Senate
13 November 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2. IS p.m., and read prayers.

page 2289

DEATH OF A MEMBER OF THE AUSTRALIAN POLICE CONTINGENT IN CYPRUS

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) by leave- It is with regret that I inform the Senate of the death this morning of a member of the Australian Police Contingent in Cyprus. He was Ian Donald Ward of Padstow in New South Wales. He was a constable first class in the New South Wales Police Force and held the brevet rank of sergeant in the Australian contingent in Cyprus. Constable Ward was killed when the Land Rover he was driving on humanitarian duty struck a mine south of Lefka, not far from the Australian base at Polis. Another Australian policeman First Constable John Edward Woolcott, was with him in the Land Rover at the time. Mr Woolcott suffered multiple lacerations and a broken jaw, and although he has been seriously injured I am informed that he is being well cared for and will recover. There were also 5 Turkish Cypriots in the vehicle. One of them was killed and the other four were seriously injured.

The parents of Mr Ward and Mr Woolcott have both been informed. I have sent messages to them on behalf of the Government expressing the sympathy that all honourable senators will share. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has sent his condolences as has the United Nations Force Commander in Cyprus, General Prem Chand. This contingent is the eleventh that Australia has sent to Cyprus since the United Nations intervened in 1964. During that time, the Australian contingents have established a very high reputation on the island with the United Nations authorities and with the people. An indication of this esteem is that 4 Australians have been appointed as the police advisers to the United Nations Commander in Cyprus.

Ian Ward’s section of the eleventh contingent left Australia for Cyprus only a little over a week ago. I met him and the other 18 members of the contingent at the airport in Sydney before they left. I congratulated them on being selected for duty in Cyprus. They had all been picked because they had shown qualities of patience, tolerance, sense of dedication and integrity. It is no small thing for any man or woman to act, not merely on behalf of a locality, or of a state, or even of a country, but to act on behalf of all humanity. Constable Ward typified the quality of the men which this country is sending to help keep the peace on the troubled island of Cyprus. He was 25 and an outstanding young policeman in the New South Wales Force. He was very talented. Arrangements had been made for him to take the examination in Cyprus for the final subject in his Diploma of Criminology course which he had been studying at the University of Sydney.

I know that all honourable senators, as will all Australians, sympathise with Mr Ward’s family. His life was dedicated to and ended in the service of all mankind.

page 2289

PETITIONS

Human Rights Bill

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of Australia:

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

that for religion to be spiritual, and government to be liberal and egalitarian, religion and government need to be kept separate.

that this principle is fully recognised in Section 1 16 of the Australian Constitution.

that the taxing of any citizens to propagate or support any religion is contrary to this principle, and a violation of human right.

Your petitioners humbly pray that Pan II, Section 3, of the proposed Bill of Human Rights, which now reads:

No one shall be subject to coercion which will impair his freedom to have or to adopt a belief or religion of his choice, be amended to read further: and no revenue derived in any way from any Australian citizen shall be appropriated by the Australian Government, or by a State Government, or by a Municipal Government, for the propagation or support of any religion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

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

That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1974;

That, the concept of marriage contained in Section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory, and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;

That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;

That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 1115 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1974;

That, the concept of marriage contained in Section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory, and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;

That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;

That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 217 and 973 citizens of the Commonwealth respectively, in the following terms:

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

That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1 974;

That, the concept of marriage contained in Section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory, and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;

That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;

That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 42 and 870 citizens of the Commonwealth, in the following terms:

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

That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1974;

That, the concept of marriage contained in Section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory, and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;

That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;

That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording, and from 13 and 1012 citizens of the Commonwealth respectively, in the following terms:

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

That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplifications of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1974;

That, the concept of marriage contained in Section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory, and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;

That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;

That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I present the following petition from 43 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1 974;

That, the concept of marriage contained in section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;

That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;

That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate, which it warrants.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-I present 2 petitions, identical in wording, and from 8 and 1,314 citizens of the Commonwealth, in the following terms:

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

That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1974;

That, the concept of marriage contained in section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;

That, such a concept of marriage will destory the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;

That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I present the following petition from 46 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1 974;

That, the concept of marriage contained in section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;

That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;

That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bil! in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I present 2 petitions, identical in wording, and from 26 and 512 citizens of Victoria, in the following terms:

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

That the Family Law Bill 1 974 is a matter of public importance;

That the subject matter of the clauses of the Bill will ultimately have the widest effects on the lives of the citizens of Australia;

That the proposals contained in this Bill are not adequately known to the citizens of Australia;

That the Bill as such has not been the object of the public scrutiny, dialogue and debate which it deserves;

That for those reasons grave concern is felt that the Bill may be passed before the community is aware of its long term consequences.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote that the Family Law Bill 1974 be made the subject of further community study and that to facilitate this aim the debate on this Bill be adjourned until April 197S.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and the first petition read.

Family Law Bill

Senator MISSEN:

– I present the following petition from 34 citizens of Victoria:

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

That the Family Law Bill 1974 is a matter of public importance;

That the subject matter of the clauses of the Bill will ultimately have the widest effects on the lives of the citizens of Australia;

That the proposals contained in this Bill are not adequately known to the citizens of Australia;

That the Bill as such has not been the object of the public scrutiny, dialogue and debate which it deserves;

That for these reasons grave concern is felt that the Bill may be passed before the community is aware of its long term consequences;

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote that the Family Law Bill 1974 be made the subject of further community study and that to facilitate this aim the debate on this Bill be adjourned until April 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 63 citizens of Australia:

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

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

3 ) The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording, and from 57 and 79 citizens of Australia, in the following terms:

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

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present 3 petitions, identical in wording, and from 64, 67 and 76 citizens of Australia, in the following terms:

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

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 47 citizens of Australia:

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

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties.

However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I present 4 petitions, identical in wording, and from 5, 16, 20 and 46 citizens of Australia, in the following terms:

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

That in modern society which accepts divorce, the Law of Divorce should be fair to both parties. However we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the “Family Law Bill 1974.”

The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the Institution of Marriage itself, and ALL existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does NOT provide or protect the legal or social rights of Women and Children in the family.

The said Bill does NOT provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken PRIOR to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian Society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 2 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.

The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator WEBSTER:

– I present the following petition from 1 44 citizens of Australia:

To the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, wish to express our grave concern at the following aspects of the Family Law Bill, as read in the Senate on 1 August, by the Attorney-General.

After a 12 month separation period, a husband can legally divorce his faithful wife, even if she is pregnant, or has small children.

During the ‘separation’ period, he can reside in the matrimonial home, even co-habiting there with another woman.

After he had obtained the divorce, the wife must pay her own legal costs.

The bill creates a new kind of marriage, which can be terminated by one of the parties, without the consent of the other.

It removes from the marriage contract, the normal legal safeguards to an injured party, which all other classes of contract provide.

This is obviously unjust. We ask you to delay the passage of the bill, and make public its revised form, so that citizens can make a responsible assessment of it.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 10 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

1 ) That we have examined the Family Law Bill and substantially support the provisions therein

That the Family Law Bill takes into account the changing roles of women in modern society

That the amendment to the bill recommended by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee will ensure that the rights of women who play the traditional role in society will be protected, as will the interest of children

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 12 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That we have read the petitions concerning the Family Law Bill and support the Bill as sufficiently protecting the legal and social rights of women and children in the family

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MISSEN:

– I present the following petition from 8 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That we are concerned at letters in the press inferring that the Family Law Bill should be delayed. We are opposed to such action on the grounds that there has been ample time to discuss the bill with the community, and we are informed and.believe that many submissions have been considered by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee and the report of that committee is substantially in accord with the Family Law Bill.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MISSEN:

– I present the following petition from 12 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That we support the concept of no fault divorce in the Family Law Bill because:

1 ) Marriage is not merely a contract it is a relationship.

That if a party withdraws from that relationship for whatever reason, there is no good to be achieved by insisting on a continuence of a contractual shell.

That where a marriage relationship has demonstrably broken down, divorce should be as quick, simple as possible in the interests of the dignity of the parties and the emotional well being of their children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition from 10 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That we have read the petitions concerning the Family Law Bill and support the bill as sufficiently protecting the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator WEBSTER:

– I present the following petition from 1 8 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That we have read the petitions concerning the Family Law Bill and support the bill as sufficiently protecting the legal and social rights of women and children in the family

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That we are concerned at letters in the press inferring that the Family Law Bill should be delayed. We are opposed to such action on the grounds that there has been ample time to discuss the bill with the community, and we are informed and believe that many submissions have been considered by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee and the report of that committee is substantially in accord with the Family Law Bill.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator BUTTON:

-I present the following petition from 10 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

That we are concerned at letters in the press inferring that the Family Law Bill should be delayed. We are opposed to such action on the grounds that there has been ample time to discuss the bill with the community, and we are informed and believe that many submissions have been considered by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee and the report of that committee is substantially in accord with the Family Law Bill.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-I present the following petition from 52 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 80 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petitions from 20 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition from 26 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

Divorce is a social and medical problem not a legal issue and should be relieved accordingly;

Irretrievable breakdown must be the only ground with a maximum of twelve months separation;

When making property settlements the court must take into account the direct and indirect financial and other contributions made to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of the property by the parties in the capacity of homemaker, parent or otherwise;

There must be urgent reform and the Family Law Bill must be presented to Parliament forthwith and accepted without further delay.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I present the following petition from 20 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator GIETZELT:

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I present the following petition from 56 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 16 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modem thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maxium of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator CARRICK:

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording, and from 20 and 55 citizens of the Commonwealth, in the following terms:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1 974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maxium of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 52 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1 974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maxium of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MISSEN:

– I present 3 petitions, identical in wording, and from 7, 20 and 27 citizens of the Commonwealth in the following terms:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate,

That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MARTIN:

– I present the following petition from 22 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 13 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:

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the sole ground for divorce, as set down in the Family Law Bill 1973 based on one year’s separation.

Maintenance to be based on the needs of all the parties in a failed marriage. Effective automatic permanent entitlement to an ex-wife to be abolished.

Emphasis to be placed on rehabilitation and retraining of estranged wives to enable them to be independent.

Custody to be awarded in disputed cases on the basis of a qualified panel recommendation and to only take in to account the material, moral, and psychological well being of children involved, not the possessive demands of their parents.

Matrimonial property to be divided equally, taking into account initial contributions.

Costs of matrimonial proceedings to be divided equally.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I present 3 petitions, identical in wording, from 7, 20 and 28 citizens of the Commonwealth, in the following terms:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

Senator BUTTON:

-I present the following petition from 1 9 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further they believe that as a direct result of the recent Budget measure to reduce the taxation concession for education expenses from $400 to $130 a significant level of economic support, hitherto received, has been withdrawn.

Your petitioners believe that this Budget measure is regressive and is unjustifiable as of discrimination inflicted on parents struggling to keep their children in independent schools.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action will be taken to remedy this act of discrimination.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Taxation: Education Expenses

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I present the following petition from 25 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further, they believe that as a direct result of the recent Budget measure to reduce the taxation concession for education expenses from $400 to $150 a significant level of economic support, hitherto received, has been withdrawn.

Your petitioners believe that this Budget measure is regressive and is an unjustifiable act of discrimination inflicted on parents struggling to keep their children in independent schools.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action will be taken to remedy this act of discrimination.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

Senator WEBSTER:

– I present the following petition from 37 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

1 ) Your petitioners believe in the principle that every Australian child, irrespective of the school he attends is entitled to economic support for his basic educational needs from the funds placed at the disposal of the Australian Government through taxation. Further, they believe that as a direct result of the recent Budget measure to reduce the taxation concession for education expenses from $400 to $130 a significant level of economic support, hitherto received, has been withdrawn.

Your petitioners believe that this Budget measure is regressive and is an unjustifiable act of discrimination inflicted on parents struggling to keep their children in independent schools.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action will be taken to remedy this act of discrimination.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

Senator WEBSTER:

– I present the following petition from 273 citizens of Australia:

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

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82J of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $130 will impose an unfair financial burden on many parents with children attending school, both government and non-government, and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That all parents have an equal right to receive government financial assistance for the education of their children.

That all parents have the right to a choice of school for their children.

That the reduction in the allowable tax deduction will take away from many parents their freedom to exercise their right of choice of schools.

That many parents, unable to continue to send their children to non-government schools will have no alternative but to seek places for them in government schools where pressures caused by over-crowding and under-staffing are already affecting the quality of education the schools can provide.

That it is undesirable that the large voluntary financial contribution being made to education in Australia by parents of children at non-government schools should be reduced.

That the reduction in assistance to parents for education expenses will result in non-government schools being forced to become more socially exclusive whereas their own as well as the national interest will best be served by making available to as wide a socio-economic group as possible the kind of education they seek to offer.

That an alternative form of assistance to parents through a tax rebate system would be a more positive and equitable means of assisting all parents who have children at school.

To help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families, your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents at least to the 1973-1974 level either through taxation deductions or rebates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

Senator BAUME:

– I present 3 petitions, identical in wording, and from 26, 63 and 480 citizens of the Commonwealth, in the following terms:

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 Treasurer of the Australian Government has proposed that the concessional deduction for education expenses be reduced from $400 to $ 1 50.

We, the undersigned, humbly petition the Senate to return any legislation which could give effect to such a proposal to the House of Representatives and request that the concessional deduction for education expenses be restored to $400 for each child attending an approved school or college.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Capital Gains Tax

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 22 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That a Capital Gains Tax applying as another Death Duty is unjust in its application and catastrophic in its effect.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Capital Gains Tax be not levied in addition to Death Duties.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Humanitarian Assistance to National Liberation Movements

Senator WEBSTER:

– I present the following petition from 12 citizens of Australia:

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

That whereas the Budget Paper No. 9 titled ‘Australia’s External Aid 1974-75 ‘allocated $150,000 for ‘humanitarian assistance to National Liberation Movements in Africa’;

And whereas the humanitarian needs of these oppressed people require greater assistance from Australia than the above amount allocated in the budget;

And whereas such assistance is in keeping with that provided by Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and New Zealand, and United Nations Organisations such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, FAO and WHO, and such non-Government organisations as the World Council of Churches, the Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Community Aid Abroad, and some Roman Catholic Aid Agencies in Europe;

So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to substantially increase the abovementioned humanitarian assistance.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australia: Defence Forces, Flag and National Anthem

Senator SHEIL:

– I present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of Queensland:

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 our 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 and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, this Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

The Family Law Bill, 1974 is causing grave concern to us and it is only to be expected that it is causing the same concern to a vast number of others right throughout the nation.

There are many parts or clauses in this Bill with which we disagree and which we find unacceptable. However, we must be fairly brief in our Petition, as you would expect, and ask you to please reject the Bill in consideration of the convictions of a preponderance of your Electors which we are sure we represent. We feel sure that we are part of what is termed the silent ( except at election-time ) majority ‘.

It should be quite obvious to all, that the permanency of the married state must be preserved, in the long-term interest of the Community and the Nation as a whole. Hence, the Government should do all that is possible to promote and preserve the permanency of the married state instead of undermining its foundations by providing for easy divorce and thereby creating hardship and frustration for, in most cases, the Mother and Children.

Furthermore, our women-folk must surely and inevitably become chattels or things for men to take as they please, as could also happen in reverse.

High ideals of mankind are forgotten in the Bill. Likewise overlooked, or deliberately left out, is the axiomatic and traditional regard for the Natural Law, the impregnable rock of civilisation, i.e., marriage, as and being, the basis of human society.

Instead of neglecting to preserve the ideals of the married state, there should be statesman-like legislation to help unstable and broken marriages, and every effort to make premarriage counselling a pre-requisite of the contract.

Any one of us would be pleased to hear from any one of you on this subject and to receive advice of your convictions.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Senator Steele Hall:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Subsequent to introducing a petition myself today on the Family Law Bill I read the Standing Orders and I find that standing order 87 says:

No reference shall be made in a Petition to any Debate in Parliament of the same Session.

As some, if not a considerable number, of the petitions which have been presented refer to the current debate by name and definition concerning the Family Law Bill I should like to have your ruling, Mr President, if possible as to where those petitions stand.

The PRESIDENT:

– I appreciate the honourable senator’s action in drawing attention to the standing order. This matter is to come before a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee tomorrow morning. It must be recognised that the presentation of 67 petitions takes up an important part of the Senate’s time and I hope to be able to give some satisfaction as to the matter raised by the honourable senator after our meeting tomorrow.

page 2300

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2300

QUESTION

TAXATION: CAPITAL GAINS AND UNEARNED INCOME

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the Government’s final realisation that it is the private sector of the economy which provides the wealth of a community and allows a government to carry out its social program, will the Government provide a further impetus to the private sector by not proceeding with its capital gains tax and its misguided tax on what the Government is pleased to call ‘unearned income’?

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

-The statement that I read last night on behalf of the Prime Minister indicated that the Government was fully conscious of the role of the private sector of the economy. The Leader of the Opposition is, I think, mistaken if he ignores the contribution which is also made by the public sector. This has been well recognised for many years by all except the most extremely reactionary sections of the community. I am appreciative of the recognition by the Leader of the Opposition that the measures which have been announced are beneficial. We hope that he will help us to give speedy passage to the measures. He raises questions about two other matters. I think it is fair that those be referred to the Treasurer for his consideration.

page 2300

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, refers to the matter mentioned by the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerning the death of an Australian policeman serving in Cyprus with the United Nations forces. Can the Minister advise the Senate what provisions exist for compensation for the widow of the Australian policeman killed, and any policemen serving there who are injured in the course of their service with the United Nations?

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

-This matter has been brought to my attention several times by Senator Mulvihill and it is, I think, a matter of serious concern. In 1973 amendments were made by this Government to the Repatriation Act which provide the cover for repatriation benefits for Australian servicemen serving with United Nations peacekeeping forces, but do not cover civilian Australians serving with those forces. In this context members of the police forces are in fact civilians. The benefits which are available at present to members of the Australian police forces serving in Cyprus or with any other United Nations forces are the same as those which are available to other employees of the Australian Government. Any benefits that would be received either for death in the case of dependants or injury in the case of the individual himself are covered by the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act. My Department and I have been considering for some time means whereby full repatriation benefits could be extended to the Australian policemen who are taking part in these ventures because it seems to me that it is a cruel irony that people who are engaged in what can only be described as military or paramilitary operations at the behest of the Australian Government should not be receiving the same benefits as people who are doing identical duties but are members of the Army, Navy or Air Force. The matter has not been concluded as yet. Some problems are involved in extending repatriation benefits to people beyond those who are actually members of the armed forces. I hope to be able to make an early announcement as to the happy conclusion of this endeavour in which we have been engaged now for some months.

page 2300

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Agriculture whether he could elaborate on the Prime Minister’s 8-line reference in last night’s economic statement to an urgent examination of problems confronting the beef industry. Has the examination commenced? Who is conducting it? What are the guidelines? Has a deadline been fixed for a submission of recommendations to the Government?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-I think I did indicate some time ago that the National Cattlemen’s Association of Australia had made a submission to the Government suggesting in essence that the Australian Government provide carry-on finance to the extent of $50m in view of the difficulties in which some producers will now find themselves. The Government has been studying this proposal and alternative proposals which have not been formally received but to which naturally the Government itself- that is, my Department in conjunction with the Treasury- would give consideration as alternative means. It is important to identify the people who are most affected by the downturn in the beef industry. They are essentially the producers who are wholly dependent on the export beef trade. Many of the other producers are, as the honourable senator would know, engaged also in other forms of farming and the impact of the fall in overseas prices is not felt as greatly by them as it is by the producers of beef only. Most of those people are in the northern part of Australia.

It is also important that whatever scheme is implemented is administratively practicable and that, in particular, the assistance goes to the producers who are suffering the greatest need at the present time. This is not a matter about which the Government has been lethargic. The impending situation for many of these producers was recognised some time ago and I think I said in the Senate that I had instructed my Department to work in conjunction with the Treasury and to formulate plans which, if necessary, could be implemented later in the year or probably early in the new year. The Government is aware of the problem and is making those plans to ensure that the producers who are hard hit and who will suffer from the downturn in export prices will be given assistance.

page 2301

QUESTION

TASMANIAN AIR SERVICES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of public disquiet which has been created by the reported statement of a Mr Bruce Crofts, who I believe is the Executive Vice-President of the Austraiian Federation of Air Pilots, to the effect that the closure of either the Devonport or the Wynyard airports in north-west Tasmania is inevitable? Can the Minister advance any reason which would prompt a person whose interest, it would be anticipated, would be in preserving air transport facilities openly and publicly to sponsor such a proposition? Will the Minister give an assurance at the earliest moment that such a decision is not contemplated and that Mr Crofts’ obviously inspired prophecy is baseless and thereby allay the fears of the people of northwest Tasmania, where the passenger traffic figures are currently running at approximately 200,000 a year?

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

– A question on these lines was asked of the Minister for Transport in the other place today. Because of an interruption I heard only the commencement and the completion of the answer. The Minister replied to the effect that he had seen the report. I, likewise, have seen the report. I do not know that Mr Bruce Crofts has a motivation for trying to condemn air transport so much as he has a motivation for condemning the Government because of the Government’s refusal to accept the sweetheart agreement he entered into with companies for pay increases to pilots. There has been some bitterness as a result of that. The position at the present time is that the Minister has a committee investigating rationalised aerial transport which will make recommendations as to what savings can be made in transport. No report of that committee has been made yet and at present there is no decision to close either of the airports in Tasmania to which the honourable senator referred.

page 2301

QUESTION

REFUELLING OF INTERNATIONAL AIRCRAFT

Senator WOOD:

– I desire to ask my question of the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy. What purpose does the Government expect to achieve by doubling the cost of fuel to international airlines refuelling in Australia? Is it not a fact that the increased charge will go to the funds of the oil companies? How does this benefit Australia? Will it not benefit only the oil companies? Is it logical to consider fuel consumed during an international flight as an export commodity since it is never delivered to another country? If airlines have been considered to have uplifted excessive quantities of fuel in Australia, could this practice not be controlled by charging a premium price for any fuel lifted in excess of normal operational needs? Is it not realised that the doubling of fuel costs to international air services will increase the cost of air travel, which will have harmful effects upon our tourist industry, and will be an increased cost to Australian citizens desiring to travel overseas? Is it not unfair that new air services such as Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and Garuda Indonesian Airways should have to pay the increased charge immediately? Does the Government not realise that the extra charge could also have a very detrimental effect on our Australian airline, Qantas Airways Ltd?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I shall refer the question to the Minister for Transport, whose responsibility it is.

page 2302

QUESTION

JAPAN-AUSTRALIA TRADE: STATEMENT BY QUEENSLAND PREMIER

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Did the Minister for Agriculture hear the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, commenting on the radio program ‘PM’ last Friday about JapaneseAustralian trade? Does he agree with the Premier’s statement that Japan is buying meat from Tasmania and New Zealand and if Japan wants Queensland minerals it has to switch its beef purchases to Queensland? Do such statements do anything to improve Japan-Australia trading relations? In fact do they do anything to improve relations between Queensland and Tasmania?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I did not hear the broadcast but I was told about it. It would be a stroke of diplomacy of the highest order which could improve relations with Queensland while Mr Bjelke-Petersen is Premier. The substance of what he said reflects the smallness of his mind. How quickly he forgets. How quickly he forgets to remind the Queensland people of what the Australian Government has done for Queensland in the way of mineral exports, particularly coal. Just for the information of the Senate, Mr President, the increased value of the contracts negotiated by the Australian Government for the export of Queensland coal since we came to office is nearly $2,000m. It is puerile for a man like Mr Bjelke-Petersen to say that he will tell the. Japanese that they will not have any more of our minerals or something else if they do not buy our beef. Thank goodness he is in State politics and not Federal politics.

page 2302

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH-STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Following the Prime Minister’s statement on the economy last night I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if he can say why the State governments were overlooked and not given extra financial assistance, particularly as they have been forced to introduce new tax measures which are regarded both as bad politics and inflationary.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Following the statement of the Prime Minister last night benefits will flow to all the community and to the States as they deal with their sectors of the community. The Opposition is very critical of the Government. It is critical when the Government is not doing something and when the Government does do something it is quite clear that the Opposition has to find some other cause for criticism. It then says: ‘Why did you not do more?’ The notable feature of the questions asked today is the lack of any basis for criticism of what the Government has done. It is very noticeable that no criticism can be made of what has been done. It is quite clear that each of the measures announced by the Government has been wise and in the interests of the people. I can assure the honourable senator who asked the question, and all other Opposition senators, that the Government will continue in this way. They have seen only a sample of the wise decisions which are coming from this Government, and which will continue to come from it.

Senator YOUNG:

- Mr President, may I ask a supplementary question?

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Young.

Senator YOUNG:

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate to answer the latter part of my question. Why was assistance not given to the State governments in the economic policy which was put down last night?

Senator MURPHY:

– If the honourable senator had paid attention to the statement which was made he would have seen that there were certain things in that statement which reflected the wishes of the State governments. In particular he would have noted what was said about the motor vehicle industry, which is of extreme importance to South Australia. He would have noted also the statements in regard to textiles and so on. I assure the honourable senator that this Government is taking note of the requests that have been made by the States and that it will do whatever is appropriate in the direction of ensuring security and stability, a diminution of unemployment and, as far as can be done, a containment of the effects in Australia of world-wide inflation.

page 2302

QUESTION

PHOSPHATE DEPOSITS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy. I ask: Does the Bureau of Mineral Resources receive any compensation from private mining companies for its exploratory work? Did the BMR first strike phosphate rock at great depth in the Mount Isa area in Queensland and did its geologists predict with reasonable accuracy the area in which the phosphate rock was likely to appear on the surface? Did the company, Broken Hill South Ltd, later claim to have discovered the deposit?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I do not know whether Broken Hill South Ltd did in fact make that claim. I believe that some weeks ago there was some suggestion that Broken Hill South Ltd had discovered the deposits and that on the other hand the Bureau of Mineral Resources had originally discovered the deposits. The position is that the BMR does not receive any payment for the survey work it carries out. It does not do exploratory work in the sense that a normal private explorer does. It makes a geological survey of an area. The phosphate deposits in Queensland were discovered originally as a result of work done by an American geologist who was commissioned by the Bureau of Mineral Resources in 1966 to come to Australia. That was for the purpose of carrying out a survey on the phosphate potential of the whole of the Australian continent. It was on his recommendation that further drilling work was done by the BMR in that area. The subsequent exploratory work carried out by Broken Hill South Ltd was based on that work. So really it was a combination of efforts and a very good example of how governments and private enterprise can work in co-operation.

page 2303

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator GREENWOOD:

-My question which is directed to Senator Murphy as Leader of the Government in the Senate follows on the statement which was made last night. Does the Government propose to continue with the expenditure for which moneys are currently being appropriated by the Bills now before the Senate? If so, in view of the tax cuts reducing revenue, where will the replacement revenue come from?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-One thing that ought to be clear to the honourable senator and that ought to be obvious from the questions that are asked and that are sometimes properly pointed in this direction is the effect of inflation upon the whole economy. It has been pointed out, not only in the Senate but also by representatives of the trade unions and anyone familiar with the subject, that as inflation proceeds it has a special effect on any kind of progressive charge or tax. With our progressive tax it means, as honourable senators would know, that if inflation is running at the rate of 20 per cent the tax payable by the average earner may well rise by 30 per cent or 40 per cent. It does not go up at exactly the same rate. There is a vast increase in revenues which flow to the Government. So it is clear that in an inflationary period the Government is going to expect very much greater revenue than if there were no inflation. Indeed, it is necessary, and the Government has given indications of it, for the tax structure to be rescheduled, for there to be a reverse indexation to compensate for the effects of the increased revenue. If the Government did not do something, such as has been done in the cutting down of taxes, I would think- and I am not the Treasurer- that the Government would be embarrassed by the amount of money which would flow in through taxation because of this well known effect. So I think the honourable senator is quite wrong when he comes to the simple conclusion that there is going to be a shortage of revenue.

page 2303

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a series of questions to the Attorney-General concerning the Australian Government’s legal aid scheme. Has the Australian Government recently given special consideration to the question of the provision of legal aid in Tasmania? Has the Government been able to reach agreement with the Law Society of Tasmania with respect to the rationalisation of such services as are provided by the Australian Government and by the Law Society and, if so, what is the broad basis of such rationalisation? Does the Attorney-General agree that in the formative period of the Australian Legal Aid Office Tasmania provides a convenient area for the development of an ideal legal aid scheme and, if so, will he ensure that all practical steps are taken to produce this result? Will the sum of $3.7m provided this financial year on a national basis for payment to private practitioners through the Australian Legal Aid Office be made available as quickly as possible so that the public will obtain immediate benefit from the appropriation?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am able to answer the honourable senator in some detail because I have just sent a letter to the Attorney-General for Tasmania in relation to a number of the matters raised by the honourable senator.

Senator Greenwood:

– This is all coincidental.

Senator MURPHY:

– As a matter of fact, most of it is coincidental. The Australian Legal Aid Office has accepted responsibility for legal aid in all family law matters in Tasmania and in matters arising under Federal law generally and in matters on behalf of persons for whom the Australian Government has a special responsibility, such as pensioners. That is in accordance with the assurances sought by the Tasmanian Government. A sum of $60,000 has been allocated for legal aid in the Tasmanian Government ‘s Budget and that will be made available to the Law Society of Tasmania, I understand, to be applied under that State ‘s legal aid scheme.

What is happening now is that the Tasmanian Government is looking to the Australian Government for a per capita share of the $1.3m which is being made available, if the Senate concurs in the dispositions made by the Government in the Budget which is now before the Parliament. The decision has not. yet been made on how that $1.3m grant should be divided among the States. There has been discussion between my officers and officers of the various State governments, but that has not yet concluded. Legal aid cases which have been in the categories for which the Australian Legal Aid Office will accept future responsibilities- that is, the past ones which have been dealt with in Tasmaniawill be the subject of special consideration. So in answer to the honourable senator, special consideration has been given to the provision of legal aid in Tasmania. Agreement has been reached with the Law Society of Tasmania in respect of the rationalisation of services, and I have indicated broadly the basis of the rationalisation. I agree that the Legal Aid Office could treat Tasmania as a convenient area for the development of an ideal legal aid scheme. As to the $3.7m which is to be made available through the Legal Aid Office for private legal practitioners throughout Australia, I can assure the honourable senator that instructions have already been given that that money should be made available as quickly as possible in order that the public will obtain immediate benefit from the appropriation.

page 2304

QUESTION

CENTRAL AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL CONGRESS

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask a question of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What are the objectives and aims of the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress? What are the amount and sources of finances available to the Congress? Who are the office bearers, and how long have they held office? What remuneration and allowances do they receive? Will the Minister supply details of expenditure and receipts of the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress? Lastly, how often does the Congress have an executive meeting, how often does it have a general meeting, and how many have attended each meeting held to date? When and where were these meetings held?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is a question that really should go on notice.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Mr President, it is not a coincidence that I have those facts with me because Senator Lawrie informed me that he intended to ask the question and I got my Department to provide the information. The purpose of the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress is to provide an independent agency for Aboriginal advancement in central Australia, to promote better understanding between European and Aboriginal people within central Australia and to encourage the economic and social development of Aboriginal people, and to promote the Government’s policy of selfdetermination. Funds are made available to the Congress from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, membership funds and independent donations. A grant of $ 10,000 was paid in 1 973-74.

As proof that I have some briefing on the question, I indicate that the general secretary is Mr Neville Perkins. He has held that position for 2 years. The president is Mr M. Liddle, the field officer is Mr H. Parrproultja and the vicepresidents are Marlin Gambidymba from Wellowra, Helmet Parrbroultja from Hermannsburg, Trixie Simpson from Docker River, Bobby Liddle from Alice Springs and Roy Dubois from Alice Springs. Most of these people have been associated with the organisation since its inception in 1973. A field officer receives $120 a week and typists receive the normal award rate. The Department requires an annual audited statement of the expenditure by the Congress. This statement has been received for 1973-74 and it reveals no expenditure for purposes other than those specified in the grant. Basically, in 1973-74 a grant of $10,400 was spent on wages, vehicle running costs, stationery and administration. That indicates that there is some independent collection.

The meetings of the Congress are held monthly or more often as the situation demands. General meetings are normally held only on an annual basis because of the problems associated with bringing people in from outlying areas. I have no information on the actual numbers who attend each ordinary meeting, but these meetings have been held at centres in central Australia containing large Aboriginal populations.

page 2305

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY CENTRE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What is the role of the Aboriginal Community Centre of South Australia? Does the Centre seek to coordinate the activities of the various Aboriginal groups and organisations? If so, are its operations deemed to be a success? What plans, if any, does the Government have to assist the Centre in its activities?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I think that the Government has assisted the Aboriginal Community Centre from its inception in April of this year. The Government provided a total amount of $ 149,000 in the previous Budget. This permitted the Centre to buy a building in Wakefield Street, Adelaide. The community centre was formed as the result of co-ordinating the activities of the various Aboriginal communities in South Australia and by holding conferences with the various Aboriginal communities, the Department of Community Welfare in South Australia and my own Department of Aboriginal Affairs. It is envisaged that the Centre will play an important role in furthering the interests of Aboriginal welfare in South Australia. It is an assembly place for Aborigines in the metropolitan area and for Aborigines coming from the country areas to the city. I have visited the Centre on 3 occasions and have been well received. I commend the Centre for its activities and for the way in which it keeps the property. In relation to funding, I can say that this week we approved a further grant of $6 1 ,000 to cover current operating expenses of the centre.

page 2305

QUESTION

LICENCE FEES FOR FISHING BOATS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Agriculture any comments to make on the criticism understandably expressed by the Tasmanian Minister for Fisheries, Mr Costello, about the steep increases imposed by the Australian Government in fees for fishing boats? Are the increases, as Mr Costello said at the weekend, a direct contravention of an agreement between the Australian States and the Commonwealth? Can the fishermen, the people principally concerned, hope for any review of the suggested charges?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I do not think that there is any foundation for that criticism when one bears in mind that the licence fees and other charges in this regard have not been increased since 1954. The charges have remained static for 20 years. At the Australian Fisheries Council meeting in 1972 the States suggested that they should receive additional reimbursement for the services that they rendered to the Australian Government. The representatives of the Australian Government at that meeting were in agreement with this provided that there could be a commensurate increase in the fees charged by the Federal Government of the day. No decision had been taken by the time we came to office. But since then I have looked at the position and I think it is reasonable that those fees be increased. The cost to the Australian Government in connection with this matter during 1973-74 was $280,000 and this year it will be close to $400,000. The fee charged for a 15-metre fishing boat was $4 a year. I do not think it is reasonable for anyone to suggest that $4 is an adequate licence fee for a 15-metre fishing boat. Under the new proposals, the licence fee will be increased to $20 a year. Even at this rate, the fee will still be cheaper than that charged for the registration of a motor vehicle.

I think it should be pointed out also that the Tasmanian Government charges a fee of $30 for the licensing of a boat and the New South Wales Government charges $40. So I think it is only reasonable that the Australian Government ought to be allowed to increase those fees to an amount which is commensurate with the costs that are incurred by it in these matters. I add one last comment: Even after the increase, the fees, will bring in only about $180,000. In other words, the Federal Government will still not be collecting anything like the amount that it costs the Government.

page 2305

QUESTION

EXPERIMENTAL RADIO STATIONS

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour and Immigration · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I remind the Minister for the Media of his announcement that the Government would establish experimental radio stations in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide, including stations which will work in the public broadcasting area. Will the Minister inform the Senate what measures of assistance the Government is providing to the University of Adelaide which has been authorised to establish an experimental amplitude modulation radio station in that city?

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

-Last Friday week when I was in Melbourne I had discussions with the Chairman and members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board about this aspect of Government policy. I wanted to ascertain what new technical arrangements were being made by the Board as far as this station was concerned. I am now told that the technical details to enable the station to expand its activities are being worked out. They are being forwarded to me at the present time. Hopefully I will be able to make an announcement in that regard shortly. However, I have asked my Department to get in touch with the Adelaide station. Arrangements have been made between my Department and the University of Adelaide to conduct a seminar on the expanded activities to be engaged in by the station. My Department and the University are jointly funding the holding of the seminar. An officer of my Department will attend in Adelaide. The seminar is being held over 2 days. I understand that an officer of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board also will be in attendance.

page 2306

QUESTION

STATE PROJECTS OF TOURISM AND RECREATION

Senator RAE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation whether it is a fact that State governments are required to submit their recreation projects to the Federal Minister for Tourism and Recreation for his approval where they seek Commonwealth Government contributions. Is it a fact that no decision has yet been made on the Victorian projects for 1974-75, notwithstanding that 4Vi months of the year have now passed? Is it not a fact that the delay might cause some of the projects to be abandoned? Will the Minister seek to have his colleague expedite a decision before inflation puts the projects beyond the means of the State?

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

– I ask the honourable senator to place the question on notice.

page 2306

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF REDUNDANT METAL WORKERS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. In view of the heavy expenditure of Australian Government funds with Commonwealth Engineering (N.S.W.) Pty Ltd for the construction of Commonwealth Railways rolling-stock, will the Minister through his industrial inspectors and in conjunction with the Minister for Transport, Mr Charles Jones, ascertain whether this firm has vetoed the employment of redundant metal workers from the recently closed Tulloch Ltd company at Rhodes? Will he also ensure that Commonwealth Engineering keeps its work force at the maximum number to ensure that it meets its contracts for the Australian Government?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not aware whether that company is in fact putting an embargo on the employees of Tulloch Ltd. All I can do is agree to ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration to work with Mr Charles Jones and to get the inspectors to see to what extent those things are happening. I shall let the honourable senators know when I have a reply.

page 2306

QUESTION

HALLETT COVE AMPHITHEATRE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development aware of the grave concern expressed by scientists, conservationists and residents in the Hallett Cove area of South Australia over the inaction of the Federal and State Labor Governments to acquire land to provide a buffer zone for the protection of the 600 million year old amphitheatre which has been described by scientists as a unique geological treasure house? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to telegrams from members of the South Australian Science Teachers Association requesting urgent action to prevent the continuation of bulldozing close to the edge of the amphitheatre, which already has resulted in one corner being filled in? As this area has already attracted the attention of the Minister for the Environment and ConservationI understand he is absent from Australia at present- and as he has inspected the place and said that it should be preserved as a priceless historic feature for South Australia, will the Minister take urgent steps to see that this area is declared part of the National Estate? Will he ensure that Commonwealth funds are made available to secure it for that purpose?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I have a knowledge of the Hallett Cove area. As a member of the Opposition I was invited there by scientists and conservationists from the Adelaide University. I inspected the area and climbed the hills. People were alarmed at that time because housing development was taking place and they thought that the inflow of large numbers of people would destroy the historic nature of the area which, as far as scientists can trace, goes back to the Ice Age. I made passionate pleas to the previous Government to preserve this area but I could not get a penny from it. I could not get anything from it. Then the State government came along and preserved the area up to the railway line by purchasing it with, I think, Commonwealth Labor Government money. There is now a further claim that the area that was purchased to avoid its destruction was not large enough. This matter is being examined as a result of a visit to the area by the Minister for the Environment and Conservation. I would say that the only reason that this area has been considered for preservation is because of the change in government in 1 972.

page 2307

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM ‘BETWEEN WARS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Media. Did the Australian film ‘Between Wars’ have its premiere yesterday? Has Judy Morris, one of the actresses in ‘Between Wars’, attributed the commercial success of films like this to 3 factors? Will the Minister confirm that these factors are: The Australian Government, the new nationalism, and the feat of the great Australian writer Patrick White in winning the Nobel Prize for Literature?

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

– It is a fact that the film ‘Between Wars’ went before the paying public yesterday. I am given to understand that it has every possibility of matching the commercial successes of all the other full length feature productions that have been made as a direct result of Australian Government initiatives and as a result of the financial assistance that has been given by the Australian Film Development Corporation. I did see the reported remarks of Miss Morris. I thank the honourable senator for drawing them to my attention again. I did note that she said the resurgence or the renaissance of the film industry is the result of Australian Government initiatives and also the new nationalism that has developed in Australia principally because of the initiatives that have been taken by this Government. I must also agree with Miss Morris that the high honour that Patrick White brought to Australia with the Nobel Prize can only have a very good effect on the writers we look to in this country for future film and television script work. I can tell the honourable senator that we hope there will be 18 feature films this year.

page 2307

QUESTION

THIRD WORLD

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is he aware that the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, has again been reported to have stated that he regarded Australia as an honorary member of the Third World and that it is up to the Third World whether Australia is accepted as a member? Is this Government policy? If so, why has the Parliament not been advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Mr President, the question will be referred to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs for a written reply.

page 2307

QUESTION

TOWNSVILLE LAND HOLDINGS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development aware that a Mr M. D. Hooper, Mayor of Townsville, National Party candidate for Townsville West and land speculator, has interests in land holdings in the Townsville city area and in the Thuringowa Shire? Can the Minister arrange to have appropriate inquiries made to ascertain whether Hooper land holdings were acquired before or after Townsville was declared a regional growth centre? Is it a fact that progress on the regional growth centre is being delayed because the Premier of Queensland, generally referred to as Holy Joh, has refused to take action against such speculators as Mr M. D. Hooper and other land sharks?

The PRESIDENT:

-I would ask the honourable senator to rephrase that question because no senator may use offensive words against a member of a State House.

Senator KEEFFE:

-I will take out the religious part and refer to him as Mr Bjelke- Petersen.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister may answer the question at his discretion.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I knew that Townsville was one of the growth centres to be developed by the Australian Government. I have met Mr Hooper, the Mayor of Townsville. We had to go to the Council’s rescue previously when the State Government could give nothing to provide accommodation for Aborigines who were then living in the Townsville bandstand. We provided a hostel. I was always under the impression that the arrangements between State governments and the Australian Government with regard to developmental areas similar to Albury-Wodonga provided that legislation must be passed through the State House to peg land prices, and I do not know how much is allowed for speculation. I thought there was some delay in the area of Townsville because of the reluctance or non-co-operation of the Queensland Government to bring in the pegging of land prices for expansion areas. However, I am prepared to take this matter up with the Minister for Urban and Regional Development to obtain details and to find out anything more about the Townsville area and then refer the matter back to the Senate.

page 2308

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– For the benefit of Opposition senators, will the Minister for Agriculture inform the Senate of the names of the personnel of the Australian Agricultural Council? Will he also indicate whether it would be untrue for any Opposition senator to claim wildly that the Federal Government has a very large influence on the decisions arrived at by that Council?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The Australian Agricultural Council is composed of the Australian Minister for Agriculture and the State Ministers for Agriculture. That is essentially the composition of it. I do not think that any one Minister wields any more influence than another.

page 2308

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT FOR ABORIGINES

Senator CHANEY:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the joint announcement by the Minister and the Western Australian Minister for Community Welfare on 10 November 1974 and that a further $lm from the 1974-75 grant could be devoted to further village development by and for Aborigines in Western Australia. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether any requirement is laid down either by the Commonwealth or the State Government that such village developments take place in reasonable proximity to future employment opportunities or are accompanied by the development of employment opportunities near the village?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-No, Mr President, the additional $lm which was announced, was allocated to the State not for a particular purpose. The State, with the agreement of the Commonwealth Government, had experimented in developing 2 village areas- one at One Arm Point and the other at Wiluna. As they were village complexes the Australian Government was somewhat reluctant to permit further village concepts to go ahead until this experiment was tried and we knew that it would operate. The Western Australian Government had for some time sought approval to go ahead with further village construction.

With Mr Baxter, the Western Australian Minister, I visited and saw the remarkable achievement in construction at One Arm Point and, more particularly, at Wiluna. Houses were going up at the rate of one a month and were completely constructed by Aborigines. They were first class modular homes and were built with one supervisor working under architectural supervision. The keenness of Aborigines to get their homes constructed was such that they were asking why, since they got up at 4 o ‘clock in the morning, they could not start at 4 o ‘clock and get the houses finished. The Government decided that it was a worthwhile experiment and released the $lm. You do not erect Aboriginal villages of necessity where employment opportunities exist. Aborigines have an affinity with the land and it is their tribal land. We do not decide where they should live but where they decide to live we will try to make living more comfortable for them. Where the future village will be situated is a decision for the Western Australian Government but we will be financing its construction.

page 2308

QUESTION

FINANCE FOR SEMI-GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODIES

Senator CARRICK:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and refers to the complete absence from the Prime Minister’s speech last night of any mention of the severe problems now confronting semigovernment and local government bodies throughout Australia, particularly their difficulties in raising loan funds to finance their works programs. Is the Government aware that unless the borrowing programs are achieved, widespread sacking of employees is inevitable? Is it a fact that representatives of semi-government and local government bodies recently sought assistance for their works programs from the Government and that the Government rejected such approaches? In view of the importance of local government works, will the Government give immediate consideration to a practical form of underwriting such borrowings in a way similar to the underwriting of State loan funds?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I will refer the question to the Treasurer for an answer.

page 2308

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Senator POYSER:

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Can he reconcile the question asked by Senator Young earlier today in which he sought increased payments to the States with an official Liberal Party policy as enunciated by the shadow Treasurer, Mr Lynch, in a recent television interview when Mr Lynch unequivocally stated that he would impose an across the board reduction of 8 per cent on all government expenditure?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– lt is plain that they cannot be reconciled. It is a pity that Senator Young is not here to listen to Senator Poyser ‘s logical demonstration of that simple fact.

page 2309

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the answer he gave to a question I asked yesterday concerning the delay which seems to be occurring in the High Court of Australia, particularly in its consideration of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act and other major constitutional Acts that are being challenged in that Court. Although I appreciate the efforts that the Attorney-General has made in the matter, I ask whether he can see any other avenues which he may take in order to expedite hearings. Can any further appeal be made to the High Court to hear these cases at an earlier stage or can action be taken to increase the size of the Court or something of that sort? Failing any ability to achieve early hearings of these cases, will the Attorney-General advise his colleague, the Minister for Minerals and Energy, of the delays and endeavour to persuade that Minister to renew permits under the existing petroleum and submerged lands legislation?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I agree with the honourable senator that the position is very serious. It is plainly unsatisfactory that the 7 governments in Australia are unable to have a legal resolution of their problem by the highest tribunal in Australia as quickly as its importance dictates. As I indicated yesterday, the 6 State governments and the Australian Government joined in the approach to the High Court of Australia seeking to have the seas and submerged lands legislation question determined expeditiously. It is not satisfactory when great national questions remain undecided. I will give consideration to the 2 matters which the honourable senator has raised, that is, a further approach to the Court and whether there should be an increase in the size of the Court.

We know that for quite proper reasons, sometimes one or more judges may have to be absent and this may be a factor on occasions in the delay in the Courts dealing with matters. We all accept the fact that the Court controls its own affairs and it in no way is the wish of this Government, nor has it been the wish of any other Government, to intrude upon the special sphere of the Court. I can only share the concern expressed by the honourable senator, and it has been expressed very widely throughout the Parliament, at the delay in the determination of this extremely important litigation concerning an Act of this Parliament and also at what will undoubtedly be serious delays in other matters. I am not to be taken as in any way expressing any criticism whatever of the Court. Undoubtedly there are various factors in relation to each of these matters, not all of which are by any means within the sphere of the Court. But it is something which very much troubles me and all who are concerned with these issues. I assure the honourable senator that immediate and deep consideration will be given to the questions he has raised.

page 2309

QUESTION

FAMILY MEDICAL PROGRAM

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Does the October 1974 edition of the magazine ‘The Radical’ include an article written by the Minister for Health which contains a very considerable mis-statement of fact? Does the magazine published for the Australian Labor Party of New South Wales state in an article by Dr Everingham on page 8 that financial assistance to the extent of $1,1 36m is to be provided this financial year to the family medicine program of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners? Is the stated amount a gross exaggeration and is the correct appropriation closer to $lm than $1,1 36m? Will the Government seek to correct this mis-statement of facts by the Minister and will the Minister be more factual and less generous in future statements on public expenditure proposed by the Government?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am glad Senator Baume has asked this question. Although there has been some dispute about the matter on this side of the chamber, there has been general agreement that over recent weeks there has been a certain improvement in Senator Baume ‘s approach. Many of us feel that this probably comes from his very assiduous reading of ‘The Radical’, the official organ of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party. In fact, as it happens, one of the things which the editor of the paper does is to insert a deliberate clerical error of this type in each issue to detect the keenness of the readers in discovering it. On this occasion, of the many thousands of readers of this fine journal, the first person so far to have detected this error is Senator Baume. Doubtless most readers, knowing of the Government’s generous attitude towards social welfare in general and the close and confidential relationship between the Australian Labor Party and the medical profession, would expect that this sort of amount might reasonably have been given to the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. As it happened it was not. The figure was as Senator Baume said. If he presents himself to the Sydney Trades Hall during the next week, in view of his keenness in discovering this error he will be made a suitable presentation.

page 2310

PIPELINE AUTHORITY

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I present the first annual report of the Pipeline Authority for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 2310

PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY ACT

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I present the fifteenth annual statement concerning the operation of the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act and the payment of subsidy during the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 2310

PUBLIC SERVICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1974

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the Australian Public Service.

page 2310

QUESTION

THE SENATE

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

That, unless otherwise ordered, for the remainder of this period of sittings the sessional order relating to the sittings of the Senate and precedence of business be varied as follows:

  1. 1 ) That Government business take precedence of general business on Thursdays.
  2. That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate take effect at half-past ten p.m. each Thursday.

I do not intend to speak to the motion. I have had discussions on this matter with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) and the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate (Senator Drake-Brockman).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2310

PUBLIC SERVICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1974

Bill presented and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill includes proposed amendments of the Public Service Act and the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act. The amendments are machinery provisions, and are part of the continuing process of ensuring the efficient functioning of the national public administration. A number of progressive and responsible administrative rearrangements have been made for the last 2 years. Some of these have involved a reorganisation of the responsibilities of existing departments and authorities. Others have been necessary as a consequence of new responsibilities which the Government has assumed. The amendments in clauses 8, 9 and 12 of the present Bill relate to various machinery aspects of such rearrangements.

Clause 9 relates to the rights of officers when departments are abolished. Before detailing the provisions of this clause it should be understood that it flows from a recommendation of the Joint Council of the Australian Public Service, a statutory employer/employee body which was established by the Chifley Labor Government in 1945. 1 take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Joint Council which, through it own work and through the work of sub-committees, makes a substantial contribution on a wide range of matters of general service interest.

When a department is abolished, a step which both the present and previous Governments have found necessary from time to time, one effect is the abolition of all offices in that department. All provisional promotions to those offices lapse, and the Government shares the concern of both the Joint Council and the Public Service Board at the detrimental effect, both financially and otherwise, that this situation can have on persons who have been provisionally promoted. Those persons must either be provisionally promoted once again to appropriate offices in the successor department, or miss the promotion altogether. Financial loss may be involved, since retrospective entitlement to higher salary when the second promotion is confirmed would not cover the period relating to the abolished, but identical, office. The amendment in clause 9 will enable the promotion process to continue when the Board, after obtaining a report from the Permanent Head of the successor department, so determines. Provision is also made for further appeals to continue to safeguard the rights of other officers.

Clause 8 effects a related amendment to section 46 of the Act. This will permit recruitment notices published under that section to continue to have effect in relation to offices created to replace those that have been abolished. This will avoid the need for renotification and associated delays in the recruitment process.

Clause 12 of the Bill relates to situations where staff are being transferred to Public Service Act employment. Before the transfer, such staff may have been employed by an Australian authority, a State government, a State authority or otherwise. In the past, transfers of this nature have been effected by an ad hoc legislative scheme. For example, the Public Service Act presently includes S separate Divisions dealing with the transfer of various categories of Australian and State employees. On other occasions special legislation has been enacted, examples being the Statistics (Arrangements with States) Act, the Mint Employees Act and the Aboriginal Affairs (Arrangements with the States) Act. Inevitably, this ad hoc approach has led to delays and inconsistencies. It is the Government’s view that the introduction of common statutory provisions, capable of being applied from time to time as required, will have substantial administrative advantages. Accordingly, clause 12 introduces general provisions as to terms and conditions of employment which will be capable of being invoked whenever there is a transfer of staff to the Australian Public Service. Application of the new provisions would follow a decision by the Government that a department, or other body staffed under the Public Service Act, was to assume a function being carried on by some other body.

I turn now to clause 6 of the Bill, which amends section 25 of the Act so as to enable the occupant of an office established under an ordinance to be vested with the powers of a Permanent Head under the Public Service Act. This amendment has relevance to authorities to be established by ordinance in the Australian Capital Territory, such as the proposed Capital Territory Health Commission. This approach already applies with many authorities established by Acts. Clause 13 of the Bill has been included as a result of an undertaking I gave in the light of a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Regulations provide for the payment by Australia of the fares of a close relative who visits a critically or dangerously Ul officer or employee temporarily stationed away from his home. In its 48th report, the Senate Committee expressed the view that the regulations were ultra vires the Public Service Act. A notice of motion to disallow a regulation was withdrawn on the basis of an assurance I gave that legislation would be introduced during the present session to put that validity beyond doubt. My own view is that the regulations are in fact valid, but I am sure all honourable senators will be in agreement with the Government’s view that the important thing is to put beyond doubt the power of the Board to make regulations in this important area. Clause 13 ensures the validity of the regulations. It will permit the Board to make similar regulations in the future.

The BUI amends the Schedule to the Act to update references to various departments and Permanent Heads. Standard amendments consequential on the Remuneration Tribunals Act are included. The opportunity has also been taken to include in the BUI certain amendments of the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act. That Act was passed in 1928 to preserve the rights of officers who became employees of certain statutory authorities. In doing this it removed difficulties which arose when those employees subsequently wished to return to the Public Service. The Act does not cover officers of the Public Service who become employees of a public authority established by the law of a Territory. The amendments in clauses 16, 17 and 18 wil ensure that the Act does apply to such officers if the Territory law is prescribed in regulations made under the Act. The BUI also makes consequential amendments in conformity with the change of name of the Service to the Australian Public Service.

One final matter concerns an undertaking given by the Government last year that Parliament would be given an opportunity to review those parts of the Public Service Act (No. 4) 1973 which omitted from the principal Act certain provisions relating to oaths and affirmations. This BUI Will provide an opportunity for any senator to raise that issue. I do not propose at this stage to repeat the arguments which justified those amendments, as they were fully outlined previously when the Public Service Bill (No. 4) 1973 was before the Senate. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 2311

LOANS (AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION) BILL 1974

BUI received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

BUI (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated.

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

This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to borrowings by Australia not exceeding the equivalent of $US19m ($A14.5m) to assist the Australian National Airlines Commission (TAA) in financing the purchase of its fifth and sixth Boeing 727 jet aircraft, spare parts and related equipment at an estimated cost of approximately $US24.5m ($A 18.72m). The fifth aircraft is due to be delivered this month and the sixth in April 1974.

This is the eleventh occasion on which Parliament has been asked to approve overseas borrowings on behalf of TAA. The last occasion was the Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Act 1972 which approved borrowings of up to $US34m for the purchase of the first 4 Boeing 727 aircraft. On some previous occasions when legislation has been introduced for borrowings to assist in the purchase of new aircraft by TAA the loan agreements have already been signed, but have usually been conditional on appropriate legislative authority being given later. On this occasion, borrowing arrangements for the purchase of the aircraft have not been finalised at this stage. These borrowings on behalf of TAA are specialised financing arrangements related to the particular requirements of the airline for the purchase of aircraft overseas and are in a different category from other borrowings by Australia overseas. Normally, a central element in the financing arrangements is the participation in them by the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which specialises in providing credit on terms tailored to assist in financing the purchase of such items of capital equipment as Boeing 727 aircraft. On this occasion, however, Export-Import Bank Finance is not available as firm orders for these aircraft were placed before it was decided recently to revert to making use of overseas sources of finance for the purchase of capital equipment by Australian Government transport authorities. Accordingly, in the first instance, offers will be sought for these funds from overseas sources with established connections with the Australian Government.

Other arrangements for the loans will be similar to those approved by Parliament for previous loans for Qantas and TAA in recent years. In particular, the Australian Government will be the borrower in the first place, and the proceeds will be made available to TAA on terms and conditions to be determined by the Treasurer pursuant to clause 7 of the Bill. These terms and conditions will be identical with those under which Australia itself borrows the money. The airline will be required to meet all charges under the loan agreements. Consequently, the Australian Government will, as usual, assume the function of an intermediary in these arrangements. The detailed terms and conditions of each of the loans to be arranged will be subject to approval by the Loan Council. The amount to be borrowed is included in the Australian Government’s loan program for 1974-75 approved by the Loan Council in June 1974. 1 commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

LOANS (QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated.

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

This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to borrowings by Australia not exceeding the equivalent of $US91m ($A69.5m) to assist Qantas Airways Limited in financing the purchase of its ninth, tenth and eleventh Boeing 747 jet aircraft, spare parts and related equipment at an estimated cost of approximately $US 114.5 m ($A87.5m). The ninth aircraft was delivered last month and the other 2 aircraft are due to be delivered in May 1975 and November 1975, respectively. Australia has already arranged loans totalling $ US 164m ($A125.3m) to assist Qantas in financing the purchase of its first 6 Boeing 747 aircraft. These loans were approved by the Loan (Qantas Airways Limited) Act 1968, the Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Act 1971, the Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Act (No. 2) 1971 and the Loans (Qantas Airways

Limited) Act 1972. The borrowings arranged under the authority of the last Act were applied to the financing of the sixth aircraft. The seventh and eighth aircraft were financed by Qantas from its own internal resources.

The overseas borrowings on behalf of Qantas are specialised financing arrangements related to the particular requirements of the airline for the purchase of aircraft overseas and are in a different category from other borrowings by Australia overseas. A central element in the financing arrangements has been the participation in them by the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which specialises in providing credit on terms tailored to assist in financing the purchase of such items of capital equipment as Boeing 747 aircraft. The Export-Import Bank has agreed to finance 30 per cent of the cost of the tenth aircraft and has agreed to Australia obtaining finance for a further 10 per cent of the cost from Private Export Funding Corporation, an Export-Import Bank guaranteed source sponsored jointly by the U.S. Government and leading U.S. commercial banks. It is hoped that a similar commitment will be available for aircraft number eleven.

The current lending terms of the Bank for aircraft finance are interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum with repayments over the last 5 years of a 10-year period which commences on the delivery date of the aircraft. These terms are, however, currently under review by the Bank and they may be less favourable for future loans. Since a firm order for aircraft number nine was placed before it was decided recently to revert to making use of overseas sources of finance for the purchase of capital equipment by the Australian Government transport authorities, finance from the Export-Import Bank is not available. Offers have been sought for this finance and negotiations are currently taking place. Other arrangements for the loans will be similar to those approved by Parliament for previous loans for Qantas and TAA in recent years. In particular, the Australian Government will be the borrower in the first place, and the proceeds will be made available to Qantas on terms and conditions to be determined by the Treasurer pursuant to clause 8 of the Bill. These terms and conditions will be identical with those under which the Australian Government itself borrows the money. The airline will be required to meet all charges under the loan agreements. Consequently, the Australian Government will, as usual, assume the function of an intermediary in these arrangements.

The detailed terms and conditions of each of the loans to be arranged will be subject to approval by the Loan Council. The amount to be borrowed is included in the Australian Government’s loan program for 1974-75 approved by the Loan Council in June 1974. 1 commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2313

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

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

The purpose of this Bill is to seek authority for the Treasurer to guarantee, on behalf of the Australian Government, loans raised by Ansett Transport Industries to finance the purchase of 2 Boeing 727-200 aircraft. These aircraft will comprise the fifth and sixth aircraft of this type to be operated by the company. Each of the major domestic airlines, Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia, currently operates 12 DC9, 6 Boeing 727-100 and 4 Boeing 727-200. Each airline is acquiring an additional 2 Boeing 727-200 aircraft. This is the larger and later version of the Boeing 727-100 aircraft. They are planned for delivery in November 1974 and April 1975. Such aircraft are required to cater for the continuing traffic growth on the trunk routes. They have a noise level which is acceptable for that generation of aircraft. They are quieter than the earlier Boeing 727-100 models in use in this country. Nevertheless, I expect the Australian airlines to provide the community with the most suitable modern aircraft types. Hence, I look forward to the earliest practicable introduction of wide bodied jets, together with the greatest possible spreading of timetables.

In more detail, the wide bodied jets are particularly attractive for our domestic airline purposes because they are noticeably quieter than the present jets in operation here. It will be recalled that this Government has taken definite steps to ensure an alleviation of the noise nuisance to people living near airports, particularly when the noise occurs at night. Another favourable consideration is that the greater passenger capacity of wide bodied aircraft, which will be used on the very high density routes, will enable airline schedules to be reduced, say to a level of once every 2 hours for each airline between Sydney and Melbourne. With sensible timetabling a resultant spread on this route could provide the public with a service every hour without parallel flights. I see no reason why services on other routes should not become more attractive also.

Another real benefit of wide bodied aircraft is that they are less demanding on energy and resources. Fuel required per passenger/kilometre on these large aircraft will be less than that on present airline aircraft. This cost saving will not necessarily result in lower fares but should retard the rate of future fare increases. When wide bodied aircraft are purchased by the airlines we will be looking to the overseas manufacturers for offset procurement arrangements satisfactory to the Government. For the present purpose, that is, the purchase of two 727-200 aircraft by Ansett, the overseas manufacturer, Boeing, is providing offset arrangements equivalent to 10 per cent of the purchase price. I might add that to date Boeing has, in respect of its total offset commitments, placed orders totalling $A25m with the Australian manufacturing industry and is keeping well ahead of its commitments. I understand that Boeing is satisfied with its part of the deal including the quality and delivery rate of Australian manufactured aircraft components. The Australian Government is currently proposing to raise loans of US$1 9m for TAA which would comprise 80 per cent of the purchase price of its 2 additional aircraft and spares. Ansett has sought a Government guarantee for its comparable loan of US$ 1 9m for the same purpose.

The Australian Government, in its even handed attitude to the two-airline policy, is willing to grant the privileges of a Government guarantee to the Ansett organisation for this purpose, subject, of course, to the approval of Parliament. I would be delighted to receive the same co-operation from the Ansett organisation in respect to TAA’s entry into Western Australian services. It is an absolute disgrace that Ansett, by producing lengthy and phoney submissions is able to use a commission to delay TAA’s entry into Western Australia and by taking out injunctions in the Victorian Supreme Court. That entry would result in huge savings for the people of Western Australia- a State where air travel’s advantages can be used to the maximum.

Under the present monopoly situation MacRobertson Miller Airline Services offers only one fare and TAA will offer first and economy class with the economy fares 20 per cent below current MMA fares. An example of fare savings is as follows:

Perth-Port Hedland, a saving of $48.20 return

Perth-Darwin, a saving of $85.40 return

In the area of freight, people and companies will be offered standard rate for air cargo instead of having to pay the higher express cargo rate. Add to this the extra freight carrying capacity of the DC9 aircraft-2,182 kilos more than the F28. It is time Ansett Transport Industries stopped this humbug, withdrew their opposition and gave the people of Western Australia an even handed two-airline system to which they are entitled. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2314

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment:

Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1974.

Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1974.

page 2314

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 12 November.

Department of Repatriation and Compensation

Proposed expenditure, $650,953,000.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

Senator Jessop last night asked a question which had not been completely answered when the Committee reported progress. The question concerned the hospital in South Australia which was to be reopened with no increase in staff allowed to the Department. Senator Jessop wanted to know how it was proposed that the hospital would be staffed.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I do not think that at this stage I can give any more thorough an answer than I gave last night. That is, I am advised that the existing staff is satisfactory to deal with the additional number of patients who will be attending the newly reopened Birrallee Convalescent Home and that in fact there will be a transfer of patients and staff from the Repatriation General Hospital in Adelaide to Birrallee. I understand that the number of staff will be satisfactory.

While I am on my feet, perhaps I could refer to another matter. During the course of the debate last night a question was asked of me by Senator Baume relating to the use of the child care centre at the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord. In my answer I said, amongst other things, that a fee of $2 a week was being charged for the children who are making use of this child care centre. In fact that information was incorrect. The fee is $2 per day and I should like to make that correction and apologise to the Senate for the misinformation which I provided.

One other matter to which I should refer relates to Division 925-2-02 in the estimates of the Repatriation Department. During the course of the sitting of Estimates Committee E Senator Baume asked a question relating to items of expenditure involved under this heading and an undertaking was given by the Secretary of the Repatriation Commission that this information would be made available to members of the Committee. As it happens, the information was not made available to members of the Committee, although my understanding is that this was not through any failure on the part of the Commission. In fact the information was prepared but, for some reason, it was not distributed. I have made available to Senator Baume a copy of the information that was required and at this stage I would seek the permission of the honourable senators to incorporate that information in Hansard, which would otherwise have been incorporated as an appendix to the report of the Committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is leave granted for the incorporation in Hansard? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I have just received a telephone call on a matter on which the Minister might be able to help. Are there any plans to have the social worker work force which is part of the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord integrated into the Australian assistance plan in the middle western suburbs of Sydney? This is a new ball I am bowling up to the Minister and perhaps he can get me an answer within a few days.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I am informed by some sort of osmosis that this matter is under consideration but no definite decision has been made.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I am sorry that I was not present at the resumption of this debate, but I am concerned to squeeze a little more information out of the Minister with respect to Birrallee Convalescent Home, which is going to be an additional ward for the Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital. As I said last night, I have examined the area very carefully and there is a large building on the street level and down on two other levels there seem to be the wards that are going to be used, as I understand it, for nursing home patients- I believe there is quite a large number of them- many of whom will be in wheelchairs. I ask the Minister: What alterations are going to be made in order to make the wards suitable for the use of wheelchair patients and what cost will be involved? I envisage that there could be toilets, for example, with wider doors and larger toilet buildings, because the area may not be suitable for that type of patient. Another matter in which I am interested is the provision of meals for these patients. Again, I understand, the kitchen is on the top level and the meals will have to be carried by waitresses down to these two levels.

Another aspect that worries me is that it appears that this ward is going to be reopenedand I commend the Department for doing thatwithout any additional staff. I do not see how that can possibly be achieved without making some impact on the numbers of acutely ill patients who can be treated at the main general hospital. Additionally, I understand that the Minister has said there are going to be further extensions of rehabilitation services at Daw Park by the acquiring of a property next door that the Australian Government originally owned anyway. In my view, this extension is going to create problems with staffing. I again press the Minister on that point and seek his definite assurance that there is going to be no diminution in the numbers of patients in the acutely ill category who can be treated.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– My information about the problems that have been raised by Senator Jessop is that it is confirmed that the terrain is not ideal for wheelchairs but nonetheless it is better, although not ideal, than the terrain in most other nursing homes. Apparently flatness is not a characteristic of the landscape in nursing homes. I am informed that the structure of the buildings is reasonably suitable for the purpose and no major structural alterations are contemplated. I did not quite follow the problem that Senator Jessop envisaged that the waitresses- or waiters, I suppose, in a society which under a Labor Government is steadily moving towards equality of the sexes- might experience in carrying meals from the kitchen to the dining room, but I am informed again that no problems have been found in relation to this transportation in the past and no problems are expected in the future.

I appreciate the congratulations of Senator Jessop to the Government on the reopening of the Birrallee Convalescent Home. It will be remembered, of course, that our colleague in another place, Mr Jacobi, agitated for many years, both as a member of Parliament and previously as a trade union secretary in South Australia, for the reopening of Birrallee and a large part of the credit is due to Mr Jacobi for his efforts. With regard to Birralee, the staff and patients of that home previously were transferred to the Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital. They are now being transferred back from the Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital to Birrallee and no additional nursing staff is needed at this stage because the nursing staff at present looking after these patients in the Daw Park Hospital are being transferred back to Birrallee with the patients. It may be necessary in the future to appoint additional staff but it is anticipated that, at most, one or two would be required. An assurance has been given to me by the officers of the Repatriation Commission that certainly there will be no reduction in the quality of the care which is given to the acutely ill patients who will be transferred from Daw Park to Birrallee.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Department of Social Security

Proposed expenditure, $141,637,000.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I wish to raise for the consideration of the Committee some questions relating to the Australian Assistance Plan. This matter was discussed in some depth at the hearings of Estimates Committee E, and part of that Committee’s report adverts to matters arising out of answers that we were given. I have checked with the Chairman of Estimates Committee E to ascertain whether he would rather introduce this matter today, but he has suggested that I might go ahead and raise the doubts that we have. The major potential problem with the Australian Assistance Plan is the question of access to allow people to participate in the functionings of the Plan. The Plan operates through the establishment of interim regional councils for social development which, after a period, can be converted to regional councils. These regional councils eventually can become eligible for a capitation grant of $2 per head of population. This can enable large amounts of money to be made available to these regional councils which can spend the money in the provision of welfare services.

I remind the Committee that the shadow Minister for Social Security for the Liberal and Country Parties praised the concept of the Australian Assistance Plan, and anything that I say today is purely directed towards certain problems that we see in the procedures which have been laid down for the functioning of the Plan. We are seeking to have the Plan improved to ensure that access for all interested people is possible and is made likely. The problem as it arose was that we could see no way in which there was any guarantee that all those people in the community who were likely to be interested would become aware that an interim council was to be established, or no way of ensuring that they would become aware that it was proposed to convert an interim council to a permanent council. In other words, they may not know that there is to be held a meeting which they should attend if they wish to participate.

Most people involved in the functioning of these councils are people who are very well motivated towards the social aims of such councils. But it is conceivable- we are just looking at possibilities- that there could be groups of people who became involved in an interim council and who were anxious not to encourage other people to participate in the formation of a regional council. The prize at the end is the availability of very large amounts of money which are to be spent on welfare services for a region. If the Australian Assistance Plan is to succeed it is necessary that the Councils themselves should be absolutely impeccable in the way in which they are set up and that there should be no chance of people claiming that access for all citizens is not possible.

The report of the Estimates Committee E stated:

The Committee considers that there is a need for adequate procedures to be laid down to ensure that the regional councils are genuinely representative and that the fullest opportunity is provided for public participation in them.

I should like to mention the steps that were taken at the hearings of Estimates Committee E to ascertain the facts about this question of access, to find out how much publicity is insisted on, and to outline some of the answers that we received. The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) will remember what he said at the hearings of Estimates Committee E. At page 201 of the Hansard of 17 October 1974 he is reported as saying:

I would agree with Senator Baume that if there were a regional council established and nobody knew it had been established, this would not be very helpful.

This is really the crux of the issue before us. Do people always know that interim councils are being formed? Does the whole community know? Do people then know that the interim council is to proceed on to become a regional council?

We questioned the departmental officers fairly closely, and they were most co-operative and helpful in the information that they gave us. It occurred to me that we were raising a problem which had not previously occurred to them, that we were raising an issue which they had not previously seen as a problem. Mr Colliver, who gave evidence, is reported at page 204 of Hansard of 17 October 1974 as follows:

The normal process would be to identify existing groups, that is social welfare agencies, groups of citizens who have been interested, local councils and others, and invite them to various kinds of sub-regional meetings to gain their interest in the Australian Assistance Plan generally.

Of course, it is a very desirable thing that they should do it. Mr Colliver then went on to say:

The experience has been that they move from this to a larger meeting when people are involved in interaction and discussion about the Australian Assistance Plan and its possibilities. This then leads to a setting up of an interim council. At this point an interim council would need to draw up a constitution and have this approved and would then make application for a further grant which would be the $20,000 or, as it will be in future, $40,000.

So interim councils are entitled to receive money, and they use this money to appoint various staff who will assist them in the specialist duties that they have to perform. We then asked Mr Colliver about the possibility of giving capitation grants of $2 per head of population for some regional councils. On the same page he is reported to have stated:

At the present time only 6 regions have been designated for the purpose.

I suppose we could restate that and say that already 6 regions have been designated. There are 6 regions in which it is proposed to pay a grant of $2 per head of population, and this is the money that will be available for distribution. A Mr Luby also gave evidence before Estimates Committee E at that time. When referring to the advertising that is done for interim councils, he is reported at page 205 of Hansard as saying:

Some of the groups that were invited to participate- this is within the 35 at the moment- were invited on the basis of their already being a nucleus as an interim committee. It is their responsibility to widen their representation. The first discussion paper which the Social Welfare Commission published last year does not set out the types of representation that are envisaged.

I emphasise that it does not set out the types of representation which are envisaged. Further on Mr Luby stated some of the groups which might possibly be included. He mentioned the 3 level of government, appropriate voluntary organisations, citizen groups, client and consumer groups, and employer and trade union groups. But at no stage could anyone tell us it was necessary that there should be advertising throughout the community in order to ensure that everyone was aware that an interim regional council was in the offing or that an interim regional council intended to proceed to a more permanent basis or a more permanent structure. That is the situation that we found in the hearing of Estimates Committee E.

As a result of the questions that we asked a statement was prepared for us, and it is included as statement F in the attachments to the report from Estimates Committee E. The important paragraph of that statement reads:

In regard to the regional promotion, the Department and Social Welfare Commission are in the process of reviewing the various regions to see where publicity could stimulate wider community interest and understanding of the Australian Assistance Plan and thereby attract wider representation.

That is the appropriate paragraph. It is still a post hoc move. It still in no way indicates that when these Councils are set up anything is done to avoid their falling into the hands of a small, trained elite- those who, say, are socially competent or well trained or those who have access to the present, existing facilities in the community.

There is another document which is helpful in this regard. It was published in October 1974 and is entitled ‘Guidelines for Pilot ProgramsAustralian Assistance Plan’. It is put out by the Social Welfare Commission of the Department of Social Security. This is an excellent publication. It contains the most detailed instructions on many aspects of functioning of the Australian Assistance Plan. For instance, it nominates the kind of motor car that should be bought by regional councils. It nominates the conditions under which that motor car may be airconditioned. It includes draft constitutions and all kinds of information which regional councils would need to know about appointing auditors and meeting the requirements of companies Acts. It goes through the most detailed information. It has very little to say about any measures which are necessary to ensure the widest community participation at the outset when regional councils are being formed. However, it does make some points about where responsibility for these matters lies. It makes it quite clear that the

Department of Social Security is primarily responsible for approving the constitution of interim regional councils and regional councils and for advising the Social Welfare Commission on the administrative implications of policy issues generally. It is on this basis that I am addressing these remarks to the Committee of the Whole while we are considering the estimates for the Department of Social Security. There is joint responsibility between the Social Welfare Commission and the Department of Social Security to develop a policy in respect of membership and representation of organisations and citizen groups.

Reading through this document, I notice that any statements about representation on regional councils is in the most general terms only. The statement is made on page 5 of the document that regional councils - should seek to ensure that their regions are aware of and consider the use of various other funding programs . . .

I mention this just to point out that it is envisaged that the regional councils will move into quite a wide area of social welfare policy, such as grants for community health services, States Grants (Home Care) Act, grants for the development of low cost accommodation for young travellers, etc. It is intended that the work of these councils should move across many areas of social welfare to try to draw together all the available grants. On page 6 of the document statements are made concerning the constitution and the suitably constituted association which is needed. Paragraph 4.3 on page 6 states:

A suitably constituted association formed of interested persons and conducted by persons of appropriate qualifications working towards the establishment of a Regional Council in any non-funded region may apply to the Department of Social Security for an initiating grant.

But it is not stated that such people have to be representative or that they have to make widely known that they are about to take this kind of action. The same paragraph states:

Regional Councils should develop from such associations . . .

It does not say at any time that it is imperative that advertising be carried out or that the community be made aware of the position.

I think that we really have quite a problem in this regard. The Australian Assistance Plan could founder if the public came to regard it as a small, non-representative, elite group and if large amounts of money were put into it. Let me take the most pessimistic view: A situation could arise in which regional councils under the control of small pressure groups were unwilling to advertise their activities and unwilling to make known when their meetings were being held and were making it difficult for other citizens to participate. I think that these are issues which require some kind of clarification if the Australian Assistance Plan is to be the success that the Government hopes and if it is to achieve its objectives without running into criticism.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I rise merely to give the honourable senator a chance to continue.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I thank the Committee. I will not take very much more time. To date I am not aware of any circumstances which would enable us to say of any regional council that there has been anything which is particularly noteworthy. This kind of situation could be fairly easily fixed if there were a requirement on behalf of the Social Welfare Commission that certain procedures be followed to ensure wide public knowledge of the forms of interim councils. All the information that we have sought has indicated that very little money has been spent on advertising, that there is very little paid advertising and that the Commission is more interested in laying down requirements for advertising the work of the Commission than for advertising the means of getting access to the regional councils. I would like the Minister to take this problem under consideration and to give us some indication that the Commission will look further at this matter.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I rise to speak on the same matter, although I had hoped that we might have received some response from the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) to the matters which Senator Baume has raised. I think that the Committee is indebted to Senator Baume for what he said.

Senator Wheeldon:

– If you prefer me to speak now, I will do so.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– If the Minister has received from his advisers some information which enables him to give a response, I feel that I would be helped by hearing what he has to say.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I think that the sort of difficulty that Senator Baume refers to is a real difficulty. It is one which it is very difficult to avoid completely in any small regional group where one is dependent very largely upon existing voluntary organisations for its composition. I suppose one would tend to expect that people who have not been affiliated with any sort of organisation in the past are unlikely to emerge suddenly as showing a keen interest in the body exercising regional control. In that case, small pressure groups, as the honourable senator described them, are likely to exercise influence. I do not know whether there is anything wrong with this in itself. In a plural society we are divided into pressure groups of different sizes. I suppose that there would be pressure groups both big and small and some perhaps more admirable than others which would be competing within the local authorities administering the Australian Assistance Plan. But as I understand the substance of Senator Baume ‘s disquiet, it is that the problem can be that if there is not sufficient advertising and publicity given to the constitution of the regional councils, this will make it much easier for some small pressure group to exercise a quite disproportionate influence.

The Social Welfare Commission has been aware that this sort of problem could exist. In fact, the discussion paper No. 1 which was prepared by the Interim Committee of the Social Welfare Commission and which refers to the Australian Assistance Plan, makes reference to the constitution of regional councils in paragraph 2.3 of chapter 2. It may be of advantage to the Committee of the Whole if I were to read the appropriate paragraph. It states:

Each regional council should involve representatives of the Australian, State and local governments, trade unions and employer groups, welfare consumer groups and nongovernment bodies concerned with social welfare, lt is desirable that the regional council should be answerable to the residents of the region. It is probably desirable that boundaries of the region should relate to local government boundaries, either as at present constituted or in some reformed structure.

Senator Greenwood:

– What was the Minister reading from?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I was reading from a discussion paper prepared by the Interim Committee of the Social Welfare Commission which is supposed to perform the function of giving at least some sorts of guidelines to those people who are concerned about the establishment of regional authorities. Although advertising and publicity are not specifically referred to in the paragraph which I have just read, I think it is quite clearly implicit that it is believed to be desirable and that there should be advertising and publicity. Otherwise the sorts of objectives which are enumerated will not be achieved. It is in that paragraph 2:3 that the representation on regional councils was laid down. These guidelines were repeated in the recently issued guidelines which are contained in appendix E, section 5, of the Estimates Committee’s report. That specifies the same requirements of representation in the constitution of regional councils. These guidelines will be issued to all the regional councils. I can only say that I suppose any commonsense interpretation of the guidelines is that the public within the regions covered by each of these councils should be made aware of the activities of the council. This is not spelt out in so many words but it seems to me that that clearly follows from what has been said about the type of representation that is being sought because obviously wide representation will not be achieved if it is not sought. The way in which to seek wide representation is to advertise for it.

The initiating grants will be available only to associations which give an undertaking to involve all the interests relevant to the Australian Assistance Plan. This is something which the Commission will be supervising. I think it follows from these guidelines and from the precepts that there should be advertising. All that really can be said is that the arguments which Senator Baume has put forward are quite compelling arguments with which I would agree. Clearly I, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), will do what I can to see that these guidelines are implemented and that none of the regional councils fail through lack of representation or of public knowledge. I certainly would be most obliged if anybody who is aware of a failing of this nature would let me know so that I can convey that information to the Minister for Social Security.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I am grateful to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) for the way in which he has expressed his case for the Australian Assistance Plan and for the way in which it is developing. But there are matters of some concern to which I want to give expression. The basic concern derives from the fact that the Australian Assistance Plan is something which is entirely administrative. No guidelines are laid down in any act of Parliament. The circumstances and the conditions under which money is to be expended- I notice that this year the amount sought to be expended is approximately $6m- have no guidelines which will insist or require that the money be spent in a particular way. With a view to highlighting some of the problems and in the hope that I might get a response from the Minister I refer specifically to a scheme which has developed in Melbourne.

I have had a number of inquiries and representations from concerned citizens as to the way in which these interim councils are being established and to the way in which they seem to have fallen into the hands of pressure groups which have started off the organisation and which are determined to keep that pressure group in their own hands. When the amount of money to be expended is a very considerable amount, I think it is high time that we tried to bring some rationality and some parliamentary supervision into the expenditure of public funds.

Senator Baume said that when the Social Welfare Commission Act was passed in 1973 the attitude then adopted by the Opposition was to welcome the initiative and to support the Bill. That support was faithfully given in both Houses. Of course the Bill was the framework for legislation under which a commission would be established and under which certain desirable objectives could be recommended. My recollection is that the Social Welfare Commission Act provided for recommendations to be made by the Commission to the Minister. Presumably the Minister would then have the executive ability to be able to implement the recommendations which he thought were worth while. I know that Mr Chipp gave the Opposition’s general endorsement to the concept of what I see now as the Australian Assistance Plan. But there is a world of difference, as I know Mr Chipp would want to have known, between the concept and what it can achieve and in the way in which that concept is sought to be implemented. What we have is an Australian Assistance Plan which seems to have crept upon us as a mixture of experimentation, of dispensing of public funds on an increasing scale and of desirable objectives all under the umbrella and justification of social welfare.

But what is this plan? It is a plan, to use Senator Baume ‘s words, under which there can be community involvement in the provision of welfare. But that is a tremendously vague and generalised concept. It is good in itself but it depends for its effectiveness on how the community is involved and how welfare is advanced. How does it operate? Here again we see put before us an embryonic plan or program as it is envisaged it will operate when it has been consummated. It has not yet been consummated. At the moment we have the formation on a most haphazard basis of interim groups which, in due course, can become permanent groups within regions which are specified. But the way in which they are specified is not a matter for us to be able to examine.

We do not know how the persons who will receive invitations to create these interim groups are determined. We do not know by what criterion some are selected and others are not. We do not know what advertising is engaged in to inform the public generally of an organisation which, presumably, members of the public are entitled to attend. But we do not know whether they are entitled to attend. It was that aspect of advertising to which Senator Baume referred today. We do not know what is meant by the term social welfare and whether any limitation is placed upon the way in which the moneys granted to these interim bodies, may be spent.

Apparently there is no charter or limitation upon the work in which the community development officers may engage. We do not know whether there is any sanction which is capable of being imposed on them if they act outside the generally assumed area of their operations. We do not know what is a welfare project and what is not a welfare project. We do not know whether there is a needs basis operating so that persons or organisations which receive payments are in need or whether it is a payment to groups which could well afford the additional provision of extra facilities. We do not know what has to be done by organisations which receive the grants in order to qualify for the receipt of those grants and there seems to be little check upon the expenditure of those grants.

One matter which to me is a matter which is unexplained is why, in the effort to create regional councils, the activities of the local councils are bypassed. Why have the local municipal councils not been used as the means by which money for welfare provision in a region is dispensed? It seems to me that it would be the appropriate way in which welfare services could be provided. The councils are commonly called the third tier of government but their representatives are directly elected by the people in a way that makes them probably the most responsive of all elected officials in this country. They have shown, I think right around the country, a developing concern with welfare needs within municipal boundaries in recent years, but apparently the councils and the council structure are completely bypassed.

I refer to the Western Regional Council for Local Development, I think it is called, which operates in the western regions of Victoria. The way in which it came into being has been related to me. It is astounding that this body could have received an amount of, I think, almost $750,000 since it has been in operation. I would appreciate confirmation of that fact. I believe that $30,000 or $40,000 was available for ordinary assistance provisions and a development officer, and there was a capitation grant which must have come to about $700,000 for that area and all of that, I u nderstand, was expended in terms of the appropriation which was made available last year before 30 June 1974. But I would appreciate confirmation of that fact. But how was this council established? I believe that following Labor’s success in the election in 1972 there was a commission formed in the western suburbs of Melbourne in which prominent Labor Party personalities were involved and it was established with a view to promoting what was said by the Labor Government and by some of its Ministers to be the needs of the western suburbs of Melbourne. As I understand it, this commission was the body which had the arrangement of the meetings which took place I think at Footscray and Essendon in late 1973 and early 1974 for the establishment of this council. But before the council was established this commission had established some interim body. Who comprised it I do not know, but it was established by the commission and it received portion of the money which was available.

At the meeting which was held, I think in Essendon in February 1 974 where a council was elected, which is the interim council for this western region, various accounts were given as to the circumstances in which the members of the council were elected. I would be grateful if the Minister could say who were the persons who received invitations to that council and who were the persons who received votes at the council. Is it a fact that there were in fact 2 elections, the second election taking place because the names of 3 persons who had been nominated were left off the original ballot paper so a second ballot was held on that night in a rather haphazard manner. 1 do not know whether it is true or not but this is what has been related to me and this is the most convenient place to seek from the Minister some confirmation of what is alleged. This council was established and I gather it carries the responsibility for disbursing approximately $750,000. I gather that part of the money was allocated to a group known as the Western Suburbs Union Community Centre which is pre-eminently a body established by the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. The Union has an income, I understand, of approximately $4m a year. It cannot be said to be a union which is in need of funds. It has a host of officials. Why this body received assistance in this way I would have thought requires some prima facie justification.

Another body which, I believe received assistance was the Altona North Migrant Community Centre. I think I read in some document that a sum of $45,000 was made available to that body. I also understand that that centre had been in operation for only one month. It consisted of a number of teachers in the area who had sponsored this centre and received substantial sums from this interim council. A report to the Footscray council indicated that this body was not known of amongst the local groups working in the migrant community in Altona even though it was a body called the Altona North Migrant Community Centre. Again there was a report to the Altona Council which expressed surprise that the money had been given to this group because the officer of the council who had been engaged in looking after migrant activities did not know of its existence. I do not know whether these matters are true. I am asking for some confirmation from the Minister, if not today then at some later stage, as to whether this is the case and what are the checks by which we can be sure that this money is being spent in the appropriate way.

It can be- the allegation is certainly madethat it is a method of patronage and support for the Australian Labor Party because the persons in this western region commission who have had the sponsoring of the organisation are essentially there in order to ensure that by the use of money judiciously dispensed the Labor Party can secure votes for itself in the future. Patronage is certainly a means by which votes can be secured and patronage can exist where there is no parliamentary requirement as to the terms upon which money is to be expended. It is a new development in Australian politics, similar to the politics of certain well known places in the United States of America. I think it would be a bad day for Australia if we have millions of dollars available for Ministers or others to dispense as they think fit in order to promote what is broadly called a welfare objective but in a real sense is securing the interests of the persons who dispense the money. I can only say that in my region which is represented by a Liberal member of Parliament we have recently had a public meeting, which was mentioned in the local newspaper, for the purposes of establishing an eastern suburbs region. But the local member of Parliament did not receive any invitation to attend. He was not told by the Department of Social Security or by the Minister that the meeting was being held. He simply read the papers and from that he picked up his information. I would like to know the reason for this.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I would like just for a few brief moments to speak on the social welfare aspects of Senate Estimates Committee E of which I was the Chairman and to make observations on a couple of points which I think are of consequence. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that in a debate which ensued yesterday, when we seemed to get a number of committees involved in the one general debate, I made the observation that during the hearings of Estimates Committee E an ample opportunity had been given to all members of the Committee to ask questions of the Minister concerned and his officers. I think by implication I suggested that the wrong impression had been created by some comments which had been made by Senator Baume. I wish to acknowledge that shortly afterwards Senator Baume did produce for me the Hansard pinks of his speech. I observed that due reference was made to the fact that every opportunity was given to all the members of that Committee to ask questions. I think those honourable senators who have taken the trouble to read the explanations which have ensued from questions which were asked then and for which answers were not then readily available will note that Senator Baume did interest himself very greatly in the affairs of the Committee and received quite lengthy and detailed replies to the matters which he raised.

I think it is appropriate also that I should acknowledge the assistance and co-operation of the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) and the officers of the Department of Social Security who went out of thenway to facilitate our deliberations and to provide for us the information which we sought. The information which was not readily available has been subsequently provided to us. I do not wish to go into detail now. Perhaps the Minister in his reply to Senator Greenwood will refer to statement F which is attached to the report. I think Senator Greenwood was dealing with the Australian Assistance Plan just before he resumed his seat. I notice that in the document which was supplied to us reference is made to the desirability of local municipal councils being involved in the work of the Australian Assistance Plan. There is quite an amount of detail concerning the availability of funds which gave the Committee the opportunity to exercise a judgment in relation to the use of the funds for publicity and matters of that kind.

I wish to refer briefly to page 2 1 of the Committee ‘s report. I regret taking it out of context but I do not think it destroys the proposition that I am putting to the Committee of the Whole. In any case, the entire document is available to honourable senators. The report states:

Apart from this, groups involved in establishing an interim Regional Council for Social Development can use part of the $2,000 Initiating Grant for publicity.

Regional Councils for Social Development and interim councils can allocate part of their Administrative Grant to publicity, which is a recognised administrative cost. Some Councils have in fact done so.

That recognises that councils have a fair degree of autonomy as to how they go about their functions. The report continues:

The experiences of 2 Regional Councils for Social Development may be relevant to some of the Senator’s queries.

This is a reply to Senator Baume ‘s request for information. The report continues:

The administrator of the Melbourne Outer Eastern Regional Council has reported that in his region interest in the Australian Assistance Plan had been stimulated in the following ways :

1 ) A publicity sub-committee was formed, with one person responsible for weekly contact with the Press;

Press releases to local newspapers, radio stations, etc., and circulating information to organisations;

Creating a speaker’s panel to address organisations to in-depth discussions.

Very little was expended on paid advertising. It was considered more important to establish personal contact with news editors and journalists.

The final paragraph states:

The Director of Social Planning of the South West Sydney Regional Council commented similarly and reported that response to paid advertising in newspapers had been poor. Addresses by departmental and Commission officers to organisations had been ‘fruitful’; as had one interview about the AAP on television. The most effective method had been to encourage leaders of local government authorities to promote the AAP and to take an active role in it. The Regional Council now employed a part time publicity officer, who had obtained widespread free publicity, and Community Development Officers stimulated considerable interest.

Brief as it is, I think that tends to indicate a concern and desire on the part of people involved in this subject to ensure that the widest possible publicity is given to the existance of the organisation. Surely implied in that is an invitation to local organisations to involve themselves in it. I am pleased to note the reference to local government because it is the initiator of thought in so many ways in local communities.

I think that I should highlight and emphasise one point of general concern to every member of the Committee. When we were discussing the adequacy and availability of social welfare advisers or workers, or whatever we like to call them, it became readily apparent- I think it was apparent to us all before we got to that stage- that in this country now there is a very grave shortage of trained social welfare advisers, planners and workers. I suppose that from day to day in our electorates we must find evidence of situations in which, due to the complexities of life and living these days and to the involvement of people in all sorts of matters, members of the community frequently run into difficulties of one kind or another in which the availability of social welfare advisers would be of very great assistance. Very few of us, however well meaning we may be, are adequately equipped to give the sort of advice that in times like this is necessary for people.

I wish to highlight the fact that there is this shortcoming at present in the Australian community. While I appreciate that efforts are being made to overcome the problem, I think we may well have reached the stage in the development of this Western, egalitarian society where greater encouragement must be given to the training of people in this area of work in the community. I wish to highlight that point because at that point in the Committee’s deliberations it would have been very easy for me as Chairman, and for every other member of the committee, to stop there and dwell at very great length on this problem and try to observe upon it. We were under some pressure of time to complete our examination of the proposed expenditures. Suffice it to say that the thought was apparent that an opportunity would have to be sought shortly to bring this matter to notice in terms as strong as it was possible to do so.

I believe that there is a need for social welfare workers because in so many areas in the community people who have some type of entitlement miss out on that entitlement because they do not know that it is available to them. I suggest that if fully equipped social advisory services were available in the community the people who are now missing out on the services to which I am referring would receive them; it would be a happier situation for those people and for the community at large. I content myself with that brief observation and hope that having raised that matter on this occasion we may see an acceleration of efforts to train for and promote an interest in social welfare work in the Australian community.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I wish to make my position clear. I do support the concept of the assistance and encouragement of social welfare and community development throughout this country. But there are areas in the Australian Assistance Plan that concern me. I should make only brief reference to some of these because both Senator Baume and Senator Greenwood have dealt with some of them. I refer particularly to the publicity for the establishment of these regional councils and also the complement and structure of the councils. There is another area which causes me very grave concern: We have elected groups already established in this country which are being bypassed. 1 refer to State governments and local government bodies. I question why it is necessary to set up what I believe could eventually develop into a fourth tier of government, because I can see this possibly and probably happening. I would like the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) to assure us that this will not be the case. I question why the State governments and local government authorities are being bypassed. No government authority is closer to the people and the problems of people than local government bodies. They are elected bodies. A broad representation of the local community sits on these bodies. They know the problems and the need for development of certain areas of social development in their own community. Yet in the Estimates this year some $6m is to be appropriated for the interim period of the Australian Assistance Plan and this money is to be allocated on a basis which nobody knows because no guidelines are set down. If there are I have not found them and I would like the Minister to give them to me if he could.

We basically have a single line entry and this Parliament has no opportunity to research in any way or to get any detail as to how that money will be spent. There are broad guidelines, yes, but they are very broad guidelines. Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to look at the Estimates but we cannot in any way assess where responsibility really lies or find out where this money is to be spent or at the end of 12 months know how that money has been spent. This causes me great concern. We have an appropriation of $6m this year. One wonders how much it will be next year and the following year. At the same time we have no opportunity of really determining as we should how that money has been spent throughout the community. I still wonder why this Government has not been prepared, within the concept of the Australian Assistance Plan, to work through local governments. They are responsible bodies comprising people who are responsible to those in their local area and people who could not be accused as a group of taking one side or the other or of using certain funds, as has been suggested today, for the benefit of certain political ideologies.

This brings me to another point. I ask the Minister whether he can give to me or to the Senate an assurance that finance is not given or is not likely to be given to any particular political group. I put it in general terms to be fair. This Plan does leave the way open for this type of thing and this is why I raise these questions today. We have bodies already established in this country and accepted as responsible bodies by the community and elected by the community. Yet we are going to completely by-pass them in a new form of social and community welfare development.

Senator Milliner:

– Can you not read the documents?

Senator YOUNG:

-Yes, but I am asking the Minister whether he will give me an assurance on these points. I recall that Senator Devitt mentioned that these bodies will have a great deal of autonomy unto themselves. Questions have already been raised and fair answers have been given by the Minister regarding the publicity given to the establishment of some of these councils and I have gone on to raise further questions. I hope we as a Senate can get clarification of these points.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I certainly shall try to give as much clarification as I can although it will be appreciated that I do not have at my fingertips all the detail sought. It may be necessary to have some of the questions dealt with by way of questions on notice in the ordinary course of the business of the Senate. There are a couple of things I would say first of all in relation to the matters raised by Senator Young. I am informed that the regional councils must provide for representation by State and local governments. It is the requirement of the Social Welfare Commission, that the regional councils should have representation upon them from State and local governments. However some States have not yet nominated representatives to all the regional councils. There is certainly no intention to bypass the local government authorities. At the same time I appreciate the sort of the point that Senator Young is making about a fourth arm of government conceivably developing out of this in a certain field and I would hope that his fears are ill based. The fact is that there are responsibilities which local government has which are other than those of the welfare schemes of the type envisaged by the Australian Assistance Plan. Clearly it would be an all too herculean task to impose on local authorities the administration of this Plan in addition to the functions which they already have to perform as municipal and shire authorities.

I cannot give an undertaking that no political groups will benefit from this plan. This question was asked during the Estimates Committee hearing, as Senator Townley would remember, and the answer was given that branches of political parties, for example, are eligible to have representation upon the regional councils. I suppose there may well be some dispute as to whether political parties ought to be excluded but one can get into difficulties if one carries that argument through to its logical conclusion. One might also say that religious groups should be excluded and that there may be a variety of people involved in some controversy of some sort who should be excluded too. The fact is that they are not excluded although I understand that they are not encouraged. Senator Greenwood, as is his wont, has tried to extract as many base motives and evil actions as he can on the part of this Government in respect of this scheme and has suggested that it is a means of patronage whereby the Labor Party will secure votes. But that is what Senator Greenwood would say about a scheme of this kind.

Senator Greenwood:

– I suppose you would say that the Labor Party would not dream of doing a thing like that.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I could not dream of Senator Greenwood speaking on any subject without saying something like that; that is what I would say. One of the things I have noticed, and I do not want to be personal, about the participation of Senator Greenwood in any debate is that one can have with his colleagues a reasonable discussion in which there may be reasonable submissions put forward and argued in a reasonable way but always when Senator Greenwood participates in the debate one finds the argument reduced to the sort of level on which we are arguing now. Certainly I did not intend this and I do not think that other honourable senators intended it either. But that is what we expect from Senator Greenwood and what we expect from Senator Greenwood we regularly get from Senator Greenwood. We are trying to debate a serious proposition which was supported, and I believe properly supported, by the Opposition. We have already heard from Senator Greenwood and he can speak again, as no doubt he will, all night, all day tomorrow, all next week and for as long as we are sitting.

What we have been attempting to do is try to involve the people in the administration of the Assistance Plan. The practice of social we! fare down the ages had a certain pall or aspect about it whereby the beadle was handing out money to the local peasantry or villagers. We have tried to get away from this. I am not in any way reflecting on the previous Government and I am not suggesting that it was their attitude. The Liberal and Country Parties have accepted the proposition we have put forward- that we ought to try to involve local people and all sorts of organisations and people who have hitherto been unorganised, in the administration of schemes operating in their own area. Yes, there have been trade unions involved. The Government will not deliberately exclude trade unions from participation in the Australian Assistance Plan. Senator Greenwood may not like it but there are a lot of trade unionists in Australia. There are a number of trade unions. They play a significant role in Australia. I know that Senator Greenwood does not like the thought that they do but they are there and I can assure him that we will not exclude trade unions from the operation of this plan in the same way as we will not exclude Rotary Clubs, employers’ organisations or any other group which is representative of citizens in the community.

Senator Greenwood:

– What opportunity are you giving -

Senator WHEELDON:

-Senator Greenwood can speak again. I listened to him without interruption. I believe he has had a disastrous effect on this debate. I listened to him without interruption and I would like to be heard without interruption. He can continue his slanders after I finish and I will deal with a fresh lot after he has finished. He referred to some episode which apparently occurred in the western region in Victoria. It is admitted that there was something of a mess there. The people were inexperienced. I am told that apparently 2 ballots were required because the returning officer or whoever was conducting the proceedings had not had previous experience in conducting meetings of this nature and there was a mess. Yes, we plead guilty. This was part of the introduction of democracy to people in an area who had not previously been active in public life. They were not lawyers. They were not lecturers in political science. They were ordinary people living in the area. We were endeavouring to involve them and they made some mistakes in the conduct of a ballot. It took some straightening out. That is what we expect to happen because we believe that this is not only a social welfare program; it is an educative program. It is a program designed to bring the mass of the Australian people into the distribution of welfare provided amongst themselves out of their taxation and out of their efforts. Of course they are going to make mistakes. We are not going to hand the program over to a group of registrars of the supreme court to conduct it for them. We believe, along with a rather distinguished American- not one of the Americans whom Senator Greenwood would admire but nonetheless a very distinguished American- that the people have the right to make their own mistakes. The people have the right to make their own mistakes in building up this scheme and they have made some. We are not ashamed of the fact that they have made these mistakes.

I agree with Senator Greenwood that it is desirable that matters of this nature should be governed by legislation, that there should be strict rules which Parliament may supervise so that one knows how money is being expended. But at the same time the approach which the Government and the Social Welfare Commission have taken is that it would be quite wrong to lay down ab initio that these are the rules, that this is the Act, that this is precisely the way the scheme is going to operate. This would be defeating the whole purpose behind the Australian Assistance Plan. It would be wrong right from the beginning to lay down a regimen of rules as to how people should behave. What we are trying to do is to see how it works, to make the moneys available to these organisations, to bring in State government and local government, the Rotary clubs, the church organisations, the branches of political parties for that matter, trade unions, employers ‘ groups or anybody else, see how they work together and see how they are able to manage the administration of this scheme- Senator Greenwood smirks; I know he thinks it is all a Communist plot- and from this try to work out some pattern so that ultimately, when the legislation is introduced, when there is a binding Act which Parliament has the authority to administer, we will know why the Act has been introduced and that it has been based on this experience.

Senator Greenwood referred to the Western Regional Council in Victoria. There were difficulties involved in the early stages, as I have conceded already to the Committee, but subsequently a constitution was properly established. I understand that this regional council has been incorporated under the Victorian Companies Act and that it has satisfied the requirements of the Registrar of Companies in Victoria.

Senator Greenwood:

– Can you tell me who were the subscribers to the memorandum?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I do not know who the subscribers to the memorandum were. If Senator Greenwood wishes to know I will find out. Yes, we will find that out for Senator Greenwood. I am sure he has some sinister motive which he thinks will be revealed by this.

Senator Greenwood:

– I read the documents.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I beg your pardon?

Senator Greenwood:

– I read the documents.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes. The Western Regional Council in the 1973-74 period received the sum of $20,000 and it received a capitation grant of $236,004 for welfare projects. The union centre to which he referred is comprised of a number of bodies, including the Amalgamated Metal Workers’ Union. Yes, the AMWU has some money. It has some assets. It does own some buildings. It owns typewriters and various other things and it collects its dues from its members. Is it therefore suggested that the AMWU should be excluded from the Australian Assistance Plan?

Senator Greenwood:

– Does it have an income of $4m a year?

Senator WHEELDON:

– If the Opposition would prefer I will concede now to Senator Greenwood and continue my remarks later. I can see he is bubbling over with venom. I would not want to have him in an even more serious physical condition than this mental condition would seem to be. The AMWU does have assets. Churches have assets. All sorts of voluntary organisations have assets. Are we to say that any organisation which, through the efforts of its members, has accumulated assets is ineligible to participate in the Australian Assistance Plan? Is that what is being put forward? Is it suggested that because the AMWU has $4m- according to Senator Greenwood but I do not know whether he is right- it therefore should be excluded? What are the assets of the Methodist Church, the Rotary Club, the Lions Club or the Salvation Army?

Senator McLaren:

– Or the Chamber of Commerce.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes, or the Chamber of Commerce. They are properly included. What are the assets of the Chamber of Commerce? This is the sort of divisive thing Senator Greenwood has introduced which makes it difficult to make a scheme like this successful. The purpose of the scheme is- I think the majority of members of the Opposition support itthat this should be a community endeavour. Although there might be confrontations on some other matters in the political sphere, the industrial sphere or for that matter in the religious sphere, although there might be disagreements between Methodists and Catholics, or the Chamber of Commerce and the AMWU, we are endeavouring to bring them all together within these little communities as representative bodies in that group in order to work together. To refer churlishly to the fact that there are some unions there and that some of these people belong to the Labor Party can have only a disruptive effect on the whole idea of the Australian Assistance Plan. The contribution that Senator Greenwood has made this afternoon is completely destructive to the idea of community co-operation. What he wants is community animosity, community hatred, and slander of those people who provide funds and those people who are working hard. Certainly other members of the Opposition who have spoken- I reflect in no way on other honourable senators here or in the Committeehave not tried to do that. They have tried genuinely to make the thing work better, but not Senator Greenwood.

Some reference was made to the North Altona Migrant Centre in Victoria. This organisation was developed by a group of teachers in the area. The group had existed for some 10 years. The new centre was established by means of a grant under the Australian Assistance Plan. The North Altona Migrant Centre concentrates its efforts on immigrants who are not assisted by other organisations. It is local to Altona. Although it is not yet well known it is very well regarded, I am informed, by the officers of the Department of Social Security, and those who have observed its work believe it is doing a valuable job in an area which previously unfortunately had been neglected.

Senator Devitt referred to statement F which is appended to the report of the Committee and relates to advertising. I do not want to weary the Senate by reading any very long extracts from a document which already is public information but I would like to say that if one refers to statement F it states, in response to information sought by Senator Baume, that $100,000 is the estimated expenditure for the Australian Assistance Plan publicity and that $35,000 has been set aside for natural resources material and $65,000 for promotion on a regional basis. The national promotion will include the production of a leaflet for national distribution outlining the scope and purpose of the Australian Assistance Plan. The leaflet will be translated into at least 6 languages. Posters, charts, back-up leaflets and audio visual aids will also be produced. A newsletter is also being produced and circulated regularly to regional councils for social development and people involved in the plan. (Extension of time granted.) Efforts are being made to see that these activities are being publicised.

I return once again to the sort of criticism that Senator Greenwood has made. I had heard complaints in Western Australia from members of the Australian Labor Party that certain regional councils had been dominated by Liberals. They wanted me to do something about it. I did nothing about it because my view was that if members of the Liberal Party were activating themselves in this area, this reflected some credit on them, and what our people ought to be doing was to activate themselves and get to work inside the area- not to go around saying that the Liberals ought to be removed from the positions which they had apparently secured because of their diligence in working in this field. I had hoped that in an area like this all honourable senators would have adopted that attitude, but unfortunately I had temporarily and mercifully forgotten about Senator Greenwood.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (5.36)- I would like to say a few words about the concept of the Australian Assistance Plan but not in the atmosphere that has been created both by Senator Greenwood and by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon). I hope what I have to say will bring the whole atmosphere of the concept and the application of the scheme into perspective. In fairness, the Minister indicated that the Opposition gave support to the concept. We all understand that in the introduction of a scheme of this nature there are bound to be teething troubles. It is true that these people of good will who have dedicated their lives to helping other people have not all had the experience in local councils, Parliaments or in their private occupations of understanding procedures and the normal conduct of affairs. It is the same as forming a club; they have to learn the hard way. All these organisations and groups in the community have the one abiding feeling- of wanting to make a contribution to helping other people.

I have not studied the whole extent of the activities of the various regional councils. I happen to be the chairman of what I think- I know that a lot of other people think so- is a very important charity that operates in the Sydney metropolitan area. This charity has been operating since 1925. It is made up of people of all political affiliations. Its cardinal rule is that it is not concerned with religion, politics or anything at all. It is only a group of people wanting to help meet certain situations. I am convinced that people who join these regions feel the same way. Any organisation that abides by the laws of this land would welcome them for the contribution they can make. My observation has been that these organisations have been having teething troubles. Can anyone tell me an organisation which, at its creation, does not go through teething troubles? Those who have served in these various organisations have had this experience. The organisations will grow out of them. I understand that even political parties sometimes have their teething troubles. One could say: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I would like to put this Estimates discussion on the Australian Assistance Plan back to its proper level. People of good will are trying to do something for other people. The experience of my organisation has been that these various regional areas have become part of local government. Very often their meetings are held in municipal offices in certain areas. They are searching for people who need help. I understand that only one region in each State is to have a capitation grant.

Senator Baume:

– I think it is going to be increased.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– It is possible that it will be increased, but at present there is only one region in New South Wales which has a capitation grant. That means that, with the best good will in the world, the region can give advice, guidance, aid and help in the sense of telling people who need social help what to do. They cannot give help in a material sense. They refer these people who need aid- I will come back shortly to some of the circumstances in which they need aid- to other charitable organisations. The organisation of which I am very proud to have been associated for many years and of which I am chairman has received representations for aid. It never gives money. It cannot give money. It does not believe in giving money. But it gives aid in other ways such as providing food, paying an electric light account for a deserted mother with children who needs power, giving food for babies, medicine and clothing. The organisation receives representations from all over the area. They come from regional areas of the Australian Assistance Plan, almoners of hospitals and some other organisations. It tries to give aid.

The creation of these regions means that a lot of people are getting the message about the need to provide aid more quickly. They do not have to go to a city office or to telephone a city office. They are able to go to some place in the region when they desperately need some aid. I can think of half a dozen charities in the metropolitan area of Sydney that are receiving a greater demand for aid than they have received before, and it is being met. The point I want to come to relates to Commonwealth assistance. In fairness I should say that I have canvassed this matter with the head of the Department of Social Security.

Where government aid is required there is a time lag because if a person comes in needing aid, whether it be in relation to social security, a pension or a benefit, the case has to be documented. It has to be tested. Frequently the organisation in which I am involved in an honorary capacity is confronted with the problem of somebody who wants aid from the government, but he cannot get it immediately because there must be a testing time. Some examination has to be made as to whether the case is genuine, whether it is appropriate and as to what can be done. So organisations for charity- and I suppose in other States it is just the same- are meeting a gap in the short term. The point I am making is that through these regional organisaions, and indeed through the implementation of access to their capitation grants, it could well be that in certain circumstances the regions should be able to make a contribution to these charitable organisations so that they can meet the short term emergencies that frequently arise. These charities are just the same as the regions themselves, but they have the added responsibility of raising money and they do not have government backing to raise it. They raise money because people give donations to charity and then the organisations dispense it.

We should try to put this into a different area and put the case for assistance through the regions by the regions using their capitation grants to assist various charitable organisations so that in turn those organisations can seize the nettle and give immediate aid pending the application of governmental aid. The charities cannot continue giving perpetual aid, they can only meet an emergency. Welfare departments, State and Federal, then have to take over the main burden of assistance. For instance, the New South Wales Government makes grants to various charities because it knows that in turn those charities get very close indeed to the cases involved and are able to give short term aid pending a government, State or Federal, taking over the main burden.

I wish the concept every success. I believe that it will be a contribution to the welfare of the people in difficult times. Certainly there will be problems, teething troubles, at the start, but I am sure that, with co-operation between the regions and the various charitable and voluntary organisations that work in every State, it will be in the best interests of those people in the community who are less fortunate than others in difficult times, particularly women and children.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I want to say briefly that I appreciate

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s contribution to this debate, as I usually do on most subjects. Without necessarily agreeing with him, most of us on the Government side do have a high regard for his contribution. The problem that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson refers to of involving people is the major problem we have with this plan. Already even those people who belong to some organisation, whether it is a church or some sort of club, in a sense are organised in some way and do have relationships with a body operating within their area. The people who have the most need for a plan of this type are probably people who have no affiliations of any sort with any organisation, and this is one of the difficulties with advertising. When one talks about distributing pamphlets, many of these people are not the sort of people who will read a pamphlet or even a newspaper, for that matter. For this reason it would seem to me, and I think certainly it is the Government’s view, that it is desirable that as many organisations of all kinds as possible should become involved in the operation of this plan, even though when one looks at the narrow objectives that the organisation has they may appear to bear very little relation to the field of social welfare. It may be a motor cycle club or a pigeon fanciers’ club or something like that.

Certainly so far as I am concerned, and I believe that I am speaking for the Government, the more people who are politically in opposition to the Labor Party who can become involved in this plan the more we will welcome it. I would certainly welcome the participation of members of the Liberal Party and of the Australian Country Party in this plan. If I were to find that within the various regional councils there were a large number of members of the Liberal Party playing active or leading roles, that I would regard this as being a sign of the success of the plan because that would show that the Government had established co-operation in an important field between people of differing persuasions- religious, philosophical and political. I know that with the type of attitude Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has we have a real prospect of accomplishing that end.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– Like other honourable senators, I refer to the document relating to the Australian Assistance Plan and, in particular, I seek from the Minister some information relating to the details of the regional bodies. Two areas are mentioned in the South Australian reference, and in one of the organisations in Adelaide with which I am connected and which provides a much needed service to young people I understand that a slight problem has arisen in relation to the defined areas referred to in the document. Because an organisation deals with the needs of young people it necessarily follows that the people they call their clients, those who come to them for assistance, advice, guidance or help of any kind, come from a wide area, indeed come not necessarily from within the boundaries that are defined. As I understand it, the headquarters or the office or the administration centre of this organisation dealing with young people and rendering a community service of some particular significance and value is placed outside the defined boundary area. Can the Minister indicate whether there is any thinking on this which would allow some flexibility so that the service could be more effectively rendered and the appropriate recognition made by the Department?

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– When we were first discussing the Australian Assistance Plan some time ago we were concerned about some of the administrative problems that seemed to be arising which might make an excellent concept difficult to operate well. I think that some of the things that have been raised should be reiterated, and there is one other problem which has not yet been ventilated which I think should be brought to the attention of the Minister. There are certain welfare agencies which play a very major role in delivering services, particularly in the city of Sydney where I come from, which are going to find it difficult to operate under a regionally funded system. There are certain organisations in Sydney, for example the Smith Family and the Sydney City Mission, which operate centrally but operate throughout areas of need in Sydney. Administratively, they are going to find it difficult to get money through regional councils.

Their concern is that they are going to have difficulty on 2 scores. Firstly, they are going to find it difficult to convince regional councils that they should be funded. It could well be said: ‘But you are a central body, you get your money elsewhere.’ If these organisations do want to get money from regional councils they are going to have to seek representation on those regional councils. These charitable organisations have finite resources in terms of personnel and it worries them that they will have to try to join each of the regional councils around Sydney. Secondly, they are worried that there will be less money available from a central source from which they can seek an allocation to carry on their present work. So while they applaud local initiative and the provision of welfare services, they see themselves as threatened.

Some of these welfare services are notable for the fact that they are very flexible and are involved where services are needed. To give just a simple example, the Sydney City Mission for a long time maintained some activities in Paddington. Some years ago Paddington was taken over by a new kind of resident who was more middle class and less in need of help. The Sydney City Mission disposed of all its assets in Paddington and with the money it received it has now moved out to Green Valley, where it has opened some very urgently needed community services. It is doing a job all round Sydney trying to fill areas of need, but it sees a threat, in the operation of the regional arrangement, to its continued efficient functioning. I am not asking on that ground that the regional system be abandoned, but I am asking that account be taken of the fact that there are certain groups giving welfare help for whom this kind of arrangement will be inappropriate. This applies in most cities.

Senator Devitt:

– Can they not be integrated into the system? What is the difficulty?

Senator BAUME:

- Senator Devitt asks: ‘Can they not be integrated into the system?’ I hope that they can, but at the moment they see some difficulty as the system is proposed. We have been told that the system is having teething problems and that we should accept this. That is fine. But I think it is important that those of us who are examining the Estimates ought to state what these teething troubles are and should try to highlight some of the areas of difficulty.

I should like to make only one other point for the Minister, and that is to suggest that a region as it is constituted is less close to the people than local municipal councils. It is extremely easy to demonstrate that fact. It was mentioned earlier- I think by Senator Greenwood- that a capitation grant of $236,000 was made in Melbourne.

Senator Greenwood:

-I said $700,000 but I was told that it was $236,000.

Senator BAUME:

– I am sorry, the amount of $236,000 was mentioned by Senator Wheeldon. At $2 a head that means that 1 18,000 people are represented by the regional council which received that money. There are fewer people represented by most municipal councils. I am not convinced that we could not achieve the same aims with regard to the provision of welfare services if we worked through our local elected councils. There is no problem of access there. We know that access is good. We know that the councils are elected in a democratic fashion. Perhaps we should encourage them to seek to appoint some grouping of interested people to disburse the money.

Senator Devitt:

– They do it. A council is able to delegate to a special committee the responsibility for a special thing of this kind.

Senator BAUME:

-That may be. Mr Chairman, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; progress reported.

page 2330

ALEXANDER BARTON AND THOMAS BARTON

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- Honourable senators will be aware that all possible steps have been taken to ensure that Alexander Barton and Thomas Barton be returned to Australia to face the charges laid against them in New South Wales. I can now inform the Senate that on 8 November 1974, warrants issued in New South Wales for the arrest of Alexander Barton and Thomas Barton were handed to the Paraguayan authorities pursuant to the extradition treaty which applies between Australia and Paraguay. The Government has been informed that Alexander Barton and Thomas Barton were arrested in Paraguay on that day and are being held in custody. Acting under the Extradition (Foreign States) Act I have authorised a stipendiary magistrate to take evidence in Sydney for transmission to Paraguay and to be used there in legal proceedings for the extradition of the Bartons to Australia.

I also inform honourable senators that I have appointed a leading Queensland counsel, Mr F. G. Brennan Q.C., to investigate the Barton group of companies in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Brennan has been appointed as inspector to investigate the affairs of the 3 Barton companies incorporated in the Australian Capital Territory Inexco Ltd, Intercontinental Credit Ltd, and Narimba Corporation Ltd. He will also investigate the 3 Barton companies registered in the Australian Capital Territory- Jetair Australia Ltd, Landmark Corporation Ltd, and Spinifex Explorations Pty Ltd. The investigation of the affairs of the companies will begin next week.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 2330

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

Senator BAUME:

-Before the sitting of the Senate was suspended I was speaking to the Australian Assistance Plan, about the question of access of interested groups in the community to participate in the regional councils, about the question of publicity and about the question of whether local government councils should be more involved than they are at the present time. A central issue concerning the regional councils is to know to whom they are responsible. I would like the Minister to give us an answer to this question: To whom is a regional council that receives a capitation grant answerable for the expenditure of the money? There is no way that I can discover from reading the material on the Australian Assistance Plan whether the councils are really answerable in that they have to disclose to whom money has gone so that we can find out whether it has been used properly. If there is a situation in which the councils are not really answerable in the sense about which I am talking and we do not discover where the money has gone or how it has been used, then there will be disquiet in the Parliament. This is one of the issues that has not yet been resolved. I repeat what I was saying before: Local government councils elected in open elections are closer to the people than these regional councils. They represent smaller groupings of people. I remind you, Mr Chairman, that the Melbourne group referred to by Senator Greenwood received a grant for over 100,000 people. Although these teething troubles that the regional councils are going through may be only temporary, there is nothing in the arrangements of which we have heard yet that indicates to us that anything is being done to resolve these problems.

Finally, I remind Senator Wheeldon that I am keen to know the position of the large welfare agencies. I refer to the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Sydney City Mission, the Smith Family and agencies of this kind that at the present time are quite unhappy about the setup of the Australian Assistance Plan and about the possibilities of their participating in it. The only other thing I would like to do is to answer something that Senator Devitt said before the sitting was suspended. He referred to the information attached to the report of Senate Estimates Committee E and quoted extensively from it. I emphasise that the information we were given established that the regional councils could use money for advertising, not that they had to use money for advertising. So the position could arise that regional councils did not bother to insert a newspaper advertisement in all the newspapers in their areas -

Senator Poyser:

– What is this all about?

Senator BAUME:

– I am answering the points made by Senator Devitt. The Estimates Committee made the point that very little money was expended in paid advertising. This brings me back to my original criticism: This is one of the things that should have been done and we would hope to see done in the future.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I am sorry that honourable senators who have taken part in this debate- and Senator Baume in particular- have not referred to the material that has been supplied to them. I know that it is difficult at times for honourable senators to read and comprehend the multitudinous amount of material that is supplied to them. But only recently honourable senators received a publication entitled ‘Guidelines for Pilot ProgramAustralian Assistance Plan, October 1974’.

Senator Baume:

– If you had been listening -

Senator MILLINER:

– Now, please Senator Baume -

Senator Baume:

– If you had been in the chamber you would have heard me quote extensively from that document.

Senator MILLINER:

– If the honourable senator had the document why did he ask the question that he asked tonight? For instance, let me refer to some of the material to which the honourable senator could have referred to find the answers. For instance, paragraph 3.1 states:

The function of Regional Councils is to stimulate interest and activity in the broad field of social development. They should give added impetus to initiatives within their regions to provide a wider range of welfare services and to test innovative programs for service delivery.

This indicates to the honourable senator what the regional councils would be required to do. Another section of the pilot program details future anticipated events during the pilot period. Details of the first event read as follows:

  1. responsibility for payment of grants will be transferred from Central Office to the Department’s State Headquarters in the six State capital cities- the State Headquarters (and eventually the Regional Offices) will be the point of contact with the Department by Regional Councils:

The document goes on to give the details of other future events. In any case, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson really pointed out to the honourable senator, if he had listened to him, what was the situation. It is a pilot study. Again, if the honourable senator refers to the document he will see that paragraph 1.12 (f) states: enabling legislation will be introduced into the Parliament.

This will be done after we have taken all the necessary steps to see that this system is being run efficiently by other people. Senator Greenwood, in his customary form, tries to ridicule anything that anybody says. The fact remains that this is precisely what happened in regard to the Meals on Wheels organisation. Meals on Wheels was established. Very good people in the community gave their voluntary services to that wonderful organisation. After it was established in a pilot study way, legislation was enacted. Honourable senators opposite must know that of their own experience. But because the Australian Government has introduced something on this occasion that some honourable senators opposite do not like personally, they try to denigrate members of the regional councils who voluntarily give their services to this very noble work. They find that everything is wrong with the Plan. These honourable senators remind me of the fellow who goes to the beautiful botanic gardens. He walks around and sees all the wonderful displays of flowers in the gardens. The head gardener says to him: ‘What do you think of the gardens?’. The man says: “There is a weed over there’. These honourable senators opposite do not look at the beauty of things. They look for the unnecessary points of view. Of course, that is typical of the attitude of honourable senators opposite when they refer to the trade union movement. If only they knew what the trade union movement had done in the social welfare field they would not be so keen to speak in such a fashion as they do about the trade union movement. Mr Chairman, let me tell you and honourable senators of a wonderful organisation that is established in Queensland today. It was established by an ex-judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Senator Bonner:

– What would you -

Senator MILLINER:

- Senator Bonner, you would not know the first thing about it. This organisation was established by an ex-judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland. I trust that I assisted in the establishment of that organisation in the first place. But do honourable senators know who was the first honorary secretary of this organisation? It was the secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, Archie Dawson. The treasurer of the organisation was the secretary of the Federated Furnishing Trade Society of Australasia, Mr Hart. There are many other trade union officials who were interested in assisting that organisation and who still do assist it. But they would receive no credit for that from Senator Greenwood. He is so prejudiced in his outlook against the trade union movement and against trade unionists that he can never see anything good that they may have done for mankind. Let me assure honourable senators that trade unions have done plenty that is to the advantage of: the people of Australia. I refer again to the document to which I referred a while ago entitled .’Guidelines for PilOt Program’. Senator Baume asked how these organisations account for the money. I invite him to look at Appendix H. This form is addressed to the DirectorGeneral, Department of Social Security. The organisation is required to submit its name and state that it accepts the offer in the letter from the Director General of funds for the purposes of the Australian Assistance Plan for social development. Then, the organisation is required, as stated in this letter:

  1. to provide to the Department of Social Security estimates of expenditure followed by certified progress reports of expenditure, at intervals required by the Department, in order that it may qualify for the continuing receipt of the Australian Government funds;
  2. to apply the funds for the purposes for which and in accordance with the terms upon which they are respectively provided; and
  3. in the event that any funds are not required for application or cannot be applied as aforesaid, to refund to your Department such funds as arc not required or capable of application.

What safeguards additional to those do honourable senators want from a voluntary organisation? There are others if honourable senators would bother to look. If honourable senators read precisely what the work of the organisations is they Will find that information in the document. I refer now to the scathing criticism of some of the people who have volunteered their services for the regional councils. Honourable senators know these things, but in order to try to denigrate the work of the Australian Government they elect not to make known what they should disclose. I shall make the information known to the chamber now. Mr Chipp, in another place, asked the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden):

Who are the members of the Rockhampton Social Welfare Development Planning Council, and what organisations do they represent?

Do honourable senators opposite ever read? Do they know what is going on around them? The Minister answered. I want honourable senators opposite to take really serious notice of the personnel of the Rockhampton Social Welfare Development Planning Council and the organisations which they represent. The first is Canon R. Philp, who is a member of the Anglican Diocesan Social Responsibilities Committee. The second is Dr A. Appleton. He is the director of the Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education. The third is Mrs M. Nott who is an occupational therapist with the Department of Community Medicine. Mr John Provan is a medical supervisor at the Rockhampton Base Hospital. Sister Anne-Marie is a social worker and director of the Catholic Social Welfare Centre. She is a senior counsellor of the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council, Rockhampton Centre. Mr D. Jamieson is a director of the Social Security Department, Rockhampton. Mr P. Braddey is a solicitor. Perhaps if he were a barrister that might impress Senator Greenwood more. Mr G. Edminstone is liaison officer, Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs and Mrs P. Power is a member of the Queensland Marriage Guidance Council.

I ask honourable senators opposite to compare the work of those people in the community with what they are advocating tonight. They are suggesting that local councillors should do this very important work which is asked of regional councils. Who do honourable senators opposite think would be better equipped to do this work? The local councillor who, in the main, is a part dme councillor running his own business or working, or people of the calibre of those I have mentioned who understand what is required of them? Senator Greenwood would say that we should give this job to local councillors. Did you ever hear anything so absurd in all your born days? It is of no use saying that we do not know these things. I repeat that they are in Hansard.

I now turn to members of the Townsville Welfare Council and the organisations which they represent. They are: Mr P. Doughtry, Marriage Counselling Centre; Mrs J. Innes-Reid, Townsville General Hospital and the City Council- the City Council has been invited to attend; Dr I. Atkinson, Townsville General Hospital and the City Council; Mrs M. Campbell, Senior Citizens Welfare Association; Mr B. Leakey, St. Vincent de Paul Society; Mrs A. Butler, student counsellor; Miss M. Gindhart, St Raphael’s College, James Cook University; Mr M. Reynolds, Specific Learning Difficulties Association; Mr A. Spance, Crippled Childrens Society; Miss G. Gorman, Department of Social Security; Miss D. Wilson, Community Health Services; Dr J. Mayo, Department of Economics, James Cook University; and Major J. Patterson, Community Services Organisation Section of the Army.

Do any of those persons sound as if they are Communists, trying to weave their way into all the organisations which are set up to the advantage of people of Australia? I ask: Where is the Communist in there? Senator Greenwood is the one who raises the Communist bogey all the way. Let him now say which of those people are Communists. If those representatives were to come from the trade union movement, that is the first thing he would say. On behalf of my colleagues in the trade union movement I express my keen disappointment that Senator Greenwood and others on the opposite side of the chamber have attempted to smear this legislation. They know that it is to the advantage of the people of Australia. They know the calibre of the people who have been asked to work on these regional councils. But that does not satisfy the honourable senators. Because the Australian Government has had sufficient initiative to do something of this nature they condemn the Government on that ground alone. The Honourable senators should be positively ashamed of themselves for ever suggesting that the people whose names I have read out tonight and who are acting in an honorary capacity should be the subject of any scrutiny by honourable senators opposite or by people like them.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:
VICTORIA

-The Chair has allowed the debate to encompass a very wide area of social security. Honourable senators will recall that general inquiry has been made into these items by way of the Senate Estimates committees. I feel that it would serve the purposes of the Senate- I am sure it would be appreciated by the Committee of the Whole- if future debate were confined to the actual items of expenditure included in the votes under consideration. I ask honourable senators for their assistance.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I address my remarks to subdivision 4 of division 530 in relation to the estimates of expenditure for the Department of Social Security, and in particular, to the Australian Assistance Plan. I think that Senator Milliner who has just sat down addressed his remarks in the broadest, if somewhat irrelevant, fashion to that Une of the Estimates. But it is interesting to reflect that in this chamber one can have all sorts of things attributed to one, as Senator Milliner has attributed them to me. But I have never said anything of the sort. I deny categorically what he is alleging. I say that simply for the record. I did not say what he claims I said and therefore I leave it at that. But in dealing with the Australian Assistance Plan I say that the Opposition has never sought to have any attitude except one of broad support for the concept of an Australian Assistance Plan. We have said- we have said it in the documents which were published prior to the election on May 18- that the imaginative concept of this Assistance Plan warranted our support and we give support to it. It does seek to involve the community in social welfare and this is a desirable development. If the Labor Government is looking for acknowledgement and support from our side of the chamber for what it did in this area it has got it and I repeat it tonight. I said it this afternoon but because I went on to suggest that in the implementation of this plan there were some qualifications, there were some problems and there were some questions which ought to be resolved, I and I think everyone on the Opposition side who has spoken on this issue, have been subject to a tirade of abuse which is typical of the intimidation which the Labor Party seeks to use whenever we on the Opposition side criticise the Government.

Whenever we suggest- and on the evidence it is a perfectly reasonable suggestion- that there is a use of public moneys for the purpose of patronage there is a horrified outcry from the Government. When that horrified outcry occurs we have exhibitions like the one given this evening by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. We have the tirade of personal abuse and I know why that sort of activity, that sort of tactic is engaged in by members of the Labor Party. They engage in it because they think there are enough weak people on the Opposition side to submit and not come back to the fight if they are subjected to personal abuse. We have seen this in this chamber time and again. We have seen it outside the chamber on occasions too numerous to identify. It is part of the stock-in-trade of the Labor Party’s tactics.

I can only say- I repeat this for the information of those honourable senators seeking to interject- that we will not retreat in the face of unreasonable personal abuse. I simply say for the record and in contradiction of Senator Wheeldon that I am not here to develop some sort of social animosity. That is not the view that I hold. I am not here, simply because Senator Wheeldon alleges it, bubbling over with venom. This is the sort of tactic which, as I say, typifies the Australian Labor Party. I have been in this place when the whole 25 or 26 members of the Labor Party have screeched in unison to try to drown me out and they can try it again if they want to but there is something more to freedom of speech and democracy than the Labor Party’s version of it. It is interesting to hear the noise with which they endeavour to interrupt to try to prevent others being heard.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I raise a point of order. I thought, Mr Chairman, that when the discussions started this evening you asked honourable senators to confine themselves to an item of the estimates before the Committee. I have heard no reference, apart from a number that was given at the beginning of Senator Greenwood’s remarks- I am not referring to anybody elsewhich is in any way identifiable with an item under the estimates we are discussing.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator WebsterSenator Greenwood announced the item to which he was speaking. I have allowed quite a wide ranging debate. I ask the honourable senator to direct his attention to the item of expenditure under discussion. I would appreciate it if that were done.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Chairman, I thank you. I am directing my remarks to that item of expenditure which is related to the sum of $6m under the Australian Assistance Plan which is the item which has occupied the attention of the Senate for the last 1 Vi hours of this debate. I was accused prior to the dinner break of infamous crimes by the Minister and by countless other Government senators who have spoken and I just listened to the tirade which seems to arise when I speak and commence to criticise the Labor Party. The Labor Party is not prepared to have criticism directed to any of its proposals. If an Opposition senator directs criticism at a Government proposal we have the Minister’s horse laugh or we have contributions from other senators designed to impede the reception of what is being offered. All I say, and this is the point I was making before the interruption, is that it is a well known device that the Labor Party engages in to shout down an opponent. It is typical of the. authoritarianism, arrogance and dictatorial attitude to which we are subjected.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I raise a point of order once again. Mr Chairman, I understand that you said that you were going to ask honourable senators to confine themselves to the item of expenditure before the Commnittee. Senator Greenwood is not doing that. I would ask you a question by way of raising a point of order. Are you going to allow a general discussion on the respective merits of the various political parties in this chamber or are you, as I thought you had indicated at the beginning of this evening’s session, going to ask honourable senators to confine themselves to the estimates before the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN:

-On 2’ occasions I have made my request to the Committee. I cannot decide what senators wish to speak about. I am sure that if prior to dinner I had- applied to Senator Wheeldon the criteria that he .is- asking me to apply, no one would have been heard. I am afraid Senator Greenwood has the floor and he is entitled to speak.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Very well, I am rising to a further point of order. In view of your last contribution, Mr Chairman, I take it -from what you are saying you will allow a wide ranging discussion on all issues and I take it then that you withdraw your previous statement that you are going to ask us to confine ourselves to the estimates.

Senator Poyser:

– Speaking to the point of order, I point out that a similar situation arose last night in a debate on another Estimates Committee report. I endeavoured to obey your ruling by restricting my remarks as you requested, Mr Chairman. You have again requested this to be done this evening. You said that while you allowed a wide ranging debate earlier you now required honourable senators to come back to the estimates which we are discussing. If this is not to be the case I take it that we will be able to move into a second reading debate on this Bill, an opportunity which no member in this chamber availed himself of when the motion was moved that the Bill be read a second time. If this is the position I think it should be clarified so that we can go into a full scale debate, otherwise the request that you have made should become a ruling and we can then get down to the estimates proper.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The point of order taken by the 2 honourable senators has some merit. I have requested honourable senators to speak directly to the expenditures involved in the divisions which are under discussion. But it is not appropriate for me in the ebb and flow of debate in this chamber to confine honourable senators strictly to the items under discussion. I am quite sure that honourable senators would find that were I to do so I would be sitting down every honourable senator immediately he spoke. I think that in fairness honourable senators should attempt to confine themselves to the items of expenditure under discussion. I would ask that that be done.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do desire to speak exclusively and entirely to the item of appropriation relating to the Australian Assistance Plan. I know that you, Mr Chairman, are conscious that prior to dinner I was subjected to a tirade of abuse for approximately three-quarters of an hour and this is the first opportunity I have had to reply to some of the things that were said. It is not surprising that Senator Wheeldon and Senator Poyser should seek to use this opportunity to prevent a viewpoint contrary to their own being expressed in this chamber because that is typical of the way in which this Labor Government tries to conduct the affairs of this nation.

We are talking about the Australian assistance program and all that the Government has said is that what the Opposition has been complaining about has absolutely no foundation. If I may I will refer to what the report of the Estimates Committee, on which there were 3 Government senators and 3 Opposition senators, has said about this plan. It has not yet been quoted. Let us hear what the Government has to say about the report of this Committee. Part of the report states:

The Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Senate to sub-division 4 of division 530 in the estimates of expenditure of the Department of Social Security.

I interpolate to say that that is what I have been endeavouring to speak about all today. That is what Senator Wheeldon and Senator Poyser have been claiming I have not been speaking about. The Committee ‘s report continues:

This sub-division proposes a sum of $5,970,000 to bc spent under the Australian Assistance Plan for the development of regional welfare services. Most of this money is to be spent through bodies known as Regional Councils for Social Development, which are intended to include representatives of governments and private organisations.

Mr Chairman, if Labor senators are prepared to engage in some listening instead of conversation amongst themselves, I ask the Committee of the Whole to consider the next sentence in the Committee’s report, which states:

The Committee considers that there is a need for adequate procedures to be laid down to ensure that the Regional Councils are genuinely representative and that the fullest opportunity is provided for public participation in them.

It was in support of that proposition that Senator Baume initially rose this afternoon. It was in support of that proposition that I instanced things which had occurred with regard to the western suburbs of Melbourne development council which were subsequently conceded to have occurred and which were said by the Minister to have been simply teething problems in a new organisation. I have suggested that far more fundamental questions are implicit in this proposition of the Committee than have been adverted to so far. For all the obfuscating fury with which the Minister has sought to shut out discussion about this Australian Assistance Plan, it ought to be recognised that it contains the means and the mechanisms for patronage unparalleled in the history of this country. If one reads the documents which have been circulated in support of this Australian Assistance Plan one can see that power is vested in those few people who happen to be the interim committee which has the power to decide who shall comprise the regional council and who shall comprise therefore the executive committee which determines the whole structure of this concept.

I wish to refer to what is contained in Guidelines for Pilot Program- Australian Assistance Plan’ which has been put out by the Department of Social Security because it shows how it can be misused for the purposes for which any government intent on using patronage desires to use it. It is amazing that a sufficient number of commentators have not gone through this documents to realise the power that is given to a few individuals to use millions of dollars to give effect to some party political program.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I want to make a number of things clear. First, Senator Greenwood has said that I have suggested or stated that what Opposition senators have said on this matter is in some way to be deplored and that I have subjected them to a tirade of abuse.

Senator Greenwood:

– So you have.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I deny that. I believe that I have answered courteously all those senators who have spoken, apart from Senator Greenwood. I believe that Senator Baume has asked interesting and important questions with regard to this matter. I thought that I had answered them courteously. I certainly endeavoured to answer them courteously and to the best of my ability. Questions were raised by Senator Davidson. I have not yet answered them, but I certainly will not subject him to a tirade of abuse. I believe that the questions which were asked and the matters that were raised by Senator Jessop were worthy of respect. I thought I had answered them courteously. I cannot remember any tirade of abuse which I offered to Senator Jessop. I congratulated Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson for his contribution to the debate. In fact Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson used the expression ‘teething troubles’. I did not use it. Senator Greenwood now says that I am trying to excuse the initial weaknesses- I admit there are weaknesses- of the Australian Assistance Plan by referring to teething troubles. I did not say that at all. The former leader of the Liberal Party in the Senate used that expression. I quoted Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson by saying that I agreed with him that there are teething troubles, but the expression came from Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. If Senator Greenwood wishes to take something up with anybody he can take it up with Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson.

I find it personally offensive- I do not say that lightly- to be accused of being a party to the giving of patronage and of being a party to some dishonest practice, which is what has been suggested by Senator Greenwood tonight. He has virtually accused the Government, he has accused the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) and he has accused me of corruption with regard to this Australian Assistance Plan. I find that a personally obnoxious reference. In the past outside this chamber I have been personally civil to Senator Greenwood. As from now I shall cease that practice. I do not doubt that it will be no loss to either of us. I did have some small regard for Senator Greenwood in the past, but he has lost completely whatever regard I did have for him. I regard his comments as one of the most contemptible accusations I have heard in this Parliament. It is perfectly untrue to say that I or any other senator on this side of the chamber has engaged in any sort of attacks on those senators in the Opposition who have asked questions or made any criticisms of the operation of this Plan, because we have not done so. We have dealt with the matters that have been raised. But Senator Greenwood has not. He has accused us of corruption; he has accused us of dishonesty; he has accused us of using the Australian Assistance Plan for the purposes of patronage. I categorically deny it. I find it personally insulting. I find it an affront to this Parliament and to this Government and I would think also that it would be an affront to those Liberal senators who sat on the Committee which inquired into these proposed expenditures. I would think it would be an affront to Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson in view of what he said tonight. I invite anybody to look at Hansard to see what Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson did say on this subject.

I do not intend to spend any more time whatsoever on the outrageous allegations that Senator Greenwood has made. But I do intend to deal with some other matters that have been raised. Senator Davidson has raised the question of the headquarters of the South Australian Youth Council and the difficulties it has experienced, or may experience, in obtaining a grant from the Central Adelaide Regional Council under the Australian Assistance Plan. It appears that the headquarters of the Youth Council may be outside the Central Adelaide region. I am informed that this does not prevent the South Australian Youth Council from receiving assistance. It may receive assistance from the relevant regional council in whichever region it is functioning. If its headquarters are outside the Central Adelaide region it is none the less entitled to receive assistance for the work that it is doing inside the Central Adelaide region or inside any other region in South Australia. If the South Australian Youth Council has experienced difficulties of which Senator Davidson is aware I ask him to acquaint me with those difficulties. I undertake to take them up with the Department so that they may be overcome. Certainly under the guidelines for the regional councils it is eligible for these grants and there is no reason for its concern that its headquarters may not be in the area in which it is engaging in its work.

Senator Baume has raised the matter of a proper accounting system for the disbursing of moneys which are received by the various regional councils. The regional councils must obtain prior approval from the Department of Social Security and provide evidence that the funds for which they have applied are to be expended for the purposes for which they are provided.

Senator Baume:

– Would it be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General?

Senator WHEELDON:

– Yes. Regional councils are required to submit regularly to the Department of Social Security certified audited statements setting out all receipts and expenditure in each period.

Senator Greenwood:

– But that is not unless the Auditor-General has occasion to look at them.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am not speaking to Senator Greenwood. I am referring to the questions which were asked by Senator Baume. If Senator Greenwood wishes to make another of his typical contributions he is at liberty to do so and I will deal with it in the manner it deserves. I am now answering the serious question which was asked by Senator Baume with regard to the accounting and auditing of regional councils. Having been interrupted by Senator Greenwood I will try to get back to the explanation I was giving to Senator Baume. I understand he has some real interest in the matter. I repeat that regional councils are required to submit regularly to the Department of Social Security certified audited statements setting out all receipts and expenditure in each period. The Department examines these to ensure that all expenditure complies with the purposes for which the grants are made. The audited reports have to be presented to the Department.

Senator Baume:

– Does the Auditor-General then examine those?

Senator WHEELDON:

-The regional councils are not as regional councils subject to scrutiny by the Auditor-General.

Senator Greenwood:

– Precisely, and that is the point. That is a valid point and you know it.

Senator WHEELDON:

– If the Opposition wants me to endeavour to answer a question on a rather complicated subject, a question which I thought was being seriously asked by way of making some contribution to the Plan, I am prepared to do so. If Senator Greenwood would like to engage in another form of debate I can assure him that I can do it just as well as he can. I have known Senator Greenwood for a long time and there are few people in this Parliament who frighten me less than he does. But if we want to have a discussion about the auditing and accounting arrangements- a very complicated matter- that is what I would like to do. If the Opposition does not want to listen to the answers I am prepared to sit down and keep quiet. I am not prepared to try to answer a complicated question with this hee-hawing coming from Senator Greenwood opposite me. He is a disgrace to the Senate and I think he is a disgrace to the Party of which he is the Deputy Leader.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator WebsterOrder! I will not have Senator Wheeldon using those words.

Senator WHEELDON:

-As far as I am concerned I have no further contribution to make on the questions that have been asked.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Before the Minister resumes his seat I ask him to withdraw the statement. It is an unparliamentary statement.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Which one?

The CHAIRMAN:

– That Senator Greenwood is a disgrace to the Senate.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I withdraw the statement.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– One can arouse one’s feelings and I know how they can be aroused on particular issues. The fact that feelings are aroused and strong words are spoken ought not to obscure the fact that we are dealing here with an Australian Assistance Plan which has enormous implications and which ought to concern the Senate when the Senate is probing into ways in which money is being expended. There is not one jot of parliamentary authority for the way in which moneys are expended under this Australian Assistance Plan. What we are being asked to do tonight is to approve the voting of approximately $6m to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) to spend as he pleases. We are told that there is an Australian Assistance Plan which represents the way in which he will spend this money. All that the Opposition is trying to do is say that it is not good enough to have an Australian Assistance Plan which has flexible guidelines, which has no determined criteria, and in relation to which in the ultimate the manner in which the money is to be spent rests upon the Minister’s discretion. No matter how much this Government tries to cloud the issue it becomes ultimately a matter for the Minister’s discretion as to how the money is to be spent.

In those circumstances any parliament which wants to preserve the rule of law and parliamentary supervision of expenditure of public moneys is going to question the basis upon which this is to be done. That is the fundamental point about which we are concerned. I am prepared to suffer any amount of abuse from the Government if I can get my voice heard on this issue because what the Government is proposing is totally and fundamentally wrong. A parliament which allows it to occur might as well give the whole expenditure of public moneys to some Prime Minister or some Treasurer- albeit he might be changed in the next two or three days- and say: Spend the money as you please because Parliament is not concerned with how you spend it’. That is not the Westminster system and that is not the way we have conducted government in this country, and just because there is a temporary Labor Government in office it ought not to be the standard which prevails in this country for the future. This, I believe, is fundamental.

Let us get back to the point with which we are really concerned and that is the way in which the Assistance Plan shall work and why we say it is a question of possible patronage and is subject to the Minister’s control. We have for the expenditure of these moneys an interim committee prior to the establishment of a permanent regional council. How many permanent regional councils have been established? We have not been told. There are 6 regions which are constituted in Australia but in those 6 regions how many councils have been permanently constituted? I challenge the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) to say. Is it more than one? If it is only one, who is expending the money in these other regions? I suspect that where money is being expended in these other regions it is being expended by these interim committees. But who constitutes these interim committees? We are just not told.

Before Estimates Committee, Mr Luby who is concerned with the administration of this scheme, had this to say:

In this interim period of the experimental program -

That is the position we are in at the moment- money is being given to these interim committees to form themselves the regional council.

Who asks people to become an interim committee? How is that interim committee established? The Minister, for all the time he has taken in this Senate trying to explain the Assistance Plan, has not yet said who are the people who constitute these interim committees. Who are the people to whom invitations are sent? That is the fundamental question. I mention my own area, the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and refer to the fact that in the last fortnight or 3 weeks there has been an Eastern Suburbs Social Regional Development Council established or, if it was not established there was a meeting held, which had been publicised, for the purpose of constituting that council. Who were the persons who received invitations? I spoke to my local Federal member of Parliament and he had not received an invitation to this Committee. Yet I look at other committees which have been established in the metropolis of Melbourne and I note that Labor members of Parliament are right to the forefront on them.

Is the Minister prepared to say that Liberal members of Parliament are given invitations to these bodies? If he is prepared to say so, let him give the chapter and verse and explain why Mr Staley never received an invitation to the regional development council in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne of which the electorate of Chisholm comprises the major part. Senator Button is trying to interject now. He knows that if there was any fairness in this Mr Staley ought to have been told that there was an interim committee being established in his locality.

Senator BUTTON:

-Mr Staley could not spell social welfare ‘ let alone go.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am sorry that Senator Button said that. He said that Mr Staley cannot spell ‘social welfare’ and I guess that is supposed to be the reason why he was not given an invitation. This, I believe, highlights and justifies the sort of criticism I am making. There is some view on the part of some Government senators that some Liberal members of Parliament cannot spell- and what an unreasonable assertion it is to make in respect of a university lecturer in political science- and that, therefore, that particular person is not to receive an invitation.

When we have this sort of reaction from Senator Button together with the explanations given by Senator Wheeldon one ought to question whether this Assistance Plan is or is not being used for the purpose of political patronage. I said earlier that the function of these interim committees was to establish some sort of welfare program. We have not been told what the definition of ‘welfare’ is. Welfare may be best asserted by having a Labor Party member in the district and that may be the way in which the money is meant to be expended. I do not know. But quite apart from that question, these interim committees are supposed to form themselves into a social council. Once they have formed themselves into a social council they are supposed to create a company registered under the Companies Act of the particular State. We have had that happening in Victoria.

I think it is instructive to read this document headed ‘The Guidelines for a Pilot Program’ to see the specimen memorandum and articles of association for the companies which are supposed to be formed by these committees. If ever there is an indication of how to control the operations of a company it is contained in this document. Anyone who wants to misuse companies for their own purposes ought to read this document because they will get a lot of instruction. This interim committee presumably decides to form a company and therefore it has to have the subscribers to the memorandum of a company. My recollection is that S subscribers are adequate in order to form a company. When those subscribers have formed a company and have formed the articles of association there is in existence the embryonic means of conducting the affairs of that company.

How is it to be conducted? It is to be conducted by an executive committee. Who is to form that first executive committee? It is to be constituted of 12 persons. It is all set out here in this document. Twelve are to be appointed by the subscribers to the memorandum. What are the powers of that executive committee? It will then determine whether it wants to have on its council the members who have been appointed by the State Minister for Health. There is a power of veto if the executive committee does not like them. It is to have on its committee 2 members appointed by the Commonwealth Minister for Health or the Minister for Social Security. If the executive committee does not like them it has the power of veto over them. It is to have all sorts of other people representing bodies within the region- municipal bodies, associations and other welfare groups. But if the executive committee does not regard that organisation as being an organisation really concerned in welfare projects it can exclude it. All power rests in that executive committee.

Who, may I remind the Committee, appoints that executive committee? It is appointed by the subscribers to the memorandum. May I ask who appoints the subscribers to the memorandum? Will the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation inform us? Will he say how those people are appointed? If he does he really will be breaking new ground. I believe that at the present time the persons who appoint the subscribers to the memorandum are the persons approved by the Minister for Social Security and his minions and in the sense it is nothing more than a means of political patronage.

I accept, as my colleague Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has said, that there is a genuine feeling throughout the community that this type of assistance program has a tremendous amount going for it. There are a lot of people who see in it a future which could revolutionise the provision of welfare in this country, members of the Opposition are amongst those people, but we do not believe that the program as at present devised ought to be subject to the manipulation to which it is subject at the present time. Let us combine all the goodwill that exists in the community. Let us ensure that proper welfare purposes are served, but let us make sure that there is a proper procedure under which the members of these committees are appointed and under which the money which is able to be dispensed is dispensed. Let us make sure that it is not a means of dispensing political patronage. I believe, for all the simulated indignation which the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation can raise, that this is one of the functions which this Government believes its assistance program is promoting. I believe that we have to examine this assistance program to make sure that the purposes for which the Parliament as a whole believes it can serve usefully are served and that the particular political purposes which the Labor Party wants for it are prevented from occurring.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Proposed expenditures- Department of Health, $99,872,000 and Department of the Environment and Conservation, $3,653,000- passed.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-We now pass on to the departments covered by Senate Estimates Committee F.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $ 1 8,895,000.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I would like to say a few brief words about the Postmaster-General’s Department. I want particularly to refer to the people who cannot get a continuous telephone service and people who cannot get a telephone. I was told, as appears at page 228 of the report of the proceedings of Estimates Committee F, that the number of small automatic exchanges to be installed in Queensland has been stepped up from 9 a year to about 12 a year. I was told also, as appears in another part of the report, that in Queensland there are still 330 non-continuous telephone exchanges. It is a simple matter to work out that if the rate of installation of automatic exchanges in Queensland is not stepped up people there will have to wait until the year 2000 or thereafter before they can get a 24 hour a day telephone service. Mr Chairman, I do not believe that it is good enough in 1974 that we have to wait at least 27 years, according to the Department’s calculations, before getting continuous services.

There are a lot of people who cannot even get a telephone. They are not allowed to build their own telephone lines but have to provide money for departmental lines built by the Department. In many cases the cost is prohibitive. Those are two of the things I would like to touch on. The departmental officials who appeared before Estimates Committee F were most co-operative and answered questions as best as they could. However the position is that the Department does not have the money or the facilities and a lot of people in Australia will have to wait a long time for a telephone or for a continuous telephone service. When the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) replies I would like him to tell the Senate what will be the position when the 2 proposed statutory corporations are established, probably some time in the next year or so. Will there be single line estimates for them? Will they have to account to Senate estimates committees for their expenditure, or will they be like some of the other statutory corporations we have in Australia and be outside the control of the estimates committees?

There are a couple of other things that concern me considerably. One of them is Saturday morning postal business. Business on Saturday looks to be a thing of the past although we have heard of a proposal to provide services on 2 Saturdays before Christmas. I do not know how it is to be worked.

Those are some of the things that concern me a little in the set-up of the Postmaster-General’s Department so far as our telecommunications and postal systems are concerned. Also, will the Minister tell us how the new courier service is going? I notice that he made an amended estimate and said that it will cost $900,000 for the balance of this year in order to enter into competition, at least in the city areas, with private enterprise. I would like an answer to those questions.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I have great sympathy for what Senator Lawrie has said tonight. I think it is appalling that anywhere in Australia one should have to contemplate waiting until the year 2000 before one can have some continuous service. I am also disturbed by the fact that people cannot have telephones installed in their homes, and in some cases in their businesses, as expeditiously as they would like. But I remind the Senate that this situation is not peculiar to the last 2 years. It has been going on for as long as I can remember. In fact I remember Senator Lawrie quite rightly raising this matter when his own Party was in power. He spoke for at least a quarter of an hour on the Estimates and listed the number of people in Queensland who could not get a telephone installed in their homes.

It is all very well to say that this should be done, but if it should be done today why should it not have been done in the last 23 years? After all is said and done, since the Australian Labor Party has been in Government we have on all occasions been told that inflation is the whole problem in Australian and no unnecessary expenses should be incurred. So whilst I have the utmost sympathy for the views expressed by Senator Lawrie, I suggest that not all the ills have come about in the last 2 years. There was plenty of opportunity prior to the Australian Labor Party taking office for the Post Office to remedy what Senator Lawrie now says are defects. I sympathise with him but I ask all concerned to recall that this situation has been going on for many years. Senator Lawrie himself has complained bitterly at Estimates Committees when I have been in attendance about the lack of communication for the people of Australia, particularly those in Queensland, who want telephones installed. I remind honourable senators that this situation has not come about just in the last 2 years.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I would like to raise the matter of television services. I understand that this is the responsibility of the Postmaster-General’s Department. We are now in the era of colour television and yet television is not available to many isolated areas of Australia. It appears to me that a lot of work is being done in research into the possibility of providing a satellite for Australia to provide telecommunications and television services on a continental basis. I would appreciate it if the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) would report on the progress of his Department on this aspect. I understand that a lot of work has been done. I would appreciate it if he would let me know what work is currently being done in this regard.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– As Senator Milliner pointed out, on many occasions Senator Lawrie has put up a case for improved telephone services in rural areas. He has done that consistently. As he well knows, when his party was in Government the then Postmaster-General made the same observations that I have made with respect to some of these things that we are trying to achieve. The question is one of funds. As everybody knows, at the present time the Australian Post Office is run as one authority. Generally speaking, the postal side always loses a great amount of money. In this year the Post Office will lose about $50m and that will be made up for by the profits on the telecommunications side. The question is what resources should be applied to improvements, whether they be in areas of Queensland, South Australia or anywhere else, and to what extent certain country services can be subsidised.

I will quote these figures off the top of my head. The installation of a telephone in the city will cost something like $2,000. In a settled country area it will cost something like $4,000. But in an outer country area it will cost nearly $10,000. This Government is no different from any other government. It has to decide how its resources can best be allocated, how the Post Office can best perform its functions and how we can avoid the situation where the metropolitan taxpayers are subsidising people in country areas. Senator Lawrie has the answers. They are in the document to which he has referred.

I turn now to the statutory corporations. When they are set up they will be answerable to this Parliament. They will be subject to the same scrutiny in the Senate as are the departments we are discussing today. When these corporations are completely operative I expect that they will say to the Government: ‘We think that the tariffs for postal services or for telephone services should be X amount.’ The Minister in charge of the operations of the corporations may well be the Special Minister of State. If he says that in his opinion, for community or political reasons, that tariff is too high, the Government or the Treasurer will make up the difference between that amount and the amount which will be nominated by the Government for that particular service. There will be no decline in the Government’s power with respect to the services.

As I mentioned before, the Post Office has put forward the suggestion of establishing courier services. I have supported the suggestion. I think it is very necessary to make sure that the sort of business which is going out to private enterprise today and which might well be carried out by the Post Office ought to be carried out by the Post Office. Accordingly, I have given approval for the Post Office to purchase a number of vehicles for that purpose. A proper service will be organised. It will compete with the private operators. They will not be forced out of business. From memory I think that service will come into operation in about the middle of or some time during 1975.

The question which Senator Jessop raised has been raised by him before. It is still under examination. But may I say to the honourable senator that it is not purely a matter for the PostmasterGeneral or for the Post Office. The Post Office is responsible for the technical performance of any television or commercial radio services which the Minister for the Media decides to operate. I am mindful of Senator Jessop ‘s other question. I can see the time- I do not think it will be during the term of my responsibilities but it will certainly be during the term of the 2 corporations- when the telecommunications commission, which will be chaired by Mr Bill Gibbs, will undertake the sort of venture to which Senator Jessop has referred. As he knows, the Government has decided already that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission operations should be incorporated in some form in the new telecommunications corporation and we will be able to supplement the special activities which are now being engaged in by the OTC in the international field. I cannot give the honourable senator any more information than that, except to say that I am aware of the matters which concern him. I will discuss them with my colleagues at the earliest opportunity and when I am able to make a statement I will do so.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Department of Defence

Proposed expenditure, $1,205, 158,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– As Chairman of Estimates Committee F, I want to thank the Minister and his officers for the expeditious way in which the Committee was able to deal with all these departments. I think it is significant that the Committee finished half a day ahead of its scheduled time. There was a very good team spirit and, as a result of asking direct questions, the Committee elicited quite a lot of information. I took the liberty of sending to Mr Broomhill, the Minister for Conservation in South Australia, a copy of the text of replies given to questions asked in relation to Division 602- civil personnel, Off-Shire Wildlife Sanctuaries because, like a lot of other State Ministers, Mr Broomhill does have under his control off-shore islands which are sanctuaries. With all due respect to the drafting of this statement, which says that there will be consultation between the services and the Department of Agriculture, I should like to revise that to the extent of saying that I have written to Mr Broomhill and I will be writing to other State Ministers. Although the report refers to departments of agriculture, there are dedicated men like Mr Broomhill who are confronted with offshore vandalism by nomadic fishermen slaughtering fauna and if the Minister for Conservation in a State seeks the support of a service for a more frequent surveillance I hope that it will be forthcoming.

I should like to pay tribute to the witnesses from the Department of Defence because some of the answers the Committee received to searching questions about the ramifications of the Navy dockyards were particularly revealing. I do not suppose it is appropriate to name him, but there was a Mr Hill who seemed to be an encyclopaedia of information. The information the Committee received has appeared on the dockyard notice board and I think that is democracy if a vigilance committee can get information of that sort. I know I might warn the Department, but sometimes when information is received it can be the basis for other submissions. In this case it was a satisfactory outcome of the Committee’s deliberations.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I should like to say that Senator Mulvihill ‘s comments have not been forgotten. They are on record and I have already discussed them with the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard). I will try to have discussions with the Minister about the regulation of the offshore wildlife sanctuaries in the way that Senator

Mulvihill has suggested. I support what the honourable .senator says in respect of the representation from the Department of Defence. It does not hurt to say, as Senator Mulvihill says, that the people who came along from all areas gave very expert and satisfying answers to all of the questions from members of the Committee.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Department of Manufacturing Industry

Defence Research and Development Establishment -Administrative

Proposed Expenditure, $64,706,000.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise on this Division only because I asked a question of the Minister (Senator Bishop) yesterday in his capacity as representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration in regard to the criterion by which it is decided whether or not some people who are unemployed are to get the ordinary unemployment benefit, which I think is $3 1 a week, or whether they are to get the unemployment benefit which the Government has said is available to those who are affected by Government tariff cuts. This benefit could well be the average wage they were receiving over the last 6 months. In the answer which the Minister gave he referred to the role of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) in the determining of that criterion. I ask him now: Where does the Minister for Manufacturing Industry come into this area? What is his role?

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I do not think the question comes under this particular item but to answer the honourable senator’s question I have already asked the Minister concerned to supply as soon as possible answers to the questions raised yesterday by Senator Greenwood. I admit that the honourable senator thinks they have not been answered correctly and may involve–

Senator Greenwood:

– No, I am just asking for information.

Senator BISHOP:

– I think they have been explained. I took the honourable senator’s questions reasonably and constructively and I think they have been answered. I am prepared to say that it would be worth while to have a statement from the Ministers concerned as to where the obligations for these various payments rest. In relation to organisation, the old Department of Supply became the Department of Manufacturing Industry and, with the exception of defence research and development, all those enterprises and factories which were formerly under the control of the Department of Supply and the defence departments are now the direct responsibility of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. So if anybody were to ask me about the Maribyrnong factory or some other factory I would say that I could answer it but that it ought to be answered by Senator Wriedt representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. But in respect of the general question on payments, the structural adjustment payment, for example, which is the payment the Government has agreed to make to people who are displaced by tarin” actions, that criterion, while developed by the Cabinet as such, is a criterion which is the responsibility of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. It is well established that the amounts that can be paid are amounts for up to six months and presently, as everybody knows, in many cases, including those of Launceston and Wangaratta for example, there are some people who are being paid those amounts for 6 months, unless they are employed in another job which suits them. If they get the sack from that job then they go back on to the structural adjustment plan.

In respect of the other schemes, and I think these are questions which involve the Department of Labor and Immigration, there is the RED scheme, which is the Regional Employment Development Scheme. It proposes that moneys can be funded to sporting bodies or regional councils to enable people who are unemployed to be employed in constructive work. Those funds are established through an ad hoc committee which is chaired by the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Cameron) and presently there are some 400 projects which have been approved for construction in that way. In addition, as I have mentioned many times before- and I could debate this all night- the Government having decided on a manpower policy said that there should be a national training policy- the National Employment and Training scheme. The NEAT scheme was designed to provide training for people who may be unemployed or redundant because of changes in technological methods in the community.

So there you have a system of payments or compensation for people who might be displaced in the community and they are the sorts of schemes which operate at the present time. I can only say to Senator Greenwood that I hope that within the week I will have a comprehensive statement setting out in a general way the sorts of things I have talked about, a statement which any senator can use as a comprehensive statement on the payments which can be made to people in various ways.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Department of Labor and Immigration

Proposed expenditure, $107,466,000.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Again I should like to pay tribute to the officers of the Department of Labor and Immigration for the evidence that they gave to the Committee. I think those officers and the Minister will agree that since the hearings by Estimates Committee F there have been developments in a number of areas, and I refer particularly to the tremendous amount of administrative work that has flowed into the Department following the offer of the Australian Government to play its role in absorbing a number of Cypriot refugees. There is reference in today’s ‘Australian’ to the approaching winter in Cyprus and to the need to accelerate the processing of the potential refugees. I know that there are representatives of the Cypriot Brotherhood in Canberra tonight who are anxious to know when they can expect interim figures of the number of people who have been processed and accepted. I know the magnitude of the work involved for Mr Dempsey and his colleagues but they will appreciate that, together with Mr Innes in another place, we were deputed by Mr Clyde Cameron to act as liaison officers. I think that more than 600 applications have reached me in Sydney via the Brotherhood, at least 5 trade unions and 2 regional Greek organisations. I think honourable senators will appreciate that while the applications are being processed there is a certain amount of impatience, with winter coming on in that country, in relation to when we can get interim figures concerning those who have been successful. I have already told the officials from the Brotherhood that they cannot expect to win them all; they will get only a percentage. But I think that in recognition of the very difficult period which faces everyone, it is essential that we should have those figures.

I couple that remark with the question as to when we will get information concerning the total number of Chilean refugees who will be permitted to come to Australia. I know that this is an area where there is an overlap between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Labor and Immigration. The Minister’s advisers will know that when we rightly accept responsibilities within the area of political refugees, the figures concerning that area distort our actual annual migrant intake. I am not unmindful of the tight employment situation. To sum up, I wonder whether we can get an early interim indication of the number of Cypriot refugees who will be permitted to come to Australia and, secondly, whether we have finally decided on the total number of people who come within the category of Chilean refugees.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

- Mr Chairman, in dealing with the Department of Immigration I, as someone who has had a connection with that Department, want to pay a tribute to the officers of the Department who through the years have served Australia particularly well. In paying my tribute to them I want to express my concern for them at the way in which they have been miserably let down by this Government which has agreed to the complete disappearance of the Department and has put in its place something quite incompetent, under the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) whom I can only describe, as far as immigration is concerned, as incompetent, disinterested and inept regarding the whole range of migrants. I plead with the Government to take the element of immigration away from Mr Cameron for good and for all. He does not know how to handle it, he is completely disinterested in it and he is careless concerning it.

I am very concerned because I have had a lot to do with migrants over the years. It is a matter of grave concern and of some distress to me that this great family of Australian people which is spread right across the country is placed in the hands of a Minister who could not care less about it. I place that firmly on the line with all the conviction that I have. Mr Cameron, as the Minister for Labor and Immigration, came to the last 2 annual general meetings of the Good Neighbour Council in South Australia. On the first occasion he sat on the platform and said nothing. On the second occasion, a few weeks ago, he came on to the platform and said a few words which gave neither encouragement, inspiration or help, or was of interest to the several hundred people who gathered there that day who were concerned with migrants and migration. I describe the Minister as being completely careless in relation to the welfare of migrants.

For some time now I have been making a series of representations to the Minister on behalf of a family in the United Kingdom who wanted a second assisted passage to Australia. I recognise that when one enters into that field one does so requiring a great amount of research, inquiry and judgment, and I accept that fact. I kept up my representations to the Minister. Finally, about a week or 10 days ago I received from the Minister a long letter in which he explained that he had taken all of my representations into account and that after giving due consideration to the matter he had decided to allow these people to come from the United Kingdom to Australia on a second assisted passage. He said that arrangements would be made for his Department to get in touch with the family in the United Kingdom, and that in due course arrangements would be made for the family to travel to Australia.

The letter was sent to me here in Canberra. I was so pleased with the result of my representations that I arranged with my office in Adelaide to send an urgent telegram to the relatives of this family in Adelaide acquainting them of the good news. Within an hour my secretary received a telephone call in which she was advised that the family from the United Kingdom had been in Australia for a month. That is the best the Minister can do. That is the most interest that he can take in the matter. That is the way in which he is attending to migrants in Australia. When he came to the Good Neighbour Council in South Australia he did not say anything at all. I ask the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) and the Committee: What is the future of the Good Neighbour Councils which, for the last onequarter of a century, have done so much for immigration in Australia? The best that Mr Cameron can do is to say nothing- not even pay lip service to the question of immigration.

When the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) came to Adelaide to speak at the 25th anniversary of the Good Neighbour Council in South Australia he laid great emphasis on the fact that family reunion was to be the great cornerstone of Australia’s immigration policy. For 3 years I have been working on a case concerning a family reunion, but nobody knows now where the papers are. They might be in London, they might be in the Department of Health or they might be in the Department of Immigration. Even the Minister does not know what has happened to them. I plead with the Government to take this area of deep personal, national concern out of the portfolio of the Minister, who could not care less about it. I do not wonder that he could not care less about it. Heaven knows, the Minister for Labor and Immigration has on his hands now more than enough problems of his own making. He has not got time to think about migrants. For heaven’s sake give the area of immigration to a Minister who will care for it and for the people who belong to it, who are affected by it and who are suffering by it. When I say ‘suffering by it’ I know what I am talking about. There is no communication between the Department of Labor and Immigration, the State authorities and the people concerned with immigration. The whole thing has reached the stage where hundreds of people feel that they have been let down by the Australian Government.

As the estimates for the Department of Labor and Immigration are before the Committee tonight I take the opportunity of drawing the Government’s attention to the fact that there is a wide feeling of unrest, distrust and indeed almost grief at the way in which the migrant community in Australia has been treated by the Government. All the things that have been set up have been left to wither on the vine. If the Government does not want them, let it say so and dispose of them. What is to happen to the work of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council which was set up by a Labor government many years ago and which, during the last one-quarter of a century, has been dealing successfully, I believe, with the integration of migrants into the total Australian community? Now we have that body tacked on to something that is a very busy and a very difficult department. It is given to a Minister who has an enormous amount of work to deal with. His own actions and the statements that he has made, such as they are, have indicated his complete indifference and carelessness concerning the welfare of migrants, and I protest strongly.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I refer briefly to the national employment and training scheme, known as NEAT, that has been introduced into Australia recently. I am anxious to ascertain what is the present weekly cost of this scheme and how many people are involved in it. In particular, I want to know why the people involved in the scheme are not included in the unemployment statistics.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise in defence of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) in respect of what Senator Davidson has seen fit to accuse him of tonight. Senator Davidson went on with a great tirade of criticism of Mr Cameron, but when one boils it all down one finds that Senator Davidson has only 2 criticisms. I will deal with the first one. Senator Davidson said that over a long period he had made representations concerning a second assisted passage for migrants from England.

Senator Poyser:

– For 3 years.

Senator McLAREN:

-No. That was a different case. This is the case where Senator Davidson for a long time was making representations concerning a second assisted passage. The only criticism that he has of the Minister in that case is that these people arrived in South Australia a month before Senator Davidson was notified. What is wrong with that, if they arrived? Perhaps Senator Davidson had not opened his mail for that month, or he may not have been in his office. But at least the Minister did give these people a second assisted passage, and that is what Senator Davidson was complaining about. He wants 2 bites of the cherry. He cannot criticise the Minister for that.

The other criticism which Senator Davidson makes of Mr Cameron is that Senator Davidson had been working on a case for 3 years and the papers were lost. This Government has not been in office 3 years. So for at least one year and 2 months the case about which Senator Davidson complains was the responsibility of a Minister for Immigration who was a member of the Government which Senator Davidson supported. That is possibly when the papers were lost. I have had cases involving migrants that I have taken up with Mr Cameron. I can say only that they have been given the greatest of sympathy. If the only 2 cases upon which Senator Davidson can criticise Mr Cameron are the 2 cases that he has mentioned tonight, I am sure that he has based his criticism on very flimsy grounds and he is on very thin ice. He is only trying to ridicule the Minister because of some personal grudge he has against him. Perhaps it is because our Minister for Labor and Immigration is a South Australian. The fact is that Senator Davidson is opposed to this Government and he has to vent his spleen on a Minister who, in my opinion, has done a good job in the short time that he has been the Minister in charge of immigration.

We must not forget the vindictive campaign that was conducted against the previous Minister for Immigration, Mr Grassby, in the electorate of Riverina during the period leading up to the election held on 18 May 1974. We know of all the filth that was scooped up to have him defeated in the job. I never heard Senator Davidson coming to the defence of Mr Grassby during that campaign. He was quite prepared then to sit back and be silent when that criticism was levelled against the previous Minister for Immigration. I have been to citizenship ceremonies and I have never heard Senator Davidson or people like him criticise the previous Minister for Immigration, Mr Grassby. But these same people were not prepared to speak out in his defence when organisations such as the League of Rights were conducting a very vindictive campaign against him in the electorate of Riverina to bring about his defeat because of the humane policies that man was implementing while he was Minister for Immigration. I think that it ill behoves Senator Davidson to stand up here tonight and criticise the present Minister for Immigration. I had greater respect for Senator Davidson before he made these remarks tonight than I have at the present time.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I will reply first to Senator Mulvihill ‘s first remarks in relation to Cyprus. At the present time there is, in fact, a group of specialists in Cyprus who are looking at the question of bringing out to Australia a number of people who have been hardest hit in the conflict, at the question of sponsored relatives and also at the question of single girls and other classifications of people which that group of specialists thinks ought to be brought out to Australia. I can say only this: The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) responded very quickly to the need to send people to that country. He did not try to have prospective migrants assessed from Athens, London or Australia. In fact, he sent a group to Cyprus. This group is composed of people who may be called specialists in this field. As a matter of fact, Mr Cameron seconded a member of my staff, a young Greek lawyer who he thought might be useful because he knew the language. That group of specialists is working there presently. I say to Senator Mulvihill that I am quite sure that they wil do what is necessary to ensure that there wil be a minimum of hardship in relation to those people.

Some 3,000 civilians are expected to arrive in Australia from ChUe this year. Many of these people will be refugees and others who are suffering political discrimination. I think that Senator Davidson was being rather nostalgic when he raised the matters that concern him. I think he was looking back at the time when he was Chairman of the Immigration Advisory Council and when the general immigration needs were different from what they are present. When the Government decided to amalgamate the Departments of Labor and Immigration it stated that there was a need to ensure that the workforce requirements were more directly geared to our immigration targets. That was explained to Senator Davidson. For example, who would say today with the unemployment we have that we should not be very cautious about the sort of migrants that we have, the skills of those migrants and their relationships with people in Australia? None of this has been changed. AU those personnel overseas who were at the posts under the previous Government are still at their posts. They are doing the same sort of job, except, of course, that under the present

Government they have been supplemented by specialists in social services and in other fields. So nothing has been lost.

It is not of much use for the honourable senator to complain about the Minister not answering his queries earlier. All honourable senators could cite similar cases of which we have knowledge. I know that in the old days when I was a backbencher I used to wait for months and months for Ministers of the previous Government to reply to such questions. The delays always seemed to be unreasonable. But we know now that many of these inquiries have to go far afield. So I can only say in respect of what Senator Davidson is doing tonight that I think he is being a bit personal. Mr Cameron was made the Minister for Labor and Immigration by Government decision. In my opinion, he is doing a good job. But he is making sure that the targets for intake of labour are related to the workforce requirements of this country. If we did not do that, we would have a position worse than the position we have today. After all, what government, apart from the Labor Government, has done these great things for migrants? Since we came to office- the previous Government did not do this- we have provided pensions overseas for some 600 Greeks, 600 Italians and 100 Yugoslavs. They are presently receiving pensions which they did not receive before. So I can only say to the honourable senator that the experience he has had in relation to our Minister for Labor and Immigration is perhaps the same as we had in relation to Ministers of other governments.

I have obtained some figures in relation to the National Employment and Training Scheme. The figures relate also to existing schemes. Perhaps I should give them in 2 categories. I will cite first the figures in relation to the group A employment training scheme before the introduction of the NEAT scheme. There were 2,745 trainees engaged full-time, 2,145 trainees on part-time, and 1,750 trainees in plant. Of course, these figures included the trainees working under schemes operated by the various departmentsthe Department of Repatriation and Compensation, Housing and Construction and so on. The estimated figures as at October 1974 in relation to the B group- that is, the National Employment and Training Scheme group- show that there are 4,245 full-time trainees, 2,595 parttime trainees and 1,800 in-plant trainees. I think these are the figures that Senator Jessop wanted. In respect of the honourable senator’s last question as to why such people were not included in the list of unemployed persons, I state that once they join the scheme they become students in the same way as anybody else who is training is a student. I think that I have answered the questions that honourable senators have asked me. I thank honourable senators for the speedy consideration of these matters.

Proposed expenditure passed.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-We now pass to the departments covered by Senate Estimates Committee G.

Proposed expenditure- Department of Aboriginal Affairs, , $69,809,000-passed.

Department of Urban and Regional Development

Proposed expenditure, $ 14,292,000.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I wish to raise the question of the National Estate. This morning I asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) who represents the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) in the Senate a question concerning the preservation of the Hallett Cove area and in regard to the fact that there were bulldozers in the area encroaching upon a very important geological structure that is of great importance to South Australia. I think that the Minister was very sympathetic with the idea of the preservation of this area. He said that he had inspected this part of South Australia when he was a member of the Opposition. He stated that he tried to get money from the then Government in order that this area could be preserved. But he seemed to show disinterest in the matter because he did not give me any answer to my question. I want to know what the Federal Government intends doing with respect to that very important area of South Australia. Scientifically and geologically it is a most significant and unique feature of that State. Yet, the Minister seemed to me to brush aside the matter and treat it in a very off-hand manner.

The Minister for the Environment and Conservation (Dr Cass) has visited South Australia to inspect this geological structure and agrees that something ought to be done about it. In my view, the Federal Parliament and the Federal Government ought to accept this responsibility. It ought either to try to persuade the South Australian Government to alter its attitude with respect to the plan for this area or to acquire it for the benefit of the South Australian people as part of the National Estate. I would like the Minister to give me a more sympathetic answer than he gave this morning during question time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise to say a few words in connection with the appropriation of money for the growth centre of Monarto in South Australia. I am pleased that the present Labor Government is assisting with finance for the development of this growth centre. I shall read from the Budget document headed ‘Urban and Regional Development 1974-75’. It states:

The Australian Government has agreed to assist the initiatives of the South Australian Government in the development of the Monarto growth centre which is located near the town of Murray Bridge, 80 kilometres east of Adelaide.

Some time ago the South Australian Government enacted legislation for the establishment of the Monarto Development Commission and for the acquisition of 15,400 hectares of land within the designated site of the growth centre.

The Australian Government gave a commitment of financial assistance to the South Australian Government for land in the growth centre amounting to $8.5m. Part of this assistance was made available in 1973-74 together with funds for planning studies, tree planting and the establishment of the Development Commission.

In 1974-75 the Australian Government will provide financial assistance for the growth centre, for the balance of the land acquisition program, the first stage of the design program, and other works.

I express my concern at public statements which are being made by honourable senators opposite in connection with the development of the growth centre. I am particularly disturbed at a statement made in Adelaide last week by the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr Snedden. I shall not read all of it. Mr Snedden is reported in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ of Tuesday, 5 November, as saying:

The land already purchased for Monarto would not obligate a Liberal government to go ahead with the project at the present rate.

This is very disturbing not only to myself as a person who has lived in the area for nearly 25 years but also to many people who have been looking for a growth centre in Adelaide to take off some of its population so that it can remain the beautiful garden city with plenty of open spaces and parks which it is at the present time. Many people not only in Adelaide but also in the Murray Valley area were disturbed that Mr Snedden saw fit to make a statement such as that. But, further than that, there seems to be a concerted campaign by people in opposition to this growth centre of Monarto. I saw fit to raise this matter in the Senate during the adjournment debate one night recently because of a statement made by the shadow Minister for Housing, Mr McLeay. My remarks that night drew forth support for Mr McLeay from 3 Liberal Party senators. So it seems as though the Liberal Party is very much opposed to the establishment of the growth centre at Monarto.

But further to that we find that the chairman of the Mobilong District Council, Mr Green, has been floating rumours around the area. I think he is also State president of the Dairymen’s Association. He has said that either the State Labor Government or the Monarto Development Commission will acquire some of the rich dairy flats in the Murray Bridge area for, as he described it, a playground or a recreation area for the people of Monarto. Of course this has had a very upsetting effect on people who earn their living from dairying on those rich river flats. Many of them have come to me expressing concern that the Government may acquire their means of livelihood. This has all been brought about by those statements made by Mr Green. I have spoken to Mr Green. He told me that the statement was made by a public servant at a meeting at which he, Mr Green, was not present. He got the information second hand. But he saw fit to make these public statements and caused this very great concern among the people who live there and who are making a living there. But not only is there concern for that reason. People are concerned also that if they want to dispose of their dairy farms a potential buyer will refrain from buying now because of the fear that these flats might be acquired for recreation purposes. I want to acquaint the Senate with a telex message which I received yesterday from the Minister in charge of this project in South Australia, the Minister of Development and Mines, Mr Hopgood. the Telex states:

The Monarto Development Commission has absolutely no interest in acquiring dairy farms north of Murray Bridge. This unequivocal statement was made today by the Minister of Development and Mines (Don Hopgood) -

He is also the Minister for Conservation in the South Australian Parliament-

Mr Hopgood is also the Minister responsible for the Monarto Development Commission. He was replying to persistent rumours that the Monarto Development Commission would acquire the land for eventual development for recreational purposes.

As far as the Monarto Development Commission is concerned it is only a rumour. The Monarto Development Commission has no interest in the land nor has it initiated any inquiry for use of the land for recreational purposes. I don’t know how a satisfactory reply can be made to a rumour other than to categorically deny it. People have been told clearly the Monarto Development Commission has no interest whatsoever in the land, yet they persist in peddling the story and demanding a satisfactory reply. The only area of land in which the Monarto Development Commission might be interested is the Sturt Reserve, south of Murray Bridge -

At present that is controlled by the Murray Bridge Corporation-

The Government was asked about 3 years ago to acquire this area of land but it would be a costly undertaking. The Monarto Development Commission is investigating the possibility of purchasing a small part of this for recreation purposes, ‘ Mr Hopgood said.

That is the text of the message which I received yesterday from Mr Hopgood. The reason I rose here tonight was to express my concern that members of the Opposition, both State and Federal, have by their actions made it obvious to everybody that they are opposed to this growth centre. This Government has seen fit to appropriate moneys for the development of this area. I hope that members of the Opposition in their wisdom and with some hindsight and second thoughts will take a different attitude to the development of Monarto. Perhaps Mr Snedden thought, when he made that statement, that by some mischance he would become the new Prime Minister of Australia at very short notice. But I think his chances of that are receding fast into the background.

I assure people who are interested in the development of Monarto that while this Government remains in office Monarto will go ahead apace. In years to come people will look back at this project with pride as they have looked back at the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. We recall that in the initial stages of the development of the hydro-electric scheme the Liberal Party was also opposed to it. As I have said in this Parliament on many occasions, that scheme is now looked upon as the eighth wonder of the world. At the opening of the scheme the Liberal Party Opposition at the time was so opposed to it that they boycotted it. But they have not gone so far as to boycott the foundation ceremony in relation to Monarto which took place last year. As I have said, I hope that members of the Liberal Party in Opposition will come out and say publicly that they are right behind this scheme. I am afraid that if they do not do so they will live to rue the day. They will regret the opposition which they are launching at this very fine project in South Australia.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I rise under stimulation from Senator Jessop purely to clarify one or two matters about the respective attitudes of his Party, the former Government, and of this Government to the question of the conservation and preservation of Australia’s unique national heritage. Twice today I have had the extraordinary experience of listening to Senator Jessop pursue with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) the question of the preservation of a particular area of geographical distinction in South Australia. On each occasion he has betrayed a substantial delusion, I suspect, as to the concept of preservation upon which this Government has embarked. When the

Minister answered the honourable senator’s question this morning he pointed out that under the last Government he, as an Opposition senator in those days, had raised the question of the preservation of this piece of land without any success whatsoever.

The point I really want to make is that that was typical of 23 years of Liberal governments in Australia and the concept of preservation as they understood it really amounted to nothing moreand still does- than the preservation of the interests of superannuated charity workers and party donors who received knighthoods and the preservation still of a rather pompous and irrelevant national anthem. But this Government has an entirely distinct concept of preservation- as to what is important in the Australian national heritage and what indeed is unique. I invite Senator Jessop to look at the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate where he will see that all these matters such as the one to which he referred will now be referred to that Committee for consideration. They will include matters which concern not only unique geographical features, unique natural and botanical features of this country but also the preservation of historical buildings which are important to future generations of Australians.

There is much debate in this place on the level of unemployment and things of that kind. Unemployment levels come and go and of course they came and went with monotonous rapidity under a series of Liberal governments. But the point remains that in 23 years of government the Liberal Party did nothing about this very important question of preserving unique historical and natural features in this country. I think it is a very great tribute to the Government and to the Department of Urban and Regional Development that this Committee has been established, that it is now pursuing its work and the sort of matters about which Senator Jessop now expresses great concern are being considered by that Committee on a continuing and on-going basis. So I point to that difference in the concept of what it is important to preserve in this country and to the work of this Committee as representing a distinct and ongoing aspect of the national aspirations of Australian people which are sometimes ignored by the Opposition.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– One of the great aspirations of the Australian people is to preserve their jobs, and I suggest that Senator Button might devote himself to that exercise.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I have been provoked to rise to my feet again on this matter. I have been approached by people who are interested in the geological structure of the Hallett Cove area. They are gravely concerned because bulldozers are encroaching on this area.

Senator Button:

– Lie down in front of them.

Senator JESSOP:

-That is a good idea. I might even do that. But what I am suggesting to the Government and in particular to Senator Cavanagh is that they are now in a position to do something about prohibiting any further bulldozing in that area until the Minister has had a chance to examine it on the basis of the evidence that has been presented by his colleague the Minister for Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass. There is no point in following up Senator Button’s idea that this matter should be referred to a committee because by the time a committee reports on it this amphitheatre, which is a 600 million year old geological structure, could be destroyed. So I am supporting the concept of preserving this part of South Australia. I am supporting the concept of the National Estate which I believe is a credit to the present Government. As a Liberal I am not too proud to recognise some of the things that have been done by the Government that are good although 99lh per cent of the things it has done to this country have been disastrous and are tending to wreck the economy and to wreck a country that Liberal-Country Party governments built up over a period of 23 years. In a matter of less than 2 years the present Government has effectively destroyed this. I am suggesting that the Minister should not allow this part of South Australia to be destroyed because I think it ought to be preserved as an area that could be included in the National Estate. I am paying the Minister a very very strong tribute for the action that he has taken in this field. My only criticism is that he has done nothing about his promises and neither has the South Australian Government. This is causing a good deal of worry to scientists, geologists and residents in this area who are concerned about this matter and I share that concern.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I listened with some interest to the representative of the Opposition who sounds like the windy-windy of the National Estate. He has suddenly found out that there is a National Estate. He has suddenly found out that there is a Department of Urban and Regional Development which is doing something about this -

Senator Jessop:

– We know what you have not done.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Let me say this because I did not interrupt while you were speaking. I want to say that the only thing that appears to be worrying our friend from the Opposition side is that his friends, the developers, cannot take their bulldozers everywhere. I asked a question in this place today. I come from an area that suffered as a result of greedy developers backed up by a State Premier who is pocketing money on the side in the same way as his friends are.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to a point of order. Standing order 4 1 8 is explicit. It says that a senator cannot cast reflections upon a member of a State House of Parliament. Senator Keeffe has made an accusation under parliamentary privilege. He would not dare to make it outside this chamber and he knows it. I submit that our Standing Orders have a ground under which persons outside this chamber who are members of a State House of Parliament can be protected. The sort of throw-away line in which Senator Keeffe engages is one to which I would have thought in upholding the proprieties of this place we ought to object. To accuse anybody of taking money on the side, particularly when that person is in a position of responsibility, is certainly a reflection.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-The point of order is upheld. Senator Keeffe, I ask you to withdraw the remark you made concerning the Premier of Queensland.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I would say that he did not take it on the side; he took it as a speculator. That is a fair enough proposition to make.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! Senator Keeffe, you will withdraw the remark entirely about the Premier of Queensland and you will not place a variation on it as you are attempting to do.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr Chairman, it is obvious that you have 2 sets of rules. You allow one bloke on the opposite side to make all the false accusations in the world but you do not allow me to tell the truth about somebody. What do you want me to withdraw? If you will explain to me the words that you want me to withdraw I will withdraw them.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to a point of order. This conduct of the honourable senator seeking to disobey a request from the Chair has never been tolerated by a Chairman or a President of whatever political complexion. I submit that Senator Keeffe has an obligation to withdraw as you, Mr Chairman, requested.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Speaking to the point of order, I think we have to get some sense and clarity into this. Senator Keeffe did make a remark about the Premier of Queensland taking money on the side and to which objection was taken. You, Mr Chairman, asked him to withdraw it. He did withdraw it.

Senator Greenwood:

– He did not.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He did withdraw it and he substituted in lieu thereof the words that the Premier took money as a speculator. I think that is something which is quite a legitimate transaction so there is nothing derogatory about that. It is not a matter of saying someone took money underhand or on the side. I submit that Senator Keeffe did withdraw. Now someone wants to make a scene over this by canvassing your ruling, Mr Chairman, but he got involved tonight in personal hatreds as a result of an earlier debate. I commend you, Mr Chairman, for the attitude you adopted during the evening. I hope that we can get over this problem now and not have this personal animosity carried on.

Senator Greenwood:

– I submit that Senator Keeffe did not withdraw.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You have spoken on the point of order.

Senator Greenwood:

– I am rising on the point of order.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, I am raising a point of order. How many times can a senator speak on a point of order? Senator Greenwood has spoken on the point of order. I have spoken on the point of order. He seeks to come back into this not to help you, Mr Chairman, but criticise what I have said.

Senator Button:

– Speaking to the point of order, I do not know whether the term ‘speculator’ is considered to be offensive at this time but really of course it depends on the context in which the expression is used because one who is a successful speculator might be quite highly regarded in Australia. For example, if one is in the position of the Queensland Premier and one holds shares in a company such as Comalco Ltd that might be regarded as a successful speculation. Nobody would suggest that Senator Keeffe was saying anything derogatory by using that expression. In the light of the subsequent expression which was used by the senator, I think the point of order can no longer be regarded as valid.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise on a point of order.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Is it another point of order? senator Greenwood- The point of order I raise is that the allegation was made that Senator Keeffe had withdrawn. My recollection is that Senator Keeffe did not withdraw, and I speak only to ensure that the proprieties of the Senate are adhered to.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I have a further point of order.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-I will hear it after Senator Greenwood has finished.

Senator Cavanagh:

– My point of order relates to his being on his feet.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You will not take a point of order while Senator Greenwood is speaking to his point of order.

Senator Greenwood:

– My point in rising was to say- this is a matter of record and, I suppose, your recollection ultimately, Mr Chairman- that Senator Keeffe did not withdraw. If the rules of the Senate are to be observed it appears to me proper to insist that a remark which is contrary to the Standing Orders be withdrawn. From time to time every senator is faced with this situation and every senator, with some solitary exceptions, withdraws in accordance with the request of the Chair. I submit that Senator Keeffe knows that he has breached the Standing Orders, and he should clearly and in a manly way withdraw his words. He has not yet done so.

Senator McLaren:

– I rise on the same point of order. Mr Chairman, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that Senator Greenwood has now taken offence at the remarks of Senator Keeffe. Repeatedly in this chamber tonight Senator Greenwood has accused this Government of indulging in political patronage. I think that his accusations are far stronger than anything that Senator Keeffe said here tonight. I sit alongside Senator Keeffe, and in my hearing he did withdraw the words which Senator Greenwood asked to be withdrawn and substituted for them other words. In my opinion, Mr Chairman, he complied with your ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do not uphold the point of order. Senator Keeffe did withdraw the original allegation that he made regarding the Premier of Queensland. He then replaced the former allegation with other words. I rule that those words do not breach the Standing Orders. I would ask Senator Keeffe to confine his remarks to the debate.

Senator KEEFFE:

– After all that, thank you, Mr Chairman. The man who precipitated all this has now gone for his evening coffee.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are you referring to me?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am not referring to Senator Greenwood. I do not think that he drinks coffee. He needs something else. I am referring to Senator Jessop who precipitated the arguments. Senator Greenwood needs mostly a good, healthy dose of sedatives from time to time; the chamber would then be a much happier place. I wish to point out that the establishment by this Government of the Department of Urban and Regional Development is one of the farthest reaching things that has happened in the history of parliaments in this country. I know that it is true to some degree that conservative State parliaments have set up shadows of some sort of development project, but they have never carried their windy promises into effect. I do not exclude my State of Queensland in this regard. Queensland has done more than any other State to wreck, if it could, the Department to which we are referring. Earlier today I asked a question in this chamber concerning a certain developer who offends very deeply and who is allowed to offend and get away with it. As my colleague Senator Button said a few moments ago, one can use the word ‘speculator’ because if anybody has been successful in this field it is the Premier of Queensland. He has speculated in just about everything that moves or walks or for which one can obtain a title by various means. He has become a very wealthy man in his own time because of his ability to use his parliamentary position to speculate in just about everything -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator KEEFFE:

-That is not meant to be offensive. It is the truth.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You will withdraw that remark about the Premier of Queensland.

Senator KEEFFE:

-What part of it?

The CHAIRMAN:

– You know the remark. You said that the Premier of Queensland enhanced his wealth by speculation as a result of his parliamentary position. You will withdraw that remark.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr Chairman, you make it very difficult for me because that remark has been made outside the Parliament. I will withdraw it. It has been said outside the Parliament, and the Premier of Queensland has not sued anybody over it. Mr Chairman, as you feel that I have offended against the Standing Orders- I am not sure that I have- I withdraw it.

Senator Greenwood:

– Hear, hear.

Senator KEEFFE:

– That is as good as a sedative. Regional development in Queensland has been held up because the Premier has played the game this way. Millions of dollars of Australian Government money are ready to flow into Queensland provided we can spend it in the way in which we wish to spend it. Let me digress for a moment. Recently legislation has been introduced into the Queensland Parliament to block the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation from carrying out development in Queensland unless it is in accordance with the personal wishes of the Premier. So the Burdekin Dam for all practical purposes has gone down the political drain. Yet it was only after December 1972 that the Australian Labor Government decided to carry on with the project that had been the dream of Queenslanders for almost 100 years. Now this has been effectively stopped. Our attempt to develop the regional growth centre of Townsville has been effectively stopped. Our attempt to develop other parts of Queensland has been effectively stopped because of a man who wishes to take Queensland out of Australia for all time. He wants his own flag, his own air force. The aircraft that he flies is now known as Petersen’s Air Force 1. He wants his own national anthem. He has registered the Queen as the Queen of Queensland. He has passed legislation to incorporate everybody in the community as Queenslanders, not as Australians. We must go through this diatribe all the time. Yet senators on the other side of the chamber say that this is OK. I hope that a new day Will dawn for the people of this country so that somewhere along the line Queenslanders may again be naturalised and brought back into Australia. The way that we wil do it is to ensure that this Department is under no circumstances stymied anywhere, and that it is given a free go. Why cannot the Premier of Queensland cooperate with the Australian Government in the same way as the conservative Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria co-operate? At least they are prepared to do something for their States in co-operation with the Australian Government. That is all I ask. The criticism that we have heard from the other side of the chamber builds up part of the story to which I have referred. I Will be very careful not to use religious terms about the Premier of Queensland. It builds up as part of the opposition to Australian Labor Government policies. One must live in Queensland to see the daily burblings and utterings of the Premier and to know that the great hatred that has been engendered is pursued right through to the Australian Parliament

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I wish to make a plea to the Minister for

Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) in connection with the matter which Senator Jessop raised. I refer to the development of the Hallett Cove area in South Australia. I would like the Minister to have an urgent look at this matter from a developmental, geological and scientific point of view. As a South Australian senator, surely the Minister must have received representations, as we all have, in relation to the damage that is being done at Hallett Cove by developers and the acute danger to the areas of historic, geological and scientific importance. Members of the South Australian Science Teachers Association today have sent telegrams and messages to members of the Government and to members of both the State and Australian parliaments in relation to this matter. The Minister Will probably know that a great many students are taken to the area each year because of its great importance in the disciplines which I have just mentioned. The figure quoted for last year shows that approximately 30,000 science students were taken to the Hallett Cove area. The demolition and development by the developers there is occasioning a great deal of distress, concern and worry to a great number of scientists and community people in South Australia. I remind the Minister that his colleague, Dr Cass, who visited the area a few weeks ago, said that it was the Federal Government’s responsibility to preserve areas of significance there. There seems to have been general agreement between the Ministers, both State and Federal, that the area should be preserved. As I read the situation, it is not receiving attention. I take the opportunity of entering the debate on the estimates to ask whether the Minister can give me some information on this matter and whether his Government is able to do anything.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

- Mr Chairman, you Will recall that when the Committee was dealing with other estimates earlier this afternoon I asked you to rule that those speaking should indicate the item to which they were referring and confine their remarks to the estimates so that we would know where we were going. The Estimates Committees examine the estimates of Government departments and the Estimates then come into the Committee of the Whole for examination. The question then is whether this money should be spent or whether the estimates should be withdrawn. It could well be that because of the attitude which was adopted last year the point of order raised was disallowed.

It was not until late this afternoon that you took a different attitude and asked honourable senators to keep to the issues after the atmosphere had got very tense. There were accusations flung across the chamber all afternoon to see who could score the greatest political triumph on the Estimates debate. I think everyone would agree that it is very foolish to bring on Estimates debates when the Senate procedings are being broadcast. We cannot shut up some honourable senators who think that they win elections by broadcasting their speeches to which no one listens. In this whole debate no one has referred to an item on the agendas. We spent most of this debate speaking about Hallett Cove which really comes under the Department of the Environment and Conservation and not the Department of Urban and Regional Development. So it shows how we can ramble on unless we are pinned down to an item of expenditure. As a result of Hallett Cove being mentioned we have dealt with Monarto, Bjelke-Petersen and other pet subjects we want to raise. I hope that we do not get into the mess now that we got into this afternoon and that we will stick to items of expenditure.

Has anyone got a complaint about expenditure here? Does anyone want to withdraw expenditure? Does anyone want to query expenditure? I answered this morning a question asked by Senator Jessop which, I believe, came under the Department of Urban and Regional Development. It was in relation to the National Estate. The Department deals with such things as landscaping, building and gardening in the National Estate. But the preservation of an historic site comes under the Department of the Environment and Conservation. In respect of Hallett Cove, at question time I took a greater liberty than I am prepared to take in this Estimates debate when I said that it was a subject I knew something about because I had walked over Hallett Cove, had climbed all the hills and rocks, gone into amphitheatre and everything there with a geologist and had everything explained to me in a fight to get money out of the previous Government. We were unsuccessful. Neverthless money was provided for the purchase of land back as far as the railway line. Now we are told that the developers have bulldozers in there and are causing damage. I do not know what the position is but I am prepared to refer the matter to the appropriate Minister. I let the debate go on so long for the purpose of illustrating how we have wasted the whole day by not upholding a reasonable point of order taken earlier this afternoon. As there is no question arising as to expenditure I will not say any more.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Proposed expenditure- Department of Housing and Construction, $ 160,707,000- passed.

Proposed expenditure- Defence Research and Development Establishments, Department of Manufacturing Industry, Buildings, Works, Fittings and Furniture, $ 1 ,805,000- passed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the remainder of Group G be taken as a whole? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Proposed expenditure- Department of Transport, $260, 1 14,000-passed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We now pass to the departments covered by Senate Estimates Committee A.

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $62,764,000.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I have looked for the area under the Estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department relating to the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. It is division 144, and I mention that specifically for the benefit of Senator Cavanagh. What I desire to refer to is what seems to be an obligation which is not being discharged by the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. We are being asked to provide a sum approximating $5m for the maintenance of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. At the present time we have for the third or fourth time in the past two or three years an unsightly collection of tents and other structures on the lawns opposite Parliament House.

Senator Georges:

– They do not offend me, senator.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It may be that it does not offend Senator Georges.

Senator Georges:

– Why does it offend your sensitivities?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It offends my view. Maybe I am one of the few parliamentarians who have a view fronting the lawns, but there are a lot of people who come to Parliament House who must wonder why it is that this collection of tents, and it is a very unsightly collection, should be allowed to remain in front of Parliament House. The question has an added emphasis. It should be recognised that there is an ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory which prohibits the construction of structures of the character which at present exist on the lawns outside Parliament House. It is a matter which ought to be of some concern to fair minded Australians when, for example, persons who go down to Telopea Park, which is some unleased Commonwealth land in the Australian Capital Territory, and offend by having a few bottles of beer with their colleagues have the police down on them with a heavy hand, as I understand has happened in recent times, while if you go into the tents outside Parliament House and drink to your heart’s content a few flagons of wine, the poliCe wil do absolutely nothing either to enforce laws with regard to the consumption of liquor or laws with regard to going onto Commonwealth lands when you are not entitled to do so.

There is a Trespass of Commonwealth Lands Ordinance which has been in operation for many years. Provisions of that ordinance were brought into effect in 1972. In section 8 (2) of that ordinance there are provisions which state that a person shall not camp on unleased land. A person shaH not erect a structure, which is defined to include a tent, on unleased Commonwealth land. A person shall not occupy or be in a structure on unleased land. If one looks at the Trespass of Commonwealth Lands Ordinance the lawns in front of Parliament House are unleased land within the definition of the ordinance. There is, of course, an exception and that is if the land is the subject of a permit granted to a circus, a carnival or for some similar purpose, or where the person camping or erecting a structure or occupying a structure is doing so in performance of a duty under Commonwealth law. I do not believe that the persons occupying tents outside Parliament House either hold a permit or are doing so pursuant to any duty which they exercise under Commonwealth law.

The same section of the Trespass of Commonwealth Lands Ordinance indicates that an inspector appointed under the ordinance or a member of the Police Force of the Australian Capital Territory may request the person to remove the structure and if it is not removed the inspector or the member of the Police Force may remove it. When one examines the terms of that ordinance one finds that if the member of the Police Force is unable to identify the person in occupation of that structure and there seems to be no one in occupation for a period of time which I think is approximately 2 hours, then without warning anybody, because there would be nobody to notify, he may remove the structure.

I think it ought to be stressed that this is a comprehensive ordinance which was designed to prevent the type of structure currently on the lawns outside Parliament House from being erected. It was effective in 1972 in justifying the Police Force removing from the lawns outside Parliament House the persons who were there. Subsequently it was effective, whilst the previous Government was in power, in preventing persons moving on to those lawns and erecting such structures. The relevant section of the Trespass of Commonwealth Lands Ordinance has 2 limbs. First, it discloses that it is an offence on the part of individuals to commit any kind of prohibited act. Secondly, the police have the authority to remove a structure providing only that they follow certain steps. The fundamental step, when they know the person in occupation, or they believe they know, is to give some warning beforehand to remove the structure.

Earlier this year, 1974, there was a structure on the lawns outside Parliament House for a number of weeks. No action was taken by the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. I sought the reason why no action was taken by means of questions in this chamber directed to the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) as the Minister responsible. I think it is fair to say, and I invite him to contradict me by reference to the record if he wants to, that I was not given any reply which indicated either why the ACT Police Force was not taking action or why the AttorneyGeneral was not inquiring into why the Police Force was not taking action. I believe that in those 2 omissions lies the crux of this problem. If the Police Force is not taking action, why? Clearly there is an obligation under the ordinance to ensure that the provisions of the law are observed. If the Police Force is not taking action because it is awaiting instructions, what instructions have been given? If no instructions have been given, why?

We were treated last weekend to an article in the Melbourne Press which sought to stress the problems under which the ACT Police Force labours. I suspect that the tenor of the article was such that a lot of the realities were not revealed. Indications were that the Police Force had to stand by helplessly while conduct occurred last week which if engaged in by other individuals would have been the occasion for immediate and forthright action by the Police Force, but in the circumstances under which it has to operate it was unable to take action. It was suggested that in the precincts of Parliament House the police cannot act without the authority of the President and/or Mr Speaker. I would have thought that that may well be so within the precincts, and it is proper that Parliament should have a power in its own area. But how far does that power extend? Does it extend beyond the steps of Parliament House? Does it extend across the road? Does it extend into the lawns? I doubt very much if it extends into the lawns. Why, therefore, did the Police Force take no action?

I raise these matters because I think they are matters of public concern about which the Attorney-General, as the Minister responsible, ought to be prepared to provide an explanation to the Senate. I believe, as I recall an earlier occasion, that the Attorney-General suggested that if I personally objected to the presence of the tents I was at liberty to take action. If ever there was a denial by the properly constituted authority, the chief law officer of the Commonwealth, of an obligation which is reposed in him, that surely was it because there is an ordinance which makes it an offence to put structures onto those lawns, and the ordinance likewise requires the Police Force to take certain action to see that that law is upheld. To suggest in those circumstances that any individual who is concerned can take action himself is tantamount to saying that when a murder occurs if the individual who feels aggrieved by it wants to take action, let him take action. I am not going to say anything about the police but that sort of abnegation to me represents a withdrawal from the discharge of the proper functions which ought to rest with the Minister, whether it be the Attorney-General or any other Minister, who is responsible for the operations of the Police Force.

It is clear, first, that tents have been erected and remain on the lawns outside Parliament House and that they remain there contrary to an ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory. Secondly, whilst they remain there the purpose of the legislation and of the Parliament which has refused to disallow that ordinance remains frustrated. Thirdly, where there is an ordinance which depends upon the police taking action for its efficacy, that ordinance will be nullified completely if the police do not take action. The fourth point is that the police have a power and a duty to take action and they have not done so.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How horrible.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I hear an honourable senator say it is horrible, presumably, that the police have not taken action. I would have thought that any individual who, in pursuit of some political motive or objective, justifies the police not taking action when a clear breach of the law is occurring, is virtually inviting police inaction when there is a breach of a duty affecting him personally which he believes ought to be observed. We cannot have the society we all want if we say that in some areas the police cannot or should not take action but in others they should be astute to take action. The confidence in the police depends upon the police being prepared to take action in all cases where a breach of the law occurs. If they do not take action they should be able to demonstrate with clear and convincing reasons why, in a particular case, they have not taken that action. The reason for the police inaction has not been revealed. I am asking the Attorney-General whether, in the course of this Estimates debate, he will explain to the Senate why the police have not taken action. Is it neglect on the part of the Police Force? Is it a deliberate act on the part of the Police Force? If so, what is the reason and why is the Police Commissioner still holding his position?

The second question I ask is: Has some direction or some indication been given by the political head- the Attorney-General- that no action should be taken? The vice of what is occurring at the present time is the vice of discrimination. The persons who occupy these tents claim to be Aborigines. I believe that they are Aborigines. There is one rule for Aborigines and there is one rule for other people. That sort of discrimination is the complete antithesis of the universality of the application of rules to which the AttorneyGeneral has given his support on other occasions. How can he justify one rule for the people occupying the tents, doing things contrary to the law outside Parliament House and have another law- another rule- for persons doing something in other parts of the Australian Capital Territory? Once we allow this sort of thing to happen we reduce our respect for the law. Whilst this is a matter of which some political point can be made, I invite the Attorney-General to say why it is that in this particular case no action has been taken.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:
TASMANIA

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– One of the things that has concerned me most since I became Attorney-General is the way in which the law has been administered in Australia. This is a problem which is concerning people all over the world. A great deal is being written on the subject. I know that in the United States of America the Quakers have written a manual on it called The Struggle for Justice’. The prisoners in the

United States have formed associations and they are now campaigning for alterations in the law and especially in the prison system. A most illuminating book has been written by Jessica Mitford called ‘Kind and Usual Punishment’. All these books and all the material that is coming forward indicate that the utmost discrimination is being practised in the administration of the system of criminal justice.

The fact is that governments in the past and at present have concentrated mostly on dealing with all the little people. It is very easy to prosecute with great vigour the little people who cannot fight back. It is very easy to emphasise and concentrate on the problems of some Aborigines who want to demonstrate, show their feelings and publicise them by putting up some tents outside Parliament House. They are not really hurting anyone. I will concede that it may be an eyesore and offensive to some persons, but that is what it amounts to. It is a clear expression of their political views and their demand for justice.

But what is happening in the community- it is becoming more and more known- is that there are breaches of the law by the powerful persons who go unpunished because it is hard to enforce the law and nobody bothers to enforce the law. We have persons in this country- we will name no names but we could easily name names- who have shown that if you are big and powerful enough and if you are able to employ accountants, solicitors and Queen’s Counsel and you have the money to do these things you can obtain for yourself all sorts of assistance. You can rob the little people of the community, then you can flit out of the country. You can do what you like. You can make a mockery of the system of justice, and generally very little will be done about it. These swindlers do not engage in just white collar crimes- they are not the workers or the embezzlers in a company- they are the ones who are managing and manipulating. Most of these crimes go completely unpunished. It is not really a matter of punishment by the courts because they are not brought to court. They are not even investigated. It has been well said that what is done, say, by the great corporations in breaching the law in various ways and getting at the people exceeds by hundreds of times the total of all the amounts involved in burglaries, housebreakings, armed robberies and so on. These crimes against the community go unpunished. The really large crimes go unpunished because in the past these great officers of the law to which Senator Greenwood referred have concentrated on problems like the ones to which he has referred. He is a former Attorney-General. When he deals with some failure of administration by the AttorneyGeneral the great example he picks on is some Aborigines who put up tents outside Parliament House.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What about the bombs going off in the street?

Senator MURPHY:

-I do not think the Senate needs reminding of those facts concerning crimes of violence being committed against the community. They go across the whole range of the law. I have discussed this matter with the officers of the Australian Government who are responsible for the administration of the law. I have stressed to them that I am not satisfied with the way in which the system has operated in that it is concerned with prosecuting vigilantly the little people for minor infractions of the law and leaving aside the great crimes that are committed because the people who have committed them are too tough, too rich and too powerful and because it is too hard to do anything about it. This is not the philosophy that underlines the Government’s thinking.

I say in answer to the honourable senator that I would be more encouraged by him if he were to ask what is happening in the areas of crime which really affect the community instead of showing his obsession with a few tents outside Parliament House. He passed some strictures upon the Commissioner for Police for the Australian Capital Territory and asked why he is holding his job. I recall that when Estimates Committee A met in this chamber sitting beside me at this very table when Senator Greenwood was present was the Commissioner of Police for the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Greenwood addressed no questions to the man. In his absence now he asks why he is holding his office. I do not need to go further into this matter and I do not propose to do so. I suggest that this matter has been debated before and I do not think it is useful to continue a discussion when so clearly there is a difference in philosphy as to how the law ought to be administered in Australia.

Senator Greenwood- Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise because I have been grievously misrepresented. (Honourable senators interjecting)-

Senator Greenwood:

– It may appear to supporters of the Government that it does not matter whether completely inaccurate statements are made about what a member of the Opposition has said and when the Opposition member desires to clarify the position he is greeted with jeers. I notice that Senator Steele Hall joins in with the Government. I suppose that is to be expected in the light of recent events. But I have been misrepresented and I want to explain why. I said that I believed it was incumbent upon the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) to explain why no action had been taken to enforce the law with regard to the tents outside Parliament House. I leave aside for the present time the fact that the Attorney-General chose not to answer my question in any way at all. He simply said that I had regarded the Commissioner for Police of the Australian Capital Territory Police as deserving of stricture. I had said no such thing. What I said was that there were 2 alternatives as to why no action had been taken. The first alternative was that there was either neglect or some deliberate act by the police to take no action and if there was neglect or a deliberate act, why did the Commissioner still hold his position? I should have thought that that was a fair question to ask of any commissioner of any police force if people under his control are consistently neglectful or consistently refuse to act to uphold the law. I do not believe that there would be any commissioners of police who would not regard that as a fair question to be asked of them.

The other alternative, of course, was this: Was there some direction given by the AttorneyGeneral which meant that in this particular case the law should not be enforced? I have listened to what the Attorney-General said. It may be that in our society sociological examinations might provide statistics- I do not know whether they do or not- which indicate that big people, whoever he means by that, do not suffer the rigors of the law in the same way as little people. If we can improve our law so that it has an even application right throughout the community then fair measures to achieve that objective would have my warm and wholehearted support. I do not accept the proposition of the AttorneyGeneral. I know that under this present Government in the administration of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act there has not been, on my understanding, one trade union prosecuted for any conduct amounting to breach of an award; but I do know that there have been a number of employers prosecuted, and they are not the big employers but the small employers because, to use the Attorney-General’s argument, they are the people who are the sitting ducks.

The point is that wherever there is a breach of the law then it is incumbent upon the law enforcement authorities to enforce that law and to enforce it fairly. When one comes across circumstances where some people are prosecuted for a particular type of offence and others are not prosecuted for the same type of offence, then there is a feeling in the community that someone has been bought or someone is acting unfairly. I am quite sure that people in this chamber would feel that way, just as people outside this chamber feel that way. I believe that there are an enormous number of people in the Australian Capital Territory who pass by Parliament House and see the tents out there and wonder why it is that no action is taken. When people come to me and say that the law is enforced with regard to other people, non-Aboriginals, who commit some offence in other parts of the Australian Capital Territory, then I think it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General to explain what the position is in regard to the tents outside Parliament House.

I have asked and I have not been given any answer. Why is the Attorney-General not prepared to give an answer? I suspect that he will not rise again. I suspect that we will not be given any answer. I suspect that he will just keep to himself what is a matter of public concern, and I will say only that that is typical of the way he has treated Parliament in these matters ever since he has been the Attorney-General. I think it is a reflection upon the members of the Australian Labor Party that whilst when they were in opposition they prated about the ability of the Senate to require information from Ministers of the Crown, when they are in government they will justify any denial of information which any Minister of their own Party chooses to deny to the Opposition. That is a reflection on the style of government we have got at the present time.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I have listened to the debate and I want to say that I am one of those who believe that when a nation or a state or a council sets up its public offices in a beautiful setting, such as we have in front of Parliament House, it is not the right of anyone to monopolise that setting and to put unsightly structures on it. This is not the first time it has been done. When my own Party was in government I took them on in this very chamber for allowing tents to remain outside Parliament House for so many weeks.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Who was the AttorneyGeneral in those days?

Senator WOOD:

– I am not speaking of the Attorney-General.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Who was the AttorneyGeneral?

Senator WOOD:

– If you will wait a while I will tell you that at that time I attacked my own Government for not removing those tents. I thought it was a sign of weakness not to remove them and I still think it is again a sign of weakness. I am not blaming the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) because, knowing him, I believe that probably no one has a higher regard for Parliament and for the appearance of things generally in this country. But I do believe that these tents should not be allowed to remain. They are unsightly and their presence is completely contrary to what was intended when the whole of this area was set out. As I said at the time when my own Party was in government -

Senator Gietzelt:

– What about the concrete jungles in Sydney? Wouldn’t they be unsightly too?

Senator WOOD:

– The concrete jungles in Sydney have buildings which are established on freehold or leasehold properties which those people possess. As a local government man, you should know that just as well as I and others do.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Approved by the Liberal council of Sydney.

Senator WOOD:

– I know your local government record and you should know it. If Senator Gietzelt were mayor of his community and somebody dumped themselves in front of his town hall he would probably be one of the first to do something about it. The point is that if we are going to have law and order in this country it should be conformed to by everyone. Because people belong to a certain section of the community there is no reason why they should have privileges above those of other people. In the case of the Aboriginal people here, why should they have any priority over white Australian people in relation to being on that area. If white Australian people -

Senator Georges:

– If white Australians have a protest they can pitch a tent.

Senator WOOD:

– If white Australian people were to arrive here and dump their caravans on that site- and I said exactly the same thing to my own Government- you and everybody else would be squealing about it. What right have they got to be dumped there? So far as I am concerned, the essence of the conduct of this Parliament and of the grounds surrounding it should be in accordance with the law of this country and there is no right for those people to be there. On the previous occasion when they were there, from what can be told by the citizens of this area about what went on there and the people living there, it indicated to me that it certainly was not of a very high standard. I stand for law and order in this country and I believe that those people should not be allowed to remain there with those tents and be unsightly and a nuisance. If we have got any stomach about us, any respect for decency and law and order in this Parliament- it does not matter whether it is under my Party’s government or this Government- we should act to clean the area up and make it look decent and remove the unsightly obstructions which are there at the present time. Those are my sentiments. I do not make a personal attack on anybody. I have always looked upon this areas as being the control of the portfolio that was formerly that of the Minister for the Interior.

Senator Murphy:

– It is actually in Mr Bryant’s administration.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes, now it would come under Mr Bryant’s administration.

Senator Greenwood:

– What about the Minister who has taken control of the Australian Capital Territory Police?

Senator WOOD:

– I know, but it comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister for the Capital Territory and some action should be taken, and I believe he is the man who should talk to the Attorney-General or whoever else it may be necessary to talk to in order to get action. Those are my sentiments and I think that the average Australian would agree entirely with what I have said. It is about time that we in this Parliament stopped having racism in this country and stopped giving preference to a certain section of the community over the other Australian people. One public accountant said to me recently that an Aboriginal man came into his office with a loan to buy a business. The Australian Government provided the money for him to buy the business. What did this Aboriginal say to the public accountant? He said: ‘You know, this is something you white people don’t get’. It is about time that we stopped this racism and stopped giving preference to one section of the community.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

– I rise for only a short time to deal with a small matter, and that is to put right the inference that may have been gained by the Committee from Senator Greenwood’s remarks that I laughed with the members of the Aus.tralian Labor Party when Senator Greenwood made some remark concerning his claim to have been misrepresented. I simply want to put it on the record that I was not laughing at any particular side of the argument in the debate, in which I had not taken a part. I was simply laughing at Senator Greenwood himself in relation to his claim that he had been misrepresented because he so ably earlier this evening made the same type of misrepresentation, in my view, about

Government senators. Without entering into any great argument, I simply want to. say that my laugh, which Senator Greenwood noted and remarked upon, was directed not at the substance of what Senator Greenwood was saying but at Senator Greenwood.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

– I will speak briefly on this matter. I believe that I should not let go the revelation by Senator Greenwood tonight in raising this matter. Tents have always reminded me of circuses. It seemed to me, as I heard Senator Greenwood speaking, that he was rather resentful of the fact that the circus into which he has turned this chamber today was being rivalled by the tents across the road in front of Parliament House. He claims misrepresentation. He devoted some 20 minutes or so tonight to making the allegation that the Australian Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) was lacking in his public duty because he had not brought down the legal might of the Australian Government against the persons who are responsible for those couple of mini-tents that are across the road in front of Parliament House.

Senator Greenwood:

– Or explain why he had not.

Senator EVERETT:

– The interjection of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition only confirms the impression that anyone listening to what he said tonight must have gained, and that is that even though he is a former Australian AttorneyGeneral he does not yet know that the wise administration of the law involves the exercise of a discretion by those charged by law to administer the laws that Parliament passes. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has revealed tonight is that he is in favour of reactionary oppression under the guise of the enforcement of legal sanctions against the least privileged members of the community. I suggest that the worth of the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition can be gauged in this way: He is preoccupied in ensuring that, as I have said, the might of the Australian legal system is levelled against a few Aborigines. How does that assessment of the importance of the criminal law compare with the crime on an international basis that the Government of which he was a member condoned and to which it actively subscribed, namely, the involvement of Australians in Vietnam over a long period? That is the way in which his contribution tonight ought to be judged. His concern is with two or three or four Aboriginal persons who are responsible for the tents across the road in front of Parliament House. For years the person who makes that complaint subscribed, by his membership of the then

Government and by his advocacy, to one of the greatest crimes in Australia’s history. How does he stand on that? If I said at the beginning that he had made a circus of this chamber tonight, I suggest that the comparison I have made proves my point.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– If I were to rise and respond to what Senator Everett has said and say that the viewpoint that he expressed was a viewpoint consistent with support for communist aggression against people who wanted to lead a life of freedom, it would invoke the catcalls and the noise which I am now getting from Government senators, because that is the way in which they respond. Yet I rise just to deny- because I will deny it every time the sort of abuse in which Government senators engage is presented- that I am guilty of reactionary oppression against the less privileged members of the community. Those were Senator Everett’s words, and I refute them. All I am concerned to assert is that the law is the protector of everybody in this communitywhether that person is wealthy or a large corporation, or whether he is a poor individual who happens to be an Aboriginal. We will not have the sure protection which the law can afford unless the law is enforced evenly and fairly where breaches of the law occur, and unless it is enforced irrespective of the wealth, station or colour of the person who is alleged to have been guilty of a breach of the law. I will argue that proposition in this place and out of this place for so long as it is contested.

It is contested by the Government tonight because I have raised for the Attorney-General’s answer- he has refused to give any answer- the question why it is that no action has been taken. Senator Wood has raised the question, too, but the Attorney-General has not deigned to reply. The question still remains- I think that there is an increasing number of people in Australia, and an overwhelming number of” people in the Australian Capital Territory who want to knowwhy no action is taken. There is not a person on the Government side who is prepared to give any answer as to why no action is taken. There is a law which says that you shall not put tents in front of Parliament House. There is a law which says that a police inspector can ask the person in apparent occupation to remove the tents, and that if there is no person in apparent occupation the police inspector can remove the structure himself. Why has not the police inspector taken action?

The Attorney-General is the political head responsible for the operations of the Australian

Capital Territory police force, and I believe it is incumbent upon him to give an explanation. Why has he not given an explanation? Is it because he has not gone one? All I have heard is the sort of diatribe that I have listened to from Senator Everett, which is personal in its impact. I have heard from Senator Murphy that, after all, in our society laws are enforced too much against big people and not against little people. I think it was Senator Gietzelt who suggested that I was interested only in attacking a certain class- an allegation which I categorically deny. The basic point is the one which I have made, and I ask the Attorney-General to respond. In case he does not respond- because he said earlier that he would not speak again- I will move to another line in the estimates. If the Attorney-General indicates to me that he will respond to what I have just said, I will sit down to allow him to do so. But I note that he is not indicating that he wants to respond, so I will move to another line in the estimates for the Attorney-General’s Department relating to the Australian Legal Aid Office.

Senator McLaren:

– What is the line you have been talking to?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I told honourable senators before. It was division 144 which relates to the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. For the purists on the Government side, the Australian Legal Aid Office is dealt with in division 131.I speak to that division because there is an appropriation of expenditure of some $12m, although only 2 years ago the appropriation was less than $230,000. In the space of 2 years the Government is expending a sum in excess of $ 12m on the Australian Legal Aid Office, and I believe that the pattern of that expenditure is marked by waste, inefficiency and duplication. That is the view of Estimates Committee A. That Committee believes that there is a need for a thorough-going Government sponsored inquiry, with a view to ascertaining whether there cannot be some reforms, because of the duplication which exists with regard to the provision of Australian legal aid.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-The question is:

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

Progress reported.

page 2360

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.1 p.m.

page 2361

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Baltic States (Question No. 325)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did Mr V. Bukevicius, President of the Council of the Lithuanian Community in Australia ask the Prime Minister, by letter, dated 28 April 1974, what was his policy regarding the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
  2. Did Mr Bukevicius specifically ask if Mr Whitlam, as head of the Australian Government, was going ‘to continue not to recognise the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union or should we expect a policy change on this matter’.
  3. Was Mr Bukevicius correct in his assumption that Australia did not at the time of his writing to the Prime Minister recognise the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  4. What reply did the Prime Minister give to Mr Bukevicius.
  5. Did the Prime Minister indicate that Mr Bukevicius should expect a policy change on the matter; if not, why not.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. ) On 28 April 1 974 Mr V. Bukevicius wrote to me as follows:

Sir,

As the President of the Council of the Lithuanian Community in Australia I have forwarded to you a letter on 8 February 1973.I have received acknowledgment from your private secretary butI still do not have your reply.

The Lithuanian Community in Australia is very anxious to have a clear statement from you as the Head of the Australian Government on two questions:

  1. What is your Government ‘s policy regarding the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia- are you going to continue not to recognise the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union or should we expect a policy change on this matter?

    1. Will your Government take any necessary action in the United Nations to ensure that the basic principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights freedom, justice and peace would be applied to our native country Lithuania and other Baltic States?

Your early reply would be most appreciated.

Yours respectfully, (Sgd) V. BUKEVICIUS

  1. See(l).
  2. At that time Australia gave de facto recognition to the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union.
  3. On 17 May the Hon. Kep Enderby signed a reply on my behalf in the following terms:

Dear Mr Bukevicius,

I refer to your letter of 28 April 1974 concerning the Government’s attitude towards Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

The policy of the present Australian Government is that while not formally recognising the incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union, it must be cognisant of the de facto situation and deal with the government which has effective control of the territory in question. This was also the attitude taken by all of our predecessors on this matter.

On a number of occasions the Government has made its views known on the question of civil liberties and on fundamental human rights, its own adherence to them and its wish that those rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be extended everywhere.

In an address at the United Nations Association on the occasion of Australia’s celebrations of the 25th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration, I said, inter alia, ‘. . . the Declaration has come to be recognised as one of the enlightened events in modern history’ and that’. . . it is a fundamental objective of the Labor Government to ensure that Australia’s policies are soundly based on respect for. and on the protection and enhancement or civil liberties and basic human rights’. The Soviet Government is aware of the Australian Government’s position in this matter, and we will continue to seek opportunities in the United Nations to promote respect for and observance of basic human rights by all members.

Yours sincerely, (Sgd) Kep EN DERBY.

  1. No, since a decision to review the policy had not at that stage been taken.

Baltic States (Question No. 326)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister authorise a letter, dated 1 7 May 1974 and signed on his behalf by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, Mr K. Enderby, addressed to Mr V. Bukevicius, President of the Council of the Lithuanian Community in Australia, 75 Kent Street, Epping, New South Wales in which the first two paragraphs read: ‘I refer to your letter of 28 April 1974 concerning the Government ‘s attitude towards Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The policy of the present Australian Government is that while not formally recognising the incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union, it must be cognisant of the de facto situation and deal with the government which has effective control of the territory in question. This was also the attitude taken by all of our predecessors in this matter. ‘
  2. ) Did this letter indicate by the said paragraphs that the Government intended no change in its attitude to the nonrecognition of the incorporation of the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from the attitude of its predecessors: if not, what attitude did the letter indicate.
  3. Why, in the light of the foregoing letter did the Prime Minister, in answer to Senate Question No. 163 asked by Senator Greenwood, state that he did not inform the President of the Council of the Lithuanian Community in Australia prior to the election of 18 May 1974 that his Government did not intend to alter the policy of previous

Governments with respect to recognition of the incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) See my answer to Question No. 325 (4) supra.
  2. and (3) The letter indicated the policy at the time it was written. See my answer to Question No. 325 (5) supra.

Baltic States (Question No. 327)

Senator Greenwood:

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

Did the Minister for Manufacturing Industry sign on behalf of the Prime Minister a letter dated 17 May 1974 addressed to Mr V. Bukevicius, President of the Council of the Luthuanian Community in Australia in which the first two paragraphs read: ‘I refer to your letter of 28 April 1974 concerning the Government’s attitude towards Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The policy of the present Australian Government is that while not formally recognising the incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union, it must be cognisant of the de facto situation and deal with the government which has effective control of the territory in question. This was also the attitude taken by all of our predecessors on this matter. ‘

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

See the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 325 (4) supra.

Baltic States (Question No. 328)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Prime Minister aware that Senator Willesee, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, informed the Leader of the Opposition that the decision on the de jure recognition of the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was taken on 3 July 1 974; if so, was the Minister for Foreign Affairs ‘ statement to the Leader of the Opposition correct.
  2. Is the Prime Minister also aware that Senator Willesee said that the decision to recognise de jure the incorporation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a unilateral act by the Prime Minister; if so, was the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs correct.
  3. Was the decision to recognise de jure the incorporation of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania a departure in attitude from the previous attitude of the Government.
  4. If the answer to (3) is in the negative, why was the decision taken.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. Yes; yes.
  2. The Minister for Foreign Affairs did not describe the decision as an ‘unilateral act’. The Minister had his Department look into the question and its recommendation was submitted to the Prime Minister in his capacity as Acting Foreign Minister during the Minister’s absence overseas. The Prime Minister accepted the recommendation but asked that no action be taken until the Minister also had an opportunity to see it. See also the Minister’s statement on 18 September 1974(Hansard, page 1 179).
  3. Yes. Previously the Australian Government accorded de facto recognition of the incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On 3 July 1974 a decision was taken to accord de jure recognition. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said on 18 September 1974 (Hansard, page 1 179) ‘What the Australian Government, in effect, has done is to recognise that the existing situation in regard to the three Baltic States is unlikely to change. De jure recognition does not mean, as many critics of the Government’s decision seem to think, rightful incorporation. But in the present circumstances, 34 years after incorporation, the difference between de facto and de jure recognition is minimal’.
  4. The answer is in the affirmative.

Baltic States (Question No. 329)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Why did the Prime Minister in answering Senate Question No. 163 asked by Senator Greenwood ask him to see the Minister for Foreign Affairs’ answer on 13 August (vide Senate Hansard, page 781) and the Prime Minister’s answer on 15 October (vide House of Representatives Hansard, page 2278) when the relevant part of the question was Why has the Government now recognised the incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics when, prior to 18 May 1974, it was stating that it would not recognise such incorporation’.
  2. What part of either of Senator Willesee ‘s answer on 13 August or the Prime Minister’s answer on 15 October explains why the Government has now recognised the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  3. Why has the Government now recognised the incorporation de jure of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics when, prior to 18 May 1974, the Government stated it would not recognise such incorporation.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government did not state it would not recognise such incorporation. See my answer to Question No. 325 supra.
  2. The whole of both answers.
  3. See (1) and (2).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 November 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741113_senate_29_s62/>.