Senate
16 August 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1055

PETITIONS

Universal Health Scheme

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth:

That the present systems of financing of hospital and medical care in Australia are outdated, complex, unwieldy, and provide inadequate or no security against health care expenditure for a substantial portion of the people of Australia:

That the costs associated with the present schemes fall disproportionately on people having low and middle incomes:

That there is an urgent need for a new national health insurance scheme, to which each person receiving an income should contribute an amount which is equitably calculated on the basis of that income, and which provides adequate security to each person against the costs of care for every kind of illness and injury.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will speedily pass appropriate legislation to bring the benefits of an equitably financed, universal, and comprehensive health insurance scheme to the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Baltic States

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 47 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 the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

The undersigned citizens of Australia of Baltic origin wish to express their concern at the announced intention of the Australian Government to recognize the annexation of the three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union. We submit that these once free and independent Stales were occupied by force of arms and beg the Senate to disallow such recognition as a matter of principle.

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

Petition received and read.

Baltic States

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 24 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 the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

The undersigned citizens of Australia of Baltic origin wish to express their concern at the announced intention of the

Australian Government to recognize the annexation of the three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union. We submit that these once free and independent States were occupied by force of arms and beg the Senate to disallow such recognition as a matter of principle.

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

Petition received.

Senator LAUCKE:

– As a petition similarly worded has already been presented by Senator Young, I do not propose to move that the petition be read.

Baltic States

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 72 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 the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

Whilst the Australian Government is granting freedom and independence to Papua and New Guinea, the once free Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are occupied by the Soviet Union and their citizens are continuously and brutally deprived of personal, civil and religious freedoms. We humbly beg to draw the attention of the Senate to this fact and ask that the matter be raised in the United Nations by the Australian Government. The annexation and incorporation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union has not been recognized by any Western democracy, including Australia. We beg the Senate to continue such nonrecognition and to disallow any steps by Australian Government which would amount to recognition of aggression.

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

Petition received and read.

National Anthem

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled:

That whereas our National Anthem, ‘God Save the Queen’, is a perpetual reminder of the Monarchy as a major feature of our Constitutional heritage;

And whereas the changing of the National Anthem without consulting all the people would deprive the electors of their right to a free choice on such a major question;

Therefore your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure the right of every Australian elector to have a vote at a National Referendum, Senate or Federal Elections for the retention of the present National Anthem ‘God Save the Queen’, before the Commonwealth Government attempts to substitute a new Anthem.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Baltic States

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 64 citizens of Australia:

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

Whereas the right of self-determination belongs to every nation, big or small, the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been deprived of it for 30 years by the Soviet Union. All Australian Governments for 30 years have refused to recognize the Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic States, but now understand that such recognition has been granted. We the undersigned petitioners wish to express our concern and dismay and humbly ask that it be retracted.

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

Petition received and read.

Baltic States

Senator LAUCKE:

– I present the following petition from 24 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 the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

Whereas the six million people of the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, occupied and unlawfully annexed by the Soviet Union, have been deprived of freedom, human rights and civil liberties and are therefore unable to express their will, we the undersigned Australian citizens of Baltic origin humbly petition the Senate to express its moral support to the rights of the Baltic States to freedom and self-determination.

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

Petition received.

Senator LAUCKE:

– As a petition similarly worded has been presented by Senator Jessop, I do not propose to move that the petition be read.

Australia: Defence Forces, Flag and National Anthem

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 87 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned respectfully sheweth:

That whereas our constitutional parliamentary democracy was clearly developed as a Federation to preserve for all time to the Australian people their cherished right to live as free men and women, enjoying complete liberty of worship, assembly, speech, movement and the communication of knowledge and information,

And whereas our existing Australian Flag and our national anthem, ‘God Save The Queen’, are perpetual reminders of these hard-won freedoms and of the wise British principle of the division of power, so well reflected in our own Australian Constitution with its careful separation of powers as between the Crown and Commonwealth Parliament, the Senate, the State Parliaments, the GovernorGeneral and State Governors, and the Independent Courts of Justice.

And whereas all such rights, liberties, heritage, advancement and prosperity, etc., are of no avail if our Armed Forces are unprepared or incapable of repelling invasion of our shores or withstanding other military threats.

So therefore must all these things be accorded the highest national concern and priority.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

The most rapid, efficient and largest possible expansion of all branches of our Defence Forces, and greatest possible strengthening and extending of defence treaties and security arrangements with our traditional friends and allies,

The right of every Australian citizen to vote at a National Referendum or Senate or Federal Elections for the retention of our present Australian Flag and equally of our national anthem, ‘God Save The Queen’, before any government or other body can attempt to substitute either a new flag or anthem, and a similar voting right for the choice of any official National Song to play on international occasions.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Senator SCOTT:

– As a petition similarly worded has already been presented by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, I do not propose to move that this petition be read.

page 1056

QUESTION

POLITICAL ASYLUM

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask this question in an attempt to ensure that an out of hand diplomatic shambles like the Ermolenko affair will never happen again in Australia. I ask: Will the Minister assure the Senate that clear, precise directions will be given to officers of his Department instructing them how to behave and what steps should be taken when requests for political asylum are made?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If there were any instructions to go out as to how people should behave in situations such as that which arose in this sad affair, I would be giving those instructions to certain people who are not in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

page 1056

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION: OUTSIDE BROADCASTS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for the Media seen reports that some television stations have arranged a whole series of special outside broadcasts in colour beginning from 19 October next? If these reports are correct, do they mean that stations would be in a position to broadcast continuous colour transmissions before the official date for the introduction of colour television? Would this involve a risk that some viewers might buy colour television sets which tune effectively to colour transmissions from one station but which may not tune to another station?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have seen reports to the effect that some television stations appear to be organising quite extensive outside broadcasts in colour as from 19 October next, and this has been a subject of some concern. The honourable senator raises the important point which is frequently misunderstood, namely, that the setting of a firm date for the full introduction of colour television has been intended as a means of ensuring that viewers are not placed in a situation in which they find that their sets tune quite well to one or other of the stations which happens to be transmitting in colour at the time but cannot be tested on the other channels at that particular time. As from 1 March of next year, all stations in the metropolitan areas should be transmitting in colour. From that date viewers will be able to test colour reception on all channels in their homes, and that really is the point at which the test should take place.

I urge all prospective buyers of colour television sets first to obtain a copy of the colour television buyers guide booklet which is being published by the Department of Science and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and which should be available from Australian Government bookshops as from next week. Meanwhile, I have discussed the matter of test transmissions in colour with the Broadcasting Control Board, and the Board has informed me that stations have now been advised that prior approval for test transmissions from outside broadcast units must be obtained by the stations from the Board.

Continuous and extensive tests are not likely to be approved.

page 1057

QUESTION

MR GEORGI ERMOLENKO

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that arrangements to fly out the Russian violinist, Georgi Ermolenko, by a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft were completed on Wednesday night? If so, why did the Minister delete reference to arrangements in his statement to the Senate yesterday morning? What was the compelling reason for secrecy?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-No, it was not definite on Wednesday night. That is the first point. The honourable senator asks: What is the reason for secrecy? I think that becomes perfectly obvious because of the situation that was taking place at the Perth Airport. I just do not see the point of the question.

page 1057

QUESTION

MR GEORGI ERMOLENKO

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Are not the courts of this nation the safeguards of any person in this country whose individual liberty is threatened or denied? Ought not the question of whether a person is being held against his will be able to be determined by the courts and not by a government committed to a servile relationship with a communist dictatorship? Why did the Government ignore the fact that the Supreme Court of Western Australia was considering the question on the evidence placed before it on affidavit as to whether this man Ermolenko was being held under duress by the Russians and that the court was expecting Ermolenko to appear before it today? How does the Government justify that Australia’s relations with Russia should involve not only a denial of individual liberty but a contempt of the courts?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Firstly Mr Ermolenko never sought the protection of the court. Here we get the central theme: The only body which has been following the issue and worrying about Ermolenko has been the Australian Government. This type of question shows where Senator Greenwood’s mind is. He was not concerned about the matter at all. He says that we want to continue a servile relationship with a communist country. We are carrying on the same relationship with the same communist country as his Party did when it was in government. His Party broke off diplomatic relations with the country over the Petrov affair. It was his Party which reinstated diplomatic relations. We are doing exactly the same as that. A writ of habeas corpus was taken out against the Commonwealth Police. The court heard it, threw it out and ordered costs against the plaintiffs.

page 1057

QUESTION

BRUNSWICK GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. In view of the concern that the Minister has always shown for the special difficulties migrant children experience in gaining an education in Australia, will the Minister take whatever steps are possible to alleviate immediately the lack of proper accommodation and facilities experienced by staff and pupils at the Brunswick Girls High School in Victoria where, apart from the fact that the building is a disgrace to the Victorian Government in any circumstances, twothirds of the pupils are of migrant origin?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Australian Government, as the honourable senator will appreciate, has no authority to direct State governments to improve the standards of their own schools. Until about the commencement of this month the Victorian Government has received from the Australian Government $ 1.4m under the Schools Commission’s program for disadvantaged government schools. My colleague the Australian Minister for Education, Mr Beazley, has approved Brunswick Girls High School as a disadvantaged school under the States Grants (Schools) Act 1973. Brunswick Girls High School has received $ 10,000 for a bilingual project to cater for migrant students and plans are under way to give the school another $45,000 to build a multi-purpose room. I am also advised by Mr Beazley that the Schools Commission has agreed to finance 2 projects under the innovations program. The Brunswick Girls High School will get a total of about $18,000 for those particular projects.

page 1058

QUESTION

PROMOTION OF AUSTRALIA’S IMAGE OVERSEAS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for the Media: Has an interdepartmental committee or similar body been established to consider the promotion of Australia ‘s image overseas? If so, what departments and other groups are represented on it and when was it established? Has the Government any plans to establish a similar body to co-ordinate its public relations activities within Ausralia?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think an interdepartmental committee was established by the previous Government as long ago as 1958 on the initiative of the Department of Overseas Trade, or whatever the name of the department was at that time, in order to bring about some coordination and uniformity in the projection of Australia abroad. I cannot remember all the departments and instrumentalities that are connected with that interdepartmental committee but they certainly include my Department, the Department of Overseas Trade, the Department of Foreign Affairs, I think Qantas Airways Ltd and the Australian Tourist Commission or the Department of Tourism and Recreation. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is also involved because of the responsibilities that Radio Australia has in this area. So I can state that an interdepartmental committee was established as long ago as 1958. lt has been in existence since that time, is still in existence and is a very active committee. As to the co-ordination of publicity in Australia, my Department is responsible for the dissemination of information about Australia generally. Whilst we take into account the views of other departments, as far as I am aware at this stage, we have no firm idea of establishing an interdepartmental committee for internal purposes.

page 1058

QUESTION

MR GEORGI ERMOLENKO

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, refers to the answer which the Minister has just given to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Is it not a fact that the application for a writ of habeas corpus taken out by the students of the University of Western Australia was served not only on the Commonwealth Police but also on the Russian official, Alexandrov? Is it not a fact that the writ was served on the Commonwealth Police because in the early stages of this sad affair all that the students and everybody else could see was that Ermolenko and the Russians were being protected by the Commonwealth Police, and they had good reason to expect that they had something to do with his being held in custody? Is it not a fact that although, as the Minister says, the writ against the Commonwealth Police Force was discharged because it was able to satisfy the court that it was not holding Ermolenko, the writ against Alexandrov which has been served on him on 2 occasions, is being considered by the Supreme Court of Western Australia and that the question of Alexandrov ‘s diplomatic immunity, despite the Minister’s certificate to that effect, is before the court -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask the honourable senator to direct his question to the Minister now.

Senator DURACK:

-And that the judge is going to give his decision on that this morning -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! What is the honourable senator’s question?

Senator DURACK:

- Mr President, I am asking a series of questions. When will the Minister get his facts straight about this case and stop misleading the Senate?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I notice that Senator Durack and Senator Greenwood who are both lawyers keep referring to the fact that the man Ermolenko has been held in custody. They know perfectly well that that is not so.

Senator Greenwood:

– We were asking the court to decide whether or not he was.

Senator WILLESEE:

-Would you just keep quiet, little boy. Opposition senators talk about the question of political asylum when there was never an application for political asylum. It is unthinkable that a person who is not interested in politics and who has just turned 18 years of age should wish to make such an application. Unfortunately, it was nobody’s responsibility but mine to take the actions that I outlined at the Press conference yesterday. It was for me to be convinced whether or not he had a desire to stay in Australia. I made my mind up on the clear, incontrovertible facts which were before me.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why did you not leave it to the court to decide?

Senator WILLESEE:

-It was my job to do it. I did it and because of the circumstances I did what any proper government ought to do. We had no legal right to keep him here. If anybody was keeping anybody else in custody, it was members of the community keeping this man in custody and preventing him from returning home.

page 1059

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TOURISTS INJURED IN SOVIET UNION

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs provide any details of the condition of the Australian tourists who were injured in a bus smash in Kiyev in the Soviet Union?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I have a note on this as I thought there might be a question on this matter. On 8 August a Transit Tour camping bus crashed 1 70 kilometres from Kiyev in the south of that country. Some 22 Australians were among the group of approximately 40 people on that bus. Five persons, including Miss Irvine, one New Zealander and three Canadians, were hospitalised at Chernigov. The remainder of the party, some of whom suffered cuts and bruises, were assisted by Russian authorities who took them to Kiyev. Miss Gillian Irvine, aged 21, was the only person seriously injured. She suffered a fracture at the base of the skull and some haemorrhaging. The neuro-surgeon treating her reported on Wednesday that Miss Irvine’s condition had improved since Monday but that she should not travel for at least 2 1 days. A consular officer will travel from Moscow tomorrow to visit Miss Irvine. Our Embassy has been in touch with both the neuro-surgeon treating Miss Irvine and the director of the hospital during the week. We have every reason to believe that Miss Irvine and the other injured travellers are receiving all possible assistance and medical treatment.

page 1059

QUESTION

MR GEORGI ERMOLENKO

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Who were the Russians, apart from Mr Ermolenko, on board the Orion aircraft that smuggled Mr Ermolenko out of Australia? What precautions were taken to protect -

Senator Milliner:

– Oh!

Senator SIM:

– I will repeat it if you like.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Spare us that.

Senator SIM:

– I know where your sympathies lie. What precautions were taken to protect the highly secret equipment on board the aircraft?

Senator Georges:

– Oh!

Senator SIM:

-Does that not matter? Is the Minister completely satisfied that no member of the sinister KGB was on board? What was the cost of the flight and who is to meet the cost?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The Russians on the aircraft were the group that came to Australia as visitors and were being held up from going back to their homeland. I think there were eight in all. They were not smuggled out of the country. The Royal Australian Air Force was acting under my clear instructions and those involved were carrying out their duties as members of the RAAF. I am quite satisfied with the precautions that were taken. I was asked whether I am satisfied that no member of the KGB was on board. As far as I know there was not, but I do not know whether there was or not. As to the cost, if that is important I will find out.

page 1059

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL HAZARDS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Speaking with the sympathy of one who at one time was an overhead crane driver, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Why must members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia be continuously confronted with new vessels which have cranes with unsafe access ladders which constitute an extreme danger to the crane operators, as epitomised by the case of the bulk carrier ‘Nord Rans Kathy”? Why is it that pre-construction discussions with the designers do not result in action being taken to avoid these industrial hazards? If discussions of this kind are not possible, why cannot the provisions of the Navigation Act be applied in order to enforce greater marine safety?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not know whether organisations such as the Waterside Workers Federation are continually faced with this problem. I think that some remedial action has been taken in respect of the vessel referred to by the honourable senator. The Department of Transport does have this subject continually under review. This is a complex case because this vessel operates under a foreign flag and, as such, the Government cannot involve itself at the construction stage in discussions with the designers and engineers as is done in the case of Australian flag vessels. Nevertheless the Department does have the right when it is notified by an organisation such as the Waterside Workers Federation to undertake a survey of such ships with a view to issuing a certificate of safety or to ensure that alterations which might be necessary in the interests of safety are carried out. The Department does take such action whenever a survey reveals that a hazardous situation exists.

page 1060

QUESTION

BALTIC STATES

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: In view of the Australian Government’s decision to grant de jure recognition to the incorporation of the independent states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the stated principle of the Government that the USSR exercises effective control over the areas, does the Australian Government intend by using the identical principle to recognise the incorporation into the USSR of the 4 Japanese islands of Habomai, Shikotan, Kuna Shiri and Etorofu, seized at the end of World War II by the USSR?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– No consideration has been given to that question either by my Department or by myself.

page 1060

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security inform the Senate of the amount by which the standard pension rate has increased in the last 10 years and, in particular, since 1972? Can the Minister also inform the Senate as to the present percentage ratio of the pension to the average weekly wage, compared with the percentage ratio of 1972?

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, I can do that since, as it happens, the figures are right at my fingertips this very moment. In 1964 the standard rate of pension was $1 1.50. As a result of the increase announced in July it is now $31, so that over this period -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Thirty-one dollars?

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes, $31. If one were to compare it, by way of a percentage, with the weekly wage for the years 1964 and 1974, one finds that it has increased from 22. 1 per cent in 1964 to 24.5 per cent in July 1974. That is the seasonally adjusted weekly wage. The weekly wage, as it is otherwise described, has increased from 2 1.8 per cent to 24.1 per cent- a very considerable increase under the Labor Government. Since 1972 the pension has been increased from $18.25 to $31. It means that with regard to the comparison with the seasonally adjusted weekly wage there has been an increase from 19.2 per cent to 24.5 per cent. When Mr Snedden, the present Leader of the Opposition, was Treasurer in 1971 the pension was at its lowest percentage of average weekly earnings since 1946. It was then 17.9 per cent. In the 1971 Budget he actually increased it- in a very generous gesture one must say- from 17.9 per cent to 18.9 per cent of average weekly earnings.

page 1060

QUESTION

ADELAIDE WATER SUPPLY

Senator JESSOP:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that during the general election campaign, among other election promises, the Government undertook to provide finance to the South Australian Government for the purpose of filtering the Adelaide water supply at a cost, I believe, of something like $80m? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that there have been several deaths caused by acanthamoeba, which does result in meningitis, in the northern Spencer Gulf area and that it is a water borne virus? In view of the little extra cost involved and in the interest of public health, will the Minister ask the Treasurer for extra money so that the water in that area can be filtered?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am aware that an undertaking of that kind was given by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development- I think I am correct in saying that- when he was in South Australia. Certainly the quality of water supplies is a question which the Government takes very seriously. I shall refer the honourable senator’s question to my colleague the Minister for Health and ask him to take whatever appropriate action he needs to take in order to achieve the objectives which the Government outlined before the last Federal election.

page 1060

QUESTION

CAPE OTWAY LIGHTHOUSE

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Transport inform the House whether it is the present intention of the Department of Transport to demolish the socalled Number Four Quarters at the Cape Otway Lighthouse Station? Is the Minister aware of the fact that this building was erected in 1859 as a vital link in the first submarine telegraph service connecting Tasmania with the Australian mainland colonies, and is the last remaining association with this historic event of prime importance in the history of communications in Australia? Will the Minister take action to ensure that this well-preserved and historic building is protected from destruction?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I did not know the whole history of the building. The Minister for

Transport has received representations from the Victorian Branch of the National Trust of Australia to the effect that the Cape Otway Lighthouse Station is under consideration for classification by the Trust. The Minister is very conscious of the need to preserve such historic buildings and has in fact put certain proposals to the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate regarding the preservation of buildings of this kind and buildings other than this particular building which come under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Transport. The Government has given an assurance that nothing will be done in respect of the Cape Otway Lighthouse Station until the findings of the Committee are completed and until the current investigations of the National Trust are available.

page 1061

QUESTION

MR GEORGI ERMOLENKO

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. At what time on which day did the Minister arrange with the Royal Australian Air Force for a RAAF plane to smuggle Ermolenko from Australia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Because there are more references to smuggling I will not answer the questions.

page 1061

QUESTION

CYPRUS

Senator GEORGES:

-Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs able to give us any information on the seriousness of the situation on Cyprus? Is he able to express Australia’s concern at the breakdown of the Geneva conference and his distress at the renewal of military activity on Cyprus?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Australia certainly deplores the renewed outbreak of very serious hostilities in Cyprus. We supported the resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council re-affirming its earlier resolution 3S3 demanding that all parties to the present fighting cease all firing and military action forthwith and resume negotiations without delay. Security Council resolution 353 called on all states to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus and called for an immediate end to foreign military intervention in Cyprus.

The Australian Government recognises the long and bitter political background to the Cyprus problem. In the past the Turkish minority on the island has been denied its constitutional rights in many respects. Moreover, the TurkishCypriot minority is entitled, as indeed is the Greek-Cypriot majority, to guarantees of security, safety and constitutional rights. It was our hope that the Geneva negotiations would reach a solution to this problem and thus ensure that peace and security were re-established on Cyprus for all the people of the island. It is to be regretted that the tripartite negotiations in Geneva, between Britain, Greece and Turkey apparently broke down because the Turkish Government refused to permit a 36-hour adjournment to enable the Greek Foreign Minister, Mr Mavros, and the Acting President of Cyprus, Mr Clerides, to consider Turkish demands for the establishment of self-governing Greek and Turkish districts under a federal government in Cyprus. For the Turkish Foreign Minister to issue an ultimatum that such a complex and far-reaching matter as the future constitutional arrangements for Cyprus should in effect be determined without appropriate consideration by the Greek or Cyprus governments is quite unreasonable. It is the more regrettable that Turkish forces should have then breached the ceasefire and are now extending the area under their control by force of arms. The onus for the resumption of fighting lies squarely on the Turkish forces.

Australia is continuing to play an active role in current efforts by the Security Council to achieve a ceasefire and to get negotiations started again. I am informed that the Security Council is in active session at present- that is, a.m. our time- and the Australian permanent representative, Sir Laurence Mclntyre, has been instructed to support resolutions insisting on the full implementation of all the recent resolutions on Cyprus by the Security Council, that those resolutions be respected by all parties and that there be an immediate and strict observance of the ceasefire. The Australian permanent representative also has been instructed to support a new resolution which would record the Security Council’s formal disapproval of the resumption of military operations in Cyprus by the Turkish Government and calls on the parties to resume negotiations without delay.

As further evidence of our concern, and in order to make a tangible contribution to the reestablishment of peace on Cyprus, on 8 August the Australian Government offered to the Secretary-General of the United Nations a force of approximately 200 Australian troops to join the United Nations peace-keeping forces on the island. We also intend to maintain our police contingent which took up duty there in 1964.

page 1061

QUESTION

OAK INSURANCE COMPANY

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Further to my question yesterday to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, about a company known as the Oak Insurance Company, can the Minister give the Senate any further information on this company, as he suggested yesterday he might be able to do today?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes, I can. I have been in touch with the offices of the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Security, both of whom are concerned in this matter. I wish to refer to the specific questions which were asked by Senator Lawrie and also to a question from Senator Baume. Senator Lawrie asked whether the company was registered under the National Health Act. I think that I told him yesterday that I did not believe that it was. In fact, the company is not registered under the National Health Act and is not in any event obliged to be as it does not offer medical or hospital benefits as defined under that Act. However, it has complied with its legal obligations and particularly with the deposit provisions of the Insurance (Deposits) Act.

Senator Lawrie also asked whether the first 2 weeks in hospital were covered by the policies offered by this company. The policy offered by the company contains the following statements:

Forthe purposes of calculating benefits, a period of confinement as a result of injury shall commence on the first day of such confinement, and a period of confinement as a result of sickness shall commence on the day of confinement as shown in The Policy Schedule.

Our understanding is that in relation to sickness the policy schedule in all of the policies which have been so far issued has stated that such benefits begin on the first day of confinement and it is not foreseen that any other provision would be included in future policies. However, should any change take place, it would be highlighted in any advertisements. Existing policies could not be changed.

Both Senator Lawrie and Senator Baume asked me whether the company was partly supported by funds from the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Now, as I think honourable senators would know, when the previous government established the AIDC, the Corporation was established as an independent body and allowed to have the ordinary confidential arrangements with clients that any other business undertaking, whether government or private, would be able to have. It is not required to divulge such details. However, it is public knowledge that the AIDC holds approximately 11 per cent of the issued share capital of Escor Ltd and has voting proxies for a further 29 per cent to 30 per cent of the company’s shares which are owned by Bowater-Ralli, the English company. It is also known that Escor Ltd has a wholly owned subsidiary, Freighter Franklin Ltd, which in turn owns Caravan and General Finance, which in turn owns 35 per cent of Oak Insurance Ltd.

There is some other information which I think is interesting with regard to Senator Lawrie ‘s question. It relates to the benefits which are offered under the policies being offered by Oak Insurance Ltd. The benefits are payable only when the policy owner is in hospital. With regard to the premiums benefit, we find it difficult to make any meaningful comparison with other sickness and accident schemes. The restriction of claims to hospitalisation rather than home confinement allows a much lower premium than a normal personal accident scheme which does not require hospitalisation for the payment of benefits. In other words, as the benefits are considerably less than are being offered elsewhere, it is possible to offer a much lower premium rate. The view of the Treasury is that although the premium rates are low there are no reasons, at least at the moment, for believing that they are unrealistic, given the rather restricted nature of the policy offered. Perhaps I should read the advice given to me by the Minister for Social Security. The Minister said:

It is my understanding that the Company is offering a form of sickness benefit insurance; not hospital insurance. The Company is not offering coverage against the cost of hospital treatment but basically against loss of income which may result from sickness. In relation to the newspaper advertisement which gave rise to the honourable senator’s question, I would point out that the Australian Newspapers Council maintains a Code of Ethics in relation to the advertisements appearing in member newspapers. I would therefore suggest that the honourable senator might like to take any question he may have about the advertisements up with the Australian Newspapers Council. Further, it is required to comply with the provisions of the Insurance Act administered by the Depanment of the Treasury. . . .

I hope that this information is satisfactory. Certainly it is the utmost information that we have available at present.

page 1062

QUESTION

HOUSING LOAN INTEREST RATES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the Home Buyers Association of South Australia has organised a meeting, to be held at the Adelaide Town Hall on 19 August, in protest against the high home loan interest rates? Can the Minister say why the increase in interest rates on home loans has been necessary? Can he also say what steps the Government intends to take to ease the burden of interest rates on home buyers, particularly those buyers in the lower income bracket?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-I am not aware of the proposed meeting referred to by Senator McLaren. I can answer the question only in general terms. The Government has found it necessary, over the last 12 months or more, to apply the mechanism of increased interest rates in order to get rid of some of the excess liquidity in the economy. It is one mechanism available to the Government. We realise that institutions that are lending money for housing purposes naturally must pay a higher rate of interest for the moneys borrowed. In turn, of course, home buyers must pay a higher interest rate. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the use of this mechanism, it is one which I think we all recognise has to be taken into account.

The repayments as a result of those higher interest rates must be compared with the increase in principal repayments which would occur if the Government did not take the step of increasing interest rates. Every time we consider the higher interest rate argument we have to bear in mind what it would mean to home buyers, as far as their principal repayments are concerned, if in fact the inflation trend were not arrested by means such as interest rate increases. The Government proposes during the forthcoming Budget session to introduce a tax deductibility system for mortgage interest repayments on homes which, I understand, will apply during the course of this current financial year. The Government believes that that would be a fair and equitable way of relieving some of the pressure which exists on home buyers now, especially those in the lower and middle income brackets.

page 1063

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY MR EGERTON

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration: Has he seen reports of a circular letter from Mr Jack Egerton, President of the Brisbane Trades and Labour Council and State President of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland? Does he agree with Mr Egerton ‘s opinion that anarchy has prevailed in a number of industrial disputes recently and that the trade union movement is now at its lowest ebb? Does he agree that some trade unions are engaging in disputes without any thought to the welfare of fellow trade unionists and the general public and that the integrity of unions and the union movement has been called into question? What action does the Government intend to take to meet such industrial anarchy as exists in Australia and to restore and protect the rights of the public and rank and file union members?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have seen only the newspaper report of what Mr Egerton said and I have asked for more information of what he said and the letter he sent out to the unions. I understand his statement is related to some other comments he has made to the affiliated unions over which he presides. So before I comment on what he said or make observations on part of his address to the unions I would like to see the whole of his statement. I believe that as an important official of the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement he is attempting to encourage the unions in this particular period to take stock of what is going on in the inflationary economy and to consider that perhaps their actions ought to be more measured. I agree with that part of the statement.

As to what the Government is doing, honourable senators know of course, because the Minister for Labor and I have stated them before, the steps that we are trying to take. Only last week or the week before at the meeting convened by Mr Justice Moore around the question of industrial relations, attended by the most important people in the community, Mr Cameron proposed a system of indexation of wages. If such a scheme and the follow-up proposals were adopted it is our view that there would be a minimal amount of dispute arising in this area. It needs not only an acceptance of the principle of having quarterly adjustments but also an acceptance of related arrangements in relation to new wage claims and other relativities. That is the proposition put before the parties that have set up a study group to examine it. While the Government and Mr Cameron say that the scheme has to be accepted on a preliminary or platform basis, in my opinion it is quite possible for the reaction to his scheme to produce an arrangement between employers and unions which will benefit everybody.

page 1063

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Senator GIETZELT:

– Has the AttorneyGeneral seen reports by Mr Renouf, permanent head of the Department of Foreign Affairs, that Australian Security Intelligence Organisation agents have been active in most Australian embassies abroad? Is the Minister able to say whether these persons were placed in the embassies by the previous Liberal Government for matters unrelated to Australia’s security? What steps is the Government taking to remove ASIO agents from our embassies, particularly in those countries with which Australia has close and friendly relations?

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I ask that the honourable senator place the question on notice.

page 1064

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES TEACHERS FEDERATION JOURNAL

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not seen the report to which the honourable senator has referred. As to the second portion of his question, I am unaware whether the Literature Board is subsidising in any way the publication concerned. I would think that aspect of the question is more the responsibility of the Prime Minister because probably that type of grant would come within the jurisdiction of the Australian Council for the Arts. I will have the question referred to the appropriate Ministers and obtain the relevant information for the honourable senator.

page 1064

QUESTION

PALM ISLAND: WORKING CONDITIONS OF ABORIGINES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, by advising him that when a home was burnt out on Palm Island recently the local fire brigade vehicle was rendered less than effective when it was driven past the water connection and could not be reversed because of mechanical defects caused by faulty maintenance under white management. Will the Minister apply pressure to the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs to ensure that that Department sets up a proper apprenticeship training program for Aborigines on all Queensland reserves? Will he consult his colleague the Minister for Labor and Immigration with a view to instituting a properly planned program of adult retraining at award wages? Will he also apply pressure to Queensland authorities to ensure that in the meantime all workers on reserves receive a rate which is well above the starvation rate currently being paid?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I was unacquainted with the happenings in relation to the fire engine at the time of the fire. My Department is in close consultation with the various areas in order to get apprenticeship systems operating in Aboriginal communities. The Department of Labor and Immigration now has a special training subsidy for Aboriginal employees who wish to increase their skills or who seek trade occupations. The problem of adult award wages for Aborigines in Queensland is one for the State to solve. As is known, the Commonwealth, in the areas in which it has jurisdiction, has abolished the training allowance. Today it pays award wages to all employees on settlements. In Queensland Aboriginal employees under State awards still have a training allowance, which is not condoned by our Government. I have refered to the Parliamentary Counsel the question of whether we can introduce legislation to overcome discrimination in Queensland. I will take up with him whether we can pay a differential wage to Aborigines to bring their wages up to the wages paid to other inhabitants of Queensland. To my mind, the present situation is well within the ambit of discrimination.

page 1064

QUESTION

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Senator DAVIDSON:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer to an announcement by the Minister for Social Security that the Government will conduct a complete review of the system of financing the construction of homes for the aged. Is this review to be conducted by the Department of Social Security, or will an independent committee be appointed? Does the Minister’s statement criticising the control of homes by voluntary agencies imply that the Government has in mind to take over the administration and control of all homes for the aged.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I think I can say in partial answer to the question that the Government at the moment has nothing in mind other than having an inquiry into the management and administration of homes for the aged. As the details of the administration in this matter are not within my province but within the province of the Minister for Social Security I would suggest that Senator Davidson put the question on notice and I shall see that an answer is obtained for him.

page 1065

QUESTION

AID TO VIETNAM

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen a letter dated 31 July 1974 from the New South Wales branch of the Executive Committee of the Association for International Co-operation and Disarmament which is critical of Australian policy towards South Vietnam and was sent to all members and senators. Is it true, as the letter claims, that the Australian Government is to participate in a World Bank project which is designed to bolster the Thieu regime in South Vietnam? Is it also true that, in accordance with Australian support for the Paris Peace Accords, Australia is obliged to recognise the Peoples Revolutionary Government but has not so far done so?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Mr McLeod wrote to me on 17 July and I replied on 29 July but in the meantime he had circulated, I suppose the same letter to all members of Parliament. Had he been prepared to wait for my reply he would have learned that the Government had no intention of participating in a World Bank or Asian Development Bank sponsored aid group for South Vietnam unless, as seems unlikely, a parallel arrangement could be organised for North Vietnam. The Government’s contributions to the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank are made without restriction as to the choice of developing countries in which the contributions might be used. It would be inconsistent with our responsibilities as a member of these financial institutions to attempt to lay down such restrictions.

In reply to the second part of the question, neither the Paris agreement nor the International Conference on Vietnam required international recognition of the People’s Revolutionary Government. The Paris agreement sought rather to give the PRG a recognised place in the political life of South Vietnam as part of the process of national reconciliation- a process which the Australian Government supports. I could go on for hours answering this question but I think the best way of dealing with it is to seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard my reply to Mr McLeod.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS CANBERRA 28 JULY 1974

Dear Mr McLeod,

I refer to your letter dated 1 1 July in which you invite my attention to a number of matters in the foreign affairs area discussed during your recent consultation in Canberra. This letter responds only to those points relating to Vietnam and Cambodia. A reply will be sent later on the other aspects of your letter.

Political Prisoners

The Australian Government is naturally concerned about any case of imprisonment or maltreatment of persons because of their political beliefs. It has expressed this concern in regard to cases affecting quite a number of countries including- and I mention only a selection- Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam, the U.S.S.R. and Uganda.

You will appreciate, however, that there are limits to the range of action open to the Government. It can make representations to other governments and in a number of cases has done so. But making representations to foreign governments about their treatment of their own citizens involves delicate questions of sovereignty and domestic jurisdiction. Such approaches need to be very carefully handled if they are to do any good, and we must always consider the question whether our approaches risk harming the interests of the prisoners themselves. These considerations apply, of course, not only to South Vietnam but also to other countries whose laws and regulations provide for detention of political prisoners without trial.

In the case of South Vietnam, the Prime Minister expressed his personal concern over the detention and alleged maltreatment of political prisoners to the South Vietnamese Ambassador last year. I subsequently raised the matter with the then South Vietnamese Foreign Minister in New York during the last session of the United Nations General Assembly. We naturally welcomed the resumption of discussions between the South Vietnamese Government and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam which resulted in an exchange of some thousands of prisoners during the early part of this year. The Government is aware, however, that both South Vietnamese parties still accuse each other of continuing to hold large numbers of prisoners, and we regret that contacts between the two sides on the implementation of the Paris Agreements have again broken off.

As is noted in one of the attachments to your letter, Amnesty International has in the past estimated that there were over 100,000 political prisoners in South Vietnam, and there have been other higher estimates. I am not aware of any recent estimates by Amnesty International or other outside organisations which take into account the latest releases. The South Vietnamese Government itself claims that it has now released all political prisoners.

Obviously it is not possible for the Australian Government to verify this claim or contrary estimates made by outsiders. The probability is that considerable numbers of political prisoners remain. We were encouraged, however, to learn of the release on5 June of Tran Ngoc Chau, the last of the prominent opposition politicians known to have been held under detention in South Vietnam.

I have recently received a despatch from the Australian Ambassador in Saigon in which he mentions an estimate of 30-35,000 as the total number of civilian prisoners held in all centres of detention by the GVN authorities. He further points out that this figure embraces civilian prisoners of all types, including- and indeed being mainly accounted for by- common cnminal detentions as well as persons temporarily detained in local lock-ups. The number of political prisoners, however defined, would account for a comparatively small proportion of the total prison population.

I believe it is also necessary to remind ourselves of another aspect of this subject. Amnesty International readily admits the unevenness of its data on political detainees around the world. It admits, for example, that the absence of estimates for North Vietnam or Tor the PRG controlled areas or South Vietnam should not suggest that there are no political detainees there but only that it has not been permitted access to any camps or to any relevant information. I do not think that we should permit ourselves to act in such a way as to suggest that the political rights of individuals (as we see them ) are being denied by only one side in the conflict, when we know, or suspect, that by our standards they are being denied by all the parties. In such a situation, a situation in effect of continuing civil war, we have indeed to consider whether we can fairly apply our own liberal democratic standards to any of the parties.

The issue of prisoners is, of course, also closely linked to the question of progress towards the implementation of the Paris Agreements, the development of a real settlement in South Vietnam and the establishment of some degree of reconciliation and trust between the contending parties, and all of them are objectives which the Australian Government warmly supports. I believe that it would contribute to these objectives if all the parties honestly stated the position about prisoners held by them and set out deliberately to negotiate comprehensive mutual releases.

As Tar as the Australian Government is concerned we shall continue to make our views known to the Vietnamese parties on the general question of political prisoners. The Government will also continue to participate in the discussion of this matter in appropiate international organisations.

Recognition of the PRG

A second question raised in your letter is that of relations with the PRG. Your meeting called for Australia to open diplomatic relations with the PRG with a view to establishing an equality in Australia’s relations with the two South Vietnamese parties. You referred to the relevance of the Paris Agreements in this context.

The Australian Government supports the Paris Agreements because it believes that they provide a framework within which the South Vietnamese people may work out a national reconciliation which will bring peace to their devastated land and a chance to reunite and rebuild. We agree that the PRG has an important role to play in this process. We acknowledge this in our statements of policy. We also acknowledge it by the informal contacts which we have with the PRG and by our readiness to extend aid through international organisations to PRG-controlled area. We agree too that there can be no final settlement in South Vietnam without the involvement in it of the PRG. But Australia does not recognise the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam as a government in the accepted sense.

When Vietnam was divided in 19S4 two States were created and two Governments came into existence. Australia has long recognised the existence of both States and now formally recognises and has relations with both Governments, the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in North Vietnam and the Government of the Republic of Vietnam in South Vietnam. Both Governments are parties to the Paris Agreements, as is the PRG. It cannot be inferred from this, however, that support for the Agreements necessarily requires or entails recognition of a third state and a third Government. The Agreements impose equal obligations on the ‘two South Vietnamese parties (that is, the PRG and the South Vietnamese Government) and offer equal opportunities to them, but the agreements do not do so on the basis of any assumption or stipulation that the two South Vietnamese parties have the same characteristics.

It is important to note in this context that the countries which agreed in a limited sense to act as guarantors of the Agreements- the additional participants in the International Conference of February-March 1973- as well as the United States, North and South Vietnam and the PRG, all saw fit to include in the final act of the conference a penultimate sentence which read: ‘Signature of this Act does not constitute recognition of any party in any case in which it has not previously been accorded . There is no mistaking the intention of the provision. It was an important provision, required as much by the North Vietnamese, the PRG, the U.S.S.R. and China (in relation to their non-recognition of the Saigon government) as by the Americans, the GVN French, British, Canadians etc, who do not recognise the PRG.

In general, the Australian Government does not believe that the introduction of a third government in Vietnam would help settle the problems of South Vietnam. The best course would be to hold free elections throughout South Vietnam, perhaps under international supervision, and with the new government thus emerging taking the place of the existing Saigon administration as well as the PRG administration in the ‘liberated areas’. I have, however, taken note of the views of your association, and I shall bear them in mind in giving further thought to this matter.

Attendance by the PRG at the ICRC Weaponry Conference

Since Australia does not recognise the PRG as the government of South Vietnam it would be inappropriate to support its participation as a State at international conferences convened under the auspices of the United Nations or its Specialised Agencies. We should be pleased, however, to see PRG participation at such conferences as observers. Australia’s position was made clear, for example, at the Diplomatic Conference on International Humanitarian Law, when our representative in a statement accompanying his vote regretted on behalf of the Government that the question before the conference had been posed as a choice between participation as a state and non-participation.

Australia has now received a letter from the ICRC inviting views on the possible participation by experts nominated by the PRG to the forthcoming conference of weaponry experts. The Government is obliged to reply by the end of the month, but the terms of that reply are still being considered.

Australian Aid to South Vietnam

As you have noted various suggestions have emerged for the establishment of a multilateral aid operation for South Vietnam under the aegis of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Specifically, it has been proposed that a consultative group of donor countries should be established for South Vietnam. Approaches along these lines were made to the Government some months ago. Our response was that Australia would not be attracted by a consultative group for South Vietnam alone, but that we should also need to be satisfied that a parallel arrangement could be organised for North Vietnam. The problem here is that the North Vietmanese have resisted most forms of multilateral and United Nations aid, and have specifically criticised the World Bank and the ADB as ‘tools of American imperialism’. While, frankly, regretting this attitude, the Government has felt, nevertheless, that it would be inappropriate to join in a consultative group for South Vietnam so long as North Vietnam holds to the attitude I have described. To do so would be to join in preferential treatment for the South, with Australia coming under pressure to increase its contributions when, as an act of policy, we are trying to establish some balance in aid allocations between North and South.

On the other hand the Government also feels that it must avoid the temptation, born of its abhorrence of a war which the ALP has condemned for a decade, to direct Australian assistance exclusively to the North. The people of the South must also be helped to build a better life of the kind they want on the ruins left by the war.

Thus, for example, I am strongly of the view that we should continue our bilateral aid to South Vietnam. This aid in any case consists of a type which is properly to be regarded as designed to improve the health and welfare of the people of South Vietnam, and should not be seen as Australian props under the South Vietnamese Government. In this regard, I strongly disagree with that part of your analysis (‘Going Back on Vietnam ‘) which suggests that our development projects are meant to underpin the military structure of the Thieu Government. The power and water supply projects to which you refer will be a direct asset to the South Vietnamese people, including many thousands of refugees displaced by a tragic war. Abandonment of this sort of aid would in my view only be hurtful to the people without having any significant effect on their government’s policies. It is of more than passing relevance, incidentally, that the flow of refugees to which you alluded earlier in your paper is normally into areas controlled by the GVN and away from areas of PRG-control. Humanity requires that Australia do what it can to alleviate their plight wherever they may be. Considerable Australian assistance is also being channelled through bodies such as the International Red Cross and UNICEF. This is done in the context of the Government’s even-handed approach to Indo-China. Both these groups are well placed to disburse assistance to the whole of IndoChina, including North Vietnam, and areas under the control of the PRC, the Pathat Lao in Laos, and the antigovernment forces in Cambodia. The Government has made clear in this regard its wish to contribute to the reconstruction of the whole area.

Paris Agreements

Although your letter makes only passing reference to the implementation of the Paris Agreements, there was considerable comment on this matter in the attachments. I can reassure you here that the Government shares fully the anxiety expressed about the outlook for the Agreements. They are being breached, and daily. I am not sure, however, that the Government’s information would co-incide with some of the presentations given to your meeting. Indeed our detailed assessments suggest that the contending parties in South Vietnam are both at fault, that breaches by the GVN of the political and military provisions of the accords are fully, and in some cases more than fully, matched by breaches by the DRV and PRG.

Cambodia

The Prime Minister andI have given considerable thought to the question of Cambodian representation in the United Nations. The present intention is that on any substantive resolution Australia should vote for retention of the seat by the government with which we have relations, namely the Government of the Khmer Republic, but that we should not support any procedural move or delaying device aimed at preventing the issue being aired and voted on. Australian policy was explained by the Prime Minister to Prince Sihanouk in Peking last November. Australia of course has for some time enjoyed an informal working relationship with Prince Sihanouk’s government, mainly through our respective embassies in Peking.

As far as formal recognition is concerned Australian policy is to maintain our existing modest relationship with the Khmer Republic, while holding ourselves in readiness to recognise and establish relations with whatever alternative government which might come to power and which appeared to enjoy the support of the Cambodian people.

There are two additional observations I should like to make in concluding this letter. The first relates to the specific situation in Vietnam; the second has more general application.

The first point bears on what I have already said on the subject of political prisoners. While fully sympathising with the sentiment that political prisoners, wherever held, should be released, we must not forget that there has been war in Indo China more or less continuously for at least two decades. The contending parties even now are manoeuvring in what for them is a matter of life and death. In such a situation it might be too much to expect that the parties, any of them, would apply to political dissent the same rules to which we are accustomed in the tranquillity of Australia. It does no good in this regard to try to play favourites. All the parties in the Vietnamese conflict represent strains of Vietnamese nationalism. They may have different ideologies. They had and have different allies and supporters. But allare Vietnamese and it would be presumptuous for an outside Government to assume the office of judging that one or other represented a less genuine nationalist feeling.

My final observation is that the infringements of political and individual rights to which you refer are not confined to Vietnam or to Indo China, or indeed to the several other countries listed in the last paragraph of your letter. Unfortunately the liberal democracies are in a small, and dwindling, minority in the world. If the Australian Government chose to deal only with regimes whose internal policies it wholly approved of, it would rapidly find it had very few people left to deal with.

Yours sincerely, (D. R. WILLESEE)

MrK. J. McLeod, AICD Secretariat, P.O.BoxC327, Clarence Street, Sydney, N.S.W.2000.

Senator WILLESEE:

-I thank the Senate.

page 1067

QUESTION

POST OFFICE AT STREAKY BAY

Senator LAUCKE:

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General. Can the Minister indicate whether the old Post Office building at Streaky Bay in South Australia will be made available to local bodies interested in the preservation of the building for community activity purposes?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-AllI can promise Senate Laucke is to take up his question with the officers of my Department and also, as required, to discuss it with my ministerial colleagues to see what can be done in this regard. I will let him know the answer.

page 1067

QUESTION

TELEVISION RECEPTION IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media and I preface it with the remark that in my opinion television reception in a number of country centres, particularly in Western Australia, is inadequate. Has the Minister been made aware that this is particularly so in the Narrogin district even though Post Office statistics show that 80 per cent of households in the area have television receivers? Will the Minister see what action can be taken to improve the existing television service?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator has been raising these matters with me since she has been a member of the Senate. I have had the Australian Broadcasting Control Board investigate the problem of television reception not only in this area but also in other areas throughout Australia. I can tell the honourable senator that following a recommendation which I have received from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board I have approved plans for the improvement of television reception in the Narrogin, Katanning and Wagin areas of Western Australia. Narrogin will be served by a new national television translator to be established there at a cost of approximately $51,000, whilst modifications to the technical operating conditions at the existing Wagin and Katanning national translator stations will improve reception in those areas. The Narrogin translator, I understand, will take ite programs from the microwave link which extends from Perth to Albany.

page 1068

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY: PRESIDENCY

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I am glad that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has become engrossed in the possibility of an Australian being elected president of the General Assembly next year. No, we have not approached any of those groupings because it would be plain stupid to do it. They do not have a vote.

Mr GEORGI ERMOLENKO

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

-My question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs refers to the Ermolenko incident and is in 2 parts. I appreciate the strain that is on the Minister at this time. Firstly, did the Minister state in reply to a question this morning that it was he who instructed the Royal Australian Air Force? Would the Minister wish to have an opportunity to vary that statement to the Senate? Secondly, did the Minister or his Department on the morning of Thursday, 15 August- yesterday- inform the Soviet Charge d ‘Affaires, Mr Smirnov, of the Government’s decision to fly Mr Ermolenko by RAAF aircraft? Were other people advised? If that is so, did not the Minister consider that he had a responsibility to inform the Senate either yesterday morning or later in the day?

Senator WILLESEE:

-I did say, I think, that I instructed the Royal Australian Air Force. I did not instruct the operation. I arranged for the Air Force to be instructed through the proper channels. It was my decision that we would have an RAAF plane standing by.

Senator Webster:

– You are not shielding anyone? It was your decision?

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes, absolutely my decision. Believe me, no one wanted to take this buck off me; they left me with it. There were no volunteers. As to why I did not advise the Senate, what I did was to arrange to send a plane to Perth because at that time there was still a ban by the Federated Clerks Union on the handling of any aircraft carrying the Russians. Subsequently, on Wednesday, Mr Coleman, the Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, tried to arrange a meeting at the airport to discuss the question with the Federated Clerks Union following the lifting of the ban by the Transport Workers Union. He was unsuccessful. However, it was agreed that a meeting would be held the next day- but, as I understood it, the union executive did not call it. Finally, a meeting was held. People from both sides addressed it and after all present had heard the case the vote was put and the ban was lifted by 20 votes to 7, nearly a 3 to 1 majority. Several people told Mr Coleman that that was the first chance the union had had of hearing the question put before it fairly and squarely. When they did get the opportunity, the members lifted it, as I say, by a nearly 3 to 1 vote. So at that stage I had merely arranged to have a plane standing by. There was still a possibility that the Russians would go by commercial plane.

I think it should become obvious to honourable senators why I did not inform the Senate. I have acknowledged right throughout that a number of people were genuinely interested in the welfare of this person.

Senator Wright:

– It was your only way of using the armed forces to elude the unions, was it not?

Senator WILLESEE:

-No, it was not. I am answering Senator Webster’s question; so just be quiet. The point is that what I did would have defied the union if necessary. In the statement I made last night- if the honourable senators opposite ever get around to reading it they will see this- 1 said that the Government had to govern. That was the attitude I took. Senator Webster, who I think is genuinely interested in this matter, asked why I did not inform the Senate. It is quite obvious that a number of people- I have said this several times-were jumping on the bandwagon, playing a political line and beating people up into hysteria.

Senator Durack:

– Who are they?

Senator WILLESEE:

-Senator Durack knows perfectly well who they are. According to the information I had there was a strong possibility of very ugly scenes occurring at the Perth airport should the Government attempt to get the Russian party on the commerical British Airways flight from that airport. For example, on the previous evening large crowds had gathered at the airport, even though the Russians were not present, and created angry scenes when union officials were considering their attitude to the ban. A large crowd gathered at the airport next day in anticipation of the Russians boarding an aircraft. The Government decided that it simply could not guarantee the safety of the Russian party in such circumstances. Concern for Georgi ‘s safety and welfare has always been, and remains, my principal objective throughout this whole matter and I was not prepared to put him at risk. I only wish that some others involved had shown a similar concern for Georgi ‘s wishes, as he clearly expressed them to a great number of independent and highly respected people over a period of several days. To answer Senators Webster’s question, there were some of the considerations I had in mind. I think he would agree that having that knowledge and having that belief in my mind, it would have been plain suicide for me to inform the Senate. That would have then made the whole thing public. It had to be carried out in a manner that did not exacerbate a situation which was already very bad in that area.

page 1069

QUESTION

MR GEORGI ERMOLENKO

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows on the question asked of him by Senator Webster. What was the involvement of the Prime Minister in the decisions taken throughout the Ermolenko affair? Did the Prime Minister have a role in the decision to order the Orion aircraft? Did the Prime Minister make the decision that the Government would take Mr Ermolenko from Australia? Was decision-making throughout the

Ermolenko affair in the hands of the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Prime Minister? If the Prime Minister was involved what was the extent of his involvement?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I answered most of those questions at a Press conference yesterday. I do not quite see the point about it all.

Senator Greenwood:

– The Senate does not matter; is that the point?

Senator WILLESEE:

-I will tell Senator Greenwood if he will just wait a little while. Surely I am entitled to say that all of this is already on public record, or does that upset Senator Greenwood’s fine tendencies in this issue? I have said right throughout that I was handling the case. When I decided to take this action I spoke to the Prime Minister and asked him to make the aircraft available. I explained to him what it was for. He concurred in that.

page 1069

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-I present the forty-ninth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances relating to the Australian Capital Territory City Area Leases Ordinance (No. 2) 1974.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1069

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND NATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the substance of proposals Tor amendment of existing legislation relating to the Australian Industry Development Corporation and for the establishment of a National Investment Fund, as expressed in proposed laws entitled the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill 1974 and the National Investment Fund Bill 19/4, be referred, for enquiry, and report by 1 October 1974, to the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, which is hereby authorised to consider the matter.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Cotton’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1070

ROADS GRANTS BILL 1974

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 15 August (vide page 1037).

Clause 4.

Upon which Senator Durack had moved by way of amendment:

Leave out sub-clause (1 ).

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:
VICTORIA

-The Committee is dealing with clause 4 which it has agreed to consider sub-clause by sub-clause. At present it is considering sub-clause ( 1) to which Senator Durack has moved an amendment that the sub-clause be left out The question before the Committee is, that the words proposed to be left out be left out.

Senator Durack:

- Mr Chairman, may I raise a question on your ruling? I understood that we divided this clause into sub-clauses and that we were dealing with them separately.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is correct, as I understand it. The amendment proposes that subclause ( 1 ) be left out.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The situation is that there is an amendment before the Chair which was moved by Senator Durack. The Committee will have a copy of that amendment. I note that when Senator Durack was putting the proposition to the Committee- I read from Hansard- he stated:

I would suggest that in view of the complicated nature of this clause the Committee may be prepared to divide it so that we can deal with the clause sub-clause by sub-clause otherwise, I think, we will get into a great deal of confusion.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Leave was granted for that course to be followed. Senator Durack has moved the amendment. Eventually I will put the question: ‘That the words which Senator Durack proposes to be left out, be left out. ‘ That is the proposition that I am putting to the Committee at the moment.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-Last night I was speaking about my State of Queensland as an example. I mentioned that under the present Country-Liberal Party Government there had been an excellent development and improvement in the roads system of that State. I can remember at one stage a Minister who had very strong influence in the Labor Government indicated to a deputation which waited on him that he was interested only in the roads that surrounded the Brisbane, Ipswich and Toowoomba areas. He quite blatantly said that he could not care less about country regions. We saw a complete change take place with the advent of the late Mr Ernest Evans as the Minister for Main Roads. It is unfortunate that the man who made the statement to which I have referred, showing of his short-sighted interest in this matter, came from the southern area of the State. Mr Evans lived in my own area, which is in the central-northern region. That is a striking illustration of the fact that people who are furtherest removed from you are the people who know least about you and from whom you will receive the least consideration. When I think of the size of my State and of this Commonwealth, I believe that Canberra is too far removed for people here to be able to appreciate the necessary details in order to make judgments regarding roads and so on.

Local government is the closest form of government to the people. The people in local government live in the areas concerned and they have a good knowledge of the requirements of the areas. The State government is the next closest form of government to the people, and we in the Federal sphere are the most removed form of government from the people because of our situation in this city of Canberra. In my own experience I have not found any great conflict or any great difficulty in municipal administrations and Departments of Main Roads working with each other. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the benefit derived by the people in the areas concerned, I cannot see what we gain by having everything referred to Canberra. Senator Hall mentioned the difficulties of South Australia. I believe that if every request is to be channelled to Canberra, there could very well be a bottleneck that might hold things up considerably. Also, because the Canberra authorities are so far removed from some areas in Australia they may not have regard to the special circumstances in those areas.

As I have mentioned, I live in a northern region where we get monsoonal rains and rains which are much heavier than those experienced in other areas, and there may be a requirement for roads of stronger structure. The engineering people or the people in the responsible department in Canberra might ask: ‘Why the necessity for extra expenditure on building more expensive roads?’ I will give an illustration. Earlier this year we had a lengthy period of rain. With the exception of possibly one or two days, we had rain every day over a period of 7 weeks. During that period the whole area became waterlogged. I saw springs burst through from underneath newly made bitumen roads. Ultimately, the roads had to be dug out and rock filled. Even underground drainage had to be provided in some cases. Such circumstances would not be found in the Canberra region where the annual rainfall probably would not be as much as the rainfall recorded in my region in the 7-week period to which I have referred. As I said, damage was caused to many miles of roads in my area as a result of water bursting through from underneath the bitumen. A great amount of expenditure was incurred in repairing the roads.

Looking at the matter from the point of view of wanting to give the best service to the people, I cannot see that referring everything to Canberra is the most expeditious and beneficial way of providing that service. I think it will cause a bottleneck. I know that these things depend a lot upon the people who administer them. It seems to me that many requests from a very large countryI am thinking of the Commonwealth of Australia as a whole- will be channelled to Canberra for consideration. I know that Senator Devitt has had experience in local government. Those of us who have had experience in local government believe that being a local government representative is good training and I think we have a sense of being close to the people. If a local authority wants to construct a culvert or a bridge in connection with road work, I cannot see why a request for approval of such work should be channelled through to Canberra. It appears to me that in this legislation we are creating difficulty in the quick execution by the requirements we are placing on local government in regard to the roads of this nation. The situation that will arise if municipal councils have to ask people in Canberra how they can spend their money really beggars description.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You know that is not true.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes, it is. Once Canberra gets its hands on local government, you never know where it will finish. Personally, I would not like to be in the position of having to refer everything to Canberra. Surely the people who serve in local government are just as sensible as you and 1. 1 think we should have confidence that, if money is parcelled out to local authorities, we can leave it to them to do a decent and reasonable job for this nation- a better job than would result if everything were run from Canberra.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-Like Senator Wood, I have had much experience in local government. If I thought that this Bill proposed what Senator Wood believes it proposes I would share his great apprehensions about it; but the Bill does not propose that at all. As I said in my speech during the second reading stage yesterday, I would be the last to agree that there should be any interference from Canberra in the day to day domestic affairs of the running of municipal councils and in the expenditure of their rate collected revenue. That is not proposed.

Yesterday I mentioned in passing, because time did not permit a very detailed exposition of the situation, that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) had attempted to give an assurance that this was not proposed. I think this is important, because Senator Steele Hall expressed some misgivings as to what is proposed in the measure. The Minister issued a statement. I cannot see a date on it, but I made some inquiries and learned that last Friday night the Minister had made a statement, copies of which he had dispatched to all municipal authorities throughout Australia, spelling out the provisions of the Bill. If the Committee will bear with me for a moment, I would like to read out a part of the Minister’s reassurance which is pertinent to the question we are now discussing. The Minister said:

The Roads Grants Bill provides for Australian Government assistance to the States and local government for the following categories of roads: Urban arterial roads, urban local roads, rural arterial roads, rural local roads, developmental roads, beef roads and minor traffic engineering and road safety improvements.

The Bill provides for appropriate Australian Government Ministers to approve programs of road works financed by Australian Government grants.

That ought to be borne in mind. They are Australian Government grants. Then we come to the determination of responsibility. My experience in local government tells me that there must be an absolutely correct recording of all expenditure. In fact, during the time I served in this area, when grants were made by State authorities to local government every cent of that money had to be properly recorded and accounts had to be presented for audit examination. So it is nothing new that somebody at a government level making financial grants to some other institution should require that institution to give clear evidence of the fact that the money so advanced has been utilised for the purposes for which it was intended. The Minister went on to say:

The Bill in clause 4(1) provides that the Australian Government may require the States and local government to submit for Australian Government approval programs of road works financed from their own resources. The subclause reads as follows:

I think this is important -

A Minister may -

The word ‘may’ is used in its correct sense; there is nothing mandatory about it - notify a State the date -

Senator Marriott:

– You read the Acts Interpretation Act.

Senator DEVITT:

– Let me go on and then perhaps the honourable senator may -

Senator Marriott:

– I am correcting you.

Senator DEVITT:

-I do not accept the honourable senator’s correction. I do not think the honourable senator knows what he is talking about, frankly. Clause 4(1) reads:

A Minister may notify a State the date before which a program of projects in respect of a period to which this section applies, being projects of a specified kind, is to be submitted to him for approval, and may, in the notice, inform the State that the program should include all the projects of that kind that are to be carried out by the State and by municipal, shire, and other local authorities in that period.

In his statement the Minister then goes on to say:

As I have said on a number of occasions this later provision was included because this Government recognises the inter-connection of the various modes and is determined to promote the development of a more national approach -

I think this is important - to transport overall.

In fact, it is an attempt for the first time in the history of this country to try to put on to a proper national basis all the modes of transport in this country, including those facilities necessary to enable transportation to flow on road or rail or on any other land based mode that is available. The Minister continues:

We believe it is illogical -

I must agree with this and surely the Senate must agree with this - to provide large sums of money in a number of important areas, including urban public transport and national highways, without recognising that roads built by States and municipal authorities form just as much a part of the transport system as do roads and trains and buses financed by Australian Government grants.

The whole purpose of this legislation is to try to integrate our various modes of transport into a unified national system, not for the aggrandisement of any particular form of government but for the service of the Australian community. That is the whole point and purpose of this legislation. The Minister then says:

The provisions I refer to however, are not mandatory and it may help the Parliament in its consideration of the Bill if I indicate the manner in which it is intended they be administered. This should also clear up some of the misunderstanding that may exist in the minds of State and local government.

The States and local government will not be required to submit for approval -

I repeat that they will not be required to submit for approval - the road works program financed from their own funds for the following categories: urban local roads, rural local roads, developmental roads, beef road and minor traffic engineering and road safety improvements.

The Minister winds up this particular aspect in this way:

This means that the Australian Government will not be approving road projects financed from a State’s or local government’s own resources for the above categories nor was it ever the Australian Government’s intention that local councils would have to seek approval for the purchase from their own resources of individual items of road plant, such as tractors, as claimed by Opposition spokesman.

I think it is quite incorrect and improper to try to generate fear in the minds of those people who are genuinely concerned with the welfare of local government. In this respect one has to have regard to the fact- this is becoming more and more evident and increasingly clear as time goes on to everyone concerned with this matter- that the local government institution in Australia at the present time is in a pretty sick state. We have to recognise that fact, and if we are to resurrect it from the low position into which it has sunk over the past several years, the Federal Government, being the Government with the chief sources of finance, must come into the picture and must help. We see the natural consequence of the decline in the importance of the role and of the ability of local government to discharge its functions in the fact that able and conscientious people in the community-the type of people that one would want to see in local government- are now declining in greater numbers to involve themselves in a system for which they can claim only a mediocre performance.

Everybody wants to be associated with a good performance, and people are very disinclined to be associated with something which is less than what it ought to be in the interest of the people. I see evidence of this- surely it must be evident right throughout the land because I have discussed the matter with people in other political parties who are as concerned as I am for the welfare of local government, and they see the same picture emerging. Unless local government can be put in a position in which it can indicate clearly to the community in observable terms that its functions are necessary and appropriate, people will be disinclined to involve themselves in local government.

Similarly, of course, another spin-off- a thing which surely must be agitating the minds of people in local government- is the very serious question of the lack of interest in local government elections. I saw recently in Tasmania an election where, I think, fewer than 100 people were sufficiently interested in what was happening. It was an election for an urban council in Tasmania. There is a substantial enrolment but fewer than 100 people- I am open to correction- - were sufficiently interested m the election. I have warned about this trend. I am not unusual in this respect, I do not suppose, because other people have had the same feeling but have not had an opportunity to express it. I feel that unless something very drastic or dramatic is done to resuscitate local government in the Australian community the people who depend upon local government for the provision of those daytoday locally based front-door services as it were are in for a pretty sorry time. I suggest this is an appropriate way to keep some measure of interest in what is happening in the local community area and, also, a very necessary attempt to ensure a proper co-ordination of the design and construction of road systems and other modes of transportation in which the Government should interest itself.

No government can abdicate its position of responsibility in the expenditure of public funds. I think it is an appropriate function of the national Government- as well as any other form of government- at least to have a provision where it may- it is not mandatory as I said- require an exposition of plans of local authorities so that an adequate control or at least an adequate interest and an adequate assurance can be given to the Australian taxpayer that what is happening is an appropriate thing to be happening. I have heard, and I guess that Senator Wood and other people who have been involved in local government also would have heard, that agitation in a local government area for the construction of a road or some other system has led to the construction of that road. An instance was pointed out to me only the other day by an official of the Tasmanian Municipal Association of a road being built for quite a substantial amount- some thousands of pounds at the time- to provide road access to some farm property. The road has now grown over with grass. Nobody ever uses it. It was merely an access road. Something happened to amalgamate the property and some other entrance was provided. The public funds were wasted. Construction of roads of that sort cannot be justified.

I hope that I have been able in the few brief moments I have had to show that it is not the Australian Government’s intention at all to stick its nose into local council business. Heaven help me, it has enough problems of its own, surely, without getting involved. It is an appropriate thing, when somebody provides funds- I would want to do so if I were providing money for some project- to see that they are properly and adequately expended. Is the Opposition arguing that there should not, in fact, be some oversight in the expenditure of public funds particularly at a time when everybody with any sense of responsibility, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden), is urging maximum control over the expenditure of public funds.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I regret to say that my Tasmanian colleague has drawn me into this debate because I think he has deepened the mystery that has been in my mind through all the preliminaries before this Bill reached this place. I have all the Press cuttings of statements by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones). This upper House of review of the national Parliament is legislating to put into law the words that are in the Bill. We are not putting into law any Press statements, any ideas, any indications, any promises or any lack of promises. They are worth nothing once a Bill is given royal assent. The clause of the Bill we are discussing states:

A Minister may notify -

I should like one of our legal people to confirm or deny later whether the words ‘ may notify ‘ means will notify’. I believe that is so in the Acts Interpretation Act. I will not argue on that point. The clause states:

A Minister may notify a State the date before which a program of projects in respect of a period to which this section applies, being projects of a specified kind, is to be submitted to him for approval, and may, in the notice, inform the State that the program should include all the projects of that kind that are to be carried out by the State and by municipal, shire and other local authorities in that period.

That is what is stated in the Bill. Like Senator Devitt, I have a copy of a document in my hand. Quite frankly, I know not from where it came. It is typewritten and is headed ‘New Road Arrangements- Statement by the Honourable C. K. Jones, M.P., Minister for Transport’. The pages are numbered but the document carries no date. Attached to it is a copy of what is presumably a letter. It is headed ‘Sydney’ and commences ‘Dear Mr Whitlam’. It is indicated at the end of the letter that it is addressed to “The Hon. E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., M.P., Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia’. The letter is signed ‘Yours faithfully, C. B. Cutler, Acting Premier and Treasurer’. The letter is also undated. As Senator Devitt read out to us, the document says:

The Bill in clause 4 ( 1 ), provides that the Australian Government may require the States and local government to submit for Australian Government approval programs of road works financed from their own resources.

That refers to roads constructed by State and local governments from their own financial resources. A further statement on page 2 of the Minister’s statement makes me feel more suspicious. Do not forget that State and local governments are under threat if the Senate dares to amend this Bill. We are told that the Senate’s rejection of this Bill would mean that State and local government would receive no money and that such an action would also cause unemployment. Yet we know that the States have received money up until, I think, the end of October. This adds to the mystery and makes me more desirous of seeing this clause deleted from the Bill. The Minister is saying in the statement:

The provisions I refer to -

That is, the provisions of the Bill-

  1. . however, are not mandatory and it may help the Parliament in its consideration of the Bill if I indicate the manner in which it is intended they may be administered.

The honourable Mr Charles Jones may be the greatest Minister for Transport, as formerly we were told that we had the greatest Foreign Affairs Minister, but Mr Jones may not be the Minister for Transport tomorrow. Another member of the Australian Labor Caucus may be the Minister. Is that member of Caucus or a Minister from a Liberal-Country Party government going to be bound by this undated Press statement which, it is claimed, may help the Parliament in its consideration of the Bill? The paragraph which I have quoted concludes by stating:

This should also clear up some of the misunderstanding that may exist in the minds of State and local government.

In effect, what that means is that since the legislation was promulgated and pushed through the House of Representatives there has been uproar throughout the States from State governments, Opposition parties, local government and shire councils. The Minister issued his threat. But he knows that the Senate will not take notice of any threats. As Senator Durack said yesterday, we had threats about the Airlines Agreement Bill. We took no notice of any threats and we won the day. I hope that the Senate will rise above threats because we should not pass legislation which the Minister has the cheek to say how he may administer it if it becomes law. He will have to administer it in the way set out in the Act of Parliament. That is why the clause should be rejected.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– In view of my remarks last night, I shall speak briefly. I have had time to study the amendment. I think it is extremely good. It does not destroy the right of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) to insist on approval of the projects involved but it does take from him that very expanded control over areas which ought to be outside his jurisdiction.

Senator Devitt:

-Have you looked at that question relative to the co-ordination of activities?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Yes, I have. I think the Minister has extremely wide power under this legislation compared with the road grant situation from which it takes over. It is an enormous step into ministerial control. I would think that every possible control has been put into this legislation and the proposal under consideration is one that is not needed. 1 do not think the Minister will lose anything by its exclusion and certainly he has no cause to reject the Bill when the real power is almost left intact in it. I did want to say, in view of my remarks last night, that I believe the Minister would still have the power to discipline Mr Dunstan who so badly needs it in South Australia.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

-I think we must take some cognizance of the hurried program before us today. We should remember that we are not now dealing with the second reading. We are in Committee and debating the clauses in the Bill. The fact that the second reading was approved would indicate that there is general support for the Bill. One may then say: Yes, we agree with the proposals. We think the Bill is better with some alteration here, some deletion there or some improvement somewhere else. ‘ So in Committee we deal with the clauses one at a time. An amendment has been moved to delete the words in clause 4(1). We are restricted to speaking on that clause. There was not much criticism on this clause. Last evening Senator Durack said very little. He said that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) had made a statement- which was repeated by Senator Marriott today- which constituted a threat. The Minister has a habit of making very blunt statements. He was perhaps not as diplomatic as I was last evening when I made the same statement. He says: ‘If you do not pass the Bill the States will get nothing’, and according to the machinery of the BUI that is a fact Even if the Government were prepared to capitulate and say ‘We will have to make another agreement’ there would have to be an immediate stoppage of road works.

Senator Marriott has said that grants to the States have been paid up to October. That is simply not true. The crux of this matter is that the States are relying on the passage of this legislation. This Government has approved interim grants of $2.5m to South Australia, $1.7m to Queensland, $4,083,000 to Western Australia and $500,000 to Tasmania. A request for funds from New South Wales is being processed. At this stage Victoria has not made a request. These grants to the States are interim grants to allow them to carry on. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has pointed out in correspondence to the Premiers, that the interim grants were made in anticipation of the legislation being passed. If the legislation is not passed the Commonwealth Government cannot proceed with the interim grants. New South Wales councils, which are complaining about how many men they will have to put off, will have to put those men off if it does not get the finance proposed under this legislation. In a letter to the Premiers the Prime Minister stated:

As you will appreciate, this would leave us without any adequate basis on which to continue to provide this interim financing. In such a situation, and particularly in view of the size of the amounts involved, there would be no alternative for us but to move to terminate the interim financing arrangements in this area, however regrettable the results of doing so might be.

That is the consequence. If any amendment is made to this legislation the passing of the Bill will be delayed until such time as the other House has considered the Bill again. If this Bill is not passed there will be no interim finance granted to the States until such time as the Bill is reconsidered by the House of Representatives which will be some time after the consideration of the Budget.

Senator Marriott:

– Bring them back next week.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes. I could understand that the honourable senator would like us to come back next week because that would get the Opposition off the hook for the despicable thing that it did in opposing the granting of finance to the States. I do not think it is likely that the Government would agree to do that. When I replied to the second reading debate I indicated that we sought expert advice in relation to roads. Whilst the Minister for Transport may be an expert on the location of roads for urban development, export trade and beef, he needs to obtain the opinion of the Minister concerned with each of those areas of responsibility. It is not true to say that we do not consult the States. Subclause (2) of clause 4 of the Bill states:

For the purposes of this Act, the Minister, after consultation with the appropriate Minister of a State-

may approve programs of projects by way of-

i ) the construction of rural arterial roads:

It will be noticed that the words ‘after consultation’ are used. It therefore means that the Minister for Transport has to consult with the Ministers of the States. The Opposition is seeking to delete sub-section ( 1 ) of Clause 4 which in part states:

A Minister may notify a State the date before which a program of projects in respect of a period to which this section applies, being projects of a specified kind, is to be submitted to him . . .

The Minister can ask the States to submit a program of projects to be carried out. If the States do not submit a program the projects will not be financed by the Australian Government. The Opposition has stated that every municipal road had to be approved by the Minister- by the bureaucracy in Canberra. That is not so. The Minister made a statement in which he used the term to which Senator Devitt has referred in citing clause 4 which states ‘The Minister may’. Senator Marriott questioned whether ‘may’ in fact means ‘shall’.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It can mean ‘will’.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No. The Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act does not contain any clear definition of the word ‘may’. When I was on the Standing Committees on Regulations and Ordinances we found a judgment which had been given by the Privy Council in England that when a public servant has an option to give a benefit he should interpret the word ‘may’ to mean ‘will’. In order to clarify the position the Minister has pointed out that we have this option. He has said in the statement referred to by Senator Devitt and Senator Marriott that on occasions the option is exercised. I do not want to go into the political issues that have been raised. It is all right to say that in Queensland they have good roads now because they have got a Country Party Government and that they had bad roads when they had a Labor Government. If it is true that there were bad governments at that time, it would seem to support the argument that we should have a central control.

Last evening Senator Steele Hall made a very damning accusation against the Labor Government in South Australia for the shambles of the roads. He said it was caused by no other reason than that there was in power a Labor Government which has a policy of gaining political advantage. If that were so, surely that would be a reason to take the power away from petty governments that would misuse it. Let me say that I do not accept that argument. I know the history of the Metropolitan Adelaide Transportation Study plan and of the desire of the Labor Government to use forms of transport other than cars. All this argument proves that there must be a co-ordinated plan. Therefore the legislation states that in an urban area the Minister for Urban and Regional Development is the expert to consult with the States concerned and in beef roads areas the Minister for Northern Development is the expert. The repercussions of the defeat of this clause would be so great that the Senate should not entertain the proposal.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 31

NOES: 29

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

- Mr Chairman, I have amendments of a similar nature to sub-clauses (3), (4) and (7) of clause 4. They appear as amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 on the circulated list of proposed amendments. The business of the Committee might be facilitated if those 3 sub-clauses and amendments were taken together. I seek leave for that course to be followed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Poyser:

– That is co-operation.

Senator DURACK:

-I might be able to reciprocate by not speaking for too long on these amendments.

Senator Devitt:

– Two minutes.

Senator DURACK:

-Matters will not be helped if Senator Devitt interjects or speaks at great length. I move:

The Opposition has moved these amendments because the Opposition believes that it is quite wrong in principle that the Minister for Transport, who is the Minister responsible for administering this Bill, should have to obtain the concurrence of another Minister in carrying out some of the major items covered by the Bill. Our amendments are designed to eliminate the necessity that the Minister for Transport should have not only to consult with but also to obtain the concurrence of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development in respect of the programs initiated under the provisions of this Bill with respect to urban arterial roads and also certain other projects. It is said that this concurrence is necessary because of the interest of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development in such matters as urban planning. No doubt it would be wise for the Minister for Transport in making administrative decisions to consult with the Minister for Urban and Regional Development on aspects relevant to that Minister’s portfolio. But, in our view, it is completely wrong administratively that the concurrence of 2 Ministers should be required to approve a project. A type of Roman consul situation is established to permit the provisions of the legislation to be carried out. We think that is wrong. The amendments are proposed for that reason.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– The Government will not accept the amendment for the very reason that I mentioned last night. The situation would be ludicrous if in clause 4 (3) the Minister for Urban and Regional Development were to have no say as to where roads were to go in areas which he has the responsibility of developing. We acknowledge the capabilities of departments such as the Department of Main Roads to construct main roads but the Minister is the man responsible for the whole scheme of planning such matters. The proposal to leave out these words is not acceptable to the Government under any conditions. The entire policy of the Government relates to a new concept of our quality of life. This is not just a question of roads but of the whole new development of Australia.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I think that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) is indeed announcing a new concept. Paraphrasing his words, he said that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development had the whole concept of planning as his responsibility for road construction. In that case am I to understand that the States departments have nothing left to them?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is having a bit both ways this morning. He will have to be a bit more definitive. He said, in effect, that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development had the major say, if not all the say, in the planning of these schemes. Tomorrow he had better look at his words in Hansard. If he does not mean that, he had better say so. We can only accept the words he utters in this chamber. I do not believe that this amendment moved by Senator Durack is limiting in its effect. I believe it will make the administration of the Minister for Transport more flexible because there is nothing to stop him from going to his colleague, getting all the advice he requires, putting it into his plan and making that a condition of his approval. There is nothing in the world to stop him from doing that. All that is proposed in this amendment is a legislative restriction. Perhaps at some stage of planning Ministers of the Labor Government may fall out with each other for some reason or another and they may not give approval for some petty or departmental reason. I regard the Minister’s insistence as restrictive and Senator Durack ‘s amendment as making the machinery more flexible.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-As a representative of Victoria I likewise support this and other amendments in the same vein because they are designed not only to remove this curious requirement for 2 Ministers to agree but also to write into the legislation the requirement that there should be consultation with the States and the appropriate State Ministers. There is no doubt that in the Bill as it stands there is a very grave attack upon the important responsibilities of the States. The view of the Victorian Government on this matter is very clear. Its opposition is forthright. I and other Victorian senators on the Opposition side have pleasure, I am sure, in supporting this amendment and others of a like nature.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

- Senator Steele Hall takes a very definite stand on being precise with every word. He quoted a word out of context, suggesting it had a particular application and a particular meaning when it did not. This is a shrewd game in debating and it is not strange to this chamber, as honourable senators know. If an Irishman has difficulty in making himself clear he will be understood if he is allowed to speak for long enough. I think that the words I used afterwards clarified the situation. I was trying to show the role of the various Ministers. The Minister for Urban and Regional Development and his Department are planning and developing new cities and areas. He is the authority on which roads should go into his town planning schemes. The effect of the amendment would be to give sole responsibility for urban and arterial roads programs to someone else and the Department of Urban and Regional Development would have no right to approve a proposal. The effect of the amendment is to hand responsibility over to the Minister for Transport. This is not the right thing to do according to the Government’s new concept on future activities.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Durack’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 31

NOES: 29

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Committee will now deal with sub-clause (5).

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The same question of principle is raised in sub-clause (5) as was raised in the other subclauses with which we have just dealt. This subclause concerns the allocation of money for beef roads and requires the concurrence of the Minister for Northern Development instead of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. The same arguments which I have advanced in relation to the other sub-clauses apply to this sub-clause, and I do not propose to repeat those arguments. Therefore, I move:

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I agree that the same type of principle applies in relation to the consultation and the approval which are required. However, it seems to me that we are dealing with a program which was essentially a Commonwealth program to begin with. I do not know the entire detail and history of it. Although only one State is involved, I imagine that the broad planning of the beef road system has great interstate ramifications. I think of the Birdsville Track in South Australia and some matching-in work in relation to it. I do not know whether any work in matching form needs to be done on the Track or whether it is a matter of feeding stock into that Track, but certainly it is one consideration. There must be others which do not readily come to mind. It would seem to me that there is a greater claim by the Commonwealth in relation to this clause because of its inherently overwhelming position in the beef roads scheme to begin with and because of the very real need to co-ordinate outside the long term interests of the State. In relation to the other sub-clauses we voted on very specific State responsibilities. In this sub-clause I can see a greater invasion by the Commonwealth and a greater claim by the Commonwealth. For that reason I support the sub-clause.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– I point out that we have just voted for some amendments because we did not think that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development should have a say in respect of certain road grants. We thought that he should deal with the Minister for Transport and that the Minister for Transport should then take up the matter with the States. Likewise in this case I do not see why we should bring into a Bill which relates to road grants the right of the Minister for Northern Development to interfere in this matter. Therefore I will be voting for the amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · South Australia · ALP

– I do not want to take up much of the Committee’s time. We knew long before Senator Townley came into the chamber how he would vote on this and many other questions. I do not know that there are many beef roads in Tasmania and I do not think it would be fitting for the Minister for Northern Development to have discussions on beef roads in Tasmania. Nevertheless, he is the man responsible for beef roads in the Northern Territory. While I agree that the same considerations apply, it is essential that the Minister for Northern Development have some consultation on the question of beef roads.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I support the amendment and suggest that it is bad enough having one Federal Labor

Minister to deal with without complicating it by allowing others to get into the act as well. The South Australian Minister, Mr Virgo, is not impressed even with Mr Jones. Yesterday I learned that Mr Jones sent a letter to local government authorities in South Australia indicating that there was some interim finance available.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise to order. What clause is Senator Jessop dealing with and does this letter deal with beef roads? I did not know that the municipalities in South Australia had beef roads.

The CHAIRMAN:

-There has been fairly wide discussion on all these points.

Amendment negatived.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-Sub-clause (6) deals broadly with the same problem of excessive central control by the Federal Minister over State and local authorities which we discussed in relation to sub-clause ( 1 ). However, sub-clause (6) goes a little further even than that because it provides that an approved program under the Act for the construction of road works may require approval of the particulars of the project as well as approval of the program itself, and those particulars of the project may include such things as the road making plant to be used in the construction and maintenance of roads under that program. Under this sub-clause the Minister may require a local authority to purchase a particular type of grader or other road equipment to be used by either a State government, a main roads department or a country roads board.

I move:

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I wonder whether the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) might be able to clear up just what this sub-clause means. In the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1 969 from which this Bill emanates, section 2 sub-section (5) states:

An amount or a part of an amount expended, or set aside for expenditure, by a State on the purchase of road-making plant. . . .

So there is a reference in the old roads agreement. As I understand it, that is an advantage to the States in that they claim what they spend on roads as part of their quota. Is this sub-clause meant to apply in a similar vein or is it to work against the States? I am just not clear whether we are helping the States or harming them by deleting the sub-clause.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I had posed a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) as to the significance of subclause (6) and how it compares with the old Commonwealth Aid Roads arrangements where sub-section (5) of section 2 deals with it. Is it meant to continue in the same vein?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– Yes, I am told that basically it continues in the same vein and that deletion of it in this Bill would have the effect of precluding the use of Australian Government moneys for the purchase of plant for road works by either State governments or local councils. This would not have a major effect on State governments but could be quite serious for some councils who, we understand, depend on the Australian Government’s road grants to purchase plant. As we said the provision was in the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act. The Opposition in the House of Representatives indicated that it wished to have this sub-clause deleted so that councils would not have to have individual pieces of plant financed from their own resources approved for road making programs. The statement of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) which was tabled in the Senate during the second reading speech on the Road Grants Bill indicated that Tocal councils have to submit road programs for expenditure from their own resources for information only, not for approval. The Minister also explained that it was never the Government’s intention to require the submission of individual items of plant for approval. I hope that answers the honourable senator’s question.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– It seems to me that the benefit of any doubt ought to come down on the basis of leaving the clause in, with availability of finance and flexibility allowed to local government. I do not know whether Senator Durack thinks that way, but I think it might inhibit the people whom we think we are helping.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (2.18)- Commenting on the observations made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) who is in charge of the Bill, I point out that one of the advantages in my life, small as they have been, was to sit in local government. Moreover, I was a member of a shire council in Victoria. The question of road plant- and this is the specific observation made by the Minister-is that within the State which I represent in this place the right or otherwise to purchase machinery for the engineering requirements of the local council was decided by the shire council on the advice tendered to it by the local engineer. The reason for this is perfectly clear, or should be perfectly clear, except to those people who are maddened with the concept of centralising all administrative matters; that is, that the circumstances and the requirements of the terrain in road building change in every part of Australia and the people with most knowledge of the engineering problems that confront them in their local area are those who sit around the table and are responsible to their ratepayers for raising the money and for weighing the pros and cons of the advice tendered at that level of government as to the type of machinery required. There are different machinery requirements for different engineering operations. Notwithstanding the specious argument put forward by the Minister, that the submissions on road programs are required only for information, I am sufficiently versed in the administration of government to know that government decentralises conceptually the administrative processes but in fact, because of the nature of the bureaucratic beast, it recentralises the decision. Although the Minister has said that these details are required by the Bureau of Roads only for its information the fact of the matter is that the decision-making is recentralised and not decentralised. On the basis that I believe that the maximum autonomy of administration should go to the furthest levels of administration and not to the central areas of administration, I support the arguments that have been advanced. I go on further to say that I have had probably far more administrative experience than any Minister who is sitting in this place or who has sat in this place. One of the problems that one has in dealing with a bureaucracy is the attempt of a bureauracy constantly to recentralise the authority. I think that the Committee is entitled to say and to insist the decision-making should be retained at the lower administrative levels and not recentralised Implicit in this clause is the recentralisation of administration by the higher authority.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I think that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has perhaps missed the point. The previous reference and the previous arrangement was to be for the benefit of the States.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I was replying to the Minister’s comments.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-That may be so. But I would not like the central point of the argument to be clouded because it was, as I understand it, an advantage to the States in certain circumstances and they had the right to elect to use it. The clause read:

An amount or part of an amount expended or set aside for expenditure by a State on the purchase of road making plant may, if the State so elects, be treated Tor the purposes of this Act as an amount expended or set aside for expenditure as the case may be.

And then the various categories were listed. So that was for the States to decide. It is now worded differently and more widely. My question to the Minister, which he has answered, was about whether it is to act in a similar way; he says that it is. So, without being able to pin everything in a wider expression, I submit that it is still to the advantage of the States to have it in.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I think the matter has now boiled down to what will be the actual effect of this clause. We believe that it will have the serious effects to which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has referred. The Minister has now said that it will have only the beneficial effect that Senator Steele Hall has raised in relation to the previous legislation. I am afraid that I cannot possibly accept the opinion given to the chamber by the Minister, although I appreciate that he was only giving the opinion of his advisers on the matter. My view of what sub-clause (6) means is that it requires the particulars of projects for an approved program which have to be submitted to the Minister to contain reference even to road making plant. I think that that is quite clear. Therefore I believe that the opinion that the Minister has- no doubt in all good faith- expressed to the Committee is quite wrong. I think that his advisers, if they have been given that opinion also, ought to take other advice about it. The matter which Senator Hall raised as to whether the States could not have in the calculation of their matching money the benefit of the money they spend on road-making plant is dealt with, or should be dealt with, under clause 9, which relates to matching moneys. Subclause (5) of clause 9 states:

For the purposes or this section, an amount expended, or set aside for expenditure, by a State-

in payment of interest on moneys borrowed by the State and expended by the State on road works; or

on road planning or research, may be treated as an amount expended, or set aside for expenditure, by the State on road works . . .

I cannot find anything else in this clause or in any other part of the Bill, including the definitions provision, which provides for this beneficial matter as far as the States are concerned. I fear that the sub-clause with which we are dealing does not have that beneficial effect but has the serious sorts of effects about which we have expressed our concern.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I think there is a complete misunderstanding about what sub-clause (6) provides. Clause5 deals with the provision of moneys to be allocated for approved projects. Clause 4 sets out in detail what are to be considered to be approved projects and under this legislation the Commonwealth will finance only approved projects. Subclause (6) makes provision for local government bodies to purchase machinery with Commonwealth finance. If sub-clause (6) is deleted this machinery will not be considered to be an approved project for road-making purposes and Commonwealth assistance cannot be given.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It is a trap clause.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, it is not. I think that the honourable senator has demonstrated that his knowledge of local government is superior to his knowledge of the interpretation of an Act.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I have been sitting here for 20 years and I have seen many funny things in Bills and Acts.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-It is a question of what you have learnt from sitting here for 20 years. That is what counts.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Well, wellthis is Satan rebuking sin.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think it may be as well if we confine our discussion to the sub-clause.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I was provoked by an interjection. Sub-clause (6) states:

A reference in this section to a project by way of the construction, or of the construction and maintenance, of roads of a particular kind includes a reference to the purchase of road making plant to be used in the construction, or construction and maintenance . . .

If this sub-clause is deleted, any project covered by it will not be regarded by the Australian Government as an approved project. If it is the Opposition’s intention to deprive local governments of that assistance -

Sir Magnus Cormack:

– No; that is blackmail.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Well that is the only interpretation that one can put on the sub-clause.

Whether it is blackmail or not, that is the intention of the sub-clause. The deletion of the subclause would not have the effect which the Opposition hopes to achieve. As I have said, the Opposition has put a false interpretation on this subclause. Rather than seeking to delete the clause it should be supporting its retention.

Amendment negatived.

Sub-clause 9.

  1. A Minister may-

    1. approve a variation of a program of projects ap- proved by him; (b) approve a variation of particuars of a project approved by him; and
    2. revoke an approval of particulars of a project approved by him.
Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

-I move:

I hope that you, Mr Chairman, will allow me to mention the next clause in passing because my intentions are coupled from the amendment which I have just moved to the next clause. Paragraph (c) of sub-clause (9) states that a Minister may:

Revoke an approval of particulars of a project approved by him.

Of course, that is a veto of a particular project because if the Minister was to revoke his approval the work involved would be no longer an approved project and, in my interpretation, would not be subject to further financing under this legislation. I would like to try you out on this, Mr Chairman, because I would like to mention this amendment in the context of clause5. In my opinion if the power of revocation is tied to a substantial part of sub-clause (2) of clause 5 we get a complete veto by the Minister not only of a particular project but also of the allocation for a State if he wanted to be so extreme. By taking away the approval for a project and then being able to stop payment under that part of clause5, the Minister has complete control and the State need not get the sum of money mentioned in the schedule. So, as I see it, we have a very different situation from that which existed in relation to the previous agreement whereby the sum of money was put into the hands of the State. While that sum of money was subject each time to the growing discipline which each agreement brought of a matching quota by the States, at least they were in possession of the money. But in this situation the Minister can simply reduce a State’s allocation. Speaking for my own State of South Australia which has received one of the worst deals in its history under this legislation, this is an appalling piece of legislation compared with previous recommendations by the Bureau of Roads in 1969. As I said last night, the recommendation by the Bureau of Roads in 1969, which was only 5 years ago, was that South Australia should get equal treatment with Western Australia. I say in passing that that recommendation was not accepted by the previous Liberal Government. We came out of that too with a bad deal, but this proposal is worse. Under that circumstance, I do not intend to support any portion of this legislation which allows the Minister to further reduce, at his own discretion, the allocation to a State and particularly to my State. I would like to see the power of revocation removed. I do not see why the Minister needs to go this far. We are dealing with funds which used to be a matter of right to States. It is not so long ago that this money was disbursed as a refund of the petrol tax. To my knowledge, it was never a full reimbursement but I think that in some years it got up to about 80 per cent. It was directly tied as a percentage reimbursement of funds which were paid in by users of particular modes of transport.

Through these agreements it has been made to seem now like a handout from the Commonwealth to the States. If we relate this back to its origin, we see this as a matter of right and not a handout. We should remember that this began on the basis of usage. I cannot see why we need to go as far as giving the Minister the right not only to approve a scheme which is far more restrictive and disciplined for the States than anything that has gone before, but also to revoke what he has already approved. To give him the right of approval is a very big step indeed. To give him the right then to take away his approval is to make him the dictator of the whole State schemes.

Senator Marriott:

– That is what they are aiming at.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I do not know what they are aiming at. I know of Bills which have been drawn much wider than has been necessary. I do not believe in making a Bill any wider than is necessary to accomplish things of an immediate sense and of a reasonable objective for the future. There is certainly no need to make the Minister a dictator not only in regard to plans and the approval of plans, but also as to whether a State will get its full allocation. We in this chamber think we are passing the allocations. We are not. We are giving back to the Minister the right to say whether we pass the full allocations. I admit that aspect belongs to the next clause but it relates fully to this power of revocation. I ask the Committee to approve the amendment. It will not in my opinion inhibit the Minister. It might make him a little more careful, if anything, and that would not do any harm at all. In the hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government as a reasonable compromise of the power which the Minister seeks, I ask the Senate to support it.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Opposition proposes to support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Hall. I think the reasons have been stated clearly by him. This is another example of the efforts by the Federal Minister to arrogate to himself as much power as he possibly can. Not only is the Minister getting the power to approve of programs and to vary them, but having done all that and the local authorities having acted on approvals which are in the nature of agreements, he is then getting the power to revoke that approval, and it could have the serious effect of throwing into complete disarray the programs that the States or local authorities are carrying out or are planning to carry out. For those reasons we will support the amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I wonder whether the sub-clause is properly understood and whether the amendment will not do the very thing that Senator Hall who moved the amendment seeks to avoid. I think he rightly pointed to the fact that this sub-clause has a relationship to clause 5. Sub-clause (9) states:

A Minister may-

Approve a variation or a program of projects approved by him;

Approve a variation of particulars of a project approved by him; and

Revoke an approval of particulars of a project approved by him.

Let us say that approval has been given for a project which involves constructing a road from A to B at a certain cost. Before the road is constructed the State Minister could make a request for some variation to or alteration of the project which would have the effect of somewhat reducing the cost. The Federal Minister for some reason- and it could be with the approval of the State- could revoke the approval for the construction of the road. Having approved of the expenditure of money for a project that is not required, to allow the expenditure of the grant to continue would simply permit the money to be used on something that has not been approved. After approval of a project has been granted a cheaper means of constructing roads could be found. You would not then expend money, for which approval has been given, on a more costly means of road construction. I think that this provision appears in most legislation. Treasury approves of the expenditure of money for approved projects, and the cost of the project is agreed upon. Sometimes approval of additional expenditure on a project is required. If you reach the stage where money is not required to be spent on a project after approval has been given for the expenditure of the money, can you then spend the money on something else? This is the normal procedure which Treasury adopts for protecting Commonwealth money. Sub-clause (2) of clause 5 states:

Moneys are payable to a State under sub-section ( 1 ) only to the extent that the Treasurer is satisfied that they are required by the State for the purpose of carrying out projects included in an approved program.

If it is an approved program, the Treasurer simply approves of the expenditure and the money is paid. If there is an over-estimation of the cost of a program, the money is not paid. That is all there is to it.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– The Minister seems to have a reasonable argument, and I wonder what other honourable senators who have expressed an opinion on this amendment would think if we left paragraph (c) in subclause 9 and added the words ‘with the approval of the State’. That certainly would meet the Minister’s argument. I know that the word ‘approval’ would appear twice in the paragraph, but it would not destroy the meaning of the paragraph. Paragraph (c) could read: with the approval of the State revoke an approval of particulars of a project approved by him.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– ‘With the concurrence ‘ or ‘ with the agreement ‘.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-That is better wording. I will adopt the wording ‘with the concurrence of the State’ or ‘with the agreement of the State’. I ask permission to withdraw my amendment and to move a fresh amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I thank the members of the Committee for suggesting the better wording. I move:

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– At this stage the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Senator Steele Hall:

– lt meets your objection.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-It does not meet my objection.

Senator Steele Hall:

– My word it does.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-It does not meet my objection. The whole question is that Commonwealth money is paid to a State for a project that has been approved. The Treasurer should not provide finance in excess of what is required for the project. Senator Steele Hall says that the Bill should provide that if a State does not use all the finance that has been provided for an approved project the Treasurer, with the approval of the State Minister, may take back the unspent sum. If a State Minister, having received a grant for a project and having not used all the money on that project, has the power to say that the Treasurer shall not withdraw the unspent portion unless the State Minister approves, the approval simply will not be given. The amendment does not achieve what the Bill seeks to achieve. We approve projects and pay for projects. We pay nothing over and above what is to be spent on the projects. I can imagine Mr Bjelke-Petersen handing money back to the Australian Government because he cannot use it for the purpose for which it was granted! I do not think the amendment would improve the legislation.

Senator Marriott:

– You do not legislate against people; you legislate for the States.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Unfortunately, it is because of a lack of co-operation with the Australian Government in its activities that it is necessary at times to legislate even against what people might do from time to time. The Australian Government will finance approved projects. The States will not retain money if it is not used for an approved project. The amendment suggests that any unspent amount should be refunded to the Australian Government only if the State Minister agrees to refund it. Such a provision would take away from the Australian Government control of its own finances. After we approve a project we will pay for it, but if the money we have voted for the project is not required it should be returned. It is our money. It is not for the States to say whether they will give it back to us.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Steele Hall’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 31

NOES: 29

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

-I move:

I move this amendment for a reason similar to that which I moved the previous amendment. Clause 5 (2) gives to the Minister a very strong veto power. Sub-clause (2) of clause 5 reads:

Moneys are payable to a State under sub-section ( 1 ) only to the extent that the Treasurer is satisfied that they are required by the State Tor the purpose of carrying out projects included in an approved program.

There are a few key words in that sub-clause. Only to the extent’ is one grouping and the other is ‘an approved program’. The First Schedule shows that over the 3 year period we will be dealing with $700m. It would appear under this clause that the Minister could, if he became a bit contrary, simply say: ‘I am not going to approve it because I am not satisfied that the funds are required by the State’. That means that we are not actually voting a sum of money in the Schedule; we appear to be voting what proportion of the sum of money in the Schedule the Minister might like to pay.

I am not going to reflect on the Minister. I believe that he would want to pay the full amount. Under the circumstances of his present thinking he would want to be co-operative. He would want to issue a lot of directions, of course, under the power he aggregates to himself here, but he would want to spend the full amount of money. That is not to say that that will be the intent in 6 months time or in 2 years time in this 3-year agreement. We cannot allow the Minister to have this very strong veto power. I remind honourable senators again of the position which prevailed previously. We are progressing very rapidly with this Bill to total Commonwealth control in these circumstances of approved programs. I do not think the situation needs to be argued much more. Certainly, the amendment I have moved greatly restricts the Minister’s ability simply not to pay the money. I believe if this amendment is approved we can be fairly sure that the Schedule sum will be paid.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– All I say is that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government. We believe that the words ‘only to the extent that the Treasurer is satisfied that they are required by the State’ are necessary. To be eligible for grants a State must have an approved program of works. If a State does not have sufficient works to qualify for the total grant or in an extreme situation has not submitted an approved program there will be no sense in providing the total grant. The grants can be spent only on the approved programs. If the State cannot spend the full grant why pay moneys over to it and seek to have part of the moneys repaid? The real intention of the Bill is that we pay for approved projects. What would happen under the old regulations if the approved projects did not commence or the money was not available? We cannot simply pay for something that the States want which has not been approved.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

– I should like to submit to the Senate that the amendment is misconceived for the following reasons. In the first place sub-clause (1) gives an unqualified right to each State to payment in accordance with the Schedule ‘subject only to this Act’. In other words the right cannot be affected except by sub-clause (2). If the words ‘only to the extent that the Treasurer is satisfied that they are required by the State’ are taken out as the amendment seeks to do, it would mean that each year a State could be entitled to the moneys set out in the Schedule whether or not it had spent 40 per cent, 70 per cent or 90 per cent of the value of the approved programs. The contention of the Minister is that this is not a responsible way of looking at the matter. It is unfair to the rest of the States. The third point I make is that it would not be right to say that the Treasurer could capriciously say that he was not satisfied. His powers under sub-clause (2) are statutory and would have to be exercised bona fide for the purposes of the Act.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Opposition will support Senator Hall’s amendment. The point made by Senator Everett, I believe, is not correct. Sub-clause (2) is perfectly reasonable. It would stand because the moneys will be payable to a State only for the purpose of carrying out an approved program and to the extent that works are carried out under the approved program. What Senator Hall’s amendment does is to take away the absolute discretion of the Treasurer to say whether he will pay the money and whether the program is being carried out.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I am not contending against Senator Everett’s point. He may be right. But that puts the onus back on the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and his Department to make sure that they have plenty of approved projects on which to spend the money. 1 am being quite parochial about this matter. I am not going to put my State in a position in which its already lowly and quite unfair allocation may be still further reduced.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Steele Hall’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 31

NOES: 29

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 9- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 10.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

The purpose of this amendment is to delete the provision. In substance this is the same objection that we had to clause 4 (1), namely that the States and local authorities out of their own moneys have to make returns to the Federal

Government. Under paragraph (c) the Treasurer can direct that a statement be made in writing setting out information in relation to amounts expended or set aside for expenditure by the State on road works or in relation to expenditure by a municipal, shire or other local authority on road works, as the Treasurer specifies. The same argument applies to this provision as we submitted in respect of the other clauses already dealt with.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I am advised that even if clause 4(1) and clause 1 1 were omitted from the Bill there might still be occasions when it would be necessary for the Treasurer to invoke the powers conferred under paragraph (c) to obtain information from the States in order that he could determine the extent to which financial assistance was to be provided for them under clause 5(1). Paragraph (c) would also enable the Treasurer to obtain information which is essential for the Australian Government to have in order to determine whether the Minister should vary the amount specified in the Schedule under the power conferred in clause 8. For that reason we cannot accept the amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be len out (Senator Durack’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 31

NOES: 29

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– Clause 1 1 is wholly dependent for its operation on sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 4 which the Committee has already deleted from the Bill. Therefore, clause 11 must be also deleted. I move:

Leave out the clause.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

-The Government said that it would accept no amendments. It does not accept this amendment. I understand what Senator Durack has said. The Government does not agree to it. When you have put the question, Mr Chairman, if you declare that the vote is against the Government we will not call for a division on it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question before the Committee is: That the words proposed to be left out be left out.

Senator Durack:

– I rise to take a point of order, Mr Chairman. It is the whole clause that we are dealing with.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is:

That the clause stand as printed.

Those of that opinion say ‘Aye’, to the contrary no’. I think the ayes have it.

Senator Greenwood:

– Divide.

Senator Durack:
The CHAIRMAN:

– I heard the Minister say that he would not call for a division. I thought that I heard the ayes called.

Senator Cavanagh:

– May I explain? I did not realise at the time that the question would be put in that way. I thought it would have been put the other way. I will still honour my promise. I am not calling for a division.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will commit the question again. The question is:

That clause 1 1 stand as printed.

Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary no’. I think the ayes have it. Is a division required? Ring the bells. (The bells being rung)-

The CHAIRMAN:

– If I am given leave by the Committee I will call off the division. Is leave granted? Leave is granted. I will put the question again. We are dealing with clause 1 1. The question is:

That clause 1 1 stand as printed.

Those of that opinion say ‘aye’, to the contrary no’. I think the noes have it.

Clause negatived.

Clause 12.

  1. 1 ) In addition to the conditions specified in any other provision of this Act, payment of any amount to a State under this Act is subject to the following conditions-

    1. that the State will repay to Australia, on demand by the Treasurer, the amount by which, at the time of the demand, the total of the amounts paid to the State under this Act exceeds the total of the amounts that have become payable to the State under this Act;
    2. b) that the State shall, if requested by the Minister to do so, establish a body or bodies, representative of Departments and other bodies in the State concerned with roads or road transport, to carry out planning and furnish advice to the State Government in connection with the provision or maintenance of roads in the State;
    3. that the State shall, if requested by the Minister to do so, arrange for a representative or representatives of the Australian Government nominated by the Minister to take part in the deliberations of a body specified by the Minister, being a body established, whether before or after the commencement of this Act and whether by reason of a request under paragraph (b) or otherwise, by the State to carry out planning, and furnish advice, in connection with the provision or maintenance of roads in the State;
    4. that the State will, if the Minister so directs, furnish to the Minister, as soon as practicable after such date as the Minister specifies, such particulars as the Minister specifies concerning projects that the State is carrying out by way of planning the construction or maintenance of roads;
    5. that, if the Minister informs the Treasurer of the State that he is satisfied that the State has failed to fulfil a condition applicable to that amount, the State will repay the amount or such part of the amount as the Minister specifies, to Australia; and
    6. that the Treasurer may deduct any sum repayable under paragraph (a) or (e) from an amount payable by Australia to the State under this Act.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

In sub-clause ( I ), leave out paragraphs (b), (c) and (d).

These 3 paragraphs of clause 12 provide power for the Minister to direct the States to set up departmental bodies to carry out planning and to furnish advice in connection with roadwords They also give power to the Minister to insist on having representatives of the Australian Government on those bodies. The Opposition believes that that is an unnecessary intrusion into the States’ powers and functions in these matters. That is why we propose the amendments.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– The Government does not accept the amendment to delete these paragraphs. I am advised that the State Ministers all agreed to the provision of such clause in the Urban Public Transport Agreement which has been signed by all the States. It contains the same provision. It permits the Minister to be represented on the State control bodies. I do not want to take the matter any further, but I think the provisions should remain.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I believe that the Minister may have a point in this instance. He will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it the Bureau of Roads relies heavily on work done by the various State departments responsible for transport matters. Again, if my memory is correct, the survey which was carried out prior to the 1969 Agreement cost approximately $3m. I understand that the main constituent bodies in this survey were the State departments. If that is so, of course, this type of legislation may only be helping a further cooperative effort in the study of the planning for the development of Australia’s roads system. Whilst I am sympathetic with the principle that Senator Durack has outlined, it seems to me that we might be inhibiting good work. We are being constrictive when we ought to leave the matter open so that the previous type of arrangement may be made again. So, I think that I must oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 15.

  1. 1) A Minister referred to in section 4 may, either generally or otherwise as provided by the instrument or delegation, by writing under his hand, delegate to an officer of the Australian Public Service any of his powers under that section.
  2. A power so delegated may be exercised in accordance with the instrument of delegation.
  3. A delegate of a Minister, is, in the exercise of his powers under this Act, subject to the directions of the Minister.
  4. A delegation under this section is revocable at will and does not prevent the exercise of a power by a Minister.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

Leave out the clause.

The purpose of this clause is to give to the Minister for Transport power to delegate to an officer of the Australian Public Service any of his powers under clause 4 which relates to approving programs. That is the vital clause in the Bill. We strongly object to a ministerial power of such magnitude being delegated to and exercised by any officer of the Australian Public Service. Clause 15 does not even specify that he should be a senior officer or a particularly senior officer. It simply says ‘any officer of the Australian Public Service ‘. We think that this goes too far from requirements. There may be some practical requirements but the Opposition objects strongly to the provision. That is why we have moved this amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– The Government opposes the amendment There are few Acts which do not provide that a Minister with a multiplicity of functions and duties shall have power to delegate. In both the portfolios I have occupied, involving the administration of the Department of Works and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, there is power to delegate. This power is used in certain directions. It may be power for a public servant to approve of the allocation of funds up to a certain amount. One cannot deny a Minister that power to delegate. If he did not have that power he would have to chase every dollar that was spent. The action now taken by the Liberal Opposition is consistent with its actions since 1972 of opposing for opposition’s sake; it is not consistent with previous policy.

I am informed that the former LiberalCountry Party Government among other legislation dealing with transport, introduced the Navigation Act. Part VI of that Act provides that that Minister may delegate power to a public servant to issue licences and single voyage permits for coastal trading. Then, the Air Navigation Act provides that a Minister may delegate powers in relation to international airports, the cancellation or suspension of a licence, approval of nonscheduled flights on foreign carriers and of the use of defence aerodromes. In addition there are many other powers to delegate in the regulations made pursuant to the Act. The Airports Business Concession Act which was brought down by a previous Liberal-Country Party Government provides for delegation of power in several areas including business concessions, except in cases in relation to the sale of liquor. With my knowledge of the work of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I say that few Acts of the Australian Parliament do not include power to delegate. It is an essential part of the operations of a busy Ministry.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– Again I believe that Senator Durack is operating according to a well-recognised principle and one which is desirable if it can be achieved. However I think the explanation given by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) is one which we will have to face more and more as administration becomes complex in the ever widening span of any government in which one is involved. In this instance the relevant Minister after all still will be responsible for what anyone does in his name under this delegation of authority. I see no reason why the Senate should deny the relevant Minister in this instance what other ministers have in other directions.

Clause agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Cavanagh) read a third time.

page 1089

NATIONAL ROADS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 August (vide page 806), on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-I move:

  1. In sub-clause (3), after ‘may’, first occurring, insert enter into an agreement with a State’.
  2. In sub-clause (4), after ‘may’, first occurring, insert enter into an agreement with a State ‘.

These amendments deal with the declaration of roads in a State as export roads or roads connected with interstate commerce. These declarations are subsidiary to the main declaration of national highways, being substantially roads connecting capital cities. In respect of these types of national roads which are wholly intrastate, we believe that an agreement should be made between the Federal Minister and the State Minister concerned before the declaration is made. Our amendments are designed to carry that out.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– The amendment is intended to require the Minister for Transport to obtain the agreement of the State concerned to declare a road as an export road. It is difficult to see the logic of the amendment. It is envisaged that the Australian Government would have full power to declare national highways under this Bill and to declare all roads under the Roads Grants Bill. We ask: Why should an export road be an exception? I am informed that, if the amendment were carried in the terms in which it has been moved, it would not result in the sub-clause being a grammatical sentence and having a definite meaning. For legal purposes, if the proposed Act is to apply to export roads it is necessary for the Minister to declare what roads are to be export roads for the purposes of the Act. An agreement with the States that certain roads are export roads would not be sufficient unless the definition of ‘export roads’ in sub-clause (1) of clause 3 were redrafted. The amendment, as moved, is not in language that is capable of proper definition and would need redrafting to be grammatically correct. Therefore, the Government opposes the amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) made some reference to grammatical construction. I think the amendments may need to have the word ‘to’ added. The sub-clauses would then read: ‘The Minister may enter into an agreement with a State to declare a road in a State . . . ‘.I seek leave to insert the word ‘ to ‘ in the amendments.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Durack’s amendment as amended) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 31

NOES: 29

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I note that Senator Durack’s next amendment is in exactly the same words, providing he has leave to insert the word to’, as with the amendment which has just been carried. Exactly the same words are to be inserted in sub-clause (4). The amended amendment reads:

After ‘may’ insert ‘enter into an agreement with a State to’.

With the permission of the Committee, I put the question:

That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause5 agreed to.

Clause 6.

  1. The Minister shall not approve a program that includes a project by way of the construction or maintenance of a part of a national road-

    1. in the parts of the States of New South Wales and Victoria that constitute the Albury-Wodonga Area for the purposes of the Albury-Wodonga Area Development Agreement a copy of which is set out in the Schedule to the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1974; or
    2. in a place declared by the Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development, with the concurrence of the Minister, to be a growth centre for the purposes of this Act,

Unless the Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development or an officer authorised by the Minister has concurred in the inclusion of the project in the program.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I suggest that we take the 3 amendments to clause 6 together as they are bound up with much the same thing. The first amendment seeks to delete reference to a declaration of a growth centre by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development as a place where there can be an approved national road program. The clause states:

  1. . unless the Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development or an officer authorised by that Minister has concurred in . . .

We want to delete the words ‘or an officer authorised by that Minister’.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Could I suggest that you deal with the first 2 amendments as the final one seems to be of different substance. Is leave granted to Senator Durack to deal with the 2 amendments together? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Amendments (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

In sub-clause (6), leave out paragraph (b).

In sub-clause (6), leave out ‘or an officer authorised by that Minister’.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of Bill.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr Chairman, I think that the Committee could now deal with the remainder of the Bill. Senator Durack can still move his amendment to clause 1 5.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Is it the wish of the Committee to take the remainder of the Bill as a whole? There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

This clause permits the Minister to delegate and, for the reasons I have given before, that is too wide a power.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

-For the reasons I gave before the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Cavanagh) read a third time.

page 1091

TRANSPORT (PLANNING AND RESEARCH) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 13 August (vide page 807), on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1091

STATES GRANTS (URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 31 July (vide page 672), on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1091

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT (RESEARCH AND PLANNING) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 31 July (vide page 674), on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1091

PRICES JUSTIFICATION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 31 July (vide page 665), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– This Bill seeks to extend the scope of the Prices Justification Tribunal by giving it a general power to inquire into and report upon the prices charges by companies irrespective of their turnover. At present the Tribunal is restricted in all its dealings to companies with an annual turnover in excess of $20m. But there will be some exclusions. There will be provision for companies of varying sizes to be able to notify price increases. This Bill seeks to widen the Tribunal’s field in the examining of prices. The Bill seeks to empower the Tribunal as an alternative to stating that it does not intend to hold an inquiry into the clause of a particular price increase, to notify the company concerned of any lower price that it considers to be justified. In that regard the company is to have 7 days in which to notify the Tribunal whether it accepts the lower price or prefers to proceed to a public inquiry. When the Tribunal exercises that general power it will have 4 months in which to conduct its inquiry and to lodge its report. The Bill seeks to extend, subject to the agreement of the company concerned, the period of 21 days available to the Tribunal to decide whether or not to conduct an inquiry. It also deals with the pricing behaviour of retail firms. The Bill provides for the appointment of a Deputy Chairman and extends the period of appointment from 5 to 7 years.

As is well known to the Senate, the Opposition did not oppose or amend this Bill in the House of Representatives. It contented itself with the making of a number of observations upon the effectiveness of the Tribunal as part of a general price mechanism control. It expressed considerable reservations about that, which I myself enjoy. The Opposition in the Senate does not feel that at this stage of the sitting it needs to embark upon a double debate on the matter, a debate having already taken place on it in the House of Representatives. We are therefore prepared to accept the Bill without any amendments at this stage. We notify the Senate that as experience in operating the Prices Justification Tribunal develops we might have observations to make at a later date that are much less favourable.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– in reply- I thank Senator Cotton for the expeditious passage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1092

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 July (vide page 348), on motion by Senator Bishop:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-The attitude of the Opposition to this Bill is to not oppose the motion for its second reading. There are, however, 2 amendments which will be moved to it in the Committee stage. My understanding is that the things which the Opposition desires to say about this Bill can be said by it in support of those amendments and that that is the appropriate time for any debate which generates to take place. I simply indicate that the Opposition will not oppose the second reading of this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Remainder of Bill.

Clause 4.

  1. 1 ) Section 4 of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions ) Act 1 967- 1 973, as continued in force by virtue of section 3 of this Act, is amended by omitting the figures and word ‘ I July 1974’ and substituting the figures and word ‘ I July 1976’.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition seeks to move an amendment that after clause 2 the following new clause be inserted: 2a. Permanent arrangements for the stevedoring industry shall be submitted to the Parliament before 1 April 1975.

I also wish to move another amendment which is related to the amendment which I have just read out to the Committee and which relates to clause 4. 1 think it would be in the interests of the Committee and everybody’s wish that the 2 amendments be taken together. I seek leave of the Committee to move the amendments and for them to be debated and voted upon together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Milliner:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-I move:

  1. I ) After clause 2, insert the following new clause: 2a. Permanent arrangements for the stevedoring industry shall be submitted to the Parliament before 1 April 1 975. ‘

    1. 2 ) In clause 4, sub-clause ( 1 ) omit ‘ 1 July 1 976 ‘ substitute’! April 1975’.

The Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1974 is a Bill which renews for the fourth time since 1967 the provisions which now operate on the waterfront throughout Australia with regard to the employment of the workforce. As the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) stated in his second reading speech, the present proposals arise from the decisions of the national conference under Mr Justice Woodward’s chairmanship which took place in 1967 and the matters concerned relate to permanent employment for the waterside work force on a weekly hiring basis, a pension scheme, the redundancy, disciplinary procedures and industrial dispute settlements, but they are of a temporary character and were expressly of a temporary character when they were first introduced in 1 967.

The first Bill lasted for 3 years and at the end of 1970 there were still unresolved problems which were referred to and debated in the Parliament at the time. So a further Bill for a 2-year period was introduced to run until 1972. At that time some problems had become apparent in the sense that a great amount of idle time is involved, which is reflected in increased costs and increased prices which required settlement. Therefore the provisions were renewed for a further year until 1973. In 1973 the present Government introduced a Bill to extend the provisions for 12 months. That 12-month period has now expired and the Government asks for the provisions to be renewed for 2 years.

The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment is to ensure that the temporary provisions will continue only until April next year, and that before April next year the Government should put down and present to the Parliament the permanent arrangements which last year it said it was absolutely certain it would be able to produce. I refer to what the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) said in May 1973 when he introduced the previous Bill extending the temporary provisions for one year. He said:

I believe that it will be possible during the next 12 months for this Government to determine permanent legislation arrangements for the industry.

He went on in the light of what has happened subsequently with a sweeping brush which may or may not have been justified. He said:

The former government, of course, seemed to dilly dally with this matter as long as it could, never making a decision if it could possibly avoid doing so. It seemed bent on a policy of starving the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority into bankruptcy.

He later stated:

  1. . positive steps have already been taken to resolve the outstanding issues in this industry. These are steps that should and could have been taken previously by the former Government if it had only had the will to do something about the problems in the industry.

The Minister then went on to indicate how he had requested the Stevedoring Industry Council to supply him with views and how he had appointed Mr Norman Foster who had previously been a member of the House of Representatives and whom he called ‘one of the most knowledgeable men on the stevedoring industry in Australia’ to inquire into and to report on certain aspects of stevedoring operations. I sought and elicited from other sources- I think it was this debate in the other place- the information that Mr Foster presented his report to the Minister, I think at the beginning of this year. Finally, the Minister in May of last year stated:

With the support and valued help of Mr Foster I am certain that it will be possible to bring in permanent legislation at an earlier date than that to which I have just alluded. Indeed, an earlier date for permanent legislation is eminently desirable. We need to have this industry put on a proper and permanent basis.

We believe that a lot of work has been done. The Minister must have his views.

Senator Mulvihill:

- Mr Foster is a very efficient man.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I understand that in this area Mr Foster has had almost a lifetime of experience. I do not want to challenge his abilities or what he may have said. I do not know what he said. This is a vexing problem overall. We know that it is. I think it has been accepted on all hands that the need is to have some resolution of difficult problems. Many suggestions have been offered. I think that if one looks at the report of the debate in the other place one will see that Opposition members have put forward their ideas and, certainly, Government members have not been short of ideas either. The real point is that to leave this situation in its present state for a further period of 2 years is to invite the present unsatisfactory position to continue and, possibly, to become worse. We believe that it is not at all a bad thing to put pressure upon the Government to come in with its permanent arrangements by April of next year. If, for reasons which are then made apparent, such as the state of the Parliament, the Minister cannot produce the permanent arrangements, let us deal with the situation then. If, on the other hand, under the stimulus or spur of having to take action by April of next year there is increased activity on the part of the Government, the amendment will have served that useful purpose. In the light of the Minister’s confidence of last year, I do not know the real reason for the hold up. One can speculate. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) did speculate on what the reasons might be during the debate which took place in the House of Representatives. The Minister has not been forthcoming as to why the confident assertions which he made last year have not been realised.

This is beside the point in terms of the need which we have to bring into the waterfront area a situation which gives security to persons who are working on the waterfront. It gives to those people a prospect of continuing employment over the years. It assures to those who depend upon a continuity of employment and service on the waterfront- that is, the shippers and the public who depend upon the ability to get goods off and on- a feeling that the system is working. We have proposed this amendment because we consider it appropriate that these provisions should operate until April of next year. We hope that by then the Government will have brought down permanent arrangements which can be considered by the Parliament.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I am sure that we would all like to see the implementation of the Woodward Report to its fullest at the appropriate time. Certainly the benefits which were expected of it to the Australian waterfront in the better operation of the Act and better service to shipping and to the Australian public have not been realised. Australian wharves are renowned among shippers as being some of the worst in the world. They cost us dearly in economic terms. I have been told that the reason for the delay in implementing the new scheme is that the number of waterside workers in the various outports of Australia still has to be reduced by about one thousand, and that the longer the present scheme runs so the number will be reduced by natural wastage through resignation and retirement. I have been told that if the introduction of the new scheme is hastened it will cost the Australian Government about $500,000.

Senator Greenwood:

– That has not been stated in the second reading speech.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-No, but I have been reliably told that that is so. I should like the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) to explain to the Committee whether, if Senator Greenwood’s amendment is successful in bringing forward the date for the payment of retirement allowances and so on to waterside workers in the outports of Australia, it will cost the Australian Government $500,000. Are we moving ahead of time, as I have been told? I will not prolong the debate. I am sure the Minister knows what I am talking about.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I thank Senator Greenwood and Senator Hall for giving speedy consideration to this matter. The short answer to the question is that it is not practical to introduce the new scheme in the time that is proposed. Since I have been in this chamber I have taken part in most debates concerning the stevedoring industry. Honourable senators will recall that on 3 occasions the transitional powers provided in this Bill have been granted by the Opposition. The subject has been canvassed more comprehensively than is possible on this occasion. Following World War II we recall that it was not until 1965 that the first efforts were made by the Liberal-Country Party Coalition Government to bring about an arrangement with the parties which formed the basis of the 1967 agreement. In those years the former Government presented the Tait report and introduced other measures connected with the stevedoring industry. Efforts were made on about 10 occasions to get the waterfront industry operating on a reasonable basis. All of us, including the then Opposition, applauded what was done in the 1967 national agreement on the stevedoring industry. For example, for the first time the industry was brought into line with Continental and European practice. For the first time there was a system of permanency of employment.

Between 1964 and 1967 there was a minimum of industrial disputes in the stevedoring industry. After the 1967 agreement had operated for some time it was necessary to form a new agreement. We have found that every 2 years there is a fair amount of disputation on the waterfront because of the need to settle the terms of new wages and other working conditions in order to meet new circumstances. Although 755,000 man hours have been lost this year, half of that lost time is due to disputes concerning the arrangements involved in formulating a new agreement. The previous Government took many years to settle the first agreement. The agreement produced a better climate on the waterfront. After the disputes which surrounded the first agreement, there was relative peace on the waterfront for many years. Now a new agreement has to be contracted.

This Government has received a report on the stevedoring industry. It has taken Government officials, including Mr Norm Foster who has been mentioned in this debate, a period of 18 months to collect the necessary information from the employers in the major ports. The report has been presented to the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron). If we reduced the time in which to introduce the new scheme, it would not result in the savings which Senator Hall mentioned because there have to be discussions between the Government, the employer, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority- the employer- and the unions. Those discussions could easily be conducted on a nonconstructive basis and produce more stoppages. The report is before the Minister. It has to be considered. We want time to consider it before tabling it and time to make a final decision on permanency.

The previous Government, in all the years it was in office, could not settle the question of permanency. Therefore we think it is reasonable that we should be given the oportunity to bring down a final report. The Minister last year said he thought he would be able to do it this year. We find now that the work of Mr Foster and others has taken much more time than was expected. The Minister has given an assurance that the structural change will be brought down in the time that has been forecast. It is a reasonable time, because the stevedoring industry is an industry that has been upset by all sorts of great differences. I do not wish to go over the matters which have been canvassed in the other place. Many important and strong interests have to be reconciled in these matters. We think it is reasonable that in our first year of office we should have a chance to consider the report and the information which is available. As to when the report might be available to Opposition senators, all I can promise is that I will ask the Minister whether he can give to Opposition senators a precis or some of the information upon which we will act.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– There is a remarkable lack of detail behind the explanation of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop). He just says that he would like to have permanent arrangements. I would like to know whether there is anything in what I have been reliably told, namely, that if the introduction of permanent arrangements is hastened hundreds of waterside workers at outports in Australia will have to be paid substantial retiring allowances but this will be obviated if the time factor is extended. That is a very pertinent factor if it is true. I would like to know how large in the argument is this financial aspect.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I cannot give specific details. All I can say is that the employers and the Waterside Workers Federation are expected soon to reach agreement on redundancy and restructuring, but there is no guarantee that if the time of bringing in a government report is brought nearer there will be any saving. The chances are that until we get a wide agreement about all matters related to the new permanent scheme there will be more trouble, and there will be more costs because there will be more industrial trouble.

Senator Steele Hall:

-I think you have got me the wrong way around. I am told that if you get this it will save money.

Senator BISHOP:

-AllI can say is that I cannot give details because they are being discussed by the parties. Until I can give the correct information I should refrain from making a guess. The information we have, and I understand it is supported by all the interests in the industry, is that it is impossible in the time that has been proposed by the Opposition to bring down the sort of permanent structure that ought to be brought down. How is it that an Opposition which was in government for many years during which we suffered much trouble on the waterfront now proposes an amendment hastening the introduction of permanent arrangements? When in government it proposed temporary provisions on 3 occasions. It now says it wants permanent arrangements submitted to the Parliament in less than 12 months time.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Greenwood’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator B. R. Milliner)

AYES: 30

NOES: 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Bishop) read a third time.

page 1095

MARGINAL DAIRY FARMS AGREEMENTS BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 August (vide page 792), on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– It is possible to pressurise the waterfront for action and it is possible to pressurise bulldozers in a roads Bill, but it is impossible to make the cow move quickly. I am afraid that my comments in relation to the Marginal Dairy Farms Agreements Bill must take some time. There are few industries in this country which are of more importance than the dairy industry. Indeed it can be generally recognised that this is the one industry in the background of Australia’s history which has given the opportunity for persons wishing to have a rural aspect of life to commence where a cash cheque is available on a regular basis for their produce.

The industry produces the basic food commodities used in this and most other similar societies. In the commercial sense some dairy farmers have good reason to be proud of the achievements of their life’s work. Australia is rightly proud of the great contribution this industry has made. Its products have been distributed throughout the States and have proved to be viable on world markets. Where managment is sound the Australian dairy farmer can look forward with quiet confidence in the knowledge that his product will be in demand now and at the end of this century. Assistance to marginal dairy farms was originated by the former Liberal-Country Party Government and the Labor Party, at that stage, supported the proposals. Indeed, all political parties were interested to support the great Australian dairy industry. That original scheme is now being endorsed by the Labor Party. In several ways, following discussion in the future with the various States and the Federal authority, there is to be a broadening of the provisions of the former law.

The Opposition supports this Bill and wishes the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) well in his initial reversal of a policy of taking away every aspect of assistance previously provided for the well-being of rural aspects of Australian life. This Bill carries with it a stamp that it provides $28m. That is incorrect. This Bill actually conveys $18m with a re-usage of $ 10m not formerly taken up. The Bill continues and broadens the existing scheme. It provides interest free loans and extends terms of repayment to allow improvement to certain milk producers. There is also provision for assistance to factories although it is apparently intended to introduce other legislation which will affect the manufacturing end of this industry in the future. There are a number of variations to the existing marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme. I would like to list and discuss each one of those variations, but I realise that time does not permit me to do that. The inclusion of whole milk suppliers in the scheme is a very welcome provision. There is provision for direct conveyancing to a purchaser who is combining in the marginal dairy farm reconstruction scheme without the necessity for the vendor first to transfer the property to the State authority. This will be a very helpful provision.

There are many other such helpful provisions, but one in particular which is of great benefit to my State of Victoria is that of interest free loans to help suppliers to change to refrigerated milk supply. Suppliers who change to refrigerated bulk milk supply after 23 July 1973, which was the date that the Commonwealth Government announced the cessation of the dairy bounty scheme, will also be eligible to have any loan obtained for that purpose taken over by the Government. I believe- I ask the Minister to note this-that it is most likely that my State of Victoria will avail itself of this provision more than any other State. But the problem that my State and probably many other States will have will be to interpret the scheme and to know the limitations of such a marginal scheme. I ask the Minister whether he can give some assurance that with the broadening of this scheme into the general dairy industry this matter will be discussed at a meeting of the Agricultural Council or, more particularly, be made the subject of an address by the Minister.

The fact is that the dairy industry today is in reasonably good health. But there is the necessity for this marginal scheme. Take the position in my State of Victoria. As at 1 July 1974 there were some 1,900 water cooled bulk tanks, all situated in the southern districts of that State. During 1 973-74 approximately 1,000 farms converted to refrigerated bulk milk vats. The average cost for the vat and modifications was in the vicinity of $5,000. 1 suggest to the Minister that it would suit my purposes if he would give some assurance that the confinement of assistance to a marginal farm may be looked at by him in the near future. The actions of the Australian Government in this Bill are very creditable. But as I mentioned earlier, this Bill represents a reversal of some of the bad schemes that have been undertaken by this Federal Labor Government. I think it is time for the Labor Party to show that it is changing its attitude towards rural people.

We must realise that the economic strife in Australia at present must be due to the actions of the Australian Government. Whilst Ministers may protest and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) may find a scapegoat in the economy, it is the Federal Government which is the responsible party to handle the Australian economy. The Treasurer, Mr Crean, has said that the change to a socialist dominated society will not be calm. It is all very well to introduce a scheme such as that which is contained in this Bill and to speak of assistance that will be given to rural producers, particularly those engaged in the dairy industry. But we have seen the damage that has been done by creating higher interest rates and by the elimination of tax deductibility in respect of certain items of expenditure. For example, annual expenditure on dams, silos, internal fencing and water drilling could be written off against taxation. We know of the very expensive communications costs which this Government has landed on the rural community. We have seen road schemes taken away from rural areas, the discouragement of the use of superphosphate through the withdrawal of the superphosphate subsidy and the elimination of the fuel equalisation subsidy. Again, electoral recognition has not been given to the disparity suffered by rural industries.

All costs to the dairy industry have increased as they have in all areas of rural production in Australia. The consumer must eventually pay. That is what this Labor Government does not realise. I plead with the Government to undertake some reversal of the actions they have taken in past years, even if it is only in the interests of the metropolitan consumer.

One matter of immense importance which I wish to mention is the recent decision by the Minister for Agriculture to phase out margarine quotas by 1976. 1 question the Minister’s motive in taking that step. Does he wish the Australian Agricultural Council to be maintained as a reasonably respected body? Does he wish State Ministers to take the same action as he apparently has been instructed to take, to depart from an agreement within the Australian Agricultural Council by making that unilateral decision that at least the Labor Party will not support quotas in 1976? In what way does he say all members of the Council should perform in the future? Again he has created a precedent. I believe this action was taken without due thought being given to the effects. Why did the Minister come to this decision to phase out quotas? Why did the Labor Caucus take this step? I noted that the other day in the Senate we overlooked the words of an honourable senator who said: ‘For whom does the Minister act?’ or ‘For whom does the senator act?’ I think that question is very appropriate in this instance. The Minister has before him a Green Paper on rural policy in Australia. Certainly the recommendations in that Paper in relation to this industry have not been followed. I ask the Minister: What encouraged the Labor Party to allow one margarine manufacturer into the Australian Capital Territory? Was encouragement given to the Party to permit that to be done? The Minister knows as well as I do that there was an application by a different manufacturer from the one that was allowed into the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister has never told us why that action was taken.

The Minister assured the Senate that only 300 tons of margarine would be produced in the Australian Capital Territory. He gave that assurance to the Australian Agricultural Council. The Minister knows as well as I do, and his advisers know, that over 1,000 tons of margarine have been produced in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister is not concerned about this. I would like to know the reason. What encouragement was given? The benefits that will follow from the lifting of margarine quotas will certainly not be for the consumer. The demand for margarine has been satisfied except for the occasional artificially created shortages. Certainly the benefits which will follow from lifting the quotas will not go to the Australian-owned companies that manufacture margarine and which are currently meeting consumers’ needs. Certainly the dairy farmers will not benefit. What is prompting the Labor Party and the Minister to phase out the quota arrangement? The Green Paper advocates that certain steps should be taken. But I put it to the Senate that the only beneficiary- I imagine the Minister will be aware of this through his advisers- will be one of the huge multi-national corporations in Australia.

I have great regard for the multi-national corporations. I think that in some instances they perform a good service in this community. Again I ask the Minister to explain why the Labor Party took this decision. The large Unilever company has a small share of the polyunsaturated market but the sudden lifting of the table margarine quotas will open the way for Unilever to use its great advertising funds at the expense of the housewife to grab the lion’s share of the market, and I believe that the Minister knows this. I ask him to comment on it when he replies. Who will get the benefit from the lifting of the margarine quotas? I hope that the Minister’s smile is not an indication of what is behind this.

During the last couple of days there was mention in this place of the use of advertising by companies to capture a market. Does the Minister know that in fact a cooking margarine company has been able to capture the market for this product which is not controlled by quotas? Does it impress the Minister at all that 9 years ago in 1 964-65 Unilever held 1 5 per cent of the cooking margarine market? In 1973-74 it holds 54 per cent of that market but the benefit is not passed on to consumers in lower prices. I understand that Unilever products are, on the average, 3c a pound dearer than similar products. Honourable senators would be aware that Unilever is one of the great trading organisations in the world today. Its strength is indicated by its world-wide sales of $7,020m and its profits are approximately $525m. The Labor Party has expressed a wish to see Australian organisations sustained, lt is very difficult to believe that Australian companies can compete with an organisation such as Unilever.

The Minister for Agriculture apparently happily runs along with the wishes of the Labor Party concerning advertising that margarine will do your health some good. Somebody has to pay for the advertising which is being arranged by unions. What a great scheme it is for unions to spend their members’ money on advertisements advocating that margarine quotas be abolished! I wonder if the Minister can suggest to us where those funds have come from. This is a difficult problem. I believe that the phasing out of margarine quotas should be as is stated in the Government’s rural policy. I think that Sir John Crawford indicated that he certainly had no view on the matter. He indicated that there ought to be a full discussion of the principle involved in this matter by those people who wished to give evidence one way or another to a dairy industry inquiry.

I believe a six year phase-out of the margarine quotas, or even a larger period, if there is a decision to phase out quotas would give dairy farmers time to adjust and fit in with the expanded rural production of oil seeds which, incidentally, are not at all harmed by the dairy production market at the present time. There was an import of a particularly large volume of oil seeds in the 1 1 months to May 1 974. There were 65,000 tonnes of oil seeds and 39,000 tons of oil imported into Australia. The Australian oil seeds man does not need to be pushing this particular fact. An adjustment would give dairy farmers an expanded rural production so that oil seed production could expand at a similar rate. It is a most important matter if, in a scheme such as this, we see the Federal Government taking a particular step in relation to a small section of the industry. We support it. Overall, the industry needs to be stabilised. If Labor, in its wisdom, in 1 8 months of office has considered the factors I have mentioned and has now announced that it will within 2 years eliminate margarine quotas altogether, it will find that we will be in a position such as exists in New Zealand. I do not know whether the Minister knows that whilst polyunsaturated margarine sells at a price much in excess of that of butter in New Zealand today, it is still eroding at the rate of about 10,000 tons a year the butter market of New Zealand.

The marginal dairy farm reconstruction scheme is really too narrow a base on which to form an Australian dairy adjustment program. But I believe that it is a generous program of assistance. It is designed to improve the quality assurance of all dairy products and the granting of credit facilities to meet the special circumstances which will arise in the years ahead both in respect of marketing and other aspects of production of dairy products.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- I am sorry that

Senator Webster decided to make such a vitriolic attack on the Government in respect of its dairy policies. We all know that this Government inherited the legacy of the worst possible dairy industry policies of the Liberal-Country Party governments over 23 years. I am quite sure that if the Liberal Party had been able to determine its own policies in respect of the dairy industry, without a gun being held at its head by the Country Party- and in particular by people like Senator Webster and the Victorian dairy industry which were cleaning up the great bulk of the benefits that were being paid out of the public purse for a long time- its policies would have been a lot different. That was revealed in the McCarthy Committee report of 14 years ago, and the Liberal Party had to live with it all those years. I am quite sure that if the truth were known, if there was one organisation in Australia that applauded the decision to get rid of the dairy bounty it was the Liberal Party. The Liberals would have done it years ago if they could have.

I should mention just in passing that if ever States were disadvantaged by that system they were States like New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The dairy industry in those States suffered for years while millions of dollars were poured into the Victorian dairy industry. So do not let us sing this sad song about what this Government has done for the industry. This measure is designed to undo some of the wrong that has been done over the years and to ensure that the moneys being made available under this scheme now will help the dairy industry in the States of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia where so many dairy farmers have been forced out of the industry because there was no support or help for them under the old scheme and because the cream of the benefits was going into Victoria and Tasmania, and to the people who needed it the least.

I do not want to canvass the argument for margarine. I do not really think we are here to do that. But I want to make one point clear. Senator Webster has said that this Bill is providing only $ 1 8m instead of $28m. That is not true. The original Act provided for an amount of up to $25m for the marginal dairy farm reconstruction scheme. That Act provided also that the scheme would expire in July 1974. Those moneys were not fully expended. I am not criticising that scheme because that was the one good scheme that was brought in under the Liberal-Country Party Government to help the dairy industry. What we are doing is building up and expanding that scheme. We are providing more money for it. The tragedy is that that was not done years ago. Because that $10m was unexpended, that money is legitimately used now under the Bill that we are now debating. It is the $2 8m which the Government promised would be provided. I think it is misleading to the dairy industry and to dairymen to suggest that the Government is not providing the full amount which it undertook to provide.

I was in agreement with only one thing that Senator Webster said. That was that the dairy industry is fortunately in a comparatively healthy position now. This is due mainly to the fact that it is in the processed product area where the market is, where the potential is and where the concentration of production is. I made the point earlier and I think it should be made again, that it is a tragedy that over the years the industry was not encouraged to move into these forms of production when it was quite obvious that it would have been to its betterment. Unfortunately time in this debate is limited. I am pleased at least that the Opposition intends to support the Bill because I know that, essentially, the Opposition realises that it will be to the benefit of the dairy industry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-If the Minister for Agriculture is not able to answer this question at the moment he may be able to reply to it later. In sub-clause 4 (9) (a) and in subclause 4 (12) (b) the words ‘will produce a reasonable level of income’ appear. Does the Minister really understand what those words mean? I do not think anybody else in the industry understands. I would like him to give me an indication of the meaning. Proposed new subsection ( 14) of section S of the principal Act, as amended by clause 4 of the Bill, provides that finance is available if:

  1. . the person to be assisted has been unable to obtain a loan on reasonable terms from normal financial resources

I realise the difficulty that the Minister may face in replying now on both of these aspects. If he is unable to reply at this time, would he be able to submit a reply to me in writing?

Senator BESSELL:
Tasmania

Senator Webster in the latter part of his speech has virtually asked the question about the matter that was worrying me with regard to bank loans being alternatively available.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania · ALP

-In reply to the first question asked by Senator Webster, it is true that the question of what is profitable, what is viable, is a matter of judgment. One cannot lay down any specific criteria by which such an assessment can be made. Under the previous scheme and, of course, under this one the Commonwealth will need to rely on the State authorities as the agents of the Australian Government. It must be a matter of judgment between the officers concerned and the owners of the farms. I think Senator Webster would appreciate that one cannot define that precisely. One can only ensure that officers who do this work are reasonable in their approach. If the officers consider, in conjunction with the dairyman himself, that there is a good chance of viability being maintained after assistance is provided under this scheme, the dairyman ought to be given the assistance provided for.

As to the second matter, I must confess that I did not understand clearly what Senator Webster was getting at. If he is happy for me to inform him in writing later on what he has asked, it is perhaps best if we do that so that we know precisely what we are talking about.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a third time.

page 1099

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 July (vide page 347), on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I will be mercifully brief. This is a simple but important measure. Its aim, of course, is to give legal clarity to the meaning of the words estimated costs’ in section 18 (8) of the Public Works Act. It arises because recently it was discovered that those words meant the estimate at the point of tender and not at the point of design development. The aim to clarify is important because it identifies those works which will be referred to the Public Works Committee by statute. Until now, without this classification there was danger that works would be held up. The

Opposition supports the measure. It also emphasises a suggestion made by the Opposition in another place that those words, which now on estimated costs in the new figures- that is, at the design development stage- do not exceed $2m but at the tender do exceed that limit, should be reported by the Minister to the Public Works Committee and mentioned in the annual report of that Committee. With those remarks we support the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1100

FAMILY LAW BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 August (vide page 760), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– by leave- I move:

  1. 1 ) That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs be empowered on its re-appointment to consider the clauses of the Family Law Bill 1974 during its consideration of the matter previously referred to it. namely the Law and Administration of Divorce, Custody and Family Matters.
  2. That the Committee report to the Senate on those clauses by 18 September 1974.

I should say that this was done once before in respect of the same Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1100

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Motion (by Senator Murphy)- by leaveagreed to:

1 ) That the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee appointed last session and known as the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee be re-appointed with the same powers as were given to it last session.

That, unless otherwise provided, the Committee be empowered to inquire into and report upon such matters as were referred to the same Committee appointed during the previous session and which have not been disposed of.

That, for the purposes of completing inquiries, the Committee have power to consider the minutes of evidence and records of the same Standing Committee appointed during the previous session.

That the Committee consist of six senators, three to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and three to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Nominations of members of the Committee shall be notified in writing to the President and shall thereupon take effect.

That the Committee elect a Government member as chairman.

That 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.

page 1100

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 1100

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

Senate adjourned at 4.49 p.m. to a day and hour to be fixed by the President

page 1101

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

North West Regional Water Scheme (Question No. 16)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) At what stage is the consideration of the request from a group of Municipal Councils in north-west Tasmania for funds to assist in the construction and development of the North West Regional Water Scheme.
  2. ) When is it likely that a definitive answer will be given to the request.
  3. If there is likely to be further delay in providing a definitive answer, what is the cause of any such delay.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

The request from the Tasmanian Government for funds to assist in the construction and development of the North West Regional Water Scheme will be considered in the budget deliberations of Cabinet.

Foreign Ships: Dumping of Ballast (Question No. 17)

Senator Rae:

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

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that a number of ships engaged in international trade take on ballast in polluted or potentially polluted waters overseas, and dump that ballast in ports in Australia.
  2. Are there any Australian regulations relating to the dumping of ballast from foreign ships.
  3. Is the Australian Government taking any steps to encourage the forming of international regulations to control the discharge of foreign ballast; if so, what progress has been made, and if not, will the Government consider taking such steps.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Ships engaged in international trade do take on ballast water overseas and this water may contain organisms not customarily found in local waters. This ballast water is often discharged in pons or off our coast.
  2. 2 ) There are no Australian regulations relating to the discharge of ballast water not contaminated by oil.
  3. Australia supports a resolution passed at the 1973 International Conference on Marine Pollution requesting the World Health Organisation to initiate studies into these matters.

Prime Minister: Circulation of Letter and Speeches (Question No. 18)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that a letter together with a copy of a number of speeches by the Prime Minister was circulated to

Local Government Councillors during the period shortly before the May 18 election and referendum; if so, was that letter circulated to all members of Local Government bodies in Australia.

  1. How many copies of the letter were sent out and by whom were they sent.
  2. By whom was the letter prepared and what was the cost of the preparation and postage of the letters, and copy of the speeches.
  3. Who paid the cost.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. Copies of a letter and speeches were sent during that period to the Clerk of each Local Government body in each State with a request that they be distributed to all members of that body.
  2. 9,800 approximately, which were sent from the Prime Minister’s Office.
  3. The letter was prepared in the Prime Minister’s Office. The cost of printing the letter and the speeches was approximately $2,045. The cost of postage was approximately $790. It is not practicable to identify other administrative costs; the task was carried out as pan of the normal duties of the staff involved.
  4. The printing costs were a charge against the Department of the Media, the postage costs against the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Prime Minister’s Visit to China (Question No. 23)

Senator Sim:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What were the names of the persons, other than aircrew, who accompanied the Prime Minister on his flight to the People’s Republic of China during October-November 1973.
  2. 2 ) For what purposes were those persons carried.
  3. Which passengers, if any, contributed towards the cost of the flight and what was the contribution in each case.
  4. What was the total cost of the flight.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) See my answer on 20 November 1 973 ( Hansard, page 1904).
  2. The press party, which on the usual charging basis contributed $ 1 8,409.40 in all.
  3. Together with the associated visit to Japan, $63,856.

Knox City Council: Grants for Kindergartens (Question No. 33)

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Treasurer aware that an Australian Government grant of $250,000 made to the Knox City Council, in Victoria, to enable it to embark upon a major building program of kindergartens and pre-school centres, has been withheld by the Victorian Government.
  2. Has the State Government had this money since April 1974.
  3. Was this grant conditional upon part of the money being spent before the end of June 1974; if so, does the action of the Victorian Government deprive the Knox City Council of access to the grant.
  4. What action can the Australian Government take to ensure that this assistance to, not only the Knox Council, but other city and shire councils, will not be withheld in the future.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( I ), (2) and (3) No. My understanding of the position is that the Victorian Government has not withheld from the City of Knox an Australian Government grant of $250,000 for kindergartens and pre-schools.

Under the Interim Pre-school and Child Care Services Program pre-schools in the City of Knox received $32,828 to 30 June 1974 as assistance from the Australian Government towards the cost of staff salaries. This money was made available through the Victorian Department of Health. As part of the same program, the Australian Government also agreed to provide capital grants up to $130,000 for the establishment of a Central Services Building for a comprehensive Early Childhood Services pilot project in the City of Knox, and recurrent assistance towards the operational costs of this pilot project. This Australian Government support was subject to the Victorian Government contributing to the project, and to the Australian Pre-schools Committee being represented on the committee guiding the research evaluation aspect.

Australian Government grants under this program are paid as projects develop and, as no progress was reported, no payments were made to 30 June 1974 in respect of the capital or operational component of the Knox City Childhood pilot project.

Under the administrative arrangements for the Interim Program, funds for on-going assistance for the projects are being sought as part of the 1974-75 Budget. The total payments to victoria to 30 June 1974 under the Interim Preschool and Child Care Services Program was $1,513,000 of which $ 1 ,498,000 was recurrent assistance- mainly for existing pre-schools in Victoria.

The City of Knox has also had Australian Government assistance under the Child Care Act. $3 1,95 1 has been paid to the Council following the approval of a grant to purchase two houses and modify them for use as child care centres. Now that an appeal concerning the use of the second house as a child care centre has been resolved, a further grant of $36,410 is being processed. In addition $17,424 of an approved research grant of $20,904 to help establish a Family Day Care program at Knox and to compare the operation of that program with the one conducted in Fitzroy by the Brotherhood of St Laurence has been paid to the Council.

  1. It was the responsibility of the Victorian Department of Health to advise sponsoring bodies of approved assistance under the 1973-74 Interim Pre-school and Child Care Services Program. Details of Australian Government approvals under this program were advised to the Victorian Minister for Health in a letter from the Minister for Education dated 10 April 1974.

It is understood that while there were discussions between the Victorian State Minister for Health and Knox City Council officers in April 1974, the Victorian Department of Health has only recently formally advised the Council of the City of Knox of the projects relating to that City and approved as part of the Interim Pre-School and Child Care Services Program.

The Department of Education keeps in close touch with State Departments and agencies about the development of projects approved under these programs.

Woorayl Shire: Grants For roadmaking (Question No. 48)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Prime Minister receive a letter, dated 3 July 1974, from the Shire of Woorayl, in Victoria, complaining that the proposed reduction in funds made available from the Australian Government to Local Government bodies for roadmaking purposes in the forthcoming year would (a) result in unemployment in country areas; and (b) have a serious effect on decentralisation.
  2. Has the Prime Minister replied to the Shire’s letter; if so, in what terms.
  3. Has there been any reduction, and if so, what, in such funds to be provided by the Australian Government for the year 1974-75.
  4. Does the Prime Minister propose to take any action to avoid the possible consequences referred to in the Shire’s letter.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. The reply was in the following terms:

On 18 July, the Minister for Transport introduced into the Australian Parliament legislation which will provide a total of $1, 126m in grants to the States over the next three years, 1974-75-1976-77. This represents a 30 per cent increase over the $870m provided for the various forms of road assistance over the previous three years. Moreover, the distribution of grants will be such that rural areas will receive a considerably greater proportion of the total grants than under the previous Aid Roads Act.

It is not possible to compare assistance provided under the 1969 Commonwealth Aid Roads Act for ‘rural roads other than rural arterial roads’ with the ‘rural local roads’ category in the 1974 Roads Grants Bill because of the transfer of Class 3 interconnecting roads to the ‘rural arterial roads’ category. The total allocation for the ‘rural roads other than rural arterial roads’ category was $86. 8m ($16. 9m for Victoria) in the last year ( 1973-74) of the 1969 Commonwealth Aid Roads Act. Under the legislation now before the Parliament, the total allocation for ‘rural local roads’ category in 1974-75 is $59.7m($12.1m for Victoria).

Local Government, in addition to being eligible for grants under the new Roads Grants legislation, also stands to benefit from the Australian Government’s decision to accept full responsibility for financing the National Roads system, rather than 80 per cent financing as proposed by the Bureau of Roads in its Report ‘Roads in Australia 1973 . As a result, States will no longer have to make a contribution to the cost of developing roads now included in the national system. This will enable them to provide increased funds for other roads, including local government roads, according to State priorities. As Australian Government grants for national roads increase, local government must look more to the States to meet their road needs.

  1. 3 ) As indicated in my letter to the Shire of Woorayl, it is not possible to compare the level of rural local road funds under the 1 969 CAR Act with those to be provided under the proposed road arrangements for 1974-75-1976-77.
  2. The level of local government road expenditure does not depend solely on Australian Government grants. As indicated tn my reply to the Shire, the States will now be in a better position to increase their contributions to local government for roads. Under the new legislation, the States are free to decide their priorities on road categories. I do not propose to do anything to change this situation.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 August 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19740816_senate_29_s61/>.