and no further request has been made to the Commonwealth Government for additional assistance. Somebody is falling down very badly because this is the means of seeking temporary relief in order to keep people on their properties, in order to keep those engaged in the pastoral industry in employment and in order to preserve what in fact is the backbone of Queensland’s economy, that is, primary industry - a lot of which is based on the production of wool and beef. But we have to go much further than this. These are temporary measures only. We have to realise that Australia is, if not the driest continent, one of the driest continents and that the conservation of water is of very great importance in each of the six States. We do not seem to plan far enough ahead. We have a grasshopper attitude politically. This is displayed by the Government which jumps from target to target and considers where it is politically expedient to place the next dam.

I would say that we would have had no chance at all of getting the Maraboon Dam if on the eve of an election gallup polls had not shown a reaction against the Government. In the Kolan area near Bundaberg there is a lot of smoke and fire because Government members are carrying out an investigation. If the climate is considered to be reasonably healthy prior to the election the matter will still be a subject for investigation but if it is felt that there has been a slipping away of support for Government candidates in Queensland this will be changed and we will probably be given a few hundred thousand dollars to carry out a feasibility survey or something like that.

An area to which I wish to refer specifically is the Burdekin delta generally. This is a very rich area but it is plagued year by year by lack of water, even though millions and millions of gallons flow into the sea every wet season. The Minister might be able to tell me whether plans are well advanced for the Burdekin Dam. I do not think that they are. I do not think that a reassessment is even under way. A few weeks ago I referred to the Big Rocks dam site. I am not plugging a particular scheme against another scheme, but I want to have some of this material incorporated in Hansard while we are discussing this matter, because here we have a man who carried out a detailed study which indicates at this point of time that this proposal is worth a lot more investigation. Dr Eric Heidecker reported that the location of the proposed Big Rocks dam site on the Burdekin River is 58 miles south west of Townsville and 15 miles north of Charters Towers. This is one of the few promising storage areas between the Burdekin Falls, 100 miles downstream, and Hell’s Gates, 80 miles upstream. The location of the Big Rocks site is 16 miles upstream from a small weir serving Charters Towers and 68 miles via Reid Gap to the site of the proposed Five Head Creek Reservoir which will eventually supply much of Townsville’s needs. The proposed Five Head Creek Reservoir is the current project which is supposed to keep Townsville supplied with water. Again I must mention Townsville because this is the area in which a manufacturing or secondary industry complex must be established if we are to people and to develop the north of my State and the north of Australia generally.

Senator Gair:

– We aim to make Townsville the Newcastle of Queensland.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Yes. Townsville is the logical area in which an industrial complex can be built because it is at the end of the Mount Isa line and we are tapping the rich mineral resources of copper, nickel, lead and other minerals which are found in the area to the west of the city. In addition there is already established there a copper refinery. Recently we heard from a Country Party member in another place about the Greenvale nickel deposits, but we have not seen the Country Party member since nor have we heard anything of the Greenvale nickel deposits. We have the phosphorus deposits in the Duchess area and there are other areas in which uranium and bauxite have been found and will be developed, and will be found in the future. None of these things can be done without water. So the conservation of water in this area serves a twofold purpose: First, it will irrigate vast areas of country on which fodder can be grown and preserved for easy dispatch to the areas which are afflicted by drought with monotonous regularity. At the moment we have to bring fodder many hundreds and almost thousands of miles to these areas. Secondly, quite apart from this the development is necessary if our State is to go ahead.

I refer again to Dr Heidecker’s report in which he refers to the location of Big Rocks in these terms:

  1. 58 miles via ReidGap to Lansdowne Creek which feeds into the proposed Five Head Creek Reservoir;
  2. on the Gregory Developmental Highway which serves an extensive pastoral and mining area extending towards the Gulf of Carpentaria.

In the recommendations with regard to economic factors which have been taken into consideration in the compilation of the report he states:

The Big Rocks site is strategically located so that it could serve several centres:

Charters Towers, Sellheim, Macrossan. A small 400 million gallon weir downstream of the Big Rocks guarantees Charters Towers and Sellheim-Macrossan supplies in excess of 1 million gallons per day. A larger supply from the Big Rocks would guarantee supplies for:

the proposed Charters Towers sewerage scheme;

the Sellheim military complex in the event of a major influx of troops;

a re-establisbed regional meatworks at Macrossan, similar to the successful Tancred Works at Pentland;

local treatment of nickel and other ores at present under consideration at various places between the Great Divide and Coast Ranges.

Townsville Water supplies could limit Townsville’s continued expansion.

That is exactly what I said a few moments ago. The report continues:

Only the Burdekin can provide the supply needed for a major industrial-commercial centre which serves a hinterland extending out to Mount Isa and including the Burdekin-Gulf area, now accessible to Townville by the developmental or beef roads. . . .

The attractive flow characteristics of the Burdekin have been considered above. The Burdekin will become an even more reliable source of water if other schemes to divert the Herbert into the Burdekin and to dam the Burdekin at Hell’s Gates are implemented.

In his conclusion Dr Heidecker stated:

The Big Rocks site deserves consideration as:

Preliminary investigations have indicated encouraging foundation conditions.

A moderately large volume of water could be impounded in a stretch of the Burdekin strategically located for civic, industrial, and agricultural use. The excellent flow characteristics of the Burdekin allows such a storage to compete with larger structures on smaller rivers closer to Townsville. Other proposals to dam the Burdekin at Hell’s Gate and to divert the Herbert into the Burdekin could be co-ordinated with development of the Big Rocks site, to guarantee even larger supplies at the Big Rocks.

A pipeline of 58 miles length could feed water into Lansdowne Creek and thence into Townsville’s proposed Five Head Creek Reservoir. A pumping lift of 150 feet to Mingela could be balanced by peak-hour power developed by water descending the Coast Range escarpment.

What is happening to reports like this? They have been pigeonholed and are not receiving the attention they deserve. Schemes of this kind would have been well planned and programmed by now if we had retained intact the Snowy Mountains Authority as my Party has advocated consistently over the years and in respect of which an agreement between the Queensland Government and the then Commonwealth government was reached in the late 1940s.I should like to know whether the Minister can tell me what the Government is doing about this.

Senator Young:

– Nothing.

Senator KEEFFE:

– That is very probably right. I know that nothing has been done about it, butI want to know whether any preliminary planning is under way or whether there is any intention to do anything. I should like to know even whether the Government is planning something to be mentioned in its policy speech for the coming election campaign. Already the Australian Labor Party has said that it will provide for works of this kind. I remind honourable senators that the only two reasonable dams that we have in northern Queensland were both built under Labor governments. I refer to the Koombooloomba and Tinaroo dams. These are fast reaching saturation point and are no longer capable of carrying an expansion in the agricultural areas in the vicinity of each of them. They were both built without the aid of Commonwealth money. This is all right for local developmental projects, but projects of a national scale deserve national assistance. I hope that we can be given some advice on that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

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

– I am encouraged to speak on this matter of national development because I am conscious always of the necessity for governments, both Commonwealth and State, to exploit the great natural endowments that this country has. I suppose no country could claim to have been more bountifully blessed in many respects than Australia, but I feel sometimes that we who are charged with the responsibility for the development of Australia are slow to appreciate just what lies before us and what we have at hand. There are people of other countries who would be glad to have the opportunity to develop the resources of Australia and they would do it with the greatest speed and more expedition than we apply to it. What is it that causes governments to be so languid and tired about approaching things that are calling out for development and a remedy?

Senator Webster:

– Surely the honourable senator would not claim that about this Government.

Senator GAIR:

– I do claim that about this Government - of course I do - and if the honourable senator wants to bring party politics into it I can mix on that subject also. As a former Premier of a State I know just how little previous Liberal and Country Party governments have contributed to the provision of projects such as the Burdekin scheme and the Tinaroo Dam, all of which were paid for out of State loan money - loan money obtained from the Commonwealth, all of which had to be repaid, plus interest. Not one brass farthing was contributed by the Commonwealth to projects such as that. That has been my experience. I have told the story here before, and it bears repetition. The first Labor Premier of Queensland, Thomas Joseph Ryan, a very distinguished man in Australian politics who was a member of the Federal Parliament at the time of his death, once said: Never be self-conscious about repeating a good thing’. I repeat this, because it is a good thing. When the then Mr Richard Casey was Minister for National Development he visited Queensland, accompanied by a few eminent leading Liberals. He and his party flew over the area of the Burdekin scheme and, with the support and approval of his departmental heads, gave it his blessing, as it were. After he landed, and the usual discussions and Press conferences which normally take place when a distinguished Minister makes an inspection such as that were held, he said that he thought that it was a great scheme, that we could depend on it that the Commonwealth would make a contribution to it. We are still wating for that Commonwealth contribution to the scheme.

There are some people who are narrow enough in outlook to ask: ‘Why does not the State do it?’ The plain answer to that question - and I speak now from experience - is that the State does not receive sufficient loan money to carry out all the projects that are crying out for attention and it is imperative, in the interests of the nation, that the Commonwealth should come to the party and assist the States. The Commonwealth is spending money like water on far less important things.

I also remember when representatives of the World Bank paid a courtesy call on me as Premier of the State. They said: ‘We will not detain you, Mr Premier. We know you have a Cabinet meeting this morning. But there is one question we would like to ask you. On what do you spend your loan money?’ I said: ‘Outside of what I am required to spend on hospitals, schools and other community services, I spend it in this order: Water, power, and transport, including roads’. The leader of that delegation from the World Bank said: ‘Any government that concentrates on spending its loan money in that order is sound and will not go far wrong’. Of course it is sound. That is elementary. It has been stated repeatedly that Australia is the driest continent in the world. That cannot be denied. Yet how little does any government do, or appear to be inclined to do, in the matter of the provision of water.

At the present time Queensland is in the throes of a drought. That State does not suffer from a single drought; it suffers from a continuity of droughts. Victoria had a drought last year and the whole world knew about it. That was the first drought Victoria had experienced in 20 years, and it probably will not have another for another 20 years. But Queensland suffers from a continuity of droughts. I was pleased to hear Senator Cant dealing with the question of water last night. He did it very effectively.

I come now to northern development. I recollect that when I was only a junior member of the Queensland Cabinet the Chifley Government set up an organisation to deal with northern development. When 1 succeeded in becoming Premier I went through the safe and the table drawers of my predecessor and found documents and minutes relating to this. But it was a short lived authority. It went out of operation because apparently there were more urgent things to be done around Canberra and other more populous spaces. When projects are proposed for areas such as some in Queensland which, relatively speaking, are remote areas, they are not regarded as being of national importance, whereas the truth is that there is nothing that can be done, whether it be in the Northern Territory, north Queensland or certain parts of Western Australia, that does not return some benefit to the nation. Take our overseas debts as an example. Who contributes most to keeping them balanced? lt is States like Queensland with its beef, its sugar, its wool and its dairy products. But all these things can be maintained only provided we have water. Water is the first essential.

I have in my hand a document from the Bundaberg and District Irrigation Committee. Bundaberg is not so very far from Brisbane, yet, in the Gin Gin district, which is a sugar growing district, they have suffered four droughts in 6 years. They submitted a project there with relation to the Bundaberg-Childers district. Senator Keeffe has made reference to it. But what has been done about that? Certain surveys have been carried out. The reports are there to be read, and they are most interesting documents. The average rainfall in this district is about 38 inches. If we are going to approach these projects with the speed of a snail, we shall never get anywhere.

It is of no use the Commonwealth taking up the attitude that this is a matter for the States. I do not care what the colour of the government of any State may be, or whether the State be Western Australia, South Australia or Queensland, I defy any Premier to meet without Commonwealth aid his commitments in connection with projects such as these. It is utterly unreal to expect that of any State government. Yet the States are expected to do these things. I should hate to say that the Common wealth Government has adopted an attitude of indifference to these matters because I do not wish to be unfair, but I do not think that the Commonwealth appreciates just what the position is. The Queensland Government built the Tinaroo Dam. It was chided by the Opposition because of the slowness with which the work was carried out. That slowness was due solely to the lack of funds. We could have done the job in half the time if the funds had been available. But we had to spread our loan money. By the time we built schools, hospitals and other things, we were able to allot only a certain amount of money to the Tinaroo Dam project. What did Tinaroo amount to? Did it measure up to very much? lt helped to build the tobacco industry in that State and in this country. It increased the population of towns like Mareeba.

Similar things can be said about the great Mount Isa mines, one of the greatest mines in the world today. I am mindful of the early history of this town. A Labor government of the time decided to build a railway from Dajarra to Mount Isa. State Hansard will confirm and substantiate what 1 say. The conservative State Opposition said that Mount Isa would be nothing more than a white elephant. What is it today? It is a great, Australian controlled enterprise with a substantial Australian capital content. It has helped to build Townsville. Mount lsa has grown only because aid was given by the State Government, without any assistance from the Federal Government. The Federal Government is reaping the ultimate reward by way of the direct and indirect taxation that it receives. I appeal to the Commonwealth Government, to the Queensland Government and to any other State Government to provide assistance for such projects. South Australia is short of water. Practically every day we hear a reference to Chowilla or Dartmouth.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– The Committee has spent considerable time in discussing these estimates. We have a long way to go to finish the estimates for the Department of National Development. I would like to proceed to deal with the estimates for another department, but I am quite prepared to answer questions put to me by the Committee in relation to the Department of National Development. I commence by answering questions about the problems related to the conservation of water and also by answering accusations that the Government has shown a lack of interest in the matter. I have not had time to add the figures which I am about to give, but in the last 2 years the Commonwealth Government has provided $49m for the Ord River scheme, $20m for the Maraboon Dam in Queensland, $68m-

Senator Gair:

– They are election babies.

Senator SCOTT:

– That is the type of interjection we hear all the time. The Government is providing these sums all the time. Some of the amounts were provided over 2 years ago.

Senator Keeffe:

– The Government made those promises before the Senate election.

Senator SCOTT:

– The honourable senator can make an election speech if he wishes. If he wants to play it rough, 1 will play it rough, too, if I am allowed by the Temporary Chairman. Out of Commonwealth funds the Commonwealth Government will provide $50m for the Dartmouth scheme when agreement between the Commonwealth and the States concerned is reached; $750,000 for the Cressy-Longford scheme in Tasmania; $20m for the Copeton Dam in New South Wales; $4m for the King River scheme in Victoria; $47m for a hydro-electric scheme on the Gordon River in Tasmania; and S5m to provide a road for access to that scheme. If one adds those figures one gets a total of over $200m. I think that is a fantastic amount of money to spend on water conservation. For honourable senators to say that the Government has shown no interest in water is completely and utterly ridiculous. Of course we are interested in water. We have done more than any other government thought of doing. If honourable senators want the correct answer, I will give it to them in a few short words: Since we have been in office we have provided more money for water than have all the other governments since federation. We are proud of what we have done.

Then the matter of what the Government is doing about providing assistance to alleviate drought conditions was raised.

That matter should not have been raised during the debate on these estimates, but since it has been raised I will reply. The Commonwealth Government, in this Budget, is providing $8m to help the people of Queensland to obtain finance so that they can cope with the problems caused by the drought. We provided $2m last year. The 1969 Queensland drought is one of the worst droughts experienced for a very long time. In view of the recurrence of drought conditions over a large area of Queensland, in March 1969 the Commonwealth agreed to participate with the Queensland Government on a $1 for $1 basis in the provision of funds for drought relief measures similar to those previously in operation. However, following a further deterioration in rural conditions, in April 1969 the Commonwealth announced that it would meet the whole of agreed relief expenditure by the State in 1968-69 in excess of $4m. In addition the Commonwealth agreed to regard freight rebates on the movement of non-starving stock from drought areas to slaughter as eligible expenditure for purposes of the arrangement and arranged, through the Australian Wheat Board, for feed wheat to be sold to drought affected farmers on 12 months credit at a concessional rate of interest.

The Commonwealth has agreed that arrangements similar to those announced in April 1969 will continue to operate in 1969-70. Under these arrangements the Commonwealth will meet half the cost of agreed relief expenditure up to $4m and the whole cost of any such expenditure which the Queensland Government may incur in excess of that sum. This will place an upper limit of S2m on the contribution to be made by the State in 1969-70 in respect of the agreed drought relief measures. Has that sunk in? After the State has found the first S2m the Commonwealth will accept responsibility for the remainder.

Senator Cant:

– We know all this.

Senator SCOTT:

– The Government was criticised for what it has not done. I am stating what it has done. The measures for which Commonwealth assistance will be provided are similar to those under agreed arrangements over recent years. As I mentioned, payments in 1969-70 are estimated at S8m.

A question was asked about the estimated expenditure on contract investigations. This amount is for the hire of organisations from outside the Department to carry out works. Other investigational work is carried out by the officers of the Department, by officers of other Commonwealth departments and by officers of State Government departments. The cost appears under normal administrative expenditure. Another question was asked about water resources research. Water research is carried out by a number of divisions and sections of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation such as land research, plant industry, and irrigation research at Griffith. The Engineering and Special Services Section of the Bureau of Mineral Resources also undertakes some work. The States Grant (Water Resources Measurement) Act will provide grants to the States which have a responsibility in relation to underground water investigations. The Commonwealth undertakes this work in the Northern Territory.

Stream gauging in Western Australia is the responsibility of that State. Considerable efforts are being made to establish a viable network of gauging stations. The Commonwealth will provide a grant of $312,000 to that State for this work in the current financial year. The grant will be devoted to both surface and underground investigation. Substantial quantities of water have been found in the Amadeus Basin in central Australia, estimated at up to 200 million acre feet, but the economic development of these supplies is improbable because of the depth of the supplies and of the remoteness of the area from markets.

Questions were raised about Commonwealth expenditure on water conservation in Queensland. Other than on the Maraboon Dam and under the States Grants (Weater Resources Measurement) Act, the State Government, which is primarily responsible for water resources development, has its own programme, of course, in addition to the Commonwealth expenditure. No formal request has been received for assistance in respect of any proposed Burdekin scheme. The Commonwealth, however, has agreed to carry out an investigation of the Burdekin scheme, following a request by the Queensland Government. Initial discussions between departments have already taken place. The Queensland Government has asked for assistance for the Burnett-Kolan-Isis scheme. This is under consideration by the Commonwealth Government. Queensland has announced that it will start work on stage 1 of the work, which will cost about $8m, from its own resources.

A question was asked about the appropriation of $45,000 for documentary films and publications under Division 390. The dissection of that appropriation is: Films, $7,000, and publications, $38,000. The money received from sales of publications appears under revenue. Revenue from the sale of maps and publications amounts to $120,000. That is for all divisions of the Department, including the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Division of National Mapping.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I direct the Minister’s attention to the appropriation for the hire of aircraft for aerial surveys under Division 394 - Division of National Mapping. This year the appropriation is $300,000. Last year the expenditure was $159,504. That represents an increase of about $141,000. Under the same division there is an appropriation of $900,000 for contract mapping. Last year the expenditure under that item was $637,742. I ask the -Minister how the hire of aircraft for aerial surveys fits in with contract mapping, bearing in mind that the appropriation for contract mapping has been increased greatly this year.

My real reason for asking this question is related to the appropriation for the maintenance and running expenses of aircraft under Division 396- Bureau of Mineral Resources. Under that item the expenditure last year was $104,615, and this year’s appropriation is $140,000. This appropriation is purely for the maintenance and running expenses of aircraft, whereas the appropriation under the Division of National Mapping is for the hire of aircraft. Is there any relationship between the two areas? We know that mapping fits in with the general surveying of the whole of the country and with mineral development.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I listened with great interest to the vigorous answer given by the Minister to the queries raised in respect of water. At no time did he touch on the actual appropriation, which is for water resources research. It is no answer for the Minister to stand up and say that $200m is being spent by the Government on water development when the appropriation before the Committee is for water resources research. lt is also no answer for the Minister to stand up and say that $200m is being spent on water development projects, unless he tells us the period of time over which it is to be spent. For instance, it will probably take 5 to 7 years for the Ord River scheme to be completed. It is quite glib to say that in 1967 the Government made $49m available for the Ord River scheme. When that amount is spread over 7 years it becomes a different story; it is not $49m, it is $7m.

Senator Scott:

– What has that to do with research?

Senator CANT:

– 1 do not know. 1 do not know why the Minister brought it up. He introduced the subject of water development. 1 have tried to keep to water resources research. 1 repeat that the Government is not doing sufficient in this field. 1 have not complained about the Government’s water development projects; but I have complained about its activities in the field of water resources research. I do not want to say anything more about that. 1 turn now to Division 865 in document B. This year’s appropriation of $860,000 for plant and equipment for the Bureau of Mineral Resources represents a 100% increase on last year’s expenditure of $443,728. 1 want to know on what this money will be spent by the Bureau. Will it. be spent on purchases of equipment that will assist the nation as distinct from private enterprise or equipment that will carry out surveys for the big oil exploration companies for which they do not pay anything and for which the Government does not receive any royalties or rents? Will the equipment be used to carry out seismic surveys for those companies? I would like to know what that expenditure is for.

I refer now to the Division of National Mapping, to which Senator Young referred just a moment ago. He referred to the hire of aircraft. I refer to the appropriation for plant and equipment. This year’s appropriation of $350,000 represents an increase of about 50% on last year’s expenditure of $236,112. The appropriation for plant and equipment for the Forestry and Timber Bureau is $215,000, which represents an increase of about 30% on last year’s expenditure of $154,737. I would like some explanation of the reasons for those increases and of what those appropriations are for. The only heading that is given is Plant and Equipment’. 1 would like to know what that refers to.

Also under Division 865 there is an increase of about $2,300,000 in the appropriation for expenditure under the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act. Yet every time we members of the Opposition raise the question of the continuance of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority we are met with the answer that work just is not available for the Authority; that it cannot be maintained in its present state; that the States are jealous of their rights and abilities to carry out their own development works; and therefore the Authority can only be retained in a consultative capacity. 1 do not know whether there are works there to be carried out but there is a general phasing out of the Authority. But we find that there is an increase in the proposed expenditure for this year of $2. 3m. This is just a blank statement. We are not told what it is for or anything else.

I, on behalf of my Party, express disappointment that the Commonwealth Government is allowing the Snowy Mountains Authority to be broken down into nothing more than a consultative authority. If there was ever a man in Australia to whom a monument should be erected it is Sir William Hudson. He has done a marvellous job for Australia, and if monuments are put up in this country to commemorate anyone then one should be erected to the memory of Sir William Hudson. I noticed in the Press recently that he condemned the Government’s action in disbanding the Snowy Mountains Authority. However, the Government has the numbers and if it wishes to proceed with the disbandment of the Authority there is nothing we can do except to publicise the fact.

I move from there to Division 396, which refers to the proposed expenditure by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. I notice that the proposed expenditure this year for oil search subsidy has increased by approximately $2m. Only a few weeks ago a Bill passed through this Parliament which completely changed the outlook of the Commonwealth Government with respect to the oil search subsidy. The Act is really no longer the Oil Search Subsidy Act. It could be entitled the Encouragement of Australian Ownership Act because no subsidy is to be paid in respect of the offshore areas unless there is a certain percentage of Australian equity holding. So in the very expensive area of oil search the Government will not be paying a very great subsidy. Even in Bass Strait it will not be liable for the total amount of subsidy provided by the Act for off-shore subsidy - that is, if the Government analyses the shareholding of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, because the maximum amount of subsidy can be attracted in the off-shore area only if there is a 50% Australian shareholding. With BHP being approximately 20% overseas owned and having a 50% interest in the Bass Strait area, Australian ownership in the project is approximately 40%. So in this very expensive area of the search for oil there will not be a very great call upon the oil search subsidy. The oil search subsidy will continue, of course, as before in the on-shore areas. Yet we are faced with an increase of approximately $2m in the amount of oil search subsidy to be appropriated this year. 1 would like the Minister to tell me what activities are being carried out or is it anticipated will be carried out that will attract this subsidy. Every time I look at the Press or at the releases made by the oil industry 1 find that there is a contraction in the exploration for oil on land in Australia because the prospects of finding oil on land are so much less that they are offshore. I would like some clear explanation from the Minister as to why this increase is warranted, in view of the amended legislation. To take this a little further, I refer to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) a few days ago in which he said that the Barrier Reef must bc protected at ail costs and that if there was any danger to it then he would do his utmost to see that it was not placed in jeopardy. In view of the Queensland Government being so adamant about issuing permits to explore in the Great Barrier Reef area, if there is Australian equity shareholding in any of those projects on the Reef I ask the Minis ter whether the Commonwealth will subsidise activities which the Prime Minister says should not take place. lt is known, of course, that one very large area up there is held by Australian Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd, an Australian company which, in order to do the exploration has had to farm out 95% of its exploration area to the Gulf Oil Syndicate. So even if Gulf Oil does any exploration work in this area there will be very little, if any, subsidy paid. But the main question I ask is whether, if the Prime Minister of this nation issues a statement that he will do all in his power to protect the Barrier Reef, Commonwealth money will be appropriated to subsidise drilling that may endanger the Reef. In the off-shore area of Western Australia in an exploration operation that has been subsidised by this Government there has been a blow-out of gas. On 19fh August, which is exactly one month ago, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development this question:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports (hat, following an explosion at the SEDCO off-shore drilling rig at Bonaparte Gulf, 140 miles west of Darwin, the leakage of gas is continuing and that at its point of surfacing in the sea the leak has been fired and the resultant fire is 100 feet in diameter and 20 feet high?
  2. Would the Minister indicate what steps the Government is taking to -

    1. minimise the gase wastage.
    2. have the leaseholders minimise the wastage,
    3. protect the local coastal area and its flora and fauna from spoliation,
    4. carry out any other emergency plans in this area.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull:

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

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

Senator Cant said that I was getting away from the subject of the appropriation of $130,000 for water research in the coming year. I remind him that queries raised by honourable senators opposite have been wide of that particular item. Honourable senators opposite have referred to what is to happen at the Burdekin Dam, to droughts and the Government’s major programme of water conservation in Queensland. In fact, honourable senators opposite have even roamed as far afield as to refer to beef roads. When honourable senators raise queries I assume that they expect to get answers to them. I answer them to the best of my ability. If honourable senators on both sides of the chamber will relate their questions closely to the appropriations in the estimates 1 will be quite happy to answer them.

Queries have been raised about the appropriations for the hire of aircraft for aerial surveys and the maintenance and running expenses of aircraft in Divisions 394 and 396 respectively. As a general rule, the Division of National Mapping has ils own aircraft for use in the projects in which it engages. A query was also raised about the appropriation of $50,000 in Division 394 for survey and mapping work carried out by the States. The Bureau of Mineral Resources owns its own aircraft for use in mapping programmes and geographical surveys. It has been found that the best practice is to hire aircraft for mapping purposes and to own aircraft for geographical surveys. The appropriation of $140,000 for the maintenance and running expenses of aircraft provides for modification, repair, maintenance, overhaul, registration, licensing and crewing of aircraft owned by the Bureau and for the purchase of fuel oil, lubricants, stores and spare parts required for their operation. The Bureau operates DC3 aircraft VH-MIN, and Aero Commander VH.-BMR. Crews are provided by Trans-Australia Airlines, which also services the machines and either carries out or supervises periodical overhauls and any repairs necessary.

The DC3 aircraft VH-MIN is to be replaced during 1969-70 by a Twin Otter aircraft. Crewing in 1968-69 cost about $39,000 and the appropriation for 1969-70 is $50,000; running costs in 1968-69 were $14,000 and the appropriation for 1969-70 is $23,000: and repairs, maintenance and modifications cost about $50,000 in 1968- 69, the appropriation for 1969-70 being $67,000. The increased appropriation in 1969-70 is required for an expectation of 14 months operational activities - 7 months for each aircraft - compared with the 1968- 69 programme of 12 months; an increase of about 10% in operating costs in the TAA contract; modification to the new aircraft; and a proposal to replace the DC3 aircraft. The modification is estimated to COSt $23,000.

A question was asked about off-shore and on-shore subsidies for oil search. An Australian company is defined as having a 51 % Australian shareholding in an oil company in order to qualify for the off-shore subsidy, and is paid according to the percentage of the Australian company’s interest. The onshore subsidy is paid to the full amount, irrespective of holding. The subsidy is paid at present at the rate of 30%. A question was asked about the increase of about $2.3m in the appropriation in 1969-70 for expenditure under the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act. This increase is in accordance with programmed expenditure and is necessary to meet commitments in 1969-70. Another matter referred to by an honourable senator opposite is the appropriation of $860,000 for the Bureau of Mineral Resources in Division 865 - Capital Works and Services. The increased provision includes an amount of $390,000 for the purchase of a new Twin Otter aircraft to replace the Bureau’s aging DC 3 aircraft.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I have a few more queries to raise. In doing so [ will refer to the information supplied by the Minister in respect of appropriations in Division 390 - Administrative. 1 was amazed by some of the replies the Minister gave, including the advice that the Queensland Government has made no request to the Commonwealth Government for assistance with the Burdekin Dam project. After all the drum beating we have heard in the last year or two we would have thought that plans had been submitted for the project to be reopened. But I understood the Minister to say that no formal request has been made for assistance with the Burdekin Dam. I am not satisfied with the Minister’s replies. He said that I and one of my colleagues had engaged in electioneering. When the Minister started to tell us how much water the Government has conserved since just about the time of Federation that seemed to me to be a blatant piece of electioneering. That is not the type of answer we want. We want to know what the Government is doing now and what it plans lo do in the future. The Minister completely ignored those questions. 1 wish to ask now a pertinent question about Division 392 - Northern Division, and in particular the appropriation in paragraph 2 for contract investigations. Last year the appropriation was $160,000 and the expenditure $152,882. This year the appropriation has been cut to $6,000. I am sure that I heard the Minister say earlier that his Government was very interested in northern development, but this year the appropriation to which I have referred has been pared by $154,000. This seems to be a shocking admission of the Government’s lack of interest in northern development. Is the Government of the opinion that the north has been fully developed and can now be ignored? Once this pruning is publicised any Government candidate will be flat out trying to get a vote north of the Tropic of Capricorn.

Last year the total appropriation for the Northern Division of the Department of National Development was $613,000, of which only $578,355 was spent. For the current financial year the appropriation for the Division has been reduced by $121,600 to $49.1,400. Am I to take it that the Government and the Minister have decided that there is no further need for northern development and that that is why the appropriations have been pared? It is of no use to say that projects have been completed, because most of them have not even been started. If the Government is not doing any planning for the north, obviously it does not intend to do anything there in the future.

I wish to raise a further query about the appropriation for (he oil search subsidy in paragraph 3 of Division 396 - Bureau of Mineral Resources. Expenditure last year was $12,496,757 and the appropriation for the current year is $14,300,000. However, on page 170 of the Auditor-General’s Report these comments appear in relation to the Bureau of Mineral Resources:

The increase of $908,396 was due principally to expenditure on oil search subsidies, which increased by $785,637.

I have some little difficulty in reconciling those two sets of figures but I am sure the Minister will have a speedy and clear explanation for it.

The point raised by Senator Cant regarding the protection of the Great Barrier Reef was very pertinent. I would assume that matter would be covered by Division 392 - Northern Division - or perhaps Division 396 - Bureau of Mineral Resources. I will leave it for the Minister to decide.

There is no reason in the world to believe that the Queensland Government will not continue oil drilling up and down the Great Barrier Reef. The Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) and his Department should be taking some positive steps to prevent it but they are doing nothing. They are sitting back and waiting for something to happen. It will happen, sure enough, and the first oil well that blows out will kill half of the Reef. No doubt then someone else will be blamed. Some strength of character and some strength of administration should be shown by the national Parliament and the national Government. They should put their foot down hard and say: ‘You cannot go ahead until we are absolutely sure that no damage will result’. 1 am not sure which section of the Estimates will cover the next matter that I wish to raise. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me. What money has been set aside for investigation or scientific survey of what is described as a national asset, in other words, the Great Barrier Reef?

As my parting shot I refer to the money that was spent on northern development last year and the money it is intended to spend this year. I emphasise that there has been a reduction. If the Government disposed of one Fill aircraft the money saved would enable it to continue northern development at the present rate for the next 20 years. That illustrates the amount which is being spent in this very important field. The cost of one Fill would also be adequate to meet administrative costs in regard to northern development. I have numerous other questions that I should ask but in view of the fact that the Minister is either evading the questions I have asked already or is providing unsatisfactory answers I believe that it is a waste of my time, the Parliament’s time and the people’s time to ask further questions on this section of the Estimates.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I direct my remarks to that section of Division 865 which relates to the provision of plant and equipment. It is interesting to note that Senator Keeffe, in his concluding remarks, suggested that he was firing his final shot. Indeed for the past hour the Committee has had to contend with what have been intended by the Opposition to be political shots.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– But there was bad marksmanship.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think it was very poor marksmanship, instead of giving credit where credit is due, the Opposition has attempted to score on any aspect of national development in which it sees an opportunity to do so. I wonder whether anyone in Australia, including members of the Opposition, would have imagined 3 years ago that Australia would have seen the degree of national development which has occurred. I believe that congratulations are due to the Government; I believe that congratulations certainly are due to the Minister for National Development, the honourable David Fairbairn; and 1 believe - this is something in which one would have expected the Opposition to have been interested - that congratulations are duc to members of the staff of this particularly important Department .for the wonderful national image that they have promoted and for the way in which they have helped in the development of Australia’s interest. 1 believe that there is no more important Department within the Commonwealth. 1 hold the view that there is no more important matter to which we could devote our attention than the national development of Australia, and in those remarks I include defence and social welfare. I say again that no member of this Parliament could have imagined 3 or 4 years ago that we would ever have achieved what has been achieved in the field of national development. Much more can be done, I do not doubt, but we never would have reached our present level were it not for the ground work that was done by this Government and by the members of the staff of the Department of National Development who have worked so hard.

The queries 1 wish to raise on this occasion are similar to those which 1 raised in relation to other departments. Perhaps the Minister can inform me on them. Do I understand that generally in the various areas of expenditure, whether it be in relation to salaries, capital expenditure or other services, there is an underlying increase of approximately 10% in the allocation of fluids? The Minister has listened closely to what 1 have said and perhaps he can enlighten me. I have in my mind that costs in the various private enterprise areas of the community generally have increased by approximately 10%. Is that 10% increase reflected in the proposed allocation of funds to which I have referred? The Minister may care to comment on that.

I direct attention to Division 390 - Administrative - in which an appropriation of $79,000 is made for equipment and operational expenses incurred in gas turbine research. That is not a great sum of money. 1 wonder whether the Minister can give us some indication of how the great volume of knowledge that is gained by this Department is distributed to the community abroad to the benefit of Australian citizens. What is the approach to this research? What has been achieved? What is being done now? For how long has this research been going on? How has the information obtained been distributed to the public? I have expanded on this point because I feel that the information which has been obtained from the research work that has been done by the Commonwealth Government in so many spheres has not been distributed abroad sufficiently for the benefit of Australian citizens. We do a lot of research and I am inclined to think that in some instances the results are pigeonholed. I hope that Treasury and the departments concerned will look closely into this matter.

Senator Scott:

– What is your query?

Senator WEBSTER:

– In this instance it relates to gas turbine research. Funds have been appropriated for this purpose for some time now. The Minister may not have great knowledge of the results which have been obtained but if he can inform me about the distribution to the public of the results of research, well and good.

T link those remarks with the appropriation of $260,000 for coal utilisation research. I query whether that item should not come under Division 400 which relates lo the Joint Coal Board. In the $500,000 which is allocated to the Joint Coal Board for expenditure under the Coal Industry Act is there any element of research? In debating the estimates we are concerned with the allocation of finance. 1 have a query. I ask whether several departments are carrying out similar types of research. Is money allocated under various heads in the estimates of various departments foi research which is seeking to achieve the same objective?

I direct the attention of the Minister to comments I made during the Budget debate on what we should be doing generally in the Commonwealth in relation to the planning, programming and budgeting for the allocation of our finances. I believe that we would find that a number of departments in all probability under a variety of headings in their estimates are moving towards the same objective through research work and that the research undertaken by one department is entirely unrelated to the research undertaken by another. Indeed, we may find that State governments are spending money in certain directions without any earthly idea of what the Commonwealth is doing in those directions.

Senator Bishop:

– Does the honourable senator think the money is being wasted?

Senator WEBSTER:

– In some instances, I think they may be wasting money. During my Budget discourse I instanced my belief that in the very near future we must do what some other countries are doing. Those countries are attempting to evaluate what is the objective of research. I call to mind in respect of the Australian scene the expenditure on meterological services which I think is one of the best examples of what I mean. If Senator Bishop casts his eye through the estimates, he will see appropriations in relation to weather research in the estimates of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Shipping and Transport and the Department of Civil Aviation. Each of those departments is aiming at a particular thing. I do not know whether any of them has an objective in mind and has decided how much money overall will be allocated to attain that objective in so many years time.

Senator Gair:

– Surely they must have an objective? They must aim at some purpose or goal?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I believe that more can be done in this respect. I direct the attention of the Minister under this heading to table 17 dealing with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. I am pleased to see that the appropriation for the Authority anticipates an increase in expenditure. I mention the statement that the

Minister has made regarding the proposed Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. The third item of that statement mentioned that this Corporation would be expending money on research on underground works for the conveyance of water or for other purposes. This is a matter of great interest to me and to State governments, particularly that of my own State of Victoria. Would the Minister be able to convey to the Committee what is anticipated? What will be the ambit of the investigations of the Authority? It has been suggested that research on pipelines underground could come within the scope of the work to be undertaken by the Corporation. I would be pleased if the Minister would comment on these points.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Madam Temporary Chairman, you will recall that when my time expired earlier I was referring to a question that I had asked on 19th August of this year relative to a gas blowout in Petrel I in an off-shore area of Western Australia. To that question I have not received a reply. On 27th August, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) this question:

Has the Minister seen a Press report which stated that the SEDCO drilling rig which was damaged by a gas blowout while drilling Petrel 1 will be sent to Singapore for repairs? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the gas flow has been controlled? If not, will the services of a rig be required to control the gas flow? If a drilling rig is required to control the gas flow, have arrangements been made for the use of a rig for this purpose in view of the report that the damaged rig will be in Singapore for 4 months?

This is an exploration well in the off-shore area of Western Australia. It has been subsidised by the Commonwealth Government. The new policy on subsidies for exploration in off-shore areas came into operation only on the 17th of this month. Any operations that occurred off-shore prior to that date were subsidised under the old legislation which had no regard for Australian equity in them. I am unable to find out from the Minister whether gas is still being released from this well. Is Australia so rich in natural gas that it can afford to allow a gas blow to continue without making some attempt to control it?

We know that this Parliament is a party to joint legislation - what has been termed mirror legislation - under which the Minister for National Development must accept, some responsibility. Yet, when we ask questions of the Minister we are unable to get answers. Only a few weeks ago I made a complaint about the delay in answering some questions that Senator Webster had asked during the autumn session. After the complaint had been made, answers to those questions were provided the next day. Obviously, if the Minister will instruct his Department to prepare the answers, they can be provided.

I am very concerned to think that a well in an off-shore area of Western Australia is blowing gas. That well should be controlled or some attempt should be made to control it rather than just setting it alight so that it may not cause any further damage and, of course, providing a warning to ships that they may be entering an area where there is a gas emission. I would like the Minister to say, if he is able to say - 1 rather suspect that he is not able to say unless his advisers who sit alongside him can now give him the answer - whether this well is still blowing gas. 1 have tried to keep this matter nonpolitical. I have tried to be critical of what has gone on in the Department without being politically critical. 1 do not believe that an honourable senator on this side of the Committee should be critical merely because he is opposed politically to the Government. But this debate is the only opportunity that the Parliament has to examine the expenditures of the Government over the whole year. The details of the payments are put before us. This is the time when we make our inquiries. If we do not make them now, we will not be able to inquire for another year.

Senator Webster said that shots had been fired in the debate. Well, political shots will always be fired when debate takes place in a political atmosphere. I have tried to avoid it. I do say that the Minister for National Development, with respect to the mirror legislation on ofF-shore oil exploration, is not accepting the responsibility that is imposed upon him by the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. He should answer the questions which are asked by honourable senators in this place about that work. If I can obtain an answer to the question, I will leave that area of the estimates.

I turn now to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Some few months agc we heard of a proposition that the American Plowshare Project would consider thi use of an atomic or a nuclear device for the development of a harbour at Cape Keraudren. This project was not proceeded with, following opposition in the United States of America, because Australia had not signed the Treaty on the Non-Prolifera-tion of Nuclear Weapons. However, M, Lang Hancock has now announced that he proposes to seek permission to use a nuclear device to mine iron ore at Wittenoom Gorge. Is the Australian Atomic Energy Commission doing any research info the feasibility of the use of nuclear energy for mining purposes, whether it is an economic proposition and whether it is safe? I know that Dr Ride, Director of the Western Australian Museum, was critical of the Cape Keraudren proposal. He said there had been no research work done to find what would happen to marine life in the event of the use of a nuclear device in the area.

If a nuclear device is to be used to mine iron ore at Wittenoon Gorge, has there been any research as to what radiation might flow from it? Will the broken ore be contaminated? Workers will have to handle it and otherwise come in close proximity to it. lt will have to be taken to steel mills and handled again. Will any research be made into the use of such devices before Hancock is given permission? What activity is the Commonwealth Government carrying out to ensure that the Australian people and Australian workmen in particular are protected from the effects of the use of these devices? ls this part of the charter of the Atomic Energy Commission? What work does the Commission carry out on behalf of the Government? 1. would be one in this place who would strongly object to the use of any nuclear device unless someone could guarantee the safety of the workers concerned from the after effects of the use of such devices.

If the Atomic Energy Commission is not carrying out any research work in this direction the Government should see that it does such work. The Government should not rely on the fact that the Americans may say that this is safe, that is safe and something else is safe. Remember that this area is 7,000 miles from the coast of America. “The Americans are not concerned about whether or not the broken ore is contaminated by radiation. Their people will not be affected. This would be a good experiment to enable them to find out whether or not there is any contamination because it would be 7,000 miles away from their shores. The Australian Government should be carrying out its own tests to determine whether the use of these devices does produce any hazards or whether it is safe.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I refer to Divisions 390 and 865. 1 endorse the concern that Senator Cant has expressed about the possibility of an atomic explosion in Australia and the use of nuclear energy for industrial purposes, particularly for mining purposes. This is the second occasion in fairly recent months on which there has been some controversy about applications for the Government to consider whether nuclear explosions might be used for civil engineering purposes. There have been some comments by the Minister which have not cleared up the position. 1 would like to know precisely, as Senator Cant might like to know, how much of the appropriations we are making is set aside for the examination of such projects as the generation of power by nuclear energy. Specifically, how much is set aside for examining and testing the use of nuclear energy for civil engineering purposes and in particular on the two projects that Senator Cant has mentioned? Are we guided by the United Nations and its agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, or are we, as Senator Cant suggests, guided by experiments which have been undertaken by the Defence Department of the United States?

These are highly important questions and everybody - not only ourselves as members of Parliament and as Australians - is greatly concerned about them. Only 2 or 3 days ago the matter was referred to in a leader in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ in these terms:

In an assessment of the progress achieved in the peaceful use of nuclear explosions published in a recent issue of the bulletin of the International Atomic Energy Agency it was stated: it is believed that it will take at least five years to develop and exchange all the information which will be necessary to undertake even the most straightforward projects.’

The report continues with a caution. It seems to me that the Government should not say in an off handed way that it will look into these projects, lt ought to have at hand an appropriation sufficient to examine the points that I have mentioned. lt ought to be able to say that on the advice of its technical experts a project is possible without danger to the population, or that it cannot be done at this stage and should not be encouraged. In this way the Australian people might be guided in these matters.

The other point that I wish to raise relates to the proposed provision for the Bureau of Mineral Resources under Division 396. There is in today’s Press a report about farmers in the Mitta Valley in northeast Victoria being hostile about an American mining company which is exploring for gold in the area. They claim that the valley was exempted from mining in 1905. The report refers in these terms to a statement by a spokesman for the State Mines Department:

The spokesman said an Executive Council gazettal in 1905 exempted from occupation under miners’ rights or from leasing under the regulation relating to mining leases ‘the Mitta River and the flats on either side of same extending from Wombat Creek downstream to Tallangatta’.

The Minister might say that this is a local matter. What comes to my mind in relation to this issue is the position of the Commonwealth Government’s departmental work in connection with the proposed Dartmouth and Chowilla projects, if the State Government can in fact grant rights to exploit whatever find is made. The report also stales:

Mr K. Giltrap, of Mitta Mitta, said today, What really annoyed us was when the head of the company . . . told us they hoped to get the laws changed if they found gold’.

The company had summoned farmers to try to get court permission to explore on the farms.

Hut after two adjournments it was discovered we were in the wrong court’, Mr Giltrap said.

Now if they want to take us to court they will have to summon us again’.

The Minister may not be able to provide an answer at this stage. I should be pleased to know to what extent this involves whatever proposals the Commonwealth may have in relation to national works.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– Honourable senators have raised some matters in relation to the Great Barrier

Reef. The Queensland and Commonwealth Governments have announced that they will not issue any new titles for exploration for petroleum over the Great Barrier Reef until they are satisfied that safety regulations have been worked out to prevent the slightest possibility of damage to the Reef. Both the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments are fully aware of the need to protect the Reef. Immediately after the blow-out at Santa Barbara in the United States the Commonwealth Government sent a senior officer to the United States of America to discuss the problem at first hand. In particular, the Queensland Government sent a senior officer overseas to inquire into modern off-shore drilling practices and the latest knowledge on the prevention of the escape of petroleum from wells drilled offshore. Recommendations by the officers are being studied. We are anxious to ensure that the Reef is not endangered in any way.

Senator Webster:

– Can these reports be made available to the Senate?

Senator SCOTT:

– I hope so. I would have to see the Minister for National Development, but if it is possible to make them available I shall do so. At the moment no money is being set aside by the Government to conduct investigations on its own behalf into problems of the Great Barrier Reef, although investigations might be carried out by individual departments.

I was asked about a leak of gas off-shore adjacent to Bonaparte Gulf. The leak, although serious, is not considered to be of great magnitude in economic terms. The greatest economic loss is expected to be related more to the repair of damaged equipment and to regaining control of the well. It is hoped that control can be recovered without drilling a new well, but this cannot be determined until a new rig Ls moved to the site and a thorough attempt is made to reconnect to the top of the hole and to stem the flow. The leak is entirely of gas which is removed by burning. Consequently, there is no fear of damage to marine life. The blow-out is in the sea adjacent to the Northern Territory and, as such, comes within the administration of the Minister for the Interior. The blow-out has not been controlled, but the company has taken every effort to control it. Among other things, the company is arranging for the hire of an off-shore rig to drill a relief well in an attempt to control the escape of gas. The honourable senator suggested that I was making accusations about him being political because we are approaching an election, but I should like to inform him that I did not notice at any time that he was being political. I thought he was seeking advice and I am endeavouring to answer him to the best of my ability.

I was asked a question about the Cape Keraudren project. This has been abandoned because the company concerned decided to limit its participation in the feasibility study. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission, in association with the United States Atomic Energy Commission, is continuing a study of other possible harbour sites. The safety aspects of projects when using peaceful nuclear explosions will be of paramount importance in studies of those possible projects. The Atomic Energy Commission collaborates closely with the Commonwealth Department of Health as well as the United States Atomic Energy Commission on all aspects of radiation and safety of possible Plowshare projects. In reply to another question in relation to the same subject I inform the Committee that there is no provision in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s estimates for research on Plowshare applications, other than for fares and the salary of officers who visit overseas establishments working in this field.

I was asked about the activities of exploration companies in the Mitta Mitta River area of Victoria. This is a State matter. I am not aware of how the laws referred to will affect national works being carried out in this area, but I shall look into the question and will inform the honourable senator of the result of my research. I was asked also about an increase of approximately 10% overall in the estimated expenditure of the Department in 1969-70 in comparison with the expenditure for 1968-69. I agree that there is an increase of approximately 10%. The estimate for 1969-70 is $78,240,000 and the expenditure in 1968-69 was $71,484,867. The increase is due to an expansion of activities arising from the availability of additional staff and of extra facilities and equipment - for example, aircraft - and also an increase in respect of salary payments. 1 refer next to gas turbine research. This item provides funds for a research project aimed al the use of coal as fuel for a gas turbine pipe engine. The project is administered by an interdepartmental steering committee of representatives of the Department of National Development, the Department of Supply, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Joint Coal Board and private industry. The work is being carried out at the Aeronautical Research Laboratories. The project was initiated because the coal-fired open cycle gas turbine showed promise as a means of increasing the usage of cheaply mined Australian coal. Since the inception of the project there have been radical changes in the Australian fuel situation. The coal industry has found new markets overseas, and indigenous oil and natural gas have been discovered. 1 refer next to coal utilisation research. A ministerial statement was made on this subject on 26th May. 1 propose to read part of that to answer the honourable senator’s question. The provision for coal utilisation research is $260,000. This item previously provided funds for a matching contribution by the Commonwealth, with a ceiling of $300,000, of additional funds for coal utilisation research. Contributions were made also by the States and the industry. All expenditure under the proposal was lo be additional to expenditure incurred on coal utilisation research during the base year 1962-63. Participation by the Commonwealth in this form of agreement ended on 30th June 1969. As from that date the Commonwealth released the State governments and industry from further obligation under that agreement. A new scheme of assistance for coal research came into being on 1st July 1969. Under this scheme the Commonwealth will make available a sum of up to $260,000 per annum for a period of up to 3 years for research into coal winning, beneficiation and utilisation to be disbursed on the recommendation of the National Coal Research Advisory Committee. There is a reservation on the payment of Commonwealth funds in the event of total expenditure on coal research falling below the level of 1968-69. In such circumstances the Commonwealth contribution would in the subsequent year be subject to reduction by an amount to be determined.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I refer to Division 390 under which I want to speak about the proposed Dartmouth Dam which will bring great benefits in additional usable water for South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. There has been much criticism by the Opposition of the proposed dam and it has caused much concern to many people to think that criticism of this nature is being passed when there is so much to bc gained from the extra water which will be available, not for one State only but for three States - within the River Murray system. Yesterday mention was made by Senator Bishop of the concept of building both clams during the period of construction of the Dartmouth Dam. This, of course, has also been suggested in my own Stale of South Australia. At the same time, the Lender of the Opposition in that State has seen fit to be very critical because the Chowilla scheme has been superseded by the Dartmouth concept. When we peruse the history of the matter we find that in 1966 the States concerned decided that more water was needed for all of them. Then, at the request of the South Australian Government, the concept of Chowilla was born. Tenders were called in October 1966. They closed in April 1967. In the meantime there had been a great escalation in price. In fact, it increased from $28m to some $68m. In August 1967 the then Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, agreed that a technical committee should make further studies of the whole River Murray system with relation lo water storage.

Senator Bishop:

– He did not.

Senator YOUNG:

– On 10th October 1967, after this technical committee had made its report to the River Murray Commission, the River Murray Commission itself agreed to make further studies based on certain assumptions which included such things as the use of selected capacities of the Upper Murray or Mitta storages, including Dartmouth. So it cannot be denied that it was agreed by the then Premier of South Australia, that further studies be made. On 15th November 1967 he went even further than this. He hawked around a letter of intent to the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria. In that letter of intent, he used these words:

The present studies being carried out by the River Murray Commission are for the purpose of exploring the maximum use that can be made of the waters of the River Murray. It had been indicated earlier that by the construction of Chowilla Dam South Australia would gain considerable relief from periodic restriction of supply and the upstream States would benefit also.

The decision to defer-

I emphasise the word ‘defer’ - the construction of Chowilla Dam arose from factors not previously established.

In other words, they found that there were quite a few other things that had not been taken into consideration before. The letter continues:

Current investigations are aimed to sustain the advantages mentioned.

The advantages mentioned are the entitlement of South Australia to H million acre feet of water. If we look back to see how long South Australia had been working on its entitlement, we find that we need to go back to 1905, and an examination of the position reveals that under the Chowilla concept South Australia would have no more entitlement than it had in 1905. I ask honourable senators to reflect on the expansion that has taken place in South Australia over those years. We have seen our population increase fantastically. We have seen Adelaide change by having to transfer from reliance on its own water catchments to reliance on the River Murray system for water for domestic and industrial use. We have seen irrigation restricted because of our limited water supply. So investigations were made, and finally the River Murray Commission recommended that a dam should be built at Dartmouth. The South Australian Premier said that this recommendation was accepted on the guarantee that South Australia would get an extra 1£ million acre feet of water per annum.

In real terms, this meant that South Australia would get an increase of 35% in the amount of available usable water. This is very good. In my view this is a great increase of asset - one might say of very liquid asset. Therefore, this criticism that is being .levelled at the present proposal is most disappointing. I go further and say that it is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia sees fit to play politics on an issue that is so vital to the very existence of South Australia. Nobody has condemned the Chowilla concept. I would be the last to condemn it. But I appreciate that there are far greater gains to be had from the alternative dam at Dartmouth.

It has been suggested - Senator Bishop supported this suggestion last night - that we should have both dams. I ask honourable senators to reflect upon this for a moment. As a South Australian I wish to say that if we pressed for both dams at this stage we would be closing our options. If necessary, I refer to Division 402, which relates to the Atomic Energy Commission, to cover my remarks. With the introduction of atomic power, with the achievements of science, and with advances that may be made in the field of desalination, who can say that, in a few years time, atomic power will not be cheap enough, and that the desalination of water will not be economical enough, to ensure that South Australia will have all the water it requires, available right alongside it in the Gulf? This is a possibility that should not be overlooked. It could be a reality; one does not know. I for one feel that I would be unwise if I were to close my options at this stage when we might have this great potential sitting right alongside our back and front doors. I suggest to honourable senators opposite that before they talk about constructing both dams at once they should look very closely at this matter.

Water conservation is a very essential part of all this. Economics also is a very essential part. Science is playing a great part today and at this stage we stand to gain far more benefit by keeping our options open until we require more water to ensure that we get the greatest possible supply of the best and cheapest water available at the particular time.

There is another aspect of atomic power to which [ should like to refer. Perhaps we would not have enough demand to require an atomic reactor in South Australia for domestic and industrial purposes alone, but, if this is coupled with the process of desalination it is possible that South Australia could have a very good claim for an atomic power station in that State. That is another reason why I say I think it is unwise at this stage to start pressuring or playing politics with a view to undertaking the construction of both the Chowilla Dam and the Dartmouth Dam at the one time. I commend the Commonwealth Government and the South Australian Government for supporting the Dartmouth concept.

Last night. Senator Bishop said that it is the responsibility of the Government - 1 presume he meant the Commonwealth Government - and not the River Murray Commission to make the decision. The Commonwealth Government is but one partner in a quartet. The River Murray Commission is made up of representatives of the States of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales and of the Commonwealth Minister for National Development. All have an equal say and equal rights. Any decision that is made must be a unanimous decision. It is not within the right of any individual representative to make decisions for the River Murray Commission. I repeat that all decisions must be unanimous. So here again we have a statement that is completely out of context with the whole concept of the River Murray Commission. I commend the Dartmouth Dam because of the great advantages it is going to bring to the people of South Australia and the people of New South Wales and Victoria.

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– 1 congratulate Senator Young upon being one honourable senator from South Australia who seems to be adamant that the Dartmouth scheme is the one most satisfactory for the people of South Australia. The honourable senator mentioned that 35% extra water would be available to the people of South Australia by the construction of Dartmouth instead of Chowilla. This has been stated not only by the honourable senator but also by important people in the legislature in South Australia. What does this 35% extra water mean to the people of South Australia? What does the 35% extra water provided by Dartmouth, than would be provided by Chowilla, mean to the individual? As far as I can ascertain, if the water were shared equally between all the people, every day of every year each person in South Australia would receive an amount in excess of 150 gallons. These figures are important.

Yesterday, in answer to a question about the controversy raging about Dartmouth and Chowilla, 1 said that in drought periods the salinity of the water from the Chowilla scheme would be in excess of the salinity in the water from the Dartmouth scheme. I mentioned that for a 12 months period of drought that excess salinity would be about 40 or 50 parts per million mote for given periods. I also mentioned that water from the Chowilla scheme would be more saline by about 20 parts per million over a long period. Samples have been taken for about 55 years. In those years the percentage of salinity in the water has been at a very low rate. The average looks to be well under 200 parts per million - somewhere between 100 and 150 parts per million in the good years. In periods of drought, when people want fresh water and continuity of supply, water from the Dartmouth scheme would have about 50 parts per million less than water from the Chowilla scheme.

A question was asked about the appropriation for contract investigations and the reason for the decrease from $160,000 last year to $6,000 this year. This is due to the fact that in 1968-69, $160,000 was appropriated for a feasibility study of the Darwin Harbour area. That study has been completed. The only firm proposal for 1969-70 is estimated to cost $6,000. Very seldom does the Department of National Development employ outside people to carry out a survey. The survey at Darwin was done by outside people because the Department had more work than it could handle. The survey was carried out for $160,000. The expenditure is not a recurring one.

Another honourable senator asked whether the Department of the Treasury could be relied upon to ensure that there is a minimum of overlap in activities on projects and research carried out by various departments. No doubt this is gone into by Government departments to ensure that there is as little overlapping as possible. The Government has been accused of a lack of interest in developing the north and the Northern Territory, but, as I have just mentioned, the expenditure by the Department of National Development must be considered in association with the expenditure of other departments. Development includes such things as road construction, the provision of beef roads and the development of other major projects. Let me give one instance of the way in which money is being spent in the Northern Territory. This year the Department of Works is spending $46.447m as against $37.58m last year. This represents an increase of well over 20% and gives some idea of the huge sum that is being made available by the Government, through this Department, for development of the Northern Territory. This year the Department of Works has been allocated $9m for the construction of a dam to augment the Darwin water supply and $1.8m for the construction of the northern zone sewerage scheme in Darwin. Other provisions include $2.98m for engineering services in the Moil and Wagaman sub-divisions of Darwin and $3m for the Mataranka-Roper Bar beef road construction. These are developmental works that the Government is undertaking through one of its own departments.

A great amount has been spent on the construction of beef roads and associated bridges in the Northern Territory. This scheme commenced in 1961 and reached its highest peak in 1968-69 with an expenditure of $4.3m. The total expenditure since 1961 on more than 1,100 miles of completed roads amounts to $18.7m. Great developments are taking place in the Northern Territory and it is unreasonable for people to criticise the Government on the amount it is spending on northern development. The provision for the Northern Territory service is to be increased by almost $3m this year, from $22,681,000 last year to $25,085,000. The figures I have quoted show the Committee what the Government is doing about national development not only in the southern States but in the northern areas of Australia. This is what the Northern Division of the Department is looking at. Each year more finance is being provided for projects in the Northern Territory and in the north of Australia. The Commonwealth is finding about $50m for the Ord River scheme. We were asked how much we were going to spend this year. This allocation will be spent by the State Government over a period of years. Nevertheless, the State Government knows that the money will be found. The $20m that has been allocated to the Queensland Government as a grant for the construction of the Nogoa Dam also will be spent over a number of years. This, of course, is the part that the Commonwealth Government plays in northern development, which is terribly important to the people of Australia as a whole.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! In conformity with the order of the Senate relating to the adjournment of sittings on Friday, I shall now leave the chair and report to the Senate. (The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly) -

page 1162

ADJOURNMENT

Water Conservation

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator

Drake-Brockinan) - Order! In conformity with the order of the Senate relating to the adjournment of sittings on Friday, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I take a few minutes of the lime of the Senate with some apology; but, after all,I am not one who speaks very often in adjournment debates. I do so on this occasion because I want to complain that Senator Young raised the question of the Chowilla Dam at a time when his speech was calculated to take up broadcast time, although he had the opportunity earlier in the session to talk about the issues that I raised last night. I wish to make a number of important Opposition points for the benefit of Senator Young, because it seems to me that he has used a very mean device to reply to me.

Senator Wright:

– What a terrible accusation.

Senator BISHOP:

– I am stating my opinion. I make that observation. If it is wrong, Senator Young can stand up and stale the opposite. The fact is that he did not deal with the issues that I raised, and neither did the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott), who represents the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn), last night.

Obviously this is such an important matter to South Australia that people think it is necessary, as Senator Young said, to use political pressure. What he was doing today was using political pressure to support what the Government has done. Senator Scott, Senator Young and all the other South Australian Liberal members of Parliament support what they call the report of the technical committee. That report has already been brought into question by my own comments in this chamber and by the contributions made by Mr Hudson and other people in South Australia. There are some unusual things about the report, which we have stated and upon which the assumptions that the Minister keeps using are based. He makes assumptions about the amount of water that South Australia could receive although there is no guarantee as to that until final arrangements are made between the States concerned. These assumptions are based upon a number of things which the technical committee did and which important people in South Australia criticised as being a wrong basis.

Although the technical committee said: In relation to salinity, Chowilla is better’, we still dispute the basis of the report because it was the result of a computer study. The fact is that the computer study was based on a size of dam different from that of the Chowilla project. The Chowilla project was for a 5 million acre-feet dam. The study was based on a 3 million acrefeet dam. In addition, the methods of obtaining evaporation and yield figures for the area in which the Dartmouth Dam is proposed to be built are under question. Many of the figures that were used were old. The people concerned did computer tests and arrived at a solution which they found was satisfactory but which we say was in fact a political decision. 1 make the charge - the evidence for it is on record in the South Australian Parliament; - that the Minister for National Development was prejudiced against the Chowilla project from the start. During these investigations he criticised and damned the Chowilla project. That is true. Honourable senators opposite cannot deny it. Repeatedly he made statements that the Chowilla project was finished. As a matter of fact, the Liberal Premier of South Australia complained to him. The South Australian Chowilla Dam Promotion Committee which is described, in the ‘Advertiser’ vocabulary, as an influential group of citi zens criticised the Minister for National Development for making these observations while investigations were going on. In addition, of course, there were the doubts in the minds of everyone in South Australia.

Senator Webster:

– Go on.

Senator BISHOP:

– Listen senator, I will nol be long. 1. have only taken 5 minutes so far. The facts are that in addition-

Senator Anderson:

– We have let some of your people go, you know.

Senator BISHOP:

– 1 know that. But if there is any trouble here the trouble is with a Government senator and not with me. I rarely get up to speak on the motion for the adjournment, as you know. The more honourable senators interrupt me the more they will delay themselves.

Let me make a couple of final points. These arc the facts that have annoyed the South Australian people and which, as I pointed out, were critical political matters. This is exactly what the Minister said to the River Murray Commission. If honourable senators dispute this I can produce the minutes. In addition, the Victorian member was reported in the minutes of the Commission as urging Mr Beaney to accept the proposition because it suited the other States. A statement which was made by the technical committee, and which is very significant, reads:

  1. A storage of S.06 million acre feet at Chowilla will not provide additional supplies to secure the existing requirements of NSW and Victoria of about 2.7 million acre feet per annum.

That was the reason why the Chowilla project was shelved. I say that any South Australian member of the Parliament who does not come into this Parliament to advocate bona fide State aims is lacking in his duty. The water from Dartmouth, if we ever get the dam built, will take 6 weeks to reach South Australia. It will take twice as long for Chowilla to be built and cost was the only reason why the Government stalled the project. But cost should not have been the deciding factor. The Government is spending large sums of money on projects which cannot be justified.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I want to follow on from what Senator Bishop had to say. I shall make two points. I shall be very very brief. I shall not enter into a debate about the concept of either the Dartmouth Dam or the Chowilla Dam. As I understand his remarks, Senator Bishop said firstly that I did not deal with the area about which he spoke last night. If I did not, I can assure the honourable senator that it was my intention to do so. Senator Bishop dealt with the concept of the two dams. I did so, too. But I also dealt with the concept of Chowilla. That is my first point.

The other point relates to scheming with broadcast time. I came back into the chamber as Senator Webster got to his feet. There was about an hour left for honour able senators to speak. Senator Bishop rose to his feet at about the same time as I. As the call is given to each side alternately, I realised that I would not get the call as against Senator Bishop. Senator Bishop spoke and I rose to my feet but the Minister was called before me. My next opportunity was after the Minister had completed his remarks. I finished what I had to say about 18 minutes past 4. There was still an hour in which to speak when I first wanted to start.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.39 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 September 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690919_senate_26_s42/>.