Senate
27 April 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1359

EDUCATION

Petition

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 33 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That 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 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.

page 1359

QUESTION

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES LEGISLATION

Senator MURPHY:

– Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that the international Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, reputed to be the tenth largest corporation in the United States of America, has made an offer of more than $8m for an Australian owned food company, Frozen Food Industries Ltd? In the light of this further evidence of the trend towards monopolisation in Australia, will the Attorney-General tell us whether the Government has any plans at all in respect of this proposed takeover? In any event, will he tell us whether he realises the urgent necessity for what he has described as the strengthened trade practices legislation? Will he tell us when the Parliament is likely to be presented with his proposals for the strengthened trade practices legislation, including any proposals that he might have for dealing with monopolisation?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I have read a Press report relating to the initial matter which Senator Murphy raised but I am not in a position to make any comment at this point as to whether the Government will take action, can take action, or whether the circumstances fall within the general guidelines for overseas investment in this country which have been operating as government policy for some 3 years. I have assured the Leader of the Opposition recently, and I again assure him, that the Government’s restrictive trade practices legislation is approaching completion and I hope to be able to make a statement on it in the near future. I regret that I am not able to give a specific date for its completion.

I also regret that I have not been able to make a statement about it earlier, but I assure Senator Murphy, as I assure the Senate, that the study which is being given to this matter is designed to unravel as many complexities in this area as possible so that the legislation will be strengthened, and also to ensure that it is legislation with which people can work in a manner consistent with the objectives of promoting competition and the benefits which flow from competition to the community. As to the areas and specific matters which the legislation will cover, I can suggest to the honourable senator only that he await the presentation of the statement and learn what it has to say.

page 1359

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to you, Mr President. It refers to a circular which I forwarded to you yesterday from an organisation which claimed that it was arranging for demonstrations at this House during the course of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation conference to be held here later in the year. The circular also claimed that if sufficient numbers were present it was proposed to prevent delegates from overseas countries entering the House. I now ask: In view of suggestions that the present powers over the precincts of Parliament are not as adequate as they should be, can you give any information about any proposals to improve the control of this Parliament over its precincts, particularly in view of an incident that happened in the Victorian Parliament within recent weeks?

The PRESIDENT:

– I would be grateful if the honourable senator would allow me to answer that question at the end of question time.

page 1360

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the AttorneyGeneral inform the Senate whether the University of Sydney authorities are fully co-operating with Commonwealth police in their efforts to identify and apprehend the students who facilitated the escape of Michael Matteson from the custody of the police on the campus last Monday?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am not able to answer the question as clearly as I would like to be able to answer it. On Tuesday of this week, following the incidents at the University of Sydney, a senior officer of my Department, together with the Acting Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police and the superintendentincharge in Sydney, spoke with the ViceChancellor of the University and sought from him help to identify persons who are to be seen in photographs and whom the policemen concerned in the incident can identify as persons who took specific action during the course of that incident. The Vice-Chancellor acknowledges the right of the police to pursue their inquiries, as of course it must be accepted. However, as to whether the University could give specific assistance of the character which was being asked for, the Vice-Chancellor wished to take advice, as I understood it, from the Registrar and some members of the University Senate. He assured my officers that he would give an answer by midday on Wednesday.

At that time we had been told that we were to receive a letter from the University’s solicitors. We have received a letter from the University’s solicitors which asked for specific indications of the type of assistance that is wanted. I understand that the Commissioner of Police has now forwarded a reply to the solicitors. I can only expect that the University authorities will co-operate with the police, because all that the police are seeking is the co-operation which they would expect from any citizens on occasions when they wanted to interview people in connection with the commission of a serious crime. Any other approach by a university authority is, I believe, absolutely untenable.

page 1360

QUESTION

COMPANY TAKEOVER BID

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the AttorneyGeneral peruse any proposed legislation by the Victorian Government on the question of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd share transactions to ensure that such legislation does not transgress Commonwealth corporations legislation or powers?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– 1 shall in due course see the legislation which is to be introduced, and presumably passed, by the Victorian Parliament, lt is unquestionably the case in this country that companies legislation is the province of the States and has been so for many years. As I am presently aware, there is no Commonwealth legislation which would conflict with the action which is proposed by the Victorian Parliament. .But I make that statement not having seen the precise provisions and on the assumption that it will be as the Press has outlined. Any question of whether Commonwealth powers - there are many Commonwealth powers, some of which might be relevant in this area and others which I imagine would not be relevant - should at any stage be exercised by the Parliament is essentially a matter for the Government and Government policy.

page 1360

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the AttorneyGeneral concede that there are great numbers of young men who have not registered for national service? Does he know of any instance where political influence has been used to relieve any eligible youth of his obligations, as the Government sees them, under the National .Service Act?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– In answer to the first part of the question I say that I am not aware that there are great numbers of young men who have refused to do national service. This is an allegation constantly repeated notwithstanding constant denials made by the Minister for Labour and National Service and myself inside and outside the Parliament. Still the allegation is persisted in. One wonders how many times one has to state the facts. All I say to anybody who would challenge what I have said and what the Minister for Labour and National Service has said is: Give to me or the Minister for Labour and National Service the name of any person who has not registered for national service or who has not complied with the Act and we shall indicate whether the statements are correct. If the statements are correct, we shall oblige by ensuring that the processes of law are enforced’.

As to whether I have any knowledge of any political influence being brought to bear to prevent a person from carrying out his national service obligations, I say that I have no knowledge whatsoever of this. If by the imputation it is sought to suggest that there has been some such person, I think it is the obligation of the honourable senator to give the details. I categorically reject any basis for that suggestion.

page 1361

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that a roneoed sheet, unsigned but containing a number of names, is being handed out at Templestowe Primary School, attacking national service and purporting to lionise a particular teacher? Is he aware that to ensure that each child receives a copy of this scurrilous publication the children are directed to a particular exit from the school by a group of parents? I ask whether he is aware that amongst a welter of untruths the document states in part:

Because the Government knows that there is widespread opposition to its conscription policy it has selectively prosecuted draft resisters. Only a small fraction of the total number defying the Act have been prosecuted.

What action is the Attorney-General able to take to present the truth to the children of Templestowe Primary School in these circumstances?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am aware of a document which has been circulated, I think, in the Templestowe Primary School, but I am not aware whether all those matters to which the honourable senator referred are capable of verification. I am aware that there is a campaign which is based upon untruths, which is maintained by lies and which asserts to the people of Australia a situation which I know to be untrue - untrue, as I indicated in my answer to Senator Gietzelt, in the face of repeated assertions of what is the truth. The Government does not selectively prosecute some people for national service breaches and leave other persons to go scot-free. That allegation has been denied constantly. Yet it is repeated in editorials, in papers and in scurrilous sheets which are put out by persons who have a particular cause to make. I will consult the Minister for Labour and National Service with a view to making a statement once again, as authoritatively as it can be made, setting out the true position.

page 1361

QUESTION

CONCESSIONAL AIR FARES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, refers to the issue of reduced airline fares for tourist travel within Australia. Is the Minister able to report upon moves to institute reduced air fares for tourist travel within Australia, particularly when the air travel is related directly to international flights - for example, to and from Darwin and other cities? Is it a fact that the move is now dormant within the domestic airline industry?

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

– Honourable senators will recall that this matter has been referred to previously by me in the Senate in response to questions, some of which were asked by Senator Bishop. The matter is not dormant within the airline industry in Australia. It is still under study. It is still being examined to see to what extent it is possible to help in the situation to which the honourable senator referred. In general my view has been - and I have expressed it - that there should be an opportunity in Australia at certain points of time to make concession arrangements for group travel within Australia not only for overseas people who want to proceed past capital cities to see Australian tourist attractions and other places, but equally for Australian citizens who may wish to see their own country and who could afford to do so if there were a concession for group travel. That suggestion has been put seriously to the airlines and it is being studied seriously by them.

page 1361

QUESTION

AIRPORT CONCESSIONAIRES

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I refer to a question that I asked recently of the Minister about the sale of imported brandy at our major airports. I then asked whether it was the practice of the concessionaires to promote imported brandy in preference to the Australian product. I now ask: Has the matter been investigated and what has been the outcome of the investigation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– After the honourable senator asked me his question I had the Department of Civil Aviation check it out quite thoroughly. The ratio of sales of Australian brandy to imported brandy is 50 to 1 in favour of Australian brandy. This would give a clear indication that no-one is promoting imported brandy at the expense of Australian brandy. There was one area in which the sales of imported brandy were higher than the sales of Australian brandy. That was at the Trans-Australia Airlines concession area in Sydney. That exception is being examined by the Department. In general, we could get no impression that imported brandy was being promoted in preference to Australian brandy.

page 1362

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration studied the plea of Mr Alan Matherson of the Ecumenical Migration Centre that the supply and availability of competent interpreters for migrant services is not geared to the ethnic groups with the greatest needs?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I do not recall having read the report to which Senator Mulvihill referred, but I think that it must stem from a tragic incident which was referred to in the Coroner’s Court in Melbourne on Monday of this week and about which I have some information. The Press reports have suggested that there has been - and quite clearly it is the postion - inability to communicate and out of that tragedy has arisen. I do not comment on certain aspects relating to the particular incidents, because primarily that would seem to be within the responsibility of the Minster for Labour and National Service. However, I am informed by the Minister for Immigration that there is an extensive translation and interpreter service provided by 3 official sources: firstly, by the Department of Immigration, which provides interpreters at the State branch offices; secondly by the Department of Labour and National Service employment offices in areas of high migrant density; and thirdly, by Commonwealth Hostels which have a number of non-English speaking migrants. Altogether these official sources provide some 400 qualified interpreters.

Recently the Department of Immigration expanded its translation service to form a nucleus which would be available to meet routine departmental requirements, as well as emergency situations. In addition, it is planning to introduce an on-call telephone interpreter service to provide, in the languages causing the greatest problems, a 24- hour service for urgent community needs. In addition to these, one must have regard to the fact that there is an extension of migrant education services - and interpreters are part of this extension - in the community at large in a variety of places which provide interpreters such as banks. Also, the State governments are exercising their responsibilities by providing interpreters, for example, at hospitals, pOlice courts and agencies like the Good Neighbour Council.

In 1971 the Department of Immigration completed an Australia-wide survey of interpreter needs in the community. The results of that survey are now being compiled. There are, of course, qualified social workers as well as interpreters, and these are related to the language needs of the particular group with whom these people are working. There is an extensive interpreter translation service of the character I have indicated.

page 1362

QUESTION

STRAITS OF MALACCA

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question without notice to the. Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Government expressed a view on the current dispute over whether the Straits of Malacca is an internal or international waterway? What effect on Australian shipping and trade would result from the declaration that the Straits were no longer an international waterway?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The Government has not, to my knowledge, expressed a view on this subject, but it is watching the position carefully. Australia, for itself, does not acknowledge that the Straits are subject to the control of the 2 liberal States, Malaysia and Indonesia, which claim that position. As I indicated to the Senate a fortnight ago, this subject is expected to be discussed at the law of the sea convention in 1973. It will be understood that Singapore takes a view different from that of the other 2 countries I have mentioned. Of course, the Senate will be aware of the view of the major powers with regard to this matter which will have a considerable bearing upon the ultimate issue at the conference referred to.

page 1363

QUESTION

INTERVIEW ROOMS FOR SENATORS

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to you, Mr President. When I 0am( here in 1965 a room was available adjacent to Kings Hall where visitors who were guests of senators and ‘members could be taken, and certain limited facilities were provided. With the expansion of Ministerial suites, this room was taken over and has never been replaced. 1 ask: Would it not be fitting and in keeping with the functions and dignity of the Parliament if a suitable room for our increasing number of guests could be once again made available, so that people wishing to meet their representatives could be taken there for interviews and similar purposes?

The PRESIDENT:

– In answer to the honourable senator, I point out to him that I have discussed the question of accommodation and the pressures on accommodation with the House Committee of the Senate, which is fully aware of the situation in which the Senate and its Presiding Officer find themselves. The problem of being able to meet the quite proper desires of Senator Devitt involves the fact that some additional rebuilding is to be carried out in connection with Parliament House. In the meantime, the Senate end of the Parliament has had to find space equivalent to 3,500 sq ft to provide for a secretariat, Cabinet rooms, and the necessary accommodation for the Prime Minister’s suite while what is known at ‘the nob’ is being completed at the House of Representatives end of the building. I have also had discussions with the House Committee about this matter. 1 wish to inform honourable senators that I am in the process of taking some planning action which will mitigate the circumstances in which we have found ourselves as a result of the temporary alienation of 3,500 sq ft of space. At that juncture I will seek to reestablish that which my predecessor conceded, namely, a waiting room in Kings Hall.

page 1363

QUESTION

LAW AND ORDER

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask a question of the Attorney-General. Does he remember a statement which the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, made recently in which he said that it was all right for draft resisters to break the law? Does he consider that that was a very dangerous statement to come from Mr Whitlam, particularly as he is a member of the legal profession as well as being the Leader of the Opposition? Does he consider that that statement by Mr Whitlam has been a dangerous encouragement to university students, demonstrators and others to break the law, as happened at the University of Sydney a few days ago?

Senator Murphy:

– I rise on a point or order, Mr President. The honourable senator has not asked a question which seeks information. It offends the rule which prevents questions from being hypothetical, argumentative or seeking an expression of opinion. 1 would submit that it is a classical instance of something which is aimed to be in the nature of a speech or a comment. It is persuasive and of a debating nature rather than a real question seeking information. I ask for the question to be disallowed.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I must confess that I was aberrant for a few minutes because I was looking at a list I have in front of me of honourable senators who have been attempting to catch my eye. 1 freely and frankly confess to honourable senators that I did not hear Senator Wood’s question. If the circumstances are as outlined by Senator Murphy the question would not be in accordance with the Standing Orders. In the circumstances, 1 think that the Attorney-General should take it upon himself to be obedient to the Standing Orders in acknowledging the question directed to him. I call the AttorneyGeneral.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Mr President, I was asked whether I was aware of a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place some time ago. Whilst I do not recall the exact words used by Mr Whitlam, they were certainly to the effect that draft dodging was not a crime and that that therefore excused the conduct of the Australian Labor Party in endorsing a person who was wanted by the police to appear in court to answer a National Service Act offence. 1 have no knowledge of anything which would connect directly members of the Australian Labor Party with the events of last Monday and I .have no reason to believe that any such direct connection exists. Bui I do believe that if leading people in the community, particularly the Leader of the Opposition Party and many of his supporters, were to be giving encouragement to Jaw breaking, giving encouragement to action which is contemptuous of the lawful processes and generally creating an atmosphere in the community that one can resist the National Service Act with impunity they would be encouraging lawlessness. If the attitude is in fact created that it is fair enough to run away from one’s national service obligations and fair enough to set the police a merry dance - I suppose it is an inevitable step for some students to take that view if the police do in fact arrest a person who is wanted for some national service charge or on a warrant to appear in court - then in those circumstances the Labor Party bears an indirect responsibility the weight and measure of which it is difficult to assess - but some responsibility I am quite sure - for the events which have flowed.

page 1364

QUESTION

LOBSTERS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

–

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise. I ask: Are Cuban lobster tails, which are banned as imports in the United States of America, being exported from Cuba to Tokyo in Japan, reshipped from Tokyo to Sydney and then exported from Australia to the United States as Australian rock lobsters? Has this practice been going on for some time? Did a raid by Customs officers take place on Sydney cold stores earlier this month? Will the Minister investigate whether Cuban lobster tails exported as Australian rock lobsters have been shipped to the United States of America on the refrigerated container ship ‘Sultana’? Will the Minister also investigate who has issued the export licences for these products?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have here some papers which were given to me in the dim past, relating to Cuban lobster tails. However, I cannot refer to the vessel ‘Sultana’ because it is not mentioned in them. This information may help the honourable senator. Information received by officers of the Department of Customs and Excise some little time ago suggested that lobster tails of Cuban origin were being trans-shipped to the United States of America via Australia. Preliminary inquiries by the Department indicated that there might be some truth in the allegations. With the importance of the export of lobster tails - now worth in excess of $24m per annum - it was decided not to broaden the inquiry at that time as such action might prejudice the wellbeing of the trade as a whole. All the information known to the Australian Department of Customs and Excise was passed direct to the United States customs officials, and further inquiries in Australia were temporarily suspended in order that it might be confirmed whether the shipment was in fact of Cuban origin. This course of action would have enabled the United States customs officials to take any punitive action necessary. The future course of action by Australian Department of Customs and Excise is to be determined when the position is clarified following the arrival of the vessel in the United States. Needless to say, if the tails prove to be tails of Cuban origin, or indeed any other foreign origin, attempting to enter the United States market in the guise of Australian produce, steps will be taken to ensure that no shipments of this kind are made in the future. I thank the honourable senator for his later information, and I will see that it goes to the Department.

page 1364

QUESTION

TASMANIAN ORCHARDS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the

Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware that approximately 1,000 acres of orchards in Tasmania are being bulldozed each year due to the difficulty of the owners in continuing in this once profitable industry? Is the Minister able to say whether any early action can be expected to aid this very important but ailing Tasmanian primary industry.

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

– I am aware of the practice to which the honourable senator refers. I can well understand his concern over the increasing development of this practice, just as I can well understand the concern of the orchard owners who have to make the decision, particularly after giving a lifetime to the growing of these trees in their orchards. I think the honourable senator will recall that at the last Australian Agricultural Council meeting some Ministers of Agriculture from the various States drew attention to this matter and certain proposals were submitted to the Minister for Primary Industry for his examination. At the present time the Minister is examining the proposals. However, he has not reached any conclusions. Should he do so in the near future, I will convey them to the honourable senator.

page 1365

QUESTION

TARIFFS

Senator MURPHY:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that an application was made by Fibremakers Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Imperial Chemical Industries company, which was heard by the Tariff Board? Is he aware that the application, which was for duties in excess of 20 per cent on certain basic materials, was rejected by the Tariff Board? Is he aware also that thereafter allegations of dumping made by the same company were investigated and rejected, and that nevertheless a further application has been made for temporary duties on the basic materials? Can the Minister tell us whose responsibility it is - if it is the responsibility of anyone - ito put before the authority hearing such an application the possible effects on the cost of living in Australia if it is true, as has been suggested to me, that the granting of the application would increase substantially the cost to the consumer of knitwear, shirts and other garments? Can the Minister tell us whose duty it is to deal with these matters which greatly affect the cost structure in Australia? If he is unable to do so will he seek the information and inform the Senate?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think the latter part of the honourable senator’s question is the part that I will have to take up. I shall have to make inquiries for him of the responsible Minister. In general the Department of Trade and Industry has reporting to it the Tariff Board and the Special Advisory Authority which deal with matters of this kind. Within the Department there is an Office of Secondary Industry which has regard to the implications and complications of issues such as those the honourable senator mentioned. One would expect that the people in that Office would be those who would communicate the views in which the honourable senator is interested. Beyond that I do not think I can help him but I shall certainly see that he gets some information on this matter.

page 1365

QUESTION

DUTY FREE SHOPPING

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise. Will the Minister investigate the possibility of passengers travelling overseas who have purchased articles from duty free gift shops being given the right to elect that such articles be retained at the shop until they return to Australia or be delivered to the aircraft immediately prior to its departure?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, I will make inquiries into that matter.

page 1365

QUESTION

OPIUM

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise inform the Parliament how much opium is officially produced in Australia? Can he also advise the Parliament of the name of the purchasing authority or authorities?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Inquiries will have to be made of the Department of Customs and Excise before I can satisfactorily provide the details required by the honourable senator.

page 1366

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and is supplementary to those asked by Senators Durack and Wood. It concerns the forceful release of a draft resister from the custody of 2 Commonwealth police officers by an anarchistic minority of students at the University of Sydney recently? Will he ensure that the Government will take the strongest possible action to see that those responsible are brought to justice and punished severely in order to discourage such irresponsibility in the future and to demonstrate to the vast majority of law-abiding citizens that pussyfooting with regard to the militant minority on university campuses is at an end?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I reiterate to the honourable senator what I have said publicly: that the police will pursue their inquiries and their investigations with a view to identifying, locating, arresting and bringing before the courts those persons who interfered with and obstructed the police in the execution of their duty. That such obstruction took place is patent. The police will endeavour to locate the wrongdoers to the best of their ability in the circumstance of the involvement of university students which creates particular difficulties. I would assert also that it is important that in this country we should recognise that university students are not different from members of the community and that university premises are not different from other public places to which the people may resort and upon which the police may go in order to pursue their inquiries. Any other view, as I have said earlier, is absolutely untenable.

page 1366

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Attorney-General aware that the Commissioner of Police of Western Australia, Mr A. VVedd, has written a letter to the Acting Commissioner of Commonwealth Police in Canberra? Does the letter include all the instructions issued to Western Australian police regarding Commonwealth warrants? As the letter has been tabled in the Parliament of Western Australia, will the Minister table in the Senate that letter received by his Acting Commissioner? If the Minister has not seen the letter, will he obtain it with the object of tabling it in the Senate?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am aware that a letter has been sent and I have been informed of its contents. I am unable to say whether it includes all the instructions which were given. Certainly the letter is tremendously helpful to the Commonwealth Police and myself. It is helpful because it indicates that a statement was made by a lower ranking police officer in Western Australia which he was not authorised to make. As the Commissioner said, the statement represented a misinterpretation of the instructions which had been given. I was interested to hear this because it assures me that for the future there is the most unequivocal indication from the Western Australian police that there will be assistance. I will obtain the letter in order to consider whether it should be tabled. If, as the honourable senator assures me, it has been tabled in Western Australia I can see no reason why it should not be tabled here.

page 1366

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he has formulated any opinion on the application by Mr Paul Fox under section 29a of the National Service Act 1951, as amended, which was referred to his Department by the Minister for Labour and National Service? If he has not I ask him whether he is aware that it is over 7 weeks since the original application was sent to the Director of Labour and National Service in Melbourne? When did the Minister’s Department receive the referred matter for advice? Will the Minister expedite the advice sought by his colleague in another place?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unable to give the precise dates in response to the honourable senator’s question. It is a fact that advice was sought from my Department and that that advice was given to the Department of Labour and National Service some time ago. But I must say that the gentleman about whom the honourable senator has been inquiring - whatever be his conscientious views - certainly has been playing ducks and drakes with the law.

page 1367

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My question which is directed to the Attorney-General arises out of an answer given to Senator Gietzelt. Did the Attorney-General receive correspondence which was delivered to his office by myself last week in which a number of draft resisters who had failed to register thanked the Attorney-General for giving them freedom to walk around Canberra influencing other young lads to fail to register? Do the particular draft resisters receive the support of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department in their present activities because of the failure of the Department to prosecute them?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I recall receiving from Senator Cavanagh some sheets within the last fortnight the precise particulars of which escape my recollection. As I recall, it was a statement in which an allegation was made that a number of draft resisters were walking around Canberra free. When I receive documents of that character they are always submitted to the Commonwealth police or to the Department of Labour and National Service for investigation. On every occasion when that is done one finds tha the allegations which these people make and the stance which they adopt is not sustained. I shall illustrate this matter shortly. I was in Perth about 3 or 4 weeks ago. A number of people said at a students meeting that they had not registered and that they had not been prosecuted. One of the newspapers published their names. Those names were searched out - I have the details here if anyone wants to ask me - and it was found that some of those people are in fact registered notwithstanding that they stood up, gave their names and said that they were not prosecuted. Others are in the process of being prosecuted because of their non-registration in January this year. These are the tactics being pursued in defiance of the facts.

page 1367

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator BROWN:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he will be good enough to supply to me by letter answers to the specific details sought in the question I asked previously. Will he also inform me in that communication the date on which the advice which was sought by his col- league the Minister for Labour and National Service in another place was furnished to the Minister?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Yes.

page 1367

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator WILLESEE:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: If the British Government refuses to approve the new $420 oneway fare to London will Qantas Airways Ltd lose more than $lm? Did Qantas sell bookings at the new fare prior to obtaining the approval of overseas governments?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The question is conjectural and it is also hypothetical. The facts are, as has been mentioned in the Senate before, that Qantas has found for quite a long time that its traffic has been bled off substantially in Singapore, very largely by carriers emanating from the United Kingdom. Qantas decided that what it should do was to seek to retain its traffic. It took an initiative in trying to do so. In that initiative, it sought Government support. It still has Government support. Qantas is still accepting bookings. The situation is not an easy one. I have no wish to go beyond that.

page 1367

QUESTION

MR FRANCIS JAMES

Senator McMANUS:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is there any truth in the statement which I have seen publicised this week that Francis James has not been released by the Red Chinese because the Australian Government will not comply with a demand that an Australian passport be given to the journalist, Wilfred Burchett?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

In the absence of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I regret that I cannot give a comprehensive reply to the question asked by Senator McManus. In any event, my feeling is that the question should be placed on notice because the whole history of the case of Mr Francis James has been one of speculation. Indeed I think that it might well be that speculation in this context might have a tendency to militate against an ultimate solution of the matter. I shall have the question referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs. If there is an appropriate reply to come to Senator McManus, I will see that it comes.

page 1368

QUESTION

ACCIDENT INSURANCE

Senator MURPHY:

– Does the AttorneyGeneral recall that last year a number of questions were asked about, and ultimately an urgency debate took place on, the failure to introduce legislation to regulate corporations dealing in accident insurance and to protect holders of policies with those companies; that the Prime Minister Mr McMahon stated that this matter was concerning him greatly, or words to that effect, and that the matter was being dealt with in some degree of urgency - as I recall it, by the Attorney-General’s Department. Will the Attorney-General tell us what is happening with the legislation and what he proposes to do about it?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think that Senator Murphy is proceeding on the same misconception that it was apparent he was proceeding upon when he first raised this matter in this place last September or last October. He then attributed to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department such faults as he thought were available. We pointed out that this matter was the responsibility of the Treasurer. Senator Murphy still maintains, apparently, that this is an appropriate question for the Attorney-General to answer when it has been demonstrated most recently that it is the responsibility of the Treasurer.

I am surprised that Senator Murphy in the course of his question at least did not advert to what I would have thought was public knowledge, that is, that last December the Treasurer on behalf of the Government made a most comprehensive statement outlining the nature of the legislation which the Government proposed to introduce in this area of general insurance. The details of that legislation were provided so that representations could be made to the Government from anybody who was interested, including comments from the Opposition - if it had any comments - concerning what the Government proposed. I am unable to say whether the Treasurer has received such representations.

It has been made apparent also that special arrangements with regard to drafting the legislation have been made this year and that the drafting of the legislation is well under way. I know that it is the hope of the Government that legislation will be introduced this session. I hope that that expectation will be realised. I think that the whole basis of the honourable senator’s question, that the Government is doing absolutely nothing in this area, is absolutely contradicted by the facts of which I am surprised he has not been aware.

page 1368

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. I ask: Under what authority do you act in deciding how many more questions shall be permitted at question time? Under what authority do you act in refusing the right to speak to a senator who stands in his place during the adjournment debate?

The PRESIDENT:

– I would be grateful if the honourable senator would allow me to defer answering his question until question time is completed. In that way I will not take up the time of honourable senators who are now waiting to ask questions.

page 1368

QUESTION

GREAT BRITAIN

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as representative of the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s earlier pledge to me that the status of Australian nationals entering Britain after that nation enters the Common Market are safeguarded, will he have that answer re-examined in the .light of proceedings yesterday ‘morning in the House of Commons when an amendment purporting to reinforce that view was rejected?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I would be happy to have the honourable senator’s question referred to the Prime Minister. However, I point out that no government can act on preconceived ideas about motions, resolutions, decisions and votes in the House of Commons. That course would involve looking into a crystal ball. To say that an answer previously given to a question is inconsistent because of a resolution carried in the House of Commons subsequently, on 26th April, is getting into wonderland. Nevertheless, I will have the question posed by the honourable senator in that way referred to the Prime Minister.

page 1368

QUESTION

USTASHI

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Will the AttorneyGeneral agree that it is more urgent to prevent possible loss of life through bomb explosions and other Ustashi violence than to arrest young men who have the courage of their convictions? Will the Minister direct his investigatory apparatus to the tracking down of the source of supply of explosives, fuses and so on known to be used by Ustashi terrorists in this country?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have said that as far as I am aware the use of the word Ustashi’ is politically motivated because of the provocation which it gives to people who object to being so termed. That there are terrorist activities and people with the propensity to engage in them in Australia would appear to be incontrovertible. We know that there have been bomb attacks. The circumstances in which they have occurred and the persons who have perpetrated them are matters for police concern. The State police, of course, have the primary responsibility, but may co-operate with Commonwealth police in order to ascertain who are the wrongdoers and to have them brought before the courts.

However, as with persons who seek to avoid the National Service Act, so with persons who are prepared to resort to bombing and other means of giving expression to their traditional homeland vendettas. The difficulty is that one is not able to get the necessary evidence in many cases to identify the persons who are assisting or who are responsible. That is one of the problems in detection of all crimes. I can only say that in both areas the police are pursuing their inquiries to the best of their abilities. The intention is in each case to insure that wrongdoers can be brought to justice.

page 1369

QUESTION

CYCLONE DAMAGE

Senator KEEFFE:

– I draw the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to question No. 2103, which I placed on the notice paper on 13th April, and question No. 2132, which was placed on the notice paper on 20th April. Each question seeks information concerning Commonwealth grants allocated for the relief of cyclone damage at Townsville. I now ask the Minister: Is he aware that insurance companies have now made an unofficial statement admitting that the payout is likely to be in excess of $50m? Why is this information completely unavailable from the Prime Minister’s Department?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I am relying on my memory, but I recall that Senator Keeffe has already asked me a follow-up question in relation to question No. 2103 on the notice paper. I do not remember question No. 2132 on the notice paper. But at a later hour today I will be in direct contact with officers of the Prime Minister’s Department to see what is delaying this information being made to the honourable senator.

page 1369

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer ask his colleague the Treasurer to consider publishing at the same time as the awaited White Paper on overseas investment the fullest details of Australian investment in overseas countries together with an expression of the Government’s views in relation to the further encouragement of such Australian investment, particularly in countries in South East Asia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I will put the honourable senator’s request to the Treasurer.

page 1369

QUESTION

INSURANCE COMPANIES

Senator MURPHY:

– My question, which is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer, refers to the matter about which I asked the AttorneyGeneral a few moments ago. I remind the Leader of the Government that I asked him about this matter over 12 months ago. It refers to Commonwealth legislation to regulate insurance companies. Does he recall that the Prime Minister expressed his concern about this matter and indicated that it was being dealt with by the AttorneyGeneral? Irrespective of where the buck has been passed or what statements have been made about what is proposed to be done, will he recognise the seriousness of the absence of proper supervision over the accident insurance companies, which has been generally recognised? Can something be done to expedite this legislation in order that it can be passed into law for the protection of the policy holders and of the public generally?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Yes, I recall the Leader of the Opposition some time ago addressing to me in my capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer a question about the proposed legislation. I do not recall the statement by the Prime Minister relating to the AttorneyGeneral to which he has referred, but that is not to say that it was not made. I just do not recall it. I feel that earlier today the Attorney-General gave a very full explanation in answer to the earlier question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. In that answer he indicated that the legislative processes were operating to bring legislation before the Parliament. I have nothing that I can add to the answer given by the Attorney-General in that regard.

page 1370

QUESTION

SOCCER MATCH

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question, which is on the concept of law and order, is directed to the Attorney-General. Does not he think that practice of the Croatia and JUST first division soccer clubs in Victoria playing behind closed gates is an abdication to the forces of totalitarianism? Did his officers and the Victoria Police Force offer to take up the challenge that the game should be played without people being beholden by the right wing group?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I do not know the full details of the matter which has been raised by the honourable senator. I know that the feeling which has often been engendered at these soccer matches is a matter of concern. It is of a different character from the feeling which is engendered at Australian rules, football matches. That feeling leads to problems of a different character. It is a case for regret if, because of what has hapened at Yugoslav soccer matches, it has been decided that certain restrictions additional to those normally imposed have to be imposed. I would like to be - and I believe that I am - consistent in the view that I expressed namely, that fundamental to our society is a respect for the rule of law. This applies everywhere and on all occasions. I only wish that there were a greater respect for it, because if there were there would be less occasion for these things to happen.

page 1370

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– As there are no further questions, I turn my attention to 2 questions which were asked earlier today. I refer firstly to Senator Cavanagh’s question which was directed to me about a quarter of an hour ago. Senator Cavanagh’s question contained 2 parts. Firstly he asked whether I had any power to curb questioning. The answer is no. The other matter that he raised with me related to the incident last night during the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. In relation to the first matter, I make it clear that my investigations indicate that since I have been Presiding Officer by favour of the Senate, the number of questions asked and answered has risen beyond the number asked and answered in the days of my predecessor. In the interest of the Senate, when I sense that it is becoming weary of questions, I seek to persuade honourable senators to hold their questions over. In no instance have I refused to call any honourable senator, as I recollect, who desired to ask a question. My mode of persuasion, when I have this sense of the feeling of the Senate, generally takes the form of saying that there seems to be time for 3 or 4 more questions. If half a dozen senators stand I say that I will take 6 more questions. This has been done by me in no way as an attempt to curb the inalienable rights of honourable senators, for the Standing Orders provide no limit to the time available. I am aware that the Presiding Officer is no greater than the whole and no more important than the parts. I understand Senator Cavanagh’s wish to uphold the proprieties of the Senate. When I sat above the tree line, before I occupied this chair, I was as vigilant as he to see that the rights of honourable senators were protected. I give honourable senators an unqualified assurance that in the Senate my interest is not in any way to curb or inhibit the rights of honourable senators. That relates to the issue raised by Senator Cavanagh in respect of questions.

I deal now with the incident last night during the adjournment debate. I am conscious of and receive from time to time from honourable senators complaints about the increasing work load that they are bearing at present as a result of the advent of the committee system. I am also aware of, for example, the matters raised by

Senator Willesee about the notice paper being cluttered and filled with matters which are the need and necessity of the Senate. I mention that only as an indicator. All of us are aware that the Senate is staggering under a work load that is beginning to exhaust all honourable senators. Last night I felt, perhaps wrongly, that the Senate had reached the stage at which it wished to end the proceedings. I called the Minister for Air, Senator Drake-Brockman, who had moved the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, not with any malice but simply because I saw him first. I also saw Senator Cavanagh appear, but only over the head of the Clerk sitting at the table. I can assure honourable senators that I am here to discharge the obligations that they have imposed on me to live and preside within the Standing Orders of the Senate and according to the customs and practices of the Senate.

I now turn my attention to the question asked of me earlier by Senator McManus. It is true that Senator McManus gave me a circular which has been issued by a group of people styling themselves the Radical Action Movement and having their headquarters apparently at 57 Palmerston Street, Carlton, Victoria. The circular deals with proposed activities in relation to the SEATO conference to take place in Canberra in June. Therefore, I think that I must elaborate on the answer that I gave to Senator Brown yesterday. The circumstances are that the preparations for the conference were initiated in April last year. The Presiding Officers have agreed with the Executive Government that Parliament House should be provided as the venue for the conference. I indicated to Senator Brown yesterday that there will be no impediment placed by the presence of the SEATO conference on the movement of honourable senators and honourable members, except in one area on the House of Representatives side. I make it clear to honourable senators, as I made it clear to the House Committee this morning, that I have forbidden the alienation of any area on the Senate side to the SEATO conference.

I am slightly disturbed at what appears to be a belief that Parliament is a public place and that the environs of Parliament are open to the public. I think I should inform honourable senators that, although the precincts of Parliament House have never been defined in the Commonwealth jurisdiction or the Commonwealth Parliament as they have, for example, by the Parliament in Victoria, to which Senator McManus referred, honourable senators are aware that under section 49 of the Constitution, the powers, immunities and priviledges of the Houses of Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia are the powers, immmunities and priviledges of the House of Commons. Therefore, it is interesting - and I think I can inform honourable senators of this - that the House of Commons has always been vigilant in regard to the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. Following the events of 1696, the House of Commons, from 1709, has introduced at the beginning of each session a sessional order instructing the Police that the area near the Palace of Westminster must always be kept free and open in order that the Lords and honourable members can have free ingress and egress from the Palace of Westminster to discharge the duty for which they take their seats in Parliament.

So far as I am concerned, I consider that that power which is inherent in the House of Commons is transferred to the House of Parliament here in the Commonwealth of Australia. I assure honourable senators that, if any attempt is made to prevent the free movement of members of Parliament, whether a SEATO conference is in existence or not, I shall exercise, together with my colleague Mr Speaker in another place, our authority to see that these privileges of the Parliament are retained.

page 1371

QUESTION

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

(Questions upon notice and the answers thereto are published at the end of the day’s proceedings.)

page 1371

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the Seriate, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 9th May at 3 p.m.

page 1371

QUESTION

THE SENATE

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

(12.11) - I move:

Mr President, perhaps I should indicate at this stage the proposed programme for this evening. It has been indicated to me that there is a desire to sit tonight and discuss certain items listed under General Business. In response to an understanding I gave to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee), I propose to suggest to the Senate at 8 o’clock tonight when General Business is called on that we go through the items listed under General Business and Orders of the Day in the notice paper and, if it is the will of the Senate, remove those items which have become redundant or which have become dated. Those items which any honourable senator wants to be left on the notice paper will be left on it. But where it is unanimously agreed that certain items should be removed from it, I think we should dispose of them in that manner. In that way we would be able to clear up the items listed in the notice paper under General Business and Orders of the Day.

After that has been done 1 propose to have called on item No. 12 under General Business, which is in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and which is a matter of particular interest to all honourable senators. It relates to the question of the examination of committee reports. I do not want to canvass that item at this stage. I repeat that after the notice paper has been cleaned up in respect to both of the heads to which I have referred I think the Senate should deal with item No. 12. After the Leader of the Opposition has put his case the Government will give its view. Discussion will then continue on that item. I do not propose to call on item No. 13 if the discussion on item No. 12 is concluded.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I accede to that course on the understanding that if item No. 12 under General Business is disposed of in some manner the Senate will discuss item No. 1 under General Business.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (12.15) in reply - Yes. Perhaps I should also indicate that when the sitting of the Senate resumes at 5.30 this afternoon some messages will be put down. I assume that an adjournment of the debate on those messages will be taken. Of course, at 8 o’clock the Senate will go on to discuss General Business.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 12.15 to 5.30 p.m.

page 1372

QUESTION

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Ministerial Statement

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

– Mr President, the Prime Minister has just concluded, or has almost concluded, in another place a statement relating to the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology. This statement has been circulated to honourable senators and, as it is fairly long, I ask that it be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– There are elements inside the Senate who do not believe in the incorporation of these statements. However, I think in the circumstances leave should be granted. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)’:

I rise to inform the House of new arrangements that the Government will make in relation to science and technology in Australia. These arrangements will involve the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Science and Technology and provision for an appropriate secretariat. The function of this Advisory Committee is to furnish co-ordinated advice on actions and policies that would assist in the alignment of our science and technology, to our national objectives. Honourable members will be aware of striking advances in science and technology over the past half century. A few familiar examples come to mind - radar, antibiotics, the jet engine, immunology, satellite communications and latterly, space exploration - there are many others.

After World War II, it was recognised internationally that major investment in science, in education and in science based activities would be a prominent feature of the future. Scientific research in all fields has therefore received increasing support from governments and as a consequence, science and technology in their totality have contributed enormously to the economic and social advancement and the well-being of many countries. Australia has both contributed to and benefited from these advances. The Commonwealth Government has been involved in the development of science and technology in Australia virtually from the time of Federation, and has played a key role through the policies which it has developed over the years to meet the changing pattern of national needs and opportunities.

These policies comprehend the creation of a resource of skilled scientists and technologists, and the pursuit of rigorous programmes of scientific research and technological development, both within the Government and outside - principally in the universities and in industry. Some of these activities have been undertaken in partnership with the States. The Commonwealth has encouraged and expanded the scientific and technological efforts of its own agencies such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, and the Department of Supply. Moreover, the Commonwealth has developed schemes to provide financial support for science and technology outside of its own fields of immediate responsibility. For example, research of high scientific merit is supported financially through the Australian Research Grants Committee; industrial research and innovation are assisted through the Industrial Research and Development Grants Board, and scientific work in the fields of medicine and health services is supported through the National Health and Medical Research Council. One result of this support has been the emergence in fields such as radio astronomy and medicine, of institutions which have achieved international recognition and have become centres of excellence. The Government will continue to foster the development of such centres and in this context I remind the House of the Government’s decision to establish an Australian Institute of Marine Science which we trust in the fullness of time will achieve similar international recognition.

The Government has thus played, through its various policies and actions, a major role in bringing Australian science and technology to their present advanced state, and has, I believe, abundant reason to be proud of the record of Australian scientists in this regard. The Government will continue to play a major role in these fields. The rapid, and at times spectacular, advance made by science and technology in recent years has brought with it a number of problems. For example, some research has become very expensive in terms of manpower, money and equipment. Indeed some fields require facilities which are beyond the resources of almost any single one of the developed nations - beyond the resources, that is, if the country concerned is to maintain balance among the competing claims on the public purse. As a consequence, countries have been compelled to make explicit choice from among its various scientific and technological projects and to determine priorities for the allocation of resources. There is an increasing tendency therefore for countries to concentrate part of their resources on particular areas in which they have demonstrable need, expertise, or unique environmental opportunities. In addition, there is a growing tendency to avoid the national development of large and very expensive projects and to look towards the possibility of co-operation on an international basis.

Another problem of increasing concern to many countries arises from the adverse effects which have been recognised as flowing from some applications of science and technology. I need not elaborate in detail on such matters as despoliation of national resources. What I do want to emphasise is that the Government takes the view that, before deciding to support new areas of science and technology, it is mandatory not only to assess the potential benefits, but also to forecast possible undesirable results. Only the best advice that can be obtained for this purpose is good enough.

Australia has reached the stage where it becomes more important than ever to judge our priorities carefully because we cannot cover the whole field. We are therefore obliged to make decisions as to which of the demands should be satisfied. It may also be necessary to create opportunities for new scientific and technical developments so that specific national objectives can be achieved. We have thus 2 aims - to resolve the demands and promote areas outside of these demands. Neither can be neglected and a balance must be achieved. The growth and complexity of science and technology, together with the emergence of problems such as those outlined have led other countries to establish formal machinery for providing to them expert advice on a co-ordinated basis. While the Government has been aware of these moves it has only reached its present position after careful consideration of the desirability for Australia to adopt similar procedures.

Up to the present time in developing policies for science and technology it has been our practice to seek advice through formal or informal channels from those sources most able to assist. However, with the experience of other countries as a guide and the increasing range and complexity of the problems which we face it is now timely to change our approach. After examination by the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of experience and developments overseas, and following discussions with leading industrialists, with the Australian Academy of Science and with senior Government scientists, the Government has decided to establish an Advisory Committee on Science and Technology.

I should perhaps point out to honourable members that the establishment of similar advisory committees in other countries and the problems tackled by them have led to the use of the term science policy’, the meaning of which is frequently misunderstood. Science policy in the sense in which it is generally accepted by governments implies a deliberate and coherent framework for the provision of advice on the size, structure, creativity and utilisation of scientific and technological research, as a basis for policy decisions on these matters. The purpose of this framework, in the sense that I have described it, should be clearly understood. It is one of the means by which governments can be assisted in their considerations of the various factors which need to be taken into account in reaching decisions concerned with the attainment of national goals.

The primary function of the Committee to which I have referred and which will report to me through the Minister for Education and Science will be to make recommendations to the Government, on Australian efforts in civil science and technology. It will assess on a continuing basis

Australian requirements, resources and potential in civil science and technology and will provide advice on these matters. The Government intends that the Committee should make wide ranging and comprehensive assessments of the scientific and technological situation. It will advise un such facets as long term planning, new areas which are of importance to Australia, the priorities that should be assigned to specific projects or areas of research, the means for improving efficiency in the use of resources and the effective development and utilisation of scientific and technological manpower. The Committee will be empowered to undertake studies on its own initiative, in addition to providing advice on specific matters that are referred to it by the Government. The Committee’s interests will lie mainly in the fields of civil science and technology. It is not intended that it be concerned with questions of defence science except to the extent that these may be related to matters that fall in its own fields of primary concern. Nor is it intended that the Committee’s activities extend into fields of medical research which are the responsibility of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

The Committee will have a membership of 11 distinguished persons with experience in manufacturing industry, primary industry, mining industry, commerce and finance and science. All members, including the Chairman, will serve part time and will be appointed for 3-year terms. Members of the Committee will be announced at an early date. Senior Commonwealth officers, including permanent heads, will not serve directly on the Committee, but will assist it as assessors and will be available to advise on specific matters within their areas of individual responsibility. It will be seen therefore as completely independent. The Committee will consult with other relevant advisory bodies with a view to ensuring liaison on areas of mutual interest and to avoiding duplication of effort. It will submit an annual report which will be tabled in the Parliament. The Committee will have difficult and long ranging tasks to perform and it is serviced by a competent and high level secretariat which, by the qualifications and experience of its members, will be able to provide the support which the Committee will need.

As I have already mentioned the Commonwealth over many years, has played a key role in the development and application of science and technology in Australia. However, the Government recognises the important roles also played by State Governments, by industry, and by universities. It therefore looks forward to their co-operation in the work of this Advisory Committee, in the belief that the effective and balanced development of the national effort in science and technology will be in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

page 1375

NAVIGATION BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The principal subject dealt with in this Bill, that of the tonnage measurement of ships, has probably never been discussed in the Senate. This is because the present law in Australia on tonnage measurement of ships is that contained in the British Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and amending Acts, in so far as they apply in Australia. The origins of tonnage measurement of ships are interwoven with those ships themselves. The purpose of measurement is to establish criteria for ship’s size by volume and a basis for levying dues and charges. Broadly a ship’s net tonnage is an indicator of its earning capacity. In simple terms, it is the total enclosed volume of the ship - the gross tonnage - less the volume of the spaces in which cargo is not carried or that do not otherwise directly contribute to the earning capacity of the ship.

Tonnage measurement is part of the whole process for the registration of ships, and not only our tonnage measurement legislation but the whole of our registration legislation exists in the British Merchant Shipping Acts. The Government has for some time been anxious to have this replaced with Commonwealth legislation, and new registration legislation will in fact be introduced as soon as possible. This Bill, however, will take care of the tonnage measurement aspects by inserting in the Navigation Act power to make regulations for the measurement of ships’ tonnage in the way provided in the Tonnage Mark Scheme. The urgent need for Australian ships engaged in overseas trades to be able to take advantage of the Tonnage Mark Scheme on a similar basis to their competitors will then be able to be satisfied.

I shall now refer to some of the clauses of the Bill in a little detail. Clause 6 provides the regulation-making powers that are necessary to enable Commonwealth tonnage measurement regulations to be made in place of the British tonnage measurement provisions. Subsection (1.) of the new section 407a provides the general regulation-making power, and subsection (2.) provides specific regulation-making powers to ensure that there is no doubt that regulations may be made in respect of the matters mentioned in each of its paragraphs. The powers contained in most of those paragraphs would seem to be selfexplanatory, but there are two which I should explain.

Paragraph (d) enables the regulations to have conditional provisions along the lines of the 1967 British Tonnage Measurement Regulations, as, for example, where certain spaces may be deducted from the gross tonnage of a ship, this deduction can be made conditional on the spaces conforming to certain requirements. Paragarph (f) provides for regulations to give effect to the Tonnage Mark Scheme. Under the scheme a ship can have 2 sets of tonnage figures and a ‘tonnage mark’ on its side. One set of figures applies when the tonnage mark is submerged and the dry cargo spaces between the second and upper decks are included in the ship’s tonnage figures. The other set applies when the tonnage mark is not submerged, the dry cargo spaces between the second and upper decks not being included in the ship’s tonnage in such circumstances. The Tonnage Mark Scheme has been recommended by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation.

While Australian ships will for the time being continue to be registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, it is necessary, as I have indicated, that some provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act be repealed or amended, in so far as they are part of the law of the Commonwealth. These changes will not affect the operation of the provisions in so far as their application in the States is concerned. Subsection (3.) of section 407a provides for the sections of the Merchant Shipping Act that are to be amended or repealed to be set out in a Schedule, which is to become Schedule VIII to the Principal Act. The Schedule is inserted by clause 9.

Clause 6 also inserts a new section 407b dealing with tonnage in the case of ships of countries other than Commonwealth countries. Briefly, it provides in effect that the Governor.General may, by proclamation, declare a country to be one the tonnages of whose ships will be accepted in Australia for the purposes of dues and charges, subject to any specified conditions and restrictions. It is expressed to apply only to ships of countries other than Commonwealth countries, as section 408 of the Navigation Act already covers the matter so far as ships of Commonwealth countries are concerned. Under subsection (3.) of section 407b the Governor-General may, by proclamation, in effect require foreign ships measured according to rules substantially different from those operating in Australia, and those that have tonnage figures that appear to be at variance with the figures that would be expected, to be re-measured under the Australian regulations.

Clause 7 amends section 409 so that if a ship to which it applies enters an Australian port unregistered, or if there is a dispute arising as to its correct tonnage, the ship will be re-measured under the new Commonwealth regulations rather than under the Merchant Shipping Act. Clause 10 will enable regulations for tonnage measurement purposes to be formally made between the date when the Act receives Royal Assent and the date on which, under clause 2 (2.), the sections of the amending Act concerning tonnage measurement are brought into force by proclamation. However, the regulations are not to come into operation before the latter date.

The opportunity has been taken to effect amendments on two other matters within the Navigation Act. The first of these, which is dealt with by clauses 3 and 4, raises the minimum age for employment at sea under the Navigation Act, including apprentices, from 15 to 16 years. The minimum age in practice is already at least 16, and while covering this the amendment will put Commonwealth law in the matter in an even better position in relation to relevant International Labor Organisation conventions. The second matter involves repeal, by clause 8, of section 423a. This section provides, broadly, that the GovernorGeneral may, by order, declare that, subject to certain conditions, specified provisions of the Act shall not apply in relation to Aboriginal natives of a territory employed as crews on territorial vessels. The section has been inoperative for some time, and, in accordance with the Government’s policy of eliminating any potential source of racial discrimination, is being repealed.

I am sure that all honourable senators will be pleased at the extension of the Commonwealth’s own legislation that the Bill represents, and will give it the support that it merits. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 1376

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Negus) adjourned.

page 1376

EXCISE BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill will amend the Excise Act 1901- 1968 by converting existing references to measurement to metric equivalents. The amendments relate principally to the conversion to litres of the maximum and minimum sizes of certain vessels, namely, barrels, half-hogsheads, hogsheads and kilderkins used by the brewing industry and to the quantities for duty of beer marketed in these vessels. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by SenatorPoyser) adjourned.

page 1377

DISTILLATION BILL 1972

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a message from the House of Representatives. Order! Senator Devitt, would you mind resuming your seat, please?

Senator Devitt:

– Mr President, must I resume my seat?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is the proper place to be when you are conducting a private conversation. In any case you should not conduct such a conversation when the President is on his feet.

Senator Devitt:

– As my seat is now vacant I will resume it, Mr President, at your request.

The PRESIDENT:

– Not only at my request but also in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Senator Devitt:

– I have never heard that order given before. I am quite serious about this, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– So am I. The message I have received from the House of Representatives reads:

Mr President, the House of Representatives transmits to the Senate a Bill entitled ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Distillation-‘

Senator Devitt:

– Mr President, I rise on a point of order. You have requested me to resume my seat. Does that request apply to all other honourable senators who are out of their seats?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I asked you to resume your seat because you were conducting a private conversation when you were not in your place and when the President was on his feet.

Senator Devitt:

– Under what standing order did you do that?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is inherent in the Standing Orders. If you look them up you will find it. Please resume your seat while I transmit this message. It reads:

Mr President, the House of Representatives transmits to the Senate a Bill entitled ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Distillation Act 1901-1968’ in which it desires the concurrence of the Senate.

The message is signed ‘W. Aston, Speaker of the House of Representatives’, and is dated 26th April 1972.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time

This Bill seeks in the main to provide for the new method of measuring by volume the alcohol content of liquors, and at the same time to effect minor amendments to the Act relating to the introduction of the metric system. I will explain the reasons for these changes when I make my second reading speech on the Excise Tariff Bill. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poyser) adjourned.

page 1377

SPIRITS BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks mainly to provide for the new volume method of measurement of the alcohol content of liquors and at the same time to effect minor amendments to the Act relating to metrication. I will explain the reasons for these changes in my remarks concerning the Excise Tariff Bill. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poyser) adjourned.

page 1377

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr President, this is another of the Bills complementary to the Excise Tariff Bill 1972. The Bill converts the rate of tax imposed by the Act on diesel fuel entered for home consumption as from 1st July 1972 from 17½c per gallon to its metric equivalent, namely, 3.85c per litre. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poyser) adjourned.

page 1378

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL

(No. 2) 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion toy Senator Cotton) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr President, this is another Bill which is complementary to the Excise Tariff Bill 1972. The Bill converts the rate of duty imposed by the Act on diesel fuel entered for home consumption as from 1st July 1972 from 17.5c per gallon to its metric equivalent, namely, 3.85c per litre. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poyser) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.51 to 8 p.m.

page 1378

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY AND TRADE

Interim Report

Senator PROWSE (Western Australia)-

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a statement.

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

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The statement I wish to make is the interim report of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade. I present an interim report from the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade on the proposed takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Limited by Thomas Nationwide Transport Limited.

Since 13th April when the Senate directed this Committee to investigate the proposed takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Limited by Thomas Nationwide Transport Limited, the Committee has been heavily involved in preparing itself in relation to the matter under inquiry.

The Committee has already carried out a substantial amount of background work in relation to the matter before it and has availed itself of expert advice in areas of aviation, transport, industrial economics and relevant legislation.

The Committee commenced its public hearings on 26th April and they continued this morning. However, the Chairman of TNT, Mr K. W. Thomas, this afternoon stated to the Committee that the Directors of TNT made a decision today not to proceed with the proposed takeover. The relevant part of Mr Thomas’s statement is as follows: 1 am informed that in the Victorian Parliament this morning a Bill was introduced which, I understand, has now passed the second reading. I am informed that there is a specific prohibition in that Bill of a takeover offer for Ansett Transport Industries Limited by Thomas Nationwide Transport Limited.

In the circumstances, our Directors have been consulted during the luncheon break and I have been authorised to state that the Directors of TNT have resolved not to proceed with the proposed takeover.

The Committee will report to the Senate in more detail within the 28 days specified in its reference, but takes this early opportunity to ask the concurrence of the Senate to agree to the Committee’s suggestion not to continue further with its investigations under its existing terms of reference.

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

– by leave - I wish to refer to the interim report of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade which has just been presented. The Committee in this report states that it will report to the Senate in more detail within the 28 days specified in the reference, but it then goes on to say, after giving the historical background:

  1. . but takes this early opportunity to ask the concurrence of the Senate to agree to the Committee’s suggestion not to continue further with its investigations under its existing terms of reference.

As Leader of the Government in the Senate I am placed in a rather awkward situation because I am confronted with a proposal of which as yet I have no official knowledge. If by just doing nothing we indicate that the Committee has the concurrence of the Senate to take no further evidence, I think I will have to make a judgment in that regard. If the mere putting down of the interim report means that the Committee will not carry on with its investigations, I think the Senate has to make a judgment in that regard also. In those circumstances I think we ought to adjourn consideration of this document to a later hour tonight so that we can have a look at our position in relation to it. lt may well be that honourable senators wish to think about this matter. I cannot say off the cuff what are the views of honourable senators. This is not clear, and I think we ought to give the Chairman of the Committee an opportunity to tell us what he intends to do. Of course, consideration of this matter could be made an order of the day for another day, but in fairness to the Committee which perhaps is wanting some guidance I think I should put forward the proposal that the matter be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day. That will not inhibit Senator Murphy or Senator Gair from speaking on this matter and they will have a motion to which they can speak. At least this will give the Party leaders a chance to consider their position. I move:

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– 1 have no objection to what has been proposed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) but before the matter is disposed of I would like to make some observations. This matter has been brought to my attention apparently as suddenly as it has been brought to the attention of the Leader of the Government. We are faced with a very strange set of events. There was a proposed takeover by Thomas Nationwide

Transport Ltd of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. The Senate in good faith set up a committee to investigate the merits of that takeover and in particular to investigate the matters of non-Australian ownership of the respective companies. The Committee also was to inquire into the question whether the takeover might be prejudicial to the Australian aviation industry, as well as other matters of public interest. The Committee, in the course of that investigation, apparently has heard some evidence from the TNT interests. Then without notice and apparently without reference to the Government - certainly without reference to the Opposition - the Victorian Parliament, obviously at the instance of Ansett interests, has taken a course designed to prevent the bona fide inquiry which was instituted in this case on the motion of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and agreed to by the Senate.

These events raise very important constitutional questions as to the proper relations between the Commonwealth Parliament and the State Parliaments. The Ansett company differs from other companies in the important respect that it is concerned in the airline business which is a Federal matter governed by the Airlines Agreements Act of 1962.

Senator Cotton:

– And the Airlines Equipment Act.

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank Senator Cotton. Yes, it is governed by the Airlines Equipment Act and the Airlines Agreements Act, both of which are Federal Acts. This company differs from other companies also because of the fact that it owns television stations which come under the Broadcasting and Television Act. It is only because of those 2 matters that this has been made a public affair, and those 2 Federal aspects fall clearly within the competence of this Commonwealth Parliament. In the pursuit of its proper supervision of the administration of enactments, this Senate was engaged in an inquiry into the merits of this proposed takeover bid. It seems to me a very extraordinary proposition that a State Parliament should interfere in this way to cut short the inquiry which was designed to look at the merits of the matter. We have gone to some trouble to see that it was an even-handed inquiry. There was nothing except those 2

Federal aspects of the matter which distinguished this takeover bid from any other ordinary company takeover. No special State interests were involved at all, but only the 2 Federal aspects. To me this raises a matter which is of far more importance than the question of the time involved and so forth.

I would not like to dispose of this question suddenly. I take it that we oan consider it at a later stage but no doubt in the intervening period the members of the Committee will use their common sense. I think perhaps that the implications of this matter ought to be considered in the intervening period and that we be given some opportunity to consider the position - and perhaps the other relevant Commonwealth authorities should consider their position - and the action which has been taken. In the circumstances, it seems to me to be a very strange action-

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– The honourable senator is really speaking to the substance of the original motion rather than to the problem that we have here.

Senator MURPHY:

– I accept what the Leader of the Government says. In a sense 1 am speaking to the substance. I will not say any more on that. I concur in what he has proposed. At the moment, I suggest for the consideration of the Senate that when we come later to the matter we might defer action rather than immediately concur in the proposition that we abandon the inquiry. It was commenced in good faith and was being carried on in good faith into a matter which was relevant to our powers as a part of the Federal legislature; and it was undertaken by the common consent of every political party represented in this chamber.

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

– As the individual responsible for moving the motion which referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade the question of the projected takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, I say that no-one was more surprised than I by the announcement that TNT had decided not to proceed with the proposed takeover. I think that we should be thankful to Senator Prowse, the Chairman of the Committee which was directed to investigate this matter, and its members for the interim report which they have submitted to the Senate this evening. In the circumstances, none of us could have expected more than what they have done. I was equally surprised by the intrusion of the Victorian Premier into this matter when it was being investigated by a committee of the Senate. I am inclined to think that we should accept the report Senator Prowse has presented this evening and that we should defer any further discussion until the Committee presents a report in more detail within the 28 days specified in the terms of reference in my motion. I do not think that the Committee’s task is completed-

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– That could be implemented by agreement if that is what is wanted.

Senator GAIR:

– That is only a difference of opinion. I think that we all agree that the task is not finished; the Committee’s work is not finished.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– That is right.

Senator Murphy:

– We agree.

Senator GAIR:

– That being so, we should allow the Committee to function and to find out as much as it can in regard to all aspects of this proposed takeover and perhaps the reasons why Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd has decided not to go ahead with the proposed takeover. Is it because of the intervention of the Victorian Government?

Senator Devitt:

– Surely that would not stop the takeover.

Senator GAIR:

– An honourable senator interjects and says that that would not stop it. I do not propose to express any legal opinion on this matter. Some people presume to know a lot about these things; I do not. I do not know whether the Victorian Government has the power or whether it does not. But the fact remains that the Senate appointed a standing committee to investigate all aspects of this proposed takeover. In all sincerity, I submitted the motion only in the public interest. I reiterated that in .the course of my supporting speech which was brief but to the point. I indicated very clearly that I took no sides in the matter and that I was concerned with the public interest. That is why, I believe, the Senate agreed to the motion that I submitted and agreed to refer the matter to the Committee for investigation.

Up till now the Committee has done a measure of work, as the interim report states. With the dramatic announcement that TNT does not intend to proceed with the takeover, I think that the Committee still has some work to do to find out as much information and detail as it can. I am prepared to support the submission made by Senator Prowse, which is as follows:

The Committee will report to the Senate in more detail within the 28 days specified in its reference, but takes this early opportunity to ask the concurrence of the Senate to agree to the Committee’s suggestion not to continue further with its investigations under its existing terms of reference.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Does the honourable senator agree with that?

Senator GAIR:

– No. I think the Committee should continue with its terms of reference. I think it has work still to do. That is the only phase of the report with which I disagree. I do not want it to terminate its investigations now merely because of the dramatic announcement by TNT. I think it should continue and find out as much as it can within the 28 days specified in the resolution. I can understand how frustrated the members of the Committee may feel with this interruption when they have been given a job to do. But the fact remains that in regard to this Committee we can have little or no concern with the intervention of the Victorian Government. Let the Committee examine the matter and present a report to the best of its ability, with its findings on what the position is. I think the members of the Committee are to be commended on what , they have done up till now and I think they should continue and find out as much as they can.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Withers) - As I understand it, the question before the Senate is the motion moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson for consideration of this report to be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.

Senator Murphy:

– May I ask for leave to move a further motion or to speak further on this matter?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - If the Leader of the Opposition could indicate what his motion will be, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson might ask for leave to withdraw his motion.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Perhaps we can dispose of it this way: If you, Mr Acting Deputy President, allow Senator Murphy to foreshadow his proposal, then it may be that I will withdraw mine if I find that I can accommodate my problems in his proposal.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Is leave granted for Senator Murphy to foreshadow his motion? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I would like to move a motion in accordance with what I understand to be the sense of what both Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and Senator Gair have put. It is: ‘That the Senate notes the interim report of the Committee but directs the Committee to report to the Senate in more detail within the 28 days specified in its reference’. In other words, the proposition would be that the Committee would report within the 28 days specified, and we would not be accepting the further proposition that no further investigations be undertaken.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (8.20) - I will be happy to withdraw my motion.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Is leave granted for Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson to withdraw his motion? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I support Senator Murphy’s proposed motion. The Committee will report to the Senate in more detail within 28 days in accordance with its terms of reference. It is not inhibited as to the evidence it will take and the judgments it will form before reporting to the Senate.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

That the Senate take note of the interim report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade and the Senate direct the Committee to report to the Senate in more detail within the 28 days specified in its terms of reference.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– The purpose of bringing this matter to the Senate is obvious to all honourable senators. The Committee was considering the reference that had been given to it under a definite set of circumstances. Th circumstances changed rather dramatically and we of the Committee felt that we had an obligation to return to the Senate and report the situation so that the Senate would have an opportunity to consider the altered situation in which its Committee found itself.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Why?

Senator PROWSE:

– So that the Senate itself could, if it felt it was necessary, alter the wording of the reference which the Committee feels is no longer applicable. We realise that certain matters are unresolved, but they are not related to the existing reference. I suggest that the Senate defer this debate which has been brought on suddenly owing to circumstances. Some little time could then be given to consideration of restating the terms of reference taking into account the altered circumstances. I feel that there is a need for such action because the reference as it stands is no longer applicable.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I wish to make one or two brief observations because it seems to me that a completely new element has been introduced into this matter. I think it is now appropriate to ask whether the present terms of reference will encompass the widened type of inquiry which would be necessary to achieve the objectives that the Senate had in mind when it first moved to refer the matter to one of its standing committees. Together with other senators, after looking at the interim report I believe that what has transpired in the last few hours is a consequence of a decision taken today in the Victorian Parliament. That decision to me seems to an extent to have pre-empted the role of the Senate in inquiring into this question.

I think all honourable senators are deeply concerned about what is happening in stock exchange trading, particularly in respect of 2 aspects. One aspect is the possible development of a monopoly in Australia. The second aspect is the extent of overseas ownership of Australian companies. These matters very much concern me and I have been at some pains to try to determine what a committee of the Senate could possibly establish in relation to the normal trading activities of stock exchanges. However, the questions of a possible monopoly and the extent of overseas ownership are very much our concern.

I very much deprecate any suggestion that the work of the Standing Committee should now cease simply because a State Parliament - it does not matter which State is involved - has taken a certain decision which has caused the directorate of the company concerned not to proceed with its original purpose. The interim report suggests that the decision was not taken for any reason other than that decision was made today in the Victorian Parliament. I think it would be rather sad for the Senate if, because of that decision, the work which was commenced by the Senate to examine the situation were now to cease. 1 recall that a committee of the Senate was established to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the possible closure of the Canberra abattoir. I was very much involved in that inquiry. Ultimately it was announced in the Press that a decision had been made by the Government not to close the abattoir but to sell it to local entrepreneurs who would keep it functioning. It was suggested to me as Chairman of that Committee that at that point the Senate Select Committee appointed to inquire into the issue ought then to cease its activity. I said that that was by no means the case. The Senate had made a decision to take certain action and I believed that the Committee appointed by the Senate should go on with the inquiry and ultimately report to the Senate, as required by its terms of reference.

Although we are now dealing with a vastly different matter I think that the Senate has an obligation and a duty to proceed with this inquiry. I think we would look a bit stupid in the eyes of the Australian community if we changed course suddenly because Sir Henry Bolte or another Premier had decided that he would take some action within the area of his own competence. I am not questioning that.

Senator Little:

– I think it has been supported unanimously in the Victorian Parliament.

Senator DEVITT:

– That may well be, but I am talking about the role of the Senate and its committee system. I very seriously deprecate any thought that the Standing Committee should cease its inquiry. I think it should go on to investigate the circumstances of the decision of TNT not to proceed with its proposition, and then report its findings to the Senate.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– It may be useful to the Senate if, as an interested party, I make some observations on this matter. Since the reference to the Committee was approved I have helped the Committee as much as possible. Both departments involved have given assistance with advice and by making available officials whom we thought would be beneficial to the Committee. We have awaited the result of the inquiry with considerable interest. We have regarded the Committee’s work as being valuable, and we still believe that. It seems to me that the present slight problem can be overcome by the commonsense and goodwill of this joint gathering in a common exercise, I find Senator Murphy’s proposal acceptable. I am not getting excited about it. I have confidence in the wisdom, common sense and judgment of honourable senators engaged in this exercise. 1 am sure that they will take all the necessary steps to find out what they believe they should find out and then report back to the Senate by 11th May. If necessary the Committee can ask for an extension of time and possibly a change in the terms of reference. That could well be a useful course. I am content to leave it to the Committee, with Senator Murphy’s motion in the forefront of its aim, to use its commonsense and judgment. I will accept what the Committee does and I will await with interest the presentation of its report.

I think I should make a passing observation in regard to paragraph 1 (d) of the Committee’s terms of reference. I think it should be made clear that although the transaction referred to is obviously the takeover offer, an application by TNT for permission to acquire a shareholding amounting to approximately 23 per cent in Ansett Transport Industries is still before me as Acting Postmaster-General. Should Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd wish to

13071/72-3’ - 1541

proceed with this transaction under the Broadcasting and Television Act it is subject to my approval. As required by the Act I have asked the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to report to me on this matter. The Board has advised me that it will be some time before its investigations are completed having regard to the complication introduced by the substantial shareholdings held in TNT by nominee companies and also because of the very substantial trading in shares of both companies which is reported to have taken place in recent weeks. As an honourable senator as well as a responsible Minister I totally agree with the view taken by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and I accept Senator Murphy’s amendment which, in effect, leaves the terms of reference as they are. They are quite wide. It is left to the judgment of the Chairman and my colleagues on the Committee to come back on I1 th May and say: ‘We have found out the following things: We report to you accordingly. We believe we should now stop. We believe we should have longer. We believe that we may require a change in our terms of reference’. Lel the matter wait until then.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– lt is of great interest to see this interim report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade on the proposed takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd. Of course I look on this proposed takeover as being a normal procedure in this day and age where the bigger fish eat the smaller fish. This is the sort of attitude of business today. After all, if we have a look at this doyen of Australia on whom we are trying to adjudicate - Sir Reginald Ansett - we find that he has done a fair share of the same type of thing himself.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Withers) - Order! I suggest that the honourable senator come back to the motion. We might proceed a little more rapidly.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– If I might just make my own preliminary remarks-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! Let us stay with the motion.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– 1 am on the motion. I think that I should be given as much tolerance by the Chair as was given to other speakers. I say that the Victorian Government has taken an attitude in relation to this matter while a Senate standing committee was investigating it. The Victorian Government has taken action which has cut across the activities of the Senate. 1 have seen this type of thing happen before. It happened with the Senate Select Committee on Offshore Petroleum Resources. Sir Henry Bolte had already sold out the Victorian and Australian interests in Bass Strait oil to overseas interests without one little thought about what happens to Australian equity in these things. Mr Thomas of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd has conducted a business with great credit to himself and his organisation. He started off, as did Sir Reginald Ansett, as a truck driver. He came through the same processes. This is the big matching of intellects, capacity and ability to survive in the modern day economic world. As a large and successful progressive organisation, TNT operates within the rules of our capitalist system in an honourable way. I would like to stress that.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! Would the honourable senator please come back to Senator Murphy’s motion?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am speaking to the motion. I place on record that there should be no recriminations against TNT. This dramatic alteration referred to in the interim report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade should not leave any thought in the minds of Australians that Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd has done anything wrong. They are honourable people. Their opponents have had Commonwealth Government assistance in relation to this investigation. I think that this Committee should continue its investigations after the Victorian intervention has concluded.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I rise only because Senator Prowse asked some questions about what the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade would inquire into. I say to him that there is a general concurrence, as I understand the situation in the Senate, put by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, Senator Gair and also by myself on behalf of my Party that the

Committee should continue to investigate the matters which were referred to it, taking into account what has happened. There are still matters to be looked into. There was a proposed takeover. There are matters incidential to that. Many important questions can still be looked at by the Committee. It is clear that the Senate wants the Committee to continue to look into the matters notwithstanding what has happened. We expect the Committee to use its good judgment and discretion. We have confidence in it. We expect it to bring back within the time specified as much valuable information as it can. Perhaps it will also indicate whether it thinks there should be some further investigation of any matters which arise either as a result of its inquiries or as a result of the events of today.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1384

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS: ORDERS OF THE DAY

No. 1 Commonwealth and State Revenue - Proposed Joint Select Committee

Senator Murphy - In the absence of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) I indicate that this morning during the placing of business Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson indicated for the benefit of the Senate that if it concurred we would proceed through the matters on the notice paper to see which matters it was desired to retain and which matters it was desired to dispose of either by way of discharge or by putting the question. The Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) has suggested that we start with orders of the day. The first order of the day relates to Commonwealth and State Revenue - a proposed joint select committee. It is an adjourned debate on the motion of Senator Little. Senator Durack was in continuation. I ask the Minister whether it is convenient to take this view?

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockman) agreed to:

Thai order of the day No. 1 be discharged.

No. 2 Australian Capital Territory - Joint Committee - Report on the Milk Industry

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 3 Merino Rams Export Prohibition Bill 1970

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 4 Off-Shore Petroleum ResourcesSelect Committee - Interim Report

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 5 Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 6 Health and Welfare Committee - Proposed Reference of Matter

Adjourned debate on the motion:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare the following matters - The incidence distribution and causes of primary and secondary poverty in Australia and the adequacy of existing Commonwealth and State social welfare legislation -

Debate further adjourned.

No. 7 Export of Merino Rams

Adjourned debate on the motion:

That the Senate considers that the Government has shown a contemptuous disregard for Parliament in regard to its lifting the partial ban on the export of Merino rams -

Ordered that the order of the day be discharged from the notice paper.

No. 8 Immigration and Settlement of Maltese Citizens - Ministerial Statement - Paper

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the Statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 9 Social Environment Committee - Proposed Reference of Matter

Adjourned debate on the motion:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment the following matters for inquiry and report as soon as possible after the appointment of the members of the Committee:

forecasts of housing demand in Australia;

the capacity of the building industry to meet future demands for housing;

the extent to which private capital can be expected to finance future demands for housing;

the role of Commonwealth finance in housing;

allocation of Commonwealth finance between housing for private owners, rental housing, housing renovation and urban renewal projects;

the extent to which the allocation of Commonwealth finance for housing to the States should be made conditional upon compliance with standards of town planning and the provision of urban services; and

land costs.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 10 Publication of Commonwealth Acts and Statutory Rules - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 11 Woden Valley Flood in the Australian Capital Territory - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 12 Australian Capital Territory - Joint Committee - Report on Sunday Observance

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 1.3 Papua and New Guinea Constitutional Development - Ministerial Statement - Paper

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the Paper.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 14 Tariff Policy- Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 15 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association - Sixteenth Conference - Report of Australian Delegation - Paper

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the Paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 16 Health and Welfare Committee - Report on Mentally and Physically Handicapped Persons

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 17 Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse - Select Committee - Report

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 18 Medical Fees and Benefits - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 19 Government Instability

Adjourned debate on the motion:

That the instability of the Government and its subservience to outside influence are injurious to the nation.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 20 Australian Trade - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 21 Industry and Trade Committee - Report on Freight Rates on Australian National Line Shipping Services to and from Tasmania

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 22 Sydney Airport Proposals - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 23 Inter-parliamentary Union - The Hague Conference 1970 - Report of Australian Delegation

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 24 Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 25 Aircraft Accident, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Air port, 29 January 1971 - Accident Investigation Report - Ministerial Statement - Paper

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 26 Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee Report - Ministerial Statement - Paper

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 27 Post Office Telecommunications - Ministerial Statement, October 1971

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 28 HMAS ‘Leeuwin’- Report by Judge Rapke - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 29 Social Environment Committee - Report on the Contents, Form and Presentation of the Information Section of Telephone Directories

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 30 Prime Minister’s Overseas Visit, October-November 1.971 - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 31 Commonwealth Parliamentary Association - Seventeenth Conference - Report of Australian Delegation - Paper

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the Paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 32 Social Environment Committee - Report on Canberra Sewage Effluent

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 33 Off-Shore Petroleum Resources -Select Committee - Report

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 34 Industry and Trade Committee - Report on Availability of Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 35 Securities and Exchange - Select Committee - Statement by Chairman

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 36 Education, Science and the Arts Committee - Report on the Commonwealth’s Role in Teacher Education

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 37 Economic Conditions and Government Policy - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 38 Finance and Government Operations Committee - Proposed Reference of Matter

Adjourned debate on the motion:

Thai there be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the following matter: The structure, recruitment and management of the Commonwealth Public Service.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 39 Health and Welfare Committee - Proposed Reference of Matter

Adjourned debate on the motion:

  1. That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare the following matter - The prevailing provision of facilities, accommodation, health and other services for aged persons, and
  2. That the Committee recommend such legislative and administrative measures by the Commonwealth alone, or in co-operation with the States, as will assist aged persons to enjoy healthy, active and useful lives.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 40 Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 41 Australian Capital Territory Companies (Uranium Mining Companies) Ordinance - Ministerial Statement

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

No. 42 Social Environment Committee - Report on Petitions Seeking Co-operation and Financial Assistance for Crime Prevention

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

No. 43 Social Environment Committee - Report on the Reference Relating to the Clutha Development Project

Adjourned debate on the motion: That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate further adjourned.

page 1388

GENERAL BUSINESS

Notice of Motion No. 1

Notice of Motion No. 2

Question put, and resolved in the negative.

Notice of Motion No. 3

Notice of Motion No. 4

Notice of Motion No. 5

Notice of Motion No. 6

Notice of Motion No. 7

Notice of Motion No. 8

Notice of Motion No. 9

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Withers) - Either put or discharged.

Sentaor Gair - As Senator Byrne is on sick leave, perhaps we should leave it.

Notice of Notion No. 10

Senator Byrne is not present, I suggest that no action be taken.

Notice of Motion No. 11

Negus is not present, 1 suggest that no action be taken.

page 1388

REPORTS OF STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

That on Thursdays, unless otherwise ordered -

The consideration of the reports of standins and select committees of the Senate be placed on the notice paper as ‘Business of the Senate’ and, as such, shall take precedence of other business set down for such day;

The consideration of the reports shall take precedence on the notice paper pursuant to their date of presentation to the Senate; and

The maximum period each Thursday for the consideration of reports of committees, in accordance with this resolution, shall be 2 hours.

In accordance with the arrangements made, this matter is to be dealt with as a matter of substance. The purpose of the motion is a simple one. It is to have the reports of Senate standing and select committees dealt with in some regular and systematic way in order that they will not be lost sight of and in order that they will not be placed on the notice paper and then not debated reasonably promptly. The motion should be taken in conjunction with notice of motion No. 13 standing in my name. It is not being debated now. It is part of the proposal which I put to the Senate in order that the reports will be of value to the Senate and to the Parliament. Notice of motion No. 13 states:

Thai the Senate -

Declares its opinion that, following the presentation of a report from a standing committee or select committee of the Senate which recommends action by the Government, the Government should, within the ensuing 3 months, table a paper informing the Senate of its observations and intentions witta respect to such recommendations; . . .

That is not being dealt with immediately, but it is part of the scheme which I have proposed in order to effectuate the purpose of having committee reports result in valuable action. The proposal that the consideration of the reports be on Thursdays seemed to me to be a convenient course. The proposal that the consideration of the reports shall take precedence on the notice paper would ensure that they would be dealt with regularly. The proposal that the maximum period for consideration shall be 2 hours would mean that reasonable time would be allotted for the consideration of the reports. When I gave the notice of motion I indicated that I was not in any way dogmatic; that it was my suggestion as to how we should deal with the matter. I think all honourable senators would like to see the reports considered in a systematic and regular way. Those are my thoughts.

I understand that the Government will move some amendments. I have had a look at them. To me they seem to be pretty reasonable. They would be acceptable to me, but I leave it to the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) to indicate to the Senate what they are. What I have proposed, with the proposed amendments or with other amendments for that matter, would be a reasonable way in which to deal with the reports which are starting to mount up. We will have a lot of reports.

We have not been faced with this problem previously. Obviously we have to adopt a procedure. That is my suggestion. 1 am quite happy with the amendments which will be moved.

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

– I think the suggestion put by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) is a worthy one. I think we are trying to get the reports dealt with as soon as possible after they are presented to the Senate. However, the Government has one or two reservations about the motion moved by Senator Murphy. The motion states:

That on Thursdays, unless otherwise ordered -

The consideration of the reports of standing and select committees of the Senate be placed on the notice paper as ‘Business of the Senate’ and, as such, shall take precedence of other business set down for such day;

The Government finds nothing wrong with that paragraph of the motion. The motion continues:

  1. The consideration of the reports shall take precedence on the notice paper pursuant to their date of presentation to the Senate; and

We accept that. The motion continues:

  1. The maximum period each Thursday for the consideration of reports of committees, in accordance with this resolution, shall be 2 hours. lt is here that we find a little difficulty. The order of business for today was such that after prayers there were petitions, notice of motions, questions without notice and upon notice, replies to questions previously asked without notice, presentation of papers by Ministers, by senators presenting reports from committees and by the Clerk, placing of business, ministerial statements by leave and messages which had been received from the House of Representatives transmitting Bills. All those matters had to be disposed of before Government Business could be called on. A particularly lengthy question time, numerous questions on notice which had to be answered, several lengthy ministerial statements from the other place and a number of messages from the other place, as there were today, could take a considerable amount of time, although today the Bills transmitted from the other place were particularly short Bills. On a Thursday the morning session and perhaps a good deal of the afternoon session could be taken up before we dealt with Government Business. If there were a 2-hour period for the consideration of reports there could be a delay of up to 2 hours before the Government could get on with its business. Senator Murphy has indicated that he has had a look at the amendment I propose to move, and that he accepts it. If we had to go through the procedure that I have indicated, a senator could say that the Government was carrying out a delaying tactic by introducing a number of Bills and long ministerial statements and having a particularly lengthy question time so that the Senate would not get on to dealing with the report that was to be discussed that day.

It is the Government’s intention that the debate on the reports be brought on straight after question time. Therefore we would have questions without notice and upon notice and replies to questions previously asked without notice and then the Leader of the Government would ask that Government Business be deferred to a later hour of the day so that the discussion on the report to be discussed that day could take place. So, I propose to move for the addition of certain words to paragraph (c). The words proposed to be added are: but in any event shall conclude 3 hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate.

We say that following prayers there should bc question time and, depending on the length of that question time, the debate on the reports should be concluded within 3 hours after the saying of prayers. If question times goes beyond the normal hour or so, then there will be less than 2 hours for debating the reports. If question time goes for H hours, there will be half an hour less for debating the reports.

Senator Cant:

– That would be H hours.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– There would be half an hour less than the 2-hour period. What the honourable senator is saying is quite correct. There would be li hours to debate the reports. Therefore, it will be up to the Senate to regulate the time. The Government proposes that no senator shall speak for more than 30 minutes in such a debate, unless otherwise ordered. We recognise that in certain debates the Leader of the Opposition, for instance, might find it necessary to go beyond 30 minutes. In that instance it would be necessary to have an agreement between the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party and the Leader of the Government. It could be agreed that the Leader of the Opposition, and perhaps the Minister leading for the Government, be permitted to go beyond the 30 minutes, and then the time of the other senators who take part in the debate would be adjusted accordingly. I think we can accept that. The last section of our proposal reads:

The foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained on the Standing Orders.

The Government realises that up to 2 hours of Government business could be lost each week if we accept Senator Murphy’s motion. 1 seek an assurance from the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party that, should Ministers desire to incorporate in Hansard their second reading speeches on Bills that have originated in another place, leave will be granted by the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the Minister mean should or shall?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Shall. When ministerial statements are being made in this chamber by Ministers representing Ministers in another place, there are occasions when the same Ministerial statement has been made in the other place as long as 3 or 4 days previously. This has happened when I have made a statement in this chamber on behalf of the Minister for Supply. A statement was made in another place on a Thursday, and I made it here on the following Tuesday. In the meantime the statement had appeared in Hansard, and all honourable senators had had an opportunity of reading the Hansard record of the proceedings in another place. Perhaps we should be allowed, with the permission of the Senate, to incorporate these statements in Hansard rather than spend a long time reading out 15 or 20 pages of material. There is an exception to this. Sometimes Ministerial statements are made concurrently in this place and in the other place. In those instances we realise that the Ministers in this chamber who represent Ministers in the other place would want to make the statement concurrently in this place, and we would not ask in those circumstances that the Ministerial statement bc incorporated in Hansard.

In the 2 instances I have mentioned, I seek an assurance from the Opposition and from the Democratic Labor Party that, when leave for such incorporation is sought, some honourable senator will not object; we seek an assurance that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party will support the Leader of the Government when he proposes to have these matters incorporated in Hansard.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Experience has shown that we have tried to cooperate, but one cannot give an absolute assurance; it depends on the matter being dealt with. But I for one give an assurance that I have always wanted to cut down waste of time by unnecessarily reading statements. I shall continue to encourage this being done.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– All I ask - and the Leader of the Opposition has agreed - is that wherever possible, the Opposition will endeavour to co-operate to cut down long statements that have already been made in another place and have to be made here. With those assurances and those reservations, the Government does not resist the motion. I formally move, as an amendment to Senator Murphy’s motion:

  1. At end of paragraph (c) add: ‘, but in any event shall conclude 3 hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate’.

  2. At end of motion add the following new paragraphs:

    1. No Senator shall speak for more than 30 minutus in such a debate, unless otherwise ordered.

He) The foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.’.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– I agree; I concur. I have often wondered why we perpetuate the system of permitting senators to read - and read badly - second reading speeches that have already been delivered in another place and have been circulated here in printed form, thus wasting the time of the Senate. There has been no stronger advocate than I for curtailing the business of the Senate and cutting out the irrelevancies and tedious repetitions that one hears here. These have a delaying effect which impedes the proper dispatch of the real business of the Senate, for the sake of a lot of words. 1 think we can improve our procedures with a common understanding. There should be not only an understanding between leaders of parties but also a stricter control from the Chair in regard to irrelevancies and tedious repetitions.

In emphasising these points, I might say that I adopted this attitude in the past when I was Chairman of Committees in a State Parliament, which had more members than this chamber. But there is never any justification for the delay that takes place here and, to a great extent, in another place. If this is eliminated, we shall eliminate a lot of the unduly late sittings of Parliament, thus avoiding the ridicule we mount on our heads when we sit until the early hours of the morning dealing with unnecessary statements instead of dealing with the things that matter; we should not be dealing with the stagemanaged propaganda missions that take place from time to time because they are no good for Parliaments and bring no advantages or benefits to the nation.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I seek an assurance from the Government that, if we are prepared to allow the incorporation of second reading speeches, they will be incorporated also on the days when the proceedings of this chamber are broadcast. This would ensure that second reading speeches are not read on some days while on others, when the Government is able to transmit its message to the public - despite the fact that it might be repeating what was said in another place - the second reading speeches are read. Therefore, if we are to accept incorporation on days when there is no broadcast, the Government should accept that the practice be applied to all sitting days. As to the limitation of 2 hours being applied to the debate on committee reports-

Senator Murphy:

– The proposal is that there be a limitation of 2 hours debate on any one day. The Senate might deal with one report for 2 hours on a Thursday, but then the debate can continue on succeeding Thursdays. The proposal is not for a limitation on a report.

Senator GEORGES:

– That explanation satisfies what was to be my next complaint: that is, that 2 hours would be insufficient for a debate on a particular report. I now understand that a report could be debated on, say, 4 different days.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! On these matters on which undertakings are required of the Government, I. prefer to deal with them as they arise. Senator Georges has asked the Leader of the Government whether the Government will give an assurance that second reading speeches will be incorporated also on days when the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast. Senator Drake-Brockman, are you willing to answer Senator Georges, without in any way inhibiting your right to speak further?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Senator

Murphy’s motion relates to the proceedings of the Senate on a Thursday. The proceedings of the Senate are not usually broadcast on that day. As I have already indicated, the Government is willing, on that particular day, subject to the approval of the Senate, to incorporate in Hansard second reading speeches or Ministerial statements. I think I can give an assurance that it will be the Government’s endeavour on the other days to try to get over the problem to which Senator Gair referred by incorporating material wherever possible. There will be instances, as I have already indicated, of statements being made concurrently in the two Houses. These could not bc incorported in Hansard in this chamber. I shall draw Senator Georges’ comments to the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) in an endeavour to get confirmation of the point he has made.

While I am on my feet I would like to point out that there is one other point which the Government wants to make in indicating its support of Senator Murphy’s motion as amended. The Government’s support of the motion, as amended, is without prejudice to the Leader of the Government being able to move, whenever appropriate, that Government Buisness take precedence over all Senate and General Business on Thursdays.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I w.ish to make one or two quite brief but, I think, significant observations in support of the motion which has been moved by Senator Murphy. Perhaps I should indicate at this stage that I do not intend to comment on the amendment which has been moved by Senator Drake-Brockman and which may be quite appropriate to the conditions we have been discussing. I have always been a very strong supporter of the committee system. I have done so right from the inception of the new concept of committees in the Senate in the past few years. When I first became a member of this chamber I felt that there were very serious discrepancies in the performance by the Senate of its activities. In the intervening years the Senate has taken on a completely new significance which is of very great importance to the Australian community.

The Senate has been engaged on some of the most searching and interesting inquiries possible into all aspects of human life and performance in the Australian community, lt has gone to very great pains at times to get all the information that is available. Committees of the Senate have travelled throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth seeking all the expert opinions which could possibly be used to guide them in making the judgments that they have made on the matters that they have been considering and to guide honourable senators as to what recommendations should ultimately be made in this chamber. It seems to me that the great omission in all of this has been that while we have, as I have said, gone to great pains to prepare our reports and to give to the community at large the benefit of the judgments we have made on the basis of all the information available to us we have never had an opportunity to come back to the Senate and debate, justify and spell out the reasons why we have made these judgments. I do not think it is necessary to go into any great detail in order to do that.

The suggestion which Senator DrakeBrockman has made in relation to the time available for the discussions seems to be reasonably appropriate, but I think we would be failing to crystallise the whole thing if we were not to come back to the Senate and say: “Here is the report and these are the bases of judgment upon which we have made our recommendations and upon which we have based our report’. As you and other officers of the Senate would know, Mr President, we are continually breaking new ground. New concepts are continually arising in relation to the extent of our obligations, responsibilities and powers and particularly the operation of the various committees of the Senate, but to my knowledge we have never come back and justified our judgments.

I admit that we had a short debate earlier this evening about the operation of a particular committee of the Senate and we were all given an opportunity to express our views on that matter. But it seems to me that, although so many honourable senators from this chamber are becoming more and more deeply involved in committee work, the value of that work is not really being made known to the community at large. After all we are servants of the people of Australia. That work will not be made known if we do not in the chamber, which gave these committees their very life and existence, spell out the reasons for coming to a particular decision or, in the event of a minority decision or opinion being expressed, saying why it was given.

I think that such a move would be very appropriate. I think it would enhance the reputation of the Senate and add a new dimension to the committee work of the Senate. It seems to me to be the most appropriate thing to happen in a situation where so many man hours are being spent and so much initiative, expertise and, in fact, expenditure of public moneys are involved in reaching certain conclusions. It seems to me to be appropriate that those conclusions ought to be made known, spelt out in some detail and justified in the chamber which gave these committee their very livelihood and existence. In that way everybody in the community will know the reasons why certain decisions are reached.

The PRESIDENT:

– 1 would like to make an unusual response from the Chair to Senator Devitt. This matter has been already examined by the House Committee. What in fact happens is that the reports of committees, although perhaps not to a major and very efficient extent, are already being disseminated in the areas of opinion that it is possible to discern at the present moment. I mention that only as a matter of reassurance and to show that reports do not go into limbo once they are made.

Senator WITHERS:
Western Australia

– I rise to support both the motion and the amendment. I think Senator Murphy ought to be thanked by the Senate for bringing this matter forward. I agree with Senator Devitt that far too often the work which committees have done is not debated at sufficient length in this chamber. I would like to comment on the 2-part amendment proposed by Senator Drake-Brockman. I think it is reasonable for such a debate to conclude at the end of 3 hours, taking into account his assurance that there will be no obstruction by the Government in the period between the end of prayers and the bringing on of such a matter.

I wish to comment on the words ‘unless otherwise ordered’ as they appear in paragraph (d) of Senator Drake-Brock man’s amendment. I noted that Senator Drake-Brockman said that such a provision would not apply to party leaders and Ministers. I should hope that it would be extended further. I can well understand why an honourable senator who brings in a dissenting report should not have a 30- minute time limit imposed on him. I particularly think of him rather than of leaders of parties or Ministers not having a time limit imposed. I would go further and say that no time limit should be imposed not only on the honourable senator who brings in a dissenting report but also an honourable senator on the opposite side of the chamber who is a member of the committee concerned. At the present time the chairman of the committee, who is usually a member of one of the Government Parties, tends to bring in a report. I would say that a member of the Opposition parties - either a member of the official Opposition or of the Australian Democratic Labor Party - should if he so desires also have an opportunity to speak for an hour. But once the debate gels down to other members of the chamber itself, especially those who are not members of the committee concerned, we ought to limit ourselves to a 30-minule speech. I think the amendment which has been proposed is reasonable.

I welcome the statement by Senator Drake-Brockman that the Government will, as far as possible, have second reading speeches and Ministerial statements incorporated in Hansard with the concurrence of honourable senators. I was the Government Whip in this chamber for some 18 months. During that time I discovered the best way to clear the chamber was to get a Minister to read either u ministerial statement or a second reading speech. I know that there are some traditionalists who are offended by the practice of occasionally having such statements or speeches incorporated in Hansard, but those persons never seem to be in the chamber when statements or speeches of that nature are being read. I also assume, Mr President, that when a Minister seeks and obtains leave for them to be incorporated in Hansard they still will be distributed on each honourable senator’s desk as has been the custom in the past. I welcome this because at one time I had some statistics taken out and in one session 1 think that second reading speeches and ministerial statements took up almost 16 hours. That is an awful lot of time and I am glad that in future it will be devoted to debating Senate committee reports.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator seemed to me to be suggesting that he would foreshadow an amendment to proposed new paragraph (d) to provide a definitive means by which minority opinion can be expressed, for instance on a dissenting report.

Senator WITHERS:

– No, Mr President. I have not foreshadowed anything. I am saying merely that 1 interpret the words unless otherwise ordered’ in those terms. I always would be prepared to support any motion aimed at permitting a dissenting senator to be given 60 minutes in which to speak instead of 30 minutes. I am just indicating a point of view.

The PRES3DENT- I would suggest to you that before I call the next honourable senator to speak you might consider making that more definite.

Senator WITHERS:

– With respect, I would prefer to leave it in the broad terms expressed. The Senate would make its judgment from time to time. I am just indicating a point of view that a senator should have that opportunity unless otherwise ordered.

The PRESIDENT:

– [ apologise. I thought you should be provided with an opportunity of expressing thai opinion.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Mr President, I am not opposed particularly in any way to the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) but I have some doubts about the amendments moved by the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman). 1 ask myself: What price does the back bench senator pay in order to get business matters before the Senate for discussion? The first thing I note is that if the second paragraph of the Minister’s amendments is adopted no senator shall speak for more than 30 minutes on a report unless otherwise ordered. Mention has been made of speeches by the Leader of the Opposition and of a Minister replying on behalf of the Government but in fact reports are presented by the chairman of the committee. Under existing circumstances the chairman is always a Government supporter, not a Minister.

There are no Ministers on Senate committees, f do not know why Ministers always should have this privilege. There are 60 senators in this place and all are entitled to equal rights. It is the back bench senators who do the hard slogging work entailed in producing reports, not the Ministers. 1 abhor this privileged position that some people want to introduce into al! these things. Senator Murphy is a member of a very important committee at the present time but in the main the Leader of the Opposition, because of his responsibilities in other fields does not sit on such committees.

This idea astounds me, particularly when I consider the history of what happens on Thursday nights. That is general business night - the night on which there is opportunity for back benchers to bring general business on for discussion. Back benchers pay a price to get discussion on a report that they have slogged over. Those honourable senators who have not been on committees in recent times perhaps do not realise the amount of work involved in conducting an inquiry and presenting a report.

The Minister referred to objection not being taken to the incorporation of second reading speeches in Hansard. In general terms I would not oppose such a proposition. However, if I am required to give an undertaking that any second reading speech may be incorporated I simply say that this should apply only to second reading speeches on Bills which do not originate in the Senate. I have been in this Senate only for a little while - not for a very long time - but I am not so naive as to believe that politics are not played here. When the Government wants to make political capital out of a second reading speech it will not seek to incorporate it. It will be made and, in particular, it will be made on a Wednesday when the message can be broadcast.

The PRESIDENT:

– Any government will do that.

Senator CANT:

– We are not children, Mr President. I think all of us would do that. However I am speaking at the moment - I hope I will not be speaking from this position for very much longer - from the position of a member of the Opposition. Perhaps other honourable senators have not thought of this but I realise that this is an election year. 1 realise that speeches will be made deliberately for propaganda purposes. I think a give-away Budget will be presented in August and that the utmost advantage will be taken to publicise that Budget in order to prepare the people for a possible election in November. This is the only undertaking I can give: I would not disagree with second reading speeches being incorporated in Hansard provided all except those on Bills originating in the Senate are incorporated. 1 can give no undertaking apart from that.

Even then I am in an awkward situation. If I may be so rude as to say this, the back bench senator is a member of the mushroom club. He knows little about what is going on or about what business is coming forward. He is not able to consult his colleagues on the attitude that will be taken. He may think that a certain speech or a certain ministerial statement should not be incorporated in Hansard. He has the power to say no. But the matter does not end there because by the use of the simple device of the suspension of Standing Orders he can be left alone on the Opposition side and the speech will be incorporated. This is another part of the price that honourable senators will pay in order to have a report debated in this place.

I realise that the Government has a responsibility to get ils business through this chamber and that therefore it must have certain protections. However, after having said all this, if honourable senators agree to give these advantages to the’ Government the Government still will insist on having a provision saying that Government business shall take precedence over other business on Thursdays.

Senator Withers:

– That is only by means of a motion approved by the Senate.

Senator CANT:

– The honourable senator knows that the Government has the numbers lo do what it wants. Let us face it; it is the science of numbers that destroys democracy. Let us face up to what goes on. What is the Government giving when it says that these reports can be debated? I say to honourable senators that I can debate for an hour and a half any report that I choose at any time there is before this chamber a money Bill. I cannot be stopped from doing so unless the Standing Orders are suspended, and of course that can be done. So what are we giving away in agreeing to a time limit of 30 minutes when we can take an hour and a half? What are we giving away when we agree to the incorporation of documents in Hansard? We of the Opposition have certain rights in this place. I do not know whether all of them will be taken away from us, but avenues are open in which things can be done despite what the Government proposes by way of motion. Even if the motion currently before the Senate is carried I would not feel bound not to debate a report at the first reading stage of a money Bill.

In reply to Senator Georges the Minister said that second reading speeches and ministerial statements can be incorporated in Hansard but only on Thursdays. Senator Georges pointed out that these things are read when the Senate proceedings are being broadcast on Wednesdays. The minister agreed that second reading speeches and ministerial statements are to be incorporated in Hansard only on Thursdays. So the inference is that this course is being followed because of the political capital that can be made out of it. We of the Opposition do not have this opportunity. I have watched honourable senators opposite, and also my colleagues, making political capital on Wednesdays when the proceedings are on the air. I have tried to do it myself by making speeches when we are on the air.

Senator Young:

– Not without some result.

Senator CANT:

– I would hope that it was not without some result. But what 1 have indicated is as far as I want to go in giving any undertaking in relation to ministerial statements being incorporated. I would have been very hostile yesterday if Mr McMahon’s statement on allowances had not been read in the Senate but had been incorporated in the record. So there are certain ministerial statements which honourable senators on the Government side, and, perhaps more so, honourable senators on the Opposition side, would like to have read out. I think that if the Minister is asking for undertakings he should be prepared to give some sort of undertaking on behalf of the Government - I realise it could be only a loose undertaking but though loose it must have integrity behind it - that if an honourable senator did object for other than mischievous reasons to a statement or a second reading speech being incorporated the minister would not move for the suspension of standing orders. I think that the Democratic Labor Party and the Australian Labor Party have co-operated with the Government in order to make this place work, and it will not work unless there is this co-operation. But I say to the Minister that he should consider again whether he could give an undertaking to the Opposition that in the event, of an honourable senator wanting a ministerial statement or a second reading speech read, for other than mischievous reasons, standing orders will not be suspended. With those reservations I express my opinion of the motion that has been moved.

Senator Gair:

– You are on your own.

Senator CANT:

– J do not mind being on my own. As a matter of fact, I have been on my own pretty well all my life. That does not worry me. That is all I have to say on that matter. I think that the Minister for Air. who is at the table, should take note of what has been said by the honourable senators who have spoken in this debate. I commend Senator Withers for his remarks. However, I think that perhaps the Minister might consider whether discussion of this motion should not be proceeded with at this time so that the Government can have a look at what has been said. I notice Senator Murphy shakes his head. That is not surprising. However, I am expressing my opinion as to what I think should be done and, this being a discussion on general business, perhaps I am not as tightly bound by loyalty to my leader as I might be on other occasions. I think thai the Government should have another look at this matter. If the Minister has taken notes properly, which I have no doubt he is capable of doing, f think that he should examine the matters which have been put forward by honourable senators and see to what extent he can meet the suggestions that have been made. 1 do not think anyone has been obstructive, but I think that if the suggestions which have been put forward in this place are met the debating of reports of committees will run more smoothly.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– Unlike Senator Cant I do not feel myself a deprived citizen or a deprived back bencher in relation to the suggestion before the chamber. I commend both the motion and the amendment. As I understand it, the effect of both will be to extend very significantly the time which back bench senators have - when it is examined it is probably a greater length of time than that given to members of any Parliament in the free world - to express their views on matters of great importance. As I understand it, the effect of the proposal is that in addition to the 2i hours which we have on Thursdays to discuss matters put forward by private senators. there will be a further 2 hours private time set aside. The purpose of the motion and the amendment is to try to find a solution to the problem of debating effectively the reports of Senate committees. I remind honourable senators that the back bencher is far from deprived because long before a Committee report comes before this chamber he has for months - often for years - a public forum in which to express his views. Indeed, each of the Committees is virtually a little Senate in itself. I can speak as one who is carrying a lot of lead weights in the saddle in relation to several of the standing committees and, indeed, rather than being short of opportunities to express myself I am overwhelmed with opportunity. I acknowledge this as one of the great achievements and one of the great advances of the Senate. It is not as though the report already has not been ruminated upon in the false stomach of the Committee before it comes into this chamber, and this, in my view, in a form of participative democracy gives greater opportunity for worthwhile discussion than can be given in a debate in this chamber. In any case, it provides a further opportunity for debate.

However, Mr President, we take our pleasures sadly. There are those in the community who believe that honourable senators come here occasionally in autumn and spring and then go home for a form of agistment. Those who are on Senate committees at the present time will spend something like 44 weeks of the 52, in whole or in part, in Canberra. When the Parliament is in session honourable senators will spend in Canberra not only Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays but also, as I have been privileged to do - I say privileged’ with some sadness - over the last 8 months, Mondays and Fridays, and then try to cram into the weekend electoral and office functions. This is the kind of situation which develops. We can sit longer in the Senate and bite again into those few remaining free weeks. I put it to honourable senators that that would be quite an impossibility. If we accept that and if we are to debate these committee reports, we must find accommodation within our own arrangements.

We have in the Senate enormous flexibility at question time and during debating time. Compared with the other place, the

Senate is extremely flexible for the individual senator. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind that we have virtually the power of veto at any time in regard to second reading speeches. The motion represents an admirable suggestion that will increase appreciably the time available to the back bench senator and provide the opportunity to bring the reports of Senate committees to fruition. I commend the motion to the Senate for adoption.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– 1 am grateful to the Senate for the indications of acceptance of the proposal. As I have already indicated, I think the modifications suggested by the Government are reasonable. It may be that in some cases a motion will be needed on a particular day in order to enable a debate to proceed or perhaps not to proceed. But that is envisaged because a motion to this effect can be moved at any time. This is contemplated by the words contained in this motion - ‘unless otherwise ordered’. So it would be quite competent for the Senate to otherwise order and to extend, reduce or otherwise alter its arrangements in order that we might be able to dispose of the business. That does not change the position under the Standing Orders.

Suggestions also were made that because the words ‘unless otherwise ordered’ were contained in the reference to the limitation of speaking time to 30 minutes, which is introduced by the amendment, this somehow would be confined to certain persons. It is quite open to the Senate under that proposition - indeed, it is quite open even without that proposition being included in the motion - to grant an extension of time to meet the circumstances of any person. It may be that, if we were pushed for time towards the end of a session of Parliament and we wanted to conclude a debate, the Senate would order the time to be reduced. In other words, it is open to us to deal with these matters to meet the circumstances in which we are placed. No doubt, the Senate will endeavour to do this wisely. Perhaps at the end of a session occasions arise when, according to the minority opinion the Senate may not deal with matters altogether wisely.

The only difficulty that seems to have arisen is the request by the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) for certain assurances to be given. I think J should say this in fairness: No assurance can be given and no agreement can be reached. I say that because we do not want the suggestion made at some later stage that some agreement was broken. So 1 make it plain that no agreement is made and that no assurance is given. Having said that, I will say this to the Minister: I have been one who has endeavoured to have time saved by the incorporation of documents and speeches. In fact, I think I initiated this by suggestions to leaders of the Government. 1 indicate that 1 intend to use any influence that 1 may have in order to see that any waste of time is cut down by the use of shortcuts. Of course, it has been indicated by Senator Cant and others that this may mean that there ought to be reciprocity. The Minister for Air aud his colleagues ought not to decline leave to speak to members of the Opposition and others when they want to reduce the time involved in reading documents. This should cut both ways. My intention would be that we should have as many short cuts as possible. We may reach times of friction and difficulty when it will not be possible to do this, lt is always open to an honourable senator to exercise his rights under the Standing Orders and refuse leave. As Senator Cant has said, there are ways in which that can be dealt with.

Those are matters for the Standing Orders and they are not being touched by this proposal. This is an important extension of the rights of honourable senators. The right given here - to have debates on reports of committees - is additional to the time devoted to General Business, lt is additional to the discussion which may take place on a money Bill. ft. is additional to the discussion which may take place at any other time on reports or other matters. It seemed to me that it was a reasonable way to deal with the matters. There could be other ways. I would like the Senate to try this way and let us see how we get on with it. If it needs to be altered in some way, let us do it. I thank the Senate for the indications of support for the motion. As I have indicated, I support the amendments which have been proposed.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is: That the amendments moved by Senator Drake-Brockman be agreed to’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question now is: ‘That Senator Murphy’s motion, as amended, be agreed to’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN (Western Australia - Minister for Air) - by leave - I wish to answer one or two points made by Senator Cant. I thought that Senator Carrick and Senator Murphy covered the 2 points very well. This is a bonus session for back benchers. As Senator Murphy said, honourable senators have all the present facilities -

Senator Murphy:

– ft is a bonus session lor everybody.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– It is a bonus session for everybody. At the present time, honourable senators can use all the facilities of the Senate to put their points of view and have their say on various subjects on which they wish to speak. Now, 2 extra hours will be available. Senator Cant spoke about my amendment which limits the time of speeches to 30 minutes. This provides an even greater facility for honourable senators because, under the motion as it stood. 2 speakers could have taken up the whole of the 2 hours that was allotted. So this amendment gives the back bencher an even greater chance to make a speech.

Senator Cant:

– If this is the way you conduct an analysis it is no wonder that the economy of Australia is in a mess.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I understand that the present arrangement is that if you want to speak on a Thursday evening you are allowed to speak for 1 hour.

The PRESIDENT:

– I suggest: to honourable senators and the Minister that senators should not be addressed as ‘you’. I think the proprieties should be observed by all honourable senators. Tonight we are dealing with the problems of the Senate.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– All I am saying is that the resolution the Senate has just carried will allow greater opportunity for honourable senators to speak in debates, particularly on reports made by Senate committees. I think this is a good move. The Senate should test this procedure to see how it works. If it does not work we can always change it so that it will work. The Senate has decided tonight to give it a try. As a result honourable senators will have an even greater opportunity to discuss Senate committee reports and to raise other matters that they want to raise.

page 1399

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SEMI-GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– On behalf of Senator Willesee 1 move:

Thai the Senate considers that the Government has (ailed to make reasonable financial arrangements wilh the States for carrying out the activities of the Stales, local government and semi.governmental authorities. 1 am conscious as I rise to address myself to this motion that this is the third occasion I have risen to speak since the suspension of the sitting for dinner. However, I am reassured by the fact that one is not really in difficulty in rising for the third time, but in sinking for the third time. However. I am somewhat reassured by my own judgment of the situation because this notice of motion I standing in the name of Senator Willesee on the notice paper has been there since 12th March 1970 - over 2 years. A great deal of water has passed under the bridge in the intervening period. I seriously suggest to the Senate that in that time the imbalance nf financial relationships between the 3 levels of government in Australia has undergone a quite serious change not. I regret to say, for the better but for the worse. The conditions which existed when Senator Willesee was prompted to give notice that he would move this motion have developed to a stage where in certain areas of governmental responsibility - in using that rather loose term 1 intend it to encompass the 3 levels of government in Australia - the serious difficulties which were fell at thai time have worsened.

I suggest to the Senate that the time for a complete review of the relativity of responsibility between the 3 levels of government in Australia has arrived. I refer to the federal level, the States in the exercise of their sovereign powers, and the hundreds of local government instrumentalities throughout Australia. This need becomes more apparent as time passes and is evidenced by a growing demand from the area of local government responsibility throughout Australia for a serious debate on the whole question of the relationship of that area of responsibility to the national Parliament and the State parliaments.

In order to put this in its proper perspective one ought to say that in the past several years there has been no appreciable increase in the debt of the Commonwealth Government, but there has been a substantial increase in the indebtedness of several State governments. I have heard it said thai the debts of State governments in the past several years - certainly in the postwar years - have increased fourfold, seriously diminishing the ability of that level of government adequately to perform its proper function in the community. I use the word adequately’ in its fullest sense. I hope that honourable senators will forgive me for again pointing out that the financial indebtedness of local government instrumentalities throughout Australia has increased, so we are told, sevenfold, eightfold or ninefold.

Surely this position must suggest to any thinking person who is concerned for the welfare of the 3 levels of government in Australia that the time has arrived, if it has not passed, for a get-together of the 3 elements of government in Australia to attempt to arrive at a proper basis of judgment of the constitutional limitations of those 3 levels and the means which may be found to enable them adequately to discharge their functions in the community. As honourable senators know, I speak from a base of some experience in local government. 1 do not want to over emphasise that aspect at the moment, but it is quite apparent to me that each level of government has its area of responsibility in the nation. If one form of government or more than one form of government is not able for some reason or another adequately to perform the allotted functions, surely the whole structure or base of intergovernmental relationships is in a condition of imbalance. We ought to assume our share of responsibility to ensure that a proper balance is restored to the 3 levels of government.

At this stage I will not comment on whether from the inception of government in Australia there has been a complete compatibility or acceptable relationship between the 3 levels of government. There may never have been a proper state of balance, but that does not take away the basis of my argument that the time has now arrived, if it has not passed, when serious consideration should be given to an attempt to restore the balance or proper relationship of the 3 forms of government. Surely no honourable senator or any thinking person in the Australian community would consider for a moment that the 3 levels of government are able adequately to discharge their allotted functions.

Senator Willesee’s motion says that the Senate considers that the Government has failed to make reasonable financial arrangements with the States. He does not say that the Government has not attempted to do so, but whatever attempts have been made, the results suggest that the Government has failed to make reasonable financial arrangements with the States for carrying out the activities of the State governments, local government authorities and semi-governmental authorities throughout Australia. Even if we concede that the problems of local government are not completely surmountable and that some residual difficulties and areas of disputation between the 3 levels of government will remain, we must surely accept that local government has in the pursuit of the collection of its revenues in sufficient quantity to perform its function reached saturation point. It cannot continue to increase the level of rates and other charges against the communities in which it operates without imposing very severe hardship indeed on the people in those communities. Surely it is the responsibility of government to attempt to establish some proper form of balance in the area of revenue raising which would not unduly burden certain sections of the Australian community. I know it is not accepted, yet it is a fact that in the Australian community there are areas of poverty. There are areas where the incomes of people and families are below an established subsistence level. Yet these people are required by the municipal authorities - there seems to be no escape from this - to make quite a substantial contribution towards the revenues of the local government instrumentalities for the performance of their functions.

I have, as is surely well-known in this Senate, on a number of occasions endeavoured to prompt the Government into some deeper consideration of the use of section 96 of the Constitution which provides that special grants can be made available for certain purposes. Of course within the responsibility of State governments there are revenue raising areas which we might well consider at this time could be handed over to local government authorities. One point which comes to mind is the imposition of land tax. I suggest that if we are going to indulge in a consideration of a re-arrangement of the revenue raising functions of the 3 levels of government we may consider that it is now appropriate in the modern context for local government to raise revenue by the medium of land tax which is currently the province of State government authorities. Without going into great detail, which is necessary to make a thorough evaluation of the matter, this may well be an area which could be handed over to local government authorities.

Of course in the Federal taxation field in recent times we have seen an instance where the Federal Government has decided that the growth tax or the payroll tax should be the responsibility of State government instrumentalities. In fact that decision has been consummated by the Federal Government and the collection of payroll tax has been handed over to State government authorities. I am mindful of the particular problems which exist in Tasmania where our problems in the field of intergovernmental relationships seem to be far greater and accentuated by a number of economic and physical factors which we have not the power to resolve at the moment.

Dealing with the imposition of the payroll tax, it was the decision of the State Premiers that having assumed the responsibility for the collection of payroll tax they would levy it at a certain level. As I understand if they increase the tax from 2i per cent to 3i per cent but there were certain exemptions from the imposition of the tax. It is the common decision of the Premiers and agreed to by the Commonwealth that it is not within the competence of State government authorities to levy that tax in any other way. If States were to attempt to exercise what is surely in the tax raising field their sovereign right, if they were to attempt to so moderate the impact of payroll tax on certain areas within their States because of isolation, economic or climatic factors or matters of that kind they would attract an adverse judgment of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. If a decision were made by a State to ease the imposition of payroll tax in a particular area for some reason that State would attract an adverse balance and it would be financially disadvantged by so doing. So it is not correct to say that because this payroll tax or growth tax has been handed to the States they have an ability to vary the tax to meet particular conditions in a State.

When 1 made some inquiries recently I was interested in a decision, made in 1945 by Prime Minister Chifley in his capacity of Treasurer at that time, to make special allowance to give taxation relief to certain regions within States. Certain zonal areas were defined within which the imposition of income tax was eased for some special reason. As I understand it at the moment the greater part of Western Australia because of conditions there enjoys the benefit of relief from the common levels of income tax. In the Northern Territory because of climatic conditions, distance factors or other economic factors which were judged at that time to be important in the consideration of the decision relief was given. Similarly in Tasmania where parts of the western region - which is still relatively isolated and subject to pretty severe climatic conditions and where additional economic burdens are placed on the people who live there - the Chifley Government decided that there would be special tax zone allowance areas. On a number of occasions in the intervening years since 1945 when that decision was made and implemented questions have been raised as to the constitutionality of that decision because of section 99 of the Constitution which concerns itself with the relative position of States and with not giving an advantage to one State over another. Having regard to the provisions of clause (ii) of section 51 of the Constitution which deals with the taxation powers of the Commonwealth there have been occasions when people have turned their minds to a consideration of whether the decision of the Chifley Government to institute these relief areas was ultra vires the Constitution. Recently I was most interested and intrigued to receive an assurance from people who are concerned with constitutional law that where an Act speaks about States or part of States - I think that is the terminology used - in a serious judgment on constitutional grounds, this has been held not to refer to States or parts of States within the meaning of the Constitution. I accept that. The only reason I accept it is because I would not know the true position. I do not know how States and parts of States cannot be States and parts of States. But there are many occasions, I suggest, within the responsibility of honourable senators where legal terminology completely befuddles us.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The law is an ass.

Senator DEVITT:

– Someone has said that the law is an ass. That remark was followed by another comment which escapes me for the moment. But that is the situation. Whether there is now some validity in the argument that States and parts of States cannot be given preferential treatment because of section 99 of the Constitution I do not know but 1 have been told that the decision of 1945 has complete validity and would withstand a challenge in the High Court. 1 certainly hope that it would because I think that it is wise and sensible.

I turn now to a few observations in relation to the situation which exists in my home State of Tasmania. We are a relatively small State. We have an area of 27,000 square miles and a population of under 400,000 people as I think 1 mentioned earlier in the day in another context. Naturally, we have fairly limited resources because of our geographical area and the extent of our population. Tasmania is suffering from a further serious bugbear. It is one which is bedevilling us at the present time. I am very much afraid that it will grow in importance and in significance as time goes by.

We accept the fact that Tasmania is a sovereign State within the Constitution which provides for 6 States in the Commonwealth. We have a relativity with those 6 States in the Commonwealth. There is general acceptance, I would hope, of the fact that there should be no discrimination as between one State and another. I think that the time has come when we must accept that any State having a particular serious disability, such as Tasmania has - I will mention it in a moment - ought to be subject to some most special consideration. The consideration that should be given ought to be a type of consideration which can be demonstrated to every man, woman and child in the community in order to show that the particular situation is accepted in the total Commonwealth context, and some adjustment should be made to off-set that disability.

I think that it is now generally known, surely, throughout the Australian nation, that Tasmania is the only State in the Commonwealth which has virtually one form of transportation for the carriage of its goods interstate and overseas. Other States have a road system. They have a rail system. They may use, if they wish, sea transportation also. Tasmania is confined to one form of transport only. It so happens that this is the dearest form of transportation. I now make a serious suggestion to overcome the difficulties which I could enumerate at great length and which flow as a consequence of the problems inherent in the transportation of our goods interstate. I seriously suggest that the time has arrived when the Commonwealth ought to consider most seriously indeed the placing of the whole of Tasmania into a special taxation zone area having regard to its specific disability.

Let us face the facts of life. Tasmania is not maintaining its place in relation to the performances of the other States. It cannot do so. I believe that that sentiment is enshrined in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade which inquired into and reported upon freight rates on the Australian National Line shipping services to and from Tasmania. If the Committee did not report in so many words, at least it well and truly implied quite clearly in its recommendations that evidence was available to the effect that Tasmania, because of the serious disability under which it was operating, could not maintain its position alongside the other States and in the same sort of relationship or relativity as it had done in the past

We cannot close our eyes to this fact. I do not want honourable senators to close their eyes to it. I think that it is an essential part of the business of Government to ensure that every part of this Common- wealth has an equal opportunity. Where special disabilities exist, as indeed there are special disabilities in relation to Tasmania, those disabilities should be openly faced, their implications discussed in all respects and some measure or means introduced to maintain the relativity of performances between each of the States.

Recently, as honourable senators will recall, I asked a question in this Senate concerning the hundreds of people who had inundated me with complaints expressing dissatisfaction at the performance of the Australian National Line. I am talking about the passenger service now. Hundreds of people were asking: Why cannot we get bookings on these ships?’ In the question that I asked in the Senate I sought information on how many vacant berths there were on the ANL ships operating to Tasmania - there are 3 ships, one from Sydney and 2 from the principal port of Victoria, Melbourne - during 3 significant months, November and December of 1971 and January of 1972. I did so because I was being deluged with queries from people who had tried to secure bookings on these ships, months and months ahead of sailing dates. One of them was on 19th January. That was the day when bookings opened in Melbourne. These intending passengers could not get on the vessel. I asked why these ships were sailing with 80 or more berths unoccupied when people were being told: ‘We cannot get you on the ship but, if you drive down, to ship side before the ship departs, you are bound to get on because there will be vacant berths.’ That is not good enough.

Recently I asked a question as to what action was to be taken to bring to book those people who were responsible for this state of affairs. Somebody must be responsible because the ANL is a national undertaking on behalf of the people of Australia who are partners in this industry. I would suggest that $300,000 was lost in the 3 months that I have mentioned as a consequence of people who sought to secure bookings being unable to make those bookings. There were 11,580 vacant berths on these ships travelling to and from Tasmania during the 3 months of November and December 1971 and January 1972. This was a time when people were breaking their necks to get onto these ships.

Senator McManus:

– What was the explanation from the Australian National Line?

Senator DEVITT:

– We have not an explanation. Through the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) I thank the ANL for its frankness in this matter. I have done my business through the Minister. There has been no acknowledgement. I have a question before the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton). I have asked what action is being taken or will be taken to find out the reason for the bungling and gross mismanagement of the affairs of the ANL.

If there is one thing that Tasmania has, it is a tourist potential. While in so many other respects we may not be able to match the performances of the other States of the Commonwealth, here is an area in which we can. But it is completely impossible for us to do this if we cannot use fully the facilities that have been provided through the money made available by the nation - that is, the Australian people - for this purpose. I am waiting patiently for the answer to my question.

Senator McManus:

– Does the honourable senator think-

Senator DEVITT:

– 1 will answer the honourable senator in a moment. 1 seek an answer as to what the Government has done, firstly, to correct this situation and, secondly, to ensure that, in future, people who want to travel on these ships will be able to do so. Since the revelation of this gross mismanagement - there is no other term that I can use to describe it - people have beseiged and deluged me with questions as to what will happen in the future. I cannot tell them at the moment. But surely when the Minister provides me with an answer as to what will be done about this matter, the situation will be clarified anc! the whole matter will be revealed to the community as it should be. The Tasmanian shipping service will occupy the proper position that it should in the economy of that State. Now, Senator McManus had something to ask rae?

Senator McManus:

– I was only going to suggest that perhaps the booking clerk was a Queenslander.

Senator DEVITT:

– I think that Queensland is a magnificant State for tourists. But this is a most serious matter as far as we in Tasmania are concerned, particularly when we hear it stated that the management of the Australian National Line has said that it will lose Sim this year on its operations and 1 can establish where it has lost $300,000 in 3 months, fs it any wonder that in those circumstances such an annual loss is incurred? I do not think that the situation is acceptable and I do not think that it ought to be accepted by the Parliament of this nation. The sort of performance which we have seen from the Australian National Line should not be allowed to continue.

Recently. I was contacted by some people in Hobart who said: ‘We wish to get on the National Line ship to travel to Victoria and then to do a tour of the mainland Stales. We have made some inquiries through our booking agency in Hobart and it tells us that there is no possibility of getting on the ship. Can you do something for us?’ I said: ‘Look, f will make some inquiries for you’. In my most charitable mood, I did this only to be informed that, unless I was able to advise the name of the booking agency through which these people had attempted to make a booking and was prepared to disclose that information, I would not get very far with my inquiries.

I asked: ‘How many agencies have you?’ Believe it or not, there are 16 agencies in Hobart alone. If a person makes a booking with one of these agencies, apparently some type of communication goes to a computer somewhere. If a similar inquiry is made at another agency, that also goes to the computer. On the day that the ship is due to sail, it probably has a full complement of passengers. It has been established that many agencies are all trying to book accommodation and that ultimately people get accommodated.

A member of my family had an unhappy experience of this. On a particular day, after having almost despaired of being able to bring his car and his family to Tasmania, and after having made an alternative decision to go to Queensland or somewhere else, on the one day 2 of the agencies through which he had been making inquiries said: ‘Bring in your deposit and we will get you on’. There is bungling, mismanagement and maladministration. 1 make no apologies for making statements of that kind.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Would you say that the first interest is the booking agent, not the passenger?

Senator DEVITT:

– The National Line is not allowed to do its own bookings. That is one of the oddities of the situation.

Senator Poyser:

– We made a recommendation on that in our report.

Senator DEVITT:

– That is so. This enterprise is not allowed to perform its own functions. Maybe we are spoiled; I do not know. We are so used to going to an airways booking office, being picked up by an airways bus, being taken to an airport and having our baggage and other things that we have with us looked after, that it came as something of a shock to me when, on an occasion some years ago in Sydney, I tried to find the headquarters of the Australian National Line. I was to travel on the ‘Empress of Australia’ that night. The booking was made through the officers of this Parliament. I was trying to establish where 1 should deposit my suitcase and my goods. I visited about 3 shipping agents’ offices. Eventually I tracked down the one that was responsible for bookings on the Empress of Australia’. I said: ‘Where can I leave my bags?’ The agent said: ‘You can book them down at the railway station’. I said: ‘I am not going to Tasmania by train. I am going by boat. I want to go on the “Empress of Australia”. I understand that you are the agents for the “Empress of Australia”. Please may I put my suitcase here?’ He said: ‘No. We have nowhere to put your suitcase. We are not a reception centre for people going to Tasmania’. I said: ‘What will I do, sit out in Pitt Street on my case?’ He said: ‘No. Go down to the railway station’. I said: ‘No. Perhaps I can look after that part of the business. What time do I pick up the vehicle that is going to the ship?’ The ship was some distance away.

Tourists like to be able to go to a centre from which the organisation works - the hub of its activity in the particular location - and be taken to the ship side to go aboard. This happens where the tourist industry is working properly. Only today I was looking at a brochure which offered all kinds of blandishments and inducements to travel on a particular shipping service. But that is not so of the ANL. The agent said: ‘You get there the best way you can’. I said: ‘Surely there should be some kind of link between the Australian National Line, the national shipping line, and Trans-Australia Airlines, the national airline, by which there could be shared facilities which would bring about a decrease in administrative costs or the overhead of the operations’. He said: ‘That is not allowed. The system does not allow it’. We have come to a point at which such a situation is no longer acceptable to the people of Australia. There has to be a change in the system.

I suspect - I cannot be dogmatic about this - that lurking in the back of the minds of those responsible for the operations of the Australian National Line is a desire that its passenger services should be discontinued altogether. That will not happen so far as Tasmania is concerned because, if we are to have any kind of tourist industry in that State, we will fight for our rights to make sure that every ship sails with a full passenger load. We will not tolerate the loss of $300,000 in 3 months. If somebody challenges me on the figures, let him tell me what is the loss. As yet nobody has told me how much has been lost. The ships have to ply across the Strait and back again, lt has been suggested that the people working in the industry - members of the Seamen’s Union and similar people - are not happy about the ships having full complements. They are the people who are unhappy about the present situation. They are the ones who are kicking up the fuss about it. They realise that their livelihood depends upon the continued operation of the Line.

We in Tasmania understand - we are becoming more accustomed to it each day - and appreciate the significance of the fact that our future lies very substantially in a proper development of the tourist industry. It happened in Israel. In 1947 and 1948 a group of people dedicated to the preservation of their type of society went into the rock and sand of the Middle East - into Israel - and out of that carved a farming area. They developed one of the best tourist industries in the world. We have all the advantages laid on in Tasmania. How can we sell the tourist industry to the world if the means of getting people there - the means by which they can travel in the comfort of their own vehicles and in their own good time - are to be denied to them? That is completely unacceptable to the people of Tasmania, and we will not tolerate that any longer. Here is a position crying out for some kind of remedy and crying out for a proper relationship between the various levels of government. The benefits of a tourist industry, or any other industry for that matter, flow right through. Industries are of great benefit to the revenues of the Commonwealth. They are of substantial benefit to the revenues of the States. Ultimately the economies of the State will be able to rely almost entirely, in circumstances which I can well imagine happening in the future, on the development and the proper nurturing and fostering of a tourist industry.

The lack of proper administration of the Line has been bedevilling us. It has been happening for many years, and the Minister for Shipping and Transport has been evasive. On each occasion that the matter has been raised the Minister has evaded it completely. He has accepted that it is a significant thing so far as Tasmania is concerned. Although other Tasmanian senators and I have raised the matter from time to time over a number of years, we still have the kind of thing happening to which I have just referred - 11,508 people unable to secure berths and 4,997 vacant berths on the ‘Princess of Tasmania’ into Devonport, a town which has grown to rely very heavily upon the flow of people through the area.

Senator Lillico:

– Where did you get those figures?

Senator DEVITT:

– I am so glad that Senator Lillico asked that question. I got them from a letter written by the Minister, and 1 believe him. The letter spelt them out in great detail. I have all the figures for the ‘Empress of Australia’, the ‘Australian Trader’ and the ‘Princess of Tasmania’. I would be happy to let the honourable senator have them. I accept them. There were 11,508 vacant berths on the 3 ships in the crucial months of November and December 1971 and January 1972 when people were dying to travel, to visit their families and to do the other things which they have a right to do.

Senator Lillico:

– Are the figures for 2 months?

Senator DEVITT:

– They are for 3 months. I shall let the honourable senator have those figures because I know that he is interested in the matter. They are very significant figures. I have a copy of the letter. I think he is entitled to have a copy. I will give him one.

Senator McLaren:

– Do you think more people will want to travel to Tasmania next summer because of the change of government?

Senator DEVITT:

– I think there will be a substantial improvement in the position. At the moment nobody knows what is happening with the ANL. People in the Hobart area are concerned. I understand that in future all ANL passenger services to Hobart are to be discontinued.I believe that there is an intention on the part of the Government to discontinue altogether passenger services to Tasmania.I give notice that we will resist this with all the strength that we have.

Debate (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) adjourned.

page 1405

ADJOURNMENT

Army Depot at Ashfield: Privileges - Parliamentary Privilege

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockman) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I seek to ventilate a grievance that concerns the rights of senators. This matter relates to questions that are placed on the notice paper, and I wish to give an instance of extreme political partisanship in this respect. I refer to a question of mine that was placed on the notice paper on 9th March 1972. It is a matter that concerns the Evans electorate, where a typical urban problem exists at the Ashfield High School, which is sandwiched between the Royal Army Service Corps depot and a Leagues Club. I and other members of Parliament have been asked whether it would be possible for the Army to vacate this area. That is why on 9th March I asked whether the land transfers contemplated between the Government of New South Wales and the Commonwealth Government involved the Royal Army Service Corps depot in Liverpool Road, Ashfield, and whether the Army required continued occupancy of this property.

I shall digress for a moment to mention the rights of senators and members of the House of Representatives, including Ministers. When 1 was a fledgling senator I asked Senator Anderson, as he then was, whether there was any difference between the rights of senators, members of the House of Representatives and Ministers; he replied, We are all equal here.’ Senator Douglas McClelland, who has a close knowledge of metropolitan Sydney, knows that in the past fortnight the mid-western suburbs Press, including the ‘Aeroplane’ and the ‘Burwood Courier’, have published statements that the Minister for the Navy had intervened in a Service matter and had obtained a broad assurance from the Army that the Army would at least be providing some interim relief for the pupils at the Ashfield High School, by permitting them to use the Army area for recreation purposes.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It appeared in a metropolitan daily paper.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– That makes it worse, for it compounds a felony. My concern is that -at least 14 days have elapsed since my question was placed on the notice paper. Of course, the honourable member for Evans can claim some credit; I am not being petty, for I believe that he is entitled to some of it. However, surely after 14 or 16 days I am entitled to an answer to the question under my name on the business paper, especially when a decision has been made in the matter. But it goes a little further than that. I point out to my Victorian colleagues that I am not complaining so much about the Minister for the Army, for I believe that he has been reasonable. However, I see behind it the figure of the Prime Minister. On every occasion that I have raised any matter concerning the Evans or Lowe electorates there has always been some retarding effect from the Prime Minister’s office. For instance, when 2 years ago the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Trudeau, was visiting the Lowe electorate, to commemorate the Canadian exiles who came to Concord in 1820, the Prime Minister, who was then the Treasurer and the member for Lowe, was going to the

Philippines on some Treasury mission. I am explaining to honourable members how petty politics can get in New South Wales on the Government side. The local council had asked me whether I would be there, and I stated that I would be honoured to meet the Canadian Prime Minister. There was a panic when the Prime Minister thought that a member of the Opposition might receive the Canadian Prime Minister. Believe it or not, Mr Bury, the former Treasurer - the man who at times looks very tired - came back from London within 24 hours and, at the eleventh hour, took over. I do not worry about these things, but it shows the petty attitude of the government.

Senator McAuliffe is nodding his head. He agrees that if a senator puts a question on notice 15 days before a decision is made, he has equal rights with any member of the House of Representatives, whether he be a Minister or not. The matter I am raising will not affect me a great deal; I shall survive, but I do not know whether the honourable member for Evans will. But that is another story. In speaking on the adjournment debate tonight I exonerate everyone in the Army Ministry. I know they have been reasonable. But somewhere, with the Minister for the Navy and the Prime Minister, there has been some form of sabotage that has resulted in this answer being held back. Even if I am wrong, no-one should wait for 15 days after a decision has been made, on a Minister to Minister basis, for an answer to a question of this kind. I am not asking about Pine Gap; I am asking only about the Army Service Corps depot in metropolitan Sydney.

I hope that Senator Drake-Brockman will convey to the people concerned that they are lowering the dignity of Parliament. If residents in the Lowe electorate do not differentiate between Senators and members of the House of Representatives, there should be no differentiation here. I am expecting an answer to my question on Monday so that I can go to the local people, and discourage the impression that the Prime Minister has got lately - that he is too smart by half.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to speak on somewhat the same subject - the loss of privileges of members of the Senate, and the way in which Senators are treated. I also agree that some people are too smart by half. I was very concerned with the treatment that was dealt out to me last evening, when I was refused my rights under the Standing Orders. I was most concerned also by some remarks that were made at question time today. As a result of what was said at question time today, it appears that there is some authority in the Senate who is acting without authority. Therefore, 1 believe that the position demands some criticism, and possibly a long debate. It is unfortunate, Mr President, that my complaint somewhat involves you. I am raising the matter of the loss of privileges of senators. I am most concerned about this matter, which relates to the treatment of senators in this House.

Since I have been a member of the Senate I have fought governments and individuals, and I have urged members of my own party to stand up for their rights. I have done this to ensure that the rights of individuals would not be taken away. I have always maintained that the Standing Orders were the laws of this House, and that Standing Orders exist for the purpose of getting through the business and for protecting senators. I had the belief, perhaps mistakenly, that the President’s duty was to protect the back bencher or the individual senator, and to see that he had the full protection of the Standing Orders. This morning, Mr President, I questioned your authority when you made certain remarks towards the conclusion of question time. Also, I had questioned the treatment to which I took objection last evening when I was refused my rights under the Standing Orders after seeking to speak during the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate.

Mr President, much to my surprise I have found that there is no authority to give you the right to say, near the end of question time, that you will permit only 2 or 3 or 4 more questions. I have found that you have no authority to reduce question time, and if any honourable senator insists upon asking a question, he is entitled to go ahead and ask it. Perhaps I am too sensitive, and put meanings to words that are not intended, but I contend that when a person says that he will permit only 2 more questions, he can only mean that only 2 more questions will be permitted. 1 think honourable senators will always co-operate in curtailing question time when it is in the interests of the Senate so to do. But 1 am concerned about such action being prompted by the belief of one individual in the Senate that the Senate was getting weary of questions being asked. Any honourable senator who is weary of questions being asked has the right to move that further questions be placed on the notice paper. I think we all would revolt against any action being taken to curtail the asking of questions in the Senate simply because a particular individual is getting weary of them.

Mr President, I question the desire to restrict question time. The answer you gave me this morning that the Senate has a heavy work load because of committee work again raises the question I have been asking for some time: ls the committee system taking over the role of the Senate? Here we have another example of the work load of the committee system causing some curtailment of the rights of honourable senators. The sooner we examine the operations of these committees and compare the benefits derived from them with their detrimental effects on honourable senators the better it will be for the Senate. Mr President, you also quoted a complaint by Senator Willesee about a cluttering up of the notice paper. It is true that the notice paper is being cluttered up. But that has been partly due to the fact that up until this week we have been in the habit of running home every Thursday afternoon and there has been no attempt to lighten the load on the notice paper by stopping here and discussing certain questions. There has been a desire to get away from this place. If no-one is prepared to stay in the Parliament and debate the questions on the notice paper we will go on cluttering up the notice paper and the fact that the notice paper is cluttered up will bs used as an excuse to curtail certain other rights of honourable senators.

I accept your explanation, Mr President, that you saw the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) first last night when the adjournment debate was closed, despite the fact that I was on my feet. But I think that situation could have been readily rectified when 1 drew your attention to the fact that I too had risen. But you were not prepared to do that, Mr President. You insisted on the Minister for Air speaking because you had given him the call. 1 took umbrage at your attitude because only a week or so ago in the passageways of this building you told me that you had to find some way of stopping me from attacking a Minister after he had spoken in an adjournment debate. I justified my actions by pointing out that I was within the Standing Orders. I utilise the Standing Orders to the best of my ability and if there is a determination to stop me it should be done by changing the Standing Orders.

I think that it is most necessary that the rights which honourable senators have under the Standing Orders should be preserved. 1 have fought right through against the curtailment of the rights of honourable senators. There has been a further curtailment of those rights as recently as tonight as a result of a debate on the important subject of giving precedence to the con.sidertion of reports of committees of the Senate on Thursdays. Some time ago we had written into out Standing Orders a provision that no honourable senator shall speak for more than half an hour in a debate on a Wednesday, that is, while we are on the air, now, the maximum period each Thursday for the consideration of reports of standing committees having been fixed at 2 hours, no honourable senator will be entitled to speak on such reports for more than half an hour instead of the normal one hour. This is another example of how the rights of honourable senators are being encroached upon. If we do not succeed in maintaining our rights in a vote of the Senate on the adoption of certain recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee we will have to accept the consequences. It is too much to bear that, despite the fact that more restrictions are being placed upon us by the Standing Orders, we have a President who comes in here and seeks to curtail our activities because he is of the opinion that the Senate is getting weary.

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

– in reply - As the representative in this chamber of the Minister for the Army (Mr Katter), I wish to say that I cannot help Senator Mulvihill directly, but I give him an assurance that I shall place his submission before the Minister for the Army and ask him to reply to it as quickly as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

page 1409

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

page 1409

DRUGS

(Question No. 1917)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Is it correct that, a seminar on Drugs and the Mass Media held in Canberra last weekend, it was revealed that the Commonwealth Government had rejected a film, made by television performer Bobby Limb at a cost of$20,000, because in the Government’s view the film was intimidatory.

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

Subsequent to a screening of the film ‘The Acid Test’ on commercial television in Canberra the Drug Education Sub-committee of the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence, recommended that the film should not be given further exposure on the mass media. However, the film has been used by State health education authorities in training programmes for drug educators.

page 1409

ADVERTISING

(Question No. 1982)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. For which Departments of the Commonwealth does the Commonwealth Advertising Division handle advertising arrangements.
  2. What is the total amount involved in advertising by each of those Departments this financial year.
  3. Which Commonwealth Departments and Commonwealth Instrumentalities handle their own advertising arrangements.

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

  1. All departments.
  2. The departments have estimated their advertising expenditures during 1971-72 as follows:
  1. The following Commonwealth Instrumentalities handle their own advertising arrangements:

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Australian Coastal Shipping Commission

Australian Tourist Commission

Commonwealth Banking Corporation

Commonwealth Railways

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories

Housing Loans Insurance Corporation

Overseas Telecommunications Commission

QANTAS Airways Ltd

Reserve Bank of Australia

Trans-Australia Airlines

The Commodity Boards

The Postmaster-General’s Department and the Department of Trade and Industry deal direct with advertising agencies in connection with the preparation of material for advertising campaigns. The material is, however, placed with media through the Commonwealth Advertising Branch.

page 1409

THE SENATE

(Question No. 1260)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many persons are employed on the staffs of Commonwealth Ministers, both in Canberra and in their own States.
  2. How many persons are employed as (a) secretaries, (b) typists, (c) research workers, (d) press officers, and (e) or in any other capacity.
  3. What Commonwealth Public Service classification applies to each of these staff members.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answerto the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) 1 have been advised that the following table contains the information requested in the honourable senator’s question as at 20th April 1972.

page 1413

DRUGS

(Question No. 1952)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Are drug manufacturers discontinuing the discounts previously available to wholesalers; if so (a) will this cause a further rise in drug prices of at least 6 per cent, and (b) will this rise be in addition to the average price rise of 33 per cent which drug manufacturers have exacted since the Budget last August.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: i am informed that some drug manufacturers have recently reduced the margins they allow wholesalers for handling their products.

  1. At this stage it is not clear what the overall effect of such moves might be, but i am keeping the situation under close examination.
  2. While there have been price increases in some pharmaceutical benefit items since the Budget, there has not been an average price rise of the order of 33 per cent, as suggested in the question.

page 1413

AUSTRALIAN COMMITTEE ON WATERBIRDS

(Question No. 2036)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. What is the composition of the Australian Committee on Waterbirds.
  2. What Commonwealth Ministers are associated with the Committee.
  3. What were the subjects discussed at its annual meeting in July 1971 and what decisions have flowed from the meeting.

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

  1. The following Commonwealth and Stale Departments and Authorities are represented on the Committee -

Department of Primary Industries, Queensland.

National Parks and Wildlife Service, New South Wales.

Department of Fisheries and Fauna Conservation, South Australia.

Department of Fisheries and Fauna, Western Australia.

National Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania.

Fisheries and Wildlife Department, Victoria. CSIRO Division of Wildlife Research, Canberra.

Department of the Interior, Canberra.

Northern Territory Administration, Darwin.

Department of Agriculture, Stock & Fisheries, Territory of Papua New Guinea. Guinea.

  1. See answer to (I)
  2. The Committee on Waterbirds was established by the Australian Fauna Authorities Conference. The recommendations of the Committee will be considered at the next meeting of the Conference.

page 1413

VIETNAM

(Question No. 2098)

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

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

Has the Minister seen a report in a Melbourne daily newspaper to the effect that the United States Air Force has used nerve gas in South Vietnam; if so, will the Minister ascertain the truth of the report and, if true, inform the Parliament:

if the use of such gas is in defiance of the Geneva Convention, and

what action the Government proposes to deter the further use of such gas.

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

I have seen the report. The use of the term immobilising nerve gas’ appears to be inconsistent with the generally understood meaning of ‘nerve gas’, i.e. a highly lethal agent. The use of nerve gas has been publicly denied by the U.S. Command in Saigon. It is not Government practice to comment on the activities of our allies: I can slate, however, that no operations of the type described in the report have been conducted by Australian forces.

and (b) See above.

Senator YOUNG:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior the following question, without notice:

Is it a fact that the Australian News and Information Bureau, which does such an excellent job in promoting Australia overseas through its publicity and public relations, has representatives in every State except South Australia? Can the Minister say whether consideration is being given to the appointment of representatives of the News and Information Bureau in South Australia? If this is so, will he use every endeapour to expedite this matter and give his support to the appointment of such officers in South Australia?

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

The Australian News and Information Bureau has representation in all States of the Commonwealth except South Australia and Tasmania.

With the support of the Minister, the establishment of offices of the Bureau in these States was taken up with the Public Service Board by the Department of the Interior.

The Board recently approved new offices for both states. Staff will be appointed soon.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On 9th March 1972 Senator Rae asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, what progress had been made in bringing the staff of the Office of the Environment Division up to establishment. The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has now advised me that the approved staff establishment of the Office of the Environment Division is: 1 - First Assistant Secretary, Level 3 1- Clerk, Class 8 2- Clerk, Class 6 1- Clerk, Class 4

Eight of these positions are at present occupied. In addition, the Public Service Board has now agreed to recommend the creation of 12 new positions.

page 1413

AUSTRALIAN NEWS AND INFORMATION BUREAU

page 1414

OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT DIVISION

page 1414

COMMONWEALTH CARS

(Question No. 1250)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Have Sir Robert Menzies and Sir John McEwen each had allocated to them a Commonwealth car for their personal use; if so, do the drivers of these cars carry out no other duties, even when they are not required by Sir Robert and Sir John and when these gentlemen are absent from the State of Victoria or Australia.
  2. Has former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. F. M. Forde, been provided with similar facilities.
  3. Which former members of this Parliament receive Commonwealth facilities and privileges and what is the nature of any such privileges and amenities provided.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has advised the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) I am informed that both Sir Robert Menzies and Sir John McEwen have, under decisions of previous Governments, a car and regular driver available to them in Victoria and access to Commonwealth car pools elsewhere. If either Sir Robert or Sir John indicates to his driver that he is not required for a period, the driver and car are available to the Transport pool for allocation to other duties. The use of these facilities by Sir Robert and Sir John needs no defence.

The Rt Hon. F. M. Forde, about whom the honourable senator asks, is provided with Commonwealth transport for functions to which he is invited because of his former public office. Lord Casey is also provided with car transport for official functions and other activities which arise from his service as Governor-General.

Lord Casey, Sir Robert Menzies and Sir John McEwen have office and secretarial facilities available to them. Sir John McEwen has a trunk telephone authority. Sir Robert Menzies has travel facilities provided if he travels to take part in significant occasions abroad.

I add that the subject of facilities for former Governors-General and former Prime Ministers generally is being looked at

A number of former members of Parliament hold Life Gold Passes to which they have become eligible because of their long service in the Parliament. These entitle the holders to free air travel on internal airlines, the Commonwealth railways and all State Government land transport systems. If the honourable senator requires a list of holders, then I shall endeavour to provide it for him.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 April 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720427_senate_27_s52/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant