27th Parliament · 2nd Session
The Senate met at 3 p.m.
page 3
His Excellency the Right Honourable Sir Paul Meernaa Caedwalla Hasluck,
Governor-General and CommanderinChief in and over the Commonwealth of Australia, entered the chamber and, taking his seat on the dais, said:
I am present to administer to senators elected to serve in the Senate from 1st July 1971. and to a senator chosen to fill a casual vacancy, the oath or affirmation of allegiance as required by section 42 of the Constitution.
The Clerk produced and laid on the table the certificates of election for the following senators elected, on 2.1st November 1970, to serve in the Senate for their respective States from 1st July 1971:
Kenneth McColl Anderson
James Robert McClelland
Ronald Edward McAuliffe
Geoffrey Thomas McLaren
Justin O’Byrne
Francis Patrick McManus
The abovenamed senators, with the exception of Francis Patrick McManus, made and subscribed the oath or affirmation of allegiance.
page 4
– Honourable senators are advised of the resignation of Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin as a senator for the State of Queensland on 24th May 1971. Pursuant to section 21 of the Constitution the Governor of the State of Queensland was notified that a vacancy had happened in the representation of that State in the Senate. I have now received through His Excellency the GovernorGeneral from the Governor of Queensland a certificate of the appointment of Neville Thomas Bonner as a senator to fill the vacancy.
The Clerk then laid on the table the certificate of election of Neville Thomas Bonner.
Senator Neville Thomas Bonner made and subscribed the oath of allegiance. (His Excellency the Governor-General having retired) -
page 4
– Mr Odgers, I remind the Senate that the time has come when it is necessary for the Senate to choose one of its mem bers to be President. For that reason I move:
– Mr Odgers,I second the motion.
– Mr Odgers, I propose to the Senate for its President Senator O’Byrne, and I move:.
That Senator O’Byrne do take the chair of this Senate as President.
– Mr Odgers. I second the motion.
– Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, I invite the 2 candidates to address the Senate.
-I submit myself to the will of the Senate.
– I submit myself to the will of the Senate.
– There being 2 nominations, in accordance with the Standing Orders a ballot will be taken. Before proceeding to ballot, the bells will be rung for 2 minutes. (The bells having been rung) -
– The Senate will now proceed to ballot. Ballot papers will be distributed to honourable senators, each of whom is requested to write upon the paper handed to him the name of the candidate for whom he desires to vote. The Clerks will now distribute ballot papers to. all honourable senators. I remind you, honourable senators, that the candidates are Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and Senator O’Byrne. (A ballot having been taken) -
– I have to announce the result of the ballot as follows: Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, 31 votes; and Senator O’Byrne, 26 votes. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is therefore elected President of the Senate in accordance with the Standing Orders. (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack having been conducted to the dais) -
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) - Honourable senators, by your vote you have chosen me to be your Presiding Officer. I am deeply conscious of the honour you do me, but I am more conscious of the burden that I must bear on your behalf. Any President will be successful only if be obtains the respect of the Senate as did my predecessor, Sir Alister McMullin, in his record term of office in the Senate. No President may have such respect unless it is earned. Such respect once obtained may be dissipated unless the laws of the Senate are impartially administered. I shall endeavour to ensure that they are. I thank you for the honour you have conferred on me.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) - Mr President, may I as Leader of the Government in the Senate and indeed, on behalf of all honourable senators, offer to you our congratulations on achievement of the high office that has been bestowed upon you? You have had a long and distinguished career as a parliamentarian. You have served the nation in the Senate as a back bench senator, as a Temporary Chairman of Committees, as chairman of Senate committees and in many ways associated with the management of this House. Throughout your parliamentary career it has been apparent to all that you have always had an overwhelming conviction that our democratic processes require dignity, devotion and application to the welfare of the nation. Firstly on behalf of the Senate, and more particularly on behalf of the coalition that I lead here, I offer you our congratulations and an absolute assurance that at all times we will give to the Chair the respect to which it is entitled and obey your commands.
Senator MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Opposition) - On behalf of the Opposition I offer you, Sir, our congratulations on your assumption of the great office of Presiding Officer. 1 do not go so far as Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and say that at all times yo« will be obeyed, but we will do our best. Our expectation is that you will be fair and impartial, that you will uphold the rights of senators and that you will use your office to promote the interests of all the people we represent. Based on our experience of you we are confident that our expectations will be realised. Mr President, we hope that you will enjoy your tenure of this high office. We, in our way, would hope to displace you from that office as soon as we are able to re-arrange the seating in this chamber, -but while you are there we hope that you enjoy the position. Once again, we congratulate you on your attainment of this great office.
– On behalf of the Australian Country Party I offer congratulations to you, Mr President, on your election to the presidency of the Senate and extend to you our very best wishes for a long and rewarding term. 1 can assure you that we will give you respect and, at all times, our loyalty. We have seen you occupying the chair before and we know that at all times you were fair and impartial. We look forward to your having a long term as President and to your performing as you have performed in the past. I again extend to you our very best wishes.
– Mr President, on behalf of my colleagues of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and on my own behalf I tender to you sincere congratulations on your elevation to the most exalted position of President of this Senate. We have no doubt about your sense of justice and fair play, or your capacity and ability, to discharge your duties with the utmost satisfaction to honourable senators and with credit to yourself. The task of presiding over any parliament is not easy, but it could be made much easier if members of parliament were more ready to recognise their obligations and duties. I do not suggest that a parliament should be altogether a hallelujah chorus. Nevertheless I believe that on too many occasions in this Parliament, and in other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth, we contribute to our own destruction so far as public prestige and respect are concerned. In our own interests and, more so, in the interests of the Parliament of which we are privileged to be members, we have a very important obligation to discharge our duties in a dignified, commonsense, adult manner and to give earnest and conscientious consideration to the matters that come before us. It is our wish, Sir, that you shall be long spared to occupy the position to which you have been elected today and that the Senate of this national Parliament will benefit considerably as a result of your elevation.
– I congratulate you, Mr President, on your election to the office of President of the Senate, an office which is one of the highest in the land. I trust and believe that you will fulfil the duties of this high office impartially and with credit to the Senate and yourself.
– I should like to speak on behalf of the group sitting on the back bench in this corner. I cannot say that I am the leader of the group because we are an egalitarian group. Nevertheless, I am quite aware of what the others think about the choice of a President. We all welcome your election to that position. At the same time may I stress, now that the number in this part of the Senate has increased by 200 per cent, that the time has come when we should have more opportunity to speak in this place. I know that all occupants of the chair are impartial, but the custom has arisen that the Whips decide who shall speak next. While I was alone in this part of the chamber, I had to fight for time to speak. I always knew that on a Wednesday the Liberal Party Whip would come to me and say. ‘Would you like to speak?’ I would say: ‘Yes, I would love to speak as we are on the air.’ He would say: ‘You can speak at 1 1 p.m.’ I think the time has come for that situation to change.
– It was probably because of the public demand at that time.
– There were other times when I was offered a chance to speak, but on those occasions the Whip knew that he had no other speakers and was prepared to allow anyone to speak. Now that there are 3 of us sitting here the time has come when the Whips must realise that we constitute quite a portion of the Senate, that we cannot do our duty without an opportunity to speak, and that we have just as many rights as has anyone else in this chamber. I know that you, Sir, will uphold our right to speak and that you will call on us to speak far more frequently than the Party Whips would wish. We think that the Liberal Party nominated, a very good person for the office of President. We are glad to see you there. We hope that you stay there and enjoy the fruits of office. We know that you will be a very good president.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) - I wish to inform honourable senators that His Excellency the Governor-General will be pleased to receive Mr President, and such honourable senators as desire to accompany him, in the Senate Opposition Party Room forthwith.
– I invite honourable senators to accompany me to the Senate Opposition Party Room.
Sitting suspended from 3.46 p.m. to 4.40 p.m.
page 6
– I have to report that, accompanied by honourable senators, I have presented myself to His Excellency the Governor-General as the choice of the Senate, and His Excellency was pleased to congratulate me on my election.
The President read prayers.
page 6
Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:
That the Senate do now proceed to elect a Chairman of Committees.
– I move:
– I second the nomination.
– I propose Senator Fitzgerald to the Senate for its Chairman of Committees and move:
That Senator Joseph Francis Fitzgerald be appointed Chairman of Committees.
– I second the nomination.
– Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, 1 invite the 2 candidates to address the Senate.
– I submit myself to the will of the Senate.
– I submit myself to the will of the Senate.
– There being 2 nominations, in accordance with the Stand- ing Orders a ballot will be taken. Before proceeding to ballot the bells will be rung for 2 minutes. (The bells having been rung) -
– The Senate will now proceed to ballot. Ballot papers will be distributed to honourable senators, each of whom is requested to write upon the paper handed to him or to her the name of the candidate for whom he or she desires to vote. The Clerks will now distribute the ballot papers to all honourable senators. The candidates are Senator Prowse and Senator Fitzgerald. (A ballot having been taken) - - The PRESIDENT- If all honourable senators have marked their ballot paper, I ask the Clerk to . collect them. I invite Senator Drake-Brockman and Senator Murphy to act as scrutineers for the election of Chairman of Committees. (The ballot papers having been counted) -
– The result of the ballot is: Senator Prowse, Western Australia, 30 votes; Senator Fitzgerald, (New South Wales, 26 votes. I declare Senator Prowse of Western Australia elected as Chairman of Committees.
Senator PROWSE (Western Australia)Mr President, F thank the Senate for the honour of being elected to the position of Chairman ‘ of Committees. I have confidence that the co-operation of members of the Senate will help to overcome my own shortcomings so that together wc may uphold the high standards of debate and conduct that have distinguished the Senate in the past. I thank you.
– Mr President, as Leader of the Government in the Senate I offer, on behalf of all honourable senators in the first instance, my congratulations to Senator Prowse on his election as Chairman of Committees. Senator Prowse is a good parliamentarian, one who devotes himself to the problems of the Parliament and the Commonwealth. I am sure that he will carry out his office with dignity and precision. Not only do I congratulate him on behalf of the Senate, but also I offer particular congratulations on behalf of the Liberal Party in the coalition.
– On behalf of the Opposition I congratulate Senator Prowse. This is a very great office to which he has been elected ‘by the Senate, and the Opposition is confident that he will carry out the duties of that office in the manner in which they have been carried out, that is, with impartiality and with due regard to the rights and susceptibilities and failings of every one of us. In these times of ‘ great change we are having changes in the Senate, but we hope for everyone’s sake that the changes will not be as rapid and unpredictable here as they are in some other quarters. Mr President, we on the Opposition side have observed Senator Prowse and we are confident of his ability and his desire to act in the great traditions of this office. Once again we congratulate him.
– I would like to add the congratulation* of Senator Prowse’s colleagues in the Country Party. I know Senator Prowse will uphold the dignity of this chamber and the office to which he has been elected and 1 fed sure that he will work very closely with you, Mr President. We look forward to a very successful term under Senator Prowse.
– On behalf of my colleagues and myself I desire to extend to Senator Prowse our sincere congratulations on his elevation to a most important position in the Senate, that is, the position of Chair: “man of Committees. The Chairman of Committees in any parliament carries a great responsibility for the reason that all amendments to any Bill are dealt with in the Committee stages when the Chairman of Committees is in charge of the proceedings. With all due respect to those who occupy the positions of Chairman of Committees and Temporary Chairman 1 would . suggest that when consideration is being given or a vote is to be taken on amendments- to Bills all members of the Senate be taken into the confidence of the Chairman or Temporary Chairman and informed of what is going on. Too frequently there is a mumbled transmission- of some decision and this is not good enough. Honourable senators cannot hear what is being mumbled in the conversations and dialogue between the Clerk of the Parliament and the Chairman or vice versa. We would like to hear just what is being submitted and what amendment is being proposed to a clause of a Bill. I suggest to Senator Prowse that he can improve the position greatly. It is not because I suffer from any defect in my hearing. As a matter of fact I am too bright for a lot of people on my right and hear a great deal more than they would desire me to hear. Often it concerns one or other of their party and it is not always laudatory.
– 1 am a bit closer now so you will be able to hear me better.
– That is Senator Georges who sits in the main thoroughfares of Brisbane in order to get his photograph in the paper.
– You have never done such a courageous thing in your life. You sneak behind closed doors.
– But I have always been able to travel this great continent without any barrier or bars such as a Labor Prime Minister was required to put on you. I have never been regarded as a security risk. It is with due respect to Senator Prowse that I make the suggestion that the voice of the Chairman should be heard on what is taking place from time to time at the table
– I am certain that I am speaking on behalf of the honourable senators in this corner of the chamber when I say that we wish to extend our congratulations to Senator Prowse on his election to a position carrying very onerous duties. I am quite certain that he will carry them out conscientiously, as he carried out his ordinary parliamentary duties. The same remarks as I made on your election, Mr President, apply to the election of Senator Prowse.
– I join with other honourable senators in expressing my congratulations to Senator Prowse on his elevation to the very high office of Chairman of Committees. Although he has never occupied the position of Temporary Chairman of Committees, I know that he has performed very successfully and wisely as a member of numerous committees of this Parlia ment. I wish him well in the discharge of his new duties. I recognise, of course, that impartiality is important and I believe that in this respect Senator Prowse will distinguish himself as did his predecessors, Senator Drake-Brockman and Senator Bull. If he does he will have the complete cooperation of the Opposition.
page 8
– by leave - I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). Whenever I use the first person singular personal pronoun honourable senators will understand that 1 am referring to the Prime Minister.
I desire to inform the House of certain ministerial changes and arrangements since the Parliament last met. Senator the Honourable Sir Kenneth Anderson has been appointed Minister for Health. The Honourable N. H. Bowen, Q.C., has been appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs The Honourable David Fairbairn, D.F.C., has been appointed Minister for Defence. Mr Fairbairn will, for the time being, continue to hold the portfolio of Education and Science. Senator the Honourable I. J. Greenwood, QC, has been appointed Attorney-General. The Honourable Peter Howson has been appointed Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. The Honourable R. V. Garland has been appointed Minister for Supply. Also since the House last met the Minister for Customs and Excise, Mr Chipp, has been appointed Deputy Leader of the House and Minister Assisting the Minister for National Development, and the Minister for the Army, Mr Peacock, has been appointed Minister Assisting the Treasurer.
Mr President, 1 turn now to representation in the 2 chambers. The Minister for Defence will continue to be represented in the Senate by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and the Minister for Foreign Affairs by Senator Wright, who will also continue to represent the Minister for Education and Science. The Minister for Health will continue to be represented in the House by Dr Forbes and the AttorneyGeneral will be represented by Mr N. H.
Bowen. The Minister for Supply will be represented in the Senate by Senator Drake-Brockman, the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts will be represented by Senator Greenwood, and Senator Cotton will represent the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities.
page 9
– by leave - I wish to report to the Senate that I have received a letter from you, Mr President, in the following terms:
Following my election to the position of President of the Senate, I have to Inform youthat I wish to withdraw from the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange.
page 9
– by leave - I desire to inform the Senate that Senator Young has been appointed Government Whip in the Senate.
page 9
– I inform honourable senators that I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General a commission to administer to honourable senators the oath or affirmation of allegiance.
Commission laid on the table and read by the Clerk.
page 9
Education, Science and the Arts
– I present the following petition:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:
In any advanced community the arts and associated amenities, serious or comic, light or dramatic, must occupy a central place, and should be available to and be encouraged to be appreciated by every citizen.
There is an urgent need for a thorough public inquiry into all the economic problems involved in the development of the creative and performing arts in Australia, with particular reference to the Mediaof Television and Radio.
Your petitioners most humbly, recommend that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Cause the Standing Committee of the Senate on Education, Science and the Arts to conduct a searching inquiry into the state of the arts in Australia and make recommendations thereon that will encouragethe development of all forms of cultural and artistic activities in Australia.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
Motion (by Senator Murphy) - by leave - agreed to:
That the petition be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts.
-I present the following petition:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the Tasmanian Pensioners Union on behalf of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth:
That dueto the higher living cost, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.
They are only asking for the right to spend their diminishing years with a medium of comfort in the way of housing, food and clothing. Surely this is not too much a share of Australia’s muchvaunted prosperity.
We your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that:
Old Age Pensions be immediately increased to a minimum of $24.50 per week for a single person.
That all other pensions be increased correspondingly.
That all pensions be increased quarterly according to the cost of living index.
That all diabetic foods and medicines be included on the Pensioners Pharmaceutical free list. and our petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition:
To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:
The Humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth -
Whereas
the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.
a major inadequacy at presentin Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.
200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.
Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians. . .
Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for -
The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income , for tax purposes.
Removal of (he present age limit in respect ofthe deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance of students.
Increase inthe amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
Exemption of non-bonded scholarships for parttime students from income tax..
And yourpetitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition:
Tothe Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealthrespectfully sheweth -
W hereas
the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in (he Australian Education system.
a major inadequacy at present in Australian education isthe lack of equal education opportunity for all.
200.000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty frominadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.
Australia cannot afford to hinder the edu cation of these 2.000,000 Australians.
Yourpetitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for -
The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.
Removal of the present age limit in respect ofthe deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.
Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
Increase in the maintenance allowancefor students.
Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:
The Humble Petition of citizens of the’ Commonwealth respectfully sheweth -
Whereas
the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.
a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal edu- cation opportunity for all.
200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1963.
Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.
Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for -
The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for lax purposes.
Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.
Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.
Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of 10 electors of the Commonwealth Australia respectfully sheweth -
That a United Nations General Assembly Resolution has declared that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants.
That the World Health Organisation confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;
That the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition:
To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 11 electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth -
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:’ Whereas
Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for:
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received.
– 1 present the following petition:
To the President of the Senate and members of the Parliament assembled.
We, the undersigned Councillors of the Shire of Shoalhaven in New South Wales, wish to bring the following matter to your attention.
The Council of the Shire of Shoalhaven recently called tenders for the supply of commercial propane, and despite advertisements in the Sydney Morning Herald and the forwarding of specifications for supply to all companies who had submitted tenders in 1968, two tenders only were received, one for $59.75 per ton (for periods of either one or two years) and the other for $57.50 per lon (for one year) and $56.50 per ton (for two years). The propane is to be delivered to the plant al Nowra.
The lowest tender of $56.50 per ton wa: accepted, and represents an increase of $9.28 De. ton above the previous price. This large increase seriously affects the economics of the Gas Trading Undertaking.
We are aware of the increases in wages and other associated costs with the supply and delivery of propane, and acknowledge that these factors have some bearing on the increase in cost. However, it is understood that the main cause for the high cost is the artificial shortage of liquefied Petroleum Gas created by Esso-B.H.P. exporting large tonnages of liquefied gas to Japan on long term contract, at prices in the order of $16 to $17 per ton, and more recently to South America at a similar price. Meanwhile, the current price of this type of gas from Australian Refineries is in excess of $30 per ton.
When Council converted its coal gas carbonising plant to tempered liquefied petroleum, it was given an assurance by the Gas Department of the Local Government Department and other authorities conversant with the industry, that this byproduct from oil discovered in Australia would be plentiful and that its ‘price should decrease, certainly not increase to the extent of over $9.00 per ton. Local Government Councils, their ratepayers and consumers have invested millions of dollars in the Gas Industry
We. the Councillors of the Shire of Shoalhaven are of the strong opinion that Councils, which are dependent upon supply of liquefied Petroleum Gas, should be entitled to supplies of gas at prices similar to those applicable at present in the export of this gas to Japan and South America The home market should be granted preference over the sale of liquefied petroleum gas to overseas countries.
We respectively request that this petition be referred to the Standing Committee for Primary and Secondary Industryand Trade for investigation
We, your humble servants, will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
Motion (by Senator Kane) agreed to:
That the petition be referred to the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade.
-I present the fol lowing petition:
To the Honourable,
The President, and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled.
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That as Electors we cannot accept that the Government’s action in awarding a 50c Pension Increase overcomes the injustice of the 1970 Budget.
The total pension increase this financial year has not closed the gap between pensions and other incomes, and this gap is widening.
Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament Assembled should:
Support the requests that have been made to the Commonwealth Government namely:
That there should be a substantial increase in pensions in the 1971 Budget.
That a Committee should be appointed to carry out a full scale public inquiry into providing a more humane and equitable pensions system. and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the follow ing petition:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth.
THAT due to the higher living cost, persons on Social Service Pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.
We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Male Earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with A.C.T.U. policy and adopted as the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.’
Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our Petition: sothat our citizens receiving the Social Service Pensions may live their lives in dignity.
And your petitioners as in duty bound willever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of 12 electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth -
That a United Nations General Assembly Resolution has declared that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid- employed for their direct toxic effects on man. animals or plants;
That the World Health Organisation confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;
That the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -
That the Parliament take note of the concensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and
That honourable senators urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
page 13
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That the instability of the Government and its subservience to outside influence is injurious to the nation.
I have taken steps, which 1 understand may be acceded to, to have the motion brought on for debate tomorrow.
– Pursuant to Standing Order 134 1 give notice that on the next day of sitting 1 shall move:
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That the petitions this day presented to the Senate by Senators Webster, Poyser, Byrne and myself on education be referred to the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts.
page 13
– My question is addressed to you, Mr President. Were members of the South African Rugby Union team allowed into this chamber and the chamber of the House of Representatives during their visit to Canberra several weeks ago? Were they allowed to take photographs in the precincts of the Senate? Is not permission to take photographs in these precincts refused to other visitors, including Australian citizens? Who granted the unusual privilege to the members of the South African Rugby Union team? Will these privileges be granted in future to other visitors to this House?
– I shall make a statement later in the context of that question.
page 13
– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. In the event of Britain joining the European Economic Community under the terms agreed upon at Brussels recently, resulting probably in a drastic reduction of exports of primary products from Australia to that country, is it proposed that Australia should continue to import considerable quantities of goods from the United Kingdom, or is it contemplated that these imports, as far as possible, will be placed with countries which will trade with us on a reciprocal basis? Is the Minister in a position to outline the policy to be followed in these circumstances?
– I do not think that at the moment I can really offer much to the honourable senator in the way of a view that will aid him. He is canvassing areas of policy which properly belong to the Minister who administers this portfolio. I have written down the honourable senator’s question. I have some views of my own, but 1 do not think they would help him a great deal. I believe that we in Australia ought to have a policy whereby we import from those countries to which we export. We should consistently follow this line. I think the honourable senator will find that we do so. In a multi-lateral trading world such as the world in which we live there will always be certain trade imbalances between one country and another. All the world’s trade tends to come into balance, but there will always be adjustments. I am quite sure that the Minister and the Government will have very much, in mind the various points raised by the honourable senator, as they will affect us when the British people join the European Economic Community.
McMAHON GOVERNMENT
– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the behaviour of the Government over the last few weeks in repect of the sacking of Ministers and the tensions among Ministers and former Ministers a fair example of how the Government considers the public affairs of Australia should be carried on? Is it a fair sample of what the people of Australia can expect from the McMahon Government?
It is perhaps traditional that Senator Murphy, as Leader of the Opposition, should commence this series of sittings with a highly loaded political question. We are accustomed to it. I suppose we have to live with it. We in Australia have our democratic processes. I do not think it would be a bad idea if we took stock of the situation and had regard to what happens in other parts of the world when it is contemplated that there should be some change of strength or some variation in the parliamentary and Cabinet system.One does not have to go very far back in history to know what has happened, or too many thousands of miles away to know what happens in other parts of the world. Some people do not seemto appreciate the system that we have. It is a Cabinet and Executive system. It makes provision for changes. I would say to Senator Murphy: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Some of the behaviour that we have seen from the Opposition means that we who have been in government since 1949 will be in government for many years to come - a couple of decades, no doubt.
page 14
– I directa question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Australian Wheat Board a Commonwealth statutory corporation? Does it have its own corporate seal? How is it financed? Can it sue and be sued in its own name? Is it a fact that the Australian Wheat Board does not make an annual report to the Parliament? If so, is there any particular reason for this exemption? If this exemption is in fact allowed, is such exemption allowed to any other Commonwealth instrumentalities? If so, which instrumentalities are they?
– While having a working knowledge of the Australian Wheat Board, I am afraid that I have not the detailed legal knowledge that the honourable senator is seeking. I shall seek the information which he requires and I shall let him have it, probably at question time tomorrow if 1 can.
page 14
-I ask a question of the Attorney-General. Is there any constitutional impediment to the introduction of a Bill to make it compulsory that at least SO per cent to 90 per cent of every Ministry be elected by its parliamentary members?
– The position which applies throughout the Australian democracy is that Ministers are chosen by the Governor-General. He acts upon the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party. Each party has its own process of selecting persons as Ministers. Traditionally that is a matter for each party. Insofar as the question seeks a legal opinion. I know that the honourable senator appreciates that that iscontraryto the Standing Orders.
page 14
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister in Charge of Tourist Activities. Is the Minister aware that in most Pacific countries the provision of tourism facilities is rewarded through taxation deductions for the initial cost of buildings, maintenance andrenovations? Will the Government consider extending the Australian taxation provisions to allow similar deductions for those engaged in the tourist industry in Australia in view of the potential of the industry to earn foreign exchange?
– Yes, I am aware of the fact that in some countries, not all, taxation deductions arc given for the promotion of the tourist industry and for the encouragement of building programmes to accommodate tourists. The general assistance levels vary widely. Some countries do a lot: some do nothing at all. The general method of doing this is by no means uniform. I would have to refer the honourable senator’s question to the responsible Minister for an answer because it is his function, not mine, to give such an answer inthe finality.
page 14
– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I understand that under the existing Commonwealth Aid
Roads Agreement the Government is unable to make a special grant to the South Australian Government for the purpose of completing the sealing of the Eyre Highway. As this road is used by mostly interstate traffic and as the State Government is unable to allocate sufficient funds for this work, would the Minister recommend to his colleague in another place that the Federal Government provides a long term low interest loan to the South Australian Government to enable this important national highway to be completed as a matter of urgency?
– I do not think I can recommend it to the Minister 1 represent but I can transmit the suggestion to him and put it to him as something that might overcome a problem with which most South Australians have been concerned. The honourable senator, when he was living in that part of South Australia, and many other senators have referred to this matter from time to time. I have given many answers about this but I think that this is a proposal which introduces a new element. I shall certainly be very pleased to communicate it to the responsible Minister.
page 15
– I ask the Minister for Air whether he can confirm that the Western Australian State Housing Commission home in Morrison Street, Swan View, Perth, reserved for Air Force personnel is currently vacant. Can he say whether the reason the previous Air Force tenant moved out of the house was because an Aboriginal family is now living in the house next door? Is the house being kept vacant of Air Force personnel because of the continuing presence of the Aboriginal family? Has the Air Force been informed bv the State Housing Commission that the Commission has a civilian tenant anxious to occupy the house if the Air Force refuses to make use of it?
– The house to which the honourable senator draws my attention belongs to the State Housing Commission and is made available for rental to the Royal Australian Air Force. It is true that for some time now it has been empty. I could not agree with the honourable senator that the reason given by him was the reason for the last tenant moving out. The Air Force has informed the Department of Housing, so that it can inform the State Housing Commission, that it no longer has a requirement for that house.
page 15
– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been directed to a report that this day the Reserve Bank of Australia has banned all dealings in overseas currencies? fs that report true? Can it be assumed that it would be impossible to predict the consequences for Australia of the present international financial crisis? As this matter is of extreme importance to the business community, particularly to those involved in export, would the Minister entreat the Treasurer to submit to the Senate as soon as is possible a statement on the present situation?
–
That is a valid request. I feel bound to point out that consequent upon the statement made by President Nixon the matter of the present international economic situation is of some concern. I am noi aware of the decision of the Reserve Bank but I do know that the Treasurer and the Minister for Trade and Industry have issued statements which I commend to honourable senators. I would not like to read them now because it would take too much time but I suggest that they be read. I think that at an appropriate time the Treasurer may make a statement on this subject and it may well be that we can have a debate here. One paragraph of the Treasurer’s statement issued in the last 24 hours would seem to point up the situation. He said:
We in Australia are watching the situation very closely and examining the implications of possible developments. Our representatives abroad are keeping in the closest possible touch with developments in the major centres and in particular in the International Monetary Fund. It is not possible to do more, however, until we see bow the Americans get on in their discussions with the Europeans.
What he said in effect is that as a consequence of the statement by President Nixon it is too early for a definitive statement to be made by him or the Minister for Trade and Industry. When a statement is made I will without delay, with the concurrence of the Treasurer, place it before the Senate.
page 16
– I ask. the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the incidence of unemployment is higher in Tasmania than it is in any other State? Will the Prime Minister give urgent consideration to making special grants to Tasmania for the purpose of building schools’, homes for aged persons. government homes and safer roads and so create employment opportunities forTasmania’s rising number of unemployed?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON I have not had the advantage of seeing the figures that were released in the last 24 hours but I do not question the statement made by Senator O’Byrne that Tasmania is in a worse position than the other States. Albeit, the figures of unemployment across Australia are very low and, having regard to the nature of our economy and the fact that ours is a primary producing country, apart from isolated areas, they represent a state of full employment. As all honourable senators will know, matters such as this are dealt with at a Premier and Prime Minister level. If the Premier of Tasmania feels there is a special case for meeting circumstances that are peculiar to Tasmania he has the responsibility in the first instance of making representations to the Prime Minister. The Commonwealth will then examine the request.
page 16
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he can provide details of trade during the past 12 months between Australia and the Peoples Republic of China? If possible, I would like included in those details the recent purchase of merino rams.
– I would be pleased to ask the Department of Trade and Industry, through the Minister, to provide the information sought. I assume that the honourable senator is seeking a breakdown of exports to the Peoples Republic of China, specified by items, during the 12 months ended June 1971, and also details of Australia’s imports from that country during the same period.
page 16
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the
Minister for Primary Industry, whoever he may be at the moment. Inspite of the explanation given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate that it is loo early to talk of the implications of the freeing of the United States dollar. I ask whether it is not a fact that the wool industry will be immediately in further trouble and that our meat trade also will be in trouble?
-I am still the representative in this chamber of the Minister for Primary Industry. I have noth ing to add to what the Leader of the Government in the Senate has said. If further information is available 1 shall give it to the honourable senator.
Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.
page 16
(8.0) - I present the following papers:
Civil Works Programme 1971-72.
Commonwealth Payments to or for the States. 1971-72.
Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1972.
Expenditure -
Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30 June 1972. Particulars of Proposed Provision for Certain Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1972.
Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1971.
Commonwealth Income Tax Statistics for Income Year 1968-69.
National Income and Expenditure, 1970-71. and move:
That the Senate take note of the papers.
Tonight the Treasurer is delivering in another place his Budget Speech for 1971- 72. It is my privilege to outline to the Senate the Budget proposals of the Government.
Amongst these are important proposals to improve social service and repatriation benefits, to provide new forms of assistance for rural industries, notably wool, and to increase considerably our expenditure on defence. There will be minor tax concessions which, like the social services proposals, are oriented towards the claims of children and students.
Measures will also bc brought’ down to increase revenues and charges.
page 17
Even more than usually the Government has this year found it necessary to shape its Budget to serve an overriding economic purpose. Australia is in the grip of inflationary pressures’. The rate of increase in costs and prices is already fast and has tended to become faster. This is a serious condition. If allowed to develop unchecked it will cause increasing economic and social hardship to many people, acid to the burdens of rural industries already depressed, disrupt developmental plans of great promise and undermine the rich possibilities of growth which our future unquestionably holds. So far as lies in outpower as a government we are determined to combat this pernicious trend, slow it down and hobble it.
Until last financial year, inflation had not, for almost a decade, been a matter for serious concern with us. Through a long, unbroken phase of expansion it had usually been present in some degree but it had never gained much ground.
Thus, in this country, we can have strong, sustained economic growth and continuous full employment of resources with only a moderate degree of cost and price inflation. This is a vita! fact, a reassuring fact. It demonstrates that, in undertaking to bring the current more serious form of inflation under control, the Government has not embarked upon any futile task. We accept that the Government must take the lead - this we are doing - but we must have the co-operation of the community. We would be lacking in duty to ignore our responsibility or fail to take that action which lies within our hands as a government.
In some respects, the last two financial years have gone along much as did the preceding years. If anything, 1969-70 was somewhat above the trend - employment rose by 4 per cent and last year employment rose by 3.7 per cent - again above the trend. In both years there was a notable further strengthening of our external payments and reserves position. This performance was achieved despite the further decline in th’e overall position of the rural industries, amounting to a severe slump in the case of wool. This tended to offset and mask the growth of the other sectors of the economy.
That having been said, it is in these two years that cost and price inflation has gathered pace. Undoubtedly, a significant part of the impetus has come from wage increases in various forms. These increases have reflected the level of demand and a willingness on the part of employers, under pressure, to pay more for labour. Apparently it has been possible to pass on increased costs, wholly or partly, in higher prices. It is probably more helpful to think of an inter-acting set of conditions than to look for a single dominating cause. But it is important to appreciate that a cost-price sequence can become a self-activating force so that cost increases lead to price increases and these to further cost increases.
In general, as we see the problem, there has been and still is a powerful upthrust of costs, stemming largely though not wholly from large wage claims relentlessly pursued.
There has also been and still is an overstrong pressure of demand in some sectors, the effects of which spill over into other areas. Over the past couple of years, expenditure has been running very high in non-residential construction and, to a lesser extent, on the purchase and installation of capital equipment. It has also been running very high in the public sector, both Commonwealth and State.
In the very big area of consumer spending there appears to have been a growing rate of increase in recent months. This is a critical area because of the massive additional call on resources there would be if consumer spending did rise more rapidly. This could be made possible by the big increase in personal disposable incomes that has occurred and by the large buildup in savings bank deposits over recent months. That it might happen is evidenced by a sharp growth in retail sales, at an annual rate of 12 per cent, between the recent March and June quarters. It is a development which we must have very much in mind in assessing the economic outlook, lt would be calamitous for a general demand-type inflationary pressure to be superimposed upon and exacerbate present cost pressures.
Therefore it is essential to achieve the right rate of increase in demand through the year. It must be high enough to make possible full employment of the labour available - new labour as well as existing labour. At the same time it must not be so high as to facilitate and encourage further cost and price increases. Since, as I have said, demand has been running too high in some sectors, this indicates the need for a degree of restraint on demand. One obvious direction in which restraint should be applied is that of public authority spending in its various forms.
page 18
While the Budget provides for substantial increases in expenditures to meet present and high priority needs in social welfare, the rural sector and defence, the Government has nevertheless been ruthless in pruning expenditure proposals.
There are, of course, large segments ot the Budget where there is relatively little scope for pruning. Moreover, a substantial increase in expenditure on many government services and activities was unavoidable because of sharply increased wages and salaries and other costs - including an extra pay-day this year.
The overall increase in our expenditures would, however, have been much larger but for a determined pruning of expenditure proposals. It may be fairly said that this year has seen the most rigorous restraints on proposals for expenditure for many years. We propose to continue to exercise this restraint and we have decided to limit the growth in the numbers employed full-time under the Public Service Act to 3.1 per cent in 1971-72. To assist in controlling the growth of expenditures, we have arranged that, in future, all Commonwealth Departments will prepare for the Government’s consideration expenditure estimates for a further 2 years beyond each budget year. This will clarify the longer-term implications of individual proposals in the context of the emerging overall expenditure situation and will enable the Government to act earlier in relation to developing trends.
In terms of the conventional Budget presentation, total expenditure this year is estimated at $8, 833m, an increase of $728m or 9.0 per cent. This figure does not allow for the effect on inter-year comparisons of the transfer of pay-roll tax to the States. After adjusting for that factor, the increase in expenditure would be S987m or 12.2 per cent compared with the actual increase of 13.8 per cent in expenditures last year. The success of our restraints is seen in the more meaningful figures of the Commonwealth’s outlays in Australia. After adjustment to remove the estimated effects of the transfer of pay-roll tax to the States, our outlays in Australia are estimated to increase by 11.7 per cent compared with the actual increase of 14.9 per cent last year.
page 18
The Government has made an assessment of our strategic situation in the light of changes which are occurring in our international relationships.
With further improvements in the security situation in South Vietnam, and the growing capacity of that country to provide for its own defence, reductions in the Australian Force, Vietnam, have already been possible. The Prime Minister will make a statement in this Session. Arrangements for the disposition of our forces in the Malaysia/Singapore area within the Five Power arrangement are proceeding very satisfactorily.
The Defence Vote proposed is $ 1,252.4m. This is $U7m, or 10.3 per cent, more than last year.
Some $66m of the increase is for pay and salaries. New rates recommended by the Kerr Committee for other ranks will apply as from the beginning of the next pay period, and actual payment will be made as soon as regulations are promulgated. The Minister for Defence will make a statement on the new pay structure.
Expenditure on new capital equipment and works is estimated at $227m. This is about $32m more than last year. Major equipments to be delivered this year include 10 Skyhawk aircraft for the Navy, 13 Macchi Trainer aircraft for the Navy and Air Force, 12 Light Observation Helicopters for the Army and communications equipment and armoured personnel carriers. An amount of S6.2m will be spent on the development of the Naval base at Cockburn Sound and on Learmonth
Airfield on North West Cape. There will bc a small increase in expenditure on defence aid programmes.
Payments to the States
Recent developments have led to a significant improvement in CommonwealthState financial arrangements. The new grants formula settled in June 1970 is increasing State revenues considerably. More recently the agreement to transfer pay-roll tax to the States has improved their capacity to raise their own revenues. We count that agreement as a major co-operative achievement between the two branches of Government. The present aim is that the transfer of this tax should take effect as from 1st September 1971. On that basis, the offsetting reductions in the States’ financial assistance grants will result in total allocations to the States from the Commonwealth Budget .increasing by only an estimated S8Sm to $2,93 l.m.
In addition, . the States will receive an estimated S259m from payroll tax at the existing rate and a further estimated $90m if the rate is increased by 1. per cent as they have indicated. Thus, after allowance both for Commonwealth allocations and revenue from their new tax, the States are estimated to receive S3, 280m. an increase of $437m or 15 per cent on the comparable figure for last year.
The Commonwealth will continue to impose pay-roll tax at the rate of 2i per cent in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. .Details of the arrangements will be given when legislation lo amend the States Grants Act 1970-1971 and the Commonwealth’s pay-roll tax legislation is introduced into Parliament. There are 2 aspects of particular importance.
First, local government authorities will benefit by an estimated S6m this year and S8m in a full year through the Commonwealth meeting the cost of exempting the non-business activities of such authorities from pay-roll tax as from the date of transfer.. This decision by the Commonwealth has been warmly welcomed by all local authorities.
Secondly, while accepting that pay-roll tax would be a useful. ‘addition to their revenue resources, the States emphasised that the full-year costs of the abnormally . high wage arid salary awards granted by various wage-fixing bodies to State Government employees last year would still make it very difficult for them to cope with their prospective 1971-72 budgetary situations. Accordingly, the Commonwealth agreed to pay the States special non-recurring revenue assistance of $40m this year as well as ari amount of about S22.4m associated with the transfer of the pay-roll tax.
The allocations to the States include an amount of $860m for the State works and housing programme approved by the Loan Council. This amount, which includes an interest-free capital grant of nearly $210m, involves an increase of $37m or. 4.5 per cent on last year’s programme. In addition, the Commonwealth makes available to the States a wide range of capital payments for specific purposes, such as roads, education and the development of resources. These payments are estimated to increase by around 1 1 per cent to S406m.
Expenditure on social welfare and repatriation constitutes the largest single’ item of the Commonwealth’s own expenditures. Social services, repatriation benefits, health services, housing and other welfare activities will involve this year an expenditure of $2,095m. This is $268m more than last year. Further details are given in Statement No. 10 attached to the Treasurer’s Budget Speech.
AGE. INVALID. WIDOWS’ AND SERVICE PENSIONS
The Government has pursued its policy of assisting those most in need. There will be higher pensions for those who are wholly or substantially dependent on their pensions. The standard rate pension payable to single people and widows with children is to be increased by $1.25 to $17.25 a week. The married rate of pension will rise by $1.00 a week for each person to give a married- couple who are both pensioners a combined maximum pension of $30.05 a week.
Pensioners now receiving pensions at the current maximum rate and those who received part of the increase of 50 cents a week given in April this year will- receive the full increase of $1.25 or $1.00 a week. Pensioners who narrowly missed, qualifying for any part of the April increase will receive part of the present increase so that their total income will not be. less than that of maximum rate pensioners with full allowable means.
The . allowance for the non-pensioner wife of an invalid pensioner and the allowance for the non-pensioner wife of an ag: pensioner who is permanently incapacitated or who has a dependent child, have been reviewed. The wife’s allowance will be increased by SI. 00 to $8.00 a week.
Increases are also proposed in the additional pensions payable where a pensioner has dependent children. The first child will attract an increase of $2.00 a week and each other child SI. 00, bringing the payment for each child in a pensioner’s care to a uniform rate of $4.50 a week.
The increases will apply, where appropriate, to rehabilitation and sheltered employment allowances, tuberculosis .allowances and long-term sickness benefits. The proposed increases in the wife’s allowance and pensions for children will be extended to the dependants of those receiving unemployment and sickness benefits. Comparable increases will also be made in service pensions payable under the Repatriation legislation.
page 20
To assist young families, endowment will be increased by 50 cents a week for each child under the age. of 16 years in excess of 2 in a family. The rate of payment for children under 16 years in institutions will also be increased by 50 cents a week.
page 20
We propose a number of improvements in Repatriation pensions and allowances.
The special rate pension payable to a totally and permanently incapacitated war pensioner will be increased by $3.50 to $42.50 a week.
The intermediate rate war pension, payable to those able to work only part-time or intermittently, will be increased by $1.75 to $30.25 a week.
War widows’ pensions will be increased by $1.25 to $17.25 a week. The rates payable for their children will bc increased by $1.00 for the first child and $2.00 for the second and each subsequent child, making the pension for each child $7.00 a week. The pension for a child who has lost both parents will be increased by S2.00 to $14.00 a week. Also to be increased are the additional allowances payable to war pensioners who require an attendant and to those who have suffered amputation of one or more limbs or the loss of an eye.
page 20
The maximum loan under the .War Service Homes Scheme will be increased from $8,000 to $9,000. An amount of $60m has been provided, under advances for capital purposes, for War Service Homes.
page 20
We have adopted a new approach to Commonwealth assistance to the States for housing. Under the previous CommonwealthState Housing Agreements such amounts as were nominated for housing by each State out of their annual Loan Council borrowing programmes were advanced by the Commonwealth at a rate of 1 per cent below the long-term bond rate. The States will continue to determine the amount of their annual Loan Council borrowing programmes to be allocated to housing. However, the Commonwealth will no longer make housing advances at concessional’ interest rates to the States but instead will offer direct grants to help the States’ continue to provide housing for lower income groups.
The Commonwealth will also offer to advance all .the funds to be spent by the States on building homes at the Commonwealth’s request for serving members of the Forces - thus relieving the States of the obligation to use a portion of their housing funds for this purpose.
page 20
There will be an increase in the operational subsidy payable to the Royal Flying Doctor Service from $180,000 per annum for the triennium just completed to a new yearly rale of $315,000 for the triennium 1971-74.- In addition, the- Government will continue to provide a capital grant at the same rate of $170,000 per annum as has applied for the past three years.
In 1971-72 Commonwealth payments to. . the Suites for particular types of expendi.ture on education are expected to exceed $200m. The bulk of these payments - about $.128m - is for universities and colleges of advanced education. This figure includes a special allocation to assist these institutions in meeting the cost of exceptional increases in non-academic salaries. In its own territories the Commonwealth expects to provide about $77m this year.
Taken as a whole, Commonwealth direct expenditure on education is estimated at almost S346m, or 14 per cent more than last year. The value to taxpayers of deductions for education expenses is estimated to be $75m this year.
The estimates provide for an increase of $9m in external economic aid to developing countries including Papua New Guinea. A greater increase could conceivably emerge later in the year.
Commonwealth payments to industry are expected to total $37 lm or $54m more than last year. Details are given in Statement No. 9 attached to the Budget Speech.
Export incentive payments are expected to total S53m, industrial research and development grants $13m, net expenditure by way of subsidy to ship-building $10m and payments of petroleum search subsidy $8. 6m.
In considering the amount of assistance to be provided from the Budget this year for rural industries, the Government noted that farm income in 1970-71 is estimated at about $8 10m, about $265m less than the year before. This has had an impact not merely on the producers but on rural communities generally.
The Government has given high priority to measures aimed at giving support to farmers whose enterprises are basically viable, but who are burdened with an excessive amount of short-term debt or whose properties could with advantage be built up to a larger size. To finance schemes of debt reconstruction and farm build-up, an amount of $4m was paid to New South Wales last year and a further $40m is provided this year for payment to the States.
Provision is also made for payment to the States of $11.5m under the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme. Payments last year were S3.1m.
Advances for capital purposes include $10m for the Commonwealth Development Bank to help finance an extension of the
Bank’s operations to include loans to farmers to build up the size and operational efficiency of their farms.
For those farmers not in a position to achieve commercial viability the’ Commonwealth will introduce a retraining scheme. The rural reconstruction scheme also provides for rehabilitation assistance - where this is necessary to alleviate personal hardship - to those farmers obliged to leave rural industry.
The Government has given particular consideration to the position of those farmers substantially dependent on their income from wool. The collapse in wool prices during 1970 brought them to a figure as low as that ruling in 1948 when, of course, costs were much lower.
The Australian Wool Commission’s operations have had a stabilising effect on wool prices. As already announced by the Minister for Primary Industry, the Government will continue to support the Commission in its reserve price operations on the same basis as in the past season, subject to regular reports and review by the Commission on its purchases and buying limits. Last year the Commonwealth made available to the Commission $12m for working capital to finance purchases of wool and an arrangement was negotiated with the trading banks to provide up to $34m to the Commission for this same purpose. This latter amount is not yet fully drawn. Advances for capital purposes include a further $10m to be advanced to the Commission as working capital should this be needed.
The Budget provides, in addition, $4m against a possible loss by the Commission and $3.7m towards the costs involved in handling wool included in the Price Averaging Plan.
The Government has decided that producers of woo] should be given additional assistance this year, and will introduce a lyear scheme of deficiency payments in respect of the 1971-72 wool clip. Deficiency payments will be a percentage of market realisations, calculated from time to time so as to ensure that, on average, growers receive for shorn wool - other than specified inferior types accounting for about 10 per cent of shorn wool - a return corresponding to a price for the whole clip of 36 cents a pound greasy. Under this method individual growers will retain an incentive to obtain the best possible price for their wool. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as practicable.
Provision is made in the Budget for expenditure of $60m under this scheme in 1971-72. Some expenditure will also be involved next year in respect of wool sold towards the end of the season.
The phosphate fertilisers bounty will be extended to 31st December 1974. Expected expenditure this year is $38m.
The 1-year additional bounty on 1970- 71 butter and cheese production- is to be extended to 1971-72 production at a lower rate. Expenditure on butter and cheese bounties this year is expected to be almost $40m.
A 5 year stabilisation plan for the apple and pear industry will be introduced, at an estimated cost in 1971-72 of $3iri.
Payments to rural industries are expected to total $275m - that is, S65m more than last year.
The Commonwealth has assisted primary producers affected by drought by reimbursing State Governments where they are involved in substantial relief expenditures pf an abnormal nature. Last year we provided nearly $14m to New South Wales and Queensland and this year we will continue to assist the Queensland Government in financing relief measures and restocking assistance.
The situation in the wine industry has been kept under close review by the Government. Having considered the report of an inter-departmental committee, we have decided not to alter the existing duty on wine. However, the problems currently affecting some growers in the industry are well recognised and will be kept under review by Commonwealth, State and industry authorities in conjunction with the Agricultural Council.
The Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act will be amended to enable a buyers’ credit scheme to help Australian exporters of capital goods. The Minister for Trade and Industry will introduce the necessary legislation.
It is estimated that advances for capital purposes will increase by $47m to $495m. Last year the increase was $83m.
The largest increase - $56m - is in the advance to Qantas to meet payments on new aircraft.
The amount to be provided to the Post Office from the Budget is $255m - $8m more than last year. The remaining finance for its capital programme will be provided by the Post Office from internal resources - mainly depreciation funds.
Post Office charges were increased last year, but increases in wage and salary levels have been much larger than were expected. The full year cost of wage and salary increases awarded in 1970-71 is estimated at $77m. Were charges to be left at their existing levels, a loss of more than $30m would be incurred this year. This would require either a substantial reduction in the Post Office capital programme, and consequently in the level of services, or a provision from the Budget much larger than our overall financial position would justify. To avoid such a loss, and to help in financing the capital programme, it is proposed to raise charges to increase Post Office receipts by about $50m in 1971-72. Details will be given by the PostmasterGeneral.
A further capital payment of $ 12.5m is to be made this year to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The payment made last year was $25m. There are substantial reductions also in various other advances, including those for the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority and the Australian National Airlines Commission.
page 22
Expenditure on other capital works and services is estimated to be $262m. an increase of $22m.
page 22
Departmental running costs are estimated, at current levels of salaries and costs, to increase by $84m, or 15 per cent. This large increase is in part explained by the additional public service pay-day in 1971-72 which takes $16m and in part by the full-year effect of salary increases awarded last year. The Government is concerned about the rate of growth of departmental expenditure and has taken action to curtail it. It is proposed to initiate within the Government a review of the existing functions and activities of departments. It is not expected that this review, which will of necessity be spread over some months, will lead to substantial additional economies in the current financial year. In the longer term, however, the Government aims to achieve further economies which should ensure that the rate of increase in departmental expenditure is restricted to the absolute minimum consistent with the execution of Commonwealth functions of vital importance to the national welfare.
page 23
ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT
An amount of Sl4.35m will be available for expenditure from the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account mainly for special programmes of housing, health and education. This is an increase of $3.1 in or 28 per cent.
In addition, expenditure on Aboriginal advancement by or on behalf of the Northern Territory Administration is expected to amount to more than $l6m.
RETIREMENT PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES
Existing Commonwealth Superannuation Fund and Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund pensions, which were last increased in 1967, will again be increased by the notional salary method, using salary and pension entitlement levels ruling on 30th June 1971.
The estimated cost of the- increases is $ 11.5m this year, but the net cost to the Budget is estimated at 56.2m because a large part of the cost will be met by the Post Office and other authorities outside the Budget.
A comparable adjustment of existing pensions payable under the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act will also be made at an estimated cost of $78,000 this year.
page 23
We see it as a critically important objective of our’ policy to combat the inflation ary forces now running in our economy, and it is against this objective that I now come to explain the strategy of this Budget and our decision to raise additional revenues.
Although cost increases and the price increases which follow them may be due, in the first instance, to increases in wages and other cost elements, they are without doubt stimulated and made possible by conditions of strong demand for resources. Hence, if resistance to such cost increases is to be stiffened, as it must be, there has to be a sufficient degree of restraint on potential demand for resources, particularly in those sectors where it is obviously running too high.
The chief instruments available to the Government and its related authorities are the annual Budget, the effects of which are spread over the ensuing year, and monetary measures taken by the Reserve Bank in collaboration with the Government.
One of the most expansive sectors of demand has been public sector expenditure, of which Commonwealth expenditure comprises a large share. Obviously, therefore, this had to be our first target, and I have described the steps we have taken to slow down the rate of increase in this source of demand.
Since there will still be, within Australia, a considerable increase in Commonwealth spending, it must at least be offset by an increase in Commonwealth domestic receipts from taxation and other sources of revenue. But if, as we believe, there is need to apply a wider restraint than this and exert a steadying influence on the upward course of demand in the economy, the rise in these receipts should more than cover the increase in expenditures. In other words, there has to be a larger surplus of domestic receipts over domestic expenditures. The practical. question is how much larger this surplus ought to bc.
After considering this question in depth the Government reached the view that it should seek a somewhat larger domestic surplus than the $550m envisaged . in the 1970-71 Budget. Because subsequent events added heavily to our expenditures the domestic surplus last year proved to be $460m. This was however, an adventitious result, hardly to be taken as a guide for what should be sought in 1971-72.
For some time there has been a prospect that monetary liquidity would rise excessively. From what we see now, the influences tending to produce excess liquidity could continue strongly in 1971-72. This provides a further reason for seeking to achieve a large domestic surplus. The figure we have decided upon is $630m, which is $80m more than the amount for which we budgeted last year. The relationship between the Budget and monetary conditions is discussed in some detail in Statement No. 3 attached to the Treasurer’s Budget Speech.
page 24
Before allowing for revenue measures which 1 will discuss later, it is estimated that total receipts this year would be $8,654m, an increase of $624m, or 7.8 per cent. However, if adjusted to allow for the transfer of pay-roll tax to the States, the figure comparable with actual receipts last year would be $8,913m, an increase of 1 1 ,0 per cent. The basis of these revenue estimates is discussed in Statement No. 5 attached to the Budget Speech.
Because of cost increases, we are proposing to increase some charges. Governments are not immune to cost increases and users of government services - rather than the general taxpayer - should be required to meet these costs. However, to achieve a domestic surplus of $63 Om it is necessary for us to seek additional tax revenue in this financial year of $157m.
In the present context the object of any tax increase is to moderate development of demand and that can be done either by taxes on incomes or by taxes on spending - that is, taxes levied on commodities The latter form of taxation has the drawback that it adds to prices. Taxes on incomes are more likely to be free from this consequence although it is sometimes argued that company tax increases eventually find their way into prices. On balance, the Government has decided to seek the major part of the additional revenue it needs in 1971-72 from taxes on certain company income and on personal incomes and the lesser part from increases in customs and excise duties on petroleum products and tobacco products
At present, the first $10,000 of a company’s taxable income is generally taxed at a lower rate than the balance. We have concluded that the present concessional rates are no longer warranted. We propose that the rates applied to the first $10,000 of taxable income, including shading-in and special rates, be increased by 5 cents in the dollar. Friendly Society Dispensaries - which have a uniform rate of 37$ per cent - will not be affected The general public company rate of 471 per cent will therefore apply to the whole of the income of public companies other than income taxed at special rates. For private companies the rate on the first $10,000 of taxable income will be 37i per cent and the rate on the balance will remain at 42i per cent. These charges, which will apply to incomes of companies for the income year 1970-71, are estimated to yield $24m this year.
A consequential change will be made to the rate on the first $10,000 of 1971-72 investment income of a superannuation fund that does not invest a sufficient proportion of its assets in public securities, as these funds are taxed at the same rates as mutual income on a life insurance company.
Personal Income Taxation lt is proposed to raise a large part of the balance of our revenue requirements through the personal income tax rather than add further to sales taxes. Accordingly, it is proposed to increase the 24 per cent levy to 5 per cent. This increase is estimated to yield $68m this year. The new scale of tax instalment deductions from wages and salaries will operate from 1st October 1971.
The levy will not apply to tax calculated under the age allowance. Consequently the upper limits of the shading-in ranges of the age allowance will increase. Apart from that, it is not proposed to change the age allowance.
It is proposed to liberalise certain deductions allowed to personal income taxpayers. The deductions in question relate to education, a matter to which we attach great importance, and to child adoption expenses. We propose that the maximum deduction allowable for education expenses of a dependent full-time student child be increased from $300 to $400 per annum. We also propose that education expenses will be allowable deductions in respect of such students under 25 years instead of under 21 as at present. Consistently with that, we shall increase to 25 years the age at which a student ceases to qualify as a dependant for purposes of the -dependant’s allowance. Finally, it is proposed that a deduction be allowed for legal expenses and court costs of the kind normally incurred by a taxpayer in adopting a child. It is estimated that the cost to revenue of these concessions will be $405,000 this year and $6,350,000 in a full year.
We shall need to raise more revenue than will be yielded by the measures 1 have just mentioned. Accordingly, we propose to increase the rates of customs and excise duties on cigarettes and cigars by 50 cents per lb and on manufactured tobacco by 25 cents per lb. lt is estimated that these increases will yield $21m this year.
We also propose to increase by 2 cents a gallon the customs and excise duties on motor spirit, automotive distillate used in road vehicles operating on public roads, aviation turbine fuel and aviation gasoline. These changes are estimated to yield $43m this year.
For some years there have been exemptions from excise for coal tar and coke oven distillates produced as a by-product in the process of converting coal to coke. The Government is satisfied that the circumstances giving rise to the exemption no longer have force, and has decided to remove the exemption where these distillates are used as substitutes for or in admixture with motor spirit. It has also been decided to remove the current excise exemption for condensate produced from natural casing head gas when it is used in admixture with motor spirit in internal combustion engines. These changes are estimated to save the revenue $1.3m in 1971-72.
The net effect of the various taxation proposals I have just outlined will be to increase revenues this year by Si 57m.
As promised when the investment allowance for manufacturing plant and equipment was suspended, the Government has given further thought to the transitional provisions but has decided against amendment of the legislation.
LISTENERS’ AND VIEWERS’ LICENCES
Listeners’ and viewers’ licence fees were last increased in October 1968. Since then, the gap between receipts from licence fees and expenditure in providing and maintaining the National Broadcasting and Television Service has increased because of mounting wage costs, extension of television to lesser-populated country areas and development of programme services.
It is proposed to increase licence fees, other than the special rates payable by pensioners, to yield SI lm in 1971-72.
LIGHT DUES
To help meet the rising cost of providing marine navigation aids, it is proposed to increase light dues - that is, charges to shipping for the use of these facilities - from 20 cents to 22 cents per net registered ton per quarter. The increased charges will apply from 1st October 1971 and are estimated to yield S480.000 this year.
PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS - PATIENT CHARGE
The Government has for some time been greatly concerned at the mounting cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The charge payable by patients has been 50 cents since the charge was adopted in 1960. In that year the cost of the Scheme was $49m; last year it was $160m. A charge of 50 cents, appropriate 1 1 years ago, cannot be regarded as appropriate today. Accordingly, the Government proposes to introduce legislation to increase the charge to one dollar. As a result of this change it is estimated that Commonwealth expenditure this year under the Pharmaceutical Benefits arrangements will be reduced by about $I6m. Pensioners and their dependants enrolled in the Pensioner Medical Service, who are entitled to free pharmaceutical benefits, will continue to be exempt from any charge. Special arrangements will be made for those persons enrolled in the Subsidised Health Insurance Scheme to continue to receive pharmaceutical benefits for the present contribution of 50 cents for each prescription.
In recent years there have been annual increases in rates of air navigation charges in accordance with the Government’s policy that the air transport industry should progressively meet a greater proportion of the costs of airports and airway facilities. A Working Group of departmental officers and airline representatives will shortly complete a report, in which the airlines are making submissions concerning the costs they should meet. A decision on air navigation charges will be taken by the Government after consideration of the report.
page 26
Fiscal action can exercise a pervasive effect, but the Government’s capacity to deal directly with inflationary pressures arising primarily from cost pressures is more limited. We have already taken some action in areas where we have power to do so and the Government has under active study various other aspects of the problem of excessive cost increases. 1 might mention, in this budget context, that the Government is considering what might be done by way of strengthening the arbitration system and, in particular, bringing more to the forefront the economic consequences of decisions which are taken within that system. When these studies have been completed, we will consider whether further measures should be taken to cope with the problem of excessive cost and price increases.
Reference needs to be made to the escalating level of industrial unrest. Working days lost through industrial disputes in the first 5 months of 1971 topped the high rate of last year by nearly 25 per cent, In the past 3 years the annual loss of working days has been 1.1m, 2.0m and 2.4m. But it is not the direct losses of production and wages from this rising tide of militancy which are so disturbing as the fact that confrontations in industry are often resolved only at the cost of grossly inflationary wage settlements. The real costs to the community of such settlements dwarf the direct losses from prolonged stoppages. If the inflationary trend is to be contained, a halt will have to be called to this process.
The Government will do all it can, by persuasion and example, to encourage those in the private sector who make decisions directly affecting wages and other costs, profits, and ultimately prices, to have at ali times in the forefront of their consideration the broad national interest. Let me say too that we are very conscious of the problems posed for manufacturers and other businesses by inflationary tendencies and of-.er economic trends.
In striving to restrain the forces of intiation, the Government has been concerned to ensure that this Budget does not contribute to a situation where demand pressures might be superimposed upon cost pressures. There may be some who believe that we should have taken that risk and allowed demand to have its head. At least in the short term, this would have been the easier and perhaps the more popular course. But in our view it would not have been the right way nor the responsible way. We will be keeping the whole situation under very close review throughout the year so as to make any adjustments in policy which might prove to be necessary.
On its own, the Budget cannot, of course, ensure that the nation’s objectives are achieved. But this Budget, concerned as it is with the high national objectives of social welfare, economic strength and national security, provides (he essential framework for the attainment of these national goals.
Debate (on moi ion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.
page 26
Assent to the following Bills reported.
Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1971. Superannuation Bill 1971. Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1971. United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees.) Bill 1971. Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) Bill
Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Bill 1971.
Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1971.
Wool Industry Bill 1971.
Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1971.
Income Tax (Bearer Debentures) Bill 1971.
Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment)
Bill 1971. Trade Practices Bill 1971. Papua and New Guinea Bill 1971. Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1971.
Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill 1971.
States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill 1971.
Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill 1971.
Victoria Grant (Shepparton Preserving Company Limited) Bill 1971.
States Grants Bill 1971.
States Grants (Science Laboratories) Bill 1971.
Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1971.
page 27
– I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) appointing Senator Durack of Western Australia to fill the vacancy on the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange caused by my resignation from that Committee.
page 27
– I present the report of the Standing Orders Committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:
That consideration of the report in the Committee of the Whole be an order of the day foi the next day of sitting.
page 27
Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– 1 had intended to ask for leave to present a paper to the Senate and to make a short statement. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) has beaten me to it by proposing the motion for the adjournment, so I shall present the paper during the debate on the adjournment. I present to Government supporters a get well card on the front of which is depicted a sailing ship which represents the ship of state. Inside the card is a cartoon showing the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), both of whom appear to be fighting fit. The ship of state is floundering but is putting on a brave front. However, we must beware of half truths. The card is presented to members of the Liberal Party with best wishes for a complete recovery and for continued good health to follow.
The card states: 1 hope you return to the state of health displayed by Mr Leslie Bury, ex-Foreign Minister, from the muddle of Gorton to the chaos of McMahon.
Accompanying that card is an envelope which I have edged in black.
To be more serious, in this debate I propose to raise the disclosure of information gathered by select committees. In March 1969 Senator Keeffe attempted to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency. There was considerable resistance to the moving of the motion. It was claimed by several honourable senators that in debating as a matter of urgency the preservation and protection of the Great Barrier Reef, the honourable senator would be disclosing information thai he had received as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources. The first reference that I want to make to the debate on whether the matter should proceed appears at volume S.40 of the Senate Hansard at page 299 where the now Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) set out his case in opposition to the debate going on. He said:
I pui it to the Senate that the function of select committees, in which we are engaged much more now than we have been hitherto, is a very important extension of the work of the Senate. The success of select committees is very much (he province of the whole of the Senate, not of .my one pan of it. I believe that anything which in the end tended to diminish the status of select committees or to denigrate their work would do harm to the institution which we respect and which wc hope will reach a higher status and a greater responsibility.
That was part of what Senator Cotton said. At page 301 he said: 1 have expressed the view in the Committee und 1 have also expressed it. here- in the Senate, that while it is quite in order for people to say that standing order 308 is wide and that they can make their own conclusions about it and behave in their own fashion according to their own interpretation of it, there is placed upon the Committee a very heavy responsibility because under that standing order, for the Committee to divulge its evidence and tq speculate upon this matter could bring upon it or its chairman a charge of breach of privilege.
Those 2 statements are from a respected member of this Senate, who at that time was the Chairman of the off-shore oil committee. The preservation of the Great Barrier Reef came within the terras of reference of that committee by virtue of the fact that the Committee was charged with considering off-shore oil legislation as a whole and other matters (hat were specifically referred to it.
Senator Gair spoke iti the debate; his remarks appear at page 307 of volume S.40. His were very strong words to come from the leader of a political party in this place and a member of the off-shore oil committee. He said:
Al the present time my inclination is to tender my resignation from the Committee. I have been a regular attender at the sessions of the Committee and have found them to be most interesting, educational and informative, but for all that I find that a Committee member wants to go off on his own representing himself as the great defender of the Great Barrier Reef and giving the impression chat the other members of the Committee have no concern about its future and would sacrifice it to the oil companies. That is my present inclination. If this is to be the pattern of conduct of members of committees in the future I feel that a committee will be just a waste of time.
That view was expressed by. a member of the Committee who is not only responsible to that Committee but who also has a responsibility as a leader of a political party.
The next honourable senator to whom l shall refer also was a member of the Committee. 1 refer to Senator Young, who is presently the Chairman of the Committee. He said:
However, we also know that we have responsibilities to that Committee and to this Senate. Therefore it is not for me tonight to comment on evidence that has been given. I could talk very easily about newspaper reports. 1 am referring to the reports about evidence given to the Committee . . I think this shows conclusively that the Committee has a big job to do and a great responsibility when it comes to its final conclusions. Would it be right for a member of the Committee to show any bias whatsoever tonight about, aspects of the Great Barrier Reef? 1 say it would not be right. Is it right for any member of the Senate at this stage to start farcing issues one way or the other about the Great Barrier Reef? 1
Say it is not right
A little later in the debate we had some sound advice from Senator Greenwood, who is now the Attorney-General. He was not speaking in the debate at that stage but was speaking to a point of order that Senator Keeffe should not be allowed to debate his matter of urgency. He said:
Therefore it becomes a matter of what is the limit upon the Senators and what constraint should be exercised by the Senate in the light of standing order 308. It would be very difficult for honourable senators to speak on matters in this field without offending the Standing Orders. That is one point.
A second point is that the Senate ought to recognise the difficulty into which it puts its members. Furthermore, having appointed a select committee, the Senate ought to consider whether in those circumstances the honourable senator should embark upon a discussion when it has already given to the Select Committee the obligation of making a major consideration of these matters. 1 have entered this discussion because I sense that there is here a very real problem. 1 do not know whether this matter is expressly covered by the Standing Orders, but 1 certainly ask for your ruling upon it, Mr President. It appears from the Standing Orders that the Committee may report at any stage, or it may report when it has completed its deliberations. If it reports when it has finished its deliberations then, according to standing order 317 the consideration of that report must be by specific motion, of which notice must be given in the usual manner. That would suggest, I submit, that if the report of the Committee were before the Senate it could not be discussed in this way. Therefore 1 ask whether it is proper for the Senate to discuss matters which are within the terms of reference. . . .
This is important -
I, like other members of the Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources who have spoken in this debate, do so with a feeling of inhibition as to how far I can go in discussing the matters thai have been raised tonight. However, I relieve my mind quite considerably, and I take little notice of standing order 308, because of advice from the Clerk of the Senate as to the disclosure of evidence by the Committee. To free my mind a little in this respect I propose to quote briefly from the advice given by the Clerk of the Senate. In talking about freedom to allow the evidence given before committees to be perused . . .
I thought I was adopting a reasonable attitude in view of the advice that the Clerk had given to the Off-shore Petroleum Resources Committee, but apparently that was not acceptable because when Senator
Cormack, as he was then, spoke in the debate, he said:
The problem has not been resolved. 1 say that notwithstanding the advice entitled ‘Disclosure of Select Committee Evidence’ that the eminent Clerk of the Senate, for whom 1 have a great respect, circulated and which I have not seen because it was circulated to the members of the existing Committee, the fact is that I do not believe that a select committee of the Senate can pursue properly the responsibility that the Senate places upon it when the matters which have been given to that committee and are within its terms of reference can bs, at the whim of any senator supported by four other senators standing in their places, subjected to scrutiny in debate in the Senate. The realities of the debate that has taken place in the Senate this afternoon and in the evening are that the forms of the Senate have been distorted for the purpose of partisanship. This is what we have been attempting to make clear. Notwithstanding anything that Senator Cant from Western Australia has said to the contrary- he made out as glib a case as he could - the facts are that the forms of the Senate are being distorted for the purpose of partisanship and this detracts from the efficacy of select committees which should be protected from this sort of operation.
He said further:
They are in the Opposition, lt seemed to me symbolic of this Old Testament character that the Australian Labor Party so often assumes, filled with prejudice and partisanship, myopic, living in the past, and trundling out the shibboleths that Senator Cant has trundled out tonight.
Senator Cormack was the first to take a point of order against Senator Keeffe moving his urgency motion. He referred not only to standing order 308, which prevents the disclosure of evidence that has been placed before a select committee, but also to standing order 125, which reads:
No Motion or Amendment shall anticipate an Order of the Day or another Motion of which Notice has been given.
Standing order 419 states:
No Senator shall digress from the subject matter of any Question under discussion; nor anticipate the discussion on any subject which appears on the Notice Paper.
When taking the point of order, he went on:
Obviously that refers to the Senate notice paper. I direct my attention to these two standing orders, which I suggest must be read in conjunction with standing order 64, because the Senate already has this matter under its survey, and surveillance. A Senate select committee has-been charged by the Senate with the examination of this problem. The matter appears on the notice paper. 1 suggest, that under the two standing orders I have referred to - I consider they must be read in conjunction with standing order 64 under which Senator Keeffe and his supporters have moved this motion - honourable senators opposite are out of order. I suggest that they are canvassing a matter which is before a select committee of the Senate; therefore it should not be debated on the grounds that it is anticipating a matter which at present appears on the notice paper.
That was the substance of the argument that was used in this place to try to prevent an honourable senator from speaking on a matter of urgency which he considered affected Queensland. These were the statements of responsible senators opposite. The very least that can be said for Senator Keeffe is that he had the courage to bring into the Senate the subject matter that he wanted to debate if the Senate would allow him to debate it, unlike other people who do not come to the Senate but who make their statements outside this place - statements based on evidence that they have received during the course of a committee inquiry. In my opinion it is a matter of privilege, but f know that I would not be upheld on a matter of privilege. To say the very least, it is a great discourtesy to the Senate for a senator to act in (his way, particularly when that senator is a chairman of a select committee and more particularly in view of what that senator had to say when he was attempting to stop the moving of an urgency motion by an honourable senator. I refer to the statement made by you, Mr President. It has not been contradicted. As a matter of fact, it has been confirmed. It appeared at page 13 of the ‘Australian’ of Friday, 16th July 1971. The heading is: ‘Can exchanges mind their own business?’ The article states:
Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, went on record on Wednesday night as saying that a government supervisory body for Australian slock exchanges would be ‘the worst of all worlds’.
Sir Magnus told the Waverton, Sydney, branch of the Liberal Party -
He was discussing Committee business, not in public but at a meeting of the Liberal Party- that the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges should set up a national body to regulate slock market activity.
He stressed that his views were personal and not necessarily those of the committee as a whole, lt is to be hoped that they are not.
That comment is at the end of the statement by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. The honourable senator has been a member of select committees and a chairman of select committees. He knew the rules sufficiently well to try to prevent an honourable senator debating an issue in this place, but then he went outside the Senate to canvass a matter about which he could have knowledge only because of evidence received by a select committee. 1 quote now from page 323 of the same Hansard from which 1 quoted a little earlier where Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is reported as having said this:
I rise to pursue a matter which has interested me since 1 had the honour, by the direction of the Senate^ to join a Senate select committee. That committee did me the personal honour of asking me to accept its chairmanship. Honourable senators will recollect that there was a stage where I fell into some sort of bother with one of my colleagues. A matter arose in a debate and evidence that had been given in a meeting of thai select committee was quoted in the Senate. The argument turned upon whether the evidence quoted was evidence thai was in the executive committee if I may use the American expression, or whether it was given in open forum. The reason why I mention this is that this was the stimulus that caused me to jump to my feel earlier today to take a point of order in respect of the matter raised for urgent discussion by Senator Keeffe and which has been canvassed in the Senate for the last 2J hours or 3 hours.
This reveals that Senator Sir Magnus Cor mack had been in trouble previously over making statements on evidence received during the proceedings of another committee. Maybe it would be unfair to leave the matter there because the next day, perhaps it was. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack made a further statement which appeared in the West Australian’ of Tuesday, 20th July 1971. The heading on that article is: Sir Magnus: I have been misunderstood.
The article states’.
The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, said yesterday thai comments he had made on the regulation of the securities industry had been misunderstood.
Sir Magnus was referring lo reports of a Sydney speech he made last week, in which he said lh:ii a government body to supervise securities markets would be the ‘worst of all worlds.’
Senator Magnus said yesterday that he was not suggesting the Federal Government had no role to p’:i in regulation of the industry-
I had in mind a situation where a Commonwealth regulator!’ body was superimposed on six State stock exchanges, a national stock exchange supervisory body, the various other self-regulatory groups and six fully fledged State securities and exchange commissions,’ he said.
My personal view, nol necessarily shared by other members of my committee, is that the disadvantages inherent in such a tangle of regulations would outweight the advantages. ‘However I was not expressing the view that the Commonwealth had no role to play in regulation. Nor was 1 saying that the present Government involvement in these markets should remain as it is.’
Sir Magnus said he had reported to the Senate in May that the committee had found major weaknesses in the present regulatory system.
Moreover, 1 have continually stressed that these are national questions’, he said.
Sir Magnus said that Governments had direct responsibilities for supervising the stock exchanges but in fact relied heavily on self-regulatory bodies.
I submit to the Senate that the statements made by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack arose out of evidence gathered by the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, lt is not sufficient for a senator, having made a statement arising out of evidence received or of which he has knowledge, to then say: “But this is my personal opinion and not the opinion of the Committee’. What would happen if there were 8 members of a committee who each made a statement based on evidence received and then said: ‘This is my opinion; it is not necessarily the opinion of the other 7 members of the committee.’? Where ate we heading if the Senate is disregarded and people are allowed to go out and make all sorts of statements without hindrance being placed on them? What will happen to the system of committees? As Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and Senator Gair have said here, they will be just a waste of time. The proposition 1 put to” the Senate is that at the very least Senator Sir Magnus Cormack should clarify the position and if it is thought by the Senate that he has offended the Senate, he should be called upon to apologise to the Senate.
I regret the circumstances in which I have brought this matter forward. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was elected only today to the position of President of the Senate, lt was not my intention to attack him as President of the Senate. 1 have mentioned the dates of the statements made by him. I had made up my mind to bring this matter before the Senate long before Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was elected President. I know thai members of the committee on which I served were not allowed to make any statements. Advice was given to us by the Clerk of the Senate and the committee ruled that we would not make statements. We expected that that would be the general rule for other select committees.
– Did the committee resolve to that effect?
– The committee has not yet made a report.
– But you said that the other committee on which you served resolved that nobody should make statements. Did this committee carry such a resolution?
– 1 do not know what this committee did.
– You have not quoted all the Press statements made by other members of the committee either. You seem to have singled out one.
– I have here the statements which were made, if the honourable senator wants to read them.
– I bet you have none there made by me.
– You might be that dumb that you are unable to make a statement. I cannot vouch for what you have the capability of doing. I have here statements made by Senator Georges, Senator Rae and Senator Wheeldon. An article in the ‘Australian’ comments upon the statement made by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. That certainly was a statement designed to tell the stock exchanges to get their own body working otherwise the Commonwealth would step in and take over the supervisory side. What happened? The next day Sir Cecil Looker made a statement that a national body would be formed to control the stock exchanges. They were warned by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack that they should do this otherwise they might find themselves controlled by a Commonwealth committee. This is the effect of statements made outside the Committee before reports are brought down. People who will be affected by reports that are likely to be brought down are warned to put their house in order before the committee presents its report. Not only the chairman but also members of the committee are first in this position. If that is the way in which select committees are to carry on we will find that very few honourable senators on this side of the chamber will be willing to serve on select committees.
– In relation to the matter which has been raised by Senator Cant I make these observations: The Senate system of standing committees and select committees has been of fairly recent and unprecedented growth. It is true that we have had committees in the past but they have not been in such profusion and have not entered into areas which are perhaps so much a matter of public controversy as they are now. Many of the considerations to which Senator Cant has adverted were academic considerations earlier but they have become very real considerations now, as we are aware. I do not know whether the considerations and the statements of supposed principle made at various times by various honourable senators as to the proper role of members or chairman of committees are right but [ think it is fair to remind the Senate that on 19th May this year it decided to refer to the Standing Committee on Privileges the whole question of the rights and responsibilities of honourable senators and of members of the public in relation to the Senate and the proceedings of its committees. This followed, I think, a proposition which 1 had put forward some time earlier to the Senate that these matters should be clarified so one would know just what one’s rights and responsibilities were. That proposal was first referred to the Senate Standing Orders Committee on 29th April. On 19th May the Senate decided to clarify these matters by having a full investigation and report by the Privileges Committee.
As far as the Opposition is concerned these matters need to be determined by that Committee. They are the subject of investigation by the Committee and we hope that as speedily as possible a report will be brought down so that everyone will be aware of the rights and responsibilities. These need not be a matter of contention; it will be simply a case of whether they have been observed. Unfortunately, at the moment it is in an area where one cannot be certain of just what are the various responsibilities. 1 think the Senate is taking the right course to nave these determined and defined. The Opposition trusts that the report which will be made will bc a definitive report on these matters, and at the end of the investigations it hopes that there will be no room for the feeling that perhaps what has been said on some earlier occasion about what was right has nol been observed on some other occasion. The only way out of that situation is to clean up the matters and get a clear determination so that ever)’ honourable senator will know where he stands and so that noone can say: ‘I was told on one occasion that 1 was not to do this but on some other occasion that was done.’ I think we all want clarification as soon as is possible.
– I want to intrude on the time of the Senate this evening to make a plea direct to the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) at the behest of several groups in Sydney in regard to certain plans, which to a degree have the acquiescence or the support of the Department of Civil Aviation, to create what is known as the Duffy’s Forest airport. In looking at the picture in the broad sense, nobody envies the role of Senator Cotton in having to make a decision on a new major airport to cater for Sydney’s growing demands. Whatever decision he makes he will certainly have considerable problems in regard to conservation and the environment generally. I make this plea tonight in relation to this subsidiary airport because 1 feel that no matter how big this primary problem is, if he does not handle this secondary problem he will compound the genera) problem and some of the criticism that he realises he will face in any case.
My story is similar to that of other New South Wales senators who are in receipt of correspondence from 2 groups. One is the Committee to Stop Duffy’s Forest Airport, and the other is the Northern Beaches and Bushland Committee. For the information of interstate senators, outside the major airports most of the light aircraft traffic in Sydney operates largely from Bankstown airport. I was intrigued to be asked to say something on this subject. The Minister is aware that last year there was some agitation from people in the Blaxland and Banks electorates, of which the Bankstown airport is a feature, over certain expansion of the airport. In conversation Senator Cotton justified the expansion of the Bankstown airport by the existence of various factors, and I considered that if he had his way in that regard there was no need to proceed with the Duffy’s Forest airport.
Those honourable senators who know the Shire of Warringah and the expanse of coastline to Newport and Palm Beach, know that it contains the Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. It is regrettable that there has not been a full awareness of the situation by the New South Wales Government. lt should have declared that the Department of Civil Aviation was trespassing.
There are unique features about this matter. I want to be fair to Senator Cotton. He took with him Mr Doubleday and other senior officers of the Department to meet representatives of the committees. I have received letters dated 20th July and early August which quote the dialogue that ensued. 1 will not weary the Senate unduly with these matters but it was obvious that the Department was seeking a toehold. The light aircraft expansion will go on, and obviously it will have a tremendous effect on the general recreational facilities in the area. I am not like King Canute who thought he could hold back the ocean. There is nothing to stop people with light aircraft using them from Bankstown or Camden airports. 1 do not see why we should devastate certain bushland in this other area to meet their immediate demands. 1 do not think there is any reason why they cannot drive lo the airports I have mentioned. 1 take it a little further. I know that in addition to the major decision that Senator Cotton has to make, it is mooted - 1 am quoting here from what Mr Doubleday said to the meeting - that another 14 airports may have to be considered. I do not quarrel with that. The crux of my argument is that with orderly planning in many cases we can have our cake and eat it as well. This is the theme 1 am advancing. My eleventh hour plea to Senator Cotton is illustrated by a pretty highclass precedent. He would be aware that in the State of Florida in the United States of America there was massive agitation by conservationists about what a particular airport would bring about. One could probably argue about transportation to the State of Florida from other major regions in the United States of America, but the fact of the matter is that the President of the United States of America, President Nixon, vetoed the whole project. I would respectfully say to Senator Cotton that, regardless of what he may have to do in regard to the major decision he has to make on the subject of the numerous deputations that have been made to him, he should ensure that the people who reside near this area of natural bushland are not subject to unnecessary disturbances from all types of aircraft. It may be that because of the position in the other corridors into Sydney it will be necessary a! times to use the corridor over this area, but we should not compound the situation. President Nixon’s veto of one section of aviation expansion was not the death knell of the aircraft industry in the United States of America. I do not think it would be the death knell of private flying in Australia if the Minister for Civil Aviation were to put the shutters up as far as the Warringah Shire is concerned. The Minister will know that opposition to this proposal has continued to crystalise. The Warringah Shire Council, which was a bit dazzled by the argument of the light aircraft operators, has now closed its ranks and it is strongly opposed to the proposal.
I would summarise what I have been putting to the Minister in this way: The brief that I am advancing in regard to this matter tonight is, firstly, to campaign for the complete abandonment of the proposal to build an airport at Duffy’s Forest; secondly, to protect the Ku-ring-gai Chase by preventing the building of an airport; and, thirdly, to campaign for the complete dedication of any of the additional land that the State Government may, in a moment of weakness, want to hand over to the light aircraft operators. 1 believe that the whole of the area should be retained for recreational purposes. I am confident that the Minister for Civil Aviation will, in the light of the other problems he has, do the right thing.
Before resuming my seat, I wish to direct a very brief request to either the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. It concerns Greg McQuade, a citizen of Sydney, who registered for national service but was not ballotted into the Army. At the age of 23 years he married a citizen of the United States of America and took up residence 6 months ago at 144 Ridge Road, Watchung, New Jersey. His brother, who happens to be a senior
16261/7 1-S-[2
official of the theatrical employees union, was in a very agitated state when he telephoned me tonight and asked how this boy, who is an alien in the United States, could be subject to call up by the United States Army. I throw this matter into the ring for the consideration of the responsible Minister. Honourable senators are no doubt aware that problems have arisen with regard to Greek citizens returning to Greece from Australia and being confronted with a call up; but the point I want to make is that in this age of mobility in our work force there would be numerous 25-year olds who have complied with the law and registered for national service but who have not drawn a marble. It is evident that they have met their national obligations. I ask: How would such an error occur in the United States of America? I leave it at that.
I am confident that the Senate will give full consideration to the first matter I have raised. In regard to the second matter. I am sure that the Government could get in touch with its diplomats in Washington and find out how the foul-up occurred in regard to this person being called up.
– J wish to reply to Senator Mulvihill, who has made an eleventh hour plea at approximately 9.30 in the evening. It is not necessary for the honourable senator to make an eleventh hour plea to me about this matter nor is it necessary for him to conduct a campaign about it. I acknowledge the honourable senator’s interest in this matter. He would no doubt appreciate that I have shown some interest in it, too. The Duffy’s Forest position can be quite simply expressed. I think the honourable senator is entitled to know this because he has shown interest in the matter. First of all the County of Cumberland plain - the Sydney plain - is geographically a very difficult plain for airport location and development. On that plain there will be between Wollongong and Newcastle in due course 5i million people. Some of these people will want to fly in both light and heavy aircraft. The need for airports on that plain has to be acknowledged. All that the honourable senator has said about the need for rational thinking and good coordination has actuated my reasoning since I have been involved in this matter. It is, as the honourable senator has said, a difficult matter, but it has to be approached in the fullest sense of what the community requires in total. Duffy’s Forest is an area that has been thought of and proposed for light aircraft use for an expanding city aggregation - Newcastle through Sydney to Wollongong - in the years that lie ahead. It is one of the most suitable sites for that purpose. There could be others.
The proposal was first put forward by Dr John Morris in 1957. The Department of Civil Aviation was then asked to undertake a survey and it did do so. At that time the Terrey Hills Progress Association supported the proposal very firmly, as did the Warringah Shire Council and quite a number of members of Parliament. The Terrey Hills Progress Association is now against the move and at a series of meetings the Warringah Shire Council has itself also come out against it. lt has been said, amongst other things, that the area presents an interesting ecology and should be preserved as parkland for the expanding city of Sydney, lt is perfectly true that there is a great public claim for this. It has been said that it is a natural paradise for certain birds and animals and that if it were to be intruded upon in any way the natural fauna would either disappear or diminish. That is possibly true. It has been said that it is the last area of wiannamatta shale in the County of Cumberland plain. I have a geological map of the area, which I will show to Senator Mulvihill because of his interest. It appears to me from the map that it is certainly not the last area of wiannamatta shale.
I turn now to what I have done in regard to this matter. I have twice been out and looked at the area. I did this something like 6 or 7 months ago. I have flown over it once in a light aircraft in order to see what it is like from the air. It appears to me to have certain advantages and certain disadvantages from an aviation point of view. However, the area has to be considered in the full community sense. We have to decide what should be done, not only in the interests of the community in the area but also in the interests of Sydney as a whole because it provides parkland area for a population much greater than that now living alongside it. I have received two deputations, one from a large number of people. I have also talked to all the responsible people who are against the airport proposal. I have seen the Honourable W. C. Wentworth and Mr Harry Turner and I propose to see the members of the New South Wales Parliament who indicate that they want to discuss the matter with me. In fairness to everybody concerned - Senator Mulvihill would be the first to concede this point - I think I should also see, and I will see, the people who want an airport in the area. Included in those people will be Dr Morris, Captain Young, who is the President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and Mr Apperly, the Federal Secretary of the Association of Commercial Flying Organisations at Bankstown Airport and the President of the Royal Aero Club. I am in honour bound to see all of those people. However, what I would like to say at this stage - it is probably as much as I can say - is that the people involved have my sympathy and understanding and I will do everything possible I can.
Having looked at the area and seen the people who are against the proposal, I made the clear decision that the whole matter should be thoroughly investigated and that any action to proceed further should be suspended until the facts are known. That is precisely the course I am pursuing and I think it will be agreed that that is as much as I can do at the present time. But I want to express the following reservation: If we are to prevent flying because this area should be retained as a natural parkland for the people of Sydney then that is what it must be. I would not want later on to see some scheme put forward for the sub-division of this land for development purposes. I am just being careful, that is all.
– What 1 have to say is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) who, unfortunately, does not appear to be present at the moment. I hope that you, Mr President, will direct my remarks to his attention tomorrow morning, I object to the Senate having insufficient business before it to deal with early in the session and, when there is business before it to deal with, clamouring to rise at all sorts of odd hours. This afternoon we had the swearing in of new honourable senators.
This was followed by a number of routine matters, including the election of yourself, Mr President, and a meeting with the Governor-General. I appreciate that these ceremonials have to be carried out. The Senate resumed after the meeting with the Governor-General and for approximately 45 minutes it transacted formal business. The rest of the time until the dinner break was then given over to questions without notice. When the Senate resumed tonight to hear the Budget Speech question time was disposed of without the opinion of the Senate being sought.
At the beginning of every session there seems to be a tendency - I am referring now to members of the Government parties - to adopt a lacksadaisical attitude to legislation. The claim is that Bills are not brought into this chamber in time and they cannot be dealt with. For the first 6 weeks of any session we have a tendency to have a picnic. We like to rise early in the evening on Thursday and to start as late as passible on Tuesday. Probably for 3 weeks of every session we find that we have a fairly even pattern of work with fairly full days and then in the last week or 10 days of the session we are expected to work extremely long hours to the point of physical exhaustion.
T do not say that this situation occurred during the last session because the only time the Government attempted to do that a Government supporter crossed the floor to vote with the Opposition and another Government supporter threatened to cross the floor if the Government tried to do this again. This appears to be an attempt at evasion of responsibility by the Government, lt probably occurs in another place, too, but I refer to it specifically in this chamber. We find that questions are not answered or they are answered only after a lengthy lapse of time. In a few moments I propose to make further reference to this situation.
Let us look at the sitting times since 1968. In 1968 we met for the autumn session on 12th March and rose on 13th June. We had a 2-month recess. We resumed again for the Budget session on 13th August and rose on 28th November, giving us approximately - I am using round figures - a 3-month recess. In 1969 we commenced the autumn session on 25th
February and rose on 4th June. That is one of the longest sessions we have ever had. Then we had a 24-month recess before resuming for the Budget session on 12th August 1969. On 26th September- a little over a month later - Parliament adjourned. But we did have that famous pilgrimage to Canberra on 25th November to comply with certain sections of the Constitution. Then we had 5 months away from the bush capital.
In 1970 we resumed on 3rd March and rose on 18th June. On 18th August we met for the Budget session and we rose on 4th November. We had approximately a 3- month break before coming back on 1 6th February to sit until 20th May. Today we have resumed the session after an absence from this city of 24 months. During this period of time Ministers ought to be able to supervise their departments and make sure that questions which are left unanswered at the end of the session receive proper attention and that answers to all questions are available as soon as we resume sitting. Not only can we not receive the answers but the Government is not allowing us the time to ask questions.
Some of the questions are of great importance. I want to quote a few of them because I think that they are relevant to the matter to which I am addressing myself. On 1st October 1970 - almost a year ago - Senator Georges asked the then Attorney-General - that is about 3 Attorneys-General ?go:
What has been the total amount of legal fees paid to lawyers in private practice for work done on behalf of the Attorney-General’s Department . . .
The honourable senator then nominated a period of several years. To date he has not received a reply to that question.
To the half dozen examples which I am going to cite, some answers may have been given privately. They should not be given privately unless they are given publicly on the first day of the session. I have received private answers to questions but I have elected to ask them publicly. I think this is the way that the matter ought to be done. There should not be any hole-in-the-corner attitude in the hope that the matter will not receive a public airing. The 3rd November 1970 is a long time ago too. lt is 2 Prime Ministers back anyway. On that date Senator Bishop asked the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton):
In 2 more clauses of the question the honourable senator goes on to elaborate. So far as I am aware Senator Bishop has not received an answer to that question. On 18th February - that is 2 days after the beginning of the autumn session this year - Senator Mulvihill asked the Minister for Civil Aviation who in this chamber represents the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz):
The honourable senator followed this question with another 4 questions which are supplementary to it. This is a very important question because of the development of the oil and natural gas industry in this country. On 24th February which was a week after the resumption of the Senate Senator Georges asked the then AttorneyGeneral:
Does Caltex Oil (Aust.) Pty Ltd own any portion of any companies, controlled by Ampol Petroleum Ltd; if so, what is the extent of ownership by Caltex.
Why has not an important question like that been answered? Is it because the Minister for National Development is not game to stir up a hornets nest? ls it because there is a hope that people who might have investments might be able to unload them before the question is answered? On 30th March Senator Milliner asked a very important question. He wanted to know how many members of the Air Training Corps there were in Australia and where the units were situated. He followed that question with 4 supplementary clauses. The Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) has not told Senator Milliner how many units there are. On the same date Senator Willesee asked the Minister for Civil Aviation who in this chamber represents the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony):
Has the Board of the Australian Industry Development Corporation appointed an auditor; if so, whom.
Why has not a simple question like that been answered? Was no auditor appointed? Is the Government trying to rectify the situation before it decides to supply an answer to the question? I submit that the question is a relevant one and ought to be answered. On 29th April approximately 1 month before the adjournment of the Senate - L asked the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch):
Are the rules and regulations covering the management and use of Commonwealth Hostels a classified document; if not, where can a Member of the Parliament obtain a copy of them.
Here is an important section of the administration under the direct control of the Government and it does not know whether that section has a set of rules and regulations. I have a fair suspicion why that question has not been replied to. It is because a minor scandal is going on. I need that copy before I can make charges about that scandal. That suspicion is probably in the mind of the Minister and he is not going to run the risk of having any public exposition of something which might not have been quite right. On 7th May 1971 I asked the Minister for Air who in this chamber represents the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) - his portfolio did not exist then but it does now and the notice paper has properly been adjusted by the Clerk - this question:
Has Mr Ian Spalding prepared for the Federal Government a report on instances of racism in text books dealing with Aboriginal Affairs; if so, is it intended that the report shall (a) remain a secret document, (b) bc available on request, or (c) be presented to Parliament.
That is a simiple question for the Minister to answer but there has been no reply to it. On 11th May - 10 days before the end of the sessional period - one of the Government’s own supporters, a member of the Australian Country Party, asked the Minister for Civil Aviation who in this chamber represents the Minister for Trade and Industry:
At what price is it profitable for Australia to export butler.
The honourable senator has not yet received a reply to that question. Obviously the Minister does not know what the profitable price is. With great respect I suggest that if this sort of situation is going to continue the sooner the Government decides to have an election the better off we are all going to be.
I believe that an important man in the academic world in this city probably hit the nail on the head when he wrote in a signed letter to the editor of the ‘Canberra Times’ on Monday, 16th August 1971, referring to the Government:
Senator Greenwood has had trouble with this scheme.
– Was that in inverted commas?
– Yes, in inverted commas. The letter continues: for some reason needing major running repairs every year or so, it has had no fewer than 3 Health Ministers inside - yes, you’ve guessed it - 6 months.
They are not my words. They are the words of Professor Crisp. Then in the fourth paragraph he says:
With an unparalleled schools crisis across the nation, this week is to see a third Minister for Education and Science inside half a school year.
The letter continues:
With the Liberal Party’s own faithful being encouraged to yell for more law and order, it has had no fewer than 3 Attorneys-General since the beginning of the 1971 law year.
Directing this impotent merry-go-round of teetering trinities is a Prime Minister of alldevouring insecurity whose frenetic phone-calling at all hours of the day and night keeps hi* colleagues from our national problems and his advisers in a condition of hypertension and near-exhaustion which cannot but militate against rationality, reflection and adequate horizons in government and administration.
As I indicated, the letter is signed by Professor Crisp, and it gives a local address.
Two of the 3 questions which 1 proposed to ask without notice today would be very embarrassing for Ministers to answer, and certainly it is embarrassing for me to have to ask them. But tomorrow the proceedings of the Senate will be broadcast, and those 3 questions - and most probably another 3 - will be asked. Also I have 9 replies to questions on notice to be given. I was denied the right to ask those questions today; so tomorrow while we are on the air I propose to ask each of the 9 questions. Some of the replies that have been received can only be embarrassing to the Government. Those replies will be given while the proceedings are on the air and not, as they would have been today, only recorded in Hansard for the Press to report if it so wished or for people who read Hansard to be made aware of what is happening. I am seriously suggesting that if the Government continues with this attitude through this Budget session then it ought to call it off and have an election so that some form of democracy can be returned to Australia.
– I think it is desirable that I speak before Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, who also rose to get the call, because I wish to speak on the same subject as Senator Keeffe. I notified our Whip earlier in the night, and other members of my Caucus earlier in the week, of my intention to speak on the adjournment debate tonight because I knew that as soon as the Budget Speech was read the adjournment of the Senate would be proposed. Senator Keeffe has said most of what I desire to say. I am opposed to the fact that on every occasion on which the adjournment of the Senate is moved we carry the motion unanimously and go home. This is all very well when we have no business to deal with, but it is not well when we have business to transact. lt would not be correct to g<>in at impression from Senator Keeffe’s remarks that we have insufficient business before us at the beginning of the session. That is not so. We have so much business before us that we could never get through it. There are 10 items under General Business, which is the only heading under which anyone other than the Government itself can bring matters before the Senate. We represent our various States, and we have a right to bring proposals before the Senate. We have 10 items on the notice paper under General Business which we could discuss and possibly resolve tonight if there was not the desire to adjourn the Senate.
This has concerned me. Honourable senators who have been in the Senate as long as I have will know that my concern during the 9 years that I have been here has been to protect individual senators against attempts to encroach upon the rights they have always held. This campaign has gone on continuously until today, when the Leader of the Government in the Senate has placed items under General Business on the notice paper to do the very thing that I have been warning honourable senators about for some time. Item No. 4 under General Business is in the name of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. He proposes to move:
That the Senate agrees in principle that Standing Order 64 relating lo Urgency Motions should provide that the whole discussion on the subject should not exceed 2 hours.
– You are inclined to pre-empt discussion of the Standing Orders Committee report on that.
– So that 1 would not be accused of what Senator Cant was speaking about tonight, I referred to the Minister’s notice of motion. At this stage, for the purposes of the discussion. I am unacquainted with what is in the report of the Standing Orders Committee.
– You are a member of the Standing Orders Committee.
– For the purpose of the discussion, I am unacquainted with what is in the Committee’s report.
– According to the record, you are shown as being present at the meeting. So do not come that raw one with me.
– But for the purposes of this discussion I am still within my rights in referring to something on the notice paper.
– If the honourable senator keeps to the notice paper he is on solid ground.
– Then we come to Notice of Motion No. 5 under General Business. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson proposes to move:
That the Senate agrees in principle to such changes as arc necessary to the relevant Standing Orders to provide that no senator shall speak for more than 30 minutes in any, debate in the Senate, provided that, where a right of reply is allowed in any debate in the Senate, a senator speaking in reply shall speak for not more than 15 minutes.
That is an attempt to cut down on the rights of honourable senators when they need time to explain a question. This matter will come up for debate. I do not want to anticipate the debate: so I will leave the matter there. I only wish to say that the argument will be advanced - I have learnt this from other sources - that this move is necessary to deal with more business because we are dealing with insufficient business in this Senate. Of course we are getting through insufficient business, because we are running home all the time. The present proposal is to adjourn at 4 p.m. on Thursday.
– We propose to adjourn at 10.30 p.m. on Thursday.
– My information is that we will be rising at 4 o’clock on Thursday.
– That is not true.
– I am pleased that it is not true.
– lt is not true.
– I accept the assurance of the Leader of the Government that it is not true.
– We deal with General Business on Thursday nights. We would not miss it for worlds.
– Our inability to deal fully with items on the notice paper is used as an excuse to restrict the rights of honourable senators. I can visualise this subject being discussed when we are considering the report of the Standing Orders Committee, and I shall raise this point on that occasion. We have the mistaken idea that the Senate sits only for the purpose of considering Government Business except on 1 night of the week. This is an entirely erroneous idea. The Senate sits for the purpose of discussing all business on the notice paper, no matter where it originates. All we do is agree that General Business shall take precedence over Government Business on 1 night of the week. The business that we propose has precedence on that 1 night. If the Government has no business to deal with on the first day of the session and wants to move the adjournment at 9.30 p.m., it is proper that we should bring on for discussion one of the items of General Business. But this is never proposed. If it suits the Government to adjourn, all those items under General Business are neglected. It seems to be a sacred practice that these matters should not be brought on other than on a Thursday night.
My whole complaint is that while it may be desirable for the Government and while it may suit a number of people to go home early on more frequent occasions, the effect is to encroach upon the rights of honourable senators. That should never be entertained. We have seen the destruction of the scope of debate in the other chamber by alteration of its Standing Orders. Let us not leave this chamber with honourable senators at a greater disadvantage than they were when we first arrived in this place and with the privileges we have enjoyed during our term of office reduced.
– I desire to support Senator Keeffe and Senator Cavanagh on the matters they have brought before the Senate tonight. On examining the unanswered questions on the notice paper I find that on 7th April this year I asked, questions in relation to actions which, it was implied, could be taken against the trade union movement of this country because certain trade unions, as of right, held a ballot among their own members for the purpose of deciding whether they would amalgamate. On that date Senator Kane asked a question in some detail. It seemed to indicate that there was something radically wrong with trade unions wanting to amalgamate because they had common interests. The amalgamation referred to was based on a ballot of members of the unions concerned. lt was implied in the question that some great monolithic organisation was to be created in this country, under the control of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, by virtue of the proposed amalgamation. So I immediately asked questions in relation to the amalgamation of certain commercial interests in this country, including banking institutions. I asked where they stood in relation to this matter and if, as was implied in the question asked by Senator Kane, the Commonwealth Government could interfere in the decisions of unions made democratically by the rank and file, why did it not or could it not equally interfere in the amalgamations of these great monolithic organisations, such as the banks and other companies that have amalgamated not only with organisations in this country but also with overseas organisations.
None of these questions has been answered by the Government, lt has had a very long time to get to the kernel of the questions that were asked on that day. 1 suggest that, had I not asked those questions following the question asked by Senator Kane on that day, we would have had an answer to Senator Kane’s question telling the people of Australia how terrible the trade union movement was because it carried out a democratic ballot among its members in order to amalgamate certain organisations and how terrible it was that finances would be amalgamated to fight the cause of the workers in this country. No doubt that was a leading question which would have been answered in kind. But, because I was able to follow that question with similar questions in relation to amalgamations by big business, neither Senator Kane nor 1 have received an answer.
If that is the kind of thing that is to occur in this chamber, we will have a situation in which it will be useless for members of the Opposition to ask any question of any Minister unless it relates to a portfolio that is held by a Minister in this chamber. We become dizzy in trying to find out who holds which portfolio. We become dizzy in trying to find out which Minister in the Senate represents which Minister in another place. The situation is that if questions are not answered more expeditiously by the Ministers concerned in another place it will be completely useless for us to ask questions of importance.
There is a matter that concerns me greatly. 1 desired to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs about it today, but I was denied that right because question time was curtailed. I understand that now I will have to wait until tomorrow to find out whether 1 can receive an answer to the question I wish to ask. I will bet my bottom dollar that I will not receive an answer to it for at least 3 months. What I want to know is: What is Australia prepared to do to help the Pitcairn Islanders who are virtually isolated on a small island in the Pacific Ocean and ships will not go there and supply them with food and other requirements because the French Government is carrying out nuclear weapons trials in that area? The situation is that a group of people who have a great heritage - their ancestors were in the mutiny on the ‘Bounty’ and they are proud of the fact that on that occasion their ancestors were able to fight and get some kind of freedom - is now in an isolated corner of the Pacific without any prospects of receiving supplies because the Australian Government has not taken strong enough action at an international level to ensure that the nuclear tests which the French have carried out over a period of time are discontinued. Because of the nuclear tests ships will no longer visit the area to supply the essential goods of life to these people. 1 know that the population of this small Pacific island has dwindled to only 85. I wanted to ask a question about this earlier today because 1 believe this is tremendously important. This population of only 85 people- the very old and the very young - has no possible future of being able to continue living on the island. Australia has a vested interest in this matter because I understand that the Norfolk Island Council has offered these people a life on Norfolk Island where they will be able to join their sisters, brothers, cousins and uncles. However some assistance will be required of the Australian Government. Norfolk Island is a mandated Territory of Australia and these people are not only physically incapable of transferring themselves to Norfolk Island but they are also financially incapable of doing so. The Australian Government should give a lead to ensure that these people do not starve because some international power wants to exercise its rights to carry out nuclear tests which are designed to destroy and not to enable human beings to survive.
I believe that the processes of this House should be utilised, as Senator Keeffe and Cavanagh indicated, to permit senators to express their views when they want and not when the Government decides to let them do so. It is a denial of democracy when the Government cuts across our Standing Orders and the principles that have been established and shortens the period allowed for question time. Probing questions would have been asked today on other political matters which certainly would have embarrassed the Government. I believe this is one of the major reasons why senators were denied the right to continue asking questions earlier today. I hope that the procedure which was adopted today will not be pursued in the future because there are many people in Australia who want democracy to operate as it should operate and not as the Government believes is best for this country.
(10.8) - In reply - I want to expose a piece of complete nonsense, and I refer to comments made in relation to the sittings of the Senate. It is provided that the Senate shall sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and, unless otherwise ordered, the time for rising on Thursday nights shall be 10.30, allowing for adjournment debates which can go on ad infinitum after that time. Anyone who says that there is some machiavellian plot for the Senate to adjourn at 4 p.m. on Thursday has either a fertile imagination or has been listening at the wrong keyholes. When it is suggested that persons in the Army are listening at wrong keyholes, I know the keyholes at which they usually listen. Having said that, it is my intention that the Senate will continue sitting until 10.30 on Thursday night. I have already indicated this to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). The next matter was one which Senator Keeffe started.
– You started it.
–
You started it fair enough. I am about to tell you the facts of life about question time on the days when swearing in ceremonies are conducted. For the last 20 years - I will repeat that period in case Senator Keeffe has not got the message - for the last 20 years we have not had question time on the days of swearing in ceremonies.
– But on those-
–
I have not finished yet. The honourable senator likes to have a go, but when the weight is applied to him he hops around. The fact of the matter is that for the last 20 years we have not had question time on the days of swearing in ceremonies. The draft procedures were circulated accordingly on my instructions, based on what has happened even before I came here, and I have been here for 18 years. Only this morning the Leader of the Opposition said to me: ‘Look, we would like to have questions today.’ I said to him: ‘If there is a feeling that you would like to have question time today, we can have it when we return here after the ceremony, and that could continue until the dinner adjournment.’ I had in mind that the Budget would come on at 8 o’clock, as it has done for the last 57 years. These are the facts of life and any suggestion that there was a deep scheme to bury questions that we did not want to be asked or answered today is sheer nonsense.
As Leader of the Government in the Senate I have given up trying to meet the wishes of the majority in this chamber. I tried that at the end of the last session and we continued on for 9 sitting days after the other place finished. Over those 9 sitting days people were coming to me from all over the chamber and asking: ‘When are we getting up?’. They were not all from my side of the chamber. They were not all sitting behind me.
– Indeed they were not.
No. I can take in those people in a complete sweep of the Senate. It was said to me: ‘Let us get up. We have been here too long.’ I said: ‘I agree.’ But I was not prepared to make a move until T felt that juslice had been done to those people who really wanted to keep going until Christmas Day. I reiterate that we have not had question time on the days of swearing in ceremonies for approximately 20 years. Today it was unfortunate-
– Well, that is-
– I am making my speech now. Senator Keeffe has had his go. I am not impressed by his threats. Through you, Mr President, I point out to Senator Keeffe that in the majority of cases he has sought to have his questions asked and answered in full, as is his right. I do not deny that. If questions take a long time tomorrow, well, that is tomorrow. It was unfortunate today that despite the accommodation 1 gave at the instigation of the Leader of the Opposi tion, question time ran for only about 17 minutes, give or take half a minute. That was not in my thinking. I envisaged that question time would last for about three quarters of an hour, which is the average length of question time. A series of petitions was presented, which took a little longer than usual, and there were a few other minor matters to be disposed of. I emphasise that the practice adopted today is contrary to the usual procedure. It was adopted in the spirit in which the Leader of the Opposition and I usually operate in an attempt to accommodate the requirements of the Senate. It comes a little hard at 10 o’clock at night, when this issue started, to have hurled at mc that I am a great plotter who is seeking to destroy the rights of honourable senators opposite. Goodness me. I could have stood on my dignity today and forced a vote on the issue and I would have had the numbers to support my viewpoint.
– I said only that the Leader of the Government was one of them.
–
Very well. Having disposed of the matter about question time today and having disposed of the prospect of the Senate rising at 4 o’clock on Thursday, I now want to come to the next proposition which Senator Keeffe raised, which was that we had been in recess for so long between the last sessional period and the current one, and that we should be ready to go now. We are ready to go, and let us face it, we will be going until December. This statement that nothing has been done between the time when we rose in May and 17th August denies the fact that during the recess Senator Keeffe and many other honourable senators have worked tremendously hard in many ways.
I have called for and received information concerning the silting of committees. I will select four or five committees at random from the list which the Clerk of the Senate has given me. In the week commencing 26th July the Senate Standing Orders Committee sat on 1 day and the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee sat on 1 day. In the week commencing 2nd August the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources met on 2 days and the Senate
Select Committee on Securities and Exchange met on 3 days. In the week commencing 19th July the Securities and Exchange Committee met on 2 days. In the week commencing 16th August the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts and the Senate Privileges Committee have met. Other committees also are meeting this week, but that does not affect the argument I am submitting. In the week commencing 9th August the Securities and Exchange Committee met on 10th. 11th and 12th August. Work is going on.
If we are to have this committee system - and honourable senators opposite are as keen to have it as are honourable senators on my side of the chamber, and we have reached agreement on it - we will have many committees meeting. I do not want to canvass other matters which are contained in the report of the Standing Orders Committee, but the simple facts of life are that we will be confronted with a situation where we will have to exercise some self discipline in our plenary sessions of the Senate in order to be able to do the work involved in these committees which we ourselves have set up. I am not a gambling man, I am a very strict Presbyterian, but I will bet 20c, at any rate, that what I predict will come true, and it will come true during this session. Honourable senators opposite, as well as honourable senators on my side of the chamber, will experience great difficulty in finding time to carry out the tremendous amount of work which is unquestionably being done by the Senate committees.
I come to the next matter raised which referred to the response to questions. I look at the Senate notice paper today and see the questions on notice, which would have been disposed of if we had had time. I think that Senator Keeffe had a point of grievance today. I see that his name appears on 9 occasions. I have explained the circumstances in which these questions on notice were not disposed of today. I say to Senator Keeffe that it is not really fair for him to be directing his criticism in the way that he has. I provided the opportunity for question time today to accommodate a request from Senator Keeffe’s Leader, and I did so against the background of what has happened in the last 20 years. To criticise me for that is, I think, out of kilter and I regret that such criticism has been made. In regard to the matter raised by Senator Keeffe concerning replies to questions on notice, I will certainly raise with the Ministers in the Senate and with the Ministers in the other place any instances in which my attention is directed to questions in respect of which there has been inordinate delay in providing answers. I will use my good offices to see that answers are given as quickly as possible.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.19 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 August 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710817_senate_27_s49/>.