Senate
7 May 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1553

QUESTION

MAINLAND CHINA

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question. Has he, as a member of Cabinet, read, or does he know of, the proposed statement to be made by the Minister for Trade and Industry, who is the Deputy Prime Minister, on exports now to be permitted to be sent to mainland China or, as my friends in the corner delight in telling us, Communist China? The statement appears in this morning’s Melbourne ‘Age’. Is it a fact, as stated, that such statement, either leaked, which is the common method used to test public opinion or handed out to the Press, will free such exports as iron, steel, chemicals, etc.? Does he agree with me that such exports are the main component parts for arms and munitions which China has been and will now no doubt continue to send to the North Vietnamese forces to wound or kill Australians who are forced to fight in Vietnam? How do the Government and its supporters in the corner reconcile their conscience to their oft repeated statements that Australia should not be a party to exporting to China materials to be used in the manufacture of arms and ammunitions which are used, I repeat, to kill Australians in the undeclared war in Vietnam? Does the Minister still expect the Government to get the blind support of the Australian Democratic Labor Party irrespective of the decision to supply such exports to China? If so, will he tell me what hold the Government has on those who strongly oppose, by their voices, such exports to China, but yet blindly, by their votes, support the action of the Government in sending to China iron, steel and chemicals for the manufacture of arms and munitions with which to kill or maim Australian soldiers?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONFirstly, the honourable senator invites me to comment on things which have happened in Cabinet. As a parliamentarian probably of longer standing than many of us, he will recognise that it is completely impossible for me to respond to that question. Secondly, he asked me to reflect upon a statement made by Mr Anthony. I have not as yet come to grips with any Press statement made by Mr Anthony. Then he referred to the statement which, as I have said, I have not yet read in detail, and drew certain conclusions from it. It would be very difficult for me to comment on those matters until 1 go away and thoroughly read the statement.

Turning to the subject matter of the question, there is a list of strategic materials which nations do not supply to mainland China. Having said that, 1 will have to let the matter rest until such time as I have had a thorough examination of the statement made by Mr Anthony.

page 1553

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to a reported statement on behalf of the wheat section of the Farmers Union in Western Australia that New South Wales has used money made available to cover special allocations of prime hard wheat for the general run of deliveries with the result that New South Wales growers have been paid for an additional 14 million bushels. If this report is correct, would not this action be contrary to the spirit and intention of controlled wheat production in Australia?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I have seen the report to which the honourable senator refers. If I recall correctly, Senator Sim asked me a similar question some weeks ago. The general answer I gave him at that time was no. But this account of the transactions in New South Wales has been so continuous that I have made inquiries into it. The information sought has not come to hand, but I say to the honourable senator that if this alleged practice continues it could be of drastic consequence to the whole quota system for wheat production in Australia.

page 1553

QUESTION

HOSPITAL COSTS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Health: Has he seen a report attributing a statement to the New South Wales Minister for Health that New South Wales public hospital fees will rise by up to 50 per cent next financial year unless the Commonwealth dramatically increases its aid? Will the Minister agree that State governments and patients are shouldering the increasing mounting costs in public hospitals because the Commonwealth has not varied its basis of contribution for many years? Will the Minister agree that hospital costs so far as ordinary citizens are concerned are getting completely out of hand? Will he discuss the serious hospital financial situation in New South Wales with the Minister for Health in that State? Will the Government take action in the next Budget session to ameliorate conditions complained of not only by the New South Wales Government but also by other State governments?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · LP

– I have not seen the report which the honourable senator mentions as to a statement made by the New South Wales Minister for Health. However, I have the expectation because of the considerations which he has mentioned, namely, mounting costs of running hospitals, that there will be an increase in hospital fees in New South Wales as there has been in every other State of the Commonwealth where a charge is made. I was interested in what the honourable senator said in the recognition that it is mounting costs which require these hospital fees to rise. I think there is an understanding of the reasons for these fee increases when there is an appreciation of the fact that the costs have gone up enormously.

I do not think it is accurate to say that the Commonwealth has not varied the basis of its contribution to hospitals over preceding years. It is true that the contribution the Commonwealth makes to benefits paid to those who insure themselves has remained stationary over a number of years, but over the years the amount of contributions for the pensioners who occupy beds in public hospitals has increased and in recent years there has been a phenomenal increase in the Commonwealth’s contribution through the special account system. I think approximately 2 years ago it was $4m; currently it is running at $16m to $17m and is increasing. All the matters which the honourable senator has raised are under review, as I have informed the Senate previously.

page 1554

QUESTION

CANBERRA AIRPORT

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In view of an article appearing in the

Canberra ‘Courier’ newspaper concerning the Canberra Airport terminal building and the somewhat primitive facilities for the collection of passengers’ luggage, particularly in winter months, can the Minister state whether any plans are ready for improvements to these facilities in view of the fact that the terminal building has been greatly modified and improved in recent years?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I think it was in December - I cannot give the date for certain - that an announcement was made about the general plans for expanding the Canberra Airport, particularly the runway and the taxi-ways to the south-east. Equally, plans are in hand to examine the terminal expansion that is expected to be heeded because of the general expansion in the usage of Canberra Airport. I am quite sure that the terminal plans take into account the luggage collection problem mentioned by the honourable senator because those of us who use this airport will be well aware that this area, particularly on the western exposure, is a very cold place in which to wait for one’s luggage.

page 1554

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Air about complaints made in the Adelaide Press by 5 wives of Air Force personnel stationed at Edinburgh about the extremely long hours which members of the fire section have to serve. This section is made up of 15 LACs for whom no proper arrangements are made to spend a reasonable amount of time at home. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the fire section at the RAAF Edinburgh station works about 380 hours a month or is on call for part of that time? Is it also true that correct overtime payments or day off adjustments are not properly made? Is it also true that these LACs are required to use their own vehicles to travel to and from the station, on many occasions during the night when they are on call? Will the Minister investigate the complaints to see that proper standards are applied if the information is correct?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– I have seen the reports to which the honourable senator has referred. I have not had a chance to examine in detail the individual complaints. There is a shortage of firemen in the Royal Australian Air Force. Because of this it is necessary at times to have these men on stand by duty. This has been particularly so at Edinburgh because of the recent flying display there and the Royal visit. Those were 2 big occasions which involved Edinburgh Air Force base in recent weeks. If a serviceman works more than 8 hours overtime or on a public holiday he is generally given a day off in lieu. This, of course, is at the discretion of the command officer. There may be some demand for these men to work overtime but still not get a day off because of the heavy work load at that time. It is not the practice to pay overtime in the Air Force. Instead, the holiday in lieu system is used. I will have a look at the situation and will give the honourable senator what information I can after I have examined it in detail.

page 1555

QUESTION

WHEAT SALES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is there any truth in the story that Dr Patterson, the Labor shadow Minister for Primary Industry, may not go to China because the Australian Labor Party is now very concerned over the great opposition by the Australian Wheat Industry and the Australian Wheat Board to bringing politics into wheat sales?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I would not know whether the honourable member mentioned by the honourable senator would be going to China, and if he were going to China I would not know in what capacity he would go unless it was as a private citizen. I think the honourable senator knows that the Australian Wheat Board has the sole responsibility for selling the Australian crop. In this respect the Board has made a particularly good effort over recent years. This is borne out by the fact that in the last 3 months the Board has sold more than 3 million tons of wheat, which is a record for any quarter.

Senator Milliner:

– Not to China.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– As I said, this was a record for any quarter. I can well understand the Board’s feeling with this experience and this effort behind it when mischievous people for then- own political gain try to disrupt or make it difficult for the Wheat Board to make overseas sales.

page 1555

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that municipal councils in the Sydney metropolitan area, supported by the Local Government Association of New South Wales, are advising ratepayers that they are paying 12 per cent too much in the form of rates due principally to the fact that the Commonwealth Government is not providing sufficient funds or grants for roads? A Woollahra Council circular to ratepayers stated:

This year, the Commonwealth Government put up the petrol tax by 3c per gallon, but are they giving any of this to New South Wales for roadworks? No.

Will the Government further examine this position and take the financial burden off municipal councils which can then give assistance to the overtaxed ratepayers within New South Wales?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

In the first place, when the honourable senator talks in terms of rates he should state the type of rates to which he is referring. For instance, the Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement is administered by the States through various departments. In New South Wales it is done through the Department of Main Roads and the Local Government Department. Some distinction must be made between the types of roads concerned such as arterial roads, main roads and urban roads. There is in the schedule a whole series of different classifications. It is wrong to draw a broad canvas as Senator Fitzgerald seemed to do. As to the ordinary situation faced by local government bodies, they are in the same position as all other governments. They get their revenue from rating as well as certain moneys which are conveyed to them by the State Governments which in turn make representations for assistance to the Commonwealth Government in the Loan Council and the Premiers Conference.

I do not think one can isolate local government, as Senator Fitzgerald has tended to do, on the basis of a pamphlet. I answered questions on this point last week. I think from Senator Devitt. Local government is having problems with its rating system. They are serious problems which should be subjected to very close scrutiny. But basically their revenue other than from rating still comes from the State Governments which in turn make their bid for allocations which they can make to local government, including shire and municipal councils, at the Premiers Conference and the Loan Council.

page 1556

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry a question further to the one that I asked yesterday concerning representations made to the Minister for Primary Industry on behalf of the Upper Murray Ex-Servicemen’s Land Settlement Association at Loxton in South Australia. Is it true that the settlers have sought permission or provision to purchase at departmental reserve prices certain neighbouring blocks, the leases of which have been surrendered? Has a determination yet been made in this very important matter?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The position is as the honourable senator states in his question. These blocks have now been surrendered. Approval has been given for such vacant blocks to be offered to the war service land settlers for purchase at reserve prices fixed by the Government. Full details of the conditions of sale are not known at the present time but I understand that shortly the Department of Lands in South Australia will announce them, r also understand that the settlers will be given the first option to buy the vacant blocks.

page 1556

QUESTION

RETURNABLE BOTTLES

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Has he seen the announcement by Carlton and United Breweries that they have withdrawn the non-returnable stubby bottle from use and have replaced it with a returnable bottle which can be re-cycled? Will the Minister take the necessary steps to encourage other bottling industries to abandon the use of non-returnable bottles which, in the past, have made such a dreadful contribution to the rubbish befouling the Australian countryside?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have a keen interest in what goes into returnable and nonreturnable bottles, and particularly the product of Carlton and United Breweries. I think the honourable senator’s comment is a fair one. There is a growing tendency to find bottles all over the countryside. When 1 have been out driving I have seen them thrown out of windows of cars. The situation is somewhat depressing, I agree with the honourable senator. I shall refer the matter to the Minister for Trade and Industry. I do not know whether it is his responsibility or not, but I am sure that he will have a great interest in the product, as I have.

page 1556

QUESTION

EXCISE: HOME MADE BEER

Senator KENNELLY:

– Has the Leader of the Government any knowledge of the submission made by the Australian brewing giants to his colleague, the Minister for Customs and Excise, pressing for stricter enforcement of the present laws concerning excise on home made beer? Does he believe that the brewers whose profits from their $400m a year poison industry, to say the least, are huge, are prompted by that most noble, altruistic motive because the Commonwealth is losing $20m a year in excise duties, or are the brewers, as is most likely, prompted by the insatiable desire of all monopolies for more and more profits?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I am not aware of the current position but, having been Minister for Customs and Excise myself for 34 years, I feel bound to say that beer and other forms of alcohol serve a dual purpose. Not only do they give great enjoyment to people in all walks of life but also they provide a great amount of revenue for governments in terms of excise. Let us face it; governments get their revenue in a variety of ways. If they cease to get revenue in the field of excise, obviously to fulfil their function and to do all the things that governments have to do, they have to get it somewhere else. I know that the Department of Customs and Excise constantly has to be vigilant in certain areas where home brews are outside the provisions of the laws of which we all are the authors. Inevitably it has to be so. If it were not so we would have open season. There would bc great loss of revenue and somebody would be drinking brews which were not amenable to their digestions. A greater contribution might be made by the doctors.

page 1557

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator MILLINER:

– 1 direct my question to the leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the Minister’s acknowledgment that local authorities throughout. Australia are experiencing severe financial difficulties and the obvious fact that the recognised channel of making representations to the Federal Government through State governments has not been eminently successful, will the Minister seek the approval of the Prime Minister to the proposal that be invite representatives of local government in the respective States to meet the Prime Minister and the Treasurer so that they may be informed at first hand of the financial problems of local government authorities?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI shall take the question on notice. I feel bound to point out that local government authorities operate by State Acts of Parliament.

Senator Devitt:

– So does education.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

There is a Commonwealth role in education. lt is not analogous at all. The Commonwealth acts directly in that sense. Every local government authority in the Commonwealth administers its law by an Act of Parliament in that particular State. The States are their masters. I do not think the States would appreciate some attempt to bypass them. If one bypassed the State authorities one would get a situation where they, in fact, would lose their legal and legislative control of local government authorities. I have said what I think is the proper approach 3 or 4 times already but it has to be repeated. The proper approach in relation to their problem is to make representations through their Premiers and State Parliaments to the Commonwealth.

page 1557

QUESTION

POLLUTION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Health refers to news items and reports which relate to the discovery of a high mercury content in some types of American tinned fish. Can the Minister tell me what steps are taken to ensure that any American fish imports receive the appropriate examination so that the Australian public is adequately protected?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have read reports of the matters to which the honourable senator has referred. I think it should be recognised that food legislation in Australia and the requirements of what are proper ingredients of food and what must not be found in food which is available for human consumption are essentially a matter for State governments. They have legislation which is directed towards this situation. The National Health and Medical Research Council, a body which has been in existence for a number of years, maintains continuing investigation and research into these problems. It does so in the hope that, as far as possible, there can be a uniform standard throughout Australia. Notwithstanding what the results of the investigations made by this Council show or the recommendation it makes, it is still a matter for the State governments to determine what they will do. I know that this is a matter which generally will be under the attention of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

page 1557

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories whether the Papua New Guinea Administration has cleared the way for public servants to buy shares in Bougainville Mining Ltd? Does the Minister regard the suggestion by the Administrator that public servants buying shares ‘should keep the possibility of conflict of interest in mind’ as being adequate to ensure that no such situation of conflict of interests involving public servants and the company will arise in the future?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– My attention has not been directed specifically to that statement. The honourable senator will know that a considerable portion of the shares in the Bougainville copper project were reserved for the purpose of being available for the indigenous population of New Guinea.

page 1557

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the serious European balance of payments problem involving the United States dollar and its implications for the Australian dollar, will the Minister representing the Treasurer make a statement to the Senate before it rises outlining Australia’s position so as to allay speculation and other eventualities should a flow of United States dollars into this country commence?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIn the last 48 hours there has been considerable publicity in relation to the movement in international finance resulting from a flow of United States dollars and other international currency. I think it is fair to ask the Treasurer to consider making a statement on this matter. In the last couple of hours I have sought to inform myself on the implications for Australia of this movement. I shall put the honourable senator’s proposition to the Treasurer and inform him whether it is the Treasurer’s intention to make a statement.

page 1558

QUESTION

COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I direct my question to you, Mr President. In the knowledge of your pending retirement from the Senate and in the desire to take advantage of your great knowledge and wise counsel, I ask: In view of the fact that committees of the Senate are undertaking inquiries of great interest and public importance to the Australian Government and to the people of Australia, and as from time to time the reports of these committees are completed during parliamentary recesses, would you give consideration to suggesting an alteration of the rules of procedure to enable the reports to be presented to the President, thereupon, with his authority, to be made available to the Government and the news media and then automatically to appear as an item of business on the Senate notice paper on the first day the Senate meets after the presentation of reports to the President?

The PRESIDENT:

– I think that is a very interesting and valuable question on a matter to which we should give very careful consideration. I see no reason why that proposition should not be adopted. Why should reports of committees of the Senate be held up for months? I think the suggestion is worthy of consideration and I shall ensure that it is considered.

page 1558

QUESTION

VISIT TO AUSTRALIA BY DUKE OF EDINBURGH

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– In directing a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate I draw attention to the fact that on 31st March I asked a question concerning the total cost to the Australian taxpayers of the visit of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. I have not yet received a reply to that question. In one of the Appropriation Bills a sum of $21,500 was set aside as supplementary expenditure. I now ask: Is it a fact that the visit by the Duke of Edinburgh cost $500,000, or somewhere in that vicinity, and is this the reason why an answer to my original question has not been supplied by the Prime Minister?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I would not impute . any motives to the failure to provide that information. The honourable senator has acknowledged that this matter was shown in one of the Appropriation Bills as a supplementary sum. I regret that I have not yet been able to produce an answer to the question asked on 31st March. However, I shall make some inquiries and find out the basis on which information about the cost of the visit can be obtained.

page 1558

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM WAR ORPHANS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by referring to the identification of Sir Alex Downer, our High Commissioner in London, with the launching of the world appeal for South Vietnam war orphans. I ask the Minister: In the light of the tapering off of Australian military expenditure in South Vietnam, will Australia be identified directly with this fund or will we have our own project to alleviate the plight of war orphans in Vietnam.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI will seek information in regard to this and I will let the honourable senator know the result.

page 1558

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy seen a statement by the New South Wales Minister for Lands, Mr Lewis, that it was ridiculous and anachronistic to retain the

Royal Australian Navy mothball fleet in Sydney Harbour? Does the Minister have any plan for removing this unsightly fleet to other moorings?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– This is obviously a matter of policy. I suggest that the honourable senator place the question on notice.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Air. Does the Government still operate on the basis that the policy in relation to the operation of the Fill aircraft will be determined before the end of the year? What is the present position in relation to the evaluation that was received from the technical group in America? Do those reports indicate that some satisfaction has been achieved in modifications to the aircraft, irrespective of the number of aircraft that have crashed in recent months? What form of discussions is held between the Minister’s own Department and the related departments in connection with the evaluation of the reports as they come to hand Is it expected that at Budget time a report will be given to the Parliament in respect of these aircraft?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I think the best way of answering the honourable senator’s question is to retrace a little of the history by saying that arising out of the visit of the Fraser mission to the United States of America in April last year certain operational and technical specifications were agreed to. These were incorporated in an agreed minute known as the Fraser-Laird Agreement. In that minute it was agreed that operational and technical requirements sought by the Royal Australian Air Force should be brought to fruition at the end of this year when Australia would make a decision whether the aircraft met those requirements. Since that date, static and fatigue tests have been completed, but all the requirements of the agreed minute have not been met at this stage. There has been a slippage of some of the tests, so we will have to wait until the end of the year, review the situation and then make a decision.

The honourable senator has asked what liaison there is, firstly, with us in America. We have technical and scientific officers in the United States watching the project all the time and reporting back practically daily, and sometimes even twice or thrice daily. We also have continual discussions with the Department of Defence. Tomorrow I am sending my Air Member (Technical Services), together with a finance officer and another technical officer, to America to have some further discussions. Despite this visit, we will not be in a position, because of the static and fatigue tests not meeting the agreement, to make a decision on tha matter until the end of this year.

page 1559

QUESTION

PETROL TAX

Senator KENNELLY:

– I preface my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by saying that I have listened to his replies to various senators on tha subject of local government finance. While possibly they are true to a large extent, I ask him this question: Would the financial position of local government authorities not be alleviated if the Commonwealth Government handed back to the States for roads all the excise duty on petrol and diesel fuel?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI suppose it would be if the Commonwealth Government handed this excise duty to them. 1 suppose a similar situation would apply if the Government handed to them collections under some other head of taxation. Senator Kennelly is making a personal judgment that the way to do it would be to take some head of Commonwealth revenue in its entirety and hand it to the local government authority. It all comes back to the basic answer all the time. It does not happen in that way. The Commonwealth Government deals through the States. In any event, once we start excising certain excise, as it were, and giving it to a State authority we will then have to think in terms of where we can get the replacement for Commonwealth revenue. It is a basic problem.

page 1559

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I preface my question by reminding the Minister that some months ago he advised that a report would be issued or actions would be taken on the parallel take-offs and landings of aircraft of the 2 major domestic airlines. I now ask the Minister: When will the report on parallel take-off and landing times be made available? Or does the Minister propose to take immediate action to rationalise airline timetables in view of the implications in speeches made by him in this House that Qantas Airways Ltd, TransAustralia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia are facing near bankruptcy because of the current economic depression in airline traffic?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This would be a substantial exaggeration in many ways. Qantas is not facing near bankruptcy. That is a complete fantasy.

Senator Keeffe:

– You told us so yourself.

Senator COTTON:

-I said nothing of the kind here or anywhere else, and the honourable senator should not say that either. Trans-Australia Airlines is not facing bankruptcy. That is an equal piece of nonsense. Neither is Ansett facing bankruptcy. All these airlines have had declining growth figures.I have never said that I would issue a report on parallel take-offs and landings. What I have said is that the matter concerns me. I have had discussions with the airlines about it and those discussions are continuing.

page 1560

QUESTION

REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Can the Minister for Repatriation explain the reason for the sudden cancellation of visits by the Wollongong repatriation officer to Nowra?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I would not use the word ‘cancellation’ although I recognise that if a visit is put off it is cancelled. But following the economic measures implemented in February the Department of Repatriation has increased, of necessity, the length of time between visits to various centres throughout New South Wales, and in fact throughout Australia, by its departmental officers. Under a system which was instituted by the Repatriation Department, officers tour country areas at certain times of the year to explain to the Department’s clients some of the various benefits that are available to them. This service has become very popular with ex-servicemen in general. How ever, although the visit mentioned by the honourable senator was cancelled, he may expect a visit in the future, although the time between visits might be a little longer. Any other centre that might have had visits put off may be assured it will get a visit in due course from the Department.

page 1560

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator MILLINER:

– I direct my question to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. On his recent return from overseas as a Churchill Fellow, the Curator of the Brisbane Botanical Gardens reported at a meeting in Brisbane that in his opinion the potential of Cooloola, properly developed as a tourist centre, could be superior to that of the famous Everglades in Florida. Will the Minister canvass this avenue of tourist promotion when next a conference of State Tourist Ministers is convened?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am grateful to the honourable senator for making that suggestion. I will see that it is considered.

page 1560

QUESTION

TOMISLAV LESIC

(Question No. 948)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has Tomislav Lesic who was involved in a bombing incident in Sydney several years ago, since then (a) entered the offices of the Adriatic Travel Agency in Sydney and demanded that all tourist posters bearing the inscription ‘Yugoslavia’ be taken down; and (b) conducted himself ina similar fashion at the Adria Bookshop in Sydney.
  2. Did Tomislav Lesic during January 1971 threaten to destroy the Adria Bookshop in Sydney if it continued to sell tickets for a Yugoslavia group of folk singers which had been organised by Mr Bajro Helic and did he threaten the lives of Mr Helic and his wife.
  3. Was a Tomislav Lesic charged in Canberra with being a nuisance within the precints of Parliament House and subsequently placed on a good behaviour bond.
  4. If the incidents mentioned in (1) to (3) above, did occur, has the Commonwealth Government taken action to strip Lesic of his Australian citizenship and return him overseas to face trial for crimes he is alleged to have committed there prior to his entry into Australia.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) I am informed that officers of the New South Wales police force are conducting investigations into certain allegations concerning one Tomislav Lesic who is, I believe, the person referred to in the honourable senator’s question. I understand that those inquiries are not complete.
  2. Tomislav Lesic was convicted in the Canberra Court of Petty Sessions on 19th August 1966 on a charge of loitering. He was fined 50c. The charge arose as a result of a hunger strike staged by Lesic outside Parliament House in connection with pension claims.
  3. Tomislav Lesic is not an Australian citizen. I have no information that suggests he is wanted by any country for trial for offences committed overseas.

page 1561

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE

(Question No. 866)

Senator POYSER:
through Senator Keeffe

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that many pensioners previously eligible to hold a pensioner medical card have had these withdrawn as a result of the tapered means test introduced in the 1969 Budget?
  2. Did these withdrawals take place about 12 months after the Budget announcement contrary to the statement of the then Treasurer, Mr McMahon, that fringe benefits would not cease to be available to persons who were pensioners at that time?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. The introduction of the tapered means test did not, in itself, have the effect of depriving pensioners of their entitlement to the benefits of the Pensioner Medical Service. Pensioners whose income increased so that their continued eligibility for a pension was dependent on the tapered means test would, under the previous means test provisions, have been unable to qualify for a pension and consequently the benefits of the Pensioner Medical Service. It was not intended that persons who are able to qualify for a pension or retain their pension solely because of the tapered means test which was introduced on 1st October 1969, would be entitled to the benefits of the Pensioner Medical Service.If a person ceases to qualify for the benefits of the Pensioner Medical Service he or she is asked to return the pensioner medical card.

It is considered that an anomalous situation would arise if, on the one hand, pensioners were allowed to retain entitlement to the benefits of the Pensioner Medical Service when their income was such that they retained their pension solely because of the taper in the means test while, on the other hand, entitlement was not granted to persons who became pensioners for the first time.

  1. The above position is not, as the question states, contrary to the statement of the then Treasurer. In bis 1969 Budget Speech the Treasurer said that persons who become pensioners because of the increases in basic rates of pension would become members of the Pensioner Medical Service and entitled to other fringe benefits.

The Treasurer then went on to say ‘that persons who become pensioners for the first time because of the introduction of the ‘tapered’ means test . . . would not, however, be eligible for membership of the Pensioner Medical Service or entitled to any other subsidiary fringe benefits.’

The practice currently followed is consistent with the Treasurer’s statement.

page 1561

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 964)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Whatis the total amount in taxes paid to the Commonwealth on profits made by companies now successfully exploiting the gas and oil fields in the off-shore areas of Victoria?
  2. What is the total amount of tax paid in all forms to the Commonwealth by all companies exploiting gas and oil fields on-shore, including Barrow Island?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. Subject to certain specific exceptions which do not affect the present enquiry, the Income Tax Assessment Act contains a general prohibition against the divulging of information respecting the affairs of person, including companies, that has been disclosed under the income tax law. It is not possible, therefore, to furnish an answer to this part of the question.
  2. Information on the total amount of tax paid in all forms to the Commonwealth by the companies concerned is not available. Information on income tax paid by these companies cannot be provided without directly or indirectly divulging information about the affairs of particular companies.

page 1561

QUESTION

COURT HEARINGS IN NORTHERN TERRITORY

(Question No. 968)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Have regular police and local court hearings throughout the Northern Territory now been abolished as part of the Government’s economy drive?
  2. Does this mean that in future, employers and others who are justices of the peace, but unqualified in law, will hear charges and pass judgment on black and white employees who may be unfortunate enough to be brought before them?
  3. Will the Minister make urgent representation to the Government to ensure that funds are made available for a qualified magistrate to visit remote Territory centres?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No. The following is a list of proposed visits by legally qualified Darwin magistrates to places outside Darwin in the months of May and June:

page 1562

MAY

Monday, 10 - Katherine

Tuesday, 11 - Gove

Wednesday, 12- Gove

Monday, 17- Katherine

Tuesday, 18- Groote Eylandt

Wednesday, 19- Groote Eylandt

Monday, 24 - Katherine

Tuesday, 25- Pine Creek

Wednesday, 26- Katherine

page 1562

JUNE

Monday, 7- Katherine

Monday, 14 - Katherine

Tuesday, 15- Gove

Wednesday, 16- Gove

Monday, 21- Katherine

Tuesday, 22 - Groote Eylandt

Wednesday, 23 - Groote Eylandt

Monday, 28- Katherine

Tuesday, 29- Pine Creek

Wednesday, 30- Katherine

In addition a legally qualified Alice Springs magistrate will visit Tennant Creek twice a month.

  1. and 3. See answer to 1.

page 1562

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1051)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Will the new Superannuation Bill for local government officers in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea become law during the current session of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea House of Assembly.
  2. Were the contents of the Bill discussed with the Territory of Papua and New Guinea Public Service Association and, particularly, the local government officers section of that Association; if not, why not.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The Superannuation Bill did not become law during the March sitting of the House of Assembly. Consideration of the Bill was deferred to the May/June sitting of the House.
  2. The contents of the Bill have been discussed with the Papua and New Guinea Public Service Association and discussions are continuing. The Association representatives include members of the local officer executive.

page 1562

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMMES FOR CHILDREN

(Question No. 994)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

What has the Australian Broadcasting Control Board done to ensure that greater opportunity is taken by commercial television stations to develop a wider range of Australian programmes, of both an entertaining and informative character, to interest children and adolescents during family viewing times?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The television programme standards determined by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board contain special provisions relating to the types of programme matter which may be televised during periods defined as family and children’s viewing time. These periods are from 6.00 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. and from 4.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. on weekdays and from 6.00 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. In broad terms the standards require that during these periods, the only programmes that may be televised are family programmes which are suitable for viewing by persons of all ages, or programmes which are specifically designed for children in various age groups. With regard to programmes designed for children, the standards contain recommendations to stations relating to the provision of regular programmes of this type. To encourage stations to televise these programmes, the Board’s Australian content requirements provide for double credit for such material. This has had the effect of stimulating production in the area of programming for children in the pre-school age range; but in order to cater more effectively for the needs of children of school age, the Board has included in its revised Australian content requirements whichwill operate from 20th September 1971, a provision requiring the televising during non-school hours of at least 4 hours monthly of constructive Australian programming for school children.

The Board has appointed a committee, comprising people active in children’s programme production and in education, to advise it on the types of programmes likely to interest children in the various school age groups, to ensure that the provision of such programmes under the Board’s new requirements is effective.

page 1562

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 997)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Does the definition of ‘election matter’ in section 116(6) of the Broadcasting and Television Act preclude the Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial licensees from including in their various news sessions broadcast or televised between the end of an election period and the close of the poll on the day on which election is held material which is considered to be news and which relates to the election.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

Section 116(6) of the Broadcasting and Television Act defines the matter which may not be broadcast or televised during the period specified in section 116(4). This restriction applies to all programmes which are transmitted. However, it does not necessarily follow that all material relating to an election would fall within the definition of ‘election matter’ as defined and, in such event, the restriction would not be applicable.

page 1563

QUESTION

OIL SPILLAGES

(Question No. 1068)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

Has any action been taken in consultation with shipping authorities, to have Royal Australian Air Force aircraft patrol the Australian coastline in order to detect instances of oil spillages, in view of the mounting number of undetected oil spillages occurring off the Australian coast.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

The Royal Australian Air Force does not conduct patrols of the Australian coastline in order to detect oil spills. However, the RAAF carries out numerous operations off the coastline and any large oil spills sighted by RAAF crews during these operations would normally be reported.

page 1563

QUESTION

POULTRY

(Question No. 1077)

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Why have regulations not been gazetted in accordance with the amendment made in 1966 to section 12 of the Poultry Industry Levy Collection Act which seeks records to be kept of chickens or hens kept for commercial purposes.
  2. Does the lack of such regulations permit poultry owners to avoid liabilities in accordance with the Act.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. and (2) The amendment was one of those introduced at the request of the State egg boards which collect the hen levy on behalf of the Commonwealth. The boards sought this amendment because they felt that there should be a clear provision in the Act whereby the keeping of records could be prescribed in the event of a significant number of producers claiming that they did not keep records. In view of the fact that the great majority of producers do in fact keep records in various ways and make these records available to persons authorised by the Minister, and in order to avoid placing a statutory burden on producers to fill in further forms, regulations have not been made under the 1966 amendment to compel them to keep records.

Should any significant number of producers fail to keep records consideration will be given to making an appropriate regulation. The absence of complete records in no way affects a producer’s liability to pay the henlevy.

page 1563

QUESTION

HEALTH

(Question No. 1036)

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Does the Department of Health set standards of quality for raw materials used in the manufacture of edible products sold in Australia.
  2. Does the Department make inspections of raw materials from which edible products are manufactured in Australia for export.
  3. Which authority in Australia is responsible for maintaining health standards in respect of edible products which are manufactured in Australia for export.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. No. However the National Health and Medical Research Council contributes towards uniformity of foodleglislation in Australia through its recommendations on food standards. Implementation of these National Health and Medical Research Council recommendations is a matter for each State to determine, the Commonwealth’s legislative responsibility in this matter being restricted to the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory.
  2. No. This a function of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry.
  3. The Department of Primary Industry through the various specific export regulations is responsible for the supervision of the manufacture in Australia of edible products for export

page 1563

QUESTION

RAILWAYS

(Question No. 1088)

Senator BISHOP:

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

  1. Has the Minister, and the South Australian Government, agreed on a compromise plan to connect Adelaide with the standard-gauge railway system, by the conversion of the existing 5 ft 3 in gauge system between Adelaide and Port Pirie; if so, does the compromise plan propose the construction of a completely new railway track between those cities, or the modification of the existing line.
  2. Does the plan also include a proposal to connect the Mile End railway yards, and industries located south of Adelaide, by means of a completed standard-gauge railway system.
  3. Has theCommonwealth Government rejected financial assistance to convert the existing railway systems, including the Wilmington line, in the northern part of South Australia.
  4. When is it likely that the matter will be finalised.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) 1 recently met with the South Australian Minister for Roads and Transport in an endeavour to resolve differences between the Commonwealth and State Governments over the proposed connection of Adelaide to the standard gauge railway system. It was agreed at that meeting that certain proposals for effecting this link would be submitted to the respective Governments for consideration. I intend to bring these proposals before the Commonwealth Government but at this stage it would not be appropriate to provide details.

  1. Pending agreement of both Governments to any proposals, it would be premature to provide information on a time-table for construction.

page 1564

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION

(Question No. 844)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

As the last review of superannuation paid to retired Commonwealth officers was in 1967, when will the next adjustments be made to combat the substantial loss of purchasing power which has occurred over the last 4 years.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government reviews regularly the levels of Commonwealth superannuation pensions paid to former employees of the Commonwealth or their beneficiaries. These reviews have resulted, over the years, in substantial increases in the employer component of these pensions.

The position will again be reviewed during the formulation of the 1971-72 Budget.

page 1564

QUESTION

COMPANY TAXATION

(Question No. 909)

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. How many companies have been investigated by the Commissioner for Taxation to ascertain their liability for taxation under section 136 of the Income Tax Assessment Act.
  2. How many companies pay tax under section 136 of the Act.
  3. How many of these companies are engaged in refining bauxite.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) Responsibility for administering the income tax law rests with the Commissioner of Taxation who is required by law to maintain secrecy regarding affairs of particular taxpayers.

The Commissioner has advised that, for many years, taxation officers have been conducting investigations to determine the taxable incomes of companies, engaged in various form of industry, which may be affected by section 136. In a number of instances, investigations of this type are still continuing. Because of the secrecy provisions, the Commissioner is unable to furnish the information requested regarding the companies engaged in refining bauxite.

page 1564

QUESTION

ALLOWANCES: PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTAL HEADS

(Question No. 960)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Does the Minister recall that last year in the Estimates debate I advanced an argument that the Clerk of the Senate should have the same financial standing and prestige as heads of executive departments in having a tux free allowance.
  2. Does the Minister recall that my argument was terminated by the statement which appears on page 1917 of the Hansard report that ‘1 have just been informed that the President has authorised me to say that the question of allowances in the 2 Houses is currently under examination by the Presiding Officers, that is, the President on the one hand and Mr Speaker on the other.’
  3. What was the result of this examination which was presented as the reason for terminating at that time my advocacy of justice.
  4. Do the permanent heads of the executive departments receive an allowance for the expenses of office at rates of either $1,000 or $1,500 per annum.
  5. Do the permanent heads of the parliamentary departments receive such allowances; if not, why not.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (4) Yes.

  1. and (5) The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to these parts of the honourable Senator’s question -

The salaries of the Clerks were increased from $15,600 to $16,815 per annum with effect from 3rd September 1970.

In introducing the Salaries Bill 1968 the Government indicated that the system of annual expenses of office allowances would apply to Permanent Heads of Departments of State and associated officials of similar salary level - i.e., then set at $19,500 and above.

Following representations by staff associations, the Government earlier this year considered the general question of extending this system of annual allowances to cover various officials below the salary level of Permanent Heads of Departments of State, but did not feel able, at least at this stage, to authorise the preparation of legislation in this direction.

Subsequently the Presiding Officers were informed by my predecessor that the question of annual allowances for the Clerks should be deferred.’

page 1565

QUESTION

MEAT

(Question No. 977)

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Have certain research studies in the Bureau of Census and Statistics on the basis of collecting wholesale meat prices been postponed because of the Government’s current economic policies.
  2. Will the Government, in view of public interest in this matter, restore such studies and give high priority to them, especially as there is considerable dissatisfaction with the present basis of price assessment.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. It is understood that the honourable senator is referring to a collection which has been undertaken by the Western Australian office of the Bureau for a number of years. The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that this collection is being continued and that it is planned to conduct a review of it in the near future.

page 1565

QUESTION

CANNED SEAFOODS

(Question No. 1026)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen a report that tests carried out by the Melbourne scientific instrument firm of Varian Techtron have shown that samples of canned tuna sold in Australia have shown a mercury content of up to 100 times the World Health Organisation’s recommended maximum level.
  2. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that these products are periodically tested and that the importation and sale of canned seafoods which constitute a danger to health are prohibited.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. No, but 1 am aware of the figures in an article in The Australian of 24th March 1971.
  2. Food legislation is a matter for the individual States, the Commonwealth exercising control only in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Canned fish imported into Australia must comply with the requirements of State legislation and the State analytical laboratories test foods to ensure that they comply with the required standards. The programme of testing in each State is determined by the health departments in that State.

Expert committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council continue to keep the matter of food standards under review and through Council the Commonwealth makes recommendations to the States regarding uniformity of legislation with respect to food.

page 1565

QUESTION

OIL SPILLAGES

(Question No. 1047)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. How many oil spillages occurred on the Australian coast during the past twelve months.
  2. In which States did such Incidents occur.
  3. In how many incidents of spillages were the offenders not detected and where did these particular incidents occur.
  4. In respect of how many of the spillages did court proceedings arise.
  5. What fines were imposed. If any, and have they been paid.
Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. During the 12 months ended 31st March 1971 a total of 305 oil spillages were detected on the Australian coast (including spillages in bays, ports and harbours). Many of these, however, were minor in nature, involving small quantities of oil, and were easily cleaned up by the offending vessel or the port authority. (2.) The incidents occurred in the following areas:
  1. The offenders in 110 incidents, the majority of which could be classed as minor in nature, were not detected. These incidents occurred in the following areas:
  1. Court proceedings were instituted In 90 cases. The remaining 105 incidents were either not sufficiently serious to warrant prosecution or, for technical reasons, prosecution was not possible, e.g. insufficient evidence.

The number of Court proceedings instituted In each State were:

  1. Finesimposed under the legislation of the various States were as follows:

page 1566

QUESTION

STATES GRANTS

(Question No. 1062)

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What amounts in Additional Grants were paid to each State for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70.
  2. What were the sources of State Revenue on which the Additional Grant moneys were made available to the States.
  3. What was the maximum amount of expenditure required by each State from its own sources for road purposes to enable a State to claim the maximum Additional Grant.
  4. What was the maximum Additional Grant claimed andpaid to each State.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. In 1968-69 each State qualified for and received the maximum additional grants payable under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act, 1964 The amounts were as follows:

As regards 1969-70, which was the first year of operation under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969, there is no provision under this Act for the payment of separate grants specifically related to the level of roads expenditure from State resources. Under this Act, however, each State is required to expend, or set aside for expenditure, a certain minimum amount on roadworks each year from its own resources. Where a State spends less than the required minimum in a year it is liable to pay to the Commonwealth an amount equivalent to the shortfall, or such lesser amount as the Treasurer determines, unless it has expended more than the required minimum in a previous year, in which case the ‘excess’ expenditure in the previous year may be counted towards the minimum expenditure required in the current year. The minimum amounts for each State are derived by increasing certain ‘base’ amounts by the percentage Increase in the number of motor vehicles on register in that State between 31 December 1966 and 31 December in the year immediately preceding the year in question. The following are the base amounts for each State:

  1. The sources of State revenue, expenditure from which constituted the basis for allocations of additional grants made for 1968-69, are as follows:

Under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1969, the States are not required to provide information concerning the sources of State revenue used for roads expenditure.

  1. The amounts that were required to be expended on roads by each State from its own resourcesin 1968-69 to qualify for the maximum additional grant were:

In fact, as Indicated in (2), in 1968-69 every State expended more on roads from its own resources than these minimum amounts.

The minimum amounts required to be expended on roadworks by each State in 1969-70 were:

  1. See (1).

page 1567

QUESTION

WHEAT SALES TO CHINA

(Question No. 1070)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. Have any orders for the purchase of wheat been received this season from the Mainland China Government.
  2. Will the Minister comment on a recent Japanese report on the economy of Mainland China which stated that China will buy no wheat from Australia this year.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. No.
  2. There have been several reports from varied sources which have referred to the large grain crop in Mainland China and, as a consequence, the likely reduced demand for wheat from that country.

From recent statements made in Parliament it will be well known that no official or authoritative advice has been received of the Chinese buying intentions.

I would comment only that if China needs to import wheat there are factors in Australia’s favour. They include the fact that there have long been friendly commercial relations between the Chinese purchasing authority and the legally constituted marketing authority for Australian wheat, the Australian Wheat Board. In addition the quality of Australian wheat shipped to China has been very acceptable to the buyers, while the terms and conditions of sale have also met their requirements.

page 1567

QUESTION

WHEAT SALES TO CHINA

(Question No. 1082)

Senator DEVITT:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware of a statement reported in the press on 21 April 1971 and attributed to the leader of the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation, Mr. Price, which criticises the Australian Country Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, and the Australian Labor Party in that order for their approach to the vital question of international trade as it relates to wheat sales to the Chinese People’s Republic and which states that these Parties are guilty of national irresponsibility.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister lor Primary Industry has furnished the following answer to the honour* able senator’s question:

  1. I have seen several press versions of the statement made by the President of the Australian Wheat Growers’ Federation (Mr. L. V. Price) to which the Honourable Senator has referred. Only one of these - the ‘Australian’ of 21st April - claimed that Mr. Price named the major political parties. The other reports that I have seen made no such claims.

Mr. Price has given me his assurance that at no time did he mention any political party by name in the course of making the statement under reference and that the ‘Australian’ report is incorrect on that account.

page 1568

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY COMMITMENTS

(Question No. 1083)

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the former Minister for Defence, Mr Fraser, in a speech reported in the Age of 20th April 1971, say that in future, Western Nations might not back non-communist nations which were under threat and that Australia might have to act on its own initiative in future when making military commitments.
  2. Was Mr Fraser also reported as saying that one of the most inhibiting factors for the Western Nations would be the experience of the Vietnam war.
  3. Does the Government intend to follow Mr Fraser’s suggestions: and would this lead to the withdrawal of all Australian troops from Vietnam.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) J refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s statement of 30th March 1971 on the future of Australian forces in Vietnam (Hansard (Senate) 30th March 1971, pp 618- 620), and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs’ statement on International Affairs (Hansard (Senate) 7th April 1971, pp 828-832).

page 1568

QUESTION

DAIRY PRODUCTS

(Question No. 1085)

Senator WEBSTER:

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

  1. What is the present attitude of the Federal Government to the production and sale of whole milk and its by-products both on local and overseas markets.
  2. Is Australia embarrassed in relation to the fulfilling of quotas and contracts for butter due to an inability to obtain sufficient Australian stock.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. As with any other primary industry the objective of the dairy industry should be to gear its production to a level that can be disposed of satisfactorily.
  2. The Government’s financial arrangements for the dairy industry for 1970-71 were based on production levels of 220,000 tons for butter and 70,000 tons for cheese and it is disappointing that due to poor seasonal conditions, Australia has been unable to fulfil its United Kingdom butter quota for 1970-71 and to take full advantage of opportunities offering in other markets due to the sudden change in the world market situation for dairy products.

page 1568

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

(Question No. 1100)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister forCivil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Does any aspect of the present dispute between Qantas and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots cover any matter associated with the safety of aircraft operations: If not, and if the present dispute is only industrial matters such as general conditions of work only, why has the dispute not been referred to the Flight Crew Officers’ Industrial Tribunal which was specifically established for the purposes of mediating in such disputes.
  2. Why was the Flight Crew Officers’ Industrial Tribunal established if the Director-General of Civil Aviation is empowered to mediate in disputes other than those which affect the safety of aircraft operations.
  3. Under what section of the Act is the DirectorGeneral of Civil Aviation empowered to mediate in matters concerning general conditions of work.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s question are as follows:

  1. The matters on which I decided discussions should be held between the Qantas management, aircrew organisations and the Department of Civil Aviation concerned only superannuation and the possible relocation of redundant aircrew. Neither of these matters would normally be referred to the Flight Crew Officers’ Industrial Tribunal. I understand that some years ago the High Court decided that superannuation issues werenot matters for consideration and determination under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Any changes to the Qantas Staff Superannuation Plan would require my approval based on recommendations made to me by the Qantas Board and the Director-General acts as advisor to me on such matters. I might add that certain aspects of the Qantas Staff Superannuation Plan were recently the subject of enquiry and report by an interdepartmental committee. The redundancy of certain Qantas aircrew arose out of a reduced flight programme and the Director-General of Civil Aviation was asked to consider in discussions with Qantas and the aircrew organisations, possible avenues of re-employment of these persons. Matters associated with contracts between the Company and the aircrew organisations are entirely separate issues and these including salaries and conditions of work were not the purpose of the discussions between the Qantas management, aircrew organisations and the Department of Civil Aviation.
  2. and (3) As explained in the answer to Question 1 above, the Director-General did not mediate on conditions of work or any other matter in dispute which would normally be referred to the Flight Crew Officers’ Industrial Tribunal. I know Senator Georges would wish to feel that everything possible was being done to help to relocate those Qantas aircrew who have become redundant and in this area the Director-General was asked to use his good offices to assist in any way possible. I am pleased to be able to advise that the discussions mentioned have been highly satisfactory.

page 1569

QUESTION

BROADCASTING: SATELLITES

(Question No. 1102)

Senator WEBSTER:

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

  1. Is a conference currently being held in Switzerland under the auspices of UNESCO and the International Labour Organisation, to study and discuss problems arising from the use of satellites in broadcasting, particularly television broadcasting.
  2. Is there an official Australian Government representative attending the conference.
  3. Will the Government make provision to acquire a full report of the Conference proceedings and resolutions.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

-The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes. A Committee of Governmental experts on problems which may arise in the field of copyright and the protection of performers in connection with broadcasts via satellite, is meeting at Lausanne, Switzerland, from 21st-30th April. The convenors are UNESCO and WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) in collaboration withILO (International Labour Organisation) and ITU (International Telecommunication Union).
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.

page 1569

QUESTION

INSURANCE COMPANIES

(QuestionNo. 1112)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Have ten insurance companies been placed in liquidation during the past two years, and are the total liabilities of these companies more than $4 million; if so, does the Commonwealth Government contemplate the establishment of a fidelity fund to put the insurance industry on a sound footing.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Eleven insurance (non-life) companies have been placed in liquidation, official and provisional, in the last two years. Information is not available on the aggregate liabilities of such companies; companies are not required to furnish that information under the Insurance Act 1932-1966 and in any case I understand that even where official liquidators have been appointed the process of determining claims has yet to be completed.

The Government has currently under consideration various measures relating to the supervision of general (non-life) insurance companies.

page 1569

QUESTION

TAX DEDUCTIONS: MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL EXPENSES

(Question No. 1119)

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is there any financial limit placed upon the amount which may be claimed as deductions for medical and hospital expenses.
  2. Is there any restriction on the type of hospital in which treatment is received for the purposes of claiming taxation deductions.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. There is no upper limit upon the deduction allowable in respect of a payment which falls within the meaning of ‘medical expenses’ as defined in the income tax law. However, the deduction otherwise allowable is reduced by any amount which is payable in respect of the medical expenses by a government, hospital or medical benefits fund, public authority, society or association.
  2. A payment to a public or private hospital may qualify for deduction under the heading of medical expenses’ if the payment is in respect of an illness or operation.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– On 16th March 1971 Senator Bishop asked me the following question:

In directing my question to the Minister for Air I refer to the incident yesterday near Newcastle when a pilot of the Royal Australian Air Force ejected from a Sabre jet aircraft and was forced to remain in a leaky dinghy for 2 hours. Was this due to the accident, faulty equipment or poor inspection at the base?

I now givethe honourable senator the following reply:

The Court of Inquiry convened to investigate this accident has found that the aircraft was lost after the pilot inadvertently entered a spin and failed to regain control before being forced to eject to save his life. During the spin and ejection gravity forces caused the carbon dioxide bottle within the ejection seat survival pack to be forced against the side of the dinghy, inflicting a small cut which resulted in a loss of air after the landing.

Defects of this nature are extremely difficult to detect because ground simulation of such unusual flight conditions is virtually impossible. However, to prevent a recurrence of this type of incident, the metal portions of the bottles are to be encased in rubber.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the question without notice that Senator Donald Cameron asked me on 1st April 1971 concerning Commonwealth superannuation pensions:

Commonwealth superannuation pensions were last increased by the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Act 1967, which was assented to on 8 November 1967. Under that Act the Commonwealth’s share of each pension in existence at 30 June 1967 was increased to the amount that it would have been had retirement occurred on that date. An appropriate proportion of the increase was paid if the pension at retirement was less than it would have been had all entitlements been taken up. lt is the practice of the Government to review regularly the level of Commonwealth superannuation pensions. A further review will be made during the formulation of the 1971-72 Budget.

page 1570

COMMONWEALTH INSURANCE ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 1 1 of the Life Insurance Act 1945-1965, I present the 25th annual report of the Insurance Commissioner for the year ended 3 1 st December 1970.

page 1570

VIP AIRCRAFT

Ministerial Statement

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– On 31st March last Senator Milliner asked whether I would table details of the use of VIP aircraft by Commonwealth Ministers for the period 1st January 1971 to 28th February 1971 inclusive. I informed the Senate that I would take details of all VIP flights from the period covered by the previous tabling of such details up to the 28th February 1971. The list attached to the document I am tabling contains details of all VIP nights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period 1st October 1970 to 28th February 1971. The document which I now table embraces all details of approved applications for VIP travel and has been reconciled against the relevant flight manifests.

page 1570

AGED PERSONS HOMES

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a list of homes subsidised under the Aged Persons Homes Act 1954-69 as at 31st January 1971.

page 1570

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I present the 8th report of the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 1570

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Senator CAVANAGH:

– by leave- I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move that the International Atomic Energy Agency (Privileges and Immunities) Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1971 No. 30 and made under the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963-66 be disallowed.

page 1570

MEDICAL FEES AND BENEFITS

Ministerial Statement

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– by leave - I wish to inform the Senate of decisions taken by the Government on the level of Commonwealth benefits which will be paid under the medical benefits scheme and on the common fees to which these benefits will be related. Honourable senators will be familiar with the fact that in February last the Australian Medical Association announced across the board fee increase recommendations of approximately 15 per cent for all medical services. These increases, if they had been implemented, would have cost the Australian community some $35m a year. The Government did not accept that these increases were justified and entered into a series of intensive discussions with the AMA. The outcome of these discussions is that the fee increases will be limited to general practitioner surgery consultations and home visits, and will cost the Australian community $9. 3m a year instead of $35m a year as originally proposed.

The new most common fees for general practitioner surgery consultation and home visits will apply for a 2-year period from 1st July 1971 to 30th June 1973, and any increase in fees for other medical services before the end of that period will be based on a proper study of available information. The proposal for across the board increases will not be pursued. What this means is that the Government has achieved by a process of discussion and persuasion:

  1. Modification of the AMA’s original proposals so that, instead of representing a cost of $35m a year, they will, in the immediate future, represent a cost of S9.3m a year.
  2. Assurances have been obtained which should mean stability in the main general practitioner service fees for at least 2 years. The AMA will continue to advise and encourage its members to charge the recommended common fees. Adherence to the common fees is, as honourable senators are aware, of vital importance to the working of the medical benefits scheme.
  3. Acceptance by the AMA that any increase in fees for other medical services will be based on a proper study of available information including details of any increases in doctors’ total gross income and of the gross incomes for groups of medical services. The proposal for across the board increases will not be pursued.
  4. Establishment of baseline fees at 1st July 1971. This will provide an effective basis for future consultation with the AMA regarding periodic adjustments.

The Government has decided to maintain the present $0.80 and $1.20 margins between the most common fees and the totals of Commonwealth and fund medical benefits for general practitioner surgery consultations and home visits. To enable this decision to be implemented, the Commonwealth will meet $4.9m of the increased amount of $9.3m. The remaining $4.4m a year will be met by an adjustment of fund benefits.

The adjustment of fund benefits will involve a small increase of weekly contributions. As honourable senators are aware, fund benefits vary from State to State while fund contributions vary both from State to State and fund to fund. The amount of increase directly attributable to the general practitioner fee increase is about 2c per week in New South Wales and Victoria and a few cents higher in other States. However, contributions in any case are now due for periodic review in the light of the actual experience of individual funds and against a background of expected developments. In some cases the present contributions were set to enable reduction of excessive reserves. Taking all these factors into account, the contributions for the major funds for medical benefits are expected to be increased by a total of 5c to 10c per week in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, and by 6c to 11c per week in

Queensland. The major fund in South Australia and the major fund in Tasmania are expected to be able to meet the higher fund benefits from their existing contributions. A small increase in contributions may be necessary in some of the smaller funds in all States. The precise increases will be assessed by the individual funds and submitted for my approval.

I would emphasise that the Government is determined to ensure that the medical benefits plan continues to provide a high and assured level of coverage to the public at a reasonable cost and in a way which protects the legitimate interests of both the recipients of medical care and those who provide the service. The Government is concerned to ensure that an appropriate consultative procedure is devised to permit effective discussions and negotiations between the Government and the AMA in respect of the AMA’s fee recommendations.

I also wish to inform the Senate that as a result of the Government’s undertaking to review the pensioner medical service and repatriation medical services fees at 2- yearly intervals, the Government has decided to increase the fees payable for services under the pensioner medical service from $1.85 to $2.50 for surgery consultations and from $2.35 to $3.60 for home visits, and the fees payable for the repatriation medical services from $2.05 to $2.65 for surgery consultations and from $2.60 to $3.80 for home visits. These increases also take effect from 1st July 1971 and apply to 30th June 1973. The annual cost of these increases will be $8. 3m in the case of the pensioner medical service adjustments and $2.2m in the case of repatriation services.

These fees have always been and remain on a concessional basis. The Government has recognised these aspects as well as the high and increasing costs incurred by medical practitioners in providing these important services. The Government is determined that a high standard of service continues to be available to pensioner and repatriation medical service beneficiaries. Because of the interest in the subject of medical fees and benefits, I think it is important for this matter to be seen in full perspective. I have therefore made available for the information of honourable senators, and the public generally, a background statement which sets out in detail, information relevant to the decisions in this area. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate this background statement in Hansard.

page 1572

MEDICAL FEES AND BENEFITS

Background Statement Issued by Senator the Hon. Ivor J. Greenwood, Minister for Health

This statement sets out in some detail the decision taken by the Government on the level of Commonwealth benefits which will be paid in the medical benefits insurance segment of the National Health Scheme and on the common fees to which these benefits will be related. In addition details are also given of the decisions concerning the fees paid to doctors for treatment provided under the Pensioner and Repatriation Medical Services.

The new surgery consultation common fee and benefits will also involve consequential adjustments in the fees for 11 other medical services which, for fees and benefit purposes, are equated to general practitioner surgery consultations. (See Appendix A)

South Wales, where the Health Department’s figures showed that the most commonly charged fee for a general practitioner surgery consultation in July 1969 had been $3.30. The most common fee established for that State early in 1970 for the introductiton of the new medical benefits plan was $3.50. Since the AMA fee recommendations on general practitioner consultations and home visits were to apply to fees applying in 1969 there was a considerable cost factor - amounting to some $3 million - involved in gaining recognition by the AMA of the $3.30 baseline figure rather than $3.50 which some sections of the medical profession in New South Wales had put forward as the baseline figure.

The following figures indicate the position State by State:

The precise increases will be determined by the Health Funds and submitted to the Minister for Health for approval.

Medical Benefits

There are eleven medical services which, for purposes of common fees and benefits, have been directly related to Item 2 in such a way that any variation in the fees and benefits for Item 2 must be carried over into those items.

The services are:

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move: That the Senate take note of the paper.

I have had only a brief opportunity to peruse the statement by the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood). It would appear that there is to be an increase in the amount payable by the Commonwealth and by medical insurance funds for the purpose of meeting the increases that will take place in medical fees. I am concerned that there is such a wide disparityin the amounts mentioned by the Minister for Health as being the expected increase in contributions to funds by contributors. The Minister has pointed out that a number of matters have to be taken into consideration. He said that, taking all these factors into account, the contributions to be paid to the major funds for medical benefits insurance are expected to be increased by a total of 5c to 10c a week in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, and by 6c toAc a week in Queensland. I believe that the increase involved in this assessment by the Minister for Health will place far too great a. burden on people in receipt of comparatively low incomes, especially as there is likely to be a subsequent increase this year in the contributions that people will be expected to pay for hospital insurance.

The cost of medical and hospital insurance for workers in the community is getting completely out of hand these days. Until we have elected a government which will put into effect a national health insurance scheme the people of Australia will have to carry the burden of this Government. I should have hoped that in his statement the Minister would have given some consideration to making an announcement on whether the Government intended to proceed with the establishment of a national health insurance commission, as recommended by the Nimmo Committee and mentioned by his predecessor in March 1970. In my cursory perusal of the statement I did not see any announcement of this nature by the Minister.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1578

QUESTION

ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS

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

(11.15) - I move:

That order of the day No. 24 take precedence over order of the day No. 1, and that orders of the day Nos. 6 and 7 be postponed until the next day of sitting.

The reason I have moved that order of the day No. 24 take precedence over order of the day No. 1 is merely for the purpose of getting a second reading speech on to the slate. The Opposition will then take the adjournment of the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1578

QUESTION

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETINGS

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

(11.16) - I move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and times of the Senate meeting next week be as follows:

Tuesday, 11 a.m. till 1 p.m., 2.15 p.m. till 6 p.m., 8 p.m. till11 p.m.

Wednesday, 10 a.m. till 1 p.m., 2.15 p.m. till 6 p.m., 8 p.m. till 11 p.m.

Thursday, 10 a.m. till11 p.m., 2.15 p.m. till 6 p.m., 8 p.m. till 11 p.m.; and

Friday, 10 a.m. till 1 p.m., 2.15 p.m. till 4 p.m.

The times are identical with those for this week with the exception of Wednesday when we will meet at 10 a.m. instead of 2.15 p.m. as we did last week because we had party meetings on Wednesday morning.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That unless otherwise ordered the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the termination time each day.

page 1579

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances have power to meet in Norfolk Island during the forthcoming adjournment of the Senate.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I commend and very warmly support the proposal which has just been put to the chamber by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). I commend him and the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) for making this visit possible. For the sake of the record, I indicate that this will be the first occasion in the history of the rather famous Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on which the Committee will have met outside Parliament House in Canberra. So it is something of significance in that respect alone.

For a long while I have taken an active interest in Norfolk Island because I believe there is a uniqueness about the situation regarding legislation for Norfolk Island which makes it desirable and proper for the Regulations and Ordinances Committee to inform itself about the background, history and other matters relating to the affairs of Norfolk Island. The visit will provide the members of the Committee with an excellent opportunity to meet the people and to gain background knowledge about what is happening there. The Committee will be able to take these matters into account and weigh them when it is dealing with the special type of legislation which from time to time comes up in the form of ordinances dealing with the affairs of Norfolk Island.

I think it is appropriate at this stage to mention that the people on Norfolk Isdand are a unique ethnic group. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee has always been at pains to preserve the interests and homogeneity of these people, because it must be remembered that they are the people who have descended from the Bounty’ mutineers and the Pitcairners back in history, and a most interesting piece of history it is. Because of the uniqueness of the community and the history that goes right back to the settlement, as we now know it, on Norfolk Island, we have endeavoured to ensure that we should pay proper regard to the passage of subordinate legislation dealing with the affairs of Norfolk Island.

I believe it is important that members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee should visit Norfolk Island because from time to time in the future, as has been the case in the past, they will have to consider the special types of legislation which affect the people on Norfolk Island. The Norfolk Island Legislative Council has a unique role to play. I believe that it has a special place in the legislative system in this country. Frequently the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has had need to examine the ordinances made for the good government of Norfolk Island. I believe it is important that there should be understanding on both sides. From our point of view, there should be an understanding of the affairs, needs, wishes and special desires of the people on Norfolk Island, and on the other side there is a complementary need for the people on Norfolk Island to understand the particular role, duties and responsibilities of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

I believe that the visit to Norfolk Island will provide an opportunity to the members of the Committee to get to know and understand the functioning of the Norfolk Island Legislative Council and to get to know and take in some of the atmosphere of the Norfolk Island community. We want to learn something about the special needs of the people on Norfolk Island so that we can translate them and get a better understanding, if that is necessary, of the type of legislation concerning Norfolk Island which comes before the Committee. There is always value in making contacts of this kind, especially when we, as the body having the responsibility to consider legislation which affects the people of Norfolk Island, are endeavouring to improve relationships which, let me hasten to say, are already very good. We want to improve and extend those relationships at every possible opportunity, and I believe that a visit of the nature contemplated will assist members of the Committee to attain this purpose.

As I said at the outset, I warmly welcome this opportunity to visit Norfolk Island. I might say here, in my position as a member of the Committee, that my feelings about Norfolk Island go a little further than might otherwise be the case. Let me place on record the fact that my home State of Tasmania had control of the affairs of Norfolk Island up to 1856, at which time the people of Pitcairn Island were transferred to Norfolk Island. The very interesting history which has flowed from that event is fairly well known to most honourable senators. I thank the officers of the Parliament, the Minister for External Territories and especially the Minister for Supply (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). This is a turning point in history, so far as the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is concerned. I, in my capacity as Deputy Chairman of the Committee - I know that I speak for all members of the Committee in this regard - am very grateful for the help which has been given to us by the officials of the Department of External Territories.

I should say that what I have done in this matter in a number of directions in recent days has been really an extension of something which was initiated by my colleague Senator Bishop some time ago when he was a member of this very important Committee of the Parliament. I am certain that only good can come from this visit.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– As Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee I think I shoud put very simply and cleary to the Senate what is in the minds of members of the Committee in suggesting this trip to Norfolk Island. There axe some peculiar circumstances relating to Norfolk Island. Some of the regulations or ordinances which have come from Norfolk Island have appeared to some of us on the Committee to be rather unusual or strange. Sometimes the regulations or ordinances have resulted in a conflict arising between the Committee, the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) and the Legislative Council of Norfolk Island.

It is difficult for some members of the Committee to realise why these regulations or ordinances come out of Norfolk Island, because to us they infringe upon one or more of the 4 principles under which the Committee has operated since its inception. Therefore, because the members of the Committee found difficulty in understanding or accepting what sometimes appeared to be very restrictive regulations or ordinances concerning Norfolk Island, the Committee had discussions with the Minister. I believe that some members of the Legislative Council of Norfolk Island were in Australia some months ago. I know that the Minister would be very happy for the Committee to go there, and I understand that the councillors who were over here would be very pleased to see the Committee. After thinking on this for quite some time, the Committee has decided to go to Norfolk Island to find out the reasons for the peculiar aspects of their ordinances which come before our Committee. I think there is benefit in the Committee’s going there to find out the reason for and the purpose of their doing things and the way in which they do them. We do not want to be in conflict with the people on Norfolk Island. We want to try to understand, co-operate and work with these people. I think the visit by the Committee to Norfolk Island will help us to gain a clearer interpretation of the reasons why they formulate regulations and ordinances which are contrary to what we consider to be suitable for the Commonwealth of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1580

VALEDICTORY SPEECHES

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

– by leave - I would like to make a brief statement. When the Senate concludes its business, which we expect and hope will be next week, we will all be wanting to pay our respects to and to put on the record our appreciation of the retiring senators - the President, the Chairman of Committees and other honourable senators. I think it would be very unfortunate if we did this in the dying hours when we were just about to conclude our business. There will be certain honourable senators who will be wanting to travel interstate and who will be anxious to get away to catch aircraft. So I am proposing that on the day on which we reasonably anticipate that we will be concluding our business I shall ask for leave to interpose this matter after prayers so that any honourable senator who wants to make a contribution will be able to do so in a less hurried atmosphere and with a dignity worthy of the occasion. I simply want to indicate to the Senate that that is what I propose to do.

page 1581

PUBLIC ORDER (PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY) BELL 1971

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

page 1581

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BELL (No. 2) 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(11.28)- I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the provisions of the income tax law relating to interest withholding tax so as to give effect to decisions announced by the former Prime Minister on 13 th December last. Two other taxation Bills to be introduced immediately - the Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1971 and the Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1971 - are complementary. The interest withholding tax is a tax, levied at the rate of 10 per cent, on interest received by overseas lenders from Australian borrowers. The borrower is obliged to withhold 10 per cent of the interest and pay it to the Commissioner of Taxation. It is a form of tax commonly used by many countries to tax certain classes of income having a source within their territory.

When the interest withholding tax in its current form was introduced as from the beginning of 1968, it was expected that in most cases, particularly where there were arrangements between Australia and the other country concerned for relief of double taxation, the overseas lender would be able to obtain a taxation credit in his own country for interest withholding tax deducted in Australia. If so, it was to be expected that the burden of the Australian interest withholding tax would not generally fall on the Australian borrower - in other words, that the rate of interest payable by the Australian borrower would not include the cost of interest withholding tax. However, a review of the effect of the interest withholding tax on Australian borrowers has caused the Government to believe that the tax frequently falls not on the overseas lender but on the Australian borrower. This is because the lender adds to the rate of interest he charges a compensation for the interest tax withheld.

The Government has made clear the importance it attaches to flows of capital from abroad for the development of our resources and of the economy generally. It has also made clear that it wishes to see as much Australian equity and managerial participation as possible in developmental and industrial enterprises in this country. Insofar as the burden of the interest withholding tax on overseas borrowings is passed on, in whole or m part, to the borrower in Australia, it is thought that its effect could be detrimental to the achievement of these objectives. As a result of the review to which I have referred, it is proposed under this Bil] to exempt interest on 2 broad categories of overseas borrowings from interest withholding tax. The first broad category is bearer securities issued overseas to the public or on an otherwise widely-spread basis. The second broad category relates to what might be termed overseas borrowings to support whole or partial Australian ownership of ventures in this country.

Where borrowings are made overseas by means of widely-spread bearer securities, the Government is satisfied that the cost of interest withholding tax must be met by the Australian borrower irrespective of whether or not the borrowing company is predominantly overseas owned or Australian owned. This is so because, for technical reasons, it is not practicable for overseas tax credits to apply at all under the institutional arrangements that have in practice to be adopted for payment of the interest. These arrangements provide for interest on the securities to be paid over the counter by banks in overseas financial centres when the holder of the security presents his interest coupon, and the bank is reimbursed by the borrower or his agent. It has been found impossible for our withholding tax to be collected from the real lenders in these circumstances. I mention in this connection that, as a general measure against tax evasion, the present law - by section 126 of the Assessment Act - imposes a special rate of tax of approximately 42 per cent on interest paid on bearer securities where the borrower does not supply to the Commissioner of Taxation the names and addresses of holders to whom the interest is paid.

The provisions of section 126 apply to overseas issues of bearer securities. Despite these provisions, however, borrowers resident in Australia who wish, and are able, to have access to overseas capital markets through the issue of bearer securities can still make such borrowings by setting up an overseas borrowing subsidiary in a country which does not impose tax on interest on bearer securities. Australian interest withholding tax at the rate of 10 per cent is then paid on interest on the borrowing by the Australian company from its overseas subsidiary. That is a technical solution which enables the Australian borrower to meet both our requirements and those of the overseas capital market. But there can be no crediting of our withholding tax against tax levied by the real lender’s country of residence, and so the tax would usually operate to increase the effective rate of interest payable by the Australian borrower. It is accordingly proposed that interest on bearer debentures that satisfy tests set out in the Bill will be exempt from withholding tax and section 126 tax. Broadly speaking, the exemption will be available for interest paid by Australian-resident companies on overseas borrowings made by them through widely-spread bearer debentures for use in, or in connection with, a business carried on in Australia by a resident of Australia,. It will be immaterial for this purpose whether or not the borrower or user is Australian owned. The intention is to eliminate scope for companies which are resident overseas to channel their overseas borrowings via Australian based companies in such a way as to use Australia, as a tax haven.

A requirement for exemption is that the debentures be issued outside Australia for the purposes of raising a loan outside Australia in a foreign currency, the interest on which is paid outside Australia in a foreign currency. One objective in denning overseas borrowing in this way is to minimise the risk of evasion of tax by residents of Australia. Precautions of this kind have to be stronger with bearer securities than with registered securities. It will also be a prerequisite for exemption that the Commissioner give a certificate that, having regard to the circumstances surrounding the issue - and statutory guidelines for the Commissioner are provided in the Bill for this purpose - it is reasonable to regard the debentures as having been issued with a view to public subscription or purchase, or other wide distribution among investors. The purpose of this, of course, is to prevent borrowings from simply being dressed-up’ as exempt bearer debenture issues so as to take advantage of the exemption. Earlier I referred to the issue of bearer securities or debentures via an overseas subsidiary of the Australian borrower. It has been represented to us that some Australian borrowers will find it expedient to continue to borrow in this way because of the preferences of overseas lenders. We see no reason to prevent them from doing so, and accordingly the exemption in respect of bearer debentures will apply, not only where denbentures are issued directly by the Australian borrower, but also where debentures are issued through an overseas subsidiary which is wholly owned and controlled by an Australianresident parent and its only business is to borrow for on-lending at cost to the parent company for use in, or in connection with, an Australian business.

Unless there is exemption under the plan for borrowings to support Australian ownership, which I describe shortly, bearer debenture interest that does not qualify for the exemption will, as previously, be subject to section 126 tax if the identity of the holders is not disclosed. However, the rate of tax under section 126 will be reduced to 10 per cent for non-exempt interest on completely foreign issues by residents of Australia, that is, issues in a foreign currency on which interest is payable in a foreign currency by a resident of Australia, in other cases, the rate of tax will be the same as that now imposed. A separate Bill, the Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1971, will declare the rates of tax under section 126.

I come now to the second, and in many respects the more important, broad category of overseas borrowings on which under the Bill interest will be exempt from interest withholding tax - namely, borrowings to support whole or partial Australian ownership of ventures in this country. Except in the case of widely-spread bearer securities, there is no absolute barrier to prevent the overseas lender from obtaining in his country the benefit of .tax credits in respect of interest withholding tax deducted in Australia. However, we have been advised that difficulties frequently arise and that the cost of our interest withholding tax may have to be met by the Australian borrower in the form of an increase in the rate of interest on the loan. Sometimes all that is involved is that the borrower is asked to put the lender in funds temporarily until the latter’s .tax credit is received, in which event there is no permanent cost to the borrower. We have been advised that in other cases there could be a permanent cost to him because the lender cannot obtain a full credit, or perhaps for other reasons. Where this is so, the Government believes that these problems and costs must affect Australian-owned companies to an extent that need not, and generally does not, apply to overseas companies which can have access to loan funds from abroad through overseas parent or associated companies. Accordingly, the Bill provides for exemption from interest withholding tax, in defined circumstances, of interest on overseas borrowings by Australian-owned borrowers. The purpose is to ensure that the law does not operate to discriminate against Australianowned enterprises, relative to overseas-owned enterprises, in the matter of the effective cost of interest on overseas borrowings.

For this exemption to be available, tests as to the extent of Australian ownership and control must be satisfied both by the borrower and the enterprise in which the borrowed moneys are used. In the terms used in the Bill, the exemption will be available only if the borrower is an Australian entity’ and the borrowed funds are used in an enterprise owned by an Australian entity’ or an enterprise in which there is ‘substantial Australian participation’. The Bill specifies that individuals ordinarily resident in Australia - the Commonwealth, a State and authorities of the Commonwealth or a State - are Australian entities for the purpose. In the case of companies, in broad terms a company will be treated as an Australian entity if, in addition to its being a resident of Australia, at least 60 per cent of the ownership and control is vested in Australian entities, including shareholder companies that are themselves Australian entities, and no one person who is not an Australian entity has rights to more than 20 per cent of the ownership or control. Other types of business organisation, such as partnerships and joint ventures, may qualify as Australian entities on satisfying tests as to Australian ownership and control adapted from those applicable to companies.

An enterprise will be deemed to be one in which there is substantial Australian participation if the extent and concentration of participation by Australian entities are such as to represent an effective Australian influence in the carrying on of the enterprise. An enterprise owned by a company will be an enterprise with substantial Australian participation if rights to at least 20 per cent of the ownership and control of the company are held by one Australian entity. Alternatively an enterprise may qualify if at least 30 per cent of the ownership and control of the company is held by not more than 5 Australian entities, or at least 40 per cent is held by any number of Australian entities. Enterprises owned by bodies other than companies may qualify on satisfying tests as to the extent of Australian ownership and control adapted from those applying for companies. Interest on loans raised abroad by such enterpriseswill be exempted from tax if, on an application to him by the borrower, the Commissioner of Taxation certifies that he is satisfied that the borrower is an Australian, entity and the loan moneys are for use in an enterprise owned by an Australian entity or an enterprise in which there is substantial Australian participation. If, in the latter case, the money is provided as a loan to the enterprise, the loan must not be excessive in amount when related to the extent of the Australian participation in theenterprise.

Other ancillary tests, dealing with matters such as rights over the appointment of directors, redeemable shares and options unacquire shares and artificial arrangements designed to obtain exemption that otherwise would not have been available, are also proposed as safeguards against devices to circumvent the main tests I have described. Where circumstances so change during the- currency of a loan that the tests for exemption are not met, the interest will remain exempt from withholding tax but the borrower will be liable to pay a special tax - in effect, a substituted withholding tax - on the interest attributable to the period during which the tests are not met. This tax will be imposed at the rate of 10 per cent by the Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Bill 1971. That Bill also provides for the imposition of additional tax, at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on the amount of the special tax, equivalent to the additional tax for late payment of withholding tax that would have been payable if the interest had not been exempted from that tax.

I turn now to administrative procedures governing the operation of the exemption in its application to both of the broad categories of overseas borrowings I have described. If a particular borrowing meets the precise tests set out in the Bill and the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that the case falls within the terms and spirit of other provisions of the Bill including the extensive guidelines contained in it, he will give to the borrower a certificate that he is so satisfied. On the giving of this certificate interest on that borrowing will, while it continues to satisfy the precise tests, be exempt from withholding tax and, in the case of interest on bearer debentures, from tax under section 126 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Interest exempted from withholding tax will also be exempted from ordinary income tax levied by assessment. A certificate of exemption will be given by the Commissioner upon the borrower demonstrating how the money borrowed will, in the end, be used. Such certificates will be given only after the overseas loan has been raised and all the relevant facts have been made known to the Commissioner. However, the Commissioner will follow his usual administrative practice in cases of this kind of indicating beforehand to prospective borrowers who place all the facts before him whether, on those facts, he can be expected to give a certificate once the loan is raised.

Should the Commissioner conclude that a certificate of exemption should not be given he will be obliged to notify the borrower accordingly. The law will treat this notice as if it were a notice of an income tax assessment, with the consequence that the borrower will have usual rights of objection and appeal against the Commissioner’s refusal to give a certificate. A taxation Board of Review will accordingly have the power to grant a certificate of exemption should it conclude that the particular loan falls within the policy evinced by the legislation. The new exemptions from interest withholding tax provided for in the Bill will be effective in relation to loans the contracts for which are entered into on or after the date of Royal Assent. It will be immaterial that negotiations for a loan concluded on or after that date were begun before then, or that the loan is in substitution for an earlier loan. In the statement made by the former Prime Minister on 13th December it was foreshadowed that the amendments would be effective as from 1st July 1971. It has been found, however, that no purpose would be served by deferring operation of the new provisions beyond the date of Royal Assent.

Before concluding I should explain the significance of clause 9 of the Bill, which has a different purpose from those I have described. On the face of things it may appear that the clause will operate to withdraw an exemption from withholding tax that is provided by the existing law in respect of interest credited by overseas branches of Australian banks to accounts kept with the branches by foreign customers. However, this is not the case.

I should explain that this category of interest - broadly interest on saving banks or fixed deposit accounts kept by nonresidents with overseas branches of Australian banks in the ordinary course of their business - has been and will continue to be exempt from withholding tax under a general provision in section 128B (2). The latter provision frees from the tax interest paid to a non-resident where it is incurred by a resident in carrying on business through an overseas branch. The specific exempting provision that is to be omitted by clause 9 is, in fact, redundant. While its inclusion in the ong.nal interest withholding tax legislation was considered desirable to make it doubly clear that the interest concerned would not bear withholding tax, its withdrawal is now considered necessary since a view has been expressed that it could operate to provide a general exemption for ordinary borrowings by Australian banks on behalf of companies in Australia. Such borrowings which meet the test for the exemptions proposed in the Bill will, of course, be free of withholding tax but it is not, and never has been, intended that all such borrowings should automatically qualify for exemption under the provision now proposed to be omitted. The amendment to be made by clause 9 will be effective as from 29th April 1971.

Explanations of the technical provisions of the three Bills are contained in a comprehensive explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators The Government believes that the legislation will assist generally in the attraction of overseas investment to Australia, and on a basis under which Australia entities will not be at a disavantage relative to overseas owned enterprises in regard to the effective cost of overseas loan capital. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1585

INCOME TAX (WITHHOLDING TAX RECOUPMENT) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(11.49) - i move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill should be read in conjunction with the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1971. Speaking broadly, its purpose is to impose a special tax of 10 per cent in cases where a borrowing initially meets the tests for exemption under the earlier Bill for borrowings to support Australian ownership or participation, but which subsequently fails to satisfy those tests. The effect is to impose a tax in substitution for the withholding tax that, but for the exemptions proposed in the main Bill, would have been payable.

Since the special tax will be paid somewhat later than the withholding tax which it replaces, the Bill also provides for the imposition of further tax, by way of additional tax for late payment, at the rate of 10 per cent per annum based on the amount of special tax. This additional tax is to be calculated from the date on which the witholding tax would have been payable to the date on which the special tax is notified and, as is usual with late payment penalties statutorily imposed, . may be remitted wholly or in part if the circumstances so warrant. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1585

INCOME TAX (BEARER DEBENTURES) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) proposed:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1586

STATES GRANTS BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (oh motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

(11.54)- I move:

The purposes of this Bill are to amend the States Grants Act 1970 to provide for the payment of additional grants to the States as compensation for loss of receipts duty revenue and as special revenue assistance to help finance 1970-71 Budget deficits; and to make certain amendments needed because of the non-payment of pay-roll tax by Victoria and the legal challenge by that State and South Australia to the validity of pay-roll tax in its application to State governments. Under the new revenue grants arrangements settled at the Premiers’ conference last June provision was made for a substantial increase in the level of Commonwealth assistance to the States on the basis that the distribution of tax resources would remain unchanged and that the States and their authorities would continue to pay pay-roll tax. In 1970-71 the revenue assistance payable under these new arrangements is currently estimated to be nearly $190m or almost 16 per cent greater than in 1969-70, which is, by any standards, a very large increase.

However, notwithstanding this very large increase in assistance, the States have run into financial difficulties since last June. First,, for reasons of. which honourable senators will be aware, the Commonwealth was forced to limit the application of its legislation imposing a duty on business receipts on behalf of the States to receipts before 1st October 1970. As a result, the States were faced with the loss of a major source of revenue. Secondly, following the presentation of their 1970-71 Budgets the States were faced with a quite abnormal increase in costs. largely as .a result of very large increases in wage awards granted to their employees by various wage fixing bodies, lt. has been estimated that such increases will have the effect of increasing wages per State employee, on average, by no less than 15 per cent in 1970-71.

No arrangements intended to apply over a 5-year period could be expected to cope with sudden abnormal developments of this nature and magnitude.’ Indeed, it has always been recognised that, within any 5-yearly period of their operation, the financial assistance grants ‘ arrangements are not designed to meet either significant changes in the States powers and responsibilities or severe financial difficulties that arise due to abnormal factors beyond the States control. ‘ The Commonwealth therefore agreed, at the Premiers Conference last October, to compensate the States for the loss of receipts duty revenues and, more recently, to provide additional revenue assistance of $43m to help the States finance their prospective Budget deficits in 1970-71.

I emphasise that this additional revenue assistance on which we agreed last month is being provided on the understanding that it would be used to reduce the States revenue deficits and not to increase expenditure on goods and services in 1970-71 following the measures taken by the States after the February Premiers Conference. This was unanimously accepted by the States at the April Premiers Conference. I might add that these measures of restraint by the States not only helped to alleviate their own budgetary problems, but also to reduce inflationary pressures upon the economy. However even after allowance for the fact that these measures were estimated to reduce the States 1970-71 deficits by $60m to S70m, it was apparent from the information put before the Commonwealth at the Premiers Conference on 5th April that the States would still be left with substantial deficits in 1970-71. The Commonwealth therefore agreed to provide special revenue assistance of $43m in 1970-71 on the basis I have mentioned. As a result the total cost of the Commonwealth revenue assistance to be provided under the new grants arrangements and of the additional revenue assistance is estimated ito be $230m, or over 19 per cent higher in 1970-71 than the comparable figure for 1969-70.

The additional revenue assistance is to be distributed between the States in proportion to the formula grafts. As final estimates of these grants are not yet available, the following estimates of amounts payable to each State are subject to revision:

As regards the amount of receipts duty compensation to be paid to each State, it was agreed at the Premiers Conference held on 8th October last that in 1970-71 each State .would be paid a grant equal to the estimated amount of duty which would have been collected in” 1970-71 in respect of receipts in the last 9 months of the year, other than wage and salary receipts, if the receipts duty legislation of the Commonwealth and the States had continued to operate after 20th September 1970. In addition, the Commonwealth agreed to representations by Queensland that it should receive an additional grant to compensate it for the fact that the rate of duty in that State applying in the first quarter of the year was only 0.02 per cent, compared to 0.1 per cent in all other States and under the Commonwealth’s legislation. Queensland argued that it had framed amendments to its own legislation such that, had the original proposals agreed between the Commonwealth and the State governments been agreed to by the Commonwealth Par liament, its rate would also have been 0.1 per cent as from the beginning of 1970-71.

It was also agreed at the October Conference that the compensation for 1970-71 and subsequent years would be calculated by estimating the amount of duty each State would have received from receipts duty at 0.1 per cent in 1970-71 had it been a ‘normal’ year and adding the amounts so estimated to the ‘base’ to which the . financial assistance grants formula, as laid down in section 5 of the States Grants Act 1970, is applied. In settling upon this procedure, it was recognised that the grants calculated under it would ‘ not necessarily equal exactly the amounts of receipts duty which would have been collected.- It was seen, however, by both the Commonwealth and the States as an equitable approach to the problem and accepted on that basis.

The estimates of duty which would have been collected in the whole of 1970-71 had it been a ‘normal’ year, and in the last three-quarters of the year, had Commonwealth and State legislation continued in operation, have been discussed between Commonwealth and State treasury officials and the amounts, which are set out in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, respectively, have been endorsed by the Government.

With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate in Hansard a table showing -the compensation payable in 1970-71 and preliminary estimates of the additions to the financial assistance grants in 1971-2 which will arise from the provisions of the legislation.

  1. Approximate estimates made by making arbitrary assumptions concerning the increase in average wages in the year ending March 1972 and in each State’s population in the year ending December 1971.

At the October Premiers’ Conference, the Commonwealth made it clear that, as with the grants payable under the new financial assistance grants arrangements, the payment of receipts duty compensation would be dependent on the States and their semi-government and local authorities continuing to pay pay-roll tax. This is interesting in view of the comments made at question time. This followed the statement by the former Prime Minister in the House on 30th September last that the Commonwealth could not accept the position taken by the Victorian Government that it did not intend to seek an appropriaton from the Victorian Parliament for the purpose of paying payroll tax to the Commonwealth in 1970-71.

The main reason why the Commonwealth continues to make the payment of the financial assistance grants conditional on the payment of payroll tax by the States and their authorities is, of course, because non-payment of the tax would, in effect, increase the net flow of funds from the Commonwealth to the States beyond that intended by the Commonwealth Government and by the Parliament when agreeing to authorise the payment of the grants. The amount of revenue currently involved is considerable. In 1970-71 State governments are estimated to be liable to pay payroll tax of about $40m and their semi-government and local authorities approximately $30m. There are, of course, other reasons making it desirable to preserve the very comprehensive basis on which the tax is presently levied. Essentially, however, the Commonwealth’s position on this matter is quite simple. We could only accept a situation in which the States or their authorities, or some of them, ceased to pay payroll tax if there were to be an equivalent reduction in the grants payable to the State or States concerned. As there is no provision in the States Grants Act 1970 to permit deductions to be made from the grants where a State, or its authorities, do not pay payroll tax, it is necessary to include such a provision in order to meet the possibility that the High Court will uphold the challenge by Victoria and South Australia to the constitutional validity of payroll tax in its application to State governments. Further, as Victoria has not paid any payroll tax this year, and as the Victorian Parliament has now risen, it is also necessary to have authority to make a deduction from the grant payable to that State in 1970-71 in order to protect Commonwealth revenue in the event that Victoria decides not to meet, or in the absence of parliamentary authority is unable to meet, its liability for 1970-71. However, on this latter 1 point, I would draw honourable senators’ attention to sub-sections (5) and (6)’ of the proposed new section 9a, the effect of which is to authorise the refund of an amount previously deducted from a State’s grant where that State subsequently pays the amount of pay-roll tax owing.

Honourable senators, will . also note that the Bill leaves discretion to the Treasurer to determine the amount of any deduction from the grant payable to a State. I assure the Senate that it would not be the intention to deduct an amount greater than the amount of pay-roll tax not paid. However, it will not necessarily be possible to estimate precisely the amounts of pay-roll tax a State Government, or a State authority would have paid in some period had it continued to pay the tax. In this regard I mention that, in the event of a High Court decision unfavourable to the Commonwealth, and the States, or some of them, deciding not to continue to pay pay-roll tax, the legislation would permit the Government to offset the loss of pay-roll tax revenue to the Commonwealth in future years by making a deduction to the base grants to which the financial assistance grants formula is applied. It may be of interest to honourable senators to know that provisions of this type in State grants legislation are by no means unprecedented. The States Grants Act 1946-48 - under which tax reimbursement grants’, were paid from 1946-47 to 1958-59 inclusive - provided in effect that, if a State imposed an income tax, it could thereby lose its grant. Similarly, the present Commonwealth Aid Roads Act authorises the Treasurer to make a deduction from an amount payable to a State where that State has failed to comply wilh the conditions of the roads grants.

The non-payment of pay-roll tax by Victoria has also given rise to the need to amend the States Grants Act 1970 in order to ensure that Victoria’s action does not reduce the size of the increase in average wages calculated for the year ended March 1971, this being one of the elements in the formula used to determine the 1970-71 grants payable to all States. The failure of Victoria to submit pay-roll tax returns in respect of the period June 1970 to March 1971 means that, under the legislation as it now stands, the increase in average wages for the year ended March 1971 would have to be calculated by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician without reference to the number, of Victorian Government employees and their wages during the period, in which returns have, not been lodged. Without going into details, it is estimated that the effect of this would be to reduce the increase in average wages for the year ending March 1971 by about 0.3 per cent, which in turn would reduce the financial assistance grants payable this financial year to all States by about $3m.

It would obviously be inequitable to allow the States’ grants to be lower than they should be merely because Victoria has not lodged pay-roll tax returns for part of the relevant period. Clause 6 of the Bill therefore amends section 10 of the Act so as to allow the statistician more discretion in calculating the increase in average wages. This will enable him, in this and other circumstances which may arise, to make such adjustments to figures obtained from pay-roll tax. returns as he considers necessary to put the calculations on a consistent and accurate basis.

To sum up, the Government believes that, in providing receipts duty compensation of $59.7m in this year and of roughly $100m in 1971-72, escalating in future years, as well as additional revenue assistance of $43m this year, we are reaching a fair result with the States. It follows that we could not afford, in addition, to suffer a further net loss of revenue as a result of the non-payment of pay-roll tax by a State or States or their authorities, and we have accordingly to protect ourselves against that situation.

To put the matter in perspective, with the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate in Hansard a table showing the extent to which, after taking account of the proposals contained in this Bill, we shall be assisting the States in the current financial year.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1589

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commonwealth Government to guarantee the repayment of loans and the payment of interest on amounts that may be borrowed by the Australian Wool Board for the construction and equipping of integrated wool selling complexes. An amendment to the Wool Industry Act last year authorised the Wool Board to establish or encourage the establishment, where appropriate, of integrated wool selling complexes, and empowered the Board to borrow for these purposes, subject to the approval of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair).

The principal aim of establishing wool selling complexes is to have a well laid out building which incorporates the most modern mechanised wool handling and recording equipment for the common use by wool selling brokers to enable the most efficient and speedy movement of wool into store, within store and but of store to the ship. The amendment made to the Act last year allows the Board either to finance the construction and equipping of complexes by industry interests or to construct and equip the complexes itself: The Board will only adopt the latter course if the wool trade, including wool selling brokers, wishes it to do so. In financing the construction of complexes, the Board will ensure that woolgrowers receive a fair share of the savings arising from the construction of the complexes. If the Wool Board undertakes the construction of complexes itself, it will act solely as a landlord and rent the complexes to “ wool selling brokers and others concerned in the presale handling of wool, its sale and preparation for shipment. The rentals charged by. the Board would be sufficient only to cover costs, payment of interest and repayment of loans.

The Wool Board is anxious to keep the cost of erecting complexes as low as possible and in this regard an important component of cost is the interest which would have to be paid on borrowings. It follows that if the Board can obtain lower interest rates by having a Government guarantee, the cost of constructing complexes would be lower and hence a greater benefit would flow to woolgrowers. At the present time 3 Sydney brokers are building wool selling facilities at Yennora in the western suburbs of Sydney. It is understood that the other Sydney brokers are now also willing to move to Yennora. To date development at Yennora has been wholly financed by the 3 brokers themselves, but the Wool Board has been collaborating closely in the planning. The facilities at present under construction at Yennora are so designed as to be capable of being developed into a fully integrated complex. The Yennora project will be breaking new ground in the field of wool handling. In the circumstances, the benefits which will flow from it to the various sections of the industry will be watched with considerable interest and will, no doubt, influence decisions on the establishment of integrated wool selling complexes in other centres.

Studies undertaken by the Wool Board as well as by wool selling brokers demonstrate that an integrated wool selling complex at Yennora offers good prospects of important cost savings in wool handling in Sydney. The possible introduction of pre;sale objective measurement of wool and sale by sample carries important implications for future wool handling’ procedures. The application of pre-sale : objective measurement and sale by sample is at present being subjected to a series of trials. This has been made possible ‘ by a grant of $1.5m by the Commonwealth Government. It seems fairly certain, : however, that presale objective measurement and sale by sample will play ah important role in the future in the disposal of the Australian woo] clip. Any proposal- for borrowing by the Australian Wool ..Board, in connection with wool selling ‘ complexes must be approved ‘ by the ‘ Minister for. Primary Industry and the Treasurer. The Government will, of course, ensure that any problems which might affect ‘the viability of such a proposal have been fully, resolved before approval is given for the Wool Board to ‘ proceed. The Wool Board is anxious to be in a position to facilitate the development of integrated wool selling complexes where they can be justified on the grounds of increased, efficiency and cost savings. The amendments which are the subject of the Bill will help the Board to achieve this objective. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1590

STATES GRANTS (SCIENCE LABORATORIES) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to seek authority for the Government to conduct and to bring to a conclusion over the next 4 financial years, from 1st July 1971 to 30th June 1975 its programme of grants for the construction and equipping of science laboratories in secondary schools. The science facilities programme was first introduced in the 1964-65 financial year. By the end of the present 3 year period, on 30th June this year, some $80m will have been provided for government and nongovernment secondary schools in Australia. The expenditure of these funds has improved markedly the quality of the science teaching facilities available to students, and has without doubt contributed to the improvement in the quality of the teaching of science subjects. As a result, young people leaving secondary school are better prepared in science than would otherwise have been the case.

Most existing Australian secondary schools have already ‘ received some form of assistance, often substantial, from the funds made available under the Commonwealth science facilities programme in the last 7 years. However, needs still exist. On present information, made available by both the States and the non-government schools, the Government believes that the purpose of its programme will be achieved by the expenditure of a further $43 .295m. It is the Government’s intention to make this money available over a 4-year period. Expenditure under the programme in the present triennial period has been running at the rate of some $12. 573m per annum. This is a substantial amount. The expenditure of $43. 295m over a 4-year period represents an annual expenditure rate of $10. 83m. Whilst this is a reduced rate of expenditure, as compared with that of the last few years, the Government believes that it is a rate appropriate to the economic circumstances of the time, and appropriate to the remaining needs of secondary schools.

Whilst the Government has been concerned to restrain public expenditure, it must be kept in mind that expenditure on this programme of unmatched capital assistance to schools should be considered in conjunction with 2 other Commonwealth programmes of unmatched grants, namely, those for technical training and secondary school libraries. The Government has recently announced increases totalling $3m per annum in the rate of expenditure under these 2 programmes. The programme for science laboratories has always been regarded as a finite one designed to overcome deficiencies and the shifting emphasis in Commonwealth programmes reflects the success of the science facilities programme. Because we are reaching the end of the programme we are changing the method of allocation of the available funds. Until now, funds have been distributed on the basis of a formula which was based on secondary enrolments and State populations. For the remaining 4 years the method of’ distribution will take closer account of the actual needs of particular schools. The proportion of the total of $43. 295m allocated to government schools will be the. same proportion of the total as has applied during the triennium just ending. The amount to become available in this way to government schools will be $26.088m. This $26.088m will be divided between the States in proportion to their secondary school enrolments. As at present, the States will determine how this money will be distributed between individual government schools.

The non-government schools will receive as their share of the $43. 295m available, a total of $17. 207m, which reflects their assessed, actual needs. The various State advisory committtes of which there are 2 in each State, 1 for Roman Catholic and the other for non-Roman Catholic schools, will continue to make recommendations to the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Fairbairn) concerning grants for the category of schools for which they are responsible. Those Committees will allocate priorities, and recommend to the Minister the timing of grants within total sums, which reflect the assessed needs of the schools which fall within the ambit of their responsibilities. The distribution of the amount of $43. 29 5m available till 30th June 1975 is set out in the Schedule to the Bill. The following table, which with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard, sets out the distribution of funds for each category of school on an annual basis.

This Bill isin most respects broadly identical with the existing States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1968, but there are some additions to it. This Bill provides that the Minister will present each year to the Parliament a full report on the progress of the programme during the preceding year. He will provide Parliament with the same information about the science facilities programme as he does each year about the Commonwealth secondary schools libraries programme. The Bill gives the Governor-General authority to make regulations varying the amount payable to the States each year in respect of nongovernment secondary schools, by transferring funds from one category of nongovernment school to another and from one State to another. The Bill also empowers the Minister to authorise payment to a State from funds appropriated under this proposed legislation, after 30th June 1975, of amounts for expenditure incurred in respect of an approved project undertaken before that date. This provision will allow the Government flexibility as it brings the programme to a close. On behalf of the Minister I take the opportunity to express thanks to the State governments which have carried out most adequately their own responsibilities under this programme for the past 7 years, the members of the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Standards for Science Facilities in Independent Secondary Schools, who have worked constantly, and the members of the various State advisory committees. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 1592

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1970-71.

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1970-71.

page 1592

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1971

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to certain recommendations made by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development and agreed to by that House. In a statement made by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) which I tabled in the Senate on 27th April the Minister indicated that the Government had accepted the Select Committee’s recommendations as adopted by the House of Assembly and foreshadowed the early introduction of legislation to deal with those recommendations concerning a change in the elected representation in the House of Assembly. At the present time the House of Assembly consists of 94 members of whom 84 are elected and 10 are official members. The 84 elected members are returned from 69 open electorates and 15 regional electorates. Candidates nominating for regional electorates must have an educational qualification equivalent to the Intermediate Certificate. There are no educational qualifications for candidates nominating for open electorates.

In its final report the Committee recommended that the number of open electorates be increased from 69 to 82 and the number of regional electorates from 15 to

  1. During its 1971 tour of Papua New Guinea the Committee met with an overwhelming request for increased representation in the 1972-1976 House of Assembly. It based its recommendations on one regional member for each of the 18 districts in Papua New Guinea and one open member to approximately 30,000 people. Although the Committee found some call on its tour for regional electorates to be abolished the majority opinion favoured their retention. The Committee felt that it was necessary that there be a guaranteed standard of education in the House. The Committee noted in its final report that regional electorates could be reviewed during the 1972-1976 House but that it might be necessary to consider some minimum qualifications for open members such as the ability to read and write if regional electorates were to be replaced or abolished. When the Committee’s report was being debated in the House of Assembly an amendment was moved to abolish regional electorates. This amendment was defeated by 47 votes to 17.

The Bill provides in clause 3 for the recommended increases in the number of open and regional members of the House, clause 4 adjusts the quorum figure for the House and clause 5 provides that the amendments are to apply from the date of completion of the next general election in Papua New Guinea. The elections for the 1972-1976 House of Assembly will commence in March-April 1972. Under the Papua New Guinea Electoral Ordinance a redistribution Committee must redistribute boundaries following a change in the composition of the House. Its report must be made public for 3 months and then be adopted by the House of Assembly. If the report is adopted the Administrator may proclaim the new boundaries. The Government is anxious that the amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act contained in this Bill are made as soon as possible so that sufficient time will be available for the necessary redistribution action to be completed and in operation for the 1972 House of Assembly elections in Papua New Guinea. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 1593

NORTHERN TERRITORY RAILWAY EXTENSION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 April (vide page 1036), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– The Opposition does not oppose the Bill currently before the Senate. It is a Bill which provides for the expenditure of $ 1.75m for the construction of a spur line in the Darwin area. However, it does afford us an opportunity to look at the general question of railway development in the Commonwealth at the present time, the responsibilities of the Commonwealth towards the States and the role of railways generally in our transport system. 1 think it is generally recognised that the railways have become the Cinderella of Australian transport. There have been many reasons for this. The first one, of course, has been the very great challenge to the railway system by road transport, particularly in the field of freight, over the past 10 or 15 years. There has been an equal challenge from air transport in the field of passenger traffic. A third and more important point has been the financial difficulties experienced by the States in meeting the tremendous deficits they have had to bear from the losses incurred in their railway systems.

It would seem that the Commonwealth in past years has not adopted the attitude that one would expect it to adopt. As transport is such an integral part of our economy and as the Commonwealth indirectly has to reimburse the States for much of the deficits they suffer as a result of losses on their railway systems, one would assume that the Commonwealth would have taken a greater interest over the years to endeavour to co-ordinate the activities of our transport system and to assist the States in not simply eliminating their deficits but in eliminating the inefficiencies which obviously exist within those systems. I think the example which has been set in the Commonwealth Railways is a very good example, and I shall have more to say later on this. However, even in the structure of the Commonwealth departments we can see a fragmented approach to transport in this country. We have a

Department of Shipping and Transport. Obviously, shipping has been a very important factor over the years, but within the Department itself shipping has been allowed to assume an undue proportion of authority. We ako have, a Department of Civil Aviation, which again is a department in its own right. But if we are to obtain the most efficient form of transport and the most efficient transport system that we can in the Commonwealth, it is incumbent on the Commonwealth Government to bring all these departments into one. We would- have a Federal Department of Transport so that a proper integration of the various transport systems could be brought into effect, whereas at present we see a lot of wasteful competition between the various modes of transport.

In a paper delivered at the’ transport seminar which was held here in Canberra only a month «r two ago Mr George Brown, the Railways Commissioner in Victoria, had many comments to make about the disabilities of the various States in their endeavours to bring about efficient railway operation. In particular he made this comment:

Over all these fields the technologies are developed, the need to use them is recognised and the desire’ and expertise te employ them abounds but the missing ingredient is finance.

There is no doubt that -no matter how efficient or how dedicated the individual States and those responsible for running their railway systems may be they cannot do a great deal without finance. It is true that because of the tremendous increase in technology that has taken place in the transport field in Australia in recent years the States have found it almost impossible to find the necessary capital to invest in modern equipment. This means not only the replacement of steam engines with diesel engines but also the upgrading of rolling stock generally. It also means the laying of new track which enables heavier loads to be carried at great speeds. These are the sort of things which it has become extremely difficult for the States to manage in their own right.

I would like to take time to look at the financial burden that is being placed on the States as a result of the operation of their railway systems. We have to remember, of course, that the more inefficient .these systems are the greater will be the eventual burden on the Commonwealth Itself because of the inter-relation between the State and the Commonwealth, which has to carry the financial load for the States. If we look back to the year 1945-46 we find that the deficit in the net result of operations of the various State government railways systems was only $5.6m. But by 1957-58 that figure had increased to $53m. If we come forward to the year 1967-68 we find that the deficit has come back somewhat to a figure of $34m, but the total amount of deficit over that period is no less than $63 3m.

The Commonwealth, of course, has been very much involved as a result of this because some of the mendicant States, as we know, are concerned with reimbursements through the Commonwealth Grants Commission.- The Commonwealth Government as a result has had to make considerable payments in respect of these claims by the States, so that the deficits on the operations of the State government railways have been largely financed by the States, apart from the recoupment to the 3 claimant States through the Common-, wealth Grants Commission, which reduces the State funds otherwise available for capital works. Over the post-war period up to 30th June 1968 the State government railways, had they broken even, would have had a total budgetary surplus of $504m. Instead they had total deficits of $129m. One would assume that because of the considerable amounts the Commonwealth has been obliged to pay out to the States because of the railway deficits the Commonwealth would have taken a greater interest to ensure that something was done to lessen this burden not only on the States but on the Commonwealth itself.

We hope that the new Bureau of Transport Economics will in fact look at this question. I think one of its main tasks will be to bring forward recommendations as to how these deficiencies and inefficiencies can be overcome. It might also be asked to consider this question: Is it worth promoting the railway system? One might say that because of the tremendous increase in road transport, the door-to-door concept and so on, we do not need to worry very much any more about railways. But there is no doubt that over certain distances and under certain conditions the railways still remain the most efficient and the most economic means of moving freight. In fact only last week evidence to this effect was given to the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade, which is currently looking into the question of freight problems in relation to Tasmania.- 1 would like to quote some of the evidence given in public by Mr Peter Abeles, who is the Managing Director of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd. He had a very important point to make. Thomas Nationwide Transport, as we know, has been one of the most successful freight forwarders in this’ country in recent years, probably expanding its activities more rapidly than any other similar organisation.

Senator Webster:

– And overseas too.

Senator WRIEDT:

– -That is true. It has done extremely well. One could ask why it has done so well but that is not the point. However, I concede the point made by Senator Webster that it. has certainly moved into the overseas field. This is what Mr Abeles had to say:

  1. . I would say on a very rough basis that about 70 per cent of our freight goes by rail, 20 per cent by ships and about 10 per cent goes long distance by road.

He was asked:

Apparently this is quite a different pattern from the other main operators, such as Mayne Nickless.

He said:

That is right. It has been. But more and more other operators are following suit. The other operators are starting to operate more and more with the railroads.

He went on further to instance what is happening in Western Australia and how operators are more and more coming to realise that railroads are a much more efficient operation. The significance of this, of course, is that if the big freight forwarders in this country who are increasingly dominating the movement of freight throughout the whole country are coming to realise this obviously there will be an increasing load on the whole of the railway system in this country. Obviously the States are not capable of meeting the necessary financial commitments involved in re-equipping their systems and the Commonwealth will be compelled to make a greater allocation towards the development of railways in the various States.

I could go on quoting more material on these lines but I think this point must surely be made: If we want to see the most efficient system operating in the country it is largely the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to ensure that in the field of transport the maximum effort is made to co-ordinate and integrate our policies. I mentioned earlier the success of Commonwealth Railways which, as most of us realise, has done very well. In fact at the current time it operates at a profit, but it -has been able- to do this because it has very good support in the financing Of its equipment. It pays no interest on loans, Which is a tremendous asset for any organisation. Let us compare the progress that has been made by Commonwealth Railways with that which has been made by the States, which labour under these problems of outdated ‘equipment. ‘ I- want to quote from an article by Mr G; R. Webb which is one of a series of articles which have been published by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. The book in which it is published is entitled Towards a New Era in’ Australian Rail Transport’. On page 31 he states:

Further savings obviously have been secured by Commonwealth Railways since 1964, in view of the marked increase in vehicle mileage rates. Thus the average annual mileage of a standard gauge goods vehicle has risen from 27,932 in 1958-59 to . . . 71,697 in 1968-69.

By way of comparison he stated:

For example, goods wagons on the Victorian railways average only 34 miles per wagon per day, or 12,410 miles per wagon a year.

This is the sort of tremendous difference that comes about through decent equipment being available. There is no doubt that the Australian railways system has a tremendous future, providing we are prepared to recognise the value of railways and how they can assist the economy. My final point concerns the vital need of the Commonwealth to assist the development of urban railway systems. We are all familiar with the great problems of traffic congestion, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, but also in the other capital cities. An article in a recent edition of the ‘Australian Financial Review’ states that a tremendous opportunity appears to have been missed in Sydney to relieve dockside congestion. The article goes on:

A valuable opportunity to ease Sydney’s dockside congestion and to provide an important transport link as a defence safeguard appears to have been missed by State and Commonwealth planners.

The writer goes on to outline in some detail what might have been done. The truth could well be that the State Government did not miss an opportunity but simply was not capable financially of carrying out the suggestions made now by the writer. The , Commonwealth, as honourable senators know, has refused financial assistance for the construction of an underground railway in Melbourne. That project is vitally needed there and I hope that some Victorian senators, from both sides of the chamber, will support me on that point.

Senator Toohey:

– Underground railways are needed in other capitals, too.

Senator WRIEDT:

– It is true that they are needed in cities other than Melbourne, but unless the Commonwealth is prepared to help in that regard they will not be forthcoming. The South Australian Government is showing a lead at present in its attitude towards the development of public railway transport in Adelaide. An excellent case has been made out for Commonwealth assistance, but I am afraid that again it has not been forthcoming. I close on the broad note that this Bill has enabled us to look briefly at the whole question of railways in Australia, in a very broad sense. I hope that the Minister and his Department will give very serious consideration to accepting additional Commonwealth responsibility in this field and that we will not allow our railways systems to continue to run down. I also hope that the Bureau of Transport Economics will fulfil its functions immediately by examining the question of Commonwealth assistance for the States to establish more efficient railway systems.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party supports this Bill. I will make a few comments on the specific project rather than on railways in general. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon), who is represented in this chamber by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator

Cotton), is to be congratulated for providing us with the maps which accompanied his second reading speech. They have helped those of us who have only a slight knowledge of the Darwin area. I have no knowledge at all of the area, remote from Darwin proper, where the railway line is to be constructed. In terms of the size of the southern capital cities it is not remote from the city proper, but it is in the case of Darwin. The maps enable us to visualise the local circumstances. I believe it is high time that the loading dock at Fort Hill for iron ore and pellets was shifted. I note that this may be an ultimate part of the development programme, which includes construction of the spur line, that the Government proposes.

I visited Darwin with the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution. We took evidence of the tremendous amount of air pollution resulting from loading facilities there, particularly from the port facilities for iron ore at Fort Hill. Great inconvenience and danger to health are being caused there. The area adjacent to that on which the spur line is to be developed is an industrial area. I have no knowledge of the terrain, but looking at the map, if it is drawn anywhere near to scale, it is about 10 to 12 miles by road from the centre of Darwin’s population, and about 8 miles from the present airport around which is quite a sizeable population. Having regard to the very rapid development of that area, and noticing that there are 2 sea fronts to the East Arm spur of land, it seems to me that residential areas could be developed there with the installation of more port facilities in the Quarantine Island area of East Arm.

If an industrial area is also to be developed there, quite a deal of thought should be put into town planning to avoid a repetition of the lack of thought given to the development of Darwin proper. Like Topsy, it just grew. With mineral development right throughout Australia, and particularly in our northern areas, Darwin must continue to develop rapidly. Nobody can accurately forcast today the size of Darwin in 50 or 100 years. With small beginnings, such as the spur line to be financed under this Bill, we should be alerted to making Darwin as it grows one of the greatest tourist attractions we have. Facilities can be improved to provide the personal comfort necessitated by the Darwin climate. As the population increases, provision should be made for development of tourist facilities.

I noticed with some concern in the Minister’s second reading speech that there is to be a further 50 chains of railway on Quarantine Island which will have the status of a private siding because it will be built on land not controlled by the Commonwealth Railways Commission. I would like to know whether it is to be controlled by the Commonwealth, although not by the Commonwealth Railways Commission, or by private enterprise. It could cause some problems if it were left in private hands. Honourable senators are familiar with the situation that arose in the United States in the early days of the development of its railways. Darwin might well be now at a similar stage of development. In the United States the private ownership of land upon which railways were built created tremendous problems and a great opportunity for individuals to cash in on public moneys spent in the development of railway systems. I think the Commonwealth would be well advised to acquire the land for the stretch of railway on Quarantine Island, in the interests of the people of Darwin, the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth as a whole. I repeat that no one can accurately imagine what Darwin will be like in 50 years time.

We are glad to see that the Commonwealth is developing this area and is prepared to spend money on it. My Party holds the opinion that the tropical coastline of the Northern Territory has great development potential. Its accessibility is improving all the time as transport methods are made more efficient. It should no longer be regarded as the outback, as it was in the days when motor cars were the most modern form of transport. We are among those who believe that in the interests of Australian taxpayers and of Australia itself this area must be developed rapidly. In a world that will be short of living space at some future time, this area must be developed in the interests of the people of the world. Australia has the responsibility to ensure that such areas should be capable of providing good living conditions, particularly for people who are used to Asian conditions. A population almost equal to the present total population of Australia could exist at some future time along this tropical coastline of the Northern Territory. With those rather imaginative thoughts in mind, I commend the Government for the Bill and indicate that my Party will support its passage.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I wish to indicate briefly my support of this Bill which seeks the approval of the Parliament for the construction by Commonwealth Railways of a new single spur railway line from Knuckey’s Lagoon on the North Australian Railway to the East Arm of the Darwin Harbour. This proposed railway line is an integral part of the development of the Port of Darwin. It is good to see this proposal in legislative form. I feel that the railway systems of Australia are by no means moribund, particularly in respect of the establishment of lines which have a specific purpose. In this case, the specific purpose is the handling of bulk materials. So a means of transport is to be provided which, carrying a given amount of traffic, will be far more efficient and cost less in maintenance than would the movement of great volumes of heavy transports over roads, necessitating those roads to be repaired continually.

I wish to take . this . opportunity to express pleasure at the decision to build a railway line from Port Augusta . to Whyalla. Again a specific purpose . is involved. This railway facility will enable industry at Whyalla to be connected with and have access to markets, for its products all over Australia. With its direct link into the transcontinental railway system the point of production will be connected to the capital cities of Australia. With respect to the establishment of the urgently required standard gauge line link between Port Pirie and Adelaide, which will result in industry being linked with the transcontinental railway system, I point , out that here again we have an example of a facility directly related to the most efficient means of transporting heavy goods in volume with as few handling movements as possible of that commodity or cargo from the point of production to the point of sale. So, I support the Northern Territory Railway Extension Bill. I emphasise the high importance nationally in the scheme of things and in our economy generally of the establishment of railway lines providing access to specific places for special transport purposes. I support the Bill.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I take this opportunity to indicate my support of the Bill. 1 concur in the comments made by Senator Wriedt who led for the Opposition on this Bill. I agree with his remarks about co-ordination. I support the thought that Senator Laucke has brought to our minds that required standardisation work in South Australia ought to dovetail with the wider question of co-ordination. I wish to refer very briefly to a reply that f received this morning from the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) as representative here of the Minister Idi Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon). On this standardisation proposal, the Minister said that a compromise plan had been acknowledged to be under consideration by the South’. Australian Government and the Commonwealth Government.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator BISHOP:

– la dealing with this Bill, 1 direct my comments to the standard railway guage system in South Australia. 1 make the point that the. Commonwealth is not taking the initiative that it should in relation to railway works. I remind the Senate thai in 1949, following investigations ordered by the then Minister for Transport, the late Eddie Ward, who invested Sir Harold Clapp with a lot of power to consider a standardised railway system, the Commonwealth Government made agreements with the States. In particular it made an agreement with the South Australian Government in respect of the conversion of the South Australian system. Unfortunately, despite pressures from various South Australian governments, no substantial work in connection with the conversion of different gauges in South Australia, other than the conversion of the south eastern section of the system, was carried out. The conversion had been recommended by a number of committees which had worked on standardisation. Not only did they bring down plans for South Australia but also plans which have now been implemented in respect to the standardised system which is now operating between the east and west coasts of Australia. As everybody knows, that line is very well supported by passenger traffic and by freight traffic. It has been proven that the amount spent on the project is being repaid by this extra traffic and by the profits which come from that traffic. Not only is that system doing its job but also it is keeping pace with the modern trends in transport. I refer to the more mechanised and almost automatic system of handling goods traffic across the country. This vast container system of heavy hauls by efficient railway units is proving - as is the case in Europe and Japan - that the railway system is not dead.

While this has been accomplished in South Australia, for many years South Australian governments have complained that the Commonwealth Government did not give the State the support that it needed. Senator Laucke mentioned the Whyalla connection. In 1964 the proposal to link Port Augusta with Whyalla was first put before the Commonwealth Government. In successive years many representations were made. Evidence was given that the line could be economic. It was not until recent years that the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd decided to support the carriage of steel by rail, rather than by road or ship. The carriage of steel by road or ship was hazardous and the services infrequent. The Commonwealth Government then decided to support the building of the link to Whyalla. Before the Whyalla connection was envisaged, South Australian governments had proposed to the Commonwealth Government that it should do what it undertook to do in 1949 when it made an agreement to standardise all the South Australian systems except the Eyre Peninsula system. This issue is still of great importance to South Australia. Not only is it important to South Australia but also it is obviously highly important to the rest of the Commonwealth to connect Adelaide with the standard gauge system. Adelaide probably accommodates the most modern secondary industry complex for the production of motor cars and consumer goods in Australia. It is highly important that that industrial complex be connected with the standard gauge system.

There were 2 famous reports on standardisation given to this Parliament. One was by the Government’s Standardisation Committee headed by Mr Wentworth, who is still in the Parliament, and the other was by a committee headed by Eddie Ward which inquired into the need to accept the principle that the Australian continent had quickly to be connected by a railway system which was not faced with the problems of non-standard gauge and the heavy costs that go with it. That is on record and I must say that, apart from what I have said about our own Labor people associated with the project, there is no question that Mr Wentworth at that time and since then gave substantial support to the proposal- to connect the capitals, particularly Adelaide. I am sorry that the Commonwealth Government has not accepted this obligation in the way it should have accepted it. Now, in 1971 the South Australian Labor Government has been forced to accept a compromise.

The details of the compromise are not known. I asked the Minister some weeks ago whether the compromise had been accepted by the Commonwealth Government and whether work might commence soon. The answer I received today from the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport is as follows:

  1. (2) and (3) I recently met with the South Australian Minister for Roads and Transport in an endeavour to resolve differences between the Commonwealth and State Governments over the proposed connection of Adelaide to the standard gauge railway system. It was agreed at that meeting that certain proposals for effecting this link would be submitted to the respective Governments for consideration. I intend to bring these proposals before the Commonwealth Government but at this stage it would not be appropriate to provide details.
  2. Pending agreement of both Governments to any proposals, it would be premature to provide information on a time-table for construction.

To conclude my remarks in support not only of the legislation before the Senate but also of the urgent need to connect Adelaide with the standard gauge, I want to say that it is unfortunate that the Commonwealth Government has not accepted what was in fact an obligation. Whether it was legal or not it was an obligation, written in terms accepted by the Premiers of the States at the time, that the Commonwealth Government would finance the proposal to convert the whole of the South Australian system, excepting the Eyre Peninsula system.

Senator Poyser:

– It is as bad as their deal on Chowilla.

Senator BISHOP:

– It is much worse. This goes back to the postwar years when this sort of national objective would have been a good thing for Australia. It was not only the Labor Party which argued for this; the concept was agreed to by the Government. We had committees of the Liberal Party supporting What we had proposed and accepted. All .that has been done since those days is that there has been some finance provided for rolling stock or locomotives which has kept that very efficient industrial complex, the Islington workshops, in production. During the war these workshops were competent in the production of efficient “railway units of modern standard which had been designed by the late Mr Webb Who was brought out here by a Labor Government to run the South Australian railways, ‘ which at that time were the most efficient’ railways in the Southern Hemisphere. Iri. addition, the workshops took on the task of manufacturing aircraft. Senator Davidson should be very interested in this because, as he knows, it was not only the Labor Government which argued for this but also Liberal governments iri that State, although the Hall Government went- back on the proposition.

The position is that the original obligation was to standardise the whole of the South Australian system. We cannot avoid that. It is in writing and the agreement can be found in documents in the Parliament. During the reign of Sir Thomas Playford the south eastern section of the railways was converted. It was provided that there would be a 5 feet 3. inch gauge and that when the standardisation system became accepted by the State, the South Australian Government would put. in an additional rail or shift the 5 feet 3 inch rail to 4 feet 8i inches. That is the agreement. Quickly after that Sir Thomas Playford asked the Commonwealth Government to make suitable arrangements to convert the system. What has happened now? In the negotiations with the State Government, the Commonwealth Government - has refused to fulfil its obligation other than to consider the link between Adelaide and Port Pirie, which is urgent and must be done. In dealing with this link, I suggest that the

Commonwealth Government should still consider its original obligation to which I have referred. It should consider not only its obligation but also the fact that there are other country rail links in the north of South Australia which are efficient and are at present making a profit.

The Government has relied on a consultants’ report. I cannot see why the Government ought to rely on private consultants when competent engineers in the Commonwealth Railways and the South Australian Railways have put forward a plan which would be cheaper to implement than the plan proposed by the Maunsell consultants. It has been argued , that the South Australian Railways Commissioner, Mr Fitch, who was formerly an officer of the Commonwealth Railways - and a very efficient officer - could do this conversion work at a lower cost than is proposed for the work outlined in the Maunsell report. Of course, that work will be less extensive, as it will link only Adelaide and Port Pirie. As I think this matter is urgent, once again I place before the Government the need for a vision in regard to South Australia that is not related just to the connection between Adelaide and Port Pirie, although that extension is of course, long overdue. Senator Wriedt spoke about the need to give the railways a footing again in the community, having regard to relationships with other forms of transport and to efficiency. We have the examples of the older worlds of Europe and Japan. If steps along these lines can be taken, we will be achieving the objectives of the Second World War and the post-war years.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– When we have a Bill such as this, which is supported by all Parties, as has been stated, and when there is a very short debate, it is always a pity in some respects that we do not get all the observations on the matter that we could get from the body of knowledge that is in the Senate. While I am conscious of the fact that there is a lot of work to do and that there is really no contention about this matter, I have listened -with interest to all the honourable senators who have spoken, and I think it has been an interesting debate. Although I do not wish to single out any one speaker, I listened carefully to the observations made by Senator Wriedt, who led for the Labor

Party, and who, I- thought, had given a lot of thought to the matter. I believe he made a sensible and valuable contribution to the debate, as he . spoke about general transport in Australia. I think that he quite rightly said that railways, system had gone through a number of .phases and that great challenges were being faced at present. There is a challenge in respect of the carriage of goods by’ road transport, and the challenge in respect of the carriage of passengers by air transport. Moreover, the railway system does suffer under a fairly complicated debt structure which flows out of the past, when a great number of lines and facilities were established and capital commitments were made that do not bear much relationship: to : the -present needs for rail transport of the Australian community.

Senator Wriedt said that there was a case for restructuring of the total railway debt system, and ‘I’ agree that there is a need for this, but how it is to be achieved is another matter. The ‘general tendency in these’ matters is always to say that the Commonwealth Government should take up the whole problem. For generations, constitutionally, transport has been fundamentally a responsibility of Australian States. When we , talk . of the need to restructure the .railway debt, we are talking substantially about State financial arrangements within their own areas of financial responsibility.. If the debt is to be restructured, and . if some offsetting arrangement is to be. made, there will have to be an accounting in regard to the historical assets of railway systems as against the actual assets in the light of present conditions. This is not likely to add to the money resources of the States because, if the debt were to be restructured, there would have to be adjustments in other areas. However, there could well be an argument for restructuring to bring the situation into line with what the railway systems have to do.

A great deal is said about the problems of State finances. I admit that there are problems. In considering these problems ohe” ought to have regard to the simple facts of life of the total financial situation in Australia, both in the Commonwealth and in the States. The total revenue that has accrued annually to the Commonwealth over the last 21 years through various areas of financial fund raising has multiplied seven limes. On the disbursement side, over the same 21 years, there has been a multiplication of Commonwealth payments to the States by eleven. So the States have had access to increasing financial resources at a greater rate of multiplication than the Commonwealth.

There is some responsibility upon the States themselves to consider the debt restructuring of the railways, but this is not a single responsibility. Australia is not a series of self-governing principalities; it is a nation, and the problems of transport are the. problems of its people. I tend to support the view that we ought to be doing something positive about an overall examination of our transport system. That is why the Commonwealth set up the new Bureau of Transport Economics. It is to be hoped that, as a result of the setting up of this bureau, and the studies it will make, we will see a rationalisation, a reassessment and a realignment, if necessary, of the transport system in Australia. Transport is vital to everybody in Australia, irrespective of where he lives. It is freely admitted that the Commonwealth Railways is an efficient organisation and that its lines are profitable. To some extent this is due to the fact that it came into the situation much later than others and was able to adapt itself to a pattern of rolling stock and lines for a certain pattern of traffic without having to pick up and carry on from any of the historical accidents of the past.

The argument for combining the shipping and transport departments in Australia into one organisation has been raised on many occasions in the past. I imagine that it would be necessary to have an examination of all transport systems in Australia - Commonwealth and State - in order to make sure that they are all working together on the maximum utilisation of resources in the most sensible fashion. 1 doubt whether one great department would achieve a better result than the existing structure provided that the Commonwealth and State systems work together.

The writing off of capital is not a subject for today’s discussion. Part of the railway problem is really whether the capital should be written off or written down in many areas. If that is to be done it would be necessary to consider how to handle it in the loan situation and total capital situation. A detailed examination would be necessary. It would be necessary to know whether all of the capital is fully employable; whether some of the capital bears no relationship to a present need; and whether some of it is totally redundant. I cannot answer those questions. I do not think that any honourable senator would be able to answer them. It is something that I imagine will have to be worked out in due course.

Senator Wriedt:

asked whether it was worth while promoting the railway system. It is certainly worth while. Australia needs a railway system that is designed to meet the special tasks that the railways themselves perform most efficiently. I think I have covered most of the points that Senator Wriedt raised. There are other points which could be dealt with. I shall try to be quick in dealing with them because although it has been an interesting debate I have perhaps taken more time than I ready should in replying.

The Commonwealth has provided substantial assistance to the . States for their railway projects. There is now a standard gauge line between Sydney and Melbourne and between Sydney and Perth. In fact, a person can now go from Brisbane to Perth on a standard gauge line. The Commonwealth has put $25 Om into helping this system since 1951-52. Of that amount, $120m or nearly half was in the form of non-repayable grants. We do have quite a number of new and efficient railway transport facilities. We would like more. I think that the trend has been very much in the right direction.

Senator Little was concerned about detailed problems at Darwin. He quite properly commended the Department of Shipping and Transport and the Minister for providing with the second reading speech on this Bill some maps and diagrams indicating what it was all about. I think we could do with more of these things on occasions. I thought to myself that it was a good idea. The development at East Arm is well removed from any population centres. The project has been very carefully planned to fit into the general growth pattern of Darwin. This has all been thought of and worked out. The area of land on the private siding, about which Senator Little expressed concern as to the question of ownership, is really Commonwealth land but it is vested in the port authorities. So there does not appear to be any problem in this situation.

Senator Laucke welcomed the support for the Bill and also the proposal to link Whyalla and Port Augusta. Senator Bishop, who for a long time has displayed a great interest in the railway system in South Australia, referred to the problem of standardising the Adelaide line. The note I have here says that in 1970, following a report by the consultants, Maunsell and Partners, the previous South Australian Government and the Commonwealth Government agreed to the project, but after the election of the present South Australian Government some alternative ideas were suggested’. These would appear to have come out of the general observations on the matter by Mr Fitch. Mr Nixon and Mr Virgo have had a meeting, as I mentioned this morning in answers to questions, and at this meeting the Ministers concerned agreed to put certain proposals to their respective governments. I think it would be understood that I cannot comment beyond that because it is not my responsibility to commit a Minister in another place. I am told that in the 1949 agreement with South Australia there was no commitment as to time, and the High Court so found by a unanimous decision

The Commonwealth, as I think we have tried to indicate both now and on earlier occasions, will always give sympathetic consideration to any proposals for rail standardisation where it is shown that tangible economic benefits will accrue. Of course, this is subject to priorities and their place in a budget commitment situation. But I do not think that any one of us would not hold the view that transport and the increased efficiency of the transport system are matters of vital importance to all Australian people, irrespective of where they live, because they are Australian people before they are South Australians or New South Welshmen. We have a common interest, as a Commonwealth, to try to do what we can. The proposal for the

Whyalla line was considered in 1965 to be not economically justified. But this line is now being built.

There were some general observations about other country lines. I will not touch on this problem now because we would be getting ourselves into the area of making an examination of. the railway situation. Suffice to say that the railway system has proved itself to be not highly efficient with a tremendous number of stations being served by a very lightly trafficked line. The railway system is a bit like the airline business. The airline business rests very heavily upon people filling up aircraft seats. The railway business rests. , upon people filling up trains with people and goods. So I think that we have to look :at this question in the way in. which we have done today and say that as a Commonwealth we have a great interest in transport and all its ramifications. - The railway system was really the pioneer of inland and coastal development in Australia and as such it is proper that we should b’e looking at it all the time with a view to seeing that it is improved, if it can be improved. The Commonwealth will help ‘ where it can help, with the view to making the whole situation better for everybody.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1602

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1971

First Reading

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 1139), on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I take this opportunity on the first reading of the Pig Slaughter Levy Bill to raise a question which is not relevant to the Bill. Perhaps the only relevancy would be in the use of the word ‘slaughter’. I desire to express my concern about the operation of foreign agents in Australia, which is a matter I have mentioned here previously. During the recess prior to this session of the Parliament, there came to the public of Australia a book written by a

Mrs Catherine Dalton which is entitled Without Hardware’. In the book she makes serious allegations about the operations of security forces in Australia, claiming that they would not stop at even murder for the purpose of protecting their own interests. She claims that her husband was a victim of foreign agents and was killed by them. She also claims that Dr Bogie and Mrs Chandler, whose bodies were found in Lane Cove in Sydney, were also victims of foreign agents.

I would say, ob reading Mrs Dalton’s book, that it was not convincing. It would convey to one that the woman had a great knowledge of the operations of foreign agents - in various countries and had had quite some association with them because of the names that she knew. But one could not state that she established her case with regard to either her husband or Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler. However, in her book she does name places, people and incidents which she claims happened, and this would give anyone the opportunity of checking such information to see whether her claims are bona fide and whether we should give credence to the allegations she makes in the book. It must be understood that if there is any substance in the allegations, they are very serious.

After the sitting ! the Senate resumed on 16th February this year I put a series of questions on the notice paper. I tried to word the questions as near as I could to my interpretation of the allegations in Mrs Dalton’s book in order to test whether there was any validity in her various claims, the information she had received and the warnings which she had given to the Government from time to time in anticipation of events which ultimately did happen in Australia. While I say that Mrs Dalton’s book perhaps would not be regarded as being convincing, having received replies to all of those questions - I received the last reply 2 days ago - I have come to the conclusion that the Government has some desire to evade something in these particular allegations. It creates some suspicion that something in Australia, following the allegations made in Mrs Dalton’s book, needs further investigation. In relation to her claim that there are security agents in Australia who are operating to the detriment of Australian citizens and Australian lives, I have no responsibility to prove the case. If it could be proved, there would be no need for an inquiry. But if there is a suspicion that such things are happening in Australia, the Government has a responsibility to establish an inquiry into such questions. It may be unfortunate that in framing my questions I followed too closely the wording of Mrs Dalton’s allegations, thus providing the Government with a loophole which enabled it to evade a full answer to the questions. I would like to refer to some of the questions which have been asked and answered on this matter. Firstly I refer to a question on notice I asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister in this place. The question was as follows:

Has the Prime Minister’s Department studied the book ‘Without Hardware’ written and produced by a Mrs Catherine R. Dalton and will the Prime Minister make a statement on the serious allegations made about the operations of foreign political agents in . Australia with the resultant tragic consequences to the lives of Australians?

I received the following answer from Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

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

No. The honourable senator’s attention is invited to an answer given in the House of Representatives by the Attorney-General on 17th February 1971 to a question without notice on the same subject.

As I stated earlier, I put questions on the notice paper on 16th February and 25th February. Not having received a reply, I spoke on the motion that the Senate adjourn and elaborated on the charges that Mrs Dalton made. If my questions did not convey the seriousness of the allegations certainly my speech on the adjournment of the Senate did.

Although I had ventilated in the Parliament these serious charges the Prime Minister said that he had not read the book and referred me to the AttorneyGeneral’s reply to a question asked by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) in another place. In answer to this question the then Attorney-General, Mr Hughes, said:

I have had some preliminary inquiries made into this book but I have not read it or indeed opened it for myself. But I will take into account what the honourable member has said and if I consider that a further investigation of the allegations that have been made is warranted I will give some thought . . .

Senator Mulvihill:

– When did he make this statement?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– This was on 17th February, the day after 1 asked one of my questions. The former AttorneyGeneral said that if further investigation was warranted he would give some thought to what the honourable member had proposed. The honourable member for Hughes had proposed that an inquiry be held. A cavalier attitude has been adopted towards these serious allegations.

Arising from the allegations made by Mrs Dalton, I asked:

  1. Was a secret Agreement entered into by the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada in November 1945 known as the Quebec Agreement?
  2. Was the Agreement for the exchange of atomic, chemical and biological warfare and rocket information?
  3. Did Australia subsequently become a party to this Agreement and if so, who signed the Agreement on behalf of Australia?
  4. Did the Agreement provide for the signatories to establish forces within Australia to protect their interests in relation to any activity in Australia; if so, could such foreign forces take any action to protect the interests of their Governments without reference to the Australian Government?

The reply read:

I have no knowledge of such an agreement.

We find now that there was not a Quebec Agreement. It was unfortunate that I referred to a specific agreement but there was an agreement on research and the exchange of information on chemical and biological warfare. I believe that from the description I gave of the agreement between the countries mentioned any Minister who so desired could have given a straight answer to my question.

On 28th November 1968 Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, in reply to a question by the late Senator Cohen, said:

  1. . ‘The technical co-operation programme’ which Australia joined in July 1955, and details of which have been announced by the Minister for Defence.

In brief, this programme covers in principle the whole of military, research and development excluding the atomic field, and is an agreement to exchange information and to co-operate in research and development activities in a way which is designed to avoid unnecessary and undesirable duplication of work, and to co-operate in joint activities where this produces advantages to the co-operators.

In his question Senator Cohen had asked whether there was any agreement between the United Kingdom, America and Canada to share chemical and biological warfare research findings. It was therefore sufficient for Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson to give the name of the agreement.

In my question I also asked whether these countries were party to an agreement but because I referred to the agreement as the Quebec Agreement this permitted the Minister to dismiss the whole question by saying: ‘We have no knowledge of such an agreement’. Of course, With no knowledge of an agreement of that name he could not say whether there was any secret agreement as to security forces, etc. Having discovered the name of the agreement I asked a further question of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs. I asked:

  1. Is Australia a party to a secret agreement between theUnited Kingdom, and United States of America and Canada for co-operation in military research and development; if so, who signed the agreement on behalf of Australia?
  2. Is the agreement known as the ‘Technical Co-operation Programme’? -

In this way I got the information. There is an agreement at defence level between the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada known as the Technical Cooperation Programme. Australia accepted an invitation to join the programme in 1965 but is not a signatory to the original agreement. An account of Australia’s participation in this programme was given by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson in answer to a question in the Senate on 28th November 1968, recorded at page 2591 of Hansard.

I asked 2 further questions relating to whether another country had the right to put its security forces into Australia and whether they could operate without reference to the Australian Government. The answer to both questions was no. Therefore there is an agreement known as the Quebec Agreement as was claimed by Mrs Dalton. We now know that the agreement does exist but that it is called the Technical Co-operation Programme. It is a secret agreement and its terms are not known. It was further referred to by Mr Fairhall, the then Minister for Defence, on 13th August 1968. in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition in another place.We find from the Minister’s answer that there are no provisions for other security forces to be responsible to Australian law. That is the story so far.

I put a question , on notice to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army as follows:

Were a large number of machine guns stolen from Ingleburn Army Camp; if so, were 14 of the guns found later al a gymnasium conducted by a Hungarian?

The answer should have been yes or no, but the Minister said:

No automatic weapons have .recently been reported stolen from camps in the Ingleburn area and nothing is known of the alleged recovery of 14 such weapons from a Hungarian gymnasium proprietor.

To give a truthful answer the Minister had to rephrase my question completely and answer something which I did not ask. I asked whether a large number of machine guns had been stolen, and he said that no automatic weapons had been stolen from the camp. He made no mention of machine guns. He said: ‘No automatic weapons have recently been reported stolen’. I did not say whether the theft was recent or not.

Senator Webster:

– Is the Minister’s answer not reasonable? A machine gun has not a definition. It could be an automatic rifle. That could still be a machine gun.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My authorities tell me that there is a distinction. But why did the Minister have to change the wording of the question in order to give an accurate reply? Why did he introduce the word ‘recently’? Either he knows of no thefts at any time from the camp - which is what he was asked- or he knows of some. I further asked whether the machine guns were on the Army manifest. The answer was as follows:

Serial numbers of all the weapons issued and received are recorded by units on the relevant copies of the indent vouchers and unit weapons registers. Any loss of weapons in transit would be immediately evident to the unit on whose charge the weapons were at that time. In the absence of more specific details and dates no further information can be provided.

Therefore we have the information that there was no recent theft of automatic weapons. Whether there was a theft of machine guns, we do not know. An article in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald* of 23rd February 1967 reports as follows:

The Minister for the Army Mr J. M. Fraser, has called for a full report on the theft of 10 Owen sub-machine guns from Ingleburn Army Camp. ‘All 10 guns were inoperable at the time but could be repaired’, he said.

On 22nd February 1967 in reply to a question by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Birrell) Mr Malcolm Fraser said:

The reports in today’s newspaper are correct. About the middle of yesterday afternoon I first heard that 10 Owen guns had been stolen from the Royal Australian Army Service Corps unit at Ingleburn. A full investigation is in progress. Wo are working very closely with the police in investigating the incident. The report that I have called for will involve not only the security procedures which are designed to safeguard Army, weapons of all kinds - to see that they are adequate - but in particular this unit in order to ensure that the precautions that should have been taken were taken. I regret that until I get a report of this kind there is nothing further I can say to the House.

That was a complete and deliberate twisting of a question so that the answer could be a truthful one without giving any credence to the allegation that was made in the book and in the questions I asked. The answer includes the words ‘automatic weapons’. D6 automatic weapons include machine guns? The only thing which makes the answer truthful is the inclusion of the word ‘recently’ if recently means a time between 1967 and 1971. In 1967 the then Minister for Defence acknowledged the theft. There should have been some firm intention or desire on the part of the Minister to answer this question such as there was in Sir Kenneth Anderson when he replied to the late Senator Cohen. Although Sir Kenneth did not know the name of the agreement he supplied the answer. Since the publication of Mrs Dalton’s book, since I asked questions and since I spoke on the adjournment there has been a complete attempt at evasion.

I turn to the next question which I directed to the then Attorney-General. I included 3 questions which were posed by Mr Chandler in, I think, the Sydney ‘Mirror’. The questions I posed were:

Was the subject of Dr Bogle’s death a matter for discussion at a specially convened meeting of the Federal Cabinet in March 1963; if so, was this meeting held before an inquest was held into the deaths of Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler?

The answer from the Attorney-General was:

My inquiries indicate that no such discussion took place.

I do not know the extent of the Minister’s inquiries but they indicate that no such discussion took place. The second question was:

Was the case further discussed later in 1963 by the then Attorney-General, several leading members of the Federal Government and a leading member of the Judiciary?

Honourable, senators will understand that these allegations have been made in a newspaper with a high circulation’ by the husband of one of the victims of the Sydney catastrophe. Although the Attorney-General referred to has now gone from the Parliament several leading members of the Government could be queried about the matter. I received this reply:

I am not aware of what discussion, if any, the then Attorney-General had in 1963.

No attempt was made to process this question to see whether there was any truth in the. allegation or whether any evidence could be found. The third part of my question was:

Was a directive given by the Federal Government to al] State police forces that the interest of national security could best be served by the police not discovering who was responsible for Dr Bogle’s death.

The answer is a definite no. Therefore we can take it that no such directive was given to the State police forces. We do not know, because of the wording of the question, whether an instruction of any kind was given. In question on notice No. 856 amongst other things I asked the then Attorney-General:

Did Mrs Dalton on 17th December 1967 warn Commonwealth Police Headquarters of the imminent danger to a senior parliamentarian from subverside sources?

Was Mrs Dalton on that occasion ordered from Police Headquarters . . .

Perhaps I should start from the beginning of the question which states:

Was the Canberra home of Mrs Dalton raided and searched by Commonwealth Police in December 1967?

The answer to that question is no. In her book Mr Dalton says that her home was raided and searched. The Minister says it was not, I suppose on information from the Commonwealth Police. I have referred the reply to Mrs Dalton and she says that there are 3 witnesses who are prepared to swear on oath that the police raided and searched Iter home. The information given by the Attorney-General was that it was not raided. In reply to the question whether Mrs Dalton, warned Commonwealth Police Headquarters of the imminent danger to a senior parliamentarian from subversive sources, the AttorneyGeneral said she did not. In reply to the question ‘Was Mrs Dalton on that occasion ordered from Police Headquarters by trie Deputy Chief of Police?’, the AttorneyGeneral said: ‘Mrs Dalton did not visit Commonwealth Police . Headquarters in December 1967. She. /has’ never been ordered from the headquarters.’ Mrs Dalton is prepared to bring proof that that answer does not represent, the true position.

In reply to the second part of question No. 851 on the notice paper, the first part of which sought . information about whether. Mrs Dalton . in .. April 1965 informed the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) in the House of Representatives of an attack ‘ upon naval vessels, I asked:

  1. On the same day did ‘Mrs Dalton telephone a person on the staff of the Attorney-General’s Department requesting ‘ the names of security officers in Sydney who the caller could contact and advise of the intending attack?

Mrs Dalton said that there would be an attack upon naval vessels at Garden Island Dockyard.

I asked whether as a result of advice received Mrs Dalton was interviewed in Sydney by 2 security officers and whether she had informed them of the intended attack and given the name of the person who would be involved. I asked also:

  1. As a result of this report was the Garden Island naval depot closed on 7th and 8th May 1965 for the stated reason of research purposes.
  2. Were the engine rooms of vessels named by Mrs Dalton searched without the discovery of any suspicious materials.
  3. On 8th May 1965 was there a near collision of a United States submarine with a group of Australian naval vessels.
  4. On 10th May 1965 was there a collision at Garden Island resulting in damage to four Australian naval vessels.

The Attorney-General supplied the following answer:

  1. I am informed that at about this time Mrs Dalton did telephone an officer of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department but that -the conversation did not relate to an attack on naval vessels.

That answer confirms that Mrs Dalton did contact an officer of the Attorney-General’s Department. The answer continued:

  1. My inquiries indicate that Mrs Dalton was, at her own request interviewed by 2 security officers but that the interview related in no way to any ‘intended attack’ on naval vessels at Garden Island.

Mrs Dalton is anxious to know what the two security officers in Sydney informed the Minister as to the nature of her interview because she has reaffirmed that it related to an intended attack on naval vessels at Garden Island and that she knew the person who would be responsible for the attack. The Attorney-General’s answer continues:

  1. I am informed that the depot was not closed on the days mentioned.

The only evidence relating to this is that there was a radio report stating that the depot was closed for research purposes. The Attorney-General’s answer continues:

  1. At the time ‘ mentioned several ships of the US Navy were in Sydney for Coral ‘Sea Week which coincided with Sydney University Commemoration Week. I am informed that, as a result of warnings «f expected student activities, ships were searched but nothing unusual occurred.

Of course Mrs Dalton said that they were searched and nothing was found. That answer is confirmation of her statement. In the same question I asked the AttorneyGeneral whether there were collisions on 8th and 10th May 1965 and he supplied this answer:

  1. 1 am informed that there was no such accident.-

Therefore the Attorney-General knows nothing about a collision incident on either 8th or 10th May. That is the reply I have received in 1971.

A day later, on 11th May 1965, the following article appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph’:

A visiting US minesweeper yesterday morning narrowly .avoided crashing into a RAN destroyer moored at Garden Island.

The minesweeper, USS Advance, was the last of 7 American warships to arrive at Sydney for Coral Sea Week celebrations.

The destroyer HMAS Duchess was on the outside of HMAS Quiberon and HMAS Vendetta in the southern of these two moorings.

Commander Self ordered the wheel hard V starboard and Advance swung away, missing Duchess by about SO yards.

Then there is some report about the propeller on the vessel ‘Advance’. The Minister now knows nothing about what is published in the ‘Daily Telegraph*. Replies were more reliable before the publication of Mrs Dalton’s book. I think there is a responsibility for some inquiry to be conducted into these matters. We should not be getting evasions all the time.

I realise that the Minister will deny this. I realise that on the evidence I can present 1 am unable to prove that the operations of foreign agents in Australia are of sufficient extent to have any bearing on the aspect of death. Although we have failed in the case of Dr Bogie and Mrs Chandler, and also in the case of Mr Dalton, an atomic scientist, I believe that my claim can be proved clearly when one considers the case of an unidentified body that was found on the Somerton beach in South Australia on 1st December 1948. To this day the name of that person is unknown, as is the cause qf death. But both that case and the case of Dr Bogle had one thing in common, namely, that both persons died an unnatural death from an unknown’ poison. Evidence has come to hand that someone left a code for the purpose qf conveying a message to someone else after the happening. The code has been deciphered, and it tells a story. I think it will show the activities qf foreign agents in South Australia at that time.

As is known, we have an agreement in this House that when we are on the air we speak for only half an hour. That limitation of time will not permit me to develop the other case. However, the opportunity for me to do that will present itself on the first reading of the taxation legislation which will be before us soon and, subject to being spared and provided that I have failed today to supply the necessary proof, the proof which will be forthcoming on that occasion will provide sufficient justification for an inquiry into the operation of foreign agents in Australia.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I understand that we are speaking to the motion for the first reading of the Pig Slaughter Levy Bill. As I think is well known, this is the only alternative method that we have - apart from the ordinary methods when a particular subject is under debate - to introduce subjects of vital public importance. I direct my pleas to Senator Wright, who represents the Minister for Labour and National Service; Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, who represents the Minister for Defence; and Senator DrakeBrockman, who represents the Minister for the Army. I think it is generally accepted that I am opposed to the provisions of the National. Service Act. However, I am making a plea today on behalf of an American lad who is trying to transfer from the service imposed on him under that Act to the American Navy.

Because I think there are some Army regulations which prevent me from doing so, I do not want to start quoting publicly names and Army numbers and the division or organisation to which this person belongs. I will refer to the lad concerned as Private X. But the file is available to any one or all of the Ministers who would like to look at it in an endeavour to bring some, sort of justice to bear in the case of this lad. I have complained before about the injustice suffered by national service trainees who are required to serve in fields other than those for which they have been trained. For instance, some 400 people serving under the provisions of the National Service Act have university degrees or higher education diplomas, and many of them are required to act as stewards or offsiders in cookhouses. In other words, they have to do all the unsavoury things that beetle crushers have to do from time to time.

On 5th April 1961 Private X wrote to the then Minister for Labour and National Service. I will not read the whole letter because time is limited, but want to spell out in detail as much as possible the problems being encountered by this national serviceman. Private X wrote:

I am well aware that because I am a citizen of the United States of America, I could have left Australia before I reached the age of 21 years rather than render National Service. But since I have resided in Australia with my family since 1951, I have never disputed the fact that I have a national service Lability. However I feel that by service in the Australian Army would be of much more use if I were able to continue working in electronics. As the enclosed letters that I sent to your predecessor will confirm, I made inquiries to the National Service Registrar and the Regular Army about working in electronics. I received no satisfaction or encouragement from either.

The fact that I have been trying to .transfer from national service to the United States Navy is due to the advice of your predecessor, Mr Snedden. Prior to my commencing national service, the secretary of Mr Katter, M.P., explained roy problem to Mr Snedden. He said that I would have a very good chance of transferring to the United States Navy once I had proof that I was accepted for enlistment in the United States Navy.

If this breach of faith had not taken place I could have saved myself a great amount of work and worry and I would have applied for a corps transfer at a much earlier date.

Sir, if it is impossible for me to transfer into the United States Navy, I definitely do wish to transfer into the Royal Australian Army Electrical and Mechanical Engineers in a radar trade.

I point out that this lad’s case began a very long time ago. He has made available to me his diary setting out the events in chronological order. I have taken appropriate extracts from it and I want to read to the Senate some of the facts.

On 1st February 1968 Private X wrote to the American Consulate at Brisbane regarding his registrataion for national service. On 21st February 1968 he was issued with a certificate registered number 30467192. On 20th March 1968 his national service was deferred until he reached the age of 21 years because he was an alien. On 27th February 1969 he wrote a letter to the Brisbane Registrar concerning post-apprenticeship studies and his occupation while in national service. On 10th March, almost a fortnight later, he received a reply to that letter which was very discouraging.

On 11th August 1969 he wrote a letter to the Brisbane Registrar concerning electronic courses available to national servicemen. A copy of the same letter was forwarded to the Australian Military Forces headquarters at Brisbane. On 19th August he received a reply from the Brisbane Registrar, and on 26th August he received a reply to the letter dated 11th August 1969 from the Australian Military Forces headquarters at Brisbane which was very discouraging. On 7th January 1970 he saw the American Consul in Brisbane concerning electronic courses available and enlistment in the United States Navy. It was difficult to obtain relevant information and he was advised to write to the United States Naval Attache in Canberra. He wrote to this gentleman explaining the situation regarding his national service call up and made inquiries about electronic courses available and enlistment. As he had not received a reply on 23rd February 1970 he on that day sent a carbon copy of the letter dated 8th June 1970 to the United States Naval Attache at Canberra. Between 23rd February and 18th June 1970 he corresponded with the United States Navy Department in Canberra and Sangley Point in the Philippines requesting information concerning electronic courses and enlistment: He was sent a number of brochures and social security and personal history forms to complete. He subsequently underwent tests and received an Al rating.

On 21st January 1970 notification was received to have a medical examination at the district employment office on 17th February 1970. He had a medical examination and a chest X-ray. About 2 weeks later he received notification that he was medically fit and due to report for national service on 6th July 1970. He showed that form to his employer on the morning of 24th April 1970. His mother booked a call through the Mount Isa Post Office to the United States Naval Attache for 2 o’clock that afternoon. He subsequently received that telephone call, but not at the telephone number through which the booking had been made. He learned very little from the call but was advised not to drive to Canberra from Mount Isa. He was advised to telephone the recruiting centre in Hawaii. His father, who is secretary of the Mount Isa Branch of the Returned Services League, and the lad concerned then had a 3-way discussion concerning his problem with the then secretary of the Mount Isa Branch of the RSL, Mr Ron Spatley. Mr Spatley said that he would arrange for the lad’s discharge from national service through various channels in which the HSL had connections, but he needed photo copies of the United States documents that would prove that the lad’s intention to enlist was genuine.

On 24th May he gave to Mr Spatley a completed form DD398, which is a’ statement of personal history. Mr Spatley said that he would get it photo copied and start arrangements under way. On 6th June the lad went to see Mr Spatley to ask whether word of his discharge had been received. Photo copies of the documents had not been made. Two days later Private X brought in the information concerning the lost United States passport so that assistance could be obtained to get another passport. At that time Mr Spatley showed him a photostat copy which would be posted next day. He has received no communication since then.

On 25th May 1970 he wrote to the Commonwealth Taxation Office requesting 2 1970 income tax return forms and stated that he intended to enlist in the United States Navy. On 29th May he received the 2 forms and a request for complete information regarding his departure from Australia. He then told the clerk at his place of employment that he wanted to take his holidays. At that time, on 29th June, he had due to him 12.8 days. He said that at the end of his holidays he would be commencing his national service. An appointment was made for a new United States Navy medical check at Barkly Medical Centre during his lunch break on 8th June. On the afternoon of 9th June he had an interview with the personnel officer of the firm with which he was employed.

He explained that he was enlisting with the United States Navy and would not be undertaking national service. The personnel officer said that therefore he would have to terminate his employment. His application for 2 years special leave was cancelled. This lad has suffered great personal inconvenience, including the loss of his employment. He no longer has the benefit of the National Service Act. On 10th June 1970 he received his call-up notice and travel warrant, the call-up to commence from 6th July last year. He sent all his correspondence with the United States Navy Department to the Brisbane registrar. He then had a telephone call from the local district employment officer who told him that if he insisted on leaving Australia at this stage he would be permanently refused re-entry to Australia. He went along and discussed the matter with the person concerned. His medical check up was completed between 10.30 a.m. and 12.10 p.m. on 13th June. His x-ray still had to be taken because the x-ray operator was not present at the local hospital that afternoon. On 16th June he had a discussion with the local district employment officer and was advised to continue to obey national service directions.

The local district officer said that he was awaiting a reply from the Brisbane registrar. I have here a number of other statements of detail. These are available for departmental or ministerial scrutiny if required.

At 1.45 p.m. on 17th June he collected his x-ray and completed his United States Navy medical form through a Dr Thompson at the Tocal medical centre. The doctor said that he was in good health. Then, apparently some of the documents were mislaid in the office of his employer. On 18th June he mailed to the Philippines a letter in which certain documents were enclosed giving detailed information of what had taken place up to that time. These documents were: An application for -social security number - SS-5; two copies of a statement of personal . history - DD398; report of medical examination - standard form 88; report of medical historystandard lorna 89. He made inquiries to determine whether this information was sufficient to make him acceptable for enlistment in the United States Navy. At about this time, he inquired at the office of the local Federal member for information as to whether anything had occurred in relation to his previous inquiries; but all that had happened was that that afternoon the local Press had sent around reporters and photographers.

On 22nd June he mailed a copy of all the information that he had obtained from the office of the local Federal member to the American Embassy in Canberra. He talked again to one of his superiors at the place of his former employment. The company said that it knew the situation that he was in and also the action that he was taking. The company obtained for him 3 photo copies of his birth certificate and one copy of his personal file kept at the headquarters of his employer. On 24th June the Secretary of the local Federal member said that the Brisbane registrar had told her that his office had seen the article printed in the local newspaper about his case. The Brisbane registrar said that the local director of the regional office of the Department of Labour and National Service was wrong when he said that this person would not be able to re-enter Australia. Apparently there was some difference of opinion about this at a later date. This man then proceeded to Cairns for a few days holiday. This was prior to presenting himself for national service in Brisbane.

On 30th June he received a letter from the National Service Registrar at Brisbane stating that he must still present himself for national service in Brisbane on 6th June. He had further interviews with the secretary of the local Federal member. At this time he had still not obtained any information from those areas from which he had endeavoured to do so. Late in June - I am not sure of the date - he went to the office of the local Federal member and made a telephone call to the United States Embassy. Later he received a telegram from Sangley Point. That is where the recruiting centre is located in the Philippines. The telegram stated that the United States Navy was sending further tests which, when completed, were to be sent to the IEC Navy Recruiting Detachment at an address in San Francisco. The result would be forwarded immediately upon completion of scoring. As I mentioned, the final result was that he scored sufficiently well to qualify for entry into the United States Navy.

This - telegram was shown to the secretary of the local Federal member at 3.45 p.m. on 3rd July. She then telephoned the then Minister for Labour and National Service, the present Treasurer (Mr Snedden), in Melbourne. The Minister said that, he was considering the case and would phone back later that afternoon. This man returned to the office of the local Federal member at 6 p.m. on 3rd July. The member’s secretary said that the Minister for Labour and National Service sympathised with him. His advice was to report for national service and, in so doing, show that he was willing to co-operate with the Australian Government and then, when he received word that he was accepted for enlistment in the United States Navy, to arrange for a transfer. The Minister said that the case was by no means closed and that his chances of being able to enlist in the United States Navy were still good.

A statement was made by the lass concerned that Private X had been scrubbed by the local office of the Department of Labour and National Service because his previous statement about his ineligibility to re-enter Australia had been printed. Private X said to the lass concerned that he would co-operate with the Australian Government, that he would present himself for national service and that he would apply for a transfer when proof of his enlistment qualifications came through from the United States Navy. On 8th July he arrived at the Singleton Army training camp. His training proper began on 13th July 1970. It takes 10 weeks to complete the initial training. On 27th July he wrote to his local Federal member stating that the San Francisco Recruit Testing Centre had been informed. He “received a telegram from Canberra by ordinary mail stating that his AQT was to be held in Canberra and that he should make arrangements to be tested at the United States Embassy in Canberra He showed the telegram to one of his superior officers and asked whether he could take his 4-day stand-down -in Canberra. Subsequently this was refused.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Did his commanding officer refuse that?

Senator KEEFFE:

– His commanding officer or his immediate superior officer - a company commander or perhaps a platoon commander or an adjutant - told him it was refused. It is not expressed. The name of the officer concerned is set out in the document that I have, for the information of the departmental officers who might Want to scrutinise the document. Subsequently he was granted permission to go to Canberra on stand-down from 31st July to 6th August. By telephone he reserved a ticket on a flight from Sydney to Canberra at 6.45 p.m. on Friday, 7th August. On Thursday, 6th August, he collected that ticket from the office of Ansett Airlines of Australia. The document which I have contains a number of other quite relevant details about the journey, etc., with which I will not consume my speaking time at this point. He was told by the platoon sergeant that he was allocated to infantry corps. He had selected either the Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (radio/radar) or the Second Signals (Technician). In spite of his request and in spite of his attempt to get into the United States Navy, his application was rejected and he was assigned to an infantry platoon.

He received a letter from the secretary of his local Federal member who advised that he make an application to the Minister for Labour and National Service, Parliament House, Canberra, for transfer to the United States Navy. On 3rd September 1970, which is only a few weeks after he had actually been inducted he received a letter from the United States Navy Recruiting Detachment at Sangley Point stating that he had made a qualifying score in his AQT test but that he had to make his own way to Sangley Point to be enlisted. No mention was made of . his national service in Australia. He started taking bets with his superior officers as to whether he would be transferred to the United States Navy. They were betting that he would not. They were dead right. Subsequently I took this matter -up ‘with the Minister for Labour and National Service About the end of March “this year the Minister sent to me a copy of “a letter which he had forwarded to Private X. That letter states:

I should first of all explain that the National Service Act imposes on young ‘men in the 20 years old age-group, who are ordinarily resident in Australia, the liability both to ‘register and to render service. I am advised that, while you were born in the United States of America, you have resided in Australia since 1951 and therefore have a clear liability for national service; Under provisions made by the Government in. respect of nonBritish nationals ordinarily resident in this country, you were eligible, up until you were 21, to leave Australia rather man render national service if you wished. You chose to’ remain in Australia and as you are not otherwise eligible for exemption or indefinite deferment, your liability can only be discharged by completion of the required period of service. I should add that the National Service Act does make, provision for discharge of a national serviceman once enlisted if the Military Board is satisfied that he will be enlisted in the Australian Permanent Forces or the naval, military or air forces of’ the British dominions or other countries as . prescribed for a period not less than the unexpired portion of the period of his engagement to serve in the Regular Army Supplement. However, the United States is not recognised for the purposes of this -provision.

As to your present service I am informed that the preferences you expressed for /engagement in the Electrical and Mechanical Engineering or Signals Corps were given consideration at the time when your final posting was made. However, while the Army does endeavour to’ employ soldiers in areas and occupations of. their choice, this can only be achieved subject to the requirements of the Army at the time and the ‘available vacancies and in your case this did not permit posting in accord with your wishes: Nevertheless, transfer of corps may be effected after allocation and 1 am advised that arrangements have been made for you to be interviewed in order to assess your suitability for employment in the Royal Corps of Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers in a radar trade. If found acceptable you will then be able to apply for transfer, if you so desire; such application would of course be subject to the requirements of the Army and the availability of vacancies as I have already noted.

Finally, I should make it clear that upon completion of your period of full-time service there will be no restriction placed on you with regard to departure from Australia because of national service obligations.

I feel it was necessary for me to have all that incorporated in the record. This is a case of a lad who was most anxious not to avoid the provisions of the National Service Act, who took all the necessary steps before he was required for medical check or before he was called up to apply for entry into the United States Navy. If he had said he wanted to go to Canada or America to dodge the provisions of the National Service Act one could have understood the determination of the Minister for Labour and National Service to keep him in Australia, force him into the Army and make sure that he served his period of national service. But here is a genuine lad who has an intelligence rating above average and who has experience in the field of electronics. He has been stifled at every point in his attempt to carry out some sort of training in a force.

He is an American by birth and because he has sentimental and family ties with America he felt he would like to do his service in the American Navy where he was assured of being able to work in the field in which he wanted to work. I request the Minister, or all of the Ministers, to reopen this case and to give it the sympathy that I believe his case deserves. I can see no reason why he cannot be transferred to the American Navy. After all, we are supposed to be friendly with the United States. It is not as though he is trying to join a navy that is likely to be an enemy navy. But if he cannot be transferred at least put him in the field where he ought to be operating and not in a field, such as he is in at the moment as a beetle crusher, where he is not able to exercise his training and not able to fulfil his ambitions in the way that he wishes to fulfil them.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Like my colleagues, Senator Cavanagh and Senator Keeffe, I take advantage of the first reading of this Pig Slaughter Levy Bill to raise a matter which I consider to be of great importance so far as the administration of government is concerned. I speak on this Bill to deal with the operations of the Commonwealth Advertising Division. I raised the subject during the recent estimates debate concerning the Department of Trade and Industry and, naturally, in the time that was available to me then I could deal with it in only a rather peremptory way. I take advantage of the debate on this Bill to raise the matter in some detail. My interest in the subject was first whetted by an article appearing in a weekly magazine which circulates throughout Australia called ‘Broadcasting and Television’. On 28th August 1969 that magazine ran an editorial headed ‘More information needed on Government ad expenditure’. In the course of the editorial it was mentioned that regularly over several years the magazine had sought permission unsuccessfully for facilities to report on how the Commonwealth Advertising Division operates. The editorial said that the industry would like to know how and by whom the departmental budgets are set, who is responsible for initiating campaigns and approving them, and whether any check is made of results to see whether they justify the expenditure. The editorial went on to say:

We don’t know how much Commonwealth advertising goes through agencies and whether the present methods of farming advertising out are the best for each case.

The editorial also states:

There is also secrecy we feel should be lifted on how Commonwealth advertising is allocated, what an agency’s qualifications have to be to get Commonwealth advertising, and whether, as we are told, certain agencies seem to be favoured more than others. We make no allegations of favouritism, but complaints have been made that some agencies appear to have been made less use of than others for no apparent reason. This day and age there can surely be no national security reasons for keeping quiet or not allowing tha trade press to investigate it

Shortly after that editorial, in August 1969 an inquiry was conducted by the Public Accounts Committee into the Commonwealth Advertising Division. The then

Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, Mr Cleaver, the former member for Swan, presented a report to mis Parliament on 17th September 1969. After quite a voluminous report there appear 11 findings of that Committee. Despite the fact that I would like to read them, because of the lateness of the hour with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard the following 11 findings of the Public Accounts Committee:

page 1613

FINDINGS

  1. Your Committee finds that:

I would suggest to all honourable senators that the findings of that Joint Committee be thoroughly scrutinised, because it appears to me at this stage, nearly 2 years after the findings were promulgated, that nothing has been done by any of the departments set out in the report. Indeed, after the report had been tabled in the Parliament at the commencement of the next parliamentary session, which was in 1970, I placed a question on the notice paper relating to the findings as they referred to- the Department of Trade and Industry. The Committee stated . that the basis of engagement of advertising agencies in Australia by the Department of Trade and Industry in connection with its promotion of advertising overseas should be reviewed in connection with the . legal opinion of 20th August 1969 relating to Treasury Regulation 52.

When one refers to paragraph 206 of the report one sees that 2 advertising agencies in Australia were appointed, not by the Department of Trade and Industry but by the Executive Council, for the preparation and placement of advertising overseas. When on 9th June last year I placed on the notice paper a question about what action had been taken by the Department of Trade and Industry I received the following reply from the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry:

The ninth finding of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its 112th Report is still under study by the Department of Trade and Industry. The action taken by the Department as a result of its review will be notified to the Treasury for incorporation in the. Treasury Minute to the Committee, and will be made public when the Minute is tabled by the Committee in both Houses of Parliament.

That was in June 1970. It is now May 1971 and to my knowledge no Treasury Minute in relation to’ this aspect has ever been tabled. I suggest that these people are treating Parliament as only a laughing stock, and that it is up to the members of the Executive who are responsible to the Parliament to see that follow-up action on these matters is taken. If action is not taken against them the Parliament will be held in complete and utter contempt by not only the bureaucracy but also the Australian people. I am concerned that Australian owned advertising agencies, as distinct from the foreign owned advertising agencies .that operate in Austrafia, do not appear to be getting a fair share of the cake in regard to Commonwealth advertising. On 26th September 1969 I received a reply to a number of questions I had puton the notice paper in regard to this matter. Among the questions 1 asked was the following question:

What is the extent of foreign ownership and control of and the percentage of overseas shareholding in each advertising agency which has done work for a Commonwealth Government department and/or instrumentality in each of the last 10 years?

I received a reply which indicated that advertising is distributed widely among accredited advertising agencies. In reply to the specific question I have just quoted I was told that information of the extent of foreign ownership and control of advertising agencies which have done business for the Commonwealth is not recorded by the Commonwealth Advertising Division, but that the proportion of non- Austral ian ownership of advertising agencies is believed to be - I emphasise these words - fairly high. The Commonwealth Advertising Division itself could not tell this Parliament what percentage of the agencies it uses are Australian agencies and what percentage are foreign owned agencies. I again raised the matter at a meeting of Estimates Committee A in September 1969 when it was examining the estimates for the Department of the Treasury. An answer was not able to be given to my question at that time. However, I subsequently received, through the Chairman of the Committee, Sentaor Sir Magnus Cormack; a reply from the Controller of the Australian Publishing Service that would seem to be completely contradictory to the answer I was given in the Parliament on 26th September 1969. I had asked questions at the Committee hearing as to the amount of money expended by the Commonwealth on advertising through Australian owned and foreign owned advertising agencies. Amongst other things, the letter dated 20th November 1970 that I received through Senator Sir Magnus Cormack stated:

In his reply, Mr Gilbert-

Who is the Chairman of the Commonwealth Advertising Council - has referred to a number of difficulties involved in attempting a breakdown of this kind and the considerable effort which would be required to carry out an exhaustive check of the ownership, of every agency participating in Commonwealth advertising. The position is of course constantly changing. ‘

I agree completely with that last sentence. A perusal of the metropolitan dailies will show that practically on a weekly basis yet another Australian advertising agency is swallowed up by foreign owned interests. The letter continued:

Mr Gilbert has informed me, however, that with the assistance of the Council’s accountants, he has made what he regards as a reasonably accurate assessment of the percentage of disbursements through the Council which went to wholly Australian owned agencies during the year ended 30th June 1970. His estimate is approximately 80 per cent of the total.

An independent analysis of data held by officers of the Advertising Branch of the Australian Government Publishing Service supports Mr Gilbert’s assessment.

I repeat that the answer I received in September 1969 was to the effect that the proportion of non-Australian owned advertising agencies patronised by the Commonwealth was believed to be fairly high, but that in November 1970 I received an estimate to the effect that there was approximately an 80 per cent Australian owned patronage. I ask: Which is the right answer? This Parliament is entitled to facts; it is entitled to know whether the Australian Government is patronising - Australian industries or foreign owned industries that are operating in Australia. It is quite obvious that the 2 statements that I have cited are in conflict, one with the other. The Australian Parliament, which represents the Australian people, certainly is concerned, or needs to be concerned, about the inroads being made on Australian business from foreign sources or by foreign owners. Replies to questions based on estimates are not good enough, especially when, as I say, one answer conflicts with the other. ] It could well be that Mr Gilbert, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Advertising Council, in arriving at the estimate of 80 per cent has taken into consideration as Australian agencies certain agencies which have been taken over by foreign owned agencies, because a great many of them have retained their original designations. I do not know whether he has done this, but if he has done so he is very much in error because these agencies, having been taken over by foreigners, remit their profits overseas in the form of dividends. I have in my hand a publication in which there is a format of an advertisement prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry by an organisation known as J. Walter Thompson Aust. Pty Ltd. The advertisement is aimed at increasing the exports of Australian manufactured goods. It is pointed out that the campaign is the most expensive ever undertaken by the Department. In the ‘Financial Review’ of February 1970 the following article appeared:

Net profit of j. Walter Thompson Aust. Pty Ltd advertising agency, rose from $133,475 to $140,694 in the last financial year.

This was after depreciation of $40,607 (previously $51,217) and taxation of $109,198 ($91,344).

The company will pay a dividend to its United States parent of $86,900.

I believe it is time that the Government had a look at this situation in order to give patronage to Australian companies which are operating in Australia and which retain their profits in Australia. I believe that a number of Australian agencies could do this job as effectively as any foreign-owned advertising agency.

Briefly, in the few short moments left to me, I shall refer to the composition of the Commonwealth Advertising Council. Let me say here and now that I do not cast aspersions against any member of the

Council. However, I think it very wrong indeed that any representative of any foreign company should be appointed or attached to the Commonwealth Advertising Council. The information accorded to me is that of the 15 members of the Council, 8 represent Forgein-owned advertising companies operating in Australia. I believe it is time that the Commonwealth Advertising Council was completely restructured, after some 30 years of operation, to ensure that it is composed of 100 per cent Australian agencies.

Recently in Canada there was quite a row about the Bank of Montreal, .which calls itself Canada’s first bank,’ .awarding a $2m account to an American advertising organisation- A report appearing in the magazine ‘Campaign’ of 1 1th December 1970 announced that the ‘Star’ newspaper of Montreal had denounced the appointment in an editorial in these terms: -

The Bank of Montreal, which has the audacity to call itself ‘Canada’s First ..Bank’, was offered the services of several competent arid competitive Canadian advertising agencies . . Here we have a leading company in a highly privileged - business, protected by federal law from foreign competition of takeover on the ground that banking is so . vital to . Canada’s independence that its control ‘must remain in Canadian hands; and this company turns around and acts like a subsidiary of a foreign corporation, to the detriment of a Canadian business (advertising) already handicapped against foreign competition.

I apply those words to the situation that exists so far as the Australian . Government is concerned. While this Government, spending as it does, some SI 2m a year on Commonwealth advertising patronises in the main foreign owned advertising companies, it is lending itself to becoming an agency of foreign corporations. I completely endorse the editorial to which I referred when I first commenced my remarks. The editorial appeared in the magazine ‘Broadcasting and Television’ on. 28th August 1969. The time is long overdue for a good hard close look at this aspect of Government expenditure. But what hope is there when although the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts reported on this matter to the Parliament as long ago as September 1969, after this long time the Department seems to be able to thumb its nose at the Committee. Therefore I urge the Government to look closely at this matter to ensure that Australian advertisers are given a fair share of the cake of Commonwealth Government advertising to assist an industry which practically day after day is being sold up by foreign interests.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN (Western

Australia - Minister for Air) (3.57) - I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the imposition of a levy on all pigs slaughtered for human consumption. The money so raised will be used to finance the scheme for a programme of research for the Australian pig industry which I outlined in my second reading speech on the Pig Research Bill 1971. The legislation provides for a maximum levy of 10c per pig slaughtered. The industry has indicated that it would support an operative rate of levy of 5c per pig slaughtered, but this operative rate, and any subsequent alterations, will be prescribed by regulation after recommendation to the Minister for Primary Industry by the Pig Industry Research Committee. Levy collections will be payable initially by the proprietor of the abattoir at which pigs are slaughtered and will be recoverable from the owner of the pigs. It is expected that the levy will raise between $150,000 and $165,000 annually and this together with the matching Commonwealth contribution will provide a sum expected to be over $300,000 a year for research purposes. Such an amount should make possible a considerable expansion in the research programme for the pig industry, leading to higher quality products and increased efficiency in the industry. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. In order to facilitate the debate on these matters I suggest that on the second reading of this. Bill leave be granted to discuss the subject matter of the 3 bills together. Following this the 3 bills will be voted on separately.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– The Opposition indicates that it does not oppose the passage of this Bill, notwithstanding the fact that we will be moving amendments at the Committee stage. I have indicated to the Minister for. Air (Senator, Drake-Brockman), who is in charge of the measure, that that is our. intention. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1616

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.1 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 May 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710507_senate_27_s48/>.