Senate
11 April 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 3 p.m. and read prayers.

page 903

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I wish to inform the Senate that the PostmasterGeneral, Sir Alan Hulme, is ill and will be unable to attend the Parliament for several weeks. During the Minister’s absence the Minister for Civil Aviation, Senator Cotton, will be Acting PostmasterGeneral.

page 903

PETITIONS

Lake Pedder

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

To the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That Lake Pedder, a wilderness area in South-West Tasmania possessing unique flora and fauna is threatened with destruction by inundation as a part of the first stage of the Gordon River hydro-electric scheme.

That a suitable alternative for a hydroelectric scheme does exist, which, if developed would ensure that the unique qualities of Lake Pedder would be preserved.

That, having regard to the fact that Australia is becoming increasingly urbanised, the need to preserve such a wilderness area as Lake Pedder in its natural state is considered by a large number of persons as being of vitalimportance for the well-being of the present and unborn generations of Australians.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will through its Standing Committee on Social Environment, examine whether the proposed inundation of Lake Pedder is in the national interest, having regard to the need to preserve the unique flora and fauna of this wilderness area for the enjoyment of all Australians, including future generations. And your Petitioners, asin duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the fol lowing petition:

The Honourable the President, and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

A similar petition was presented by Senator Kane, and was received and read.

Education

Senator CARRICK:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.

That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.

That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money are being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Service

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That they have an objection to the continual selective conscription of 20-year olds, and call on the Government to abandon the National Service Act.

That they call on the Government to raise the standards and conditions of service in the Armed Forces to a professional status with guaranteed security for the serviceman and his family during and after his service.

Your petitioners view with grave concern the use of the Crimes Act to apprehend those who have failed to comply with the requirement of the National Service Act.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 904

NOTICES OF MOTION

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the Evidence (Australian Capital Territory) Bill 1972 be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I give notice that tomorrow I intend to move:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of a new ward and paramedical building at the Repatriation General Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania.

page 904

QUESTION

COMPANY TAKEOVER BID

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Is it not clear that public concern over the impending takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd is so great because of the continuing neglect of the Government to introduce Jaws for supervising such takeovers to ensure that the public interest is protected? Is it not a fact that such laws were proposed some 10 years ago by Sir Garfield Barwick? How much longer must the people of Australia wait before the Government introduces laws to control the growth of monopolies in Australia?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– It must be recognised that there are laws in Australia which do regulate the takeovers of companies in this country. As part of the companies <laws in every State, I think, there are, provisions which regulate such takeovers. It is a fact that as part of a scheme of restrictive trade practices legislation there was a proposal by Sir Garfield Barwick on behalf of the Government in about 1962 in which this was an area canvassed. Subsequent legislation did not incorporate those provisions but it is abundantly clear that in recent times the Government has been giving attention to a review of the existing restrictive trade practices legislation with a view to strengthening it. I can assure the Senate that the review being undertaken is a most comprehensive one. It is being carried out in depth. The Government is determined that what eventually emerges will be legislation which will give effect to the purposes of promoting restrictive trade practices legislation and also the benefits which come from curbing such practices. Whether or not such provisions will include laws relating to takeovers and mergers must depend on the final decision yet to be made by the Government

page 904

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has examination of the documents alleged to have come from the Rhodesian Information Centre in Crows Nest satisfied officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs that these documents are genuine? If so what action is proposed against those persons who have apparently breached certain laws of the Commonwealth?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am not precisely instructed as to the detailed examination of documents by officers. The honourable senator will know that the Minister has been answering questions on this subject in another place. I suggest that reference to those answers will be more satisfactory to the honourable senator.

page 904

QUESTION

COMPANY TAKEOVER BID

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In the case of an attempt by another company to take over an Australian domestic airline operator, what general authority resides in the Department of Civil Aviation or the Minister to affect the outcome of such a manoeuvre? What, if any, approval, permission or consent is required from the Department or the Minister to the transfer of the operating licence, the hypothecation of contracts, the transfer of assets, the transfer of a franchise or licence and the use of airport facilities? Does the Department require any proof of administrative and technical competence in the prospective new operator? If the Minister is not in an immediate position to answer these questions will he prepare and lay down a paper detailing the role which the Department, or the Minister is, by law, required to play or may play by the exercise of departmental or ministerial discretion?

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

– I thought that today there would be some interest in the Senate in this general matter. Accordingly I have some information which I shall give to the Senate. In addition I shall advise the honourable senator in relation to those areas which are not covered in this matter. I will have attention directed to them because, at the moment, they are the subject to study in a general context, looking at the 2- airline policy, and in a specific context.

The Government is determined to maintain the 2-airline policy. The policy has given Australia a safe, modern, competitive and efficient domestic airline system which, by any standard, is one of the best in the world. We are proud of it and we plan to maintain it. During the past few weeks conversations have been held between representatives of Trans-Australia Airlines, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd and senior Government advisers. In those discussions the Government has emphasised its desire to see the 2-airline policy continue in the interests of the Australian and travelling public. Of course the Government naturally and quite properly will pay regard to its guaranteed commitments for loans raised by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd to purchase jet aircraft.

An interesting and important point to emerge from the discussions I have mentioned is that both ATI and TNT have said that whatever the outcome of the present bid for control, it is intended to separ ate the activities of ATI and to publish separate airline accounts. This is welcomed by the Government. We regard it as a desirable development. For its part TAA has urged the Government to ensure that its competitive ability is not impaired. The Government is giving careful consideration to this aspect as part of its current review of the 2-airline policy. Air transport is a vital national enterprise and the Government has been always interested in the ownership of the major private enterprise airline. We would not approve any transfer of ownership which resulted in foreign domination of this sector of the airline industry or which would lessen the benefits which the 2-airline system has produced for Australia.

page 905

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to this morning’s Press which carries an astonishing appeal by the honourable member for Lalor, Dr J. F. Cairns - who seems to be the Australian Labor Party spokesman on foreign affairs - for Australians to demonstrate in the streets in support of the North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam? In view of the continuing commitment in South Vietnam by our American allies with air force and naval units, does this mean that the Labor Party’s foreign policy involves the tearing up of the ANZUS pact and the dishonouring of our foreign relations?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– My attention has been drawn to the reference made in the newspaper by the honourable member referred to. This time the invasion referred to was directly across the demilitarised zone and therefore it is in direct conflict with the Geneva Agreements. Furthermore it is a flagrant, direct piece of aggression against the integrity of the Republic of South Vietnam which, as the honourable senator appropriately says, the United States is defending at very great cost to itself. Having regard to our treaty obligations to the United States, the statements attributed to Dr Cairns can be regarded only as a deplorable subversion of the united interests of Australia and the United States in the Pacific.

page 906

QUESTION

WINE EXCISE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Miniter representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the fact that I was informed this morning by the office of the Minister for Primary Industry that Professor Grant had not yet tendered the report of his inquiry into the wine excise and its effects on the industry, I ask: Who authorised the Federal member for Angas, Mr Giles, to make to the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ the statement which appeared on Saturday 8th April predicting that the wine excise would be reduced substantially? Did Mr Giles have access to Professor Grant’s report to enable him to make this prediction? If so, will the same privilege be granted to other members of the Federal Parliament who are vitally interested in this matter?

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

– In view of the detail which is sought I shall have to refer the question to the Minister for Primary Industry. I shall do this and obtain information for the honourable senator.

page 906

QUESTION

PARAPLEGICS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science a question. As many paraplegics and quadraplegics are keen to undertake or to continue education in the tertiary field but are unable to do so or, if they do, are placed in great financial difficulty because of their inability to earn extra income, will the Minister give consideration to making available to these people financial grants to assist them with their studies and to ease some of the financial burdens and disadvantages under which they are placed, at the same time giving many of them the opportunity to continue upon a career, or to take up a course, which otherwise may be lost to them?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator has referred to a class of people who unfortunately are handicapped to such a degree that every assistance - especially educational assistance - that can be given to them to enable them to gain faculties to pursue a useful life should be available to them. I shall be very pleased to refer the honourable senator’s suggestion to the Minister for favourable consideration.

page 906

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Air. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to newspaper reports that 4 Royal Australian Air Force officers and one civilian employed by the Air Force have mysteriously died from unnatural causes - by strangling and shooting - since December of last year and that these men were all involved in top secret preparation of the Fill aircraft in the United States of America? Has his attention been drawn to reports that courts-martial have resulted from the RAAF inquiry into allegations of bastardisation involving apprentice Jacob at the Laverton RAAF Base? In view of these disturbing allegations, will the Minister make a full statement on these reports and table the full report made by the RAAF court of inquiry at Laverton, as well as the results of the courts martial which reportedly have followed that inquiry?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The newspaper report was drawn to my attention. To say the least of it, this was a scurrilous attack on officers of a very 5ne Service. The report went on to make an attack on me, suggesting that I was hospitalised for a couple of days because I did not want to answer questions in the Senate on this matter. I was surprised that a man of the standing of the author of that article should make such an attack. The facts of the matter are that, since December, 3 Service members and one civilian who previously had been employed by the Air Force in Victoria have died from unnatural causes. I refute entirely the suggestion made by the Barton publication that there is any connection between these unfortunate occurrences and the Fill project. Indeed, only one of the persons concerned had previously been associated with matters related to the Fill. There is nothing to suggest that the persons to whom reference has been made were either closely associated or at all associated with each other as stated in the reports, nor can the incidents be related in any way. Two of the deaths are still the subject of coronial inquiries and, for obvious reasons, I think it is inappropriate for me to comment further on that matter.

I turn to the latter part of the honourable senator’s question which concerned the statement in the newspaper report that I had refused to table the results of an inquiry into the Jacobs case at Laverton. The honourable senator will recall that, in answer to a question from Senator Wriedt, I made a full disclosure of what the court said in its findings in the Jacobs case. In my reply I indicated that further charges would be arising out of this matter. The honourable senator, together with Senator Bishop, then brought the matter on during an adjournment debate, pointing out the background to the case. I replied fully again to the points that they raised. In answer to Senator O’Byrne on one of these points, I said that I would not table the report of the inquiry but that, should any honourable senator desire to come to see me on points arising from the inquiry, I would be only too happy to see him. Senator O’Byrne took the opportunity to speak to me on several occasions in relation to this matter. Finally, I supplied him with a full list of the charges that were finally made and of the actions taken by the Royal Australian Air Force as a result of the inquiry and as a result of my insistence that the RAAF would not tolerate this practice of ‘bastardisation’ as the Press likes lo call it.

page 907

QUESTION

ORION AIRCRAFT

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister for Air been drawn to the Press statements appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald’ and the Canberra Times* last week concerning the loss of a Royal Australian Air Force Orion aircraft in the United States of America during 1968? As those statements imply that the Australian Government has lost its case for compensation from the manufacturers, will the Minister inform the Senate of the present position?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator refers to a writ issued by the Commonwealth Government in August 1969 against the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation and the Menasco Manufacturing Co. which arose, as he says, as the result of an accident involving an Orion aircraft in the United States of America in April 1968. Subsequently, a court of inquiry established in its findings that the acci dent was due to the faulty manufacture of parts which went into the assembly of the undercarriage of the Orion aircraft. The hearing of this action by a judge and jury was to commence in Los Angeles on 28th March 1972. Shortly before that time, negotiations to settle the claim out of court were concluded. The settlement involved the payment in cash by the Lockheed company of $US2m. This amount is now in the hands of the Commonwealth. On the basis of the settlement the parties agreed to the action before the Judge being dismissed with prejudice*. I understand that this form of dismissal is the usual practice in the courts of the United States. It was on that basis that Australian newspapers said that the action had been dismissed. I point out to the Senate that, in determining whether the settlement offered by the Lockheed company should be accepted, many factors required assessment. The advice of our American legal representatives and of the Commonwealth’s own legal advisers was that we should accept the offer, which we did.

page 907

QUESTION

DRUGS

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether it is a fact that on a television programme on 28th March 1972 on Channel 10, Sydney, called ‘High Society’ a person who was identified as a drug pusher was interviewed with his back to the camera. If this is so, will the Minister endeavour to ascertain the identity of this gentleman so that he may be apprehended and charged?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unaware of the facts to which the honourable senator alludes. As a result of what he has said, I will have inquiries made. To the extent that those inquiries permit action to be taken, action will be taken.

page 907

QUESTION

MENTALLY RETARDED

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. It refers to the report from the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare on mentally and physically handicapped persons in Australia. Has his attention been drawn to the references in the national newsletter of the Australian Association of the Mentally Retarded which claim that there is a lack of interest in this report? Can he give me any information on the Government’s response to the recommendations which were contained in this report? Will he advise the Senate on steps being taken to meet the urgent needs of handicapped persons and their families?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– My attention has been drawn to an article in the November issue of the national newsletter of the Australian Association of the Mentally Retarded which refers to the apparent lack of interest of all political parties in this matter. That is not true. In fact, if I may interpose on a personal note, Senator Fitzgerald who sits opposite will remember as I do when we were both back benchers many years ago going to the then Prime Minister of Australia and at a personal level putting our views on why help should be given at a time-

Senator Fitzgerald:

– Very little has been done since.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Things have been done. There is a Commonwealth Parliament which gives special aid in certain circumstances. I can assure Senator Davidson that there is no lack of interest in this report on the part of the Government. In fact, certain provision has been made for those concerned. I answered a similar question earlier. An interdepartmental committee has been set up at my request to consider the report and its recommendations. The report of the Senate Standing Committee is a very good one. I recall that on the interdepartmental committee are representatives of the Department of Health - the chairman comes from that Department - the Department of Social Services, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Labour and National Service, the Repatriation Department and the Treasury. So it is quite a job to consider the report which, as I have said, is a very valuable one. The Senate Standing Committee’s report exposes some areas where in its view further governmental assistance would be appropriate. All honourable senators can be assured that these matters are receiving and will continue to receive serious consideration.

page 908

QUESTION

SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the personal decision of the Minister for Civil Aviation to permit the Concorde’s entry into Aus tralia caused considerable community con*cern, particularly in the areas close to Mascot and Tullamarine? Is it a fact that he has assured the Australian people that the aircraft will fly only over remote areas of Austalia on route to Sydney and Melbourne? Has he taken into consideration the fact that large numbers of Aborigines and many species of wildlife inhabit the many remote areas of Australia and that they would be seriously affected by the sonic boom? In the circumstances did he discuss the likely injurious effects to Aborigines and the environment with the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts before he made his decision?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– When the honourable senator spoke about the Minister making a personal decision, he would understand, of course, that this would be-

Senator Keeffe:

– The other day the Minister said it would not come here. Now he has changed his mind.

Senator COTTON:

– Perhaps Senator Keeffe would like to answer the question for me, Mr President. I have been endeavouring to pay due courtesy to Senator Gietzelt. This subject has involved a good deal of study. What we are dealing with is a request by the British Government to bring to Australia an aircraft that is manufactured jointly by a British and French consortium. It is intended to take the aircraft on a long tour through the Middle East, the Far East, including Japan, the Philippines and Australia. It is intended to bring quite distinguished people from the United Kingdom, including the Lord Privy Seal. We studied carefully the implications of that visit. We thought it was quite proper for us to agree that the aircraft could come. We are still in the process of discussing how it will fly across Australia and any potential effect - if there is to be any harmful effect - upon anybody who might be under the flight path.

We are equally concerned about the effect that the aircraft might have when it is landing and taking off at both Melbourne and Sydney, which are the proposed ports of call. We have consulted everybody - both here and overseas - who has, in our view, a contribution to make to the matter. It is still under careful and detailed study. The honourable senator may be quite sure that we will have regard to the public interest. We will be pleased to have the view of anybody who has a view which he believes will help us.

page 909

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Health say whether it is correct, as stated by a correspondent named lillian Skinner, that 3 million people in Australia are without health insurance?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I did see the article. My attention was drawn to it. In a sense it begs the question, because of points that I might make in response. The figure of 3 million people mentioned in the article as being without voluntary health insurance misrepresents the situation. It fails to take into account in excess of 1 million persons covered by the pensioner medical service. That is not a bad start; the correspondent has not taken those into account. These persons receive without account. These persons receive without charge general practitioner service, public ward hospital treatment and pharmaceutical benefits. Accordingly, they do not need to join a health insurance organisation. The figure also fails to take into account persons receiving treatment under the repatriation scheme, and members of the defence forces. Another factor which should be taken into consideration is the situation in Queensland. In that State free accommodation is available in public hospitals to aD residents. Out-patient treatment is also provided free at public hospitals in Queensland. Honourable senators can see from the mathematics that the correspondent - whose name was referred to but which does not register with me - had not done her homework.

page 909

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister in charge of Tourist Activities. Is it a fact that major developers are persistently making statements that it is not a paying proposition to build first-class accommodation hotels in Australian cities on a go-it-alone basis? Is it also a fact that the Australian Tourist Commission and the Australian National Travel Association have been pressing the urgent need for incentives to encourage hotel building? Will the Minister tell the Senate what steps, if any, the Government proposes to take to give incentives to boost development to cope with the tourist invasion?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As I remember from what I have read in the papers, it is a fact that people have been saying that hotel building is not a very good investment at present. I have also read that the Australian Tourist Commission has been discussing whether some kind of assistance should be given for such building. I understand that the matter is being considered by the Government. I cannot go further than that, except to remark that the tourist invasion has yet to come.

page 909

QUESTION

GOLDFISH IMPORTS

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that a ban has been imposed on the importation of goldfish from Japan? If so, by whose authority and on what grounds was the ban imposed? Was it because of the danger of disease? If so, would the disease be dangerous to humans, animals or other fish? Or was it because of the predatory nature of goldfish? Will the ban apply only to Japan or to all countries exporting live fish to Australia? Is the Minister also aware that the sudden imposition of the ban has placed dealers in live fish throughout Australia in a serious financial position as the largest portion of their incomes was derived from that source?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I am not aware of the situation about which the honourable senator has questioned me. However, I feel sure that he is well aware of the representations that are made from time to time to both the Minister lor Health and the Minister for Customs and Excise in order that Australia may bs kept free of diseases. No doubt that aim is behind the decision taken in this instance, but I shall seek some information and let the honourable senator have it.

page 909

QUESTION

INQUIRY INTO MEDICAL FEES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– In view of the appointment of Mr Justice Kerr as Chief Justice of New South Wales, will the Minister for Health advise whether there will be lack of continuity in the New

South Wales medical fees inquiry and whether the timetables for submissions already established will be delayed?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I recall that I made a statement in the Senate announcing the appointment of Mr Justice Kerr to conduct an inquiry concerning items 1 and 4 of the schedule in respect of general practitioners in New South Wales. After holding a preliminary meeting Mr Justice Kerr was appointed by the New South Wales Government as Chief Justice Designate of that State. Consequently Mr Justice Mason was appointed to take over the inquiry from Mr Justice Kerr. There will be no break in continuity. I, as Minister for Health, was involved at short notice and had to do certain things. I am very happy to be able to say that we were able to appoint Mr Justice Mason to take over the inquiry. Mr Justice Mason yesterday held the second meeting of the inquiry, on the day on which Mr Justice Kerr would have held his second meeting. I am not completely sure of that, but I think that was the timing planned by Mr Justice Kerr-

I do not anticipate any delay in Mr Justice Mason’s taking any evidence that he wishes to take, interviewing witnesses he wishes to hear and making a report to the Government. There may be a variation of a day or two but, in general, I do not anticipate any significant alteration of the timing from the original proposal for Mr Justice Kerr to report to the Government at the end of April. I know that Mr Justice Mason will be doing everything possible to get his report to the Government as quickly as possible.

page 910

QUESTION

USTASHI

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the AttorneyGeneral, in conjunction with Commonwealth law enforcement authorities, examine the successful methods used by the West German Government to stamp out Ustashi terrorism in that country and implement those methods here?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am not aware of the methods adopted in West Germany or that international terrorist activities engaged in by Yugoslav activists have recently ceased in West Germany. However, I am interested in the honour able senator’s question and I will have inquiries made to see whether the West German methods can be of assistance in a country which, whatever problems we face internally, has always adhered to traditional methods of investigation from which I do not think we wish to depart.

page 910

QUESTION

CONTINENTAL SHELF

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development: Does the Government intend to issue a declaration of Australian sovereignty over the whole continental shelf? Does absence of such a declaration leave in any doubt the rights of companies drilling offshore for oil?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This is a matter of Government policy. I am not able to respond to the honourable senator on my own behalf because I only represent the Minister but I shall seek to find out the situation and to give him the information as soon as I can.

page 910

QUESTION

COMPANY TAKEOVER BID

Senator RAE:

– My question to the Minister for Civil Aviation is further to the question asked by Senator Byrne and answered by the Minister earlier this afternoon relating to the attempted takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. Will the continued employment of the present highly qualified and experienced staff of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd be one of the matters taken into account by the Government in any consideration of the approval of transfer of ownership? I ask this question bearing in mind the importance to air safety of the continued use of experienced and qualified airline staff.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator’s observation as regards air safety is a correct one. This is the priority with which we approach all our affairs and all matters of this nature, and I have indicated this fact both today and on earlier occasions. We have a particularly high regard for the personnel of both operators - Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and the Australian National Airlines Commission - under the 2-airline policy in Australia. Indeed, we have this high regard for the people concerned in other operations, such as East-West Airlines Ltd and Commuter Airlines. The honourable senator may be sure that the Department will have full regard to the maintenance of the skilled personnel because of the flying record that they have maintained.

page 911

QUESTION

COMPANY TAKEOVER BID

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation relates to the same matter. Is the Senate to understand from the. statement which was just read that the Government docs not intend to take any action before the current takeover offer by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd is accepted? In view of the Minister’s own statement, which was just read, that the Government docs not want to see the. present 2 airline policy upset, can he explain what the Government would do if faced with the takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd before the Government had time to consider its effect on the Australian airlines system?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– What I indicated was that I anticipated interest in this matter in the Senate and I prepared a general statement which I thought would answer the questions that probably would be asked and would cover the situation as I saw it. The points raised by the honourable senator are under consideration by the Government in the present circumstances and as part of its examination of the 2 airline policy. The factors that concern the honourable senator will concern ali honourable senators and myself, and he may be sure, that they are being most carefully watched.

page 911

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it still the Government’s intention to prohibit airlines granting a stopover or stopovers under the new single reduced fare as originally announced by Qantas Airways Ltd and, if so, for what reason?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator has referred to Qantas Airways Ltd and the situation confronting it in regard to stopovers, particularly in Singapore. The honourable senator would appreciate very much - he has some knowledge of this business - that one of the problems that Qantas had was a tremendous erosion of its traffic by people charter flying very cheaply out of Singapore. Qantas sought to ensure that it carried its people forward all the way from Australia to London and vice versa. The specific matter that the honourable senator has raised is under examination by the Department and myself with Qantas at the present time in an endeavour to overcome the problems associated with it.

page 911

QUESTION

COMPANY TAKEOVER BID

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– To continue the interest in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, I direct my question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is the Government satisfied that the public interest would be served by a takeover of Ansett by TNT? If it is not so satisfied, what action can the Government take to protect the public interest?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I thought that I would have made the position clear but if I have not I will continue, to try to do so. The honourable senator, and indeed all honourable senators, must be sure in their minds that the Government will have full regard to the public interest in the whole matter that is under review.

page 911

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Health aware that at least one nursing home in Brisbane requires inmates who are living permanently in the home and who are temporarily transferred to hospital for treatment to pay $3.50 a day in addition to the regular weekly payment for each day that they are hospitalised? Is this procedure adopted with the approval of the Minister and/or his departmental officers?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I invite the honourable senator to discuss this matter with me at the conclusion of question time. The honourable senator’s question was related to a particular nursing home. I do not think that I should canvass a matter of that nature at question time. I do not think the honourable senator would want it to be done that way. If the honourable senator were to tell me of the circumstances I would find out the facts for him and make them available to him. If after that the honourable senator wanted to make them available to the Senate I would not be reluctant to that being done.

But I think that we should satisfy ourselves first as to the particularity of the case to which he has referred.

page 912

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

My question is directed to the Acting PostmasterGeneral. When the licence rights and assets of a commercial television licensee are acquired as the result of a general takeover of one company by another, as might occur with both a Melbourne and a Brisbane station in the event of a takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, what is the position insofar as the continuity of the television licence is concerned? Is the licence automatically revoked and fresh applications called for or does the licence automatically issue to the takeover company? If the licence is automatically issued to the takeover company, will the Government give an undertaking that the employment of those at present in the employ of the television stations will be preserved?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Having read the newspapers last week and noted that people were talking about television stations in the context of the present airline problem, I directed - wearing my other hat - the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to make a thorough study of this matter and to make a report to me and a recommendation to the Government. When that comes to hand I will be better able to help the honourable senator.

page 912

QUESTION

SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT

Senator CARRICK:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Air, relates to the supersonic aircraft now flying in Australia and in other countries. I ask: Firstly, is it a fact that in Australia and in other continents supersonic aircraft have been operating for some years? Secondly, will the Minister indicate in general terms the nature of the supersonic aircraft now used in military operations and the countries over which they operate at present? Thirdly, have these operations produced any adverse ecological effects or serious damage to property?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– It is true that supersonic aircraft have been operating in Australia and in other countries for some years. The type of air craft now operating in Australia on military operations are the Mirage and the F4. The Fill will be operating later. The Fill and the F4 are 2 aircraft that are at present operating in America and in Great Britain. The Mirage is operating over Europe and over other countries in the southern part of the eastern Mediterranean. I should point out that the Fill and the F4 have been and will be in the future operating over certain parts of Europe. To my knowledge no serious damage has been done to property in any of those countries.

page 912

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Atorney-General. Is it a fact that the Government has decided not to act against a breach of the Broadcasting and Television Act by GTV9 Melbourne in screening football on Sunday mornings? Is that yet another example of the Government’s blatant use of selective prosecution? Would a similar breach of the law by a union be ignored? Why does the Government continue to pursue specially selected draft resisters while it refuses to prosecute a great and powerful friend of the Government which breaks the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Poyser, before you are given the opportunity of asking another question I hope you will read the back of the notice paper, which states quite clearly that ironic expressions must not be used.

Senator Poyser:

– There is nothing ironic about that question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call the AttorneyGeneral.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think that Senator Poyser’s question, insofar as it concerned any prospective action under the Broadcasting and Television Act, should have been directed to the Acting PostmasterGeneral and not to me. If he is genuinely concerned about seeking information on that matter I am sure that he will be able to get it from the Acting PostmasterGeneral. I am not in a position to express any comment on that situation. With regard to other matters to which he referred I can say only that where the responsibility lies with me I have taken every action that I can take to ensure that those who are in breach of the law are detected and, when detected, are prosecuted. I have expresed the view often that it would be very helpful to law enforcement if members of the Australian Labor Party would give the assistance that they are able to give.

page 913

QUESTION

BOVINE SEMEN

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to an article which appeared in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ last Friday relating to the expressed intention of at least 2 Canadian artificial breeding centres to export cattle semen to Australia by March 1973 following the relaxation in mid February of the embargo on such imports? As the dreaded cattle disease blue tongue is suffered in Canada, are adequate precautions being taken to protect our cattle industry from such diseases as a result of the importation of cattle semen from that country?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– That article was brought to my attention. I can say that the importation of bovine semen from Canada has been approved under the most stringent conditions of health and testing for blue, tongue ever imposed by Australia. The specific tests for blue tongue include both sheep transmission .tests and laboratory tests. Semen may not be collected from donor bulls which have ever been in a country in which blue tongue is known to have been present and the collection of semen is permitted only from approved artificial insemination centres. Bulls which have been in a country where blue tongue is present are excluded from these centres. As an added measure, of safety, semen must be stored in Canada for at least 12 months after the date of collection. Should blue tongue be diagnosed in Canada during that period the semen would not be permitted into Australia and the whole situation would be reviewed.

page 913

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, addressed to the Attorney-General, arises out of an answer that he just gave in which he referred to the Australian Labor Party being able to assist in the regulation of the National Service Act. Did the Minister pay a visit to Western Australia last week7

During the course of that visit did he address a meeting at the University of Western Australia? During the course of that address did a number of young people stand up and indicate that they were not conforming with the National Service Act? Did 2 of those young people give their full names and addresses to the Attorney-General? If so, what action has he taken to enforce the Act?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– It is a fact that I went to Western Australia and enjoyed myself last week. It is a fact that I delivered an address to a number of students at the University of Western Australia although I do not know whether the students were able to hear what I had to say. I understand that during the course of the address a number of young people stood up and said that they were draft resisters. Not one of those young persons approached me and gave me his name or his address. If they happened to shout these from the body of the hall I assure the honourable senator that other noises by other people would have drowned them out. I did notice, in the course of reading newspapers the following day, that one of the newspapers had been given the names of some of the people who are alleged to have stood up and I have instituted inquiries into those names to see whether in fact those persons are what they claim to be.

page 913

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health about the horses that were put into quarantine just west of Sydney. Can the Minister now inform the Senate of the position regarding the quarantine of these horses? Have they been released from quarantine and is Australia free of all risk of any imported sickness spreading from them?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The question refers to the decision to quarantine, under special conditions, the horses that came out on a special vessel called the ‘Dona Clausen’. The horses - and I think a donkey as well - were quarantined in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. I am happy to say that they are now considered to be free of possible disease. Laboratory investigations confirmed the diagnosis of strangles and that there was no involvement with exotic viruses. Accordingly the horses were released from quarantine yesterday. It is true that a foal was born during the quarantine period at one of the stations. The temporary quarantine station at Castlereagh Stud, Penrith, New South Wales, was the cause of some anxiety which I am sure was quite unfounded. Once one starts to quarantine a large number of horses one has to put them where stables are available. They cannot be put out in the open. I am happy to say that everything went as we had hoped it would. The Castlereagh Stud will remain unstocked until it can be disinfected properly to ensure that no residual infection remains on the property.

page 914

QUESTION

DC3 AIRCRAFT

Senator KEEFFE:

– Will the Minister for Air inform the Parliament how many DC3 aircraft are still in the posession of the Royal Australian Air Force? How many of the planes are airworthy? Is the Minister aware that it is impossible to transport goods and medicines in Bangla Desh owing to the unavailability of aircraft? After the survey of available DC3 planes has b?en carried out is the Minister prepared to recommend to the Government that all or some of the aircraft be loaned or donated to the Government of Bangla Desh for the carriage of essential materials in that country? Can this action be taken within the next 10 days?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I do not have at my fingertips exactly how many DC3 aircraft are available at the present time. I shall make inquiries and give the honourable senator an answer in the next day or two.

page 914

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Webster, you have been very patient. You have now caught my eye.

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

- Mr President, I wish to ask you on what basis you call honourable senators to ask questions. I noted that at the outset of question time you saw me standing as the first honourable senator on the Government side. Not until question time is off the air have you given me the benefit of asking my question. I wonder whether you will explain to the Senate the method by which you call honourable senators.

The PRESIDENT:

– I can easily explain’ the situation so far as it relates to you. I saw you get up early in the proceedings. I tried to see you several times after that but you were not on your feet. I thought that perhaps you had given up hope.

Senator Webster:

– I had, sir.

The PRESIDENT:

– I give a personal guarantee that I shall call you first tomorrow afternoon. I now call you to ask your second question.

page 914

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask a question of the Attorney-General. I refer to the confinement of Commonwealth prisoners. I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that the Commonwealth prisoner, Gary Cook, without authorisation by any prison regulation in Western Australia, has been allowed out of gaol unaccompanied on one day a week. Does this action affect the control which the Commonwealth may wish to exercise in relation to Commonwealth prisoners? Further, is it only since the advent of the Australian Labor Parly Government in Western Australia that court warrants issued on behalf of the Commonwealth have not been executed by the Western Australian State police? Is this action unique to Western Australia?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– As I understand the prison regulations of Western Australia - and I have looked at them - there is no power under them whereby a person who is imprisoned may be given leave of absence from prison to study or to go to a university, though he may be given leave of absence for other purposes. This matter has been raised in the Senate before and I then gave an assurance - I think to Senator Durack - that I would write to the Chief Secretary of Western Australia seeking some explanation as to why this apparently favoured treatment was given to a person who is in gaol for breach of the National Service Act. I still have not received a reply from the Chief Secretary, though I am expecting that I will receive such a reply at some stage.

On the other aspect to which the honourable senator refers, it is a fact that instructions were given to Western Australian policemen. From what source those instructions were given, I am unable to say. Some instructions-

Senator Cant:

– You were told.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator GREENWOOD:

– 1 was saying that instructions were given to Western Australian policemen, though from what source I am unable to say. The Police Commissioner of Western Australia has indicated that he has given some instructions. They would appear, from his published statement, to be different from the instructions which I know have been given. According to the Press report which I saw, the Minister responsible for police in Western Australia has denied that any instructions at all were given. But the simple point is - and I have documentary evidence of this - that instructions were available to policemen that they were not to execute Commonwealth warrants in regard to National Service Act offenders and that those warrants should be passed on to the Commonwealth Police for execution. As far as I am aware, no such action has been taken in any other State.

page 915

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it correct that the Premier of Western Australia said that he would protest to the Prime Minister about and seek the retraction of statements which have been attributed to the Attorney-General? Is it correct that the Premier of Western Australia said that the Attorney-General had shown that he was prepared to make statements recklessly, for political purposes and without belief in their truth? Will the Attorney-General explain to the Senate how it comes about that he is being accused in such grave terms by the Premier of a State?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unable to say why the Premier of Western Australia should make statements of the character which he made - assuming of course that he did make them, and I have seen Press reports to the effect that he did. Let me say that my categorical repudiations of the statements attributed to the Premier of Western Australia were published in the Press and that it would be surprising if Senator Murphy was not aware of that fact at the time when be asked the question.

I made statements when I was in Western Australia and those statements which I made were true and were based on my belief on evidence available to me. I stand by those statements. I will not withdraw those statements because I know them, on the best evidence available, to be true. In those circumstances, if it is suggested that I have made statements recklessly or without belief in their truth, a sweeping allegation is being made by a person who never sought to inquire of me what the basis for my statements was. In those circumstances, it is fair to say that it is a smokescreen to hide a situation which possibly he does not want revealed.

page 915

QUESTION

CHEMICAL DEFOLIANTS

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to a report that, of 30 railway track maintenance workers in Sweden using chemical defoliants to clear vegetation from rail tracks, 5 have died - 4 of them from cancer - and a sixth is in a critical cancer condition? Will the Minister make this danger known to the authorities using chemical defoliants in Australia and, from a humanitarian point of view, will he also oppose their use in any further military operations such as those carried out in Vietnam?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I cannot give the assurances which the honourable senator asks of me. What I will do, and what I have an obligation to do, is to have his question put to study through the proper channels - through my Department. This I will definitely do in accordance with the question as it was posed.

page 915

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator WILLESEE:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Did he see a report that Mr Athol VVedd, the Commissioner of Police in Western Australia, had stated that he had advised the Commonwealth Police some time ago that he would not be able to handle any Commonwealth work, that he was not under instructions from a political source and that, after giving the advice to the Commonwealth, he had not received any complaint at all from that source?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I saw a statement in one of the Western Australian newspapers attributed to Mr VVedd in which he stated that sometime last year it had been decided - I will paraphrase this because I do not recall the exact detail - that national service warrants would be executed by the Commonwealth police in future and not by the State police. He said that this was because of the workload. In fact, 8 national service warrants were issued in Western Australia last year. Also, I saw a statement attributed to Mr Wedd suggesting that this was merely an office matter. I must say that my concern in this area arose-

Senator Willesee:

– Would the AttorneyGeneral answer the other part of the question.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am not sure which part of the question I have not answered. Possibly the honourable senator will let me finish my answer, and if I do not answer the question he may be permitted to ask the balance of it and I will do my best to answer it. All I will say is that I was concerned, as was the Commonwealth police officer in charge in Western Australia, about a situation which arose late in March this year when information was conveyed to the Commonwealth police that if any national service offender was to be brought before the Court of Petty Sessions who was not likely to enter into his recognisance, there should be Commonwealth police present because the State police had been instructed not even to take him into custody. That was information received from a Western Australian police constable and confirmed by officers of the Commonwealth police. It was that which excited my concern. I should say that the Western Australian Premier subsequently, following these statements which I made, indicated that in future the Western Australian police would co-operate with the Commonwealth police.

page 916

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to reports suggesting that Irish businessman, Mr Anthony Davies, is making $40^000 a year selling high fashion Irish woollen dresses for as much as $100 each and that many of his keenest customers are the wives of Australian woolgrowers? Can he assure the Senate that the

Australian Government is making every endeavour to assist and promote the work of Australian fashion designers in an effort to allow other Australian wives - not just those of graziers - to afford to buy garments made from wool?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I have not seen the statement so I cannot give an intelligent answer to the question. But I do know that the promotion of Australian wool is the lifeblood of the industry. I have yet to meet anybody from the industry or, in fact, from Australia as a whole who does not do everything possible for the promotion of Australian wool.

page 916

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator MURPHY:

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us whether, as far as this Government is aware, the mass murderer Lt Calley is still enjoying conditions that might be called luxurious, with his girlfriend being permitted to visit him, and being able to make hundreds of thousands of dollars by publishing his memoirs at a time when this Government is apparently objecting to a young man being granted leave for study because he has been imprisoned in Western Australia for a breach of the National Service Act?

The PRESIDENT:

– The Leader of the Opposition has been in the Parliament long enough to know that he is stretching my patience to a very great degree by prefacing a simple question in the terms he used.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I can make no contribution in response to the first part of the question. I chose to ignore it. As to the second part which relates to a particular Australian situation, I will seek to get information. I ask the honourable senator to place that part of the question on notice.

page 916

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Has the Department of Civil Aviation extended the time interval between major airframe overhauls on the DC9 aircraft by 12i per cent? Will this mean, as claimed by Sir Reginald Ansett, a saving in servicing costs of $2m a year. Does Trans-Australia Airlines intend to decrease correspondingly the frequency of its airframe maintenance? If so, can this be expected similarly to save that airline $2m a year?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 28th February approval was given for Ansett Airlines of Australia to extend maintenance checks 7 and 8 on DC9 aircraft from 4,000 hours to 4,500 hours and from 8,000 hours to 9,000 hours respectively. The approval was given after representatives of Ansett Airlines and Douglas Aircraft Company Incorporated studied the maintenance procedures and after the Douglas representatives said that the aircraft were well over maintained. In support of this statement, I point out that the world average for these checks is 8,000 and 13,000 hours respectively. There are only about 3 other operators as conservative as Ansett. TransAustralia Airlines uses a different maintenance system.

page 917

QUESTION

TARIFFS

Senator WEBSTER:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry any information which he may be able to give the Senate about any proposed change to the constitution and control of the Special Advisory Authority which gives advice to the Government on emergency protection claimed by Australian industries? Is it a fact that changes are proposed in the Authority’s activities?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am unable to help the honourable senator or the Senate with information on the subject. I have no information. Nothing has been given to me. I shall seek for the honourable senator information on the subject.

page 917

QUESTION

RHODESIAN INFORMATION CENTRE

Senator CANT:

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that he visited Rhodesia during 1970-71 and talked with officers of a government described on many occasions by Sir Robert Menzies as illegal? Does the Minister consider that his visit to Rhodesia as guest of the governmentbacked Rhodesian Promotion Council would embarrass him in providing the Australian Government with advice on the status of the Rhodesian Information Centre in Australia?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– It is a fact that I visited Rhodesia in 1971 and that I learned a lot of facts about that country which one cannot get by relying merely upon the newspapers of this country. I do not believe that my visit or the information that I learned would prevent me in any way doing my job to the best of my ability.

page 917

QUESTION

DEPORTATION OF STATELESS PERSONS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration make a statement clarifying both the future of Mr Martin Niklas and the general position of migrants with stateless backgrounds?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

- Mr Niklas was born in Berlin of a Yugoslav father. He never became a German national. When he came to Australia some years ago he came as a stateless person. Because of convictions recorded against him in Australia, an order for his deportation was signed on 15th December 1971. Since then efforts have been continuing to arrange for his re-entry into Germany, but the decision of the German authorities has not yet been received. Mr Niklas has been released from custody, pending the decisionof the German authorities. The deportation order still remains in force. It will be implemented if his re-entry to Germany is authorised. In the meantime, he reports regularly - I think once each week - to the Department of Immigration. Migrants who are stateless and who can comply with the requirements of the Citizenship Act in relation to good character as well as other matters may acquire Australian citizenship. In this respect they are on the same footing as persons who come to Australia from other countries and who seek citizenship. It is sometimes found impossible to deport those convicted of crimes in Australia because entry to another country cannot be arranged. This position exists in many countries.

page 917

TELEVISION

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDMy question is directed to the Acting PostmasterGeneral. In view of the Government’s decision to proceed with the intro- duction of colour television, will the Minister agree that it is imperative to expedite consideration of the establishment of educational television services in Australia? Will the Minister consider the presentation to Parliament of a White Paper on educational television so that the matter can be debated in the present parliamentary session?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– While I do not wish to respond to propositions prefaced by the words ‘Will the Minister agree’, educational television interests me greatly. I shall seek the advice of the Postmaster-General’s Department and of those responsible to see what can be done to further the proposal put by the honourable senator.

page 918

QUESTION TIME

There are many answers to questions on notice to be provided, as well as a number of ministerial statements. I hope that we might bring question time to a close.

The PRESIDENT:

– That was in my mind but Senator Primmer has not yet had an opportunity to ask a question.

page 918

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. By way of preface I say that the matter has disturbed me greatly. Can the Minister give any reason why Commonwealth police would refuse to recognise a young man out on bail who has a duty to report to them daily when that young man approached them on his own at Warnambool on Saturday morning last and why, when approached by the same young man in company with a member of this Parliament the same Commonwealth police agreed to recognise him?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I would suggest that the honourable senator put his question on the notice paper. I have no knowledge of the facts. I am not quite sure what is comprehended by the word ‘recognise’ in the context in which he used it. I assure him that if in the question he puts on notice he gives some more details I will get the answer as soon as I can.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Keeffe to ask the last question.

page 918

QUESTION

BANGLA DESH: AID

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What is the total donation to date by the Australian Government for the relief of residents in Bangla Desh? How much of this was forwarded by way of goods and how much was in cash? What is the value of goods and cash already approved but still remaining in Australia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONAt the moment my brief has not that information. I can readily get it. I hope to have it and to be able to give it tomorrow.

page 918

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

(Question No. 1299)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. How many Aboriginal children under the age of 1 year have died in the Alice Springs Hospital in each year since, and including, 1968 and what was the cause of death in each case.
  2. How many children of European descent under the age of 1 year died in each of the same years, and what was the cause of death in each case.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The number of deaths of Aboriginal children under the age of 1 year who have died in the Alice Springs hospital in each calendar year since 1968 is as follows:

The cause of death in each case is listed at Appendix A.

  1. The number of deaths of non-Aboriginal* children under the age of 1 year who have died in the Alice Springs hospital during the same period is as follows:

The cause of death in each case is listed at Appendix B.

page 922

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

(Question No. 1708)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

Why does the Government consistently refuse the same recognition of tribal land rights to Australian Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders that it gives to some persons in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

I invite the honourable senator’s attention to the Prime Minister’s statement of 26th January which was tabled in the Senate on 23rd February: Australian Aborigines, Commonwealth Policy and Achievements’, and in particular to the sections on land policy set out on pages 9 and 10.

page 922

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1835)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

  1. How many VIP all-jet aircraft landed at or departed from Kingsford-Smith Airport during the period 1st December 1970 to 31st December 1970.
  2. In the case of those landing, what was their take-off point; and, in the case of those departing, what was their destination.
  3. How many passengers were on each plane, and who were they.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. RAAF VIP flights during the period 1st December 1970 to 31st December 1970, included 15 all-jet landings and the same number of departures from Kingsford-Smith Airport.
  2. and (3) The information is set out in the following list which has been extracted from a document tabled in the Senate on 7th May 1971 (Hansard, Senate, page 1570).

page 924

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1848)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

Are any National Servicemen currently serving in the Territory of Papua New Guinea; if not, have any National Servicemen been told they will tec service in the Territory before long; if so, for what specific reason are they to be sent.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has povided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As at 26th January 1972 the numbers of National Servicemen serving in Papua New Guinea were as follows:

Officers 20.

Other Ranks 56.

Included in these figures are 4 Officers and 47 Other Ranks serving as teachers in the Royal Australian Army Education Corps. The remaining National Servicemen are employed on various military duties.

It is expected that National Servicemen will continue to serve in Papua New Guinea as they are likely to do in other areas where Army units of which they form part are normally stationed.

Some National Servicemen at present servingin Australia may therefore have been told that they may be posted to Papua New Guinea as replacements for those currently serving there.

page 924

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

(Question No. 1849)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

In view of the fact that the Aborigines now occupying some of their own land in front of Parliament House have conducted their land rights campaign with great dignity and credit to their people, will the Minister persuade the Government to make available to them a suitable building in Canberra which will serve as a headquarters for the ‘Embassy’ and the Aborigine and Torres Strait Islander campaigners for land righto and other matters.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I assume the question envisages the leasing of a Commonwealth building. I know of no such proposal by the Aborigines.

page 925

QUESTION

ARMY

(Question No. 1858)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that if he telephones Corporal Sanson on 310905, extension 95, he may be allowed to join ‘The Tigers’ and fire a machine gun, throw a grenade or fly in a helicopter.
  2. What is the name of the person or advertising agency which drafts such amateurish advertisements, and does the Minister agree that public messages of this nature are hardly likely to attract recruits to the Citizen Military Forces.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The

Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) An advertisement of the character indicated by the honourable senator was inserted in recent editions of a Sydney newspaper at the volition and personal expense of a CMF officer of Headquarters Company, 2nd Division. The basic information contained in the advertisement was accurate and an initial response of 19 inquiries and 6CMF enlistments resulted. There is however a routine procedure for the lodging of official recruiting advertisements for the CMF and this has been brought to the notice of the officer concerned.

page 925

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1885)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What were the circumstances that enabled Raymond James Palmer, a Canadian, to receive a visa to enter Australia in view of his criminal record in Canada and from what city was the visa issued.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 am informed by the Minister that Mr Palmer’s case is considered sub-judice. Consequently the information sought by the honourable senator may not be provided until the time for lodging an appeal has expired, or if an appeal is made, until such time as the proceedings are completed.

The Minister will ensure that you receive the information as soon as possible.

page 925

HOSPITAL BENEFIT FUNDS

(Question No. 1948)

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA · ALP

asked the Minister for

Health, upon* notice:

Is the Minister investigating allegations of the improper use of funds by certain hospital benefits organisations; if so, (a) do the allegations refer to the use of such funds for political purposes, thereby diminishing resources from which legitimate subscriber claims are paid, (b) what action is being taken to obtain the facts regarding these allegations, and (c) will the results of these investigations, naming the offending organisations together with the identity of the. beneficiary political party, be reported to the Parliament.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

No investigation of the kind referred to in this question is being undertaken because, to my knowledge, there is no evidence to support such allegations.

However, as I informed the honourabe senator on 8th March 1972, I shall have appropriate investigations made if he provides me with details of any specific case.

page 925

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

(Question No. 1768)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Why will more than one thousand Australian troops still be stationed in South Vietnam at Christmas 1971, when the Government has stated that all troops ‘except for a handful of advisers’ engaged in the war in South Vietnam would be returned to Australia before Christmas 1971.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

The majority of the personnel remaining in South Vietnam after Christmas were engaged in the preparation of stores and equipment either for return to Australia or for handing over to the South Vietnamese. In addition there were Army Engineers engaged in the transfer of the Jungle Warfare Training Centre from Nui Dat to Van Kiep, administration personnel, the Australian Force Headquarters and a security force, comprising one rifle company and one troop 3 Cavalry Regiment, which provided local defence for the Australian troops and equipment. A number of RAAF Caribou aircraft needed for light transport duties in the country. The only personnel now remaining are those in the Australian Army Assistance Group.

page 925

QUESTION

EXCISE

(Question No. 1781)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What revenue is derived by the Government each year from excise duty on alcoholic beverages, and what sums are collected from each of the States.
  2. What sums are remitted to each of the States, from the excise duty collected, for the treatment of alcoholism, and are the States satisfied with the level of these remittances.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information on gross revenue collected in 1970-71 from excise duty on alcoholic beverages.

Figures for total gross duty collections from alcoholic beverages for earlier years are available from the Commonwealth Statistician’s publication Overseas Trade’ 1969-70 Bulletin No. 67.

  1. There are no specific remittances of revenue to the States for the treatment of alcoholism, but the Commonwealth does provide very large funds to the States which they are free to dispose of as they choose.

page 926

QUESTION

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

(Question No. 1791)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter for Works upon notice:

  1. Who were the contractors responsible for the construction of the roof of the KingsfordSmith International airport.
  2. Is the Minister satisfied with the quality of the workmanship and adherence to job specifications on the completion of the project; if so, why does rainwater flood sections of the terminal from time to time.
  3. Is any claim for damages against the contractors contemplated.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Costain (Australia) Pty Ltd, the main contractors for the Terminal Building were responsible for the roof construction.
  2. The Building contract is now finalised following the normal maintenance period allowed to make good any defects in construction. Rainwater has entered the building for the following reasons:

    1. The roof drainage system has been blocked by loose debris in the downpipes and arrangements have been made for constant attention to be paid to the clearance of these outlets.
    2. Under extremely intense rainfall, the capacity of the roof guttering has been taxed and additional overflow outlets have had to be provided. This work has been completed.
    3. Under extreme conditions of galeforce winds combined with torrential rain (conditions which often occur in this exposed location) the seals around the windows to the Concourse have allowed water penetration. Work to rectify this problem is currently under way.
  3. There is no action contemplated against the contractor with regard to the matter in question.

page 926

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

(Question No. 1804)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What is the function of the Department of the Interior Welfare Branch in the Northern Territory.
  2. Does the Branch ensure that there is no discrimination in employment in the Government and private sectors.
  3. What amenities does the Branch provide for unemployed persons.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The functions of the Welfare Division of the Northern Territory Administration are to:

    1. administer programmes of assistance to people who are socially or economically in need of such assistance;
    2. administer Government settlements and centres for Aborigines;
    3. liaise with Mission authorities and administer the programmes of financial assistance to Missions;
    4. administer the special schools for Aborigines in the Northern Territory;
    5. conduct institutions for the care and maintenance of young people placed in the care of the Director of Child Welfare; (0 exercise powers and responsibilities under the following Ordinances -

Social Welfare Ordinance 1964-1967 Child Welfare Ordinance 1958-1969

Adoption of Children Ordinance 1964- 1969

Interstate Aboriginals (Distribution of

Estates) Ordinance 1964-1967

Native and Historical Objects and Areas

Preservation. Ordinance 1955-1961.

  1. initiate or advise on proposals for changes of policy in connection with the matters referred to above.

    1. Procedures for the employment of persons by the Commonwealth provide that persons who are otherwise suitable and eligible for employment are not discriminated against on racial grounds.

The Welfare Division works in close consultation with the Department of Labour and National Service to place Aborigines to the best advantage in private employment. Employers are under no legal obligation to offer equal employment opportunities to people regardless of racial origins but any complaints of discrimination in employment are investigated.

  1. The Director of Social Welfare has a statutory responsibility to provide care and assistance to people economically or socially in need of such assistance.

Social workers of the Welfare Division investigate all cases of hardship which come to notice and assistance is provided where a need is shown.

In particular the Division provides bridging assistance to unemployed persons and their families to cover the period after application has been made for unemployment benefits and before such benefits are paid.

page 927

QUESTION

SCHOLARSHIPS

(Question No. 1813)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many Commonwealth University Scholarships were offered to students in each of the States this year.
  2. How many of such scholarships were accepted.
  3. If the offer of a Commonwealth University Scholarship is rejected by a student is the offer extended to someone else who was not offered one initially.
  4. Is it a fact that the cost of purchase of textbooks is not included in Commonwealth University Scholarships but that in the case of Commonwealth Secondary Scholarships there is an annual allowance of $50 for textbooks.
  5. Is the Minister aware that the costsof. textbooks for students has risen substantially in recent years.
  6. Will the Government give consideration to relieving the student or his parents of some of the cost, especially where there are two or more members of a family attending a University.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

At this stage statistics of awards offeredand accepted are not final. Selection for some awards is still in progress and final figures for offers and acceptances of 1972 awards will differ from those I am able to give now.

The numbers of Commonwealth University Scholarships offered up to 3rd March 1972 arc shown in the following table:

  1. The numbers of Commonwealth University Scholarships accepted by 3rd March are shown in the following table:
  1. In the case of Later Year and Mature Age Awards, scholarships which are declined are immediately re-offered to candidates placed next in order of merit, until the quota is fully used.

In the case of Open Entrance awards, however, where the proportion of students who will reject the offer of an award can be forecast the initial offer is increased beyond the quota, and rejected scholarships are not re-offered. Here again, the quota is fully used.

  1. It is correct that the benefits available under the Commonwealth Secondary ScholarShip Scheme include a textbook and equipment allowance while no separate allowance for textbooks and equipment is available to holders of Commonwealth University scholarships.
  2. Yes.
  3. In determining the amount of living allowance payable to holders of Commonwealth University Scholarships a number of factors is taken into account. One of these is the number of dependent student children in the family. A deduction of $300 is made from the gross family income for each dependent child under 16 years of age and for each dependent child (other than the award holder) under the age of 21 who was in full-time education at 30 June of the previous year.

In addition, substantial concessions to the means test apply where 2 or more members of a family are attending university, advanced education or technical courses as full-time students.

Taken together these provisions can result in payment of higher benefits to a scholarship bolder where other members of the family are also full-time students in approved courses. For example if the gross income of a family whose only child at university is the award holder is $6,000, the living allowance paid at home rates to the award holder is $120 p.a. However, if a family whose gross income is $6,000 have three children at university, one of whom holds a Commonwealth scholarship and the other two hold no awards, then the living allowance paid to the award holder is $546 p.a.

page 928

QUESTION

CADETSHIPS

(Question No. 1814)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many and what types of cadetships were offered by the Commonwealth Public Service to students commencing at universities, colleges of advanced education, technical colleges or similar educational institutions in each of the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The Public Service Board has advised the Prime Minister:

  1. No cadetships were offered to students commencing at the above institutions in 1969, 1970 and 1972.
  2. Up to 30 Electrical Engineering and 17 Quantity Surveying cadetships were offered to students commencing at the above institutions in 1971.

*It is the usual practice of the Board to offer cadetships to students who have already commenced their tertiary training.

page 928

QUESTION

CADETSHIPS

(Question No. 1819)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What forms of cadetship, if any, have been made available in recent years by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to young men and women who have recently completed their schooling and intend going on to a university, a college of advanced education, a technical college or similar educational institution.
  2. What forms of cadetship have been made available this year by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. For many years the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission has offered cadetships in Biochemistry to a small number of students completing their university entrance examination. The selected cadets pursue a full-time university course leading to a Bachelor Degree in Science. Three or four cadetships are offered each year and the academic standards of the selected candidates are always very high. The Commission also periodically sponsors a member of its staff to study for a higher degree.
  2. Three cadetships in Biochemistry were offered to students commencing their university courses in 1972.

page 928

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 1825)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What anticipated revenue will the Treasury gain through sales tax on colour television sets, having regard to the number of receivers estimated by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its 1970-71 Annual Report that will be purchased over a number of years.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

In its annual report for the year ended 30th June 1971, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board provided estimates of expenditure on colour television receivers based on the cost to the public of a receiver being $700 and on alternative assumptions that at the end of the third year of colour television there would be (a) 364,000 or (b) 909,000 colour television receivers in use. Using these assumptions it has been estimated that at the present rate of sales tax, revenue from the sale of these colour television sets would amount to approximately $25m if asumption (a) were correct, or approximately $62m if assumption (b) were correct. In making these estimates, regard has been had to the fact that sales tax is not payable on the value of a cathode ray tube incorporated in a television receiver.

I should point out that the net gain to revenue will be somewhat less than the sales tax revenue that will in fact result from sales of colour television receivers, as in many cases sales of colour television sets will replace sales of conventional receivers that would otherwise be expected to be made in the period up to the end of the third year of colour television transmission.

page 929

QUESTION

SALES TAX

(Question No. 1843)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treas urer, upon notice:

How much has been collected in each of the last 10 years by the Commonwealth in sales tax levied on the purchase of all sporting equipment.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

Revenue collected in respect of sales tax levied on sporting equipment is not recorded separately, and no statistics are available that would enable reliable estimates to be made of sales tax collected in each of the last 10 years in respect of purchases of all sporting equipment

page 929

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 1844)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it possible to ascertain how much is paid by overseas companies operating in Australia, by way of servicing fees to their overseas principals.
  2. Are servicing fees allowable as taxation deductions.

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

  1. The ‘servicing fees’ paid by overseas companies operating in Australia to their overseas principles would appear to refer to the following payments -

    1. interest payable by Australian subsidiaries of overseas companies to their overseas principals. This amounted to $48m in 1969- 70 and$55m in 1970-71.
    2. royalties and copyrights payments. Such payments amounted to $68m in 1969-70 and $64m in 1970-71 for all companies in Australia. It is not possible to split this total into that amount paid by overseas companies operating in Australia and that amount paid by other Australian companies.
  2. Such payments fall primarily for consideration under a general provision of the taxation law which authorises the allowance of deductions for outgoings incurred in gaining or producing asessable income or in carrying on a business for that purpose. Deductions are not allowed under this provision, however, for outgoings of capital or of a capital nature. The question whether servicing fees paid by an Australian subsidiary to its overseas parent qualify as allowable deductions depends upon the facts of each particular case having regard to the terms of any contracts made and the nature of the services provided.

The various double taxation agreements made between Australia and other countries contain provisions which are intended to ensure that the Ausralian revenue is not prejudiced where an Australian enterprise controlled in the other country engages in transactions with the parent organisation under conditions which differ from those which might be expected to operate between independent enterprises dealing at arms length. In this situation, tax may be imposed on the profits which might have been expected to accrue to the Australian subsidiary if it were an independent enterprise and its dealings with the overseas parent organisation were at arms length. A similar result is achieved under a specific provision of the Ausralian law where an Australian company is controlled by an enterprise in a country with which Australia has not concluded a double taxation agreement.

The amount of servicing fees paid to an overseas organisation would be one of the factors taken into account in determining the profit on which an Australian subsidiary of an overseas organisation is required to pay income tax.

page 929

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 1862)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

In view of the re-introduction of investment allowances which will prove to be a financial bonanza to industry, will the Government be equally generous to workers and allow costs incurred by them in travelling to and from work as a deduction from income for taxation purposes.

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

Entirely distinct issues are involved in the questions of restoring the income tax investment allowance for manufacturing industry and of providing, by way of an entirely new concession, the allowance of income tax deductions for expenses incurred in travelling to and from work. The conditions determining the restoration of the one concession do not afford grounds for introducing the other.

The question of allowing income tax deductions for expenses of travelling to and from work has been listed for consideration, on its own merits and against the competing claims for other new or extended taxation concessions, in the context of preparing the 1972-73 Budget.

page 930

QUESTION

HANDICAPPED PERSONS

(Question No. 1883)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What progress has been made by the interdepartmental committee that has been formed to consider the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare in its Report on Mentally and Physically Handicapped Persons in Australia.
  2. Does the Minister intend reporting to the Senate on the deliberations of this Committee.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The interdepartmental committee has met on a number of occasions and further meetings are planned.
  2. The interdepartmental committee will be reporting to me. I will consider, in the light of any government decisions on the recommendations of the Standing Committee, what further action is to be taken to keep the Senate informed in these matters.

page 930

QUESTION

NORTHERN IRELAND

(Question No. 1887)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to define his attitude to the creation of a Commonwealth of Nations Legal Tribunal to review cases of internment in Northern Ireland.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

I replied to the honourable senator’s letter of 4th February on 22nd March 1972.

page 930

QUESTION

DRUGS

(Question No. 1918)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Was the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Health correctly reported in ‘The Courier’ of 2nd March 1972 as suggesting that the reporting of court cases concerning drugs and drug thefts should be restricted? If so, was he stating Government policy in his capacity as Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Health?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

At the Seminar on ‘Drugs and the Mass Media’ conducted by the Department of Health, Senator Marriott referred to the fact that the Senate Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse had suggested consideration of the provisions of the New Zealand Narcotics Act of 1970. Under this Act, New Zealand courts may restrain publi cation of information referring to misuse and abuse of new drugs or to new or bizarre misuse of new or of old drugs.

Senator Marriott’s words were: The actual recommendation by the Senate Select Committee concerning reporting was “. . . discussions at the highest possible level should be conducted with the Australian Newspapers Council to evolve a policy designed to establish a more responsible approach to the reporting on the use of drugs and particularly of any bizarre effects. In this consideration regard should also be paid to the comments made on this aspect in Chapter 9 - practices now adopted by the courts in New Zealand’ - where they, are pretty tough on the news media. It was based on a lot of evidence and the reason for its inclusion as a recommendation is referred to in the chapter of the Report entitled The Causes of Drug Abuse’.”.’.

Senator Marriott opened the Seminar in his capacity as Assistant Minister and because of his role as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee.

page 930

QUESTION

EXCISE

(Question No. 1919)

Senator McAULIFFE:

asked the Minis ter representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

In view of the significant contribution made by Air/Sea rescue organisations in the matter of saving human life, will the Treasurer consider waiving all duty on fuels used by aircraft and boats engaged in these rescue operations.

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

The Government recognises the significant contribution made by air/sea rescue organisations and similar community service groups. The granting of special exemption for these organisations on both aviation fuels and motor spirit would create, however, a precedent for meeting many other similar requests for exemption from taxes which form part of the general revenues of the Commonwealth. In addition to requests from similar community service organisations, it could be expected that other groups in the community, who believe they have special grounds for exemption, would feel justified in renewing previous requests for concessions. The ultimate effect could well be a serious erosion of the broad base on which these duties are levied and a substantial loss of revenue to the Commonwealth. Mainly because of these revenue implications, the Commonwealth has consistently refused to grant requests for concessions from a wide range of consumers of aviation fuel and motor spirit.

page 930

QUESTION

POLAND

(Question No. 1937)

Senator HANNAN:

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

What is the present status of Australian diplomatic representation in Poland and is there any basis for the belief that this post is to be upgraded.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– As Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, I furnish the following reply.

Australia has no diplomatic post in Poland. Arrangements are in train for the accreditation of an Australian Ambassador to Poland on a non-resident basis.

page 931

QUESTION

PUBLIC WORKS

(Question No. 2029)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister for Works, upon notice:

  1. What rationalisation of major items of equipment, by the Commonwealth Department of Works and the State Public Works Departments, is effected to ensure maximum utilisation.
  2. Before either the Commonwealth or any State Department disposes of, or purchases such equipment, what investigations are made to ensure that no duplication occurs.

Senate WRIGHT- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. In general the answer is none. The Commonwealth Department of Works holds only the plant and equipment which it requires for regular use, apart from one or two specialised items which are exclusive to its own use e.g. 200 ton Super Compaction Roller.

Other special plant required or plant for which there is only intermittent use is hired from external sources.

Exchange of plant between the Commonwealth Department of Works and State Road Authorities has occurred only occasionally.

  1. Having regard to (1) this is not done.

page 931

QUESTION

ART

(Question No. 1663)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. What funds were made available in the financial year 1970-71 to the Australian Council for the Arts for the development and projection of all forms of art in Australia.
  2. How many applications were received for assistance, which persons or organisations made application for assistance and what was the amount or type of assistance requested in each case.
  3. How many applicants were given assistance, who were they and what amounts were granted in each case.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. S3,8SO,0O0 was appropriated in the financial year 1970-71 for the Australian Council for the Arts. Expenditure was $3,793,062.
  2. 682 applications for assistance were received by the Council during 1970-71. The names of unsuccessful organisations and details of their applications should, I think, be regarded as confidential and I do not, therefore, consider it appropriate to supply this information.
  3. 451 grants were made to 233 applicants. The following is a list of the successful applicants and the amounts granted in each case.

page 934

QUESTION

LIONS CLUBS

(Question No. 1792)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. How many Asian exchange students have been sponsored by Lions Clubs in New South Wales and Queensland in the last 2 years.
  2. Under what conditions was Miss Midoria Fujishima, a Japanese exchange student, sponsored to Australia by the Coolangatta-Tweed Heads Lions Club.
  3. Did the Department of Immigration examine the statements of both Miss Fujishima and Mr and Mrs Dillon which, as reported in the Sydney Daily Mirror’ of 22nd January 1972, implied that the Lions Club concerned did not fully honour the commitments it entered into; if so, what action has the Department taken to ensure that Lions Clubs and similar bodies avoid the apparent mistakes of the Fujishima episode.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Fourteen Asian exchange students have been sponsored by Lions Clubs in New South Wales and 1 1 by Lions Clubs in Queensland during the last 2 years.
  2. Lions exchange students come within the scope of the private overseas student programme and are issued visas on production of evidence of enrolment in an Australian educational institution and provided satisfactory arrangements are made regarding maintenance, accommodation and the payment of return fares. In the case of Lions exchange students, such as Miss Fujishima, these arrangements are bandied by the host Lions Club in consultation with the sponsoring club in the student’s homeland.
  3. The Department of Immigration has carefully examined the statements as reported in the ‘Sydney Daily Mirror’ and other newspapers. Although, in the particular case of Miss Fujishima, there were initial adjustment difficulties, the Department’s inquiries have established that her present situation is satisfactory and no further action is necessary. The Department considers existing arrangements for the sponsorship of overseas students by community organisations are generally working well and that no changes are warranted at this time.

page 935

QUESTION

INDIA

(Question No. 1830)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How many Immigration offices has Australia in India and where are they located?
  2. How many officers are employed in each of these offices?
  3. When were each of these offices established?
  4. How many Europeans have migrated to Australia from these locations?
  5. How many Indian nationals have been accepted for migration to Australia from each of these locations?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. The Department of immigration does not have separate offices in India but has officers attached to the Australian High Commission in New Delhi and to the Deputy High Commissions in Bombay and Calcutta.
  2. Two Australian immigration officers are located in New Delhi, one in Bombay and one in Calcutta. The officers based in New Delhi assist, as required, in Bombay and Calcutta.
  3. Immigration officers have been stationed in India since June 1967 when the first officer commenced duty in Bombay. In August 1968 an immigration officer commenced duty in Calcutta. An immigration officer was posted to New Delhi in September 1970 and a second in January 1971.

Prior to the posting of immigration officers to India immigration functions in New Delhi were performed by officers on the establishment of the Department of Foreign Affairs and in Calcutta and Bombay by officers of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  1. Statistics of arrivals for settlement are cross tabulated by country of former residenceIt is nol possible therefore to ‘ say how many settlers migrated to Australia from the various areas coming within the jurisdiction of the three offices in India.

During the period 1st January 19S9 to 30th June 1971, 14,875 former residents of India arrived in Australia for settlement. The breakdown by financial year is -

Separate statistics by race of the arrival of persons for settlement cross tabulated by country of former residence were not maintained prior to 1st July 1969. Arrivals of settlers of European descent from India during the last two financial years were -

  1. Citizens of Commonwealth countries including citizens of India who are of European descent require no prior authority to proceed to Australia and are admissible on arrival provided they appear to be of sound health, of good character and are unlikely to become a charge on State funds.

The following table indicates the number of Indian citizens of non-European and mixed descent accepted for migration to Australia by the three offices in India during the period 1st January 1966 to 31st December 1970-

13071/72- <S-I3<1

page 936

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 1841)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Is a feasibility study being undertaken by the Postmaster-General’s Department of the worthiness of establishing a production, planning and control unit within the Department which will be entirely staffed by engineers; if so, what is the purpose of establishing such a unit?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

A study of the feasibility of applying conventional production planning and control techniques to mail handling is being conducted at the Redfern Mail Exchange. The team is also studying the associated productivity measurement, statistical analysis, and quality assurance techniques to see whether worthwhile benefits could be obtained from their use.

The study team approved by the Public Service Board consists of two engineers, a Senior Technical Officer, and a Senior Research Officer, Grade 1. Although production planning and control is normally used for engineering processes, non-technical involvement was regarded from the outset as an essential element of this study. If the team concludes that the efficiency of the Redfern Mail Exchange could be improved by using these methods, the organisational structure will be determined in collaboration with the Public Service Board having regard to the findings of the study.

page 936

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1855)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Have adult migrant teaching and training classes in the suburbs of South Melbourne and Prahran, both of which have high migrant populations, closed?
  2. What was the exact nature of migrant classes conducted in these two suburbs and what was the enrolment in each class?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Two adult classes at the Dorcas Street Primary School, South Melbourne and three classes at the Prahran Primary School as well as two family group classes at the Prahran Town Hall were closed towards the end of 1971, as the result in each case of attendance falling and remaining below an acceptable level.
  2. One of the primary purposes of the review undertaken with the State Education authorities in September 1971 of the continuation class programme (which provides two hours of instruction in classes held twice weekly, generally in the evening) was to ensure a more effective programme by re-grouping classes in centres where graded levels of instruction would be possible and by closing classes where the small number of migrants attending could not justify their being maintained. In metropolitan areas, a class is required to maintain an average attendance of 9. At the two classes closed in South Melbourne, average attendance had fallen to 6 and 8 students per class. At the three classes at the Prahran Primary School, average attendance in the preceding month was less than 5 students per class. At the family group classes at the Prahran Town Hall (where bi-lingual teachers were employed) enrolment had fallen to 7 adults and 6 children.

In South Melbourne classes have been held for adult migrants at the Dorcas Street Primary School since 1956. With the closing of the two classes earlier mentioned, only one class was in operation at the end of 1971 but a second class was commenced on 29th February 1972. The enrolment at these two classes is 17 and15 respectively.

Migrants who live in the South Melbourne area are able also to attend classes at the Migrant Education Centre at 200 Little Collins Street, Melbourne, where, in addition to continuation classes, accelerated and full time intensive language courses are available.

In Prahran, there are in addition to the classes recently closed a number of classes in adjoining districts which are within reasonable access to migrants living in the Prahran area. A centre at the Brighton Road School only three-quarters of a mile from the Prahran Primary School provides classes at six levels on four nights weekly. At Hawkesburn there are two classes. In Richmond there are eight classes conducted at the Cremorne Street and Brighton Street Primary Schools, at St Bartholomew’s Hall and at the Technical College. There is also a family group class for adults and children at the Richmond technical College.

page 937

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1908)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Are any English language classes conducted by the Department, or on its behalf in factories and other places where migrants find employment; if so, how many such classes are there and what is their enrolment.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

English language classes have for some years been conducted for migrant workers in factories and other places of employment as part of the long-term, continuation class programme. The classes, each of 2 hours duration held twice . weekly, have been arranged in the employees’ time and have been based on the normal situational English course. At 6th March, 21 classes were being held at the work place with an enrolment of 256 migrant workers.

Separately my Department has been developing an English course, specifically designed for the world situation, which has now reached an experimental stage. Six pilot classes with an enrolment of 102 migrant students are currently being conducted at 4 selected factories in New South Wales and Victoria. The special industrial Course emphasises on-the-job safety, orientation and allied topics and aims to familiarise migrant workers with the industrial environment in which they work. The course consists of 24 units of instruction each of one and a half hour’s duration. Classes are held 4 times a week partly in the employers’ time so that the course normally would be completed in 6 weeks. This course, when evaluated, will form the basis of English instruction for migrants in industry generally.

page 937

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1904)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Did the recent Conference of State Immigration Ministers consider (a) the lack of uniformity in State recognition of non-British degrees in various professions, for example, Veterinary Science, (b) the need for uniform adoption laws, and (c) closer supervision of small loan agencies which disregard normal interest charges when dealing with migrant clients.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

Various aspects of the work of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications, including the question of the uniformity of State recognition of overseas qualifications, were discussed by Commonwealth and State Ministers for Immigration at their Conference on 25th February 1972. In addition, the Chairman of the Committee, Dr D. M. Myers, attended the meeting to report to Ministers on the Committee’s work.

and (c) were not among the items discussed at the Conference.

page 937

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1922)

Senator FITZGERALD:

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

Is the Minister aware that many English classes, which have been conducted in New South Wales for new citizens coming to Australia, have been closed due to the lack of finance; if so, will the Minister arrange the necessary finance to recommence these classes.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

There has been a reduction in the number of evening continuation classes not only in New South Wales but in all States. The closing of classes was not however due to a lack of finance but followed a review of the continuation class programme undertaken in conjunction with the State Education Departments in September 1971 with a view to improving the efficiency of the programme generally. The purpose of the review was to reduce the number of classes at which attendance had fallen below acceptable levels and single classes which were operating uneconomically and to regroup other classes so that more effective instruction could be given in larger centres which were better able to meet the educational needs of migrants whatever their initial standard of English was on enrolment. Although the number of classes overall was reduced, additional funds have in fact been made available to the States since the review to ensure that the classes will be maintained at their revised level.

page 937

QUESTION

DEPORTATIONS

(Question No. 1962)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

How many people have been deported from Australia, following criminal conviction, during the past 5 years, and to which countries were they deported?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The following table shows by nationality the number of persons deported during each of the past5 years following criminal convictions in Australia:

Statistics have not been maintained to show deportees’ countries of destination, but in the great majority of cases these would be the countries of which the deportees were citizens, (as shown above) because -

  1. where persons are being deported because of criminal convictions following entry, the Department cannot require carriers to provide passages for the deportees to countries which will not admit them (Section 22 of the Migration Act); and
  2. deportees, especially those convicted of crimes, will not as a rule be admitted (except in transit) to any country other than their own.

page 938

QUESTION

INDIA

(Question No. 1961)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What is the number of applications for migration to Australia listed at:

    1. Bombay;
    2. New Delhi; and
    3. other major Indian cities?
  2. How many of these applicants possess Portuguese passports?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. The numbers of applications received by the Australian High Commission, New Delhi and the Australian Deputy High Commissions, Bombay and Calcutta but not yet decided as at 31st January 1972 were -
  1. Applicants are not required to produce passports unless their applications are approved. It is not possible therefore to say how many of the applicants possess Portugese passports, nor has an analysis been made of the applications according to nationalities shown in them.

page 939

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1953)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

In amplification of the answer to my question No. 1847 regarding the requirement of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara to obtain a visa for entry to Australia, can the Minister say whether that gentleman would have required a visa if he was simply a private citizen, and would the same requirement apply to Mr Sanders if he was a private citizen.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the statement of policy relating to the entry of Citizens of Commonwealth countries which was included in the answer given to Question No. 1438 (Hansard of 3rd November 1971).

The only amplification of that statement necessary in the present context is that prior permission to travel to Australia is not required by persons holding diplomatic or official passports issued by the Governments of British Commonwealth countries or ordinary passports issued by the Governments of those countries in which the grantee is described as a member of the Parliament or of the Government or diplomatic service or Government official when travelling to Australia on postings or official business.

page 939

QUESTION

SIMPSON DESERT

(Question No. . 1965)

Senator POKE:

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

  1. Is it true that an attempt by 10,000 Australians to buy land in the Simpson Desert area for 20 cents an acre, to retain it as natural parkland and thus prevent its sale to American interests, has been rejected.
  2. Is it a fact that the land, comprising 3 pastoral leases near Bedourie, 1,200 miles west of Brisbane, is the subject of higher offers from American interests.
  3. Will the Government take steps to ensure that this land does not become yet another part of Australia taken over by overseas owners.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) This matter was referred to by the Minister for the Interior in several statements in Parliament recently. It appears that, following a newspaper report that negotiations were taking place concerning the sale of the Simpson Desert to overseas interests at 20 cents per acre, a Member of Parliament made a suggestion on an Australian Broadcasting Commission programme that anybody who wished ‘to save the Simpson Desert’ might send 25 cents to the Minister for the Interior to buy an acre of land in the Desert.

A large number of persons wrote to the Minister on the subject and some of these enclosed money in order to purchase land in the Simpson Desert. The Minister has replied to these people returning any money forwarded and explaining that the Simpson Desert in the Northern Territory is vacant Crown Land and the Government does not intend to make available for sale the Simpson Desert in the Northern Territory.

In South Australia and Queensland the Simpson Desert is reserved as a national park and the land cannot be sold or leased.

The Minister also explained in Parliament that the land to which the publicity was given is situated north of the Simpson Desert, in Western Queensland, and comprises 3 pastoral leases known as ‘Yuluraa’, ‘Gungur’ and ‘Buruli’. Transfer of these leases would require the permission of the Minister for Lands in Queensland.

page 939

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 1964)

Senator MILLINER ask the Minster for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Has Trans-Australia Airlines disposed of its 3 Lockheed Electra aircraft to a buyer in the United States of America; if so, (a) what price was obtained for these aircraft, and (g) was any direction given to Trans-Australia Airlines that the aircraft must be sold to a foreign buyer in order that they would not be available to Australian freighter operators.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes. Trans-Australia Airlines has sold its 3 Electras to a buyer in the United States. The first aircraft was ferried out of Australia on 1st March 1972. The other 2 are scheduled to be ferried out of Australia on 27th March and 19th May.
  2. The prices obtained in such sales are normally a confidential matter between the vendor and the purchaser.
  3. No.

page 939

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 1943)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

How many aircraft were permanently based, at 31st December 1971, in (a) the Northern Territory and (b) South Australia.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The numbers of aircraft permanently based in the Northern Territory and in South Australia at December 31, 1971, were:

Northern Territory . . . . ..112

South Australia . . . . 275

page 940

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 1942)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

How many hours were flown by regular public transport, flying schools and charter and aerial works companies during 1971, in (a) the Northern Territory, and (b) South Australia.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

It is not possible to give a precise answer to the honourable senator’s question because the relevant statistics are not submitted to the Department of Civil Aviation in a form showing the hours flown within State or territorial borders except in certain cases.

In 1971, Ansett Airlines of South Australia flew a total of 5,756 hours, of which 4,868 hours were on intrastate services in South Australia and 888 hours were in interstate flights (i.e. to Broken Hill). Most of the latter would be flying within South Australia. Connair Pty Ltd flew 8,242 hours, almost totally within the Northern Territory although many flights are interstate flights between the Territory and Queensland or Western Australia.

In addition, Ansett Airlines of Australia,and Trans-Australia Airlines, operate various interstate services to and from South Australia and the Northern Territory, while MacRobertson Miller Airline Services operates between Western Australia and the Territory. The hours flown on these services within particular State or Territory borders are not reported separately.

A similar situation applies in the case of general aviation operations. The following are statistics of hours flown in 1970-71 by aircraft whose owners are resident respectively in South Australia and the Northern Territory. The year ended June 1971 is the latest period for which figures are available. It is not possible to say how many of these hours were flown within South Australia or the Northern Territory, or what hours were flown in that State and Territory by aircraft normally based in other States.

page 940

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 1941)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

How many aircraft mishap reports were received by the Department of Civil Aviation during 1971 relating to (a) Northern. Territory, (b) South Australia.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

An aircraft accident is internationally defined as an occurence which involves substantial damage to aircraft or the death or serious injury of a person arising from the operation of an aircraft. Within the Department of Civil Aviation a mishap is defined as an occurrence, during the operation of an aircraft which results in damage to the aircraft or injury to a person other than damage or injury which would cause the occurrence to be classified as an accident. As the honourable senator’s concept of a mishap may differ from the foregoing I have, in answer to his question, provided information in respect of both accidents and mishaps. During 1971 there were 19 accidents and 23 mishaps reported in Northern Territory and 19 accidents and 16 mishaps reported in South Australia.

page 940

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

(Question No. 1884)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

What efforts are made by Divisional Electoral Officers to ensure that adult Aborigines enrolled on electoral rolls.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

Every two or three years Electoral Officers conduct educational programmes for the purpose of acquainting the Aboriginal people of their enrolment and voting rights. These programmes entail visits by Electoral Officers to missions, government settlements, pastoral properties and other places where it is found possible to assemble and address groups of Aboriginal people.

Electoral claims are available from missions and settlements as well as from Post Offices and Electoral Offices.

Enrolment is not compulsory for Aboriginal natives of Australia and it is an offence under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act to interfere or to attempt to interfere with the free exercise by an Aborigine of bis choice whether or not to enrol as an elector.

page 941

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

(Question No. 1875)

Senator McLAREN:

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

Would the cost of the Dartmouth Dam have been held at the original estimate of $57m, instead of the revised estimate of $64m given by the Minister on 24th February 1972, if agreement to construct the damhad been reached by all parties at the time of the original estimate.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

I do not believe it is possible to say just what would have happened if work on the Dartmouth Dam had not been delayed. In broad terms it would be expected that the actual cost to complete the project would have been less than can now be expected, simply because of the additional escalation that is likely to be associated with the later start and completion of the project. However it cannot be said with certainty that the cost would have been held at the original estimate if there had been no delay.

page 941

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 1869)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Civil Aviation, upon notice:

What is the total estimated cost of repairs to Department of Civil Aviation installations and equipment in Townsville damaged by the recent cyclone.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The estimated cost of repairs to installations and equipment in Townsville damaged oy the recent cyclone is -

page 941

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 1866)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. Is the Government satisfied with the present system of conference shipping into and out of Australia; if not; what are the reasons for dissatisfaction.
  2. Are non-conference charter shipping operators currently negotiating to carry a major portion of wool and other products to Europe, and backload manufactured products to Australia.
  3. What prospect does the Government see for the present container system and the Australian National Line’s participation in it, in the event of charter operators obtaining a major share of cargoes when the current contract on wool expires later this year.
  4. Will the Government ensure that no impediment will be placed on charter operations in order to protect the current system, if lower freight rates can be obtained from charter operators.
  5. What tonnage of general cargo has been carried in each of the past 5 years to and from the United Kingdom/Europe and Australia by (a) conference lines, and (b) non-conference lines.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I understand some shippers of commodities such as wool have been exploring the charter market.
  3. It is not possible to answer this question until the share of cargo diverted to charter shipping, if any, is known and possible alternative cargoes are explored.
  4. The Government’s concern is the provision of adequate economic and efficient shipping services for all Australian exports. The question of using conference or charter shipping is a matter for the commercial judgment of the shipper involved.
  5. The Commonwealth Statistician has furnished the following information in respect of this Part. Published shipping cargo statistics are not classified by type of cargo, so that it is not possible to specify general cargo as such. However, in the broadest sense, general cargo can be regarded as that carried in liners. Statistics for this cargo are given in the table below, which also includes statistics for cargo transported in tramps, bulkships and tankers.

Shipping cargo statistics are not available classified by Conference and non-Conference lines. Conferences only function in relation to liner services, and although these services are usually organised under Conference arrangements, it does not always follow that all liner operators are members of Conferences. Liner statistics therefore do not necessarily relate specifically to Conferences.

Cargo is recorded either in terms of units of weight or of measurement (a ton measurement is a unit of 40 cubic feet) depending on the basis on which freight is charged. The statistics for cargo recorded in tons weight are shown separately from cargo recorded in tons measurement.

page 942

QUESTION

OIL SEARCH

(Question No. 1863)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Has the review of the incentive system for petroleum exploration been completed; if so, will the Minister publish its conclusions; if not, and recalling that the review was promised for last year, when may it be expected.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

On 12th March 1972, a Press statement was issued concerning the results of the Government’s review of petroleum exploration incentives. A copy of this statement is being made available to the honourable senator.

page 942

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

(Question No. 1861)

Senator McLAREN:

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

Has the Government taken any action, in response to urgent requests from the National Development Conference held at Canberra in August last year, with regard, to financial participation in decentralisation and balanced development of population and employment in Australia.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The Government has not as yet taken any action with regard to financial participation in decentralisation and balanced development of population and employment in Australia, as a result of the National Development Conference. The Government is awaiting the report of the CommonwealthState officials Committee on decentralisation. When this report has been received, the Government will be in a better position to define what action is appropriate in these fields.

page 942

LAKE PEDDER

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

On 29th February Senator Townley asked a Question without Notice relating to Lake Pedder and I said that I would get the facts about the matter for the honourable senator. The first part of the question was whether the Commonwealth has discussed the possibility of saving Lake Pedder with the Tasmanian Government. The second part of the honourable senator’s question was whether the Commonwealth would object if some of the money allocated for the Pieman scheme was to be used to build a diversion channel around Lake Pedder to save that lake.

In reply to the first part of the question, as the Gordon River Power Development Scheme, of which Lake Pedder is a part, is the constitutional responsibility of Tasmania the Commonwealth has taken the view that there would be no justification for it to initiate discussion with the Tasmanian Government. As to the Pieman scheme, I have been informed that the Commonwealth is not providing any financial assistance. Therefore, the question of diverting funds from that scheme would be solely a matter for the Tasmanian Government.

page 943

SOUTH AFRICA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONOn 8th March 1972 Senator Poyser asked me the following question:

Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen reports which state that Australia’s Evonne Goolagong is expected to wear a badge classifying her as being an honorary white if she visits South Africa to play tennis in the Federation Cup? Does the Minister believe that this insult to Miss Goolagong and Australian Aborigines is reprehensible? Has the Australian Government submitted a strong protest to the South African Government at this condition imposed on her for her entry into that country?

I said that I had not seen such a statement and therefore could not properly offer a judgment. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has now provided the following answer:

As reported in the press on 8th and 9th March 1972, all players and officials participating in this year’s Women’s Federation Cup Tennis Tournament in Johannesburg will be supplied wilh badges identifying them as visitors in order to enable Rem to receive VIP treatment. The South African Lawn Tennis Association has denied that it will be obligatory for anyone to wear these badges, or that they classify the wearers as ‘honorary whites’. Consequently there does nol appear to be foundation in the allegation that special conditions have been imposed on Miss Goolagong. In these circumstances, the question of a protest to the South African Government does not arise.

page 943

QUESTION

SOUTH KOREA

Senator McMANUS:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following question without notice:

Is the Australian Ambassador to Korea accredited as ambassador to the whole of Korea or only to that portion which is not under Communist rule? Does the Government of South Korea claim that Korea is one country only? Is the Australian Ambassador to West Germany accredited as Ambassador to Germany or only to that part of Germany not under Communist rule? Does the Government of West Germany claim that Germany is one country only?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has supplied the following answer:

The Australian Ambassador to Korea is accredited to the Republic of Korea. Article III of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, promulgated on 17lh July 1948 stales:

The territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean Peninsula and its accessory islands’.

The Australian Ambassador in Bonn is accredited to the Federal Republic of Germany and to the Allied Control Council in Berlin. He is not accredited to the German Democratic Republic which Australia does not recognise.

The position of the Government of the Federal Republic is that there are 2 States within one German nation. The Chancellor, Herr Brandt, said on 23rd February 1972:

The German nation remains a reality in spite of its division into different state and social systems.’

page 943

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE REVIEW

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

– I present the following paper:

Australian Defence Review

This paper has been distributed for the information of honourable senators. Additional copies are available in the Senate Records Office.

page 943

GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a statement setting out the amounts paid as per capita grants to independent schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory during 1971.

page 943

TREATIES

Senator WRIGHT:
.Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– ‘For the information of honourable senators I present the text of the international treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature. They are:

  1. Agreement establishing a Registry of Scientific and Technical Services for the Asian and Pacific Region. Signed for Australia at Manila on 16th July 1971.
  2. Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of South Africa concerning Postal Parcels, signed at Canberra on- 13th October 1971.
  3. Agreement relating to the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization ‘Intelsat’ and Operating Agreement. Signed for Australia at Washington on 201 h August 1971.
  4. Cultural Agreement between the Government of the Comonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of India, signed at New Delhi on 20th October 1971.
  5. Five Power Defence Arrangements. The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia concluded Agreements with the Governments of Malaysia and Singapore by Exchanges of Notes at Kuala Lumpur and Singapore on 1st December 1971.

The Governments of the United Kingdom and Mew Zealand also concluded Agreements with Malaysia and Singapore on 1st December 1971 under the above Arrangements.

  1. Exchange of Notes between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia extending automatically from year to year the Trade Agreement signed at Djakarta on 17th December 1959. Notes were exchanged at Djakarta on 28th January 1972.
  2. Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of South Africa concerning an International Observer Scheme for Land-based Whaling Stations. Signed at Pretoria on 13th December and at Capetown on 24th December 1971.

I present the texts of 2 agreements which have been signed by Australia and which will enter into force after Notes have been exchanged confirming that all legal requirements have been complied with. They read:

  1. Cultural Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, signed at Seoul on 11 th May 1971.
  2. Air Transport Agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed at Manila on 15th November 1971.

I present also the text of a Protocol ratified by Australia by means of signature. It reads:

  1. Protocol drawn up at New York on 12th March 1971 relating to an amendment to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Article 50(a)). Signed for Australia at Montreal on 15th December 1971.

page 944

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator DAVIDSON:

– I present the 15th report of the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 944

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Social Services Bill 1972.

Banks (Shareholdings) Bill 1972.

Dairy Produce Export Control Bill 1972.

Customs Tariff Bill 1972.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1972.

Public Service Bill 1972.

States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill 1972.

States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1972.

Loan (Australian Wheat Board) Bill 1972.

Australian Capital Territory Evidence (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1972.

page 944

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

– With your leave, Mr President,I wish to make it clear that we have 3 messages. One relates to the Public Service Arbitration Bill which I will be introducing and in relation to which the debate will be adjourned to the next day of sitting. Then the Honey Industry Bill and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Bill will be introduced in that order. In both cases the debate will be adjourned to a later hour this day, and by arrangement it. is proposed that the Honey Industry Bill and the Commonwealth Teaching Service Bill will be dealt with at a later hour this day.

page 944

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - The statement I am about to make was made on 28th March 1.972 in another place by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn). As the statement is couched in the first person singular, honourable senators will understand that it relates to the Minister for Defence and not to me. I wish to lay before honourable members the Government’s strategic outlook and the programme by which successive steps in a defence programme for the 1970s and 1980s will be taken. The Government’s advisers have, for several months, been engaged in a comprehensive re-examination of the nation’s strategic position. They have examined the more predictable situations in the 1970s and the contingencies for the longer term future to which we must equally address ourselves in our defence planning. The Government has already had the benefit of expert advice on some of these matters and acted upon it; advice on other matters has yet to be presented. I here refer particularly to the preparation for the Government of a recommended programme comprehending future equipment purchases during the next 5 years and the other provisions which are part of our total defence effort. I wish to say more about the programme for policy decisions on these matters later.

I have authorised the issue of an Aus tralian defence review which has been prepared by the Department of Defence in consultation with the Services and other departments. It was not prepared as a policy document. Rather it contains information and analysis which will be of interest to honourable members and which, I believe, will contribute to discussion and debate upon the policies which Australia should follow. 1 am therefore making the paper available to honourable members.

In deciding the extent to which it would be wise for the Government to announce decisions which in some cases would affect the level of fighting efficiency and technological efficiency of our Services as far ahead as 20 years, 1 have been mindful of the emphasis which our advisers place, as will be seen in the defence review, upon the importance of timing of decisions. The implications of making decisions too late need not be stressed, but the review warns against making premature commitments which, for example, could crowd out of consideration higher priority needs which would only come up for decision at a later date, or which could require us to accept equipment with deficient standards of technology. An example of the latter is methods of locating submarines.

The first requirement is to make a reasoned definition of the Australian interests needing to be pursued by our defence policy, and of the strategic situations against which we should build our defence capabilities. It is clear that the objective must be a policy for the 1970s and 1980s. It is clear that great changes are occurring in Australia’s external environment which justify a careful and progressive re-evaluation of the situation. It is also clear, I suggest, that we should not found our defence policy, or our willingness to engage ourselves to assist others, on a simple faith in the success of diplomatic efforts of mighty powers or on the benign intentions of rivals for ideological supremacy among communist powers.

It is not enough for Australia’s force structure to be built to meet only needs or threats that are explicitly definable. We owe it to the community, and to the future parliaments and governments representing them, to have in our 3 armed Services and in our industrial and scientific support an adequate readiness against contingent threats looking, in some types of equipment and works expenditure, as far ahead as the late 1980s. So far ahead - almost 20 years at the limit - it is not given to man to make predictions which can be stated as accurate; nor is it possible to suggest more than orders of probability or of intensity of threats against Australian interests.

If it should be said that we should not make speculations of this kind far beyond the range of reasonable intelligence assessments, the answer is that decisions on long life equipment, and even longer life infrastructure of bases and docks and airfields, always carry an implicit estimate, far into the future, of the need for this equipment. Destroyers delivered in 1980 will still be in service in 2000, and the weapons fit and general capability embodied in the design must be selected accordingly. Cockburn Sound will be supporting our naval forces well into the twenty-first century and probably indefinitely, lt is necessary that the assessment of contingent requirements be thorough for many reasons. Naval and air systems, in particular, are expensive and there is no going back on decisions once made.

The statement that I make tonight is the first of several. It addresses itself primarily to the strategic issues which underlie our defence policies. The Chiefs-of-Staff and the Department of Defence are together analysing the programme which will be the physical expression of those defence policies. They will in mid-year put before the Government a recommended programme for 5 years of total defence activity and expenditure. Following consideration and decision by the Government, further announcements will be made of each concrete decision as and when required to be made.

The purpose of tonight’s statement then is to define the strategic environment which, in the view of the Government, is most likely to exist during this decade and could potentially exist in the 1980s; to describe how in general we believe Australian defence capabilities should be shaped in accordance with the responsibilities of an independent country; to make clear the Government’s policy of strengthening and not withdrawing from our international defence associations; to describe the burdens and the gains and the clear balance of national advantage which we believe flow from these associations. It aims as well to remind the House of some of the perils which will arise if any Australian Government should flout our commitments or jeopardise confidence in our word or our endurance . or seek refuge from contemporary burdens by reducing the country’s defence capabilities and retreating from a military role in helping to maintain the security of the external environment in- which Australia is destined for all time to live.

In our approach we intend to avoid being imprisoned in concepts that are dominated by simple formulae. Formulae may fail to reflect adequately the potential range of security problems imposed on Australia in the years ahead and the various responses which future parliaments will want to be able to choose from. It is axiomatic that the defence of Australia calls for the best defence of Australian interests. This embraces far more than fighting in defence of Australia’s territory and dependencies for by then we would be in extremis.

Destiny places us in part of the world where a very large proportion of mankind is subjected to deep-seated cause of instability, social conflict, slow economic growth, and recurring pressures directed from outside to capture power for ideological or nationalist reasons. At the same time global military and economic power is being redistributed among the great military powers. The old certainties are not as they were in the 1950s and the 1960s. This is a fact of cardinal importance for Australian defence. It is essential to try to foresee the way in which the nations who are great in terms of military and economic power will exercise that power in the area of Australia’s strategic concern - an area which comprehends our northern neighbourhood and the sea and air spaces of the maritime environment of Australia.

The United States of America maintains its global balance with the Soviet Union and it has a marked superiority in strategic nuclear strength vis-a-vis China. As the Department of Defence review points out, its strength in the Pacific Ocean is vast but American resources are not unlimited and the United States Administration has set conditions for its assumption of further responsibilities The United States, the Soviet Union, China and Japan are exploring each other’s attitudes and examining the effect of initiatives taken. One may well hope that the development of the dialogue will open the way to understanding and trust which take us further away from the flash point of conflct over issues vital to great powers leading possibly to the utter disaster of global war. But we must also, in calculating how to defend Australia’s interests, allow for possible developments at some time in the future in which there may be acceptance of situations which, in effect, represent a change in the balance among these great powers and which are not all beneficial to the confidence of countries in South East Asia and the South West Pacific.

While others have preached withdrawal, negativism and isolation, the Government by positive diplomacy and defence, cooperation has achieved a unique standing in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. We might remember that when a British administration in 1968-69 intended to withdrawn completely from Malaysia and Singapore, Australia and New Zealand said they would take responsibility alone. In the event British policy was changed to allow retention of a permanent force in the area and the positive attitude of the Australian Government was rewarded. From these developments the Five Power defence arrangements embracing Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Kingdom have grown.

I have recently returned from South East Asia. Nothing conveyed to me during my discussions in Malaysia and Singapore could confirm any view other than a view of the continuing relevance and importance of the Five Power arrangements, and of the significance for those arrangements of the continued presence of Australian, New Zealand and British forces in the area. The physical presence of those forces is an integral part of the only Five Power defence arrangements that make sense in the present and in foreseeable circumstances - a fact which the present British Government immediately recognised upon coming to power, and a matter upon which there seems to be a measure of bipartisan agreement in New Zealand, our close neighbour.

It is accordingly a matter of regret to the Australian Government that, with the ink barely dried on the agreements pertaining to the presence of the forces - international arrangements which are explicitly linked to the communique of the Five Powers issued in London last April - attempts have been made to sow in the world new doubts and uncertainties about Australia’s intentions as a nation. This Government’s judgment is that the withdrawal of the Australian force so soon after the arrangements and agreements had been settled would seriously undermine the Five Power arrangements. It would also make it difficult, if not impossible - not only for political, but also for important practical reasons - for Britain and New Zealand alone to maintain their forces in the region. This Government does not believe in the destruction of the. Five Power arrangements. Bilaterally, the Government is also conducting practical defence co-operation with Indonesia. This does not require, nor is it the wish of cither Government to have, any formal defence arrangement. There is a recognition that two friendly neighbouring countries sharing common interests in regional security should, in those fields where it is within their capacities, pursue and cultivate practical co-operation with one another.

In the present situation of uncertainty about the intentions of China and the Soviet Union, and the aggressive militancy of the North Vietnamese throughout IndoChina, and widespread insurgency in our northern neighbourhood, a positive Australian policy founded on an adequate defence effort and on defence arrangements or understandings with our neighbours may contribute to confidence and stability in the region in which we live.

There is a duality in the requirements of a national Australian defence policy: On the one hand, we need defence equipment and manning giving Australian Services an increasing measure of self-reliance and ability to act alone in certain situations. On the other hand, we seek an intensification of our defence undemanding with the United States and with Our northern neighbours in the expectation that the United States will, as pledged to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) since the Nixon Doctrine was promulgated, provide the foundation of Australian security against threats or actual attack going beyond Australian capacity to deal with alone.

If we are clear headed, as the Government is, we will understand that the first objective - greater Australian self-reliance - will of itself contribute to the second objective - getting the support we need from greater allies in emergencies going beyond our capabilities. The worst way to protect this country is to saddle it with forces not for any good military reason, diplomatic reason, or economic reason - but to satisfy party ideologists. To lay stress on dangerous contingencies against which Australian defence efforts must steadily prepare over the longer term is not inconsistent with the hopes entertained by the President of the United States of progressively negotiating understandings which will reduce tensions among the 4 great powers: The Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, the United States and Japan - and particularly among the 3 great military powers in this group.

What seems evident from the diplomacy exercised by all these powers over recent months is that there is a new fluidity in which new relations may be formed, and if old security dangers recede some new ones will take their place. The first requirement is for Australian diplomacy to address itself to these matters, and it is not my function to speak of this. But it is, I believe, an essential ingredient of Australian diplomacy that Australia should be understood to be a country whose security interests are growing; whose population and wealth are growing; and whose determination to take some part in shaping the environment in which we live is more lively than ever now that the great western powers have served notice that their involvement in lesser situations is not to be taken for granted.

I have not the slightest doubt that the United States commitments to Australia under the ANZUS Treaty are as strong and effective as ever and it is my belief that it is the responsible attitude of this Australian Government towards the economic growth and the military security of this region that have contributed to maintaining this undeviating attitude.

But we are a sovereign country pursuing independent foreign policies and the best assurance of an independent policy is that future parliaments and governments should not be influenced in their policies or responses to situations by fear of our inability by military means to deter interference with us. It is, of course, no part of Australian defence policy to prepare for massive defence by ourselves - whether by conventional or nuclear means - against an onslaught by one of the great military powers. This would be quite beyond our capacity and we should look to, in particular, our American ally in the contingency - judged unlikely in the foreseeable future - of this situation arising.

What can be achieved by a defence programme giving us the ability to project Australian armed strength beyond our continental shores is twofold: It will give future governments options to have some influence on events in our strategic environment so that we may contribute to the greater security of all countries in that area. It will give Australia the ability to deter direct interference with our interests except at a certain cost.

The accompanying Defence Review which I am presenting suggests situations in relation to which, irrespective of present requirements for action, this Government believes that it must retain military capabilities adequate in quantity as well as in quality.

In South East Asia the impact of subversion and insurgency has been restricted by massive sacrifices of men and material on the part of many countries - not least the states of Indo-China under attack from North Vietnam. But the elimination of both subversion and insurgency continues to demand, in at least 6 countries, very great efforts on the part of the governments concerned.

Success will not be achieved quickly, nor will it be achieved by military means alone. But when men take up arms to destroy a government or to render ineffective the administration of wide areas of a country it is a practical fact that one of the means which the government concerned will employ to suppress this violence will be military. It is also a practical fact that where insurgent violence is evidently nourished and supported from beyond the frontiers of the affected country then the interests of all neighbouring countries are more or less affected by the resultant threat to security.

The Australian Government would, of course, prefer that Australia not be involved in insurgent situations in South East Asia at all. It is necessary however that, if the national interest in so doing is clearly identified, Australia should have the physical capacity to become involved if an emergency should arise, externally supported, and beyond the capacity of the threatened country to deal with unaided. It is necessary that Australia should have the practical option to provide - for the armed forces of its neighbours, where they are subjected to such threats emanating from beyond their border - the kind of support which will enable those local forces to acquit themselves most effectively against their adversaries.

The Government intends to maintain forces which keep these practical options open for the future. It rejects ideological arguments that we should decide in principle today to disqualify ourselves from helping our friends at some future date. It rejects so called pragmatic arguments which would suggest that there is nothing in the military field which Australia could do to help its neighbours against insurgency. Within the limits determined by particular situations as they arise, it will retain the physical capability to do what is required. It believes that only if it preserves these practical options and thus preserves too the evident political option to support its neighbours will its military capabilities support its diplomatic and economic efforts in its environment.

I turn now to the Indian Ocean. The Defence Review refers, to the Soviet naval presence in the Indian Ocean and points to the present and potential strategic importance of this new manifestation of power. Let me make one thing clear. The Government does not regard the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean as, in present circumstances, a direct military threat to Australia. It does regard it as a weapon in a Soviet diplomatic offensive in the littoral states, including those states from which vital petroleum supplies are obtained. It does not consider that this increase in Soviet influence would tend to an improvement of Australian security in time of war or to the pursuit of more independent foreign policies by Indian Ocean states in times of tension. History has demonstrated clearly that the USSR is not averse to exploiting any opportunities for political and economic leverage.

Soviet naval power in the Indian Ocean poses the possible need for other nations to deploy forces to the area. It facilitates the gathering of intelligence covering Australia or our allies. Our response has been to encourage a Western re-action to this presence adequate to demonstrate to the countries of the Indian Ocean that that ocean does not and will not become a Russian preserve and that Western interests there remain positive and will be secured. To the allied responses the Australian Government has contributed positively by offering the co-operation of our maritime forces in surveillance and by improving and making available to our allies military facilities that will assist them. Our action in this regard has been warmly welcomed by our allies as a positive contribution to global security. It will be pursued vigorously - and not least in the progressive development of Cockburn Sound for the support of our allies and as a major facility for the improvement of Australia’s own naval capabilities.

China’s military power is of growing rather than lessening importance in Australian security. The Chinese nuclear armoury is already substantial enough to be taken into account by both of the super powers. The fact that Australia is not a nuclear power and has every desire to remain non-nuclear does not confer upon us some invulnerability. On the contrary it confers upon us a need to contribute as a non-nuclear power to the maintenance of the global nuclear equilibrium which is sustained by the United States. In this policy there is no provocation unless our very alliance with the United States is held to be such. I do not believe that there are any in this Parliament who would suggest that it is. To help to prevent a nuclear war is, we believe, consistent with our first and highest national interests, with our alliances - including our obligations under those alliances - and with our international obligations generally.

I want to return, however, to the subject of China, whose military inventory contains a good deal more than nuclear weapons. The Defence Review has pointed to the expansion of China’s conventional naval and air forces and to the modernisation of all 3 of the Services. While these forces are organised today essentially for the defence of China’s borders, they already possess some offensive potential and it is clear that this capability will be developed further. As to the intentions of the Chinese Government there are as many predictions as there are experts. Australia is concerned no less than any other country to sustain and develop the more conciliatory international attitudes of that Government. But Chinese military capability is a factor which cannot be ignored in considering Australian security.

I wish to say something of Australia’s defence obligations in Papua New Guinea. Our hope is that Papua New Guinea will advance in security and stability through the pre-independence period and through all the years which follow independence. We have, contributed unstinted efforts to ensure this and we have high confidence in it. We must, however, recognise the contingency that in some way or in some measure the future security of that country might be threatened. The Government’s view is that this and future governments must be provided with the means to act militarily in support of the Papua New Guinea Government if the need should arise. If our help should be sought, and if we should wish to respond.

Before considering the kinds of forces needed by Australia in the future I should like to remind honourable members of the. size, capabilities and competence of the forces we now have. The situation is vastly different from that of 10 years ago. During the 1960s public attention has been focused, quite naturally, on the commitment of our forces in Vietnam and on the operations and achievements of those forces. What has perhaps been insufficiently appreciated is the major expansion of Australian defence capabilities which has been brought about by the decisions of this Government and its predecessors over the past decade.

In this period the strength of the permanent forces overall has been increased by some. 69 per cent from 48,000 to 81,000. The Army strength has virtually doubled, new equipment has been taken into service, additional battalions have been formed and a structure established which has enabled us to sustain over a period of years a task force of 3 battalions and supporting arms in combat operations in Vietnam. The

Navy strength has risen by 55 per cent from 11,100 in 1962 to 17,200 today. In that period HMAS ‘Melbourne’ has been extensively modernised and has been reequipped with new aircraft in each of the reconnaissance, strike and anti-submarine roles. Our escort fleet has been almost completely modernised with new ships. A submarine arm has been re-established and is being built up to 6 boats. A patrol boat force has been established. New fleet support and research ships have been commissioned or are building.

Similarly in the Air Force, strength has been built up by some 43 per cent over the last 10 years to its present level of 22,700. When the Fill aircraft are brought into service next year the Royal Australian Air Force will have been virtually re-equipped with modem aircraft in each of its main roles - strike, tactical fighter, maritime reconnaissance and strategic and tactical transport. In bringing into service these new and more advanced types of equipment, each of the Services has vastly expanded and modernised its technical and supporting and maintenance establishments. Today we have substantial and effective fighting services in being, well equipped and with good morale. This is a sound base on which we can proceed with confidence to the further improvement of our defence capabilities.

I turn now to requirements for the future. Timing of decisions for the progressive modernising and reshaping of the forces is a complex matter. We must first consider strategic need. We must take into account when existing equipment will come to the end of its operational life by attrition or by obsolesence. We must examine the lead time for the acquisition of new equipment, and this may vary from a few years to 5 years and more in the cases of the more complex items particularly if developed in Australia. We must establish when new technology will enable us to obtain weapons systems suited to our requirements and with the substantially improved performance which would justify the replacement of equipment presently in service.

With the ending of our combat involvement in Vietnam we have an opportunity to give greater weight now to long term factors in the shaping of our forces, and to move progressively to a national defence capability appropriate to the demands which might fall on us later in this decade and into the 1980s. We shall in the first instance, as I have already said, need forces which give us a greater independent capability so that we may be more selfreliant in protecting our own interests, and in dealing with lesser military situations. Greater self-reliance will also enable us to co-operate more effectively in security matters with our neighbours, who are disposed to look to Australia for co-operation and assistance while they are developing their own forces. It is in no sense in conflict with our expectations of assistance, under ANZUS, if a major threat to our security should arise. Rather, as I have already indicated, greater self-reliance will equip us better to play our part in ANZUS. Greater self-reliance has many aspects. It means a general level of competence in defence which enables us to develop and evaluate concepts and equipments related to our own national needs. It means more selfsufficiency in combat and support arms where we might previously have looked to allies - for example in some aspects of tactical air support or specialised sea lift or in afloat support for our Navy. In the further development of our forces we need to keep under constant review the balance between land oriented capabilities and maritime oriented capabilities.

The ratio between expenditure on capital items and expenditure on the maintenance of the forces is always a critical element in defence programming. There is a need during the mid and later seventies to spend very substantial sums on modern weapon systems and capital installations and facilities which represent long term investment in defence capabilities. We will develop our ability to give defence aid and cooperation over a wide spectrum of training, technical assistance and support and equipment for our regional allies or friends. Australian training schools have a deservedly high reputation, and our military competence is acknowledged in South East Asia. Our object must be the further development of the military capabilities of our friends in the region. We assisted the Malaysian Air Force through the gift of Sabre aircraft and an extended training programme. A similar programme is now under discussion for Indonesia. The Royal Australian Air Force has played an effective role in helping to develop a Bloodhound Missile system as an essential part of Singapore’s air defence.

We must of course at all times ensure the progressive development of an organisational and, as necessary, physical base for the mobilisation of the nation’s manpower and material resources for war. This requires, among other things, the maintenance of appropriate reserve forces for all 3 service*.

These requirements have implications for all 3 Services. The Navy and the Air Force are concerned with the preservation of the security of our general maritime environment and with freedom of navigation. They must have a capability to engage in surveillance in the region, in Sag showing, and in combined exercises, coordinated with allied activity, in the ocean areas surrounding Australia. There will be a requirement for in-shore operations, including coastal and seabed surveillance and the protection of fisheries and support of the civil authorities. There will be a continuing requirement for strategic and tactical transport forces, both air and naval. Naval escort capabilities relevant to a wide range of roles are required in all probable, and in most contingent, situations. There will be a need for naval forces with an attacking capability; the composition of these forces requires further study.

The general trend for the Army should be toward maintaining a regular force, versatile and highly trained, mobile, taking full advantage of military skills and technology, and supported by reserve forces with the potential for expansion should the situation require this. The Army must maintain a capability to deploy and sustain in operations a task force of 3 infantry battalions and with adequate independent capability for combat and logistic support. This will require the maintenance of a regular Army in the vicinity of 40,000. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the remainder of the document.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The remainder of the document read as follows) -

In present circumstances this strength could be sustained only by the retention of the national service scheme. In the case of the Air Force, the requirement for a strategic strike force is confirmed by our advisers. Maritime reconnaissance and strike capability is required. There will be a continuing need for close air support, including the possible acquisition of specialised aircraft for this purpose. There will be a continuing need for air defence capability.

On the basis of these considerations the Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Defence are currently together analysing some 70 larger weapons systems and major equipments on which decisions are said by the initiating Service to be desirable in the 5-year period 1972-73 to 1976-77- although delivery and payment would, in many cases, be spread over many years later. The equipment proposals under study are closely related to the foreseen end of life in the latter part of this decade of some of the defence capabilities now in service - such as the aircraft carrier ‘Melbourne’ and its helicopters, Neptune long range maritime aircraft, anti-aircraft guns and tanks and many more such cases.

The recommendations of our advisers will come before the Government for decision in the mid year. It is not intended that al) the equipment referred to should be decided on then. The Government will then take only those decisions which should be made in the first year of the programme. Other purchases and provisions will not be decided in detail because it is the essence of programme planning not to freeze decisions prematurely. For example, we must remain sensitive to strategic changes. Negotiating positions with suppliers must be preserved and technological developments watched before finally selecting equipment.

I have made reference to the structure of our forces and to future equipment needs but we must always be conscious of the vital importance of the individual serviceman. We must seek in all Services a high degree of individual and corporate professional competence and motivation. Effective training, job satisfaction, adequate remuneration, status, proper recognition and provision for families are some of the factors in producing an effective fighting force. The Government’s understanding of the needs of the serviceman under today’s conditions, and deep concern for the welfare of members of the Services, are reflected in the many improvements already made in conditions of service, as well as the further improvements which are under active study.

Honourable members are aware of the work of the committee headed by Mr Justice Kerr which has made a comprehensive review of the fundamental conditions of service in the forces. All of the recommendations make to date by the Kerr Committee have been accepted by the Government. In addition other matters are under examination, including the review of the Defence Forces’ Retirement Benefits Scheme by a Parliamentary select committee, and the future machinery for the assessment and determination of Service pay and other conditions of service. The Government is not merely concerned with the remuneration paid to servicemen, important though this is, but we endeavour to improve the status of the serviceman in the community, to increase his job satisfaction, and to minimise his disabilities, while recognising that there will always be distinctive features of Service life. Particular attention is being given to the improvement of Service housing, both as to standards and numbers. It is a matter of great satisfaction to the Government that so much has already been achieved in respect of improved conditions of service, and that this is already being reflected in improved recruiting and retention rates in the Services.

We need a progressive and long term development of base, communications and support facilities to serve Australia and its allies, co-ordinated where appropriate with civil development. These are the costly long term assets such as dockyards, airfields, barracks, storehouses, training establishments and research facilities which cannot be created at short notice and which represent an investment for use in contingencies we cannot presently foresee. Many major decisions have been made already. Work is proceeding on the naval support facility on Garden Island at Cockburn Sound, which will serve our own forces and which we expect will be used by our allies. The first major stage will be completed in 1975. There have been major extensions to the RAAF base at Learmonth, Western Australia. The army aviation centre is being established at Oakey, Queensland. The Government has approved major works at the Jungle Warfare Training Centre at Canungra in Queensland. Plans are being developed for extensive works at Townsville and Amberley air bases, Army task forces bases, and the naval dockyard and shipbuilding facility at Williamstown, Victoria.

The Government will continue to foster defence industry in Australia. As the result of the application of this policy we have already become largely self-sufficient in items of basic equipment, such as ammunition, small arms and general stores. We will in addition, in areas of higher technology, but of necessity on a selective basis, put into production in Australia an increasing number of those items which are strategically important. Where total production in Australia is not practical, we will continue to seek opportunities for Australian industry to participate in partproduction or, if this is not practicable, in offset or reciprocal purchasing arrangements with the overseas supplier. A particular area of project activity which we are actively pursuing is that of collaborative programmes, involving Australian participation with an overseas company in the joint design and production of equipment required in both countries. The extent to which actual contracts will result from these opportunities created by Government initiatives must ultimately depend upon the efficiency and competitiveness of our defence industry. We will, of course, continue to look for situations where the skills developed against defence requirements have a value in accelerating the technological growth of other segments of industry.

In the time available to me this evening I have only been able to select significant aspects of Australia’s situation and some of the Government’s policy intentions. Other issues not calling for Government decisions now are set forward in the Defence Review in the terms in which our advisers see them. Before I conclude I return to one matter of overriding importance to the security of Australia and many other countries. 1 refer to the response which the Government believes we should adopt to the continuing defence burdens which are borne by the United States. The Government will continue to give defence cooperation to the United States. We will not impose doctrinaire conditions that would undermine the strategic mobility and the capacity for swift reaction by the United States against its adversaries. These 2 elements are the foundation of the deterrent system upon which the President of the United States is trying to develop understandings between the Americans and the Russians. They are the foundation for maintaining an effective balance of power in relation to a nuclear arming China - a consideration of great concern for Australia in the years immediately ahead as will be seen from the description of the subject in the Defence Review. Nor, in the Government’s view, should we permit disclosure of technological military secrets to undermine such advantages in the strategic balance as the United States may possess.

These are serious matters for the future security of smaller countries like Australia. 1 would like to say something further about the United States. The cost of keeping up the deterrent and general defence capacity borne by the American taxpayer and economy have been and are of prodigious size. We are aware of the arguments and pressures inside the United States against present levels of defence spending and defence aid. There are no comparable restraints on the growth of the mobile strategic strength of the Soviet - nor on the unannounced expansion of the land, maritime and nuclear forces of China. This is not a time for carping or sniping about American defence policies. It is. I suggest, a time to acknowledge the debt which Australians, among others, owe to the United States for the burdens it is still carrying 30 years after Pearl Harbour and after that, great country’s acknowledgement of its leadership role which it has performed steadfastly since.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– 1 move:

That the Senate lake note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poyser) adjourned.

page 953

PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(5.14) - I move:

The purpose of the Bill is to make provision - in a similar manner to the provision in section 28 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act - for the Public Service arbitration tribunal to deal with what are termed industrial situations’. In short, these are strikes, bans or limitations on work engaged in by officers or employees of Commonwealth departments or instrumentalities.

By the terms of the Bill, if an industrial situation occurs or is threatened, a Minister, the Public Service Board, a Commonwealth instrumentality or a union may notify that situation to the Public Service Arbitrator. The Arbitrator or a Deputy Public Service Arbitrator will then be required to call a conference of the parties in an effort to put an end to the industrial situation. The Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator is given power to make orders for the purposes of putting an end to or preventing that situation or orders which, in his view, are otherwise necessary or desirable because of the industrial situation. These orders may relate to the conditions of employment of the officers or employees concerned in or affected by the industrial situation or they may direct the cessation of or prohibit engaging in conduct constituting an industrial situation. These are the essential features of the Bill.

The basic framework of the Public Service Arbitration Act is not changed. The provisions of the Act by which an organisation may lodge with the Arbitrator a claim as to conditions of employment or by which the Board, a Minister or an organisation may seek to vary an existing determination of the Arbitrator are not affected by the Bill. Why, then, is this legislation being introduced?

The existing processes of the Public Service Arbitration Act are not designed to deal with situations of direct industrial action. The processes of the Act have remained virtually unchanged since the first Public Service Arbitration Act was enacted in 1920. They do not empower the tribunal to deal with situations of industrial action. This form of jurisdiction by the Public Service Arbitrator was simply not required when the legislation was first enacted. The system created in 1920 was designed for a far different set of circumstances from those now existing. There was then a much smaller and more homogeneous Commonwealth Public Service, with many employees being engaged in administrative and clerical duties or, put another way, in non-industrial duties.

Today more than a quarter of a million employees or a little over 6 per cent of the total number of wage and salary earners in Australia come within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator. Because of the growth of industrial employment with the Commonwealth in departments and instrumentalities including the Departments of Works, the Navy and Supply, the Post Office, the Commonwealth Railways and the Atomic Energy Commission, the situation today has changed.

Some years ago, industrial action on the part of employees of the Commonwealth was mainly confined to limited areas where the employment was essentially industrial. Of more recent years, there has been an increasing tendency for a wide range of officers and employees in the Public Service to either threaten or take part in industrial action. Honourable senators will be well aware, for example, of the many interruptions to the work of the Post Office, resulting in inconvenience to the public, that have taken place as a result of strikes, bans and limitations on the performance of work by such bodies as the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union and the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists. White collar and professional organisations have also shown on occasion that they are prepared to impose bans on the performance of work causing considerable disruption to the work of government in this country.

In 1969, Parliament enacted an amending Public Service Arbitration Act which recognised the increasing arbitration activity before the Public Service Arbitrator. The stage had been reached by then with the growth in the number and variety of occupations of persons in Commonwealth employment” whereby one Arbitrator could not be expected to deal with the volume of normal business which came within his jurisdiction. Hence, the 1969 legislation made provision for the appointment of Deputy Public Service Arbitrators of an unlimited number. Presently, there are 2 Deputy Public Service Arbitrators. This measure has resulted in a streamlining of the processing of claims and applications before the tribunal.

The Government now believes the processes of the Act need further strengthening to enable speedy resolution of industrial situations. The increased incidence of industrial situations arising in Commonwealth employment demands that formal machinery be established to handle their settlement. The community is entitled to expect this when repeated efforts are made by a number of unions with members employed by Commonwealth agencies to interfere with the activities of those agencies.

In recent years, too many situations have developed in which unions with employees in the Public Service have declined to take their claims before the Public Service Arbitrator in the normal and proper manner. Instead, they have resorted to direct action thus interfering with a wide range of Commonwealth activities such as the essential services provided by the Post Office, work in defence production establishments, the naval dockyards and the operations of such bodies as the Commonwealth Railways, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Works. Moveover, industrial situations have arisen in which the claims by the unions have already been the subject of close and detailed examination by the Public Service Board including discussions and negotiations with the unions. The unions have then declined to use the normal arbitration process.

The system of the Public Service Arbitration Act, as it stands, envisages that in circumstances in which a union is not satisfied with the response of management - in the form of the Public Service Board or a departmental or an instrumentality - it will take its claims to the

Public Service Arbitrator. Most unions with employees in the Public Service do, in fact, follow this course of action but there are some with members employed in key areas of Commonwealth activity which reject the proper processes open to them under this Act and resort to intimidatory tactics by way of strikes or bans on work. The recent serious disputes in the Post Office fall within this category. Under the Act as it stands, it is not possible for the Public Service Board or a Minister to notify the public service arbitration tribunal of these strikes and bans. Management may only invoke the processes of the Act by seeking to vary an existing determination of the Arbitrator.

In most dispute circumstances, there is no variation of the termination which management wishes to seek and, even if it did, this could not necessarily mean that the dispute situation could be brought before the Arbitrator. As 1 have emphasised, instances have arisen in which unions refuse to lodge claims with the Arbitrator. They have chosen to resort to strikes and bans. With all the avenues by which unions in Commonwealth employment may seek to have their claims resolved there ought not to be any resort to direct action. The Government has decided, therefore, that this Bill should be brought down in an effort to ensure that situations such as those I have just referred to can be dealt with by the public service arbitration tribunal. The tribunal will be able to make efforts to bring them to an end, to prevent them occurring and to deal with the underlying issues.

In the past, means of an ad hoc nature have been employed to resolve Issues between parties. In some instances, these have resulted in unions finally agreeing to process their claims before the Public Service Arbitrator. This state of affairs cannot continue. The Government has concluded that the Act needs amendment in oder to ensure that industrial dispute situations are brought before the tribunal quickly. The tribunal which plays a major role in fixing terms and conditions of employment for Commonwealth employees should also be given the opportunity of making every effort to put an end to strikes, to have bans on work removed and, where appropriate, to deal with the issues that lie between the parties.

In genera] terms, what the Bill now before Parliament contains are essentially provisions that have been part of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act since its inception. That Act enables disputes to be notified to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It places an obligation on the Commission to take steps for the prompt prevention or settlement of the dispute by conciliation or by arbitration. When an employer and a union are engaged in a dispute with which there may also be associated a strike or ban on work, that dispute can be notified to the Commission under section 28 of the Act. A provision of this nature is the essential feature of the Bill now before the Senate. There will be power for the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator by virtue of the proposed new section 12d, which is in clause 4 of the Bill, to call an immediate conference of the parties on being notified of an industrial situation. He will hear them and he will be able to make such orders as he thinks necessary or desirable for bringing the industrial situation to an end. Those orders may relate to conditions of employment of those involved in the industrial situation or they may direct the cessation of the conduct that constitutes that situation.

Honourable senators will note the word forthwith’ in the proposed new section 12d. As the Act now stands there are statutory periods to be fulfilled in the making of claims and applications and the calling of conferences. These periods can take up to at least 5 weeks. Where there is industrial action involved, however, it is imperative that the tribunal should be able to act in the quickest possible manner. Therefore, there will be no statutory periods to be fulfilled when matters of this nature are brought before the tribunal.

It has been a feature of a number of industrial disputes in Commonwealth employment in recent times that officers and employees indicate that they are not prepared to carry out all of their normal duties. One example has been the refusal of PMG staff to handle certain classes of mail or to ban the handling of telegrams or to refuse to connect telephones to certain premises or to ban the maintenance of telephone equipment. This means that officers and employees will carry out only those duties determined by them or by their union. This is nothing short of job control. It is an attempt to undermine the undoubted right and responsibility of management to decide which work will be performed and the responsibility of Commonwealth departments and authorities to provide essential services to the general public. The Government does not believe that its employees can abrogate management’s authority in this way and, at the same time, receive pay as if they had performed all their normal duties. Moreover, situations can arise in which, because of bans and other limitations upon work, the work of other Commonwealth employees is affected to such an extent that they cannot be gainfully employed.

It is for these reasons that the definition of an industrial situation has been cast in the form in which it appears in the Bill. In addition - and I wish to be quite explicit about this, Mr President - we envisage that, in future situations, management may ask the public service arbitration tribunal to deal with these restrictions upon the performance of work by making orders permitting the standing down without pay of employees who cannot be gainfully employed, and/ or by making orders affecting the pay of persons who refuse to perform the full range of their duties. The power of the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator to make orders is not expressed in specific terms, however. We recognise that the tribunal must be given flexibility of approach in dealing with industrial situations. Nevertheless, we envisage that the tribunal may be asked to make orders, for example, relating to -

  1. the standing down of officers or employees involved in a dispute or who cannot be gainfully employed as a result of a dispute;
  2. application of the principle of ‘No work-no pay’ where officers “ or employees refuse to do all the duties they are required to do;
  3. organisations being directed to withdraw bans or stoppages;
  4. alteration of the terms and conditions of employment of the particular class of officers or employees in an effort to overcome the cause of the ‘industrial situation’.

In concluding this speech, Mr President, I want to refer to a submission made last year by the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations. In the course of the tripartite national conference on the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the Council proposed changes to the Public Service Arbitration Act. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) agreed to discuss these matters with the Council. The Bill I am now introducing does not relate to matters advanced by the Council, and the Minister has indicated that he still intends to have discussions with the Council about its proposals. In the meantime he has met with representatives of another of the white collar ‘peak* councils, the Council of Professional Associations. He has also invited the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and CCPSO to meet with him on the Public Service Arbitration Act at a convenient date. The ACTU will also be invited to participate. The matters covered by this Bill are considered by the Government to warrant immediate action.

The Government sees this Bill as fulfilling two main purposes. The first is that it should be seen as a further step in bringing the Act into line with current needs. Thus the provisions of it will enable the Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator to be brought into industrial situations in an effort to resolve them. The second purpose of the Bill is to ensure that remedies are available through the normal processes of conciliation and arbitration in circumstances in which Commonwealth services are disrupted by strikes or bans and limitations on work. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Brown) adjourned.

page 956

HONEY INDUSTRY BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Honey Industry Act 1962-66 to provide for some changes in the method of appointing industry members to the Australian Honey Board. The Board which was established in 1962, comprises 10 members - the Chairman who is also the representative of the Commonwealth Government, 5 members to represent honey producers and 4 members to represent honey packers. Each mainland State is entitled to one producer member on the. Board, and with the exception of Queensland, one member to represent honey packers. The existing legislation provides that each mainland State apiarist association shall nominate a member to represent producers in that State on the Board and that each such nomination is subject to the concurrence of the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations which was established to represent producers on a federal basis.

Unfortunately the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations has been largely ineffective in recent years because of its constitutional requirement that all decisions on major matters must be unanimous. This factor, coupled with the inability of the various State Associations to reach agreement on matters affecting the welfare of the industry as a whole, has resulted in a deadlock on some isues. For example, in 1969 the situation occurred where a position on the Board remained vacant for 2 months because one State objected to the person nominated for appointment by another State. A further factor is that the method of selection of producer nominees by some State associations may not always result in appropriate representation of the producers in those States. Most producer nominees are either selected by executive committees or by a majority vote at annual conferences of State associations which in practice are attended by relatively few association members. Consequently the persons who finally vote on the nominations may represent only a small proportion of the producers registered in their respective States.

This matter was discussed at the Australian Agricultural Council meeting last month. The State Ministers for Agriculture agreed that the best solution to the problem should be to provide for the election of producer representatives to the Board in lieu of the existing provisions. Accordingly the Bill provides for the producer representatives to be elected by a poll of honey producers in each of the mainland States. A producer will be entitled to vote at a poll and to be a candidate for election if he is the owner of 200 hives of bees. This minimum qualification has been established with the agreement of the Australian Agricultural Council on the basis that it is the minimum number of hives required to give a person a reasonable living from beekeeping. Proposals have been submitted by the apiarist associations in Western Australia and New South Wales that it be made a condition that candidates for election should be restricted to persons who only pack honey from their own hives. This poposal is not acceptable as it is considered that as provision is being made for the election of producer members it should be left to the producers to decide by a majority vote whether a beekeeper with packer interests should be elected. In addition it is felt that the type of member needed on the Board is not to be found in a beekeeper who is divorced by reason of the legislation from expanding his own operations. At present the 4 honey packer representatives from New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia are appointed by the Minister after nomination by individual packing houses. However, as honey packer associations have since been established in most States, provision has been made for the Minister to consult with State honey packer associations, wherever practicable, before appointing a member to represent honey packers.

It has been alleged by some State apiarists associations that the Board is dominated by the honey packer representatives. At the last meeting of the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations in August 1971 representations were made by some State apiarists associations for a reduction in the packer representation on the Board. The other State associations however opposed a change and as all decisions of the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations must be unanimous, the matter was left unresolved. The allegation that the Board is packer dominated has not been substantiated by the industry organisations. At no time since the Board’s establishment has it been possible for packer members to outvote the producer members. The present composition of the Board has enabled it to make decisions based on sound commercial guidance and principles. Any decision to reduce the packer representation could seriously affect the marketing efficiency of the Board as it could lose the main source of its commercial knowledge and contacts if the co-operation of packers was lost. Moreover, honey packers have previously stated that they would not be effective as representatives with a vote on behalf of packers in another State whose crop and stock position and methods of business were unknown to them.

Provision has been made in the Bill to extend the terms of office of the present industry members of the Board to 30th June 1972 or such later date as may be specified by the Minister to enable the elections to be held. The Bill specifies the remuneration to be paid to the Chairman and representatives of honey producers and, in addition, for certain fees and allowances to be prescribed.

Tasmania which is a relatively small honey producer is not represented on the Board. By agreement with the Tasmanian Government and the industry, the Tasmanian apiarists decided to forego representation on the Board providing that the honey levy collected in Tasmania was returned to the Tasmanian Beekeepers’ Association for promotion and research purposes. The State apiarists associations in the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations have all accepted the principle of the election of producer representatives and it is considered that the amendments proposed will give honey producers added confidence in their representatives on the Board which is necessary to enable the Board to continue to conduct its affairs in the best interests of the Australian honey industry. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McLaren) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.39 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed)

page 958

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

-] move:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

I am pleased to introduce to the Senate a Bill to establish a Commonwealth Teaching Service. I feel sure honourable senators will agree with me that this is an important piece of legislation. The establishment of the Commonwealth Teaching Service has become necessary because of the growth of education in the Commonwealth mainland Territories and hence the need for the Commonwealth Government to take a direct responsibility for the staffing of schools. At present, despite its wide involvement in education, the Commonwealth itself employs relatively few teachers. The largest groups of teachers in mainland Australia of direct concern to the Commonwealth are those employed in community schools in the Northern Territory and in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. These teachers have traditionally been employees of South Australia and New South Wales and the costs, in both cases, are reimbursed by the Commonwealth. This arrangement has worked very well and the Commonwealth and its schools have gained from this association with the large and well-qualified teaching services of those States.

Honourable senators will recall that the Government’s decision to establish a Commonwealth Teaching Service, which was announced in late 1970, was the result of the decision of the South Australian Government to withdraw its teachers, over a period of 5 years, from the Northern Territory. A first purpose of this Bill, therefore, will be to make immediate provision for Commonwealth staffing of the two school systems for the Northern Territory, that is, the community schools conducted by the Department of Education and Science, which have been staffed until recently by South Australia, and the special Aboriginal schools staffed by teachers employed by the Department of the Interior under the Commonwealth Public Service Act. At the same time, the Government has looked ahead to the time when it must take direct responsibility for the staffing of government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. Indeed, at the suggestion of the New South Wales Minister for Education, discussions have already commenced between the State and Commonwealth Departments on the implications of the existence of a Commonwealth Teaching Service on the staffing of Australian Capital Territory schools. The Bill makes provision for this contingency.

In summary, the Commonwealth Teaching Service is intended to include eventually all teachers employed in Commonwealth operated schools in mainland Australia. The Bill is framed in such a way that the Commonwealth Teaching Service may include also teachers in other schools where, for one reason or another, this is appropriate. Thus, the Bill will make it possible, for a number of the highly qualified and experienced Australian teachers in Papua New Guinea, to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service. In a few moments I will set out, in greater detail, how this Bill will apply in relation to Papua New Guinea. To take another example, the Department of Education and Science employs, under the Public Service Act, pre-school teachers in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. We expect that many of these teachers will wish to avail themselves of the more flexible provisions and wider professional opportunities that, we hope, will flow from the creation of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. From time to time, in response to requests for assistance from developing countries, the Commonwealth sends teachers to those countries to carry out special tasks. In many cases the teacher concerned is a member of a State service who is seconded to the Commonwealth for a specific project and returns to the State service. Cases will arise, however, in which there would be advantages if a teacher, sent overseas by the Commonwealth, could join the Commonwealth Teaching Service. The Bill makes provision for this.

Before turning to the details of the Bill I would like to comment on some of the general factors which have determined its form. Honourable senators will notice that it is, to a large extent, an enabling Bill. The Bill establishes a Commonwealth Teaching Service under a Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner. It provides powers under which the Commissioner will have considerable flexibility to develop the Teaching Service so as to meet, in the most effective way possible, the needs of the Commonwealth and of the school systems that will draw on the Commonwealth Teaching Service for staff. It is concerned only to set out the principles and guidelines within which the staffing of these school systems can be developed. There has been no attempt to spell out in the Bill, at this stage, the precise details of how the Teaching Service will operate; rather, the Bill sets out the framework within which the Service may operate. Decisions as to how it operates will be framed in appropriate regulations, under sections of the Bill, and will be available for consideration by the Parliament. As the requirements of the school systems change and develop, so appropriate regulations will be drafted.

Unlike other government teaching services in Australia, (he Commonwealth Teaching Service will extend over more than one school system or education authority. There are 2 reasons for this. The first is that, at least in the foreseeable future, the school systems, in the Northern Territory and even in the Australian Capital Territory, will be relatively small. A teaching service confined to any one mainland Territory could be too small to be healthy. It could offer only limited opportunities for promotion or movement of teachers and hence would run a serious risk of becoming inbred. Second, we believe it is a good thing to facilitate movement of teachers between one school system and another. Such movement helps to stimulate fresh educational thinking.

It is the Government’s belief that educational decisions should be made, as far as possible, in the school system serving a particular community and that the school system should reflect any special elements of the community it serves. This means that as the Commonwealth school systems in the Territories develop, so differences could well arise between them. The Government would have no objection to this and would welcome it. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that he personally would be surprised if, over the years, significant and worthwhile differences did not develop between the system of community schools ultimately adopted in the Northern Territory and the school system adopted in the Australian Capital Territory. The aim of the present legislation is to create a teaching service sufficiently flexible to enable it to staff soundly more than one school system without imposing on these systems an undue degree of uniformity.

The Bill establishes a teaching service outside the Public Service. After careful consideration, the Government decided that the employment of teachers would be handled most effectively within their own service rather than within the Commonwealth Public Service. In coming to this view it had regard to the particular conditions under which teachers work, ft sought flexibility with regard to the recruitment of staff and their movement from one school system to another. It seemed to us that mobility in the field of education rather than between Commonwealth career fields was a key consideration. Therefore, the Commonwealth Teaching Service will be a statutory authority, under a Commissioner, directly responsible to the Minister and outside the Public Service. As a statutory authority, the Teaching Service will not be part of the Department of Education and Science. The Department is, at present, responsible for the operation of community schools in the Northern Territory and, as such, is an authority under clause 1 6 (2) of the Bill. It is our belief that there are advantages in the Teaching Service being separate from any authority responsible for the actual conduct of schools. It will be the task of the Commissioner to meet, as best as he is able, the needs of all authorities conducting Commonwealth schools.

I turn now to the Bill. Honourable senators will note that only clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill will come into operation on the day on which the Act receives royal assent. The other clauses will be proclaimed as the necessary regulations are drafted and approved. It is hoped that the steps, preliminary to proclaiming Part II of the Bill, can be taken quickly, after the Bill has been passed, so that a Commissioner of the Commonwealth Teaching Service can be appointed as soon as possible. Other parts of the Bill will come into operation as the Commissioner takes the necessary action. The definition of ‘Commonwealth school* in clause 4 of Part I of the Bill has been designed to provide the flexibility I referred to earlier. It enables membership of the Commonwealth Teaching Service, not only by teachers in Commonwealth schools in the mainland Territories, but also by certain teachers employed in Papua New Guinea.

The application of the Bill to such teachers in Papua New Guinea is provided for in clause 16. I should like to describe how the Government sees the Commonwealth Teaching Service operating in respect of Papua New Guinea. We believe that the Commonwealth Teaching Service can make a valuable contribution to education in Papua New Guinea, both in the immediate future and beyond the time when Papua New Guinea is self-governing and independent. It is clear that Papua New Guinea will want to draw on Australia, for some time, in order to maintain the pace of educational development and meet the needs for highly experienced and specialised staff. In order to assist Papua New Guinea, the Commonwealth Teaching Service will include a complement of teachers who will be made available on secondment to the Papua New Guinea Teaching Service. The arrangement will allow their career status in the Commonwealth Teaching Service to be preserved while they are in Papua New Guinea. The Commonwealth Teaching Service will thus operate as a base to which the teachers can return, for service elsewhere, when they have completed their service in Papua New Guinea. We believe that the security of a base service will prove an attraction to teachers.

The arrangement is intended to help Papua New Guinea to obtain key teaching personnel and to encourage such teachers to remain as long as they are needed. Membership of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will also be made available to certain of the teachers now serving in

Papua New Guinea to encourage them to remain, so that their accumulated expertise is not lost to the country. The Commissioner will consult with my colleague, the Minister for External Territories (Mr Peacock), in the first instance as to the terms, including those of service and conditions, under which members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will work in Papua New Guinea. The Commonwealth Teaching Service will also provide teachers for the smaller external territories as existing commitments to teachers or arrangements with State education departments are concluded.

Part II of the Bill deals with the Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner. The Commissioner will be appointed by the Governor-General and will be responsible directly to the Minister for Education and Science. His appointment will be for up to 7 years and he will be eligible for re-appointment. Clauses 7 to 14 inclusive set out the conditions governing the Commissioner’s appointment and are similar to those governing other Commonwealth statutory appointments. Clause 15 sets out the conditions, also similar to those in other Commonwealth instrumentalities, under which a person may be appointed to act in place of the Commissioner. Clause 16 of the Bill sets out the functions, duties and powers of the Commissioner. His task will be to make persons available for teaching duties in Commonwealth schools in such numbers, and having such qualifications, as will, in the opinion of the authority running those schools, ensure their efficient operation.

The numbers and types of teachers required, in a particular school system, will be determined by the department or authority responsible for that school system. In making its determinations the authority will be subject, of course, to the normal procedures, relating to the availability of funds and buildings, under which it operates. It will be the task of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner to provide the teachers.

This division of function will require close consultation and joint planning between the Commissioner and the various education authorities and such consultation is provided for under clause 16 (5.). Clause 16 (7.) enables the education authority to transfer teachers, within its school system, under its normal procedures but the promotion of any teacher in the Commonwealth Teaching Service will be subject to the conditions set out in Division 3 of Part III of this Bill.

Clause 1 6 (2.) sets out the Commissioner’s responsibility with respect to schools in the Northern Territory; clause 16(3.) enables the Commissioner to make teachers available to education authorities outside the Northern Territory both in other Commonwealth territories and outside Australia. The extent to which the Commissioner would make teachers available in these places would depend on Commonwealth Government policy and its responsibilities for the provision of teachers in these places. The next sub-clause 16(4.), empowers the Commissioner to enter into reciprocal arrangements with the States. This sub-clause parallels a provision in the Commonwealth Public Service Act. We could see the possibility of a situation arising in which the special circumstances of an individual teacher should be mct or special skills should be exchanged between a Commonwealth school system and a State school system. In such cases, it could be desirable for a Commonwealth employed teacher to spend some time in a State without losing the advantages of his membership of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. This clause is designed to achieve this. Clause 17 gives the Commissioner powers of delegation. We expect the Commissioner to delegate certain of his powers, not only to members of his own staff but also to officers in the authorities running Commonwealth school systems, with a consequential increase in flexibility and efficiency of administration.

Part III of the Bill is concerned with the establishment and operation of the Service itself. The general approach of this Parliament is to take advantage of the experience, over many years, of the Commonwealth Public Service Board and other Commonwealth instrumentalities without imposing restrictions which are inappropriate for teachers. To this end several clauses set out the general framework only and provide for the Commissioner to make detailed arrangements by determination. The Government would expect that, in many instances, the Commissioner would consult with representatives of both teachers and education authorities before framing such determinations. lt will be noted that those clauses relating to terms and conditions of employment, in particular clauses 20 (4.), 23 (4.), 25 (2.) and 26 (1 .), require that the Commissioner’s determinations be subject to the approval of the Public Service Board. The role of the Public Service Board, in respect of the Commonwealth Teaching Service, will be confined to this matter of terms and conditions of employment. As such it parallels the responsibility of the Board in respect of other Commonwealth agencies; that is to protect the Commonwealth’s interests by ensuring co-ordination of terms and conditions of service, including salaries, in all Commonwealth agencies.

Clauses 25 and 26 set out the powers of the Commissioner with respect to the creation, abolition and classification of positions in the service. These powers will not have to be exercised in such a way as to impose uniformity of organisation on the school systems concerned. At the same time, the Commissioner’s determinations must influence how education authorities organise their schools. The Government hopes the Commissioner will be able to make determinations on matters like promotion positions soon after he is appointed. It hopes also that these determinations will reflect current and emerging ideas on school and staff organisation. To this end, it made an agreement recently, with the Australian Council for Educational Research, under which, Dr Radford, Director of the Council, and Professor Neal, Vice-president of the University of Alberta, will conduct an investigation into practices in school and staff organisation in Australia and in certain overseas countries. Their report, which we hope will be available by the end of July, will be of great help to the Commissioner of the Teaching Service.

The Government had decided to follow the practice in the Commonwealth Public Service and in other Commonwealth agencies by establishing efficiency as the first criterion in the selection of officers for promotion. Only in the event of equality of efficiency will seniority be taken into account. We recognise that efficiency is frequently more difficult to determine than seniority and, to clarify the issue, the Bill sets out, in clause 28(2.) and (3.) the factors to be taken into account in determining efficiency. To further protect the interests of individual teachers, provision is made, in clauses 29 and 30, for the establishment of Promotion Appeals Boards. These will comprise a person elected by teachers and a person nominated by the Commissioner together with an independent chairman appointed by the Minister.

Clauses 31 and 32 relate to tenure of office and are generally similar to parallel provisions of the Public Service Act. A more specific provision than in the Public Service Act is included, however, to protect the interests of teachers who may lack a position at their classification. This may arise because of a marked change in the size of their school. It could also arise when a member of the service returns from Papua New Guinea or overseas. Clause 32 (3.) provides that such a teacher, who lacks a position at his substantive classification, shall have first option on a position becoming vacant at that classification. The special provisions relating to female officers who become pregnant in Division 5 of Part III of the Bill are similar to those applying elsewhere in Commonwealth employment. The provisions of Division 6 of Part III relating to dismissals and punishments are similar to those applying in the Commonwealth Public Service. A Disciplinary Appeal Board will be established to protect the interest of a teacher who is punished in the ways set out in clause 36 (1.). This Disciplinary Appeal Board will comprise an officer elected by the teachers of the Service, an officer appointed by the Commissioner and an independent chairman appointed by the Minister.

The Government gave considerable thought to the mechanism by which claims for salaries and conditions of employment should be arbitrated when they cannot be resolved by consultation between the Commissioner and the teachers’ organisation. The Australian Teachers Federation was consulted on this issue. We have decided that the Commonwealth Teaching Service will come under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Division 7 of Part III sets out the powers and functions of the

Commission in respect of the Service. Members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will have the protections and rights available under the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Acts, the Commonwealth Employees Furlough Act and the Superannuation Act. It is not intended that the Commonwealth Teaching Service will become responsible for an institution training teachers. The Commonwealth Government’s preference has been that, as far as possible, teacher training institutions should be conducted by authorities different from those authorities who will subsequently employ the teachers so trained.

We recognise the circumstances which have Icd State Education Departments to establish teachers colleges; at the time this was the most effective way in which facilities to train teachers in the numbers required could be provided. In recent years, however, there has been a dramatic growth in the range of institutions preparing teachers. In this growth the Commonwealth has, 1 believe, played a valuable role. The universities have trained a great number of teachers. Honourable senators will be aware of the development of teacher education institutions as a result of the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Act of 1967 and 1970. They will also be aware of the establishment of schools of teacher education in colleges of advanced education, including the Canberra College of Advanced Education. These developments in our view make it unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable, for the Commonwealth Teaching Service to have its own teacher training institutions.

The Commissioner of the Commonwealth Teaching Service will have power under Part IV of the Bill to offer scholarships to persons wishing to train as teachers for subsequent service in Commonwealth schools. The precise conditions of these scholarships will be determined by the Commissioner under regulation. We would expect that, at least initially, he would take over the scheme of unbonded scholarships for teacher education introduced by the Commonwealth from the beginning of this year.

Part V of the Bill includes a provision that any Commonwealth public servant, who is appointed as Commissioner or who joins the Teaching Service, will retain his existing and accruing rights, lt provides for the Commissioner to furnish an annual report, the first such report to relate to the period ending 31st December 1972. The Minister will present such a report to the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the receipt of the report. Clause 53 provides for the Governor-General to make regulations under this Act. As I said earlier, it will be necessary to make significant use of such regulations to establish and operate the Service. We believe it desirable that the Commissioner make use of advisory committees in the operation of the Commonwealth Teaching Service. To this end clause 53 (a) specifically provides for the appointment of such advisory committees.

This Bill is of great importance from the point of view of the administration of those school systems for which the Commonwealth is directly responsible. It will be of great importance also to the growing number of teachers in the schools of these systems, lt has been Government policy, since the need to establish the Commonwealth Teaching Service first became apparent, that the legislation governing the service should make possible an attractive career for its members and at the same time give the fullest possible protection to the interests of individual teachers.

In considering the establishment of a Commonwealth Teaching Service, we have taken into account the views of interested teachers organisations. The Department of Education and Science has met with the Australian Teachers Federation and at those meetings there have been representatives of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, the South Australian Institute of Teachers, and the Darwin Teachers Association. We have regarded the Australian Teachers Federation as playing a co-ordinating role in relation to the views of these organisations, and have had the benefit of their advice on a number of matters. We should like to express our appreciation of the Federation’s help. We are pleased that we have been able to agree with the Federation that the appropriate arbitral tribunal for members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service would be the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We have also been able to accept suggestions of the Federation on certain clauses relating to discipline. The Australian Teachers Federation has made a number of other suggestions relating to the legislation to which it has not been possible to agree in full. 1 think it would be appropriate at this point to deal with those.

The administration of the Teaching Service is to be vested in a Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner. The Australian Teachers Federation believes that the Service should be administered by a Commission of 3 members, one of whom would be elected by the teachers. We have given careful consideration to this proposal but, at least for the present, we cannot agree to it. The Commonwealth Teaching Service initially will not be a large service and, in our view, does not warrant the appointment of more than one Commissioner. Nor do we see any strong grounds for providing, in this legislation, for specific representation of particular interests in the administration of the service. This is because the function of the Commissioner is limited to providing qualified teachers for service in particular areas under appropriate terms and conditions. The demand for these teachers will emanate from educational authorities, which will specify the kinds and levels of teachers required for their schools. In effect, therefore, the education authorities will determine, in the wider sense, the composition of the Teaching Service. It seems to us that the Federation’s proposal is inappropriate to the Commonwealth situation in which the Teaching Service will be separate from the education authority administering any one school system.

The Australian Teachers Federation has also suggested that the Commonwealth Teaching Service Commissioner should be assisted by a recognised advisory council representing all sections of the community. I believe that there well could be some matters on which it would be desirable to establish advisory committees and, as I mentioned earlier, the Bill makes provision for this. However, I do not think that an advisory council of the type suggested by the Federation would be appropriate for the administration of this Teaching Service. It would be more appropriate for an education authority running a particular school system. Indeed I would hope that

Commonwealth education authorities wilt make increasing use of such advisory councils.

In the Bill there is provision for the Commissioner to appoint persons to the Service following open advertisement. The Australian Teachers Federation believes that open advertisements, that is, advertisements inside and outside the Service, should be resorted to only when no member of the Service is suitably qualified or experienced for the position. I think it reasonable to say that the Commissioner will be as concerned as we are that persons recruited to the Commonwealth Teaching Service should be encouraged to regard it as a career service. This notion, of course, would be invalidated if all promotion positions were advertised inside and outside the Service without regard to the claims of officers already in the Service. I expect that the practice of the Commissioner, like that of the Public Service Board, will be to agree to open advertisement only when he is satisfied that there are not good chances of finding a person with the required qualifications within the Service. Where a position is advertised inside and outside the Teaching Service it will be competent, of course, for officers to apply, and their claims will be given the fullest consideration. The Federation believes also that the Commissioner should be restricted specifically to employing qualified teachers. It is not possible in this Bill to specify whom the Commissioner should regard as qualified for employment. Here again it will be in the interest of all concerned that only those persons who meet predetermined standards should be appointed as members of the Service. It will be a major task of the Commissioner to determine such standards.

Another suggestion by the Australian Teachers Federation was that the Bill make specific provision for the establishment of a promotions committee. In the Federation’s view such a Committee would have teacher representation on it. While the Government would have no objection to such a committee playing a role in the nomination of an officer for promotion, it would regard the establishment of such a committee as occurring more appropriately in the education authority which, in the large majority of cases, would be responsible for nominating an officer for promotion. As this is a matter for the education authority it is outside the scope of this Bill. However, the Bill safeguards the rights of members of the Service when promotions are made. Promotions are provisional, are subject to appeal, and appeals are heard by a Board on which there is teacher representation. The Federation would also wish that, in making promotions, greater weight be given to seniority. The Bill reflects our view that priority should be given to relative efficiency and that it is only in the event of an equality of efficiency that seniority should be taken into consideration.

I feel sure honourable senators will agree that this Bill is an important milestone in the development of the Commonwealth’s responsibilities in education. The intention is to establish a permanent career service which will be flexible and attractive to teachers and which will ensure the necessary stability of the teaching force. In essentia] terms the Commonwealth Teaching Service will be a mechanism to provide continuity of service and security for teachers working in schools for which the Commonwealth has responsibility and to facilitate movement between Commonwealth operated school systems. It seeks to do this without inhibiting the development in Commonwealth Territories of school systems which will best meet the specific needs of those Territories.

The drafting of this Bill has taken some time and considerable effort. There are already some hundreds of Commonwealth employed teachers in the Northern Territory and a significant number of Commonwealth employed pre-school teachers in both the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. We know that many of these teachers have been waiting, with considerable interest, for the establishment of a Commonwealth Teaching Service within which they can make their career. To such teachers we extend our appreciation of their patience, and the enthusiasm with which they have carried out their duties while the Bill was being drafted. I trust that the Bill will provide the framework for a Service in which they and other teachers will follow a satisfying career. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wheeldon) adjourned.

page 965

HONEY INDUSTRY BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 958).

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Opposition will not be opposing this Bill because it is necessary for it to come into operation to alleviate some of the problems that now exist in the honey industry. The Opposition has no desire to delay the passage of this Bill. According to the second reading speech of the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), who represents in this chamber the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), the provisions of the Bill are designed to take effect from 1st July after the declaration of the poll. Quite a few submissions have, been made to honourable senators on the Opposition side of the House by various organisations in the honey industry. Different points of view have been put to my colleague and I. At times one can become very confused when one hears different points of view being expressed. However, the Opposition has arrived at the decision that this Bill should not be opposed.

I am happy to be able to say that at the last meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council in Western Australia in February . of this year all of the State Ministers for Agriculture were able to come to a unanimous decision that resulted in this Bill being presented. It is a shame, really that the same Ministers could not come to the same degree of unanimity at a meeting of the Agricultural Council on how to alleviate the. problems that exist today in the poultry industry. I hope that in the near future they will be able to agree on how to help alleviate the problems of the poultry industry, as they have been able, to agree on how to alleviate some of the problems that now exist in the honey industry.

One of the provisions of this Bill that I wish to discuss is sub-clause (8.) of clause 4, which states:

  1. . a member to represent honey producers holds office for a period of 3 years commencing on the first day of July after the declaration of the poll at which he is elected . . .

I am concerned, as is my Party, that this Bill be not delayed. If the poll cannot be held and the results declared before 1st

July 1972 the members of the Board, instead of holding office for 3 years from that date, will hold office for 3 years from 1st July 1973. This means that they would hold office for about 3 years and 8 months or 3 years and 10 months. This is one of the reasons why we of the Opposition do not want to delay passage of this Bill. In his second reading speech the Minister for Primary industry said:

Unfortunately the Federal Council of Australian Apiarists Associations has been largely ineffective in recent years because of its constitutional requirement that al] decisions on major matters must be unanimous. This factor, coupled with the inability of the various State associations to reach agreement on matters affecting the welfare of the industry as a whole, has resulted in a deadlock on some issues. litis Bil] has been introduced in order to overcome some of these issues, lt is now proposed that the producers themselves be given the opportunity to elect a representative to the Australian Honey Board from each State. In order to qualify as a candidate for election or for the right to vote for a candidate for election to the Honey Board an apiarist must have 200 hives. There has been some dispute about this figure. Some people say that 200 hives are too many and others have argued that the figure is too low. I am convinced, after talking to members of the honey industry who have come to see me, that the figure arrived at is fair and just. If a person has 200 hives of bees he has a big enough stake in the industry to make a living out of it. If be has less than that number he is only a part-time beekeeper. For that reason I am in full agreement with the provision that a person should have 200 hives in order to be eligible to become a candidate for election or to vote at the election. At some future date the industry may want to amend that number, lt may want to increase it or to reduce it according to the flow of honey or to the income of the people concerned.

At present some members of the Australian Honey Board are appointed. This has been outlined in the Minister’s second reading speech and is the source of many of the problems that have arisen among people in the industry. There had to be a unanimous decision on representation before the Board could be constituted. We found that there were State jealousies. For example, for the sake of argument, Queensland might object to the nominee from Western Australia and because the decision was not unanimous the Board could not operate satisfactorily. As the Minister pointed out, at one stage a position on the Board remained vacant for 2 months because one State objected to the person nominated for appointment by another State. The passage of this Bill will do away with that argument because each State will have the right - and justly so- of electing its own representative to the Honey Board, and that person will be the choice of the electors in that State.

It has been said in some quarters that the producers are concerned about the fact that in the past the Board has been dominated by packers. Under the amendments proposed in this Bill this cannot happen unless, of course, the honey producers desire it. They have power in their own hands to elect a packer, a packer producer or a person who is solely a producer, lt is up to these people to make their own decision as to the type of person to represent them in an adequate manner on the Honey Board.

It is the policy of the Australian Labor Party that there be a majority of producer representatives on all marketing boards. This is good in most respects. But in other respects the Board should have available to it the expertise of marketing people. I would like to refer in this respect to the South Australian Egg Board, as it is constituted at present There are 3 producer members on that Board, together with a member of the retailers association appointed by the responsible Minister and a member of the wholesalers organisation also appointed by the Minister. During my long years of association with the South Australian Egg Board I found always that one of the best producer representatives we had on it was the member nominated or appointed by the wholesalers organisation - Mr Norman Mair, Chairman of Directors of Hall Sandford & Co. Pty Ltd. I think every egg producer in that State would agree that Norman Mair served both interests well, particularly those of the producers. He always had their interests very much at heart From discussions I have had with honey people I believe that some of the packers on the Board at present and packers who will be on it in the future, will serve the honey industry very well because they know the type of honey needed on the overseas market. They know how to pack it and how to market it. lt often happens that primary producers are expert at producing their commodity but do not know the first thing about marketing. Marketing is the most essentia] thing in primary industry today. Producers have expressed their concern that even under this legislation packers may comprise a majority on the Board but this will come about only if the honey producers elect them. Then producers will no longer be able to use the argument that packers have been appointed against their wishes.

Senator Little:

– They would have to be producers as well as packers.

Senator McLAREN:

– So long as they qualify by having 200 hives. If they pack their own honey, that is fair enough. There is provision in this Bill for packers to be appointed quite apart from the election of honey producers. I think that in this respect the requirements of the honey producers are covered quite well in the drawing up of this legislation. That is the impression I have gathered from talking to the Chairman of the Honey Board, the Secretary-Manager of the Honey Board and the representatives of the South Australian Apiarists Association.

When this Bill was first introduced in the other place I obtained copies of it and sent them to the people in South Australia who had approached me. I asked them for their comments on it. 1 sent them also copies of the debate in the other place. Today I rang Mr Mitchell, the Secretary of the South Australian Apiarists Association, to ask whether he had any comments or any requests about additions to or deletions from the Bill. He said that he had none. He said that he had discussed the Bill wilh members of his organisation and they were in complete agreement with it as passed in the other place. They argued about one point, however, and I refer to the probability of multiple votes by producers who have more than 200 hives. 1 have been assured that this matter can be tidied up in the regulations and 1 hope that this is done. We saw this happen in South

Australia in the case of the election some 3 years ago of a member of the Egg Board. Up to 5 people on one farm were allowed to vote for the election of a member to the Egg Board because of the wording of the relevant Act. This was quite contrary to what was intended. The same concern is expressed now by honey producers in South Australia. They fear that the same thing may occur in the case of election of members to the Honey Board.

They are concerned also about the time of registration and about the deadline at which a person qualifies to vote by having 200 hives. It has been suggested to me by the South Australian members that the relevant date ought to be the date of the last registration. As far as South Australia is concerned, we are quite happy about it. I have been informed that all States do not have the same registration date. For the purpose of records with the Department of Agriculture we in South Australia have the registration date of 30th June each year. But we find that in some other Stales the date may be in March. If these dates were to be used as the criteria for determining who was to be qualified to vote at this first election for the Honey Board it would give an unfair advantage to some people. In South Australia we could be restricted to the number of hives as al 30th June last year but people in Queensland could be allowed to vote according to the number of hives they had at, say, 3 1 st March this year.

I ask the Minister for Primary Industry to have a consultation with the State Ministers for Agriculture at some future date - I know it cannot be done before this election - to see whether something can be done to bring about a uniform registration date in all States. Each State would then have the same registration date for the purpose of future elections of the Honey Board. I believe that this matter of the registration date and the multiple voting was raised by telegram with the Minister for Primary industry, Mr Sinclair. The matter was also put forward at the meeting of Agricultural Council by the South Australian Minister for Agriculture, Mr Casey. I understand that the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Primary Industry may be able to tell us why, at this time, a uniform registration date cannot be introduced for this election. From the discussions I had with Mr Mitchell in South Australia today I understand that the Apiarists Association will be quite happy with the reply which will be given by the Minister. These problems can possibly be overcome by regulations which .vill bc introduced.

As I said at the beginning, the Australian Labor Party as the official Opposition is not opposed to the passage of the Bill. I understand that in the Committee stage one or two questions will be asked regarding the regulations. It has been expressed to me as the great hope of all the beekeepers that now that the democratic elections will come about with the passing of this Bill a greater degree of harmony and co-operation will prevail throughout Australia among the beekeepers. I think that most beekeepers as well as all other primary producers fully realise that if there is not harmony in primary industry we will not get anywhere with the marketing of the product. I am one who feels that a lot of the problems associated with primary industry today are brought about by disputes which take place in various farming communities. In toms cases different parts of a State cannot agree with the other. I do not know whether this is because of petty jealousies where a district thinks it is getting a raw deal and that another section of the farming community is getting a better deal. But I think that until such time as all primary producers can come together on a harmonious basis and come up with a uniform request to governments we will always have problems in the industry. As I said, I hope that with the passing of this legislation at least the beekeepers will come together in a degree of harmony and cooperation for the sak« of the industry.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I rise to support the Honey Industry Bill. I do so because I have become aware of dissatisfaction among honey producers, not only in my own State but also in every State. I suppose that most of us in this chamber have had representations from various associations of honey producers in our respective States. It seems quite clear from the submissions which have been made to us that there is a very real basis for the dissatisfaction which exists. Of course the main dissatisfaction is directed at the Australian Honey Board and even at the existence of the Board. I cannot help feeling that this attitude has been due largely to the most unsatisfactory way in which the producer members of the Board have been elected or appointed. The purpose of this Bill - this is why it should be fully commended by the Senate - is to change this unsatisfactory method of appointment of producer members and to provide for a reasonable form of democratic election by the producers themselves of their representatives on the Board. The position as it exists and as it has existed since the Honey Board was set up over 9 years ago is that the producer representatives were nominated or selected by the State associations of honey producers. I believe that these associations vary from State to State but in each State there has been recognised what one might call an official body’ of representatives of honey producers.

For instance in Western Australia the official body happens to be the beekeepers section of the Farmers’ Union of Western Australia Inc. It is only a small section of a very large organisation. However, the reason why this situation has been unsatisfactory would seem to be fairly obvious as a matter of principle. The Minister, in his speech, has detailed how it has simply not worked out as a practical proposition as well. I have had representations made to me by a particular honey producer - I do not think the pros and cons are relevant because this is simply an example I am giving - who resigned from the beekeepers section of the Farmers’ Union. Although he is a honey producer he has been unrecognised by that body. If he has gone along to meetings he has been unable to exericse any vote because he is no longer a member of the association. Whether he is justified or wise in resigning is beside the point. The fact is that because he had this private dispute with this body he was virtually disenfranchised from exercising any influence as a honey producer on this body which should represent the basic interests of honey producers of Australia. I think this case highlights very much the totally unsatisfactory nature of the method of appointment as laid down in the present legislation.

The change which is proposed is that the producer members of the Board - they do not represent exactly a majority of the Board but they are a dominant force on the Board because they are 5 members out of 10 - will be representatives of each State elected by the honey producers in each State who are the owners of at least 200 hives of bees. As I have said this is a great advance in the matter of establishing a principle of democratic representation of honey producers. No matter whether or not they are members of an association they will have the right to vote and elect their representative on the Honey Board. The figure of 200 hives may seem arbitrary. No doubt there will be dispute as to whether it is an appropriate number. Maybe it should be more or less. However the figure has been arrived at after very careful discussion and, no doubt, negotiation among the honey producers and the Australian Agricultural Council. The figure has been selected because it represents a person who would be making his living as a honey producer. In other words the figure of 200 hives is a viable unit for the honey production business. 1 am prepared to accept it as such, although I think that a great deal could be said in support of people, who may have a lesser number of hives than 200 and who are in the honey industry on a part time basis, being given some say in who represents them on the Honey Board as they will be liable to pay the honey levy. The proposition that the only consideration in establishing a figure for the number of hives should be an assessment on full time occupation in the industry does not appeal to me. However, as this figure has been accepted, I. am prepared to support it for the purpose of this worthwhile amending Bill. But 1 do hope that the figure will not be accepted as a completely arbitrary one and that in the practical operation of this Bill some consideration will be given in the future to a person with fewer than 200 beehives being granted the right to vote.

I share also the concern that was expressed in another place and also this evening by Senator McLaren as to the way in which the matter of eligibility will work when the legislation is enacted. The Bill simply provides that the owner of at least 200 beehives is eligible to vote. Concern was expressed by Senator McLaren that people who own more than that number of beehives may engage in multiple voting. From the way in which the legislation is expressed, I would fear that there may be multiple voting on the part of people who own only that prescribed number of hives because the owner of 200 beehives may be a sole owner or a part owner. I am not altogether satisfied that the regulations will completely overcome this problem. The legislation expresses the principle that persons meeting the 200 beehives provision are entitled to vote, and regulations cannot depart from a right granted by the Act.

Senator Murphy:

– Why is that not set out in the Act?

Senator DURACK:

– lt would be preferable I think, for the reasons that I have mentioned, for it to be set out in the Act. It is quite clear, I think, that the intention is that the basic voting unit will be the sole owner with 200 hives. However, how my objection can be overcome in these circumstances, I am not too sure. Obviously, this is a matter which must be given further attention. Incidentally, on this point of the election of representatives of honey producers to the Honey Board, the eligibility qualification of 200 hives does embrace the major honey producers of Australia. I understand that 83 per cent of all Australian honey production comes from producers who own 200 or more hives each. Although there are some thousands of people who apparently produce honey in some quantity, only approximately 700 honey producers will be eligible to vote. This underlines the problem that 1 have mentioned already; some need may exist to relax this eligibility figure so that there is a more representative electorate of honey producers.

I wish to raise one other matter. I hope that the Minister for Air, as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), will be prepared to make some comment on this matter in this chamber. I refer to the fact that the Australian Honey Board was set up without a poll of honey producers to express an opinion on the desirability of such action. A referendum of honey producers has never been taken to determine whether or not they support the establishment of this Board. Although, as I have said, 1 believe that this change in the method of the election of representatives of honey producers to the Board will go a long way towards removing the dissatisfaction that obviously exists among certain producers in the honey industry, it is my opinion that a good deal of dissatisfaction will continue to be felt because a referendum of honey producers to seek their views on whether or not this Board is required has never been held.

I had a look at the debate, if we can call it such, that took place in this chamber when the Bill to set up the Honey Board was introduced. That debate took place at the end of 1962. I was rather horrified to find that the Bill establishing the Honey Board was passed by this chamber in approximately 5 minutes at about 4 a.m. on the last sitting day of the Budget session in 1962. The Minister who introduced the legislation at that time was the then Minister for the Navy, Senator Gorton, as he then was. He was commended for the record speed with which he was able to read the second reading speech on the Bill. Practically no debate took place; practically no consideration was given to the Bill. Senator Gorton based his case in support of the introduction of the Bill on the fact that the Federal Council of Apiarists Associations of Australia supported the establishment of the Board. The fact that the industry organisation supported its creation seemed to be accepted as good enough reason to establish the Board. No real need appeared to exist to take a poll of producers to see whether they supported it.

We have found from experience that the Federal Council and the associations are not really very satisfactory bodies to determine the attitude of the producers. One of the main reasons for the introduction of this Bill is that the producers have not been satisfied with the appointment of their representatives by these bodies. This Bill enables producers to express their views on who will represent them. However, if we go that far, I believe that it would not be difficult to conduct a poll among producers to determine whether they wish to retain the Honey Board, and that the appropriate time to do this would be after the machinery was set up to enable the producers to elect their representatives.

I do not propose to prejudge the matter. My knowledge of the workings of the Board is not sufficient. But I do know from what I have read and heard that a good deal of dissatisfaction is expressed amongst honey producers all round Australia on this point. I believe that the best way of resolving the matter would be to hold a referendum to determine whether they really want to retain the Board. A fundamental principle of the Government parties is that no marketing board should be set up unless its establishment is supported by producers at a referendum. I am surprised to find that the Australian Honey Board was created without a referendum having been held. I believe that this is the cause of a great deal of the dissatisfaction that is expressed by honey producers in various parts of Australia. Matters of principle play a great part in the minds of many people. Even if some honey producers support the Board, they may still feel dissatisfaction because that principle has not been followed. I have read the remarks on this subject made by Mr Kelly, the honourable member for Wakefield in another place, in which he expressed the same view. I was disappointed that the Minister for Primary Industry did not reply to his remarks or comment on them in any way. Perhaps the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), who represents the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate, may see fit to comment on that submission. As I have said, I believe that a great deal of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed about the Australian Honey Board could be removed if such a referendum were held. However, despite those comments, I support the Bill. I am sure that the vast majority of honey producers in this country will also support the Bill. It can only bring about a great improvement in conditions as they exist.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party proposes to support the Honey Industry Bill 1972. This is a growing industry. There has obviously been dissatisfaction with the previous Australian Honey Board. That is not difficult to understand when it is realised that there exists the rather unique feature of a common Australia-wide association in which a decision must be unanimous otherwise there is no decision. Of course, this would lead to a great number of road blocks in any attempt, to get. anything done in the industry. I do not know how the honey producers would vote on whether a new board is warranted at this time. Indeed, few of them have discussed thai matter specifically with me. The export tonnage of honey from this country in recent years is impressive. The new markets that are opening in Asia are very important.

I could not imagine that producers who are busy producing the product in cooperation, of course, with the bees are in a position in which they could adequately handle the marketing of this product in an international sense. For that reason, my counsel to honey producers in general would be that they certainly need a board of some son to promote the interests of their industry in the interests of each and every one of them who is part of it. 1 think that the maximum capacity of this industry to export to the more congested countries of the world is obvious. I doubt whether human beings will be able to live in the shadows of Tokyo, for instance, within the next 10 years let alone busy little bees who have to go out and energetically gather honey. They will need more than wings to plough through the atmosphere that we see today around the industrial sections of Japan. I would think that the sparse population of our country - that is normally a great handicap to development - would assist this industry and give it certain benefits which would be of tremendous advantage in world markets. A properly constituted board, working in the proper manner to assist the producers to market the potential of this industry, is needed. We are experiencing many difficulties in primary industry and we must search for the initiative to create new markets for new products that are readily acceptable to those new markets in the Asian area in particular.

The honey industry could perhaps develop more sensationally than it has. The criticisms of the Board as it has been constituted in the past could be valid. I received a communication from the South Australian Commercial Apiarists Associa tion, lt had some criticisms to offer on the emoluments paid to the Board. In presenting its case that Association suggested that the Board had met on only 17 days in the last 3 years. It seems to me that on that basis of meeting on 6 days a year the emolument of $1,300 that is prescribed for a Board member is generous. But I am well aware that you cannot assess the emolument merely on the basis of how many times a board meets. No doubt the Minister will give us some information on this question. There is a tendency, even by the Press of this country, to judge the worth and value of members of Parliament and the work they do on the number of days that the Parliament may sit. Members of Parliament know, and 1 suspect that the journalists who write the articles know, that the enormous amount of time that is involved in representing the people of the community in their Parliament has no ida.tionship whatsoever to the number of days on which the Parliament actually meets. 1 would not imagine that the circumstances would be arduous for members on a board such as the Australian Honey Board compared to the circumstances 1 have outlined for members of Parliament. But 1 think more confidence would be created in the Board if we were told precisely what was expected of the ordinary members, apart from the Chairman, other than sitting at the Board meetings. The amount of $200 a day is a lot more than is paid to most people. It is certainly a lot more than is paid to members of Senate committees who receive about one twohundredth of that amount for sitting on a committee for a day in Canberra. I notice also that provision is made in the Bill for allowances to be paid to cover expenses that are incurred by members who have to attend board meetings. Naturally, they should be paid. I imagine they would cover accommodation and transport costs and things of that nature. I believe that the responsibilities of people who are accepting the job should be sufficiently arduous r.nd important to the industry to justify the emolument that is suggested in this Bill. Perhaps that has not been so in the past and it is one of the grounds of criticism that is levelled at the Board. For that reason, the Australian Democratic Labour Party supports the Bill although we would like more explanations from the Minister than those contained in his second reading speech.

One aspect did not receive any attention in the Minister’s second reading speech. If the members of the Board are doing what a board should do for this industry they could well be underpaid on the basis of the emolument that is suggested in the Bill. If they are not, and the 17 days of meeting in 3 years constitutes the main activities of the members of the Board, there is an entirety different picture. We do not know what the real picture is. It is for the Minister to explain to us at this time precisely what the activities are; how much the individual members of the Board are concerned with the marketing of products, and how much they give of their own time to personally assist in gathering the knowledge that is necessary to expand the market for this product in the interests of the people who are in the industry and in the interests of Australia in overseas trading. We believe that the general set-up of the new board and the method of election of members will be better than the method that has been adopted in the past. The limitations of the past procedures are obvious, particularly those in relation to the unanimity of decision that is required. A ridiculous situation is reached when one State can hold up the appointment of representatives to the Board from another State. It would appear to me that the organisation of apiarists has been foolish not to correct that situation, thus obviating the necessity to correct it in the Parliament by legislation. Apparently, nothing has been really done about this, whatever may have been the heartburning. We can only say that in the interests of fairness and in the interests of the industry itself it is time that this aspect of it was put right.

We do not accept the argument that the provision that people can be both producers and packers and be elected by the producers to represent them, constitutes a handing over of the Board to packers. The producer still has to have 200 hives. That is the qualification. If, at the same time, he can provide his own facilities and do his own packing that does not necessarily make him a packer to the detriment of his capacity in the industry to be a producer. He is still a producer. It appears to me that only a minority of seats can be granted to persons who are purely packers and that the other seats must be filled by people who actually produce honey. It appears to me that if they also pack the honey they would have a little broader knowledge of the industry which could be of extra value to a member of the Board and which might not act to the detriment of the industry.

Senator Gair:

– He is a producer in the first instance.

Senator LITTLE:

– He is a producer. He has to be. He is a producer before he is a packer. I do not think the producers would elect somebody who was a very small producer and a very large packer to be their representative on the Board. I would say that if they did they must have great confidence in him as a man who would genuinely represent the producers, and that is why they elect him. I think we can safely leave the election of representatives in the hands of the people who are eligible to elect representatives on the Board.

I do not share the fears which have been expressed by some that because some people are engaged in both activities this would mean handing over the industry to a packer dominated Board. A majority of representatives on the Board must still be producers of honey. I think that is the main feature of this provision. Another good feature is that the other section of the industry which can be important in the marketing of the product - packing - will be represented on the Board. It has to be if we want the industry to develop and grow in exporting. I believe that the Bill will be passed by the Senate. Most of the other points have been covered. I would like from the Minister an explanation of the points I have raised. I am not in any way critical of the emoluments prescribed in the Bill, but I would like him to give us a better idea of how they are being spent. That would increase the confidence of the people in the industry and the public at large in the constitution of the Board.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– A consensus of opinion has been expressed both by Opposition and Government speakers that the general terms of the Honey Industry Bill will receive the approval of the Senate. My view is that the Bill has been sought basically by honey producers and that over a number of years there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction and conflict among various groups in the industry. I think that in this Bill the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and the State Agriculture Ministers have attempted to produce something which may lead to satisfaction in future. It was interesting to hear Senator Durack speaking about the origin of the Australian Honey Board. It does not reflect great credit on the Senate to hear about a Bill being passed at 4 a.m. We would hope that, in this more enlightened time of those who have become senators since 1962, the activities of the Senate will be confined to more appropriate hours and that the legislation which comes before us is given closer examination and more debating time than was instanced by the honourable senator. 1 believe that the introduction of the Honey Board was a wise thing for the industry. The main functions of the Board and the limitations imposed on the Board were the result of requests generally of the beekeepers of Australia. The limitations involved were that the regulation of export of honey should be with the aim of preventing price cutting amongst exporters, which included measures to fix minimum prices; that agency arrangements to regulate the sale and distribution of honey after export should be made; that there should be export pooling arrangements; and that the use of funds from a maximum levy - at that time lc per lb - on domestic honey sales should be made to promote the sale of honey in Australia and for other purposes which obviously were industrial purposes. One of the main bases of promotion by any primary industry board is to encourage the Commonwealth Government to contribute to research moneys which may be put forward by producers. They were the facts which were of importance to beekeepers in those earlier years when they attempted to have the Australian Honey Board formed. The criticism which has come to my notice probably every year for the last 10 years is that no poll was taken. If the Bill is passed there will be a poll of producers at least for the election of producer representatives on the Board.

There has been a great deal of benefit obtained by the industry over the years. Price cutting in exports has been eliminated to a great extent. While world shortage has been attributed as one of the reasons for increased prices over recent years, to some extent the elimination of price cutting lifted export prices. I doubt whether that statement could be denied. The export values since the Board’s inception have risen, on an average, by over 30 per cent. Supply factors have had an important influence, apart from the Board’s regulatory controls. The domestic price to the beekeeper, which is influenced by export prices, has risen appreciably over the prices obtained in previous years. I have some written criticism which places emphasis on the fact that it could be said that an insufficient return has been paid to producers, even after the attempts to keep up the price to producers. In a written work that I have with me one overseas seller of honey has stated that he would be able to obtain a higher price for certain grades of honey than would the Australian Honey Board. This information has been sent to me by either the South Australian Apiarists Association or by an association in my State. Perhaps there is some validity in that statement. My understanding is that the various grades of honey bring various premiums. Although I have not a complete knowledge of the industry I would doubt whether an expert body such as the Honey Board - a body which is representative of the industry and in which the producers, if they wished, could even now exert an influence over the control of the Board’s affairs - has not been able to gain for the producers the highest figure.

The benefit obtained by the industry is that there has been a greater co-operation between packers in the various States. My understanding is that previously there was price cutting and competition between the packers - in some instances, to the detriment of the producers in that higher prices were not being returned to them. The establishment of the Board has enabled the promotion of honey to be expanded in Australia. On many occasions when I fly to Canberra it excites to find that marmalade is being served at breakfast when a few years ago we had mainly pre-packed honey. I know that Senator Gair is always extolling the value of honey. Before I commenced speaking he prompted me to point out to the people of Australia in general the great benefits that come from a higher consumption of this particularly important product. The greatest benefit that the industry has gained is the encouragement which has been given by the Government’s contributing to the financing of overseas promotion and research on a SO-SO basis. The Government’s contribution has continued over many years. This payment from the public purse has brought a benefit to Australian honey produces the cost of which has not come out of the pockets of the producers.

Another aspect of this legislation which has stimulated some argument in the community is whether an owner of 200 hives or more should have the right to vote in this matter. I have here a letter dated 7th April from an important body in Victoria - the Gippsland Apiarists Association - the aim of which is to unite all beekeepers for the benefit of all concerned. I do not think one could have a better motto than that, in the field of politics or beekeeping. Statements I have received from the President of the Association, Mr Kane, and Mr Archibald, Secretary of the Association, show that they agree with the principle that producer members of the Board should be elected by producers. They also agree with the Minister for Primary Industry that the producer nominations should not require the approval of the Federal Council of the Australian Apiarists Association, and that producer members of the Board should own at least

200 hives. I understand that that view conflicts with the pronouncement of the South Australian honey association.

Senator McLaren:

– Which association? There are 2 in South Australia.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If we are to get technical I will produce some of the papers I have here and the situation will become difficult. Senator McLaren emphasised that throughout Australia there has been a divergence of view, particularly in South Australia. In Victoria, my home State, it has been suggested that ownership of 200 hives is a satisfactory standard. It is difficult to understand the principle guiding either the Government or the Australian Agricultural Council to the view that ownership of 200 hives is a satisfactory level of eligibility. The Minister said in his second reading speech that that number of hives basically gives a member a proper living. I have here an assessment of gross incomes from honey production based on the 1969-70 statistics issued by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. These are the latest figures available. The basis of the figures is an arbitrary average unit return to apiarists of 10c per lb. I seek the leave of the Senate to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Senator WEBSTER:

– I appreciate that these figures may bc about 18 months out of date, but they are taken from what is probably the latest thorough report on the industry. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if that is not so. The table shows that 4,311 apiarists, or 78 per cent of the number in the industry, at that time owned between 5 and 99 hives. A further 9 per cent owned between 100 and 199 hives. Whether the criterion is to be individuals or production is a matter to be decided, but it is clear that 87 per cent of the industry owned between 5 and 199 hives. The remaining 13 per cent owned between 200 hives and 600 hives, or more.

Again I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that a decision as to who will be the producer representatives on the Board is to be made by 13 per cent of honey producers in Australia. On this point perhaps we should apply our minds to the method of giving a vote to wool producers. Was it basically the big producers, the top 13 per cent, who were once given a vote, or was it given to those who produced the most wool in those days? The figures I have cited demonstrate that 13 per cent of apiarists in Australia produce 83 per cent of the honey. I doubt very much that that is a proper basis for voting eligibility but apparently the Department of Primary Industry thinks that it is appropriate.

State Ministers of Agriculture support that view, but I put to the Senate that a time will come when those producers with less than 200 hives should definitely be given a vote. The Minister in his second reading speech referred to producers making a reasonable living from honey. In the period covered by the statistics I have incorporated in Hansard producers owning between 200 and 249 hives had an average gross annual income of $2,019 each.

Senator McLaren:

– What was the income of the 78 per cent of producers about whom you were complaining, who do not have a vote?

Senator WEBSTER:

– The 78 per cent had a gross annual income of $90 each.

Senator McLaren:

– Do you consider that they should have a say in the running of the industry?

Senator WEBSTER:

- Senator McLaren, like his Party, always takes extreme points of view. I emphasised that 4,3 1 1 apiarists repesented 78 per cent of producers. I attempted to point out that at one stage producers of 3 bales of wool annually were given a vote in a poll of the industry. I do not know whether that comparison is understandable to the honourable senator, but it appears to me to be important. I think that individuals are important, not necessarily production. Whilst I realise the greater importance in the industry of an individual who gains his main income from the sale of honey, I doubt that an annual income of $2,019 should be accepted as representing that level.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Are you saying that $2,019 annual income is regarded as a reasonable living in terms of this legislation?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I was attempting to extract from the Minister’s second reading speech words appropriate to voting eligibility of ownership of 200 hives.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A reasonable living from beekeeping?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Yes. The table I have had incorporated in Hansard shows that in 1969-70 140 apiarists owned between 200 and 249 hives. They produced 2,822,000 lb of honey annually and received a gross annual income of $2,019 each. I think Senator Douglas McClelland would agree with me that the words reasonable living’ are not appropriate to that annual income.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is less than the poverty wage.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have heard it said that the dairy industry is in a state of poverty because the net annual income of many dairy farmers is about $2,000. I could devote a great deal of time to emphasising the many benefits that come from living on a dairy farm. That is not a judgment whether $2,000 happens to be too little an income for an individual to be gaining. However, a number of points have been put forward to me on this matter as it relates to the apiarist associations and to the Board. I do no accept the argument that producers can say that they have not had proper representation on the Board or that they will not receive majority representation on the Board because they happen to vote for and return a producer who is also a packer. The person who is returned as a representative of the producers surely must be the most appropriate man to represent their interests.

If producers elect to the Board somebody who in the end they think does not represent their interests, they should ensure that they discharge him from the Board after he has completed his period of service. Some producers have suggested to me that this is not as easy as it sounds. Indeed, it has been said that some packers may find themselves in a situation where they are able to command the support of producers who must sell through them. I would not accept that argument as having much substance. I would think that there must be enough character in the producers today to elect the type of man that they wish to have on the Board. If he happens to have some interests other than producing money, he still should be able to represent the producer effectively. Of the number of arguments that could be put forward in relation to this very important matter I come down to the view which I stated at the outset of my remarks, namely, that we in the Senate have a consensus on this Bill and I am very pleased that it is to the advantage of the honey industry in general.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not my intention to speak at length on the legislation which is now being considered by the Senate. I congratulate my colleague Senator McLaren on the excellent exposition that he made of the Opposition’s case so far as the honey producers of Australia are concerned. This Bill is designed to amend the Honey Industry Act of 1962 which, when it was introduced, was a genuine attempt to bring about the orderly marketing of a very important section of Australian primary produce. It is a small section but nonetheless a very vital section, not only so far as local consumption is concerned but also so far as it involves the export market.

The Act is now being amended to provide that the Australian Honey Board shall have 10 members comprising the chairman, 5 members to represent producers of honey and 4 members to represent packers. The 5 producer representatives are to come from the mainland States and the 4 packer representatives are to come from the mainland States other than Queensland. It appears from the second reading speech of the Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) that the Government and the Australian Agricultural Council, sitting as a body representing the various States, have determined that there should be a poll amongst honey producers on who should represent them on the Board, having regard to the various States in which they reside. In the State of New South Wales, which I have the honour to represent in this Parliament, there are some 270 commercial producers of honey, and I am given to understand that New South Wales produces some 40 per cent of the commercial output of honey produced in Australia. I am told that in Queensland there are about 75 commercial honey producers, that in Victoria there are about 135, in South Australia about 120, in Western Australia about 70 and in Tasmania there are about 9. So all told there are about 680 commercial producers of honey throughout Australia.

According to the Minister’s second reading speech, the amending Bill lays down that there will be a poll for the election to the Honey Board and that eligibility to vote will be restricted to those producers of honey having 200 or more hives. In his second reading speech the Minister stated that this minimum qualification had been established with the agreement of the Australian Agricultural Council on the basis that it was the minimum number of hives required to give a person a reasonable living from beekeeping. Prior to Senator Webster of the Australian Country Party having spoken, I had intended to ask the Minister to set out the definition of ‘a reasonable living’ according to the Department of Primary Industry and the Australian Agricultural Council. It concerns me very much that if the figures quoted by Senator Webster of the Australian Country Party are correct, the Government has determined that a gross annual return of $2,019 is regarded as being ‘a reasonable living from beekeeping’, which are the words used in the Minister’s second reading speech. I point out to the Minister that the amount of $2,019 is not my own but the amount quoted by a member of his own Party, the Australian Country Party. If $2,019 is regarded as a reasonable living from beekeeping, I think it indicates a great lack of thought for the welfare of beekeepers on the part of the Government and, let us be frank, the Australian Agricultural Council. An annual income of $2,019 is roughly $40 a week. How anyone could be expected to eke out ‘a reasonable living’, to use the Minister’s words, on $40 a week is beyond me.

Senator Young:

– Are you laying the emphasis in the right area? Do you not have to put a demarcation line? Do you suggest that the Board is chosen from 6 per cent of the members in the industry? Is this what you say?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am coming to whether 200 hives is a reasonable basis.

Senator Little:

– It does not prevent a producer having an income from other sources.

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDNo. That is true, but many beekeepers in New South Wales are nomads by occupation. Their work changes according to the seasons, according to the winds, according to the sun and to matters of this nature. They work virtually on the same basis as do drovers, chasing the seasons and chas ing the sun. Once they are on the track chasing the honey there is no opportunity, especially having regard to the rural situation today, for a man to earn anything other than from the honey industry. I have some reservation about 200 hives being the reasonable standard at which eligibility for voting takes place. However, that was the minimum figure agreed by the members of the Australian Agricultural Council which represents all States as well as the Commonwealth.

As Senator McLaren said when he led for the Opposition on this matter, we of the Labor movement have always believed that boards, organisations and institutions of the type related to this Bill in fact should be dominated by producers. There is certainly much concern on the part of honey producers in my own State of New South Wales - I emphasise again that New South Wales represents about 40 per c.-nt of the commercial production of honey - that they might not retain control of the Board under present arrangements. Mr Clem Mclntyre, the Secretary of the Commercial Apiarists Association of New South Wales, which is the only commercial association of honey producers in that State, wrote a letter to me on 7th April last in which he said, among other things:

One producer representative is managing director of one of the largest honey packer-exporter companies in Australia who is elected by Queensland which has about 75 commercial honey producers. A chairman appointed by the Minister might be a packer or favour packers and, wilh his casting vote, upset producer control. The present Chairman is a producer-packer.

Obviously that indicates some concern on the part of honey producers in New South Wales that it could be that they will not always be in control of the Board’s destiny. In this regard I would draw the Minister’s attention to clause 4(10.) of the Bill. It is the intention of this Bill to alter the definition of a nominated member in the present Act to mean an industry member. Clause 4(10.) of the Bill states that the Minister may on the death, resignation or removal from office of an industry member - I assume the term ‘an industry member’ means either a producer or a packer - appoint a person to hold the vacant office for the remainder of the period of office of the member. It appears to me from the phraseology of clause 4(10.) of the Bill that it is not mandatory for the Minister upon the death, resignation or removal from office of, say, a producer to appoint a producer to till that vacancy. He could appoint a packer or he could appoint a producer. It appears to me that the Minister could appoint anyone because the clause says ‘appoint a person’. On my reading of the legislation there is legitimate cause for concern on the part of the honey producers of New South Wales.

The Opposition has given very close consideration to the legislation before the Senate. The rural committee of the Australian Labor Party considered the subject at very great length and came to the conclusion that because the legislation was the subject of discussion at the Australian Agricultural Council, on which there are 2 Labor Ministers for Agriculture - one ft om South Australia and one from Western Australia - it should not object to this legislation. However, because of the particular concern that has been expressed by growers in my own Slate of New South Wales, 1 give an assurance that I will be watching the activities and the administration of the Australian Honey Board with very great interest, particularly during the consideration by the Senate of the Estimates and that if, upon investigation, it is found necessary to seek another amendment to protect the honey producers I. and 1 am sure other members of the I abor movement, will be pressing the Government to make such an amendment.

I think it was Senator Webster who mentioned something about world prices. I think it is readily apparent from an examination of world prices that the price of Australian honey is lower than the price of Argentine honey or Mexican honey on the world market. I believe that that is something the Board should look at insofar as the promotion of this industry is concerned.

Senator Webster:

– Does the honourable senator know whether there is a difference in the quality of the honey?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– -I have never tasted Argentine honey or Mexican honey, but it appears to me that, apart from one or two occasions, Argen tine and Mexican honey has been sold al a higher price on the world market than Australian honey.

Senator Gair:

– Is the honourable senator suggesting that the price of Australian honey should be increased?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am suggesting that there should be a better promotion of Australian products on the world market and that the Honey Board should actively engage itself in more effectively promoting its sale of Australian honey on the international market.

As I mentioned in reply to an interjection by Senator Little, the beekeepers or apiarists are very much affected by the climatic conditions that exist in our country, and especially such natural disasters as fire, flood, drought and, I suppose, cyclones insofar as the State of Queensland is concerned. Very great problems are created for these people by the vagaries of the seasons. For instance, the 2 best producing months in New South Wales are the normally warm months of January and February. In January and February of this year - the months that one can normally expect the bees to get to wook - honey production was ruined by heavy rains. In addition, there were very strong winds towards the end of last year which affected the honey industry. These winds dried up the nectar and made the collection of honey ever so much more difficult.

In a great number of instances the honey producers have to, as it were, chase the sun. They have to become nomads. The expense involved in constantly moving trucks, gear and so on because of the climatic conditions that prevail can be quite considerable at times. The bee farmer has a very uncertain income indeed. Because of the many vicissitudes facing him, I believe that he is entitled to more consideration than he is receiving at present under this legislation. I repeat that the Opposition, having given this legislation a great deal of consideration and having taken into consideration that there are representatives of the Labor movement on the Australian Agricultural Council, does not object to this Bill, but certainly will be closely scrutinising the activities of the Australian Honey Board.

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

– in reply - First of all, I wish to thank the Senate for the passage of this Bill without amendment. I go further than Senator Douglas McClelland and say that not only the representatives of the Australian Agricultural Council but also the members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives have agreed to this Bill. The discussion that has taken place tonight shows that there are many diverse views on the proposed amendments to the Honey Industry Act and on the operations in past years of the Australian Honey Board in general. I think most honourable senators will agree with me when I say that that has stemmed from the fact that the constitution of the Federal Council of the Australian Apiarists Association requires any decisions it makes to be unanimous decisions. Because of that policy the State organisations have become more or less the mouthpieces of the industry and, in that capacity, have expressed divergent views to the Government on the way in which the operations of the Australian Honey Board should be conducted.

Senator McLaren, in opening the debate for the Opposition, mentioned firstly that he hoped that the Australian Agricultural Council would do for the, egg industry what it is doing for the honey industry. I could not agree with him more on that point. The honourable senator went on to ask about the appointment of members of the Australian Honey Board. In that connection I draw his attention to the second paragraph on page 5 of my second reading speech earlier today in which I said:

Provision has been made in the Bil! to extend the terms of office of the present industry members of the Board to 30th June 1972 or such later date as may be specified by the Minister to enable the election to be held.

I believe that covers the point that the honourable senator made in the earlier part of his speech. He went on to talk about the probability of multiple votes. He then moved to the time df registration and suggested to me that I should indicate to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) that he suggest to all State Ministers that they endeavour to arrange a common registration date for all States. In answering those 3 points I should like to read some notes that I have on these matters so that the honourable senator will see what the Government is trying to do and the representations that have previously been made to it on these matters. The situation was that the South Australian Apiarists Association requested that eligibility to vote or eligibility to stand as a candidate for election to the Australian Honey Board should be based on the ownership of 200 hives at the last date of registration instead of the time of voting as provided in the Bill. In these industry proposals the industry tried to avoid vote splitting. It was feared that someone with 1,000 hives could register and divide his holding by 5 and so be entitled to 5 votes. This is the point the honourable senator was trying to make.

This proposal was discussed with Commonwealth legal advisers who pointed out that such a provision could disfranchise some persons coming into the industry and not disfranchise those who had left the industry between the last date of registration and the voting date. It was pointed out that the normal course followed in a poll with a property qualification was to allow anyone qualified at the time of voting to get a vote. In addition there is the further difficulty in that the State Act provides for different times of registration while the Queensland legislation does not cover all the beekeepers in that State - 2 points that the honourable senator made in his speech.

It is proposed that the regulations for the taking of a poll under the amended legislation will provide for the Department of Primary Industry to prepare a roll which will be based essentially on the list of State registrations. A person with 200 hives who is not enrolled will be entitled to apply for enrolment to the Deputy Returning Officer in his particular State. After discussion with our legal advisers it was felt that the problem of vote splitting could best be met by a provision in the regulations which would permit a proper check to be made of applicants for enrolment. The form of application prescribed would require the applicant to declare that he was the owner of 200 hives. The deputy returning officer for the State would then need to satisfy himself of the applicant’s entitlement to enrol by checking with the registration list of bee- keepers, and even with the beekeeper himself. As the number of beekeepers is not large, it is considered that such a provision would work satisfactorily.

This in itself would not prevent vote splitting but would mean that a large producer with, say, 1,000 hives would have to go to the trouble of registering with the State department, say, 800 of his hives in the names of 4 other persons, declaring them to be the owners. This could have far reaching legal implications for him in the way of taxation, gift duties, etc. It is considered that this would allow a satisfactory check to be kept on the position as there would not be enough incentive for any producer to go to this trouble to alter the whole nature of his business operation in order to create additional voting powers.

Senator Durack also spoke on this matter but went a little further. He spoke about the Australian Honey Board and the honey producers. Firstly he referred to the eligibility to vote. I think he referred in this connection to partnerships and companies. The information I have in relation to the voting rights of partnerships and companies who own 200 hives or more is that the Bill follows the basis adopted in previous legislation of a comparable nature, lt provides for property qualifications. Each company which meets the property qualification will be entitled to one vote, but shareholders will be excluded from voting. In the case of a partnership, as each partner owns the property of the partnership each partner will be entitled to a vote. This is the ordinary law and it is considered to represent the fairest approach. The regulations will spell out not only the specific matters which may be necessary in this regard to supplement the general provisions in the Bill. The points raised by both Senators McLaren and Durack will be covered by regulations on the specific matters which will be spelt out at a later date.

Senator Durack mentioned that in the first place the Australian Honey Board was set up without a poll of producers. This is quite true. In 1963 when the honey legislation was passed by the Parliament the Federal Council of the Australian Apiarists Associations indicated that because of the very strong rank and file support in the industry for the establishment of a board a poll of producers on the question was unnecessary. This is not new in regard to the establishment of primary industry boards. Earlier in the 1960s the Government gave an undertaking to the wool industry that any change in marketing legislation would first of all be put before the producers to vote on, but later industry leaders came to the Government and said that the proposed amendments to marketing legislation had the full support of the industry and they did not believe that it was necessary to take a poll. The Government followed that suggestion. I understand the same situation has applied to the egg industry which has not felt up to this stage that it was necessary to have a poll conducted before amending legislation was put to the Parliament. As has been said on a number of occasions, in this matter the Australian Agricultural Council originally agreed to the setting up of a board.

The only other thing I can say to Senator Durack is that to my knowledge no-one within the beekeeping industry or no State organisation in the industry has said to the Government that the Board should be done away with. Admittedly, a group of people in South Australia has suggested that the Board should not sit until a poll of producers has been held. There are in Western Australia individual producers who are not members of organisations who have also expressed a view that there should be a poll among producers. lt is because of this overwhelming support for the Board that the Government went ahead with this legislation. Senator Little asked me some questions about the sittings of the Board and the remuneration which members receive. I have a copy of the report of the Australian Honey Board and I shall make one available to the honourable senator afterwards. I believe that it is a very good report because it sets out the operations and the functions of the Board quite clearly over the period 1970-71. It goes into quite a lot of detail as to the amount of money collected by the Board and the way it was spent.

Senator Little:

– Does it give sitting days for the year?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yes, it contains that information. The note which 1 have in relation to this matter is that remuneration of $1,300 per annum is paid to producer members. As in all cases with boards associated with the Department of Primary Industry this amount was approved by the Higher Salaries Committee. I believe that this Committee is made up of First Division officers. At this time I cannot tell the honourable senator exactly who sits on the Committee. I understand the Public Service Board and the Commonwealth Treasury have representatives on it. No doubt the Department of Primary Industry would have a representative on it and perhaps the Prime Minister’s Department would have a representative too. Should the honourable senator desire further information on this matter I shall seek it. The Board, in setting this fee, took into account the loss in production which might be incurred through the beekeepers being taken away from their business on the business of the Board. At any time Board members can be required to attend to the business of the Board. This does not only include board meetings but also attendance at industry meetings to put the views of the Board. Because of the small amount received from the levy - normally about $110,000 per annum - the Board is conscious of the need to reduce administrative costs and it has been cutting down on its board meetings. As a consequence more business is being dealt with by members through correspondence. I think that answers the honourable senator’s questions on that matter. If he desires further information I ask him to come along and tell me and I shall try to collect it for him.

I turn to the matters raised by Senator Webster. He made the point that he found some difficulty in deciding what measuring stick the Government used in determining a producer. The information which I have in this regard is that this minimum qualification has been established with the agreement of the Australian Agricultural Council on the basis that this is the minimum number of hives required to give a reasonable living from beekeeping. The figure of 200 hives was accepted by the Opposition in another place. I make some reference to what the, honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said in another place:

I think it can be argued logically that this figure could be reduced to 180 hives, 170 hives, ISO hives, or 100 hives, but I am not going to labour this point. 1 accept the fact that it has been examined thoroughly by State governments, including Labor Party governments. This has been accepted by the standing committee of the Australian Agricultural Council and the Council itself. If this is the best figure which has been arrived at for eligibility to vote in a poll to elect representatives of bona fide beekeepers - those receiving the majority of their income from honey - this is the figure that should be adopted by us. I have no doubt that if at a later date this figure of 200 hives is shown to be too high the Government will have no objection to reducing it for future elections.

Senator Webster gave some figures in regard to incomes and the number of producers who have 2 hives or more. The figues which I have differ slightly. They fall more into line with the figures Senator Douglas McClelland gave. The point is that in 1969-70 696 apiarists were registered in Australia as owning 200 or more hives. The 696 apiarists represented 13 per cent of all registered apiarists and account for 83 per cent of all honey produced. But we find that there were 4,785 apiarists who owned less than 200 h ives. Their gross income was between $90 and $1,283 per annum. So the. figure of 200 hives was arrived at as the number which would give as many people as possible the right to vote and to stand for election to the Board. At the same time it was perhaps the lowest figure which would give a man a living while keeping bees full time and not part time as distinct from those who have only a few hives or who have under 200 hives.

Senator Douglas McClelland in his speech made reference to this matter. I think he was quite, shocked that the man who had 200 hives had a gross income of only just over $2,000. I sympathise with what Senator Douglas McClelland was saying. But I had the feeling that he was trying to tie the Australian Country Party up to this figure. I say to the honourable senator that a man with 200 hives would be a lot worse off if he had to face up to the costs of a 35-hour week. While the honourable senator stands up and supports these small incomes of the commercial apiarists, I think he must pay due regard to costs. On future occasions the honourable senator must endeavour to do what he can to assist in this way. The honourable senator in his remarks spoke about this arbitrary figure of 200 hives. I remind him what the honourable member for Dawson said in another place. I think what the honourable member said has a lot of common sense behind it. As the years go by we will see what happens in relation to this figure, arbitrary as it may be. I think that this figure has been considered by a large section of the industry. We believe that at this time this figure gives the best results. If it does not I assure the honourable senator that the Minister for Primary Industry will have another look at it. Certainly the Australian Agricultural Council will voice its views too.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I wonder whether the Minister could explain to me the various classes of people who may be given a vote where 200 hives are held on one property. Where 200 hives are owned by a company, by a private individual or a partnership will the Minister instance who receives a vote?

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

– I thought that I had answered this question when 1 replied to Senator Durack. If a company holds 200 or more hives, it is entitled to one vote; the shareholders in that company do not receive votes. If the hives are held by a partnership, each partner in that partnership is deemed to have a vote because each partner is deemed to be the owner of those hives.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the course of my speech in the second reading debate, 1 referred the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) to clause 4(10.) which provides:

The Minister may, on the death, resignation or removal from office of an industry member, appoint a person to hold the vacant office for the remainder of the period of office of the member.

I raise this matter in connection with the producers retaining control of the Board upon the death, resignation or removal from office of a producer member, for want of a better term.

Senator Little:

– The honourable senator has not read proposed new sub-section (2a.) in clause 6 (b).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Perhaps I have not. I have read the Bill and I cannot see where protection is afforded to the producers. It seems to me that it is not mandatory for the Minister to appoint a producer representative. Senator Little interjects-

Senator Little:

– If the honourable senator reads clause 6 (b) he will see that proposed new sub-section (2a.) states:

Where the Minister becomes aware that a member to represent honey producers has not, at all times since the commencement of his period of office, been the owner of at least two hundred hives of bees, the Minister shall remove him from office.

If the Minister appoints a person who has not that qualification, he must remove him immediately from office, So, a member must own 200 hives at all times in the period that he occupies office; otherwise the Minister must remove him. That is the protection.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 noticed, in the course of my reading of the Bill, the point to which Senator Little has referred. But it does not answer, and it is quite different from, the point that 1 make. Clause 4 (10.) of the Bill provides:

The Minister may, on the death, resignation or removal from office of an industry member, appoint a person to hold the vacant office for the remainder of the period of office of the member.

Senator Little:

– But he cannot appoint a person to replace a former member if that person has not that qualification. If the Minister appoints him and he has not that qualification, the Minister must remove him.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not talking about the qualification. Let us assume that a producer member dies, resigns or is removed from office. The Minister then, under this clause, can appoint a person who may be a packer and not necessarily a producer.

Senator Young:

– Does nol the principal Act provide for and spell out specifically the composition of the Board?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That point could be covered. But a packer producer could be appointed. It appears to me that the situation is that it is not mandatory for the Minister to appoint a producer to replace a producer. 1 ask the Minister to explain that sub-clause in the Bill.

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

– 1 think that what Senator Douglas McClelland has said about clause 4 (10.) is right.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is what is the concern of the producers.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Although the legislation does not spell out what the honourable senator is trying to say, I give the honourable senator my assurance now that, should an industry member die, resign or be removed from the Board, he will be replaced with an industry member from the State represented by the former member. Senator Little referred to the case of a producer member with fewer than 200 hives ceasing to be a producer member of the Board. I believe that what Senator Douglas McClelland said regarding clause 4 (10.) is right. If he will accept my assurance on the other matter. I will see thai he receives that assurance in writing later.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I appreciate the remarks made by the Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) in closing the second reading debate and again in answering Senator Webster regarding the problem that I raised as to who was regarded as the owner of at least 200 hives. The position is perfectly clear as far as the individual owner or the corporation holder of 200 hives is concerned. But, on the subject of a partnership, the Minister’s answer was exactly in accordance with how I would interpret the clause, namely, that ‘owner’ includes ‘part owner’ and thai in a partnership each partner is regarded as an owner. That is the way the legislation reads. Apparently that is how it is intended that the Act will operate. The regulations will take that provision into account. This clears up the only problem that 1 had on the interpretation of the Bill-

Senator Webster:

– Does that seem equitable to the honourable senator?

Senator DURACK:

– But it does not seem to me to be equitable. In fact, it seems distinctly odd to me that, in a partnership which may consist of a husband, wife and 2 or 3 children running a farm which has 200 hives of bees on it, each of those partners would be entitled to a vote. In effect, the owner of 40 or 50 hives in that partnership would have a vote, yet an individual owner of 40 or 50 hives does not have a vote. That seems to me to be not only inequitable but also odd, to say the least.

Senator Murphy:

– Altogether that partnership has 4 times the voting power of a man with 1,000 hives.

Senator DURACK:

– That is right. Therefore, it does seem to me that the proper way to handle this matter is that, as happens with ratable property, one person should be appointed to represent the partnership.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– There is one thing that troubles me. That is the absence of provisions in this Bill for the conduct of the poll. As I understand it, that includes the election of the representatives as well as other matters which might be considered. I am troubled also by the absence of provisions in the Bill for the determination of disputes arising out of the taking of a poll. As I understand it, these are matters to be covered by regulation. For myself, I do not think that this is satisfactory.

I think that more provision ought to be made in the Bill for the taking of polls. It is not our intention to move any amendment in regard to this matter, but I really think that the legislation should deal with these matters. It should not leave them to be dealt wilh by delegated legislation. The dangers of such matters being dealt with by delegated legislation are obvious when one considers what has been done in the past in providing for the determination of disputes.

I have already raised in this chamber the issue in relation to a decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Willocks and Anderson in which the High Court invalidated regulations which purported to confer jurisdiction upon the High Court to act as a court of disputed returns over the mere matter of a disputed election for the membership of the Apple and Pear Board, I think it was. The High Court, somewhat indignantly, pointed out that that regulation was beyond the regulation making power conferred by the enactment. The High Court had some strong words to say, as one sees if one reads the judgment, about the conferring of such jurisdiction upon the High Court, which has extremely high constitutional functions to carry out. If I may put it in my own words, the High Court was saying: Tt is just unthinkable that the Parliament, unless by the clearest words, could possibly intend to confer upon the High Court such a jurisdiction which would impede the carrying out by the High Court of its other high functions’. That illustration demonstrates the danger of leaving these matters to regulations.

Again, provision for the determination of disputes is left to regulation although it would probably have been better to provide in the enactment for the determination of disputes. One easy way may have been, with a slight modification, to provide that a body such as the Commonwealth Industrial Court which has procedures for such matters should handle such disputes. Part IX of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act sets out the course to be followed in dealing with disputed elections in organisations. With a little bit of drafting, that provision could easily be adapted to deal with the problems in respect of this legislation.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laucke:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Senator MURPHY:

– I think that some way such as that ought to be provided in the legislation. Provisions are contained in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act under which the court and procedures are readily adaptable to deal with that kind of problem. It would be preferable not to leave these matters to regulations under which we can run into all sorts of difficulties. I suppose to be fair, I should state that the department concerned is not expert in dealing with such intricate matters. It would be better to have one Federal body which was expert in these matters to deal with all these kinds of problems. After all, this is not a primary production problem. It is an electoral problem. It is a question of what is done in the case of a disputed election. That body which deals with disputed elections and organisations could probably quite simply and easily deal with disputed elections in cases which arise under this enactment.

I suggest that is one way to deal with the problem. There are other ways in which it could be done, but I would think it preferable that these matters ought to be dealt with in Bills rather than be left to a regulation making power in view of the history of the matter. Honourable senators may be interested to learn that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee took up the matter and referred in its 39th report to the question of regulations rendered invalid by judgment of the High Court. In paragraph 6 of its report it states:

It would appear that, as a result of this decision

That is the High Court decision - . . the Dried Fruits Export Control (Election of Board) Regulations and the Dairy Produce Export Control (Election of Board) Regulations are also invalid in part.

That ought to be cleared up for the sake of the citizens who deal with those bodies. I would ask that the Minister, if he has an opportunity in the future, take steps to see to it that perhaps the whole of these primary producer board elections and provisions for disputed elections are dealt with in a similar way. Perhaps it could be done by reference to some central piece of legislation rather than by leaving it in the area mostly of subordinate legislation under which we might get into difficulties.

The other matter which was referred to in the Minister’s second reading speech is dealt with in clause 14 of the Bill. The question of remuneration raised by Senator Little is, of course, now in accordance with the procedures initiated in the Senate, dealt with, not as a matter for determination by the Higher Salaries Board but as a matter to be determined by the Parliament. We fix the salaries rather than allow them to be determined outside of the Parliament on the recommendation of some’ such body as the Higher Salaries Board.

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

– I have noted what Senator Murphy has said. I think he will agree with me that over recent years there has been determination shown by the Department of Primary Industry to alter legislation to conform with suggestions that have been made in the Senate from time to time. I can assure the honourable senator that the Department of Primary Industry and those who draw up the legislation are very conscious of previous remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in this place, and by other honourable senators who have made remarks along similar lines. I have set out the views of the Department and of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in regard to partnerships. Senator Durack has said that he agrees with that but it does not seem to be equitable. I understand that this is the ordinary law, and it is considered to represent the fairest approach. As Senator Murphy said, there are specific regulations which will spell out these matters. I remind honourable senators that the Minister for Primary Industry said in another place that these regulations will be brought before the Parliament and that they will be examined and debated before they become final. So members of both Houses of the Parliament will have an opportunity to see exactly what the regulations contain.

Senator Cavanagh:

– How do we debate regulations if there is no motion to disallow them?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The honourable senator has the opportunity. If he examines them and he believes they are not what they should be, he has the opportunity to move a disallowance motion. Honourable senators have an opportunity to look at these regulations and to examine them very closely. That is as far as I can go. As promised, T will indicate to the Minister what Senator Murphy and other honourable senators have said on this matter, ff the Minister has any further comments. 1 will ask him to write to the honourable senators concerned.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 985

ADJOURNMENT

Qantas Airways Ltd - Parliamentary Salaries and Allowances - Provision of Transport for Senators

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockman) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I wish to raise a matter in order to seek some assistance from the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). Perhaps it may also involve the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). I think I indicated that it was a matter which concerned the Minister for Civil Aviation. There is a report in today’s ‘Daily Mirror’ headed: ‘Qantas Pilots Seek Huge Pay Rise’. It reads:

Qantas jumbo pilots are asking for a 65 per cent pay increase.

If it is accepted it will mean an ordinary jumbo pilot will receive $41,160 a year.

The pay claims have been put forward by the pilots in their current award negotiations with Qantas.

The talks, which have been going on since late February, are deadlocked.

The pilots are asking for a 481 per cent increase on their standard pay.

A jumbo pilot now gets $25,246. The increase would bring his pay to $37,500.

On top of this the pilots have asked for a $4,000 navigational allowance, for using the sophisticated jumbo navigational equipment.

If granted the increases would bring the ordinary jumbo pilot’s salary to $41,160 a year

This is an overall increase of 65 per cent, for the 30 jumbo pilots.

Qantas is fighting the increased pay demands, tooth and nail.

The report referred to the dire financial straits of Qantas and continued:

Qantas recently has laid off more than 250 employees in an effort to cut expenses.

The pay increases, if met, would add more than $500,000 to the wages bill.

I would like the Minister to put before the Senate - if he is able to do so now, but if not as soon as he can conveniently do so - information as to whether these figures are correct and whether it is true that an ordinary jumbo pilot is actually getting $25,246 a year. I would like him to explain what an ordinary jumbo pilot is. Does the report mean that captains are getting more than that? Is it conceivable that a jumbo pilot should get certainly $10,000 more than a university professor and the top research scientists in this country, and perhaps thousands more, I would think, than you, Mr President, get? I would like to know whether it is true that an ordinary Qantas Airways Ltd pilot, so described, is getting more than is received by the top public servants and Ministers of the Crown. Perhaps the Minister would tell us how that salary compares with his salary.

These are the salaries of an ordinary pilot. Will he let us know the salaries of extraordinary pilots? Can he tell us what are the real rates? What pay do they actually get? Can he tell us the other allowances and so forth? Can he put before the Senate information as to the actual claims which have been made? Is it possible that amounts such as these are being paid to pilots who are claiming salaries which seem to be extraordinary and astronomical in the light of the relativities of wages paid to other persons - typists, cleaners and ordinary workers - employed by Qantas? Is it possible that people are seeking sums in the region of $30,000 and $40,000, which sums are higher than the salaries of Ministers of the Crown, Cabinet Ministers and, I suppose, the Treasurer.

Senator Wood:

– What about the lump sum when they retire?

Senator MURPHY:

Senator Wood interjects. Will the Minister put before the Senate specific information as to the actual, amounts which are receivable by way of superannuation by the persons concerned? Can he tell us what is being done by Qantas to ensure that reasonable treatment is given to the people on the lower branches - the stewardesses, the typists and the ordinary people - employed by Qantas before there is any thought of adding to scales which seem already, by current wage standards in this country, grossly excessive? Can he indicate to the Senate what action will be taken to deal with the pay dispute and what steps he proposes to take to ensure some relativity and some justice to the lower paid employees? Can he assure the Senate that if $500,000 is to be paid out it will go to the people at the bottom of the scale - the people who are being put out of their jobs at a time of unemployment? 1 am sure that most honourable senators would like the Minister to tell us how it has come about that in this country Qantas pilots can already be receiving and be in a position to assert claims for what are, by our ordinary standards, grossly excessive salaries which are completely out of relativity with wage scales, particularly with those paid to the ordinary employees of Qantas.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

Senator Murphy advised me not so long ago, I think he would agree, that he intended to raise this matter. That makes it extremely difficult for me to be detailed in my answer. I did note the comment in the Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’. I knew that Qantas Airways Ltd and its pilots had been negotiating for some time on salary rates for pilots. I will give Senator Murphy the information that I have at the moment, add a little to it and get some more. The statement in the ‘Daily Mirror’ was that the basic pay increase claims range from 38 per cent to 58 per cent which, with navigational allowances, would bring the total increases to between 51 per cent and 72 per cent. I was very interested and pleased to learn that the attitude expressed by Senator Murphy was that this was an exorbitant and irrational kind of demand in the total circumstances confronting international operators, particularly Qantas. Qantas is not in dire financial circlmstances, but it is in a tight and difficult operating time, in company with most international airlines. It is not without moment to point out to my honourable colleagues that PanAmerican World Airways, having had substantial losses last year and losses again in January, reported a $12m loss for February. So it is not an easy business at present. Without any doubt all honourable senators will welcome the support of the Opposition in doing what we can to keep the cost of this business within bounds.

The honourable senator asked for comparative salary rates. 1 shall obtain these for him. J am trying to find this information. I did not have enough time to do so. In response to a question by a particular senator about 12 or 18 months ago - I thought it was Senator Murphy, but it may not have been - we did supply a range of salaries for various years of seniority for various kinds of pilots. I am trying to turn up that information.

Senator Murphy:

– Will you produce especially the rates of wages paid to the lower paid employees of Qantas?

Senator COTTON:

– I will get this for the honourable senator. It will take some time. Before resuming my seat I would like to make one or two observations. Pilots have always seemed to me to be extraordinarily well paid. Pilots in Australia, by comparison with people in other forms of gainful employment in this country, certainly have what might be called a premium rate of pay. But it has to be observed also that their rate of pay is nowhere near as high as that received by comparable pilots in other parts of the world, whether that is right or wrong. What the honourable senator requires is specific information on various levels of pilots flying various types of aircraft after various years of service. We will get that. Senator Wood interjected, and Senator Murphy took up the point of retirement benefits for air crew, including pilots. We will get information on that also.

Senator Milliner:

– Is there any Canberra allowance?

Senator COTTON:

– Probably not, but there could well be. On the rates of pay quoted, they might not need it. When the honourable senator talks about disputes with technical air crew he will understand that in the end these are referred to the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal - Mr Justice Coldham - which deals with the disputes. 1 do not think I can say anything more than that, except that I treat the inquiry as a valid one. I will get in detail as soon as I can the information required.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The matter which I wish to raise is of some importance to honourable senators. I did not alert the Minister for Civil

Aviation (Senator Co. ton; who represents the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) that I intended to raise the matter, but he and you, Mr President, might be interested in it. I point out that an ordinary senator has had no pay increases since 1968 - which should be known to the public - and that the sitting allowance or the allowance on which a senator may live in Canberra has no; been increased since then. However, one matter which excites me even more than that is the travel assistance which is given to senators. You will be aware, Mr President, that senators in performing their various classes of work on Senate committees or as members of joint parliamentary committees believe that in their own way they work reasonably hard. Last week, as a member r>f .he Public Works Committee, I left my home State of Victoria on Easter Monday night to travel to Perth to investigate the proposed $48m extension at Garden Island for the Royal Australian Navy. It is a reasonably important project. Apparently the Government saw fit to pay my air fare from Melbourne 2,500 miles to Perth to assist in the investigation. Although members of that Committee have not youth on their side they chose to work from 9 o’clock in the morning until at least 9.30 or 10 p.m. each night.

On the Friday, commencing at 9.30 a.m., 1 with other members worked until after midday, caught an aeroplane from Perth back to Melbourne and arrived there at about 6 o’clock at night. I would be one of the most conveniently located members of Parliament so far as transport to Canberra is concerned so this matter does not concern me so much, but one member of the Opposition, who is a senior senator and who travelled on the same aircraft as myself from Perth, had the benefit of Commonwealth transport to take him only as far as Flinders Street or Spencer Street railway station. After the hard week that I have mentioned it was necessary for him to wait until about 10 o’clock at night to catch a train which finally took him about 40 miles to an adjacent town. I am not aware of the exact time that he arrived home. In my view that was a completely unwarranted situation.

We should be disgusted that the Senate provides such meagre assistance for a man who works for the people of Australia. What annoyed me more was that as I drove to my home, which is not a long way from Tullamarine, the 2-way radio in the vehicle in which I was travelling asked that car No. so-and-so pick up somebody from the airport and take him to Barwon Heads. That car would have had to travel directly past the town of Geelong where at least 2 members of the Federal Parliament reside. But those members of Parliament are unable to have vehicular transport from Geelong to the airport. I appreciate that at present the Government has a regulation which says that a member of Parliament may be picked up as far as 30 miles from the airport. But if a member lives 35 or 40 miles from the airport he cannot travel by Commonwealth car; he must use a bus or train, or his own vehicle. If he has to use his own vehicle and is not a wealthy two-car owner he has to leave his wife without a car for the week while he is away. I appeal to you, Mr President and to the Minister for the Interior to take this matter up immediately so that senators who are required to work under the conditions to which I have referred will be given immediate consideration and an adjustment made to transport arrangements.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– As it is now obvious to everybody that I am the senator to whom Senator Webster has referred I should like to thank him for raising this matter. I brought it to the attention of the Minister for the Interior some time ago and also raised it with the former Prime Minister, Mr Gorton. I approached the amenities committee within the Australian Labor Party and I understand that recommendations were made some time ago to the Minister for the Interior to have something done.

Last week, after arriving by plane from Perth, I had to wait until 9.25 p.m. for a train to Geelong. It was a very slow train and did not arrive at Geelong until 11 p.m. Despite the fact that I live in Victoria the result of this delay was that I was the last of all members of that Committee to reach home. Because of this stupid rule that a member of Parliament shall not travel by Commonwealth car more than 30 miles to his home I am forced to leave for Canberra on a Monday evening if I wish to attend a committee meeting on the Tuesday morning. This costs the Government an additional $15 in living allowance - small as that amount might seem to be at present - merely because it will not provide a car outside a 30-mile radius. My alternative when travelling to Canberra is to rise at 4.30 a.m. to catch a train leaving Geelong at 5.25 a.m. The Government then supplies me with a car from Spencer Street Station to the airport, a trip which takes about an hour, which is about the same time that it would take that car to bring me from Geelong to the airport. The situation is so stupid as to be almost laughable; but it is serious when a member - I speak not only for myself - has been away for a whole week engaged in committee work. As Senator Webster said, the Committee worked extremely hard during 3 sessions a day. Its members had a very tiring job trying to interrogate and listen to witnesses late at night after being in session from 9 o’clock in the morning. When I returned to Melbourne last Friday I had to wait in the extreme cold of the railway station for a slow train to take me to Geelong.

It is not humorous that members of Parliament should be treated in this way particularly when an officer from Duntroon, to take one example, can fly to Melbourne on the same aircraft as myself and have a Commonwealth car waiting to take him to the Staff College at Queenscliff, which is 20 miles further than my home. In this respect we senators are being treated as second class citizens.

Senator McManus:

– On salaries we are.

Senator POYSER:

– Yes. In the matter of salaries and allowances, too, we are treated as second class citizens. We are demeaned to the extent that a reasonably junior member of the Public Service can have transport anywhere within the State if he is travelling on Public Service business. But this benefit is not available to a member of Parliament. It is not as though this matter has not been raised before. There is this hard and fast rule which will not allow Mr Scholes or myself - we both live in Geelong - to travel by car to our homes. Yet the Government pays air fares for public servants to travel to Cairns, Townsville or wherever it may be and then provides cars to take them to their homes or offices. The situation is so ridiculous that it is laughable.

I have correspondence on this subject from the former Prime Minister saying that the rule is a rule and that this is the way it is going to be. I felt reluctant to raise this matter because it would have appeared that I was seeking something for myself. I am grateful to Senator Webster for saving me that embarrassment. He has shown how ridiculous we appear in the eyes of public servants who lord it over us in almost every aspect of our working conditions. I hope, not only in my own interest but also in the interests of other members of Parliament, that this silly rule will be eliminated and we will be treated equally with those who work within the Public Service.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– 1 wish to add my voice of concern in respect of the matter which has been raised by Senator Webster and Senator Poyser in regard to the provisions of transport between a member’s place of residence and the airport. I live 42 miles from Adelaide - just about 16 miles beyond the perimeter of what is now called the metropolitan area. There is no public means of transport by road or rail from my home town to Adelaide. To me it is quite incongruous that whereas I have freedom to sign vouchers to travel by air anywhere in Australia in connection with my representative duties as a member of Parliament. I am denied the right to travel for 10 minutes by car from my home. It costs me more in telephone calls than it would cost to send a car the additional distance to my home. In my opinion it is one of those unreal situations. I do not seek a privilege or concession that could not be regarded as reasonable. 1 believe we are too rigidly encompassed in respect of the 30-mile radius. In my case I can drive to Adelaide and park the car there for the week, or drive down to Gawler which is 16 miles from my home and leave the car on the side of the road to be picked up later. Alternatively I can be driven down by my wife or another member of my family and on my re ruin from Canberra, often late at night, 1 will need to have a car waiting for me at Gawler as there is no other means cf conveyance back to my home town.

I have indicated the situation that applies to me and no doubt applies to other honourable senators. I am grateful to Senator Webster for having raised this matter because I believe the position is incongruous and not in accordance with a reasonable attitude to costs in providing a necessary facility for members. I heartily support the other 2 senators who have made representations tonight. I have made representations to the Minister on *.his matter, but without success. I hope that this discussion tonight will lead to a reconsideration of the whole situation with a view to removing what I regard as a major anomaly in the provisions for members of Parliament.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I would like to join other honourable senators in congratulating Senator Webster for raising this issue. It shows that a matter involving parliamentary procedure can be raised without any thought of politics. I think the Minister will agree that it is an absurd situation. Parliamentarians are placed in a most unusual and even a stupid position. After working assiduously as a committee member, as my colleagues have described, it is extraordinary that one should have to sit on a railway station for 2 or 3 hours before catching a slow train to one’s home town. I do not think the public would accept it. People would be reluctant to believe this story. They would not agree that it could possibly happen. We seem to be frightened to say what is happening to us for fear of the Press or something else. We accept these situations but I believe that it is time that we raised our voices in protest on these issues.

Let us consider the Canberra allowance. Mr Justice Kerr has been promoted to another position, but about 7 or 8 months ago he recommended that the Canberra allowance be raised to $22 a day. What have we done about it? We have accepted $15 a day and I have not heard one word of protest from anybody, including members of my own Party. We have been told that the increase is on the grapevine and we will get it. Now we are told that because a Sydney newspaper has raised the issue we will not receive $22 a day. We are living on $15 a day whereas the staff of some of the Party leaders, and probably the staff of Ministers, are receiving $17 a day. Female staff are receiving $17 a day and we are receiving $15 a day.

Is it not completely crazy? Whose fault is it? It is nobody’s fault but our own because we have not had the courage to stand up and say what we should receive. I ask the Minister to detail, at his convenience, the number of public servants in Canberra who receive a daily allowance higher than $15. If that information is tabled I think it will be seen that the comparison most certainly does not favour parliamentarians and will give an indication to the people of Australia that parliamentarians travelling to Canberra should be in receipt of a much higher daily allowance than $15, because actually it costs us considerably more than $15 a day to travel to Canberra to do our job, I hope on behalf of the nation.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– (11.5)- I congratulate Senator Webster for raising this matter. I can appreciate the conditions under which Senator Poyser sat on that cold railway station in Melbourne on the night mentioned. This matter has been the subject of some discussion between Senator Poyser, Mr Scholes, the member for Corio, and myself, particularly in relation to the non-facilities that exist to enable the three of us to travel into the Western District of Victoria on a Friday morning. It normally happens that Mr Scholes brings his car to Melbourne on a Monday or Tuesday, leaves it there during the week and the three of us travel back to Gcelong in that car. As Senator Poyser has already pointed out, a junior officer from Duntroon can get a car at Tullamarine and travel 20 to 30 miles beyond Geelong. I have often made requests for a car to take me outside a 30-mile radius of Tullamarine, but all to no avail. Four times out of 5 of a Friday morning if Mr Scholes’s car is not at Tullamarine Senator Poyser and I, in a Commonwealth car, make a mad dash hell for leather across the western suburbs of Melbourne in order to head off the Geelong train. We do not have time to catch it at Spencer Street and there have been occasions when we have not had time to write out a warrant for our tickets and we have been virtually unofficial passengers of the Victorian railway system for the trip to Geelong.

When I have finally got back to Warrnambool at 2 o’clock in the afternoon I have found on the doorstep a Federal Minister who has had a car right from Tullamarine to Warrnambool and who is going back that same evening. There is something ludicrous about the whole situation when these circumstances can prevail. I find myself in a similar situation to Senator Poyser - he being the last home of that committee. I would estimate that if everybody in this Parliament left Canberra at a given time on a Friday morning I would be one of the very last to arrive back at my office. It takes about 40 minutes from Canberra to Tullamarine and 5 hours from Tullamarine to Warrnambool - a distance of 170 to 180 miles - because of this ludicrous situation. Incurred in that time is a 120-mile drive by my wife to pick me up in order that I can be back to carry out some office functions on a Friday afternoon while my secretary is working, otherwise it leaves me only one day of the week, in those weeks when the Parliament is sitting, to operate from my office.

I can see that there is some need for improvement allround, but the only question on which I am qualified to speak is the question of the paucity of cars out of Tullamarine on a Friday morning when 3 Federal members are seeking to travel 45 miles to Geelong. For the sake of an extra 30 miles for one car we are all deprived of a car and must get home virtually by the best ways we can.

Senator COTTON (Minister for Civil Aviation - New South Wales) - by leave - Without any doubt there is unanimity in the Senate on this subject. Those who have spoken primarily have been from Victoria, but from one’s own experience one knows the problems of senators from Queensland and Western Australia, and sometimes they are more aggravated, not less. As I have listened to honourable senators it seems to me that the situation is inconsistent and in many ways manifestly unfair. I will raise it as a matter of serious and important intent with the responsible Minister and will do what I can to rectify it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I feel duty bound to announce to honourable senators that Senator Cant informed me earlier today that he wished to speak during the adjournment debate. However, in view of the lateness of the hour he has decided not to speak tonight and instead will take part in the adjournment debate tomorrow night.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 April 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720411_senate_27_s51/>.