Senate
14 November 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2363

PETITIONS

Family Law Bill

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 4 1 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. 1 ) Marriage is not merely a contract it is a relationship.
  2. That if a party withdraws from that relationship for whatever reason, there is no good to be achieved by insisting on a continuance of a contractual shell.
  3. 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 and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 56 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 DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 24 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:

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 GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 8 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:

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 recommend 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.

Family Law Bill

Senator MISSEN:

-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 inclusion in Sub-section 54(2) of the Family Law Bill of the Clause recommended in paragraph 67(f) (2) of the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which will allow ‘any fact or circumstance’ to be taken into account when considering maintenance, completely alters the whole concept of specific guidelines, as now set out in Section 54, and we oppose it.

That the removal of the word ‘exceptional’ in Subsection 92(2) of the new Family Law Bill, will result in a high level of bitter and costly litigation in ancillary matters, which the present proposed sharing of costs, with legal aid available, would otherwise minimise.

That Judicial discretion which allows fault in Property Settlement and the usual false accusations necessitating defence in custody and access matters, as well as (a) and (b) above, will result in very much the same litigation in ancillary matters as under the present iniquitous Matrimonial Causes Act.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition from 23 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 inclusion in sub-section 54(2) of the Family Law Bill of the clause recommended in paragraph 67(f) (2) of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which will allow ‘any fact or circumstance ‘ to be taken into account when considering maintenance, completely alters the whole concept of specific guidelines, as now set out in section 54, and we oppose it.

That the removal of the word ‘exceptional’ in subsection 92(2) of the new Family Law Bill, will result in a high level of bitter and costly litigation in ancillary matters, which the present proposed sharing of costs, with legal aid available, would otherwise minimise.

That judicial discretion which allows fault in property settlement and the usual false accusations necessitating defence in custody and access matters, as well as (a) and (b) above, will result in very much the same litigation in ancillary matters as under the present iniquitous Matrimonial Causes Act.

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 30 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 SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 8 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 issuch 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 WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 1 7 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 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 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 Par-, liament 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 and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 59 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 MISSEN:

-I present the following petition from 106 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 1 974 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 GREENWOOD:

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 55 and 928 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 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 and the first petition read.

Family Law Bill

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 45 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 dissolved 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 WEBSTER:

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording, and from 37 and 133 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 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 COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 420 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. We are very concerned about the proposals in the Family Law Bill 1974 which

Would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself, both existing and all future marriages;

Does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children;

Does not provide for suitable alternative 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 the following petition from 22 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 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 6 months; 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 BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 6 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.

Taxation: Educational Expenses

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 670 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 82 J of the Income Tax assessment Act from $400 to $150 is $50.00 below the 1956/57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether non government or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and understaffed!

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and 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 at the 1973/74 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australia: Defence Forces, Flag and National Anthem

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I present the following petition from 1,530 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

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

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

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

So therefore all these things must 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 Election 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.

Baltic States

Senator COTTON:

-I present the following petition from 1 5 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people to selfdetermination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Communist Governments: Human Rights

Senator COTTON:

-I present the following petition from 1 5 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

Whereas the countries and peoples now being administered by communist governments- Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Russia, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Romania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Albania and Cuba- are entrapped by political and economic ideals repugnant to Australian concepts of liberty and fair play; and whereas the freedom of religion, assembly, speech, movement, fair trial, and enterprise are denied to these people by their governments; and whereas Opposition political parties are suppressed, the right to strike refused, and conscripted labour cruelly exploited by these same governments.

According to the Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of the United Nations, these peoples under communism are entitled to the same freedoms as enjoyed by Australians, including independence and self-determination.

We beg that all Australian economic ties be severed with these governments until such time as they grant to their peoples the freedoms freely enjoyed by Australians as enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 2367

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2367

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT’S ECONOMIC POLICY

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows the Prime Minister’s assertion that his mini-budget will provide a breathing space for wage demands lasting until December and the assertion of the Minister for Labor and Immigration that the breathing space will last until April. Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate inform the Senate what his guess is as to how long this breathing space will last?

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

– I suppose the observations made by both the distinguished Prime Minister and his colleague are correct. After all, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate may believe that when his Government was in power it had only one breath and that was its last. We believe that there will be one breathing space, as the Prime Minister has said; that there will be another after that, as Mr Cameron has said; that there will be many more and that the community will go on breathing and living under this Government. The honourable senator’s Party has breathed its last and will not get back into power until it has changed its constitution, its policies and even its name.

page 2368

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. In the light of recent problems that the Minister has encountered in obtaining properly audited statements of expenditure from the Aboriginal Legal Service in New South Wales, can the Minister inform the Senate whether he has encountered similar problems with the Queensland Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service? What funds are presently available to that Legal Service in Queensland and in which areas of the State does the Service now operate?

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

-The answer to the first part of the question is no. We have had great cooperation from and satisfaction with the Queensland Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service which is operating throughout Queensland. We have received the final audited accounts of the Service and the audited accounts contain no qualifications. Last year a grant of some $325,000 was made to the Legal Service in Queensland. So far this year we have issued an interim grant of $174,000 to take the Service up to the end of October. At present the Legal Service in Queensland has 8 offices, one each in Brisbane, Rockhampton, Mackay, Townsville, Mt Isa, Charleville, the far northern and the south-eastern areas. We have received and perused its audited budget for 1974-75 and it appears to be reasonable considering the wide area traversed by that Legal Service. Last year in Queensland 730 legal cases were handled by the Service and some of these involved the employment of outside solicitors. There were some 766 further cases handled by the Service which never proceeded to court hearings. After considering the audited accounts of the Service and its budget for 1974-75, some $523,000, less the $174,000 which has already been granted by way of interim grant, will be made available to the Queensland Service.

page 2368

QUESTION

WAGE RESTRAINT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and I refer to the Prime Minister’s nation-wide appeal to the community to accept the latest tax cuts as a substitute for new wage rises. Did the Prime Minister attempt to reach a no wage demand agreement with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Hawke, before the tax cuts were announced? If so, what was the outcome? If the appeal for wage restraint fails who will be to blame for further deterioration of the economy, the unions or the Government?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– There were discussions between the Prime Minister and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the Leader of the Country Party in the Senate is well aware of them. I am not able to say, and even if I were I do not know whether I would, what were the precise agreements or understandings reached. The honourable senator wants to know who will be responsible, the Government or the trade unions, if there is some deterioration in the economic position. That illustrates his outlook, and that of his Party; if something goes wrong it is the fault of either the Government or the trade unions. I remind the Leader of the Country Party in the Senate that the Government took some very strong action last year in cutting the tariffs and the result was not what the Government hoped it would be. Despite the fact that the Country Party was a great advocate of cutting tariffs, it did not complain when the result that was expected did not flow. One of the tragedies was that when the tariffs were cut there was a great inflow of imported goods which ought to have been made available cheaply to the Australian public. We know that in many cases the benefits of the tariff cuts were not passed on to the community, thereby contributing to and enhancing inflation. The Leader of the Country Party in the Senate has not condemned those in the community who profited unfairly from the tariff cuts. He has not turned to others who have made excessive profits. All he wants to do is to blame either the Government or the trade unions. That is the reason he is sitting where he is sitting now.

page 2368

QUESTION

NURSES AND HOSPITAL INTERPRETER SERVICES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration institute early discussions with State immigration ministers to ensure that in the case of Queensland we do not have a repetition of the conning of Canadian nurses as regards Australian recognition of their qualifications and, in the case of New South Wales, we seek an explanation of a repudiation by Jago the unready of his assurance to me 2 years ago that all New South Wales hospitals would have interpreter services? This duplicity of the Askin Government was illustrated in yesterday’s ‘Onlooker’ column.

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I can only undertake to draw to the attention of the Minister for Labor and Immigration the references made by Senator Mulvihill. I will let the honourable senator know when I have some precise information.

page 2369

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PRODUCTS

Senator WEBSTER:

-Has the attention of the Minister for Agriculture been drawn to a statement attributed to the new Australian High Commissioner in New Zealand, Mr Hill, that the Australian market may soon open up for New Zealand dairy products? Will the Minister check what Mr Hill said and if the statement in the New Zealand agricultural paper ‘Straight Furrow’ is correct will he tell the Senator who authorised the statement? Does this possible change herald a new Australian attitude to New Zealand dairy products despite a very clear statement by Dr Cairns a year ago that there would be no change in our long standing policy?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-I am not aware of the statement allegedly made by Mr Hill and, of course, that does not come within the ambit of my portfolio. However, the general question of Australia as a market for dairy products certainly has been a bone of contention for many years. Because New Zealand was able to produce its dairy products more cheaply than they could be produced in this country these products, particularly butter, could be supplied to the Austraiian market at a cheaper price than if they were produced in Australia. This Government changed the ridiculous attitude that had applied in the past in this country towards assistance for the Australian dairy industry- a policy which Senator Webster has defended in this Senate on so many occasions knowing full well that it was dragging the Australian dairy industry down over the years in most States of Australia and creating inefficiencies which made it impossible for it to compete with the New Zealand dairy industry.

The action taken by this Government to redirect the assistance to the dairy industry in this country is the greatest safeguard the industry has against competition from overseas countries. We recognise that the New Zealand dairy industry is an efficient industry. We endeavour on all occasions, as did the previous Government, to maximise our trade with New Zealand under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I have no doubt that this will continue to be the case under this Government. In respect of the particular statement referred to, I will check to see whether it was made, but I am quite sure that Dr Cairns would not wish to add anything to what I have said.

page 2369

QUESTION

RETRAINING GRANTS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I would like to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Education. It concerns retraining grants. Will the Minister advise whether it would be possible for, say, the wife of a university professor earning about $28,000 per annum, she being in receipt of a sizeable private income, to apply for and receive a retraining grant? If the answer is in the affirmative, will the Minister say what means test, if any, is applied to such a person and indeed to anyone else? How much study has to be undertaken by the recipient? Over what length of time can a grant be received? What would happen if, at the end of such a retraining period, the person changed her mind? Would she be eligible to apply for another grant? Does she have to do any work in the field in which she is retrained?

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

– I am sure that the honourable senator will appreciate that the information he seeks does not come immediately to my mind. Frankly, I doubt very much that any of the criteria on which he is basing his question are correct. He said that the salary of a university professor is about $28,000 a year. If my recollection is correct, the basic salary of a university professor is about $ 19,000 a year. So I suggest that the honourable senator should check that fact first before he hypothesises all the other matters. I also suggest that the honourable senator place his question on the notice paper so that I can obtain a reply from the Minister for Education.

page 2369

QUESTION

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE STATES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows his answer to me yesterday, when I asked him why the Federal Government did not give more financial assistance to the States. I now ask him: Did the Premier of South Australia not inform this Government that he was prepared to withdraw his proposed new taxeswhich, as I said yesterday, are highly inflationaryif the Federal Government granted extra financial assistance to South Australia and the other States? Was this proposal of the Premier of South Australia given consideration and why were the States overlooked?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-My understanding is that the aid given by this Government to the States is 30 per cent more than has been given previously. I will refer the rest of the question to the Treasurer. The matter which the honourable senator raises is an important one.

Senator Carrick:

– General grants are up 22 per cent.

Senator MURPHY:

- Senator Carrick suggests that the general grants are up 22 per cent. The information that has just been given to me by one of my colleagues is that, in general, the grants are up. That covers more than the general purpose grants. It covers specific grants as well. The grants are up by about 30 per cent. In any event there has been a very substantial improvement in the allocation by the Australian Government to the States through Parliament. I think it is proper that the specific question raised in relation to South Australia be answered by the Treasurer and I will refer it to him.

page 2370

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT’S ECONOMIC POLICY

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to Senator Murphy in his capacity as Leader of the Government in this place. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement on the economy of Tuesday night and to the assumptions contained in that statement that the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decisions are of fundamental importance to the Government’s program. In the light of the Government’s reliance upon favourable decisions coming from these bodies will he state whether these bodies are still independent or are amenable to Government direction?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought to know, if he does not know, that the calibre of the men who have been appointed to each of those bodies is such that they would not be amenable to any improper Government pressure or improper pressure from any quarter.

Senator Withers:

– Any sort of pressure at all.

Senator MURPHY:

-The Leader of the Opposition interjects: ‘any sort of pressure at all’whether proper or not. I suppose it is playing with words but if one says that any public body- no doubt any court or tribunal responds to the proper applications -

Senator Withers:

– Of arguments -

Senator MURPHY:

– Well, argument or persuasion. It is very difficult -

Senator Withers:

– Not pressure.

Senator MURPHY:

– It is very difficult if we are going to say that they should not respond even to proper pressure. If there is anything wrong with the pressure then it is not proper. This is getting into a foolish hair splitting of words. The substance of the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a suggestion, which I think is improper, against those who compose the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Prices Justification Tribunal. The fact is that these men have been appointed to carry out their duties and they will carry them out. I think that everyone, with the exception of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, would have confidence in the ability and integrity of these men.

page 2370

QUESTION

LAND TAX IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In view of the general understanding that Federal reimbursement payments to the States, and the operation of the Grants Commission, should provide the basis for a comparable living standard for Australian citizens in all Australian States, will the Government use its negotiating influence with the South Australian Government to have the Dunstan administration refrain from levying land tax on land used for primary production, thereby bringing South Australia in line with all the mainland States in this regard, and raising the standard of living of South Australian rural producers up to the standard enjoyed by those living in States governed by non-Labor administrations?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The Leader of the Liberal Movement has me at a disadvantage. I am not aware of the background to the question that he asks. I will refer it to the Treasurer, who seems to be the appropriate Minister, for a reply.

page 2370

QUESTION

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration: Is it a fact that more approvals have been announced under the regional employment development scheme? Has the State of Queensland benefited from the latest announcement?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The Minister for Labor and Immigration yesterday announced a number of approvals in respect of Queensland. Some 60 projects have now been given provisional approval. Until that announcement was made yesterday there was a total of 42 projects which had been approved. The total cost of these projects will be $2m. Of that amount almost $ 1.75m was provided by the Government. The measures are designed to assist not only local councils but also sporting bodies etc.

page 2371

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT NEWSPAPER

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. I refer to the Minister’s advice earlier this year that the Government was considering the matter of a Government newspaper following the closure of the Canberra News’ in July this year. As the Deputy Prime Minister has announced this week that he would like to see a Government-financed newspaper, I quote the Deputy Prime Minister:

If we had a newspaper commission we would get some of the best journalists in Australia to work for it and I think they would turn out a quality product.

Is it to be accepted that the Deputy Prime Minister is announcing the decision after the Government ‘s consideration on this matter?

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

– I can tell the honourable senator that no decision has been taken by the Government on the matter. The Government’s policy is that consideration should be given to the conducting of a feasibility study to consider the establishment of an Australian newspaper commission along the lines of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. As I understand it, Dr Cairns has said that he is in favour of consideration being given to the establishment of a newspaper commission. That is Australian Labor Party policy and Government policy, and my Department is looking at the matter.

page 2371

QUESTION

ONE CLASS AIR TRAVEL

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to reports that the Department of Transport has held discussions with the airlines on the possibility of introducing a one class structure on major airline routes. I ask the Minister How far have these discussions progressed?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I know that discussions with the domestic airlines have been taking place on the question of a one class structure for air travel, together with many other questions. I do not know what stage the negotiations have reached. I will find out and let the honourable senator know.

page 2371

QUESTION

EXPORT TRADE

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Agriculture seen Mr Anthony’s week-end statement in which he declared that the Government has a compelling obligation to secure and expand markets for Austraiian exports? Did Mr Anthony assert in February 1971 that he would not sell his soul for trade at a time when the wheat industry was restricted by quotas and had lost its major wheat market in China? Further, does the Minister know the reason for Mr Anthony’s latest self-contradiction?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I do not, to be quite frank. I understand that he did make a statement along these lines, although I have not seen it. There is no doubt that under his administration, or the administration of which he was a part, very significant markets were denied to the primary producers of Australia by the policies that were being followed by the Government of which he was a member.

page 2371

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT’S ECONOMIC POLICY

Senator CARRICK:

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer refers to the various financial measures taken by the Federal Government in the 8 weeks since the announcement of the Federal Budget, including the latest mini-budget, specifically the devaluation, and the additional expenditure announced late yesterday afternoon, belatedly, on sewerage, and various other items. I refer also to the statement yesterday that the Budget deficit is now expected to be $ 1,300m. I ask: Does the $ 1,300m projected record deficit include provision for the substantially increased cost due to devaluation? Is the Minister aware that the estimated additional costs for one Department alone- the Department of Foreign Affairs- as supplied to Senate Estimates Committee B is of the order of $14m? Do not the latest figures for current government expenditure, as announced today, showing a 39 per cent increase on the previous year, challenge all the basic assumptions, particularly on inflation, embodied in the Budget? Finally, will the Government submit to the Parliament as a matter of urgency, by the resumption of the sittings next week, a full statement of proposed expenditure and revenue for the year 1974-75, revised to include all additional expenditure commitments and revenue forecasts since the Budget, and indicating the specific additional costs, including devaluation?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Obviously, the question should go on notice and be referred to the Treasurer for an answer.

page 2371

QUESTION

AMATEUR RADIO LICENCE FEES

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. I refer to the increase of from $6 to $ 12 in the amateur wireless licence fee announced in the Budget. In view of the fact that there are only about 6,000 such licences and that many of these licences are held by either elderly or handicapped people, and as the extra revenue derived from this source would be only $36,000 a year, I ask: Will the Minister give consideration to reverting to the $6 licence fee, especially in view of the points that I have mentioned and also because of the sterling work undertaken by many of these people in times of emergency without their receiving any pecuniary reward?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The recommendation of the Post Office to me was that the cost of servicing and of setting up the various administrative, training and examination personnel to do the job was of such magnitude that there ought to be some increase. The increase is not massive. I accepted the recommendation for those reasons. I do not know whether it is possible to consider special cases. If the honourable senator will give me particulars of what he considers to be special cases I will see to what extent I can advocate any change in relation to them.

page 2372

FAMILY LAW BILL

Senator MISSEN:

– I direct my question to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. I draw the Minister’s attention to the low placement on the Senate notice paper of the further consideration of the Family Law Bill and the higher priority to be given to some other Bills of lesser urgency recently received from the other place. In view of the results of a recent public opinion poll reported in this week’s ‘Bulletin’ which showed overwhelming support for the major principles of the Bill, will the Minister give an assurance that the continuance of the debate on the Bill will receive high priority on the notice paper next week?

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

-Much as I should like to be able to give an assurance to the honourable senator I cannot guarantee that the Family Law Bill can be given a higher position on the notice paper. I assure the honourable senator that Senator Murphy, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, has been exerting very great pressure on me to give the Bill the highest priority. The honourable senator will appreciate -

Senator CARRICK:

– It looks like an irretrievable breakdown between you.

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

-No, there is not. I assure the honourable senator that I was hoping that the Appropriation Bills would not have taken the length of time that they have taken to debate. I was hoping that, had the Appropriation Bills been dealt with on Tuesday of this week, we would have had yesterday to deal with the Family Law Bill. However, my colleague, Senator Cavanagh, assures me that so far as his administration is concerned there is quite some urgency involved in the Government’s having the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill and the Aboriginal Loans Commission Bill passed. Therefore after the Appropriation Bills have been dealt with and as in the opinion of Senator Cavanagh urgent consideration is required of these measures by the Parliament, those 2 Bills have been allotted next priority.

I am given to understand in discussions with the Leader of the Opposition that there will be very little debate on orders of the day Nos 5, 6 and 7. Because it was understood that there would be very little debate on those Bills we decided to give them their present position on the notice paper. I assure the honourable senator though that, so far as I am personally concerned in my role as Manager of Government Business in the Senate, it is my earnest desire to accede to the wishes especially of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As soon as it is possible, having regard to Government legislative priorities the Family Law Bill will again be brought to the Senate for debate.

page 2372

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the new guidelines affecting the operations of the Prices Justification Tribunal and I ask: Will the Tribunal be placed in a dilemma by having on the one hand to permit higher profit levels and on the other to honour its statutory responsibility to control the level of price rises? Does the Prime Minister’s announcement support widespread criticism by companies and business organisations of Tribunal decisions?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I do not accept the simple way in which the honourable senator has stated the position of the Tribunal and the criteria to which it will pay account. I think the various factors that have to be considered are ones which the Tribunal can well consider, as it is specially skilled in dealing with such matters. It is not a matter of higher profits that was spoken of by the Prime Minister. As I recall it, it was a question of taking into account the capacity of businesses to engage in investment. I do not think there is anything in the Prime Minister’s statement which would give support to any criticism of the Tribunal. I think the community has been pleased at the way in which it has operated. That we can have a tribunal which is able to make decisions which, while not carrying any sanction, have been observed by the community has been a singular experiment. We hope that this kind of procedure will continue successfully. I think that the Tribunal, with the special talents of its members, will be able to continue to operate. As its operations extend I think it will help to counter in Australia the effects of the world wide inflation.

page 2373

QUESTION

GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, arises from the implication contained in the question asked of him yesterday by Senator Carrick that this Government is neglecting the needs of local government bodies. I ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that this Government recently made direct grants to local government bodies of the order of $56m? Is it not also a fact that these grants have been applauded by Mr Guerin, the President of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I understand that the Prime Minister has spelt out some details on this matter in the last few days. He indicated that that amount of money had been made available to various local authorities throughout Australia. I believe the amounts range from as low as $3,000 to as high as $2m, the sum paid to the Brisbane City Council which received the largest amount. I also understand that no strings are attached to these payments- that the local authorities can use them as they see fit without any directions being given by the Australian Government. I think that is evidence of the fact that this Government is pursuing the policies which it initiated of providing finance for local government in this country.

page 2373

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FOOD AID

Senator SCOTT:

-Will the Minister for Agriculture explain to the Senate so as to clear up confusion within his own Department, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Foreign Affairs, rural industry, the Press gallery and the Australian community, let alone the United Nations World Food Congress, what is Australia’s commitment in food aid as pledged by him at the World Food Congress. What form will this food aid take? Will it be solely wheat or mixed grains or will it involve meat in processed form? Is it true that the Minister now asserts that our commitment made at the World Food Congress was only approximately $ 1 9m? If that is the case, why was a note bearing the Minister’s letterhead pinned on the Press gallery board this week saying that the commitment was $30m? Did the Minister in an interview on Sunday last say that the commitment was $30m? In view of this disparity, will the Minister advise the Senate of the true position, re-check his figures and recheck the price he recently paid for a pair of gumboots?

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA · ALP

– The question is so facile and stupid that I ask the honourable senator to put it on notice.

page 2373

QUESTION

PREMIERS CONFERENCE

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– My question, which I ask of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is: Has the Prime Minister been requested to hold an urgent Premiers Conference on the economy? If so, does this indicate that the Premiers are far from happy with the new financial measures which were announced this week? Has the Prime Minister agreed to the Conference?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I ask the honourable senator to place the question on the notice paper.

page 2373

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Is it a fact that the 5-year sugar agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments has expired? Is it a fact that with the fruit and vegetable canning season commencing there is now no Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee price structure upon which stable prices for canned fruit and vegetables can be guaranteed? Will there be a new agreement? If so, when will it commence? Does the Minister agree that the present position is contrary to the Government’s professed desire for income stability in agriculture?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– As the honourable senator would be aware, sugar does come within the responsibilities of the Minister for Northern Development. But it is true that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement will expire and it is my understanding that the 2 Governments are still negotiating for a renewal of that Agreement. Insofar as it affects the FISCC prices for fruit, that is a matter which also is under consideration as various suggestions have been made both by the sugar industry and by the canned fruits industry. The Government will be making a decision this week on the question of rebates.

page 2373

QUESTION

REVIEW OF THE CUSTOMS VALUATION SYSTEM

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise by saying that last year the Minister established an interdepartmental committee to examine the customs valuation system. As there is considerable interest in industry and commerce in the work of the committee, will the Minister tell the Senate when the requested Green Paper entitled ‘A Review of Australia’s Customs Valuation System ‘ will be published?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– A draft of the paper is now being examined by the interested departments. It is expected that an agreed paper will be completed next month- December- and it will be made available as soon as the printing can be done.

page 2374

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT OVERSEAS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it correctly estimated, as published in today’s ‘Canberra Times’ by that newspaper’s aviation correspondent, that the cost of the Prime Minister’s trip to Europe in the near future in a chartered Qantas Boeing 707/32 1C jet airliner will approximate $500,000? Is this the type of extravagance in which the national Government should indulge in view of the prospect of Australia suffering a record deficit of over $ 1,300m?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The ways in which one can work out the cost of VIP aircraft or chartered government aircraft are quite extraordinary. Apparently one can juggle figures and do whatever one wants to with them. In respect of VIP aircraft we on both sides of the chamber now know what the facts are. The planes are there. They would be consuming fuel in training exercises and all sorts of other things that have to be done. The use of Qantas aircraft involves payment to a government instrumentality and largely, whatever else might be done, it amounts to a transferring of accounts.

There are some very important considerations to which the honourable senator has not referred. When a leader of a nation is travelling around the world at a time when there are terrorists and when the hijacking of aircraft is occurring the protection of the leader- in this case the Prime Minister- and of those who go with him has to be considered. Another extremely important consideration is the protection of other persons if a Prime Minister or a leader of a nation travels on an ordinary aircraft. Not only is there the question of protection; there is also the question of the disruption of affairs if a leader of a nation travels in that way. I think the honourable senator ought to realise that there are a great number of considerations- extremely important considerations- that touch on such a matter.

To dismiss this as some kind of extravagance and to try to work out what it will cost is wrong. I would ask the honourable senator to reflect on the matter and to suggest what he would do when the leader of a nation has to travel overseas. In view of the circumstances and the very serious considerations which are put to a government by those who have the responsibility, does the honourable senator really think that the leader of a nation should travel in some other way? It is true the Prime Minister’s predecessors travelled in the same way as leaders of other nations travelled. The Leader of the Opposition ought to know that circumstances have changed. There has been a necessity to change modes of travel and other practices all over the world.

page 2374

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT OVERSEAS

Senator MARRIOTT:

– As I have had a question put to me by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, may I have the leave of the Senate to answer it?

The PRESIDENT:

– No, you may frame a supplementary question but it must be relevant to the answer.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate realise that if I were the Prime Minister of Australia, appreciating that this nation’s economy was in such a shocking condition, I would not leave the country, especially when one has a Treasurer who seems to be transient and a Cabinet that is always quarrelling? Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree that if I were the Prime Minister, I would be right in using normal aircraft and cutting my coat according to the cloth? Will he also agree that the cloth in Australia, monetarily speaking, is pretty scarce.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The honourable senator has put to me a question on the basis of his being the Prime Minister of Australia. I remind the Senate that I should not answer hypothetical questions. Let me stress what I said recently, although it ought to be quite evident: The Prime Minister of this country and the other Ministers must travel in the interests of Australia. We are one of the great trading nations of the world. A great deal of the prosperity, stability and security of Australia depends on the arrangements that are made with other countries. Australia, perhaps more than most other countries, is intimately tied up with the affairs of other countries. The decisions that are made overseas, whether on the purchase of sugar or meat or other arrangements with Australia, greatly affect the prosperity of this country. If the Opposition’s sole contribution to the solution of Australia’s problems is to say that we ought to cut off these international contacts and that our Ministers should not be trying to meet leaders of other nations or trying to enter into beneficial arrangements, whether for the purchase of our minerals or other products, and making reciprocal agreements to deal with a multitude of problems which arise from trading arrangements, from financial arrangements, from the various dealings with currency and the various problems and frictions which arise, I think it is an illustration of its incapacity to understand the problems of modern Government.

page 2375

QUESTION

LOCUST PLAGUES IN QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLINER:

– As opponents of the Australian Government are peddling stories in Queensland that the Premier of Queensland, the Honourable Joh Bjelke-Petersen, requested the Prime Minister in March this year to make funds available to combat locust plagues then threatening Queensland, will the Minister for Agriculture indicate whether such statements have any basis in fact whatsoever?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I did indicate during the course of a debate in the Senate on Tuesday that it was not until October of this year that any approach was made by the Premier of Queensland for assistance in respect of locust problems in that State. It is quite incorrect to say that any approach was made before that.

page 2375

NATIONAL THERAPEUTIC GOODS COMMITTEE

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators I present a document titled ‘Proposed Requirements For The Advertising Of Therapeutic Goods Recommended By The National Therapeutic Goods Committee, And Which The Australian Health Ministers At Their August 1974 Conference Agreed To Take Back To Their Respective Governments’.

page 2375

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of Qantas Airways Limited for the year ended 31 March 1974, together with financial statements and the reports of the AuditorGeneral on those statements.

page 2375

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

This Bill comes to the Senate in a form which is somewhat different from its original form. It now includes amendments which were inserted by the Government in another place in an attempt to clearly spell out the Government’s intentions with this measure. These intentions have been the subject of some misunderstanding, to say the least, in recent weeks. The Government, by this legislation, basically is seeking to remove any legal doubt about whether or not the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has power to carry out its functions and to exercise its powers under the existing Act.

I think it is fair to say that the Opposition in another place, through the form of amendments it moved to this Bill, has indicated an awareness that it is universally accepted practice throughout the world that the privileges granted to licensees of radio and television stations are subject to regulation by Government or Government bodies in the public interest. Certainly that practice has been accepted in this country ever since the establishment of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in 1948.

Unfortunately, however, the advice tendered to the Government, and also tendered to the previous Government, is that the instrument by which this regulatory process was initiated- that is, the Broadcasting and Television Act- contains several defects of major significance. The major purpose of this legislation is simply to remedy these defects. As is the case with many pieces of legislation brought before the Parliament, it is possible to achieve the general intention of the Government in a number of different ways, but it is important that the method which is decided upon by this Parliament to remedy defects in existing legislation should be a method which minimises the possibility of further legal doubts being raised.

With legislation of this kind the Government accepts that it is important that the method chosen to amend the legislation should be one which offers the best safeguards against possible abuse of power. To this end the Government will be proposing a further amendment to the legislation to ensure that any rules or standards determined by the Broadcasting Control Board, or the Australian Broadcasting Authority as it is to be known, will be subject to scrutiny by the Parliament in the same way as regulations. This is a matter on which I would like to go into more detail shortly, but at this stage I think it is important to make it clear that the Government believes that if this amendment is accepted there can be no valid justification for any suggestion that the Bill opens up the possibility of dictatorial control of the media. On the other hand, I should also make it plain that the Government believes that if the defects in the existing Act are not remedied, the Australian community faces a serious situation.

The problems I am referring to arise from two particular points which in the opinion of the Government require urgent attention. The first concerns the powers of the Broadcasting Control Board to regulate appropriately the programs of commercial broadcasting and television stations. This power existed in the Act until it was amended in 1956. Prior to that time it was provided that stations must present programs ‘to the satisfaction of the Board’, but in 1956 this was amended to provide that stations’ programs must comply ‘with standards determined by the Board’. In recent years some stations have challenged the Board’s powers in the programming area by relying on a narrow legal definition of the word ‘standards’, and the Government’s legal advisers have confirmed that this approach may have some validity. The Board has consistently drawn attention to this lack in its powers of the past 7 years, but no action was taken by the previous Government to correct the anomaly. The relevant section of the Act is section 16, which sets out the powers and functions of the Board. The major function of the Board is stated in that section to be:

To ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs are provided by commercial broadcasting stations and commercial television stations to serve the best interests of the general public.

Unfortunately, however, the Act does not provide the Board with a power comparable to that function. The proposed amendments to section 16, which are included in clause 6 of the Bill I now present, specifically provide the Board with a general power to carry out all its functions. Further, it inserts two new specific powers. The first will become paragraph (e) of sub-section

  1. of section 16, and provides that the Board shall have power to determine rules and standards to be observed by licensees in relation to commercial broadcasting and television programs. The second new power is provided by the new sub-section (3A) which specifically provides power to the Broadcasting Authority to determine, subject to the Minister’s approval, requirements with regard to programs of Australian origin.

Under amendments moved by the Government in another place it has now been spelt out in the Bill that any rules laid down by the Broadcasting Authority shall be of general application and may not unfairly discriminate against a particular station or particular stations. The two new powers I have referred to will place beyond question the powers which, I think it is fair to say, the general public, and indeed the Parliament, have always thought the Board to have. I believe they should be generally welcomed within the industry itself as putting these matters which have been the subject of disputation beyond doubt.

Under section 16 of the present Act it is provided that representatives of commercial broadcasting and television stations shall be consulted by the Broadcasting Control Board in the exercise of its functions and powers as outlined in that section. This, of course, is one safeguard that licensees have and will retain under the present Bill. The Bill also provides, however, that the Broadcasting Authority shall consult such other persons as it considers appropriate. The intention here is to extend consultation to representatives of the trade unions in the media industries and to other organisations that might be interested in radio and television services. Some concern has been expressed in recent years that the only consultation required under the Act has been consultation with the licensees or their representatives. This obviously could result in a one-sided approach to the industry and the Government believes it is certainly more consistent with democratic principles to amend the Act to ensure wider consultation.

The second important matter which is dealt with in the Bill is contained in clause 1 1 which has been amended at the Government’s request in another place. The clause now provides that instead of the present licence renewal period of 12 months, licences may be renewed for variable periods ranging from 6 months to 3 years. An identical proposal for variable licence renewal periods was put forward by the previous Government in 1972. In the circumstances, the Government believes this proposal as amended naturally should be acceptable to both sides of the

Senate. The amendment by the Government of the lower limit for licence renewals follows discussions I have had with representatives of the television industry since the Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, who suggested that the 3-month period would raise some practical administrative difficulties for them. I accept that point of view, but would simply point out at this stage that a variation in licence renewal periods will hold considerable advantages for the overwhelming majority of licensees who comply with the requirements of the Act.

I think honourable senators will be aware that the majority of other amendments proposed in this Bill are largely of a machinery nature or are amendments complementary to the measures I have outlined. Detailed discussions of such measures are perhaps best dealt with at the Committee stage of consideration of this Bill. At this time, however, I want to deal with an important amendment the Government will propose in the Committee stage. This amendment was foreshadowed by my colleague the Minister for Science (Mr Morrison) in the debate in another place. He indicated that the Government saw some merit in the apparent intention of an amendment proposed by the Opposition in that debate. The intention appears to have been to subject the powers of the Broadcasting Authority to the scrutiny of the Parliament, insofar as they deal with the regulation of the hours of transmissions, of programs and of advertising. Certainly, this Government’s policy has always been to provide for adequate Parliamentary supervision of the activities of Government bodies and agencies. My own personal philosophy as a parliamentarian has prompted me to seek adequate provision for Parliamentary responsibility wherever this is possible. In this Bill, I believe this is both possible and highly desirable.

The program and advertising standards of the Broadcasting Control Board have never been subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in the past. The previous Government made no provision for this in the Broadcasting and Television Act on any of the numerous occasions when it sought to amend the Act in its 23 years in government. The Labor Government, however, accepts the desirability of such a measure, and will propose it in debate on this Bill. In the Committee stage, I will move an amendment that will require that the determinations of the Broadcasting Authority relating to hours of transmission, rules and standards for programs and conditions for the broadcasting or televising of advertisements will be subject not only to Parliamentary scrutiny, but also to disallowance by either House of the

Parliament. The amendment will require the Authority’s determinations to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament and subject to the same treatment as regulations. I believe that this amendment will provide genuine safeguards for freedom of expression, by providing an ultimate appeal for all individuals to the Parliament itself. The activities of the Australian Broadcasting Authority will be properly open for inspection and discussion by the Parliament to which it is responsible as a statutory body.

The Austraiian people have always believed that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board should be clothed with adequate powers to ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained by commercial broadcasting and television stations. Likewise the Government believes it has a responsibility to ensure that those who have sought to employ their creative, technical and performing talents in the media industries in Australia should have continuity and security of employment and expanding opportunities for the use of their talents in their own country. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 2377

BROADCASTING STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is consequential upon the Bill which I have already presented to the Senate proposing the amendment of the Broadcasting and Television Act to provide that licences for commercial broadcasting and television stations should be renewed for periods varying from 6 months to 3 years. This Bill is a machinery amendment to the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act 1964-1973, providing for an appropriate method of calculation for a licence fee when, in fact, the licence is renewed for a period other than one year. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 2378

TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) read a first tune.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is consequential upon the Bill which I have already presented to the Senate, proposing the amendment to the Broadcasting and Television Act to provide that licences for commercial broadcasting and television stations should be renewed for periods varying from 6 months to 3 years. This Bill is a machinery amendment to the Television Stations Licence Fees Act 1964-1966, providing for an appropriate method of calculation for a licence fee when, in fact, the licence is renewed for a period other than one year. The opportunity is also being taken to make formal amendment to bring the wording of the Act into line with current practice. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 2378

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) 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 in Hansard.

Mr PRESIDENT:

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

The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment in 1974-75 of special grants of $24.7 5m to Queensland and $23.5m to South Australia. These payments are in accordance with the recommendations of the Grants Commission contained in its forty-first report on Special Assistance for States, which has been tabled by the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen). The Bill also seeks the usual authority for payment of advances to the 2 States in the early months of 1975-76, pending receipt of the Commission’s recommendations for that year and enactment of legislation to provide for the grants to be paid in that year. The Australian Government makes special grants to certain of the States to compensate them for such factors as lower capacity to raise revenue from their own resources and higher costs in providing government services of a standard similar to those in the financially stronger States.

When special grants were first paid they constituted the only regular form of general revenue assistance paid to the financially weaker States for this purpose. For many years now, however, the main way in which special compensatory assistance has been provided has been through the higher per capita financial assistance grants paid to the 4 less populous States. The financial assistance grants are, of course, the main general revenue grants to the States. The special grants may, therefore, be regarded as supplementing the financial assistance grants, and as having the special characteristic of being independently as well as expertly assessed by the Grants Commission. In arriving at its recommendations, the Grnats Commission makes an assessment of the financial needs’ of the claimant States. To qualify these needs, the Commission compares in detail the finances of each claimant State with those of New South Wales and Victoria, taking into account differences in revenue-raising capacity and differences in the cost of providing comparable services.

This year, the Commission has used a new method for assessing the appropriate amounts of special grants and for presenting its results. This matter is referred to in detail in paragraphs 3.16 through 3.30 of its report. Very briefly, however, this new method- which the Australian Treasury has been advocating for some years- involves a more direct, and it is believed more easily understood, approach to the assessment of the grants. The method is also consistent with that adopted by the Commission in reporting on claims for financial assistance by local governing bodies. I should mention, however, that this change in method does not reflect any change in the basic principles on which the Commission operates. They remain as first enunciated in the Commission’s Third Report. Nor has the change in method affected the size of the grants. It is, nevertheless, an important development in the

Commission’s work, and one which the Government warmly welcomes. The Commission has continued to refine and improve its procedures in other respects. These are referred to in its report and I shall not attempt to summarise them here.

The recommendations of the Grants Commission for payment of special grants consist of 2 parts. One part is based on a preliminary estimate of the claimant State ‘s financial need in the current financial year, and is treated as an advance payment subject to adjustment 2 years later when the Commission has compared in detail the finances of the claimant and standard States. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advance payment made 2 years earlier and is known as the completion payment. This adjustment may be positive or negative and therefore may result in the final grant in respect of that year being higher or lower than the original advance payment.

The Commission has recommended that an advance payment of $15m be made to Queensland in 1974-75- an increase of 50 per cent on that made for 1973-74- and that a completion payment of $9.75m be paid to the State in respect of 1972-73. For South Australia, the Commission has recommended the payment of special grants totalling $23.5m, made up of an advance payment of $15m for 1974-75- the same amount as in 1973-74- and a completion payment of $8.5m in respect of 1972-73. The 1974-75 advance grants to each of the 2 States will, of course, be subject to adjustment, if necessary, in 1976-77.

Since a similar Bill was presented last year, Tasmania, which had applied continuously for special grants on the recommendation of the Commission from 1934-35 to 1973-74, has withdrawn from the special grants system following the Australian Government’s agreement to pay the State an additional financial assistance grant of $ 1 5m in 1 974-7 5 , to be built into the ‘ base ‘ for purposes of calculating the State’s formula grants in 1975-76 and subsequent years. This increase in the State’s financial assistance grant has been provided for in the States Grants Bill 1974, which has now been passed by both Houses. In accordance with arrangements agreed between the Australian and Tasmanian Governments, the Grants Commission has not recommended a completion payment in respect of the advance grant paid to the State in 1972-73 and has agreed not to recommend a completion payment next year in respect of 1973-74; as a consequence, there is no provision for a payment to Tasmania in this Bill.

Finally, I wish to take this opportunity to refer to the retirement of the Chairman of the Commission, Sir Leslie Melville, on 30 September last and wish to place on record the Government’s appreciation of his services in this and other spheres during a long and most distinguished career. Mr Justice Else-Mitchel will replace Sir Leslie as Chairman of the Commission. The Commission’s recommendations have been adopted by Parliament each year since the Commission’s inception and the Government considers that they should be accepted on this occasion. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2379

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) 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 in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of capital grants to the States in 1 974-75 totalling $326,618,000. This amount represents the grant component of the State governments’ Loan Council programs for 1974-75 and is equal to 32. 1 per cent of the total programs excluding the temporary allocation of $9,919,000 for Queensland for flood restoration purposes- the same percentage share as in 1973-74. The Bill also provides for the payment of capital grants in the first 6 months of 1975-76 up to an amount equal to one half of the 1974-75 amount pending passage of similar legislation in that year. Payments authorised under this Bill may be made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from the Loan Fund, and appropriate borrowing authority is included.

Following arrangements settled at the June 1970 Premiers Conference, the Australian Government undertook to provide, on a continuing basis, a portion of the State Government’s

Loan Council programs in the form of interestfree grants in lieu of what would otherwise be borrowings by the States, in order to help the States finance capital works, such as schools, police buildings and the like, from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The savings to the States in debt charges arising from the capital grants are estimated to have totalled $74.8m. to the end of 1973-74, and to amount to $59m. in 1974-75.

At its meeting in June 1974, the Loan Council approved programs for the State Governments totalling $934,919,000, consisting of a basic program of $925,000,000 and a temporary borrowing allocation of $9,919,000 for Queensland to finance the additional cost of restoring flooddamaged assets to above their pre-flood standard and to cover the cost of re-siting and constructing new assets to replace old assets destroyed or abandoned because of flood damage. In September 1974 the Australian Government proposed and the State Governments agreed that the basic program should be increased, by 10 per cent, to $1,017,500,000. This increase is to be formally approved at a subsequent meeting of the Loan Council.

The basic program for 1974-75 takes into account estimated capital expenditures of which the States would be relieved in that year as a result of the Australian Government’s assumption of full responsibility for financing tertiary education from 1 January 1974. The reduction for 1974-75 agreed at the June 1973 Premiers Conference /Loan Council meeting is $65.4m. These arrangements complicate comparisons between 1973-74 and 1974-75 but when adjustments are made to take these differences into account the 1974-75 basic program for each State is 20 per cent greater than the 1973-74 program. The basic program of $1,017,500,000 is made up of borrowings totalling $690,882,000 and capital grants to be provided by the Australian Government of $326,6 1 8,000.

At its June 1974 meeting the Loan Council also approved an increase of $70m, or 12.4 per cent, to $636,084,000 in the borrowing programs for State authorities classified as ‘larger’ authorities for this purpose. In 1973-74 these were semigovernment and local authorities whose individual borrowings for the year exceeded $400,000. For 1974-75 the Loan Council agreed to increase this amount to $500,000. There is no overall limit on borrowings of authorities whose individual borrowings amount to $500,000 or less. The larger authorities program includes a permanent addition of $10,000,000 to the New

South Wales allocation and temporary allocations of $9,584,000 for Queensland for restoration of flood-damaged assets to above their pre-flood standard and $6,000,000 for Western Australia under arrangements made between the Australian and Western Australian Governments.

Overall, the funds available to the States and their authorities in 1974-75 for capital purposes from Loan Council borrowing programs, Australian Government general purpose and specific purpose payments and from estimated borrowings by smaller authorities are estimated to amount to over $3,390m or about one-third more than in 1973-74. Of this amount, the Australian Government will provide or support more than $2,579m or over 40 per cent more than in 1973- 74. Further details concerning the Loan Council programs of the States and their authorities for 1974-75 may be found in chapter III of the Budget document ‘Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities

1974- 75’.

Turning to the details of the Bill, clause 3 authorises the payment of grants to the States totalling $326,618,000 in 1974-75 and clause 4 authorises the Treasurer to make advance payments in the first 6 months of 1975-76 at the same annual rate as in the current financial year. The amounts for each State are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Under clause 5 of the Bill payments may be made either from Consolidated Revenue Fund or Loan Fund and clause 9 provides for the necessary appropriation of these funds. The extent to which the payments will be met from Loan Fund will depend on borrowings during the year, which cannot be estimated in advance. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill authorise the Treasurer to borrow funds in the period from the commencement of the Act to the end of December 1975, up to the total of the amounts of the grants payable in 1974-75 and in the first 6 months of 1975-76. This borrowing authority will be reduced by the amount of any borrowings made before the commencement of this Act, under the authority of the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1973, which may have been used to finance grants made in the first 6 months of 1974-75. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2380

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) 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

( 1 1.58)- I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

THE PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

This Bill will give effect to the Budget proposal to increase the rate of pay-roll tax in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The present rate of 4Vi per cent will be increased to 5 per cent from 1 December 1974. Since the transfer of the tax to the States in September 1971 pay-roll tax has been payable in respect of salaries and wages related to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory under legislation applying only in the Territories. Since 1 July 1974 the Territory rate has been 4Vi per cent, the same rate as levied by the States from 1 September 1973.

Following the Premiers Conference last June the Premiers foreshadowed an increase to 5 per cent in the rate of pay-roll tax in the States. This rate has been operative in each State as from 1 September 1974. There is no good reason why Territory employers should not be called upon to meet taxes and charges comparable with those borne by employers in the States. Accordingly, this Bill will bring the Territory rate into line with the rate applying in the States. The increase to 5 per cent will apply first to wages payable on and after 1 December 1974 and included in pay-roll tax returns due for lodgement on 7 January 1 975. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2381

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) proposed:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is that that motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.

Senator Townley:

- Mr President, a point of order. Before we give permission for the second reading speech on this Bill to be incorporated in Hansard, I should like to lodge a complaint. A moment ago I wanted to speak on the first reading of the Pay-Roll Tax (Territories) Bill 1974. This Bill, together with the second reading speech, has just now been placed in front of me. I believe that we should have these documents in our hands before the first or second readings take place or before we give permission for the second reading speeches to be incorporated in Hansard, otherwise how are honourable senators to know whether it is a tax Bill and whether they have the opportunity to speak on the first reading? Will the Government please take some action on this matter so that in future we will know and will have the opportunity to speak when we want to do so.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must say that I recall having asked the Senate whether leave was granted for the incorporation of the second reading speech in Hansard. There was no audible dissent.

Senator Townley:

– There may be in future, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-I refer the matter to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate.

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

. Frankly I am at a loss to understand the complaint by the honourable senator. First of all we have had printed a special type of notice paper which explains each day the Bills -

Senator Townley:

– It does not explain whether they are tax bills.

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLAND The honourable member says that it does not explain whether they are tax Bills. Surely when an honourable senator sees a certain type of Bill on the notice paper relating to financial assistance and to payroll tax he would automatically assume that one Bill would be a tax Bill.

Senator Townley:

– With due respect, senator, one would also assume that the Television Stations Licence Fees Bill 1974 was a tax Bill. In fact it is not.

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

– It is regarded as a tax Bill and indeed that is the very reason why that Bill and the related Bills were introduced in the House of Representatives. The advice tendered to me was that it was to be regarded as a tax Bill. In any event I suggest to the honourable senator that if he be in any doubt about any of the matters he seek the advice of the Clerks at the table. Of course, as is his right always, he can object to matters being incorporated in Hansard at any time should he so elect.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Standing Orders suspended. Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Townley:

– No. I have not seen a copy of the second reading speech.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator Townley:

– Wait until we get the second reading speech and the Bill on our desks.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I will read the second reading speech. The purpose of the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill is to authorise the Treasurer (Mr Crean) to pay to the States this year the sum of $3 10m for welfare housing in accordance with the provisions of the 1973 Housing Agreement. It will be distributed among the States as follows:

New South Wales, $96,411,000; Victoria, $81,159,000; Queensland, $27,410,000; South Australia, $45,360,000; Western Australia, $35,440,000; and Tasmania $24,220,000-a total of $3 10,000,000.

Taking into account that approximately $25m of the $218,650,000 advanced to the States in 1 973-74 was not spent, this allocation will permit an increase in expenditure this year of $1 16,350,000, or 60 per cent, over 1973-74.

The Bill also authorises the Treasurer to pay to the States in the first 6 months of 1975-76 the sum of $ 1 55m, which is half the allocation to be appropriated for 1974-75, and it will be distributed on the same basis as the advances for the current year. This authority will enable the Treasurer to continue payments to the States for welfare housing in the period from 1 July 1975 until an appropriation measure for 1975-76 is passed by the Parliament.

The advances to be authorised by the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill are repayable over a period of 53 years. The rate of interest payable on advances during the full 5 year term of the Agreement is fixed at 4 per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the State Housing Authorities and 4% per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the Home Builders’ Accounts of the States. The repayable interest bearing advances will, as circumstances dictate, be made either from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund and will be on the terms and conditions set out in the 1973 Housing Agreement as amended. Provision is made for any payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this purpose to be reimbursed in due course from the Loan Fund when the Treasurer considers this appropriate. I commend the Bill to the Senate. I hope that Senator Townley has taken notice of the second reading speech.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 2382

HOUSING AGREEMENT 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: That the Bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of the Housing Agreement Bill 1 974 is to obtain Parliamentary approval to proposed amendments to the Housing Agreement that was negotiated with each State last year. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) has been keeping in close touch with State Housing Ministers by correspondence, discussion and by means of 2 formal conferences this year. This constant communication has permitted exchanges of views on the operation of the Agreement and has facilitated the identification of features of the Agreement that warrant variation in the light of experience since its adoption. The 3 amendments that are proposed in the Schedule to the Bill have all been agreed with the States. The first varies sub-clause (3) of clause 9 of the Agreement to permit the allocation to a State ‘s Home Builders ‘ Account of more than 30 per cent of the total advance to that State. Advances to a State are made for the purposes of its housing authority and for payment to its Home

Builders’ account for onlending to prospective home owners through co-operative terminating societies or a lending institution of the State approved by the Minister.

The Senate will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at the June Premiers Conference drew attention to the effect of the limitation on the percentage of advances payable to a State for Home Builders’ Account purposes. It prevented the allocation of additional funds for private home purchases by needy persons at a time when housing authorities were unable to let contracts for dwelling construction in the numbers hoped for because of excessive demands on the building industry. The Prime Minister announced our intention to discuss with the States the amendment of the Housing Agreement now proposed by clause 4 of the Schedule to this Bill. As I have already said all States have agreed to that variation.

The 1 973 Housing Agreement provides for the application of needs tests based on income to determine eligibility for access to State housing authority dwellings and for loans from funds allocated to Home Builders’ Accounts. Overtime has been included in an applicant’s income for the purpose of determining eligibility for loans through Home Builders’ Accounts. In response to representations from State Housing Ministers and the co-operative terminating society movement the Minister has agreed to the exclusion of overtime from a person’s income in determining his eligibility for a Home Builders’ Account loan. This variation is proposed in clause 6 of the Schedule and shall be deemed to have come into effect on 1 November 1974.

The proposed amendment will remove an inconsistency between the means tests for housing authority accommodation and for Home Builder’s Account loans, and will avoid anomalous situations that have arisen in the past. It will, however, have the effect of increasing competition for Home Builders ‘ Account loans which are available at the highly concessional interest rate of not more than 5% per cent per annum. I emphasise that the Government expects the terminating society movement to continue to give due consideration to the need for home finance of these needy families whose incomes are lower than others who will now be eligible for loans.

At the June Premiers Conference the Government agreed to advance $235m to the States for welfare housing in 1974-75. At the same time, however, the Prime Minister stated that we stood ready to consult with the States on the provision of additional advances this financial year in the light of developments in the housing industry, the availability of resources for housing construction and the ability of the States to put further funds for welfare housing to productive use. Honourable senators will be aware that the Minister for Housing and Construction has since had discussions with the States about progress on their welfare housing programs in the current year. At a conference in Canberra on 1 1 October, he announced to State Ministers that the Australian Government would provide an additional $75m to the States for welfare housing in 1974-75. These additional funds will enable the States to take advantage of the present situation in the housing industry to increase their welfare housing activity in a substantial degree.

The 1973 Housing Agreement was drafted in the expectation that there would be a single determination of the amount to be allocated to each State for housing purposes in any year. Clause 5 of the Housing Agreement Bill 1 974 is to amend clause 10 of the Housing Agreement to permit the determination of supplementary advances during a financial year. As I have already mentioned, a supplementary advance of $7 5 m is proposed in the current year and is included in the following figures of amounts being made available for housing authority purposes and for the Home Builders’ Account in each State in 1974-75:

These figures do not include an additional advance of $8m to Queensland for the activities of its Housing Commission that was announced by the Prime Minister on 12 November. Parliamentary authority for the payment of this amount to Queensland will be sought separately. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 2383

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL 1974

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1974-75 In Committee

Consideration resumed from 13 November.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:
VICTORIA

-The Committee is continuing to deal with Estimates Committee A under Appropriation Bill (No. 1). We are dealing with the Attorney-General’s Department. The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) has indicated that he wishes to make a short statement.

Rauwolfia Drug: Possible Association with Cancer

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I seek leave to make a short statement relating to a matter which was raised on Tuesday 12 November during the debate on this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator WHEELDON:

– Thank you, Mr Chairman. On 12 November during the debate on this Bill 2 matters were raised by Senator Baume referring to the estimates for the Department of Health. I undertook to obtain some information from the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) concerning these matters and to make a statement to the Committee on them. I now have the information from the Minister. The first matter concerns Rauwolfia and breast cancer. The statement reads:

The association between Rauwolfia derivatives and breast cancer was first drawn to the Committee’s attention late in September 1974 following publication in the ‘Lancet’- 21 September issue- of the results of 3 epidemiological studies, one based on United States hospital admissions, another on Finnish data, and the third on United Kingdom data. The stated risk of breast cancer in women taking Rauwolfia derivatives ranged between about two to four times that for women not taking those agents.

Australian medical practitioners were advised of this association by circular letter on 8 October and the matter was discussed in detail by the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (a sub-committee of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee) on 1 1 October 1974. Doctors were advised by circular letter dated 25 October of the Committee’s decision. In summary, it was felt that while there was some evidence of an association between taking these drugs and developing breast cancer, the validity of the methodology of all 3 studies was not yet verified.

The Committee accordingly agreed that a long term prospective study would be required to substantiate the claims of the 3 groups of researchers before regulatory action was warranted. A positive correlation such as this did not necessarily indicate a cause and effect relationship. Doctors were asked to review the need in their hypertensive patients for continued use of rauwolfia derivatives in the light of availability of suitable alternatives. The Committee’s investigations are continuing. The results of further overseas studies are being awaited, particularly those of the FDA expert panel. As rauwolfia and its derivatives are available in this country only on a doctor’s prescription, there seems little risk of a patient inadvertently taking the drug without adequate supervision by a doctor who has been pre-warned of the risk.

The other document refers to the Dalkon shield. It states:

The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee discussed the matter of septic abortion alleged to be associated with the Dalkon shield at its 59th meeting on 2 August 1 974. At that time the Committee had no reports of septic abortion following the use of intra-uterine contraceptive devices in Australia. Accordingly, it was agreed to seek details in Australia of any similar cases to those reported in the US but to broaden the survey to include reactions to the various types of intra-uterine contraceptive devices available in Australia. During its examination of the available data the Committee noted:

the Dalkon shield is one of a number of intra-uterine contraceptive devices which have been available in Australia for several years;

mortality rate for the Dalkon shield is claimed by the company marketing the products to be 0.5 per 100,000 woman years c.f. 1 .5 to 3.9 for oral contraceptives;

other intra-uterine contraceptive devices had been implicated in septic abortion.

The Committee agreed that if the problem proved to be device specific, the product should be withdrawn since other effective intra-uterine contraceptive devices were available. It was further agreed that temporary market suspension of the Dalkon shield was not warranted on the present evidence and that the company had acted responsibly in advising Australian doctors of the situation.

A circular letter from the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, dispatched to all doctors on 25 October 1974, advised them of the specific problem with Dalkon shield and requested information on the use of all intra-uterine contraceptive devices and possible association of septic abortion and/or death.

The response to the request for details of cases so far has been nearly 40 reports on reactions to various types of intrauterine contraceptive devices used in Australia. Of these 40 reports, there has been no instance of death from complications following the use of the Dalkon shield. It is understood that the Dalkon shield is likely to be reintroduced onto the US market in the near future.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-Mr Chairman, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

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

Senator BAUME:

– I must say that I am very grateful to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) for the prompt way in which an answer has been sought and given in relation to matters which I raised 2 days ago. The Minister makes several points which I think should be answered briefly at this stage. Firstly, he states that one of the overseas studies concerning rauwolfia suggests an increased risk of the order of two to four times in the incidence of breast cancer. I submit that we are not in a situation where we are looking for scientific proof of the correctness or incorrectness of the suggested association. We have a situation where plenty of alternative agents are available. If a doubt has been raised about what, up to now, has been an excellent drug surely the correct thing to do is not to seek scientific, irrefutable proof but to take the appropriate action. We should not use the drug until we know what the situation is. The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee thought the position sufficiently serious to circularise all doctors.

I reiterate that it is appropriate in my mind that the drug should be voluntarily withdrawn. It is not a question of knowing with 100 per cent certainty that this association actually occurs. What we do know is that 3 groups, in a reputable way, have raised this doubt. I am concerned all the time that there could be another thalidomide disaster around the corner tomorrow, next week or at some time. The lesson which we got from the thalidomide disaster was not to do with that drug alone; it had to do with our methods of reacting to suspicion. If there is one thing that went wrong with thalidomide it was that we did not act sufficiently quickly when suspicion was first raised. I am not saying that rauwolfia does cause breast cancer. No one can say that. All I can say is that some reputable people have raised the possibility. If at this stage my wife was being treated with rauwolfia I would make damned sure that she was not being treated with the drug after today until I knew for certain. I appreciate the scientific view taken by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, but personally, I do not think that is the appropriate response in view of the evidence offered.

With regard to the Dalkon shield, I simply say that A. H. Robins Pty Ltd was kind enough to supply me yesterday with a considerable amount of data. The information suggests, as the Minister has told the Committee, that it is likely that the product will be released again for use on the American market. But the point I make once more is that the product was removed from the American market in June this year. Again I say that if suspicion arises the correct thing to do is to withdraw the product since we know that good alternatives are available. If that is a bit hard on the manufacturer, I am sorry, but it is probably not hard on the women of Australia who may unwittingly be using a product which might just possibly be dangerous. It appears that the Dalkon shield might be cleared of the suspicions which have been raised against it. I have here a letter sent to me by the managing director of A. H. Robins. He states that the Food and Drug Administration in America is in receipt of its subcommittee report which it expects will clear the product. But there has been some delay in releasing that report and allowing the product back on the market in the United States. I am not disturbed at all with the factual answers I have received. I think the facts speak for themselves. But I am concerned about the principle of action which has been established and about our proposed course of action in the future whenever doubts are raised about any therapeutic substances.

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)- I seek leave to make a very short statement in response.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

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

Senator WHEELDON:

– I must say I am impressed by what Senator Baume has said. I shall see that what he has said is conveyed to the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham).

Attorney-General’s Department

Proposed expenditure, $62,764,000.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Yesterday I commenced to speak about the provision of $12m for legal aid; $10m of it is in the estimates of the Attorney-General’s Depart*ment. I think I should advert to what Senate Estimates Committee A said about the question of legal aid. It was a very short note but I read it. It states:

The Committee received considerable assistance from the Attorney-General in response to questions seeking information as to the scope of operations of the Australian Legal Aid Office, and also as to the distribution of other moneys proposed to be appropriated for legal aid. The Committee notes the increasing number of agencies dispersing legal aid and is concerned at the possible duplication, inefficiencies and waste that unco-ordinated development may produce. It considers that a full scale government sponsored inquiry into the services providing legal aid is desirable.

On the terms of that comment the Committee was united. I appreciate that differing members of the Committee had differing approaches to this whole subject and what I hereafter say may not have the support of the other members of the Committee. But there was a view- this is why I emphasise it- held by the members of the Committee that there was need for some rationalisation in a somewhat confusing and worrying pat: tern of legal aid being disbursed throughout the community at the present time. No one questions the need for a society such as ours to ensure that people are able to take advantage of the basic equality before the law which exists in Australia. We recognise that all persons should be able as far as possible to have access to the courts, and people should not be denied access because of lack of means. There are some people who have always had the ability to secure the legal advice and access to the courts which they wanted; there are other people who have not been able so easily to secure that advice and access.

The purpose of legal aid is to make that advice and access available, as far as possible, to persons who because of lack of means might not be able to have the legal advice and appearances before the courts which from time to time they may need. The real question is how this advice is to be implemented. I say right at the outset that it should be able to be provided through an independent legal profession. I think that is the foremost fundamental of the requirements. One could stress why an independent profession is important. I mention just 2 considerations which I think stand in the forefront in the justification for legal aid being provided through an independent profession.

The first is that much and indeed an increasing amount of litigation is these days concerned with complaints of the citizen against the State or prosecutions by the State in which the individual citizen is the defendant. It is therefore highly important to have a profession which can give representation to bodies and persons who are in conflict with government and with authority. The cause of the individual is the cause of the individual’s freedom being maintained constantly against encroachments by the State. We will not be able to secure and maintain that freedom, that right of the individual unless there are in the legal profession independent persons with no twin allegiances who are able to devote their cause to the individual. We will not be able to achieve that unless, as I have said, there is an independent legal profession. We will certainly not be able to achieve it if it is found that the place to which people who need legal aid go is a government office with salaried employees paid essentially out of the public purse because there must be at some stage a conflict of interest. It is tremendously important that whatever be the role of the Government in the provision of legal aid it does not undermine or reduce the effectiveness of the independent.legal profession.

The second aspect which is important is that where there is any form of adversary litigationas far as the provision of legal advice and aid is concerned in Australia it will be in that area- it is important that the individuals concerned have a choice as to the type of legal representation which they want and which they need. They will not be able to have that choice if there is only one legal aid office to which they can go because where there is a government legal aid office it is perfectly feasible for that office to finance assistance for the plaintiff and to finance assistance for the defendant. But there is always sitting over the provision of that finance the Treasurer of the day who has some concern as to how much money could be dispensed. We do not want to reach the situation which is becoming notorious in the United Kingdom where litigation is financed by the Government for both plaintiffs and defendants, and counsel and solicitors are being financed by the Government as they act for parties on each side. It is becoming an increasing part of the general conduct of litigation in that country. That is a situation which we want to avoid as far as possible. If we provide legal aid we ought to provide it on a basis that allows a person entitled to receive it to go to a solicitor and to retain counsel in the same way as he would have been able if he had his own funds and did not have to have legal aid. That, to my way of thinking, is a second substantial reason why we must ensure the maintenance of an independent legal profession.

I say that what is happening at the present time since this Government has been in office is that we are implementing a scheme of legal aid in a way that is calculated to undermine and to reduce the influence of an independent legal profession in this country. It is a slow process and much has already been done without, I believe, the legal profession being aware of how it is being undermined. It is not only, I believe, the economic circumstances which find solicitors for the first time in many, many years registering at the unemployment offices of this country. What we are seeing is the development of a system under which a salaried legal service will perform a role which has hitherto been performed by the independent legal profession.

The Attorney-General made a statement on 1 3 December last year in this Senate. Unfortunately the prorogation of the Parliament precluded any debate upon the development of legal aid and indeed this is the first occasion that the Senate has had an opportunity to discuss the whole question. I desire to take advantage of that opportunity. The Attorney-General in his statement made last December said something the implications of which I think ought to be considered by all persons who believe in and want to retain an independent profession. He said:

The service that the Office -

That is, the Australian Legal Aid Office - will provide, broadly stated, will be: first, a general problem solving service of advice and assistance short of litigation to persons with an element of financial need- this will, in my view, take care of some 90 per cent of all problems that worry the ordinary citizen; and secondly, the conduct of litigation, particularly family law, environmental and other litigation in areas of special concern to the Australian Government, on behalf of persons who cannot afford the cost of representation in court.

The legal aid, therefore, is to be provided in 2 areas, firstly, legal advice and assistance short of litigation, and secondly, other forms of legal advice. As far as advice and assistance short of litigation is concerned, I would have thought the ordinary meaning of the Attorney-General’s statement is that he anticipates that his Office will take care of some 90 per cent of all the problems that worry the ordinary citizen. That must involve a replacement of areas where the independent profession now operates.

Senator Murphy:

– No. Let me clarify this now. That meant- if the honourable senator had read the context reasonably he would understand this- 90 per cent of the problems that had come into the Office. It does not suggest taking care of 90 per cent of the problems of the whole community which did not come into the office. It means 90 per cent of the problems of the people who had come into the Office. Surely that is a reasonable meaning of the statement. If it is not clear or if it was not clear before, I am clarifying it for you now.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am grateful that the Attorney-General has said what he has just said because I have made the comment which I made earlier- referring to that passage in his speech- on other occasions and there has been consternation in some quarters. When the words are looked at and given their ordinary meaning, they have the interpretation which I have placed upon them and it has been put to me on behalf of the Attorney-General that they do have the meaning which he claims they have. I hope that he will make it clear and take the steps to ensure that the profession generally has a clearer idea of what this Legal Aid Office is to do. He probably saw in yesterday’s Melbourne ‘Sun-Pictorial’ a statement- I believe a long overdue statementwhich came from the President of the Law Institute in Victoria. The article states:

The President of the Victorian Law Institute, Mr John Dawson, yesterday criticised the Federal Government’s Legal Aid Office.

Many lawyers feel the Australian Legal Aid Office is confusing and unnecessary, ‘ he said.

I don’t know if the Federal Attorney-General himself could tell you the role of the office- most lawyers certainly don’t know,’ Mr Dawson said.

The ALAO, which has been set up by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department began opening offices in State capitals this year.

Mr Dawson said: ‘There was no legislation setting up the office, and the Attorney-General’s directives are unavailable to me- I am puzzled by the way it was set up.’ Mr Dawson said he believed the ALAO had a staff of solicitors who offered advice to people with problems relating to Federal law, including matrimonial and constitutional problems.

Mr Dawson said the present State legal aid systems were adequate. There was really no need for the ALAO.

Every State has some form of legal aid service, controlled and staffed by the legal profession,’ he said.

These services are supplemented by organisations like the Fitzroy Legal Aid Service. ‘

Lawyers felt the ALAO could only confuse many people seeking legal aid, ‘ he said.

I believe that what Mr Dawson said would be echoed by a vast number of solicitors in independent practice around the country. I suggest to the Attorney-General that this concern is felt because this great Office is growing, with enormous sums- millions of dollars- being spent upon it and no one quite knows what it will be when it is finally operational. I believe it is calculated to undermine the independent legal profession. The whole distribution of legal aid- at present a hotch-potch which is unregulated and unsustained by the parliamentary enactment systemis again an area in which patronage can be engaged in, in a manner which we have never experienced in this country in the past. This area of developing Government patronage ought to concern everybody who believes in parliamentary control and supervision of public expenditure. As I recognise that my time has almost concluded, I indicate to the Attorney-General my concern. I will raise some other matters in due course.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I wish to make some remarks on the same subject. They are supplementary and additional to what has already been said. I wish to say, so there will be no misunderstanding, that I support very strongly the concept of legal aid. I have supported it since in started in Victoria. I played an active part in helping to get it off the ground, with the profession’s support. I have supported it in a practical way for a number of years by taking action in accepting assignments and dealing with legal aid matters. I recognise not only the desirability of the profession being actively involved in legal aid, but also the deficiencies which it has had for a number of years and which of course need to be remedied. I think that one should take that general stance. I agree very substantially with Senator Greenwood’s statement about the necessity for the private profession to be most heavily involved in the legal aid system and that it should not be a matter of government service. There is perhaps a distinction. Probably I do not go quite as far as Senator Greenwood goes, because I see a role for an Australian Legal

Aid Office. I see it operating in remote places where the profession is perhaps not strong or even non-existent. I see it operating also perhaps in areas where there is an additional need to bring the knowledge of law facilities to the people where it may be that the profession is not able to do it adequately. Basically I think the legal profession is best able to deal with such a scheme. In my years of practice I have seen a public solicitor-type activity in which a charity is performed and people wait in queues and have great difficulty in getting service. I think that this is not the desirable way in which legal aid should be provided. It is best provided in a system whereby the people are dealt with as ordinary clients of a solicitor and are treated as equals of any other client, with financial provisions being made from the legal aid service.

Attention must be drawn to the discussion that took place in Estimates Committee A. It was a fairly long discussion during which much helpful information was provided for the members of the Committee. But if one reads the Hansard record of that debate it is still impossible to determine the way in which the $ 12.5m, if one adds the Aboriginal legal aid to the $10m which is provided generally for legal aid, will be spent this year. This has the seeds of a great problem. A massive payment is being made. It was admitted in the course of that discussion that we could not be told precisely how the money was to be spent. A sum of $3,600,000 will be paid by the Legal Aid Office to private solicitors for work which it will brief them to do. The principles and policies under which this will be done should ensure that it is done in a regular way to provide work for the people who are best qualified, with no real possibility of elements of patronage. Those principles should be laid down. They are not laid down at the moment because there is no legislation on this subject.

The question of legislation provides a very interesting situation because during the consideration of the Estimates I asked Senator Murphy a number of questions, and there was discussion as to how the policy of legal aid was to be determined. I put it to him in this way:

I take it that there will be no legislation, no ratification of any agreements or anything of that nature which will give the Parliament an opportunity of saying: ‘This is not the best way in which is should be split up ‘.

In reply Senator Murphy referred to a number of statements that he had made in the Senate and to the fact that there had been a meeting recently with representatives of the Law Council. I took it from those answers and the fact that there was no suggestion of legislation that there was not to be any legislation. I think that legislation is highly desirable. I believe also that an inquiry is desirable. That inquiry could be set up, as a result of legislation, to consider the way in which this $10m is to be invested by the Government. In the annexures to the report of Estimates Committee A, which is before the Committee of the Whole, a very useful review of legal aid has been submitted. This is shown just after Attachment D, in the middle of the document. Part of this annexure states:

On 25 July 1973 the Attorney-General announced the establishment of the Australian Legal Aid Office incorporating the Legal Service Bureaux. Establishment of the Office is the major step the Government has taken to make sure that legal aid is readily and equally available to all persons in needparticularly disadvantaged persons- throughout Australia. Legislation will be introduced to create it as a statutory office.

So far as I know that is the first- I think very welcomestatement, but rather tucked away in the records, that there will be legislation. I think it is highly necessary not only to establish the Office but also to establish the principles under which we can examine it. In the consideration of the Estimates it was impossible to examine the principles or the details of the way in which these moneys should be expended. In addition to this one must determine what policy should be adopted in the distribution of these moneys.

I refer in a different way to the matter which Senator Greenwood raised. When the AttorneyGeneral made his statement to the Senate on 13 December 1973, he said:

There are 4 major problems that, I believe, need urgent attention. First, the need to provide on an equal basis throughout Australia legal advice and assistance that will fill the gap left by the Law Society or Legal Aid Committee schemes for aid in litigation and to see that advice and assistance reaches disadvantaged people; second, the need to provide legal aid in divorce cases and in proceedings ancillary to divorce; third, the need to provide legal aid for representation in magistrates courts; and fourth, the need to avoid the bottomless pit’ of ever increasing costs of providing legal aid.

I draw specific attention to the fact that it was to fill the gap, and it must be recognised surely that the filling of the gap surely does not mean a tremendously expensive scheme nor tremendously expensive offices.

One has to recognise that there is a great deal of variation between the State legal aid schemes. In some there is a much more highly developed method and much more enthusiasm for the scheme. The State schemes provide different things. For example, in Victoria there is a considerable contribution to divorce litigation. In New South Wales last year that was not included in the scheme. One would want to see firstly whether the gaps were being filled and, secondly, what efforts were being made by way of discussion with the profession to see whether the gaps could be filled. Then the legal aid office no doubt would cover the gaps that could not be filled.

Overall I suggest there is a need for some body which is co-operative, which has representatives of the profession, of the Government, of social welfare groups and of people who are involved in this area to ensure that these things are done on a regular basis and that the gaps are filled. There is no provision yet for such a body to exist.

There are usually 2 parties to litigation and it might be highly desirable for one party to be represented by a member of the profession who is engaged by the legal aid organisation in the State and for the other party to be represented by the Australian Legal Aid Office because, as the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) pointed out, there is always the problem of the bottomless pit that could be involved in legal aid. There are examples known to the legal aid committees of cases in which they have given representation to both sides, and the solicitors of course have had no worry about the extent of the proceedings and the elaboration to which they might goperhaps unnecessary elaboration- in the proceedings because there is not a problem of someone having to pay. I think the Australian taxpayer has an interest in ensuring that unnecessary embellishments do not occur in litigation causing a great deal of cost to the community.

One must recognise that there is a decrease in money going to the existing schemes this year, from $2m to $1.3m. I doubt whether this is desirable although I imagine that part of the reason is that the Legal Aid Office will deal with divorce matters more than it has in the past. But I would suggest that that reduction stands rather curiously against a great increase in total expenditure. This increase comes from a very small amount last year which makes it impossible to measure the figures of last year against the proposed figures for this year. They just do not match up in any way. There will be a lot of money spent this year.

I suggest it is high time that we had legislation before us. It is high time that we had further discussions which will lead to a rationalisation of the scheme and enable the bulk of the operations of the scheme to be performed by the legal profession which has pioneered this area. I hope that we will have such an inquiry as the Committee recommended and a Bill which, I trust, we can examine as to its principles and application so that this matter will not remain in its present amorphous state.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-In view of certain remarks that were made by Senator Greenwood in the Senate just before it adjourned last night, I feel it is essential that the record be set straight. At least so far as I am concerned as a member of Estimates Committee A, what was said by Senator Greenwood last night is a misrepresentation of the true position. I refer to page 2360 of the Senate Hansard which records Senator Greenwood as having said:

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.

I want it to be known and wish it to be recorded that that certainly is not my view.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Nor mine.

Senator EVERETT:

– Nor is it consistent with the report of the Committee to which Senator Greenwood referred this morning and which has to be underscored in this respect so that my point is clear. At page 6 of the report the Committee, and I understand that this section of the report was inspired and indeed penned- I am subject to correction on this -

Senator Greenwood:

– And agreed to by all members of the Committee, I am assured by the secretary.

Senator EVERETT:

-Yes, and what it says is nothing like what Senator Greenwood claimed in the Senate last night that the Committee said. The report states:

The Committee notes the increasing number of agencies dispersing legal aid and is concerned at the possible duplication, inefficiencies and waste that unco-ordinated development may produce.

I suggest that that is a completely different view from that which Senator Greenwood claimed in the Senate last night was the unanimous view of Estimates Committee A.

Senator Greenwood:

– Then I was stopped because of the adjournment. I was not allowed to continue.

Senator EVERETT:

-Even if the Senate had sat all last night Senator Greenwood’s ingenuity would not have been sufficient to extricate him from the effect of what he said before the adjournment. It is as plain as a pikestaff. Whatever Senator Greenwood may think, I want to say that he did not represent my view when he misquoted the effect of the Committee’s report last night.

On the substance of the matter under debate I want to say that, like Senator Missen, I played a part in the institution of a scheme in Tasmania at a time which now seems long ago. I was one of those in the profession who was willing to be on what was called the legal aid panel a long time ago and I remained on it I think it is true to say, and this has been acknowledged in many areas, that the Tasmanian legal aid scheme, due probably to the smallness of the State, has been one of the most effective in the western world. This was acknowledged as recently as some 1 1 days ago at a seminar in Hobert by Mr Roy Turner, Chairman of the Legal Aid Review Committee. The answers to the questions posed by Senator Greenwood, and to some degree supported by Senator Missen today, are to be found in an answer which the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) gave to a question I asked yesterday in the Senate. I asked what the situation was so far as the Australian Government and the Tasmanian Law Society were concerned with respect to a rationalisation of the 2 services which they conduct.

The Attorney-General was able to state- and this is within only a few weeks of the conference in Canberra between the Australian AttorneyGeneral and representatives of law societies of all States- that complete agreement had been reached between the Law Society of Tasmania and the Australian Government with respect to the rationalisation of the services. The broad basis of that agreement was that the Australian Legal Aid Office now established in Tasmania, in Burnie and in Hobart and soon to be established in Launceston, would handle matters which arose under Federal law and also matters in which the Australian Government considered that it had a special responsibility, such as in relation to ex-servicemen, Aborigines and the like. If that agreement can be reached in Tasmania it can be reached between the Australian Government and any other State. It is a matter of goodwill and a desire to reach agreement.

I wonder whether some States desire to reach agreement because when I read- I have seen no refutation of it and therefore regard it as correctthe recent article on the New South Wales scheme I can describe it only as a scandal that I hope would not be repeated anywhere. What do we find with respect to the New South Wales scheme? This legal aid scheme, the basic concept of which ought to be to help those who need it, is making a profit, a profit so great that the legal aid scheme has $2m invested. Fancy a legal aid scheme having money invested to that degree.

Of that sum Sim is in short term deposits and the rest is in other investments. We find- this has not been refuted as yet- that a profit was made last year of over $lm. That is the State which, until last year at any rate- I am uncertain of the precise present position this year- would not give one cent under its scheme towards the resolution of those acute personal problems that arise in relation to matrimonial matters; not one cent. I wonder who is trying to kid whom in this situation? The Law Institutes or Law Societies of the mainland Australian States have the opportunity to follow the arrangement reached so far as Tasmania and the Australian Government are concerned. That rationalisation can be achieved. If it is not, I feel it is a safe assertion that the fault lies not with the Australian Government but with the Law Societies, some of those who run them and some of those with vested interests in them.

The second point achieved so far as Tasmania and the Australian Government are concerned is that a figure has been agreed upon as the approximate proportion of the $1.3m by way of subvention to State legal assistance schemes that Tasmania will receive. The Law Society has said to the Australian Government, and acknowledged, that it is satisfied, that with the subvention it gets from the State Government plus its share of the $ 1.3m it can continue to run a highly efficient and satisfactory scheme within the rationalised areas of responsibility which have been agreed upon. If it can be done in Tasmania why can it not be done elsewhere? I take this opportunity to mention Senator Missen ‘s criticism of the reduction in the sum of $2m which was granted from 1 July after the present Government came to office. Senator Missen complained of the reduction from $2m to $1.3m. I suggest, with respect, that he does not acknowledge in that criticism that for the first time there is an Australian Government subvention to the private profession, through the Australian Legal Aid Office, of $3.7m.

Senator Missen:

– Under no defined terms.

Senator EVERETT:

– I suggest that the definition of the terms was not the gravamen of Senator Missen ‘s criticism in this respect. His complaint was that the $2m had been reduced to $1.3m. I suggest that that is not a valid criticism because so far as the totality of legal aid is concerned throughout the nation, the situation is infinitely better this financial year than it has been in the past. I found Senator Greenwood ‘s strictures of the scheme, especially his reference to patronage and his other criticism that the scheme was calculated to undermine the private legal profession, strange indeed when it is remembered that year after year the previous Government refused requests through the Australian Law Council that it should even take an interest in the question of legal aid in this nation.

Senator Greenwood:

– When were those requests made?

Senator EVERETT:

– I am not suggesting that they were made during Senator Greenwood’s time as Attorney-General. They may have been. At the seminar in Hobart held 12 days ago a former president of the Law Council, Mr J. B. Piggott, strongly criticised the previous Federal Administration for not conceding to the Law Council’s requests that it should involve itself to any degree in the provision of legal aid. The seminar was told that those requests were repeated many times during the period of office of the previous Government. How should any criticism from Senator Greenwood be interpreted in the light of the history of the Government of which he was a member?

I believe that when the cameras of history are focused on the first 2 years of the present Labor Government, its attitude towards legal aid will stand out as one of the most compassionate achievements of its record. I believe that to be so. Whatever else the present Attorney-General may achieve, despite the Australian Senate, I believe that he will be able to look back- hopefully we will never turn the clock back- on the fact that this national Government recognised that if justice was to continue to have the connotation which it has had in the past it would have to go hand in hand with a liberal legal aid system. That was recognised in the Trade Practices Act. It is recognised in the amendments to the Family Law Bill that are before the Senate. I suggest to Senator Greenwood, with all the respect due to him because of his past office as AttorneyGeneral, that no criticism from him can obliterate the fact that the Government of which he was a member had no interest in the question of legal aid. Further, his criticisms are of no validity because this Government has shown that it cares. I concede that there has to be rationalisation but it should not be unilateral rationalisation; it has to be bilateral rationalisation. The professions in the various States, other than Tasmania where it has been accomplished already, as I have said, will have to get round the table and ensure that the best rationalisation is achieved.

Senator Missen:

– Do you concede the need for legislation?

Senator EVERETT:

-No. I am perplexed about that. I was surprised- I speak with frankness in reply to the interjection- when the extract that the honourable senator read today was given because I cannot see how legislation would achieve anything in this respect. I have tried to consider the form that the legislation would take. We do not want legislation simply to confer a high-sounding title by way of a statutory office on the existing administration. What would it do? I do not know. I have tried to draft the Bill in my mind but I have no idea what form it would take. I think there is a danger that we have legislation in many areas where probably it is not needed.

Senator Greenwood:

– Other people have said that too, have they not?

Senator EVERETT:

– I do not know whether there is any particular significance in the honourable senator’s interjection. Senator Greenwood also referred to a comment in the ‘Sun’- I think he said it was yesterday- by Mr Dawson, the president of the Law Institute of Victoria, if I remember his title correctly. He said that the profession wanted a clearer idea. I suggest that if the profession is unclear about this, the way to get rid of any obscurity it has is to get round the table with the Australian Government’s officers who are implementing this scheme. That achieved success so far as Tasmania is concerned. From there it is only a question of degree. Consider the Victorian position. If Victoria were to do what has been done in Tasmania and say: ‘Yes, let the Australian Legal Office’- this is on a broad basis -‘take over responsibility for matters arising under Federal Law- ‘

Senator Missen:

– I hope it will not do that.

Senator EVERETT:

-Senator Missen says that he hopes it will not do that. I do not know why we compartmentise our law in the manner apparently suggested by the honourable senator. If the Office took over responsibility for matters arising under Federal law, also Family Law matters, or Matrimonial Causes Act matters, as the title now stands, and matters in relation to persons for whom the Australian Governmet concedes it has a special responsibility, and if Victoria got a fair share of the cake so far as the $1.3m is concerned, where would there be any continuing basis for obscurity? Some people, especially lawyers, can create obscurity where it does not properly exist.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I think that most honourable senators on this side of the chamber would agree with the comments that have been made earlier, that the Government is to be congratulated for the additional emphasis it has placed on legal aid. This is one of the fields- there are more than one- in which the Government has, in a very healthy manner, added emphasis to community trends. I believe that there was a trend in the community before this Government came into office that was providing wider and better legal aid services. But to congratulate the Government for the fact that it has paid some attention to the area is not to say that in every respect what it has done is correct. I am sure that the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) would agree that in breaking new ground there will almost invariably be mistakes and areas which will need attention and rectification in the future.

It is my view that the Government is making a mistake in the emphasis which it is placing in its program on the Australian Legal Aid Office. I do not think there is any need to argue in this chamber the position of the private profession. Let me refer briefly to the speech of the Attorney-General, which has been referred to earlier in this debate, made on 13 December 1973. 1 think that his words summarised the position aptly. He said:

I have said that I see private legal practitioners, through their Law Societies or Legal Aid Committees, performing the major work in the legal aid field, that of litigation in the various courts. I hold firm views about the necessity for a strong and independent private legal profession that can stand between the Government and the citizens, not least in the fields of human rights, civil liberties and criminal matters generally.

I agree with the Attorney that it is essential for the citizens of Australia that there is a free and independent legal profession. But the fact of the matter is that this Budget indicates a turning away to some extent from the existing avenues of legal aid.

I do not accept the analysis of the situation that was made by Senator Everett with respect to the reduction in aid to existing legal aid services from $2m to $1.3m. As I understood Senator Everett’s point, this will be offset by the additional moneys which will flow to the private profession through the Legal Aid Office. A sum of more than $3m is allowed for there. The members of the profession in Australia cannot be certain at this time just how and when those moneys will be made available. But, even more importantly, the existing legal aid systems which by and large around Australia work very well, are having an effective reduction in the amount of subsidy which is being provided direct to them by the Government.

The Attorney said that the Law Societies or Legal Aid Committees will be performing the major work in the legal aid field. I believe that the Government is going against those words if it reduces the . amount of money which is made available to those organisations. There are very great practical reasons why we ought to keep the emphasis on the private profession, quite apart from the need to retain a strong private legal profession for the reason which the Attorney outlined. For a start, there are almost always 2 sides in any legal matter. Notwithstanding that administrative arrangements may be made which ensure that the 2 sides are kept apart physically in a single legal aid office, I believe it is undesirable for the 2 sides in any dispute or even in non-litigious transactions to be represented by the same office. Also, in the interests of the economy, I suggest that the Government could achieve its social objectives much better by supplementing the efforts of the private profession rather than by bureaucratic solutions.

I refer the Attorney to the work of the Legal Advice Bureau in Perth with which I was involved before coming to this place. It provides the sort of preliminary legal advice which it is envisaged the Australian Legal Aid Office will provide. That advice is provided at the cost of $2 a client. I suggest to the Attorney that there is no possibility that he could rival that sort of economy in providing legal advice. I concede that in that case the professionals providing the service are not paid. I do not believe that an Australia wide operation could be financed on that type of voluntary basis. I am sure that any sort of financial analysis of that type of storefront operation will compare more than favourably with the Australian Legal Aid Office even when wages are taken into account.

I commend the Attorney’s attention to the operation of that scheme. I suggest that it is a much cheaper way of obtaining his objective than by the financing of the Australian Legal Aid Office. Even more importantly, if we want to guarantee high quality legal aid for indigent persons or persons of limited means I do not believe that we should be providing it through a bureaucratic service. All people who are entitled to legal aid are entitled to a good standard of service. I believe that that standard will be achieved if the Government uses the private profession with its wider experience and if it does not segregate the needy cases from the rest of the community. So in the interests of the quality of service that is being provided I again urge the Attorney to look to fostering solutions through the private profession rather than having a separate professional bureaucratic office.

Notwithstanding the example of New South Wales which has been cited- I do not have the facts either to defend New South Wales or to agree with Senator Everett- I suggest that experience around Australia shows that the profession will co-operate with the Government. Let me refer to my own State and to the progress made in the last few years. We have been operating a legal assistance scheme which provides a full legal service on a free or subsidised basis. The only restriction on the expansion of that scheme is lack of finance. We have the Legal Advice Bureau which, for $2 a head, provides preliminary legal advice without means test. We have several offices operating under that scheme. We have a person providing part time service in the north-west. We have travelling solicitors in the more remote areas of the State. These people are financed by our legal assistance scheme. We now have duty solicitors in some of the lower courts. All these efforts are being provided by the private profession with some supplementary assistance from the Government. The only thing that prevents that wide range of services being expanded is a lack of money.

I commend to the Attorney-General the proposition that if he wants value for his legal aid money he should finance the expansion of those schemes rather than add an office to them. However, I agree with Senator Missen that in a country the size of Australia the private profession probably will not be able to do the whole job. As a stopgap there may be a need to establish an office of the type of the Australian Legal Aid Office. But I ask honourable senators to accept the point of view that that should be done only where the private profession cannot provide the service.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

-The matter of legal aid is obviously one of very great complexity. I am indebted to honourable senators for the contributions they have made. I indicate that there are some misconceptions. For example, a few moments ago Senator Chaney suggested that the Australian Legal Aid Office might be acting for persons who are opposed to one another. Unless there were some very exceptional circumstances it would not happen, for the very reason he gave. It would be quite unsatisfactory. There may be some special cases where it could happen but I think that in general the matter would be referred out to practitioners. The $3.7m that has been referred to is already being spent in anticipation, I think, of the Budget being accepted by the Parliament. It is flowing out already to the private practitioners.

I should indicate that the view which I am taking is not shared by all members of the Government. I was asked the other day why moneys were not being paid to local government. My colleague, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), said that the moneys will not be paid to local government until the Budget is passed by this Parliament or the Government is given an indication that it will be passed. The longer delays occur in the passage of the Appropriation Bills the longer it will be before local governments receive the grants which the Opposition have requested should be made without delay. I assure honourable senators that the length of delays in this place is not without its consequences to the community.

Senator Greenwood:

– This is only the second day the Bill has been in the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:

– The estimates have been discussed in the Estimates Committee. I should indicate again to the Senate that during the Committee discussions I invited the members of the Estimates Committee- it was a general invitationwho required any information on any matters to inform my office either by telephone or by note and I would see that the information would be made available to the Committee. No member of the Committee availed themselves of that o ffer then or since.

The question of legal aid is obviously very important. I would like to have a discussion in some depth on it. I do not think it is appropriate to have such a discussion today. I do not want to avoid a discussion on the question of legal aid. There have been lengthy discussions with the various representatives of the profession. I would like to deal with the matter more closely. I have the feeling that if we start to engage upon a discussion on legal aid now it will not be possible for me to deal with it in an adequate manner. I am prepared to make a statement to the Senate before the end of the year, if necessary, and I am prepared to adopt the suggestion made by the Estimates Committee. Because of the possibilities pointed out by the Estimates Committee, with which I would agree, of duplication, inefficiencies and the waste that unco-ordinated development might produce, I think a full scale Government sponsored inquiry into the services providing legal aid is desirable. I should point out that the Legal Aid Review Committee has been considering the topic of legal aid for more than 12 months. That Committee has done a very valuable service. Members of that Committee were present when I discussed the various aspects of legal aid with the representatives of all the professions a month ago at the Parkroyal Motel in Canberra.

In addition Professor Sackville has been conducting an inquiry into this topic in relation to poverty generally in Australia. He has made a very valuable report. I am not sure whether it has been released but I have read it. There is no doubt that honourable senators who have spoken on this matter would have to revise some of their views on the adequacy of the State legal aid systems. I think that it is still not sufficiently understood that the State legal aid systems were satisfactory and were in no way coping with the problem of insufficient legal aid. The advice given to me is that this would not have been met by the provision of more money through those systems. That was not the answer at all. There were needs in a large area of legal aid which were not being met and which would not have been met simply by an increase in the subsidy- if one can call it that- to existing legal aid schemes.

These are matters which ought to be investigated in detail. I do not think it is appropriate for me to deal with them in some passing way here. I think the opportunity ought to be given to the Senate, if it so wishes, to discuss legal aid in some depth. In any event, I propose to adopt the recommendation of the Committee. If there is an opportunity to have a full scale discussion on this matter in the Senate before the end of the year we will do so. But as I stand here I think that in view of the legislative program it will not be possible to have such a discussion. If some means can be found by which we can discuss legal aid I will be only too anxious to assist. However, discussions are continuing with the profession in various ways and also with the States. I am only too anxious to have more discussions with the profession and the whole of the Senate so that we can ensure that there is a proper system of legal aid. I am quite sure that if we spent some time in eliciting the facts of the matter a lot of the differences of opinion may disappear. As in many other areas, it is the lack of knowledge of the facts and the real problems that leads to the difficulties in reaching a decision or to differences of opinion. I think that the report of Professor Sackville and some of the other conclusions which have been reached about the factual situation will help to clear away many misapprehensions. Together, we may be able to evolve a reasonably satisfactory system of legal aid.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I think that the attitude which the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) has adopted in welcoming a discussion is certainly an approach which appeals to the Opposition. I think that the Attorney-General must acknowledge that there are real difficulties in finding time for such a discussion, having regard to the projected legislative program. It is important that these areas be canvassed because I think it is fairly clear from the attitude which Opposition speakers have adopted to the Estimates that there is no degree of satisfaction with the operation, current or likely, of the Australian Legal Aid Office. There is apprehension and fear as to the consequences of a widespread salaried legal office such as is comprehended by the Australian Legal Aid Office. There is a desire to place greater reliance upon schemes in which the profession has a controlling voice and to use salaried services only where there is a need which cannot be fulfilled by the existing profession under the State Government aided schemes.

It is important, I think, that this distinction be noted. Growing up at the present time, with a projected 60 offices, right throughout Australia is the Australian Legal Aid Office. People are being recruited for that Office at the present time. I imagine a number of younger lawyers are looking ahead to this sort of work as a career. Yet, it may be that in time a different sort of scheme will develop and there may not be the need for these salaried lawyers in the Public Service. Whether or not that is to be the case depends essentially on what type of legal aid scheme ultimately succeeds. The Government is obviously placing all its eggs in the basket of the Australian Legal Aid Office.

Senator Murphy:

– That is wrong.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am interested to hear the Attorney-General say ‘That is wrong’. Maybe the picturesqueness of the phrase conveys an impression which he wants to correct in some way but there is little doubt, surely, that the Austraiian Legal Aid Office is the prime area on which the Government is relying for the development of what it sees as the appropriate legal aid provision in this country. I find it difficult to see how that proposition could be contested. But if that be the case the Opposition’s view is different and I suspect that the legal profession’s view also is different. It is only slowly that the legal profession is emerging to express its voice about this Legal Aid Office concept.

I have referred to what the president of the Victorian Law Institute, which is the second largest body of solicitors in Australia, has recently said about the Legal Aid Office. But there has also been a report, which has been circulated, by a sub-committee of the Law Council of

Australia, which has indicated very strong criticism of the present developments. This committee, I think, had a membership well versed in legal aid matters because, as I recall it, the South Australian Law Society has operated a legal aid scheme since the 1930s. The scheme has operated very well over the years and is regarded, I think, with satisfaction throughout South Australia.

Senator Everett:

– Was New South Wales represented on that sub-committee?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-No, I think not. I gather that the Law Council of Australia appointed this ad hoc committee, which was comprised of South Australian practitioners, to be a committee to report to the Council. The committee comprised Mr Cedric Thomson, who was the former chairman of the Legal Assistance Committee in South Australia, Mr R. G. Matheson, Q.C., who was the South Australian representative on the Law Council of Australia, Mr C. A. L. Abbott, who is the current chairman of the South Australian Legal Assistance Committee, Mr J. T. Gun, the deputy chairman of the South Australian Legal Assistance Committee, Mr D. W. Bollen, the chairman of the Common Law Committee of the Law Society of South Australia, and Mr J. J. Doyle, who was the chairman of the Committee for the Law Society Advisory Service. Those people delivered a quite extensive report, which I shall quote in part, in which they referred to the Turner committee.

Senator Murphy:

– Is there any purpose in your wasting the time of the Senate?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The report states:

Although the Turner Committee has catalogued the types of assistance now provided by existing schemes, it has only referred to the deficiencies and inadequacies of existing schemes and, with respect, entirely ignored the not inconsiderable and vast voluntary and financial assistance already provided to the community in varying degrees by the legal profession through the existing schemes. The Turner Committee appears to have proceeded on the basis that the existing schemes are ‘no good’ and some entirely new structure must be established. This Committee is of the opinion that, from an economic and practical standpoint, attention should be first directed at improving and extending the present operating schemes.

I appreciate that one could take up time by referring to other aspects of the committee ‘s report.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The only thing you have not given us is the Sermon on the Mount.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Well, I say again that if the Government wants to have only one point of view expressed, let it disclose that attitude to the country and do away with an Opposition altogether. But there are 2 points of view to be expressed on most questions. There is certainly a different point of view to be expressed on this question. I am simply referring to a report of a committee of some standing on this whole question of how legal aid should be provided, because it does indicate a completely different approach which could be adopted and which the committee prefers. We of the Opposition, without identifying in detail our attitude, would generally prefer the approach which is recommended by this committee. When we have something like $12m being allocated for legal aid this year, it is important that we should recognise the different approaches which can be adopted, with a view to ensuring that those who are interested know what the alternatives are. The only other part of the committee’s report to which I refer states:

The Committee is of the opinion, that the views expressed at the Seventh Annual Conference of Law Societies, that legal aid should be provided on a co-operative basis by the profession and the State and Federal Governments working together, are correct. The example of the South Australian Law Society’s Legal Assistance Scheme is positive proof that this is the proper means of the provision of legal aid, in that it is effective, economical, and comprehensive and is one which is actively supported by the legal profession.

I hope that weight can be given to what that committee recommends and that the effort be made to secure the co-operation of the legal profession in providing a scheme in which the profession has a voice. It is not so much the matter of who controls the scheme which is important; the fundamental question in regard to legal aid and advice is the quality of the service and the way in which a client gets from his solicitor what he pays for or what the State pays on his behalf for him to receive. I believe that we weaken the whole standing of the legal profession if we adopt the concept of a salaried service.

I should be grateful if the Attorney-General could refer to one other aspect of the Legal Aid Office. In the course of the hearings of Estimates Committee A I asked: Was any investigation undertaken to determine whether or not a particular area required a legal aid office before a legal aid office was established? I asked: Was there any assessment of the needs of an area and of the adequacy of the existing legal services in that area?

Senator Murphy:

– The answer is yes.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I was told in the course of the hearings of the Estimates Committee that the answer was yes and I was told that I would be supplied with a statement indicating what work had been done. A statement is provided in the material, but it does not set out in any way what sort of an investigation took place. It simply makes the assertion that there are certain offices which have to be established, and it seems to be a matter of carrying through the proposal in the light of an ordained or pre-established proposition without any regard being had to the needs of the area.

Senator Murphy:

– Then I will write to you and supply it to you.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that promise. One looks, for example, at the Canberra situation where a legal aid scheme is operating, with the AttorneyGeneral’s Department co-operating with the legal profession in the Australian Capital Territory. The profession makes some contribution to the costs of legal aid. At the present time a legal aid office is being established in Canberra. As I understood the figures which were supplied, during the course of the last week of October, 2 lawyers were involved in the office in dealing with some 80 items of work. If you work it out on a daily basis, it means that there were 4 items of work per lawyer- maybe 3 interviews and one item of correspondence, because apparently there were no telephone inquiries during that week. In those circumstances there is an obvious question: Why was the legal aid office set up? What function is it serving?

I wonder also whether the Attorney-General could provide some information regarding an item which appeared in the Press this morning on the subject of legal aid. It referred to the appearances before the Royal Commission into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions. The item states that the Seamen’s Union is now represented by counsel sustained through legal aid. It reads: . . the Royal Commission was told the Seamen’s Union, currently under investigation by the commission had been granted emergency legal aid by the Federal AttorneyGeneral, Senator Murphy.

I would be grateful if we could be told on what basis this legal aid was granted, and in what way is it to be justified. Further, with regard to an earlier question which I asked the AttorneyGeneral, I would like to know whether any application has been made by Mr Mundey regarding his appeal against the judgment which was given against him in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, or is there no change from the position which the Attorney-General indicated to me earlier.

Senator Murphy:

– There is no change.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Department of Customs and Excise

Proposed expenditure, $52,02 1 ,000.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– When Estimates Committee A discussed this Department the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy) will recall that I asked a few questions relating to the procedures adopted when examining imported brandies. He undertook to get the information for me. I have received a letter from the Minister, through Senator James McClelland, the Chairman of Senate Estimates Committee A. I propose to read the letter for the benefit of the record and perhaps pose one or two questions after doing so.

Senator Murphy:

– You can seek to incorporate it.

Senator JESSOP:

– I think the information is interesting.

Senator Primmer:

– Another filibuster.

Senator JESSOP:

-I do not want to filibuster. I will read the letter in part and then seek leave to have the whole of it incorporated. The letter states that 4 shipments of brandy are at present detained; that 86 cartons of Austrian brandy are detained at Port Adelaide; that 15 cases from Portugal have been detained since November 1973 in Sydney; that 250 cases ex-France have been held in Melbourne since 12 September 1974; and that 2 cases ex-Portugal are held in Fremantle.

I also asked questions concerning the effects of the increase in excise on the sale of brandy in Australia. I received the following information in the letter:

In answer to Senator Jessop’s second question 1 have obtained the following statistics for Australian brandy cleared for home consumption and the duty paid thereon in the years ended 3 1 August 1973 and 3 1 August 1 974:

In the Budget of 2 1 August 1973 the excise duty on brandy was increased from $3 per litre of alcohol to $6 per litre of alcohol. This was further increased on 23 July 1974 to $8.55 per litre of alcohol.

The figures given above show that the volume of clearances in the year 1973-74 fell by 23 per cent but the revenue from brandy increased by 53 per cent.

I seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bonner:
QUEENSLAND

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

Minister for Customs and Excise Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600. 13 November 1974

Dear Senator McClelland,

During the hearing on 31 October by Estimates Committee A into the Estimates of the Department of Customs and Excise, I undertook to supply the Committee with answers to two questions raised by Senator Jessop.

In his first question Senator Jessop was apparently referring to the detention of a shipment of Austrian brandy which had been mentioned in the Adelaide press.

I have been advised that four shipments of brandy are at present detained in circumstances similar to those quoted by Senator Jessop. These are as follows: 86 cartons Austrian brandy detained in Port Adelaide 15 cases ex Portugal detained since November 1973 in Sydney 250 cases ex France held in Melbourne since 12 September 1974 2 cases ex Portugal held in Fremantle.

In each case the goods have been refused entry as brandy because the certification requirements of the Spirits Act have not been complied with. Before Collectors of Customs permit imported brandy to be entered as such they must be satisfied by the production of certificates from the responsible Government authorities of the country of manufacture that the liquor described as brandy is:

  1. 1 ) distilled wholly from grape wine, and
  2. 2 ) has been matured in wood for at least two years.

In each of the four cases mentioned these certificates have yet to be produced and as a consequence the liquor will remain under Customs control until either the certificates are produced or the goods are re-exported

In answer to Senator Jessop’s second question I have obtained the following statistics for Australian brandy cleared for home consumption and the duty paid thereon in the years ended 3 1 August 1 973 and 3 1 August 1 974:

In the Budget of 2 1 August 1 973 the excise duty on brandy was increased from $3 per litre of alcohol to $6 per litre of alcohol. This was further increased on 23 July 1974 to $8.55 per litre of alcohol.

The figures given above show that the volume of clearances in the year 1973-74 fell 23 per cent but the revenue from brandy increased by 53 per cent.

Yours sincerely, Lionel Murphy

Senator J. McClelland, Chairman,

Senate Estimates Committee A,

Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600.

Senator JESSOP:

-This highlights the concern that has been shown repeatedly by Senator Laucke and the honourable member for Angas, Mr Giles, in regard to the judgment of the Government in increasing the excise on Australian brandy to this extent. It appears to me that the situation is further aggravated by the introduction of too much imported brandy to Australia. This is giving the local industry a lot of concern. I ask the Minister first of all whether he can give a bit more information as to how it is determined that the imported brandy has been, in fact, in the wood for 2 years and whether it consists of grape fluid. Does someone swig a few grams down or is some technical procedure adopted?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is part of the retraining scheme of the Minister for Labor and Immigration.

Senator JESSOP:

-Perhaps I will volunteer. I should like to know whether Senator Murphy can tell me the excise payable on imported brandy and whether he would consider a substantial increase in such an excise and a substantial reduction in the impost on Australian brandies to assist the industry which is certainly suffering, as can be seen from the figures I have just read out.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesMinister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I take it that Senator Jessop is referring to the letter of 13 November. I am not sure of the technical details of how the ascertainment is made, but I know that there were some considerable difficulties in carrying out this procedure with great precision. My recollection is that I informed the Senate that I had instructed that every endeavour be made to improve these methods. I requested that a proper scientific assessment be made in order that we may get the best possible technique. It is obvious to everyone that there has been a great deal of passing off of very inferior products in the wine and brandy industry. It ought to be possible, I would think, to devise some skilful method of detecting the inferior products. We have scientific advisers and I have requested that the best scientific advice be obtained as to how the methods of detection can be improved. I will make a statement to the Senate on what is happening in this regard. I am aware of the honourable senator’s interest and the great concern of the brandy producers all over Australia.

On the other matter, the amount of the excise on imported brandy, we will find out the precise figure for the honourable senator. He also asked whether it would be possible to increase the excise on imported brandy and in effect have some differential between the imported and the local brandy. Speaking for myself I think that would be a good idea. I understand there are some problems. The honourable senator will appreciate why I do not go into the problem of the international arrangements. Australia would not want to be in breach of international arrangements although, I understand, they are regarded somewhat elastically by other countries. I indicate that there is some sympathy with the viewpoint which has been put by the honourable senator. Some consideration will be given to it. I think that answers in substance what was asked by the honourable senator, except for the exact amount of the duties and I will obtain that for him.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy) whether, when he makes a further statement on the import of brandy as he has indicated, he will include in that statement answers to the propositions that Senator Donald Cameron and I have put to him from time to time and also deal with the question of brandy imports which I have raised in this Parliament.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesMinister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I think that it would not be necessary really to inform the Senate because it is so well known that the 2 Labor senators from South Australia, with their characteristic vigour, have been pressing me almost continuously in the interests of the brandy industry.

Senator Steele Hall:

- Mr Dunstan has.

Senator MURPHY:

-Yes, Mr Dunstan has. Both Senator Donald Cameron and Senator McLaren have come to me as deputations by themselves and with others and have raised the matters. As a result of that I am able to say in answer to the question now that these matters have been under consideration, largely due to the efforts of Senator McLaren and Senator Donald Cameron. But I thought that everybody knew that. In case there are some who were not aware of this notorious fact, I put the record straight.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– In view of the very drastic reductions in the clearance of brandy in the last 12 months and bearing in mind that brandy production is a very important outlet for grape production, there are fears in the industry at all times because of past experience that there should not be ready release of production of grapes. This is a major industry in Australia but one which fears for the future. I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy) whether in light of the reduced clearance of Australian brandy in the last 12 months he will look at the situation. It was said before the 1972 election that the remaining excise of 25c on wine would be removed and that no alternative taxation would be imposed on the industry. Senator Hall has just interjected that the Premier of South Australia knows all about that. He was the man who promised on behalf of the Party now governing that there would be no replacement of the charge when the excise on wine was taken off. Now we find that a much more severe imposition has been placed on the industry with the result that the sales of locally produced brandy have fallen drastically. I now ask: In view of the general situation in respect of the industry’s future arising from governmental action, will the Government now consider reducing the excise on Australian brandy?

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesMinister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– Generally in relation to this matter, honourable senators will be aware that very many considerations have touched the responsibilities of other Ministers as well as my responsibility as Minister for Customs and Excise. Primarily, the Department of Customs and Excise carries out the policy determination. That is why I was quite cautious in my statements as to what should happen in areas other than in the administrative areas. This matter was raised by Senator Jessop. I shall refer the observations made by all honourable senators, insofar as they do not come within my area, to the Ministers responsible.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Parliament

Proposed expenditure $9,952,000.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (3.2)- I rise to address myself to the question of Parliament. I do so on the basis that, in the second instance, this emanates from the report of the Senate Estimates Committee A. At page 9 the Committee deals with the question of appropriations for Parliament. It points out that this matter was previously referred to in the report from the Committee appointed by government senators, and so on. It has a fairly lengthy history. It originated as a matter of constitutional importance in 1963 when Senator Murphy sat somewhere near where I sit at the present moment. Such are the changes which take place in Parliament that he now sits at the table and I sit here. But the subject matter which he raised at that time is quite pertinent. It comes out quite clearly in the report of Estimates Committee A with which we are dealing now. There are references to the fact that the estimates for the Parliament are a non-amendable item of the estimates in the Appropriation Bill. In other words, the Senate is subjected to a financial opinion which states that the Senate cannot look after its own appropriations. If the Senate does not approve of the amount of money which is allocated for Parliament, all it can do is request the House of Representatives to reconsider the matter. Therefore the Senate is not master of its own business. I well remember- Senator Murphy will not object if I remind honourable senators of the essence of his argument which was put at that time and with which I agreed; I have agreed with it more firmly as the years have gone by- the argument that the appropriations for Parliament are not an ordinary appropriation and certainly not an annual appropriation. Parliament, which is the source of money being extracted from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, should be in the position of determining what its own appropriation should be because, conversely, one can easily imagine circumstances in which a government of the day could decide to inhibit the Senate by cutting down its appropriation. For example, the Government could consider that a select committee was examining something which was uncomfortable and it would certainly not provide money.

This matter was raised during the hearing of Senate Estimates Committee A. I read the transcript with a great deal of interest. Notwithstanding that I am talking of a constitutional issue, the facts are that during the time that I have had the responsibility of asking the Department of the Treasury for money I have never had any difficulty on behalf of the Senate in obtaining the money required. But that is not the problem. The problem is that the Senate at the present moment is constitutionally pinioned by putting all the appropriations of Parliament into the ordinary annual services of the Government. Having said that I go on to raise other matters to which I think I should make the Senate privy. The parliamentary systems all over the world are under pressure of one sort or another. Yet under a Westminster system of government, such as we have in Australia, or in the States of Australia New Zealand, Canada, or the United Kingdom, the parliamentary institution has a great cloth of history with its own warp and woof. But in the cloth there are threads which are permanent.

The pattern of the cloth is changed by the horizontal threads. It changes with the needs of the community which parliament represents.

Here in our country we live under a constitution which happens to be written. Of course the written Constitution is not the all determining factor. We are also involved in three other elements of the Constitution because, constitutionally, applications can be changed by the judicial judgment of the High Court of Australia. The Constitution charges the High Court with that authority. The Constitution practice can be changed by fiat. I give an example. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has determined that the Bills in the House of Representatives should be described as Bills of the Parliament of Australia and that the parliamentary offices in the capital cities where we have our representatives will be know as the Australian Parliamentary Offices notwithstanding that the Constitution refers constantly to the Commonwealth of Australia. But I am not arguing that point. I am merely illustrating that there exists a capacity to change traditional elements, nomenclatures and attitudes by fiat. There is a fourth method by which constitutional practice can be altered. I use the word practice’ quite deliberately because practice is the warp and woof of parliamentary history. We constantly find ourselves involved in it. We are involved in it this afternoon as a Committee of the Whole debating the reports of the Estimates Committees. This is practice. We have inherited this practice and it exists wherever there is an effective Westminster type parliament. But practice can be changed by administrative processes.

I wish to cite as an illustration an incident which happened only this week. On Monday there was a memorial day service at the Australian National War Memorial. In accordance with the Table of Precedence, which is a table issued by the hand of the Sovereign, the representative of the President of the Senate was designated in the program issued by the Prime Minister’s office to take a certain seat. When the representative of the President went there to take his seat he found that the cards had been changed and that the chair that was normally occupied by the President or his representative had been switched and that he was put below the representative of Mr Speaker. This is an illustration of practice being changed by administrative intervention. I understand that a letter from the Prime Minister’s office came on the morning of the service instructing that this miniscule change should take place.

The Constitution begins in this sort of way: There shall be a Parliament of the country which will be composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and traditionally in the Westminster system the President of the Senate, in this case, or the President of the Canadian Senate or the President of the Legislative Council of South Australia, for example, would take precedence of Mr Speaker. This is part of the historical fabric of parliament. I raised this matter on, I think, 4 October this year, when I mentioned to honourable senators that the Table of Precedence is not a matter that lies within the competence of the Prime Minister to alter. The Table of Precedence is approved and authorised by the Sovereign. All my investigations indicate that there has been no change in the Table of Precedence in Australia. Yet by administrative practice the Table of Precedence has been altered. I have the gravest objection to this. I have the gravest objection to it as a senator.

I have the gravest objection that the President of this Senate who has honourably served the Senate should be put in a position where he is constantly, by administrative decision, placed below a place that the Sovereign herself accords to the President of the Senate. I object to this traditional and historic pattern being upset by some clerk in the Prime Minister’s office. As far as my investigations indicate, a letter instructing the trustees of the War Memorial on this was not signed by the Prime Minister. I do not even know whether it was a letter or a telephonic communication. But the facts are that the historical Table of Precedence has been altered by administrative practice. Therefore I wish to inform honourable senators, because this is not a matter than can be decided here in an intervention by myself on a debate on a report of Estimates Committee A, that I shall seek an opportunity next week if the Senate will accord me the opportunity to give notice that I shall address myself to the Senate and move a motion in the following terms:

  1. That the following Address to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second be agreed to:

page 2400

TO THE QUEEN S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY: MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN:

We, Members of the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, request Your Majesty not to alter the Table of Precedence of the Commonwealth of Australia (as contained in the Commonwealth Gazette of 30 April, 1953 at page 1 107) in any way that would vary the precedence accorded to the President of the Senate in accordance with long established custom’.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I make this dramatic intervention in this debate by rushing into the chamber because I just heard the utterances of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and I wanted to dwell on another point. The honourable senator talked about the dignity of this Senate. I had occasion last week to be in north Queensland with members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Conservation. I had occasion to read the Cairns newspapers in which reference was made to the forthcoming State election. In a newspaper was an advertisement by the National Party referring to a meeting and mentioning the people who would address the meeting. The list showed the name of the Hon. D. Anthony and the name ‘Mr R. Maunsell’. If we are going to be honest with ourselves I think that if the Mr R. Maunsell is Senator Maunsell of this Senate he was entitled to be addressed and described as Senator Maunsell.

I have just raced into this chamber to say that if we are going to have even-handed justice in this matter I hope that the President of the Senate will inquire into this and look at the Cairns newspapers and National Party advertisements. We should ensure that even a member of a party different from my Party is not sold short. We should make sure that this person is called ‘Senator R. Maunsell’ and not ‘Mr Maunsell’. It is not a laughing matter. We are dealing with the dignity of this Senate. People are claiming that my Party is trying to denigrate the Senate. I know that the Premier of Queensland has a sinister attitude towards this Party and to the Parliament of the Commonwealth. I think I have made my point. I hope that you, Mr Chairman, will convey my message to the President of the Senate. 1 hope a scrutiny will be made of the Cairns newspapers published over the last fortnight. The fact that a Country Party senator or a National Party senator is just called ‘Maunsell’ and not ‘Senator Maunsell’ I think compounds the offence about which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was complaining.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Proposed expenditure, $88,85 1 ,000.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise in regard to one matter. It relates to the National Gallery. It is the subject of a reservation which I made in the report of Senate Estimates Committee A to which I do not desire specifically to refer except for the implications of the reservation. Very shortly, what happened was that I sought information why $4.6m was being made available for purchases for the National Gallery. We know that purchases recently made have been highly controversial. We know that questions have been raised whether the amounts which have been paid are fair amounts. It was apparent that Mr Mollison, the Director of the Gallery, who was present, was very conscious of the problems which would arise if publicity were given to what were the matters which he was interested in for the Gallery for the next year. He indicated doubts he had about revealing these matters. He is reported in Hansard to have said:

To disclose publicly a list of works in which we are interested at the present time would certainly raise the eyebrows of my colleagues working in other museums throughout the world and make them rather wonder about our processes. I would, if this is your wish, supply this information to you on paper.

The point I make is that the concern which Mr Mollison expresses is a reasonable concern. I do not think anyone would say otherwise, whether it be in this area or whether it be in any other area. Where there is a degree of confidentiality to be preserved by a Government officer the matter is prudent to be raised. Ought there not be some means by which an inquiring senator, an inquiring Senate or an inquiring House of Representatives can ascertain the purposes for which the expenditure is sought? What if the amount is not $4.6m but $400m? Are we to say that because some confidentiality is involved no information is to be given as to the areas in which the money is to be expended? I raise this point because I think it is important. On the day preceding the discussion of the Estimates the Senate had passed a resolution in terms which confirmed an earlier resolution of the Senate when a different government was in power. Part of that resolution states:

That whilst it may be argued that Statutory Authorities are not accountable through the responsible Minister of State to Parliament for day to day operations, they may be called to account by Parliament itself at any time and that there are no areas of expenditure of public funds where these corporations have a discretion to withhold details or explanations from Parliament or its committees unless the Parliament has expressly provided otherwise.

That principle has the unanimous acceptance of the Senate. I think it applies not only to statutory corporations but also to departments, to Ministers who have the responsibility for the departments and to those persons who have information which is the subject matter of an inquiry.

Senator Murphy:

– And I accepted and stated that myself, did I not?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I fully accept that the Attorney-General moved the motion on that occasion in this chamber.

Senator Murphy:

– But I also accepted its extension to departments and so on, not only statutory authorities.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not question that the Attorney-General would argue that way although I have no recollection of him doing so. The point I make is that if a committee in its discretion says that this matter ought not to be looked into we are opening the way to the complete negation of that principle which has been upheld by the Senate. On this occasion a committee decided that it did not wish to find out how the money was to be spent. It is the principle which I think is of fundamental importance. Once it is accepted that the committees will have some discretion to prevent questions being asked in an area the committees can do it for all purposes. I think it is a matter which ought to concern the Senate because if we are to have this type of questioning it seems to me we should be able to get the information which is sought. It was not as if the person directly concerned was seeking to withhold information. He was concerned only not to prejudice his position publicly. In the course of the consideration of the proposed expenditures the Attorney-General stated that although Mr Mollison was prepared to give this information it should not be givenfull stop. I simply ask the Attorney-General whether on reflection he has changed his mind. Why should this information be withheld? Why should we not be told? Having regard to the willingness of Mr Mollison to give the information and having regard to the willingness on the part of everybody to have regard to his position, why should not this information be forthcoming?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Before assuming the mantle of upholder of the sovereign rights of the Senate and its committees Senator Greenwood might have been wiser to have checked his own credentials for this role. I would like to point out to him that the Senator Greenwood of the 1974 Estimates debate is in total head-on collision with the Senator Greenwood of a previous Estimates debate. He has totally misrepresented, as he did before the Estimates Committee, the debate which established the principle on which he seeks to rely today. We are becoming used to misrepresentation from Senator Greenwood. Last night he completely misrepresented what the Committee said on the matter of legal aid. In fact he used words which were in total conflict with what the Senate Committee was saying. I would like to refer Senator Greenwood to the 1971 Estimates Committee B discussion on the matter which gave rise to the enunciation of the principle about which we are talking today.

Senator Greenwood:

– I hope you will refer to the Senate debate also.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will indeed, and Senator Greenwood will get even less comfort from that. He will have to pardon me, having subjected the Senate to so much punishment in recent days, if I have to become a little tedious in pointing out his errors in this matter. In 1971 Estimates Committee B was considering the estimates of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Senator McAuliffe raised some question as to whether the Commission should supply information about tenders it had made or may have made to get the rights to televise rugby league over its networks. Senator Greenwood, rising to the defence of an ABC officer who was present and who was a little unwilling to provide this information, as reported at page 408 of the Hansard report of Senate Estimates Committee B of 1971, said:

Mr Chairman, I think that I and the officers of the Broadcasting Commission with me here have an understanding of the points on which Senator McAuliffe is seeking information, but I must inform the Committee that the areas which Senator McAuliffe is asking about are areas of business negotiation. The ABC is in competition with commercial television stations . . .

That point is not dissimilar to the one made by Mr Mollison - in areas where it wants a program. For this information to be made publicly available is possibly to prejudice the Commission’s negotiating ability when it comes on a particular occasion to negotiate the rights.

This point was raised by Mr Mollison when he was asked to disclose his purchasing program. Senator Greenwood considers it unreasonable that Mr Mollison should withhold information from everybody in the world who might be in the market for the paintings on which Mr Mollison has his eye. On a previous occasion, as I am indicating now, Senator Greenwood was of a totally different view. He believed that it was eminently reasonable for the ABC to want to keep dark what it might have been offering for the right to televise rugby league, but that it was quite unreasonable for Mr Mollison to beg a similar indulgence from an estimates committee. Senator Greenwood said:

I think Mr Gifford is able to inform the Committee as to the total amount spent on obtaining sporting rights for television performances over the last year without the break-up. I will ask him to do so. But to get the other material I think is a matter of policy and judgment for the Commission and I am quite sure that the officers will certainly take back the interest of Senator McAuliffe. But I am not able to give any assurance, and I think the officers with me here are not able to give any assurance, that the Commission can provide this material. I think that when the Parliament gives to the

Broadcasting Commission the autonomy which it has, it gives it effectively.

Later Senator Greenwood said:

I think that in terms of confidential information being granted to Senator McAuliffe, there would be much opportunity for discussion to take place, but I think the considerations I have mentioned are relevant considerations in terms of the Broadcasting Commission’s negotiating ability.

If Senator Greenwood experiences some difficulty in seeing the analogy that I am attempting to draw for him I think we should have a rather closer look at what happened before Estimates Committee A.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are you intending to refer to the Senate debate?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am indeed, Senator, in my own time. Senator Greenwood is not content only to occupy the whole time of the Senate; he wants to interrupt anybody else who attempts to get a little bit of air time. In my own time I will refer Senator Greenwood to that also, to his increasing discomfiture. Recently before Estimates Committee A, Mr Mollison raised much the same point that was raised by the ABC officer to whom I have referred. He said in effect: ‘I will tell you if you insist but I would rather not tell you what my shopping list is for the pictures and objects of art covered by this item of $4.6m ‘. Mr Mollison said:

With respect, Mr Chairman and senators, I point out that this is a public forum and the proceedings of the Committee are a matter of public record. The disclosure of which of the many works of art on offer at the present time are known by us to be available or are known still to be privately owned and thought to be highly desirable could jeopardise negotiations for these works in the future. It might cause them to be withdrawn or the work otherwise placed beyond the resources or the reach of the national collection.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why do you not read on, because all he said was that he wanted to put it on paper?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will attempt to conceal nothing if Senator Greenwood will give me time. Senator Jessop, who had asked the original question, expressed himself satisfied with the answer and said later on that he would not press the matter.

Senator Greenwood:

– You did not read the whole answer. That is the point.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Oh God! Senator Jessop said that he was not asking for any further details. When Senator Greenwood later dissented from my ruling that Mr Mollison would not have to give this information, the Committee went into private session and Senate Greenwood’s dissent from my ruling was considered by the Committee. He was left like a shag on a rock. He was the only one; even his own colleagues would not support him so patently unrealistic was his stand.

I acknowledge that Mr Mollison said he would not mind giving the Committee the information in secret. I acknowledge that the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy), who was in control of the evidence being given to the Committee, advised that in his view, even though Mr Mollison was prepared to give the information in secret, the information should not be given at all. On consideration, even though I had at first said I thought it desirable that we should be given it in secret, I ruled that although the Committee undoubtedly had the power in terms of the 1 97 1 resolution to compel Mr Mollison to give the information if it were of that mind, the Senate also had a discretion not to require him to give that information. This ruling was upheld by the Committee with Senator Greenwood the only dissentient.

Let us look at what Senator Greenwood is attempting to achieve. He is not attempting to enlarge the powers of the Senate or its Committees; he is seeking to limit them, because if our power in this regard is confined to the interpretation for which he contends, it means that where we have the power we are compelled to exercise it. Let us take this view to its logical conclusion. Suppose some honourable senator considering the defence estimates asked some departmental officer who came before a Committee for information of a highly confidential nature, the sort of information which might be considered to be of some advantage to potential enemies of this country. There is no question that under the resolution on which Senator Greenwood relies the Committee would have the power to compel an answer to that question, even if it were given in secret. We all know the limitations of secrecy in this place. We all know that once a bit of information is given anywhere in this Parliament it soon becomes public. Does Senator Greenwood mean to tell us that this Committee or the chairman of this Committee would not have a power to rule, subject to being overruled by the rest of the Committee or later by the Senate, that that information should not be given at all? It is not to limit the powers of the Committee or the Senate to say that it is to have this discretion; it is to give reality to such powers.

I suggest that the gross inconsistency between Senator Greenwood’s attitudes when he was attempting to cover up and his present attitude is shown by the fact that now he believes that any exposure of facts or events, no matter how embarrassing, no matter how damaging to this country, is to be encouraged in the interest of an attack on this Government. He has asked me to quote what he said in a debate in the Senate when a Committee came back with a recommendation for the adoption of the principle on which he relies, that is, the power of Senate Committees to compel witnesses to give evidence. Senator Murphy moved the motion which had been embodied in the Committee’s report, and, of course Senator Greenwood was not game to oppose it. Let us see how enthusiastic he was about adopting this proposal. As reported at page 2314 of the 1971 Senate Hansard, he said while giving a sort of mealy-mouthed appearance of support for the principle that had been put forward by Senator Murphy:

But the point is that if details are to be supplied for his interest -

That is, Senator McAuliffe ‘s interest - or for the interest of anybody else as to what moneys are paid to these other sporting bodies by the ABC for the opportunity of televising their programs, one could imagine that there would be an advantage for commercial television interests. The ABC would be required to negotiate completely out in the open. Of course it would always be at a disadvantage. Presumably, it would have to pay more than other persons. In these circumstances one can only suppose that the Opposition -

That is, Senator Murphy and senators who were then on the Opposition side - has no concern as to whether there ought not to be some confidentiality simply to protect the expenditure of public funds.

Could we translate that and say that in these circumstancesthat is, the circumstances of Mr Mollison ‘s case- one can only suppose that Senator Greenwood has ‘no concern as to whether there ought not to be some confidentiality simply to protect the expenditure of public funds’? One may well ask that question. Speaking at least for myself, I am not left in any doubt as to the answer. I think we can say on a careful reading of the speech in the Senate which Senator Greenwood has been so insistent on my referring to, that he gave reluctant, equivocal and qualified support to the principle upon which he now relies. Of course he has in his own interests completely misread this principle. The principle is not that the Senate or a Senate Committee must on all occasions use its power to compel a witness to give information which it wants. There is no doubt about that power. There was no doubt that I ruled that the Committee had that power. The power was conceded by Senator Murphy but the Committee, which upheld my ruling, said that even though it had this power there must be occasions when it may use its discretion not to use that power. That is what we did in this case.

I am confident that the Committee did the right thing. In his dissent which is contained in the report of the Committee Senator Greenwood misrepresented the position once again when he said that on this occasion a discretion was exercised to protect a Minister who did not wish to provide information even though there was a willingness on the part of the person having custody of the information to provide the material in private session of the Committee. Are we to say the same about Senator Greenwood back in 1971? Did he want to withhold this information merely to protect himself? The curious double standard of Senator Greenwood in this matter stands exposed to the whole Senate. I do not think he has a feather to fly and the sooner he resiles from this position and forgets all about this incident the better it will be for his reputation.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-The matter we are discussing has been the subject of a considerable amount of public comment and adverse criticism at a time when the economy is in a turbulent state. It is quite natural for people to question whether we should be paying millions of dollars for paintings for the national art collection. I think it is a proper subject to be fully discussed. It was for that reason that I initiated the question to Mr Mollison with respect to what art works were contemplated under this Une of the estimates. He gave me, I believe, a thoughtful answer to my question. Although this was a public hearing and he preferred not to divulge the precise nature of the paintings he may have in mind for the national art collection, he pointed out the dangers of giving the Committee specific details and the effect that it could have on the purchase of such paintings. He pointed out that it may result in the withdrawal of certain works or them being placed beyond the reach of the national collection. I was satisfied with that and did not pursue that line of questioning any further.

But I was very keen to find out whether any other advice was obtained or whether he was the only person to decide what art works should be purchased. I learned that there was some consultation carried out and that there was an item of expenditure to cover that consultation. It was item 05 for the sum of $94,400. 1 wanted to find out just how much of that sum was paid to consultants and who the consultants were. Also I was anxious to determine the commissions that were paid in respect of such purchases and to whom these commissions were paid. I think it would be helpful if the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) could give us an example. We have purchased 2 paintings, ‘Blue Poles’ and ‘Woman V’.I would like an idea of the proportion that is allowed for commissions on these purchases. What are the details in respect of those 2 paintings? How much were the commissions and to whom were they paid? I think Mr Mollison told me that commissions varied considerably. The commission for dealers promoting a painting by a famous artist could be as low as 2 per cent or 3 per cent, but in the case of an unknown artist the figure could be up to 80 per cent. I think this is significant and I would like the details to be provided.

If information concerning which paintings are being considered for the National Art Collection was provided in committee there could be a possibility of its being leaked and that could be of detriment to the Government. That is the attitude I adopted. Unfortunately Senator Greenwood initiated a similar line of questioning and took a different point of view. That is his business and I respect him for that attitude if he cares to take it. I certainly would have no wish to protect the Minister. I certainly did not take that line in order to protect the Minister; I took it purely and simply as a businessman. Having said that, I hope the Minister can help me by providing the details I have requested. I think it proper that this information be provided in view of the public interest in this subject.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I wish to speak briefly on this same subject. I was a member of Estimates Committee A which was involved in this matter which caused controversy on that night and I supported the ruling of the Chairman. I think it was a proper ruling at that stage and one that inescapably should have been given. There probably has been some misunderstanding in this area. When this matter was first raised in the Committee Senator Greenwood was temporarily absent from the room.

Senator Greenwood:

– No, I was not.

Senator MISSEN:

– It is my recollection that Senator Greenwood was absent during the early part of this discussion when Senator Jessop and I raised the question of the extent to which we could ask questions about this area. It is correct, as the Chairman of the Committee, Senator James McClelland, has said, that at first there was a willingness on the part of Mr Mollison to disclose the information. In fact generally he was very helpful to the Committee when he was before it. In the course of the problem which the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) raised, it was pointed out- Mr Mollison also referred to this point- that there was a very grave danger of money being lost to this country as a result of the disclosure of information as to what paintings were to be purchased in this year. That is obvious and it does not need to be reiterated.

In my opinion the restriction in the Chairman’s ruling on this occasion was not a great one in any event. After the Chairman had suggested that this sort of question should not be pursued by Senator Jessop I said:

The question was one in relation to particular paintings that were being sought.

I am reading from page 472 of Hansard of 3 1 October. The report continues:

I take it that nothing in that ruling would prejudice this Committee from asking questions about the policy being adopted and about the desirability of doing this in the present economic circumstances and, in fact, querying the amount of the estimate. I would have thought that these things were right within the power of the Committee, appreciating entirely what Mr Mollison has said.

CHAIRMAN-There is no doubt that members of the Committee have a right to ask questions of the nature that Senator Missen has outlined. But I think that Committee members should respect the principles that have been enunciated by Mr Mollison, that his task could be prejudiced severely.

Referring to the reservation which Senator Greenwood has expressed, I join with Senator Jessop in saying that it certainly was not in my mind, nor was it my intention, that there should be some protection of the Minister. The Minister seemed to be able to protect himself. I do not think the Committee was concerned in any way about any protection of the Minister but it was concerned about protecting information, the disclosure of which would have been undesirable. I take as an analogy a situation in which an honourable senator might well have a vested interest- I am not saying that this is the situation in this case- and might seek information which could be damaging if it were given. I would have thought that the chairman of such a committee had some discretion to determine whether questions are proper and whether they require an answer.

As I read the resolution of the Senate which dealt with this matter, I do not take it as justifying in any way the contention which Senator Greenwood has put because it says that there cannot be a withholding from Parliament or its committees unless the Parliament has expressly provided otherwise. I suggest that this was not a case of withholding information from the Committee. The Committee ruled that this question should not be asked and should not be answered. I do not accept that an individual member of a committee is entitled willy-nilly to seek any information he wishes. If the Chairman makes a ruling and it is upheld, it is quite proper because it conforms with the requirements of this resolution. I regret that this incident occurred but I think the Chairman of the Committee acted properly, in the interests of gathering works for the National Collection and in the interests of the country generally, in not allowing the question.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I desire to speak in a different way about this item. The sum of $4.6m has been set aside for the purchase of what is termed art. There is a terrible lot of snobbery in the art world and we get a lot of pretence from people who put forward certain concoctions that make one wonder whether one has just come out of a delirium. These concoctions are put forth -

Senator Button:

– I have been wondering about you, Senator.

Senator WOOD:

– I do not come out of them, fortunately. These things are put forward as art. I do not know how many average parliamentarians take a real interest in art. It is the same with architecture. I know that Senator Button has taken an interest in architecture. I have also. However, I am sure that in the art world there are a lot of people who would not know very much about this so-called contemporary art. As a consequence we can easily be taken for a ride in the purchase of these concoctions that come under the title of contemporary art.

I remember after we bought ‘ Blue Poles ‘ that I spoke of it as shickery art. I said then that the person who developed that particular painting must have been on the shicker. I was rather interested to see a few days later that a cobber of Pollock came out with a statement in the Press that he and Pollock were on the booze, on the shicker. Pollock started to throw paint around and he threw paint around and as a result we got the development of ‘Blue Poles’. This indicates how we can be taken for a ride. We paid US$2 m for this concoction and it was supposed to be a great piece of art. I know that the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) mentioned some friend or partner of his who talked about our having a Pollock. The other Pollock items might have been done under less bleary conditions. However, this cobber of Pollock told us this publicly. It was clearly indicated that we were a bunch of suckers in Australia for having bought Blue Poles’ for $2m. It was indicated that it could have been bought for a lot less.

I know that all sorts of things are said. I have talked to people about art and have been told that what I see is what the artist sees and eventually develops. When artists see these sorts of things it makes one wonder at times what sort of mental conceptions they have. What we have to think about in buying works for a national art gallery is that we are buying something for people to enjoy. Do not tell me that the people of Australia will receive a great thrill from seeing Blue Poles’. I would be amazed if that were the general feeling of the people. We have just sunk US$2m into a work of art for which nobody else would have paid the price. I know that it is easy for the people handling the sale to tell us that lots of others wanted it. We obtained it for US$2m and it is generally conceded that we could have purchased if for a lot less. Since then we have bought another abortion of a thing called Woman V. Honourable senators must have seen reproductions of it. Have they ever seen any woman looking like that?

Senator Missen:

– You have to use your imagination.

Senator WOOD:

- Senator Missen tells me to use my imagination. I am a bachelor and I still have the opportunity of looking around. I would certainly need some imagination to see a woman like ‘Woman V. That is the sort of thing that is being put up.

Senator McLaren:

– It would draw the tourists up to Mackay.

Senator WOOD:

– We are very fussy up there.

Senator Poyser:

– That is why Mackay is not going ahead.

Senator WOOD:

– It is a boom place. It is really on the go. As a matter of fact, it is one of the few places that have not been affected by Gough ‘s catastrophic treatment of Australia. If one looks at this second concoction that we have bought it makes one wonder where we are being led. In our national art gallery let us think of the money that we are spending on a few so-called works of art and how many people will see them in this city of Canberra. This year we are spending $4,600,000 for works for the art gallery. That is a very big expenditure. I am convinced that we could purchase lots of paintings- works of artthat would be more attractive to look at and would be better received by the people of Australia instead of spending all this money on a few abortions. When people look at them they must go away with a strange feeling about human nature generally.

The time has come for us to stop being led up the garden path by these so-called art experts. They will lead us anywhere. They will give us all the stories imaginable. They will kid us. We will find that here in Australia we will have a collection of items and in the years to come people will wonder what sort of people we were to buy them. In speaking like this I am not speaking from a political point of view; I am speaking as an Australian. If we are to build an art gallery let us have an art gallery that will be of some real treasure and worth to us, something that will be worth while for people to look at and enjoy. Let us go past this mad age of contemporary art into the days of the great artists. One can understand their paintings but one cannot understand what these things are. Let me illustrate the drift that is taking place. In Kings Hall there is a painting of the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). If one looks at it one would think that he had just come out of a delirium. It certainly does not look like him.

Senator McLaren:

– You ought to have a look at some of the other Prime Ministers there, too.

Senator WOOD:

– At least one can recognise them. But this portrait makes one feel as though the whole place has been on the tank. I think that this money should be spent in a responsible manner. We should not be kidded along by these socalled arty people. They will take us up the garden path as quickly as possible. Let me give an instance of the pretence and the snobbery that is to be found in the art world. A few years ago in this city of Canberra an art competition was held and one of the contemporary paintings entered won it.

Senator McLaren:

– You have told us all that before, senator. It is all on the record.

Senator WOOD:

-It was said that the artist was a great genius, somebody of outstanding talent.

Senator McLaren:

– A little boy painted it.

Senator WOOD:

– It does not do any harm to repeat the story. Some of the Australian Labor Party supporters, some members very prominent in the Party and the Executive have said what they think about the art works that are being purchased. As a matter of fact, I think that Mr Jack Egerton said something about it in one of his bursts. This is not a political matter. I remind honourable senators of the great art competition that took place in this city of Canberra. The contemporary piece of art that won was called a great work of genius. It was said that the artist had wonderful possibilities. The judges’ faces were red when they found out what happened. A child at home had got hold of a paint brush and had thrown paint on a board. As a joke the parents entered it in the competition. It won. It was called a great piece of genius. It was said that the artist had wonderful ability. A joke won the competition in this city of Canberra.

In my opinion, we have had a great joke played on us with the type of things that are being bought with Australian money at a terrific price, far greater than should have been paid if we had wanted to buy them at all. I think it is time we woke up, just as the people woke up to the Canberra art competition. As Senator Jessop said, let us investigate how these things were purchased, where the money was passed, who received commission and who received side commissions. Then I think we would know a little more about the story than we know now. For heaven’s sake do not let us remain suckers in this world of art snobbery.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– The distinguished senator from Queensland, Senator Wood, is well known for his lifelong abstinence from alcohol and anything containing alcohol. As I listened to him I was wondering what masterpiece he might have created had his habits been different through his lifetime. It may be that there is still time and that we could have another ‘Green Poles’ from Senator Wood if only he would taste that which delights so many of his countrymen. I am sure that neither in this chamber nor in any other legislative chamber will we ever solve the problem of what is good and bad art.

The main subject that has been raised in this debate is the application in Estimates Committee A of the decision of the Senate on the accountability of statutory authorities. Let this be plain. Originally I moved the motion which the Senate adopted in 1971 arising out of a recommendation by an Estimates Committee. Again, a few weeks ago, as Leader of the Government in the Senate I moved an identical motion. It was adopted by the Senate, and properly so. Before Estimates Committee A I adhered to the support of the Senate for that resolution. I accepted, and I do accept, that it applies not only to statutory authorities but also to departments and agencies of the Government. Perhaps it would be better if we put that formally on the record. There is no doubt about that. Before the Estimates Committee I indicated that, if the Committee required it, the answer would be supplied without any doubt, but I asked the Committee not to require the answer for the reasons that have been indicated. The Chairman ruled. Dissent was indicated and the Chairman’s ruling that the answer would not be required was upheld. That is an exercise of discretion by the Committee.

What is really in question here is not the estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department but whether the Committee has acted properly. I suppose that the question ought properly to have been raised under the estimates for the Parliament. Be that as it may, the Committee made a decision. I think it was a correct decision. Certainly, all except one member were in accord with the decision. Senator Greenwood, in his dissent, said that the function of Senate committees in seeking explanations of items of proposed expenditure will be completely thwarted if the committee can frustrate a unanimous opinion of the Senate by deciding that it has a discretion. I suggest with great respect that that is a complete misunderstanding of the resolution of the Senate. It. is quite clear from that resolution that the Committee has a discretion. In no way was it implicit in that resolution of the Senate that the Committee was to be deprived of a discretion and that it would have to insist upon an answer to every question that might be put by any senator. That conception is a complete misinterpretation of the resolution of the Senate. Senator Greenwood then went on to say:

On this occasion the discretion was exercised to protect a Minister who did not wish to provide information even though there was a willingness on the part of the person having custody of the information to provide material in private session of Committee.

That is an imputation to the Committee of improper motivation. The Committee decided, I believe properly, that the question should not be answered. But whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter, I believe it is not correct to attribute any improper motivation to the Committee.

It was not mentioned by Senator Geenwood but it has been mentioned here previously that he was the only one dissenting from the ruling of the chairman. The suggestion that the motivation was to protect a Minister has already been rejected by the other members of the Committee. In no way did I put to the Committee that any action was necessary to protect myself as Minister. I am not in charge of the department concerned. This was the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I find it really difficult to see how in this instance there can be any justification whatever for Senator Greenwood’s saying that the Committee was acting to protect the Minister- myself. Sometimes there may be differences of opinion. There may be some tenuous basis upon which such an allegation can be made. In this instance, I can see none whatever.

Then the suggestion is that if the foregoing view is accepted a government majority on a Committee may prevent any real examination of the Estimates. This would be done simply by determining that questions need not be answered. This is far fetched and in no way related to the circumstances of the case. The fact was that only Senator Greenwood was disagreeing. A decision was made which, whether right or wrong, was the decision of the Committee. I believe it was right. The Committee was exercising its discretion which had been given to it by the Senate. I believe it is important to maintain the principle as set out in the resolution of the Senate. I think it is also important to retain the discretion which resides in the Committee. I believe that the dissent of Senator Greenwood which really amounts to an attack upon the Committee is not justified. I believe that his interpretation of the resolution of the Senate and his observations about application in this instance are quite unsound and completely unjustified.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I rise at the first opportunity after Senator James McClelland made his remarks some time ago, briefly to say 3 things. The first is that when I raised this matter initially, I raised it on the general issue of principle related to whether or not a committee by exercising a discretion, might completely destroy a right which that discretion obliterates. I simply say with regard to that, that if the Senate confers upon a committee a right to have information available to it and, at the same time, concedes a discretion to that committee not to exercise that right, then if in any particular case the committee exercises that discretion there is absolutely nothing left of that right except the empty shell, unused and without any function. Therefore, if a committee so exercises a discretion that any controversial question does not have to be answered then what is the use of saying there is a right to get information from the committee?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable senator asserted otherwise in 1 97 1 .

Senator GREENWOOD:

-No. I am coming to that. Apropos of that point I can only regret that for the political advantage which appeared to Senator James McClelland, the proceedings of a private session of an Estimates Committee- I have not had a chance to recall the rules under which the Estimates Committees have been established- were revealed first of all to the Press the day after the incident took place. When Senator James McClelland chose to reveal the proceedings of a private session of a committee to the Senate today, doubtless he did so for the political advantage which it secures for him. I think it is a deplorable state to have private sessions of a committee- sessions which are held in camera and from which everyone else is excluded- and for Senator James McClelland to come into this chamber and talk about what happened in order to use it for whatever political advantage can be secured. I can only say that it is a deplorable innovation.

The second point I wish to make relates back to 1971. All I say is that if Senator James McClelland refers to the Hansard of 1971 and reads all the debates he will know 3 things. Firstly, that there was a point taken as to whether or not information should be supplied to a senator who asked for that information; secondly, that when the point was taken the right of the senator to have the information supplied to him was accepted in the Estimates Committee by the relevant officer of the department and by the Senate; and thirdly, the distinction between that situation and the present situation is that Senator McAuliffe of the Labor Party was able to get his information from a Liberal Government yet, on this particular occasion, when I seek information I am not able to get it from a Labor Government. So that the record is clear, may I refer to the page after that to which Senator James McClelland referred, page 2315 of Hansard of 2 December 1 97 1 . 1 was speaking and I was quoting what was said by Mr Gifford who was a senior officer of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Chairman of the Estimates Committee. The Chairman stated:

As I understand the position, Mr Gifford, the information could be obtained. You have taken the point that full disclosure could result in information being made available publicly which would adversely affect the business negotiating position of the ABC. Therefore you wish to refer the question to the management before giving an undertaking that the information will be supplied. Is that the position?

Then it goes on:

Mr Gifford agreed that that was the position. The Chairman then went on:

Subject only to that proviso, if the information is to be supplied it will be supplied to Senator McAuliffe as soon as possible so that if possible it will be available when the Estimates debate takes place in the Committee of the Whole of the Senate?

Mr Gifford replied:

That is the case. We will make it available promptly.

From that, management had no problems in making the information available. It was given to Senator McAuliffe and when the issue came into the Senate the whole Senate, including myself, unanimously adopted the proposition that these committees ought to have the information.

The third point which I rose on this occasion to make is simply this: During the hearing of the Estimates Committee this year, as revealed by the Hansard record, all Mr Mollison sought to do was to give the information on paper, not to give it the widespread circulation which viva voce evidence would give. That was his sole position. That was the position which I thought- and stated so at the time- was completely reasonable. When it came my turn to ask questions, what did I say? I simply said:

I would like to know what are the paintings and works of art on which this $4.6m is proposed to be expended.

The Chairman said immediately:

There is no need to answer. I think you may have been absent, but I have already ruled that Mr Mollison does not have to give those details in public to this Committee.

I interpolate that I was present at all times when Mr Mollison was giving his evidence.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable senator was not. He was absent when Senator Jessop asked his question. That is the recollection of the other members of the Committee.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I challenge Senator James McClelland. I know that I was there. I assure him quite positively that I was there. Then I said:

I ask for it, whether or not it is in public.

Then I made other remarks which I do not think it is necessary to repeat here. I concluded by saying:

I think Mr Mollison has indicated that he is prepared to give the information. He is concerned about its being made public. 1 share that concern and I would have thought that senators could be trusted.

Senator Murphy interpolated and concluded by saying:

What the devil has it got to do with the Committee what the persons may have in mind in respect of acquisitions?

He indicated that it would be unprecedented for this information to be given. Finally he suggested to the Chairman that he should rule that the information should not be given and the Chairman so ruled. That is the factual position, and it is available in Hansard for anyone to see. I think it is wise and prudent that in the light of all that took place, that should be placed on the record.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– Has the Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise any information about the questions I raised regarding commissions and consultants’ fees?

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

– I am not in any position to give that information now, but I will look into the matter. I will endeavour to get the information. There may be problems, although I do not know of any. I will do my best to get the information for the honourable senator.

In leaving this subject, may I say to the Committee that it may be that we have passed the position where we can expect that there would be any other proper response or apology from Senator Greenwood. I regret that despite the discussion that has gone on today, Senator Greenwood has not seen fit to offer any amends or any apology or any regret whatever for the statements which he has made in his dissent, which reflect on a number of his colleagues on both sides of the chamber.

Proposed expenditure passed.

Proposed expenditure- Department of Science, $ 126,352,000-passed.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is: That the Bill be reported without requests. Members of the Committee, before I report this Bill I wish to state to the Committee that during the proceedings in Committee last evening an adviser to a Minister presented himself in the official advisers’ benches dressed in a manner which I consider inappropriate for his position. I take this opportunity to state that whilst I am occupying the position of Chairman of Committees advisers to Ministers who occupy the advisers’ benches must come dressed in an appropriate manner and with a sense of the dignity of the Senate. I ask that departmental heads take note of my comment.

Senator McLaren:

– I would like to query that, Mr Chairman. On what basis do you rule regarding the type of dress that any person should wear in this chamber? What standing order are you using to give your ruling?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am ruling in that way because I happen to be in charge of the Committee.

Senator McLaren:

– I am still asking you: What are you now describing as appropriate dress for any person in this chamber?

Senator Murphy:

- Mr Chairman, may I suggest that the matter might be taken up at some other time? I think that it is technically out of order. May I suggest that we get on with the Bill? If it is desired to question your ruling, Mr Chairman, that ought to be done at some other appropriate time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I just wish to state for the benefit of. Senator McLaren that the adviser came into the chamber dressed in a polo-neck pullover and jeans, and that if anybody appears on the floor of the Senate in that way while I am in charge of the Committee I will order that he withdraw.

Senator McLaren:

– I will appear dressed in the same way the next time you are in the Chair and we will see what you do to me. I will try you out.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

BDI reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1974-75 In Committee

The Bill. Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2410

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

-Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to move the motion which I foreshadowed in the debate last Tuesday, 12 November, relating to the report of Estimates Committee C, to refer a matter to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

Senator Murphy:

– Will you put the motion without debate?

Senator LAUCKE:

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

Senator LAUCKE:

-I move:

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I have discussed this motion with Senator Wriedt who represents the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in this place. I indicate that the attitude is that the Government does not really oppose the reference. I suggest that an amendment be made. Perhaps the words ‘slight variations’ could be inserted instead of the word ‘variations’ in fairness to the Government. It may well be that there are no variations. I believe the motion should be altered to deal with that point. If it is not the assumption could be made that there are variations, whereas it may be the Treasurer’s positionI do not want to canvass the matter- that there is not a variation. Perhaps we could insert the word ‘apparent’. If we use ‘apparent variations’ the question is not pre-determined in the nature of the reference. Will the honourable senator accept that amendment so the matter becomes an open question to be examined.

Senator Laucke:

– Yes, I thought that my motion had been noted by the Government previously. I accept Senator Murphy’s suggestion.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Is the motion seconded?

Senator Young:

– I second the motion.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

page 2410

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 October on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-The debate on this matter was adjourned on 24 October last and is now being resumed. Prior to the debate being adjourned I had referred to a number of matters, one of which was the general support forthcoming from the Opposition for the funds being provided in this Bill. I also pointed out our concern in relation to another aspect. A total of $40,790,000 is being provided by the Commonwealth to the States for assistance in relation to Aboriginal people in the various States. A large part of the money is to be spent on housing. Other moneys are to be spent on education, health and other matters. The matter of concern arises because the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) and the Government have seen fit to vary what was projected in the Budget in relation to the State of Queensland and to reduce the amount payable to that State by the sum of $3. 19m. The figure indicated in the Budget, $13,552,000, is to be reduced to $10.3m, which is provided for in the Bill. The Minister has indicated that this is because the Queensland Government- to use an expression, perhapshas not been co-operative with the Federal Government. It appears, however, that the Federal Government’s idea of co-operation is if people do what they are told by the Federal Government then they are co-operating. If they are not prepared to do what they are told they are not co-operating.

This somewhat heavy handed, somewhat dictatorial, attitude of the Commonwealth Government is exemplified in this Bill as it has been in many other actions that the Government has taken. What appears to have been overlooked by the Government is the best interests of the Aborigines in Queensland. We see a situation where the Minister has said, in a somewhat airy-fairy way, that the $3. 19m will be made up in other ways by direct grants to housing associations and by expenditure through the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs and perhaps some other unspecified ways. There is no clear pattern. It has obviously not been worked out to this date exactly how the money will be spent and how much will go to which particular area. In other words people are left in a position of uncertainty as to how, when and subject to what conditions the moneys will be received in Queensland.

I had also referred to some of the problems which had existed in relation to the gearing up for the expenditure of funds by Aboriginal associations in Queensland. Whilst I do not wish to be in any way taken as suggesting that they should not be encouraged to become fully operative as soon as possible, and subject to certain comments which my colleague Senator Bonner will make and which I do not pause to make but do support about the question of costs that are involved and therefore the net amount which eventually will become available for housing and other benefits to Aborigines, the fact is that last year some $9m was unexpended in relation to Aboriginal housing in Australia. As the Minister explained, that was because the associations had not geared up sufficiently to be able to spend the money in the way and at the rate anticipated by the Department at the time the Budget had been prepared. I raised with the Minister the question of whether it would be possible to spend this extra $3. 19m in the current year through the other outlets suggested by him as opposed to the certainty that it would be able to be expended by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs or other Queensland departments such as the Department of Housing. Those departments are geared up to be able to spend the money. They are geared up to be able to make sure that the utmost advantage is taken of the provision of funds by the Commonwealth in the interests of Aborigines in Queensland. We believe and assert very firmly that there is nothing to suggest that the Commonwealth Department is in any better state than the Queensland Department is to ensure the expenditure of the money for the benefit of those people at this stage of their development. Nor are the housing associations likely to be able to expend the moneys which are planned to be granted to them already or a significant part of the extra $3. 1 9m.

So it appears that there is a likelihood that once again at the end of this year there will have been an under-expenditure of what was deemed by the Parliament to be a just and appropriate amount of expenditure for Aboriginal affairs. This, of course, is clearly to the disadvantage of the Aboriginal people whom the money is intended to benefit. In my speech I had quoted some comments which had been made in a news release put out on behalf of the Co-operative for Aborigines Ltd. As I mentioned then that news release was highly critical of the present Government’s failure. It was pointed out that whilst the Government was prepared to promise all sorts of things when in Opposition it had not done anything effective about those promises. Certainly the history of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is not such as would give people confidence in its having greater capacity than the Queensland Department to act in the best interests of Aborigines. I shall read from an article in the ‘Nation Review’ of 17 October to give some idea of the sorts of things which have been written many times about the Department. The article states:

It is clear that all is not well within the Department. As reported in ‘Nation Review’ of August 9, the Canberra branch is split into black versus white. Such a split in a very sensitive policy area should be giving the Government forebodings about the Department’s ability to handle the policy: If it can’t keep its own house in order, it is clear that it is ill equipped to cope with the problem of black-white relations on a national scale. And as Cavanagh admitted earlier this year, the implementation of Labor’s policy has been a ‘disaster’.

Recent events only heighten the concern of those who have doubts about the capacity of the Department at the moment efficiently to act in the best interests of Aborigines in Australia. I do not wish to go into detail about the matter but I simply remind honourable senators of the confrontation precipitated by the Minister from which, I believe, he wisely backed away. It was precipitated by him only last week when he made a confrontation threat to the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service that unless it took certain action he was not prepared to grant the Service any further funds. This was at a time when the Service was out of funds and it would have had to put off staff if further funds were not immediately forthcoming. That confrontation could have been quite disastrous in damaging relationships between some of the more outspoken and militant people who have been demonstrating in relation to their claims about what they regard as inefficiency in the administration of Aboriginal affairs in Australia. I am glad to say that the Minister withdrew from that confrontation position.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I think that Senator Greenwood might not agree with the honourable senator.

Senator RAE:

– I do not think Senator Greenwood and I have any basic difference of attitude. He is talking about one matter and I am talking about another. My criticism of Senator Cavanagh- if I may direct it through you, Mr Acting Deputy President- is that he confuses 2 entirely separate issues. The separate issues, of course, are firstly in relation to accountability as far as the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service is concerned and, secondly, the manner of exercising a right to protest. I do not subscribe to the manner of the exercise of the right of protest by the erection of tents outside Parliament House but I suggest that the Minister is not entitled in any way at all to say to the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service: ‘I will cut off your funds unless you cause those tents to be pulled down.’ But of course that is another matter. It is one which is disquieting in relation to the administration of Aboriginal affairs in Australia and one which does not make for any greater confidence that the Commonwealth Department is more capable automatically than Queensland in administering for the benefit of Aborigines in Queensland.

I refer also to the sorry history of the Redfern housing project which, apparently because of the Department’s inability for one reason or another to fund in the way which was promised, has now ground to a halt. This has meant that the employees who were taking part in what I understand to be an excellent development program of housing renovation and the provision of housing for Aboriginal people in that area have been put out of work because the Department has not made the promised funds available. This is just one further part of the overwhelming problem which seems to be besetting the administration of this area of government activity. Bearing in mind all these things and the matters which I mentioned earlier about the interests of the Aborigines in Queensland, I read from an editorial in the ‘Courier-Mail’ of 18 October which states:

Nobody can be certain at this stage whether Queensland’s Aborigines want Commonwealth or State laws. Surely there is a sensible and fair method of finding this out.

I subscribe to the general thought that at this stage nobody can be certain what the majority of Aboriginal people in Queensland want. I do not believe that it is in their best interests to have the Commonwealth Government foist onto them, in the way it is doing in this Bill, or in the way which is proposed in some other legislation to which I shall not refer, the decision that Big Brother knows best, that the Commonwealth Government will act irrespective of what the Queensland Government may wish and irrespective of what the Aboriginal people in Queensland may wish. I believe that the Government’s action is petty. It is not really action which one would expect from a national government. Rather, it is the attitude: ‘If you do not make me captain I shall take my bat and ball home and will not let you play’. I think it is extremely unfortunate that this Government cannot be a little bigger in its approach to what is a national question and problem and one which deserves proper consideration, not petty action. For those reasons I move an amendment to the motion for the second reading and to draw attention to the attitude of the Senate in relation to this action of the Government because we believe that it should forthwith make this money available to the Queensland Government so that it can be spent expeditiously in the best interests of the Aborigines of Queensland. I move:

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Is there a seconder to the amendment?

Senator Bonner:

– Yes, I second the amendment.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I want to refer to a couple of matters. In particular I criticse some of the things which Senator Rae has said. He has taken an emotional attitude, not a very logical one, to the whole problem. On many occasions before I have said in this chamber that as far as I am concerned the socalled Aboriginal problem is a white man’s problem. We created it in the first instance. We perpetuated it. In many ways we are not doing a very good job of solving the white man’s problem. Until 2 December 1972 the Aboriginal people in this country had no hope, no future and no possibility of ever raising their living standards to that of the rest of the population. I shall touch first on one of Senator Rae ‘s last points. He criticised the fact that there has been a decrease in the housing allocation provided for Aborigines to the Queensland Government. On at least 2 occasions in the last 2 financial years fairly large sums of money have remained unexpended in Queensland when they should have been made available for the purchase or construction of homes for Aborigines. Money has been grossly misspent by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. A lot of these problems come back to the Aborigines Act 1972 and the Torres Strait Islanders Act 1972. 1 think this might have been referred to in the article which Senator Rae mentioned or in an article published subsequently, probably in the ‘Courier-Mail’. The author said that there was a subtle miniracism attitude by even dividing the 2 groups of black people and covering them under 2 restrictive Acts. This is the root cause of most of the evils of my State of Queensland. There is no real reason for keeping either Act in existence. But those who are in authority in that State believe that this is the only way in which you can keep black people in subjection.

I raised a question in this House a few weeks ago in relation to expenditure on housing for Aborigines who eventually hoped that they would be able to purchase the homes. At the time I said that the Queensland Government was making a profit at the expense of black people. I have referred a specific case to the Minister which is currently under his scrutiny. It involves an Aboriginal family in my own district which moved into a house some 4 to 41/2 years ago. About $9,000 was paid for that home. The family had hoped, in fact they were told at the time, that when they wanted to purchase the house they would be able to purchase it. They were clearly under the impression that they would be able to buy it at somewhere near the original purchase price. Recently they made approaches to the Department to purchase the home. They were told that they could buy it for some $ 17,000. 1 am not putting up a phoney argument. I have information in black and white in my own office records. In addition, this family had to find some $2,000 for a deposit. If that is not blatant racketeering at the expense of the black people of Queensland by an unsympathetic government, then I ask honourable senators to tell me what is. These days housing is bad enough for the ordinary individual in the community, whether it involves the payment of rent or the purchase of a home, with the current inflationary problems being experienced in the world. But it is doubly hard for Aborigines who almost invariably come within the lowest income group and frequently have to provide for a family larger than average. It is true that we are giving some help by way of secondary school grants and in other ways but we still have a long way to go-

I am sorry that Senator Rae has left the chamber. He would be well advised to cooperate with the Government rather than to adopt a knocking attitude. If this is the way that a State government handles its funds, then it is obviously incompetent to handle additional funds. There are people from one end of Queensland to the other waiting for homes. Queensland has the largest black population of any State in Australia with 60,000-odd people of whom about 7,000 to 10,000 are islanders. There are people in Queensland who are getting a rake-off, apart from the State Government, at the expense of the Aborigines. I saw a contract recently concerning premises to be made available for Aborigines in which an estate agent was apparently getting the rip-off. The person holding the first mortgage was almost identifiable with a section of the estate agency. During the Estimates debate I asked a number of questions about people who are operating in the Northern Territory. 1 have been supplied with that information by the Department. Of all the consultants and the accountants who are listed by the Department I have selected only a few. Let me mention some of them. There is Andrew McPhee and Associates, consultants, whose fee over the period referred to amounted to $15,018; Talbot, Hunt and Partners were paid $41,412; Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey were paid $184,778. I would like to know what they got those fees for. Two groups of people have to be protected in this community; firstly, the Aborigines, and secondly, the taxpayers. I think the taxpayers would be quite happy to be put in second place. But there are groups of people in the community who are getting a rip-off at the expense of the Aborigines. Let me cite a few more names. There is Boehme, Topeny and Partners who were paid $5,926. Now let us look at the accountancy group. Wilson, Bishop, Bowes and Craig were paid $17,412; C. W. Stirling and Co. was paid $8,231; E. J. Shepherd and Associates were paid $1,443, and Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. were paid $16,969, almost $17,000. The Secretary of the Department went on to say:

In some instances the technical consultants are also acting purchasing agents and charge a fee but this component is not readily available as such costs are absorbed under other expenditure headings.

The figures represent actual cash paid to architectural and accounting consultants. The majority of the associations have incurred liabilities for fees in 1973-74 which were paid in 1974-75.

I assume that those figures refer to the 1973-74 financial year. It goes further than this. The Minister has very properly made available additional funds this year to assist housing associations. In Queen-land there is quite a number of them. But what has happened? We now find that a whole host of them are being held up at the registration level, so in a direct way the State Government again is stepping in to deprive Aborigines of housing. It is a hypocritical attitude for Senator Rae to adopt when he knows that this misuse of funds is going on at the State government level while he criticises the Australian Government for reducing the housing quota. It is not even a fair criticism. The honourable senator ought to look deeper into the subject before he starts putting up a phoney argument in this chamber. He is not helping the Aborigines. All he is doing is helping that close personal friend of mine, the Premier of Queensland, in his political arguments in the State election campaign.

Senator Devitt:

– Did you put in inverted commas that the Queensland Premier is a close personal friend of yours?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The Premier and I often have conversations through the ‘Courier-Mail’. We are not exactly on telephone calling terms. But I will put it in inverted commas to put it on the right side of the ledger. The situation goes further than this. There are people who endeavour to set up their own private business organisations under the capital funding of the Australian Government. In many instances these involve consultants. One of the projects that I am particularly angry about is the famous one at Clump Mountain which, over a period of years, we have tried to get off the ground but there has been that much referring and conferring on the project, with people getting consultancy fees, that finally it was knocked back and it has now come up again for consideration. Who is to blame for this? I am not blaming the people in the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs, who in 99 per cent of cases are doing their very best to get over a very great problem. But I think that in a minority of cases some blame must lie there particularly with some senior officials. Not enough Aboriginal people have been taken into consultation. I note that Senator Rae did not say this because he probably does not know anything about it as he comes from a State were the Aboriginal population has been virtually annihilated. Aborigines ought to be consulted at every level and they ought to be involved in the decision making. I have heard it said in this chamber that Queensland is an ideal place. It is not.

Senator Rae:

– Perhaps you could direct your remarks to Senator Cavanagh.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am saying that in very difficult circumstances Senator Cavanagh is doing the very best that he possibly can on behalf of the Australian Aborigines, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. The situation is that the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has been assailed on all sides but in particular is he being assailed by people associated with the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in the State of Queensland in which State the greatest number of black people are congregated. The Minister is not getting a fair go at all. I do not direct criticism in the manner in which honourable senators opposite are hoping, that is, at the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs, because as far as I am concerned many or most of its officers, as I said earlier, are doing the very best they can under difficult circumstances. Honourable senators will note that recently the Minister announced the setting up of a task force in Queensland. It must be done, in the interest of the Aboriginal people themselves. I do not know whether Senator Bonner would agree with me; it does not matter very much. In spite of the fact that it is said that there is a so-called advisory council in Queensland, the majority of members of that council have been hand picked in various ways by white people in the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs to make sure that the Aborigines say ‘Yes, boss’ every time that a proposal is put.

Senator Bonner:

– You are doing the Aboriginal people a disservice.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am not doing the Aboriginal people a disservice at all. I know the reserves probably as well as Senator Bonner does, in spite of my white skin. I have heard people on every Aboriginal reserve in Queensland criticise the Queensland Aboriginal advisory council. On every occasion people- all Aboriginal people and Islanders- have criticised the advisory council in Queensland because it is dominated not by the Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland, who is only the office boy and who is allowed to take messages between the Director and the Premier, or vice versa, but by the Premier.

Senator Bonner:

– Like the Federal Department did with Charles Perkins.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will say a few words about him in a moment. I am not criticising the Queensland Minister. He is a very nice bloke, a very pleasant bloke with whom to have a beer and a yarn, but he is allowed no authority at all. If he were allowed some authority one would see a vastly different picture in Queensland. One would see State co-operation with the Australian Government as we have seen it in almost every other State in Australia. This is an area in which people- particularly the Premier of Queensland -are fond of saying that Aboriginal people are making their own decisions. They are not. There is an attempt at the Australian Government level to bring that about, but we have not yet gone far enough. There should be people within the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs who are black and who are making decisions on behalf of their brothers and sisters. I have always said publicly and privately that I have great sympathy for the aims and aspirations of people such as Charles Perkins, to whom Senator Bonner referred a moment ago. Charles Perkins knows my views in this regard. We need more people of the calibre of Charles Perkins, particularly in Queensland. We need to take Aboriginal people from under the harrow of the Act so they may be able to say things without being worried about whether they will be thrown off a reserve.

Senator Bonner:

– How would you know?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I do not wish to have an argument with Senator Bonner. Things are happening on reserves in Queensland of which I do not approve. I do not think that Senator Bonner approves of them either, but for political reasons he cannot criticise them. I can. I hope he knows that the so-called petition that was taken up on the Palm Island reserve was a hoax from the start. It was phoney. The takeover of the reserve by the Townsville City Council was opposed by the previous advisory council, but I am told- I believe reliably- that within 2 hours the new council under white domination carried a resolution agreeing to be incorporated within the boundaries of the Townsville City Council. I fear that if this reserve does not come under the administration of the Australian Government wealthy, multi-national tourist companies will walk in there and take it over. No more black people will be living there unless the companies k eep on a couple of gardeners and dishwashers, because that is all the Queensland Government allows black people to do. It does not allow them any initiative while it can keep them under the control of the 2 Acts and keep them cooped up on reserves.

I know it has been said that there are now loopholes in the Act- if one wishes to describe them as such- which allow Aborigines to be in charge of their own affairs; and a number of them are. Surprisingly, to those people who favour the Acts, Aborigines handle their own affairs much better than white people handled their affairs for them. For instance, they are now able to have a savings account and to find out that funds do not mysteriously disappear from their savings accounts as happened over a long period of years. There is an Aboriginal living in the Townsville area- I am prepared to make his name available if anybody wishes to know it, although I do not wish to mention it publicly because it might embarrass him or his family- who for a long period of time under the Act was able to put money away in a bank account. When he was able to get away totally from the reserve and be free of the Act, not only was he not able to find the money but he could not find the bank account. We have searched every bank in an area of 300 miles to find that man’s bank account. Because of the lapse of time, we may never find it. It is unlikely that we will ever find it.

The will of a deceased Aboriginal or Islander in Queensland who remained under the Act is not valid unless it is signed by an officer of the Department. So those estates have gone into limbo. People are trying to claim on the estates of deceased relatives, and they are still unable to claim. Where is that money? Who is holding it? Is it in trust? Is there a hope that somewhere along the line those people will die and that money will go into Consolidated Revenue? Has it already been fiddled with at some level along the road? I know that is a very serious accusation to make, but I make it.

Senator Bonner:

– Under privilege.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I do not need to make it under privilege. It can be said outside the chamber. There have been cases in the past of native protectors- white men- fiddling with the bank accounts of Aboriginal people. Senator Bonner knows that. People have been charged. If he wishes to defend that type of person I am shocked and surprised at his attitude.

Senator Bonner:

– They were caught and punished, and the Department made good the money that was taken.

Senator KEEFFE:

– What about the hundreds who were not caught? Do they need defending? I will not defend them, and I hope that Senator Bonner will not defend them. There is a responsibility on this Government to clean up the mess left by years of maladministration at government level and at the Commonwealth level so far as Aborigines are concerned. Our ambitions are to see Aborigines running their own affairs to some degree in the short term- as soon as possibleand totally in the long term. Our ambition as legislators ought to be to ensure that no white people in the community are getting a rip-off at the Aboriginal people’s expense and at the taxpayers’ expense. This is happening. I would like to see the figures that I have quoted analysed publicly. This comes back to my public involvement in the Aboriginal Housing Panel. In my view, the majority of members of that Panel should be Aboriginal people. I do not care how good an architect is. Unless he lives with the people, as some of the architects involved with the Panel have, unless he knows their attitudes to housing, he has no right to say how they should live. Just look at the reserves in Queensland. They are neat little boxes built in areas where trees have been ploughed out. That is where we say that Aboriginals want to live.

Look at the Laura episode which I raised not many weeks ago in a question in this chamber. Aborigines did not want one house situated where the Queensland Department built them. But the Queensland Department expended the best part of $250,000 of Australian Government funds to build houses, firstly, where Aborigines did not want them and, secondly, in an area where they will probably have to be shifted because of the type of earth or sand in that area. The houses will probably develop a 45 degree lean in the first wet. If we had taken notice of the Aborigines we would have built houses in an area where they wanted them, where the ground formation would have been good, where they would have been able to have a garden and where they would have been able to live happily. Then we go to places such as Lockhardt. We shift the Aborigines by force from their grounds and put them on a hill- a stoney hill- under the dominance of the white man who is on top of the hill so he can look down on his black subjects. We have done this from one end of Australia to another over the years. If an Aboriginal lived on a reserve in Western Australia- not now; it has been changed in recent times- he was allowed to have alio volt lighting system. When it got dark the power was switched off even if there was a refrigerator running on the one point in the house. It did not matter if people had the baby’s milk or the weekend meat in the refrigerator. According to the white masters of the day the Aborigines might have damaged themselves if they had left the power switched on overnight. In the last year or two we have got away from this attitude and it is in this area that the Australian Government Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) is trying to rectify all the things that have been done wrong over the years.

I could refer to the famous turtle episode. Here a man who was unable to administer a major project is no longer in the country. He disappeared from the country when things got too hot. It is a project on which a lot of taxpayers’ money was lost. If there had been proper co-operation at all levels, State and Federal, at that time and if there had been proper administrative practices none of that money would have been lost. I am not saying that it would have been an economically viable industry. Nobody knows. But at least it would have been a decent testing area for us to see what we could do.

I must reiterate that in most of the Queensland reserves there is soil suitable for growing vegetables and tropical fruit, but this has never been done because the combines which are able to produce at unfair prices are able to make great sales at the expense of the black people on the reserves. This applies to places like Bamaga where the soil is good and where we have spent half a million dollars of Australian Government funds supplying water. Of course the first water connections were to the homes of the white officials. I have said this before and I will say it again because it has to be emphasised. When these water connections were made the first connections should have been not to those homes but to the houses of the black people, the people who have been deprived for so many years.

I was given an assurance a long time ago that when the water reticulation scheme was commenced at the Palm Island reserve the Aboriginals employed- and there was to be a high Aboriginal labour content, and there has been- were to get award wages. That never happened. An Aborigine driving a sophisticated piece of machinery was getting the top wages of $50-odd a week. If he had been a white man doing the same job he would have pulled down wages of not less than $120 and maybe even more a week. Of course, the labourers were paid on a proportionately lower scale. A statement which had obviously been prepared for the Oueensland Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs was reported recently in a newspaper and indicated that around $53 a week would be the average wage paid around the reserves. That is not true because it has not yet reached $40 at the peak and there are very few on the peak wage. The situation is a bit like that of Qantas pilots. About 3 pilots get the peak wage and about 3 people on the reserves get the peak wage.

This is another area in which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is to be commended. At least he has set in train, slowly though it may be, in the Northern Territory and other areas under the direct jurisdiction of the Australian Government a proper award wage system, and he has provided proper social security benefits for people who are not able to be gainfully employed. But this never happened on Queensland reserves. It has been slave labour there for so many years that it does not matter. Yet this is the sort of system that Senator Rae in this chamber this afternoon defended. It would be a good idea if he went out and looked at some of the conditions and searched behind the false wall of respectability for some of the factual things he ought to be able to find behind it. The old Mapoon move has been dreamed of, not by a great number of people but by a hard core of people, for so many years that it does not matter. Do honourable senators know what was said by the Queensland Minister when these people wanted to move back to old Mapoon? He said: ‘In forty or fifty years’ time when your kids are educated you can go back’. Thank God they have taken the initiative and have gone back without his permission. They have gone back with the encouragement and support of the Australian Government’s Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, to his eternal credit.

Senator Rae:

– And back to the hookworm which drove them away in the first place.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If Senator Rae speaks up a little I might be able to answer the interjection, if it is intelligent. What was it?

Senator Rae:

– And back to the hookworm which drove them away in the first place.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It had nothing to do with it. The hookworm which drove them away was a trinity- the Queensland Government, Comalco Ltd and the church mission. They made a deal over the heads of the Aborigines, and they were the real hookworm in that settlement. They were the ones who drove them out. Finally a few refused to go- and do not believe the story that no guns were used because guns were used to force them off the reserve. They have gone back to the land they knew. Now they are being further harassed by the Queensland Department. There are some clean-skin cattle there which by all accounts belong to the old people of old Mapoon. But they have been taken away by the Queensland Department. These people will not be allowed even a few clean-skins to form the nucleus of a small herd in that area. For God’s sake, let us be honest in our attitudes and not fiddle around making political issues in the way that Senator Rae tried to do this afternoon. Do not put out a smokescreen to protect inefficient people.

Senator Rae:

– Well, really and truly -

Senator KEEFFE:

– If it is an intelligent interjection I will answer it. The last one was not but I answered it. What is this one? Senator Rae does not answer so presumably it was not intelligent and I will not proceed with it. We heard the crux of this matter last night. A number of senators on Estimates Committee G asked some pertinent questions. In the main we got fairly good replies. At least we got frank replies. We might not all have been happy with the replies. But when the estimates for . the Department of Aboriginal Affairs came into the chamber last night they were passed without any discussion at all. If Senator Rae wanted to pursue his little hate session he had a first class opportunity to do so last night.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He was not here.

Senator KEEFFE:

– The Minister draws my attention to the fact that Senator Rae was not even in the chamber. Obviously he was satisfied.

Senator Rae:

– I was present at the Estimates Committee G debate and at all the hearings.

Senator KEEFFE:

-That was not the point. The point was that if Senator Rae had a continuing grievance against the Australian Government’s Department of Aboriginal Affairs his job was to have been in here last night like his colleague -

Senator Rae:

– Do not lecture like that. You are making yourself look even more ridiculous than usual.

Senator KEEFFE:

-When Senator Rae gets heated he never handles his interjections properly, so he should not get heated now. His colleague Senator Greenwood was here. He was dissatisfied with the results of Estimates Committee A and he pursued those estimates here, and he pursued them at the Estimates Committee and held up its hearings for several days to the disgust of just about everybody on the Committee including his own colleagues. He held up the passage of those estimates through this chamber. He again pursued the matter and when he ran out of something fresh to say he read over his remarks from Hansard just to keep the debate going. If Senator Rae is dissatisfied he had his opportunity to come in here last night and utter the criticisms he is uttering today, but he did not do it. So we assume from his nonopposition last night that he is totally satisfied with the way in which the Australian Government is running its Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

I am glad that we have had this debate. It has been an opportunity to knock over some of the phoney statements that have been made by the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

Senator Rae:

– You have not referred accurately to any of them yet.

Senator KEEFFE:

– What did you say, Senator Rae?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Senator Keeffe should direct his comments through the Chair.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am trying to do that. I am prepared to answer his criticism if he has something valid to say.

Senator Rae:

– I said you have not accurately referred to any of my remarks yet.

Senator KEEFFE:

-That is an unintelligent interjection I have accurately referred to the remarks made by Senator Rae by shooting down in flames each of his accusations because they were not built on any substance at all. One of the major issues he referred to was the decision of the Australian Government to cut down the housing grant to Queensland by some $3m.

Senator Jessop:

– Do you agree with that?

Senator KEEFFE:

-Of course I agree with it. What is the use of -

Senator Jessop:

– Then you are against Queensland.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Senator Jessop does not even know what this debate is about. An allocation has been made over a period of years to the Queensland Government through the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. Queensland is the only State which funds Aboriginal housing through the relevant department. In all other States it is done through the housing commission or the equivalent department. For 2 years at least the quota of money for Queensland has not been spent. Had Senator Rae listened earlier he would have found out that when it has been spent the

Queensland Premier and his supporters have been trying to make a profit at the expense of the black people.

The Australian Government has decided to set up a series of organisations known as housing associations so that the Queensland Aboriginal people will not be deprived of that money. The $3m will go into the housing associations in Queensland and for the first time many Aboriginal people will get an opportunity to have a home, something they will not get under the Queensland Government. I will bet pounds to peanuts now- this has nothing to do with Kingaroy or the Premier- that at the end of this financial year the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs still will have a large sum of unexpended money. The Premier likes it that way. If he is still in power that will be the case. He likes to be able to keep Australian Government funds in bank accounts, trust accounts, jam tins in his backyard or somebody else’s backyard, refrigerators, in anything at all just to embarrass the Australian Government. I saw a cheque which should have been paid many months before by the Queensland Government go to a particular local authority. Interest had accumulated on it because the Queensland Government had hung onto it for so long. Even in the days when the Opposition was in Government at the Australian level money was made available for the repair of the swimming baths at Thursday Island. What happened to it? We never found it again. Money was made available for a kindergarten that was never constructed. The Australian Government has had to provide additional money to build a kindergarten and a swimming pool, things which should have been done four or five years ago, long before the Australian Labor Party came into office. Let us face up to realities and not go chasing political clouds. I believe that some of the things I have said badly needed saying.

Senator Bonner:

– And they were said badly.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Senator Bonner will get his opportunity in a moment. He spends most of his time interjecting and defending certain people in Queensland. I am ashamed of him for that but I know he cannot help it because he is under political pressure. Unless he says something outrageous I will endeavour to give him a fair hearing. These are the things we ought to talk about. The accusations thrown around this chamber by Senator Rae, the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, will not stand up to public scrutiny because they are not built on substance or logic.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I wish to say a few words about this States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill because it affects Queensland. I support the remarks of Senator Rae and the amendment he has moved. I am afraid that in the course of my remarks I will be a little critical of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh). He certainly is doing his best under difficult circumstances but I believe his choice of advisers as to the Queensland position has not been good. He has been ill advised on many subjects and I will refer to them in the course of my remarks. Senator Cavanagh has taken $3,190,000 off the vote for Queensland under this Bill. He has stated that he cannot get the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Minister concerned to discuss matters with him. The Premier of Queensland has advised this Government, I believe on a Premier to Prime Minister level, that his Government is absolutely opposed to handing over any of the land reservations in Queensland because- I have been told that he has said this- it would lead to a State within a State and he will not have that. Otherwise the Queensland authorities have never refused to discuss matters with Senator Cavanagh, the Minister.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is wrong. That is incorrect. What about Palm Island?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Hewitt, has never refused to meet anybody.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He did, by correspondence.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I have known Mr Hewitt for many years and I am sure he would not refuse to meet Senator Cavanagh. Senator Cavanagh visited Queensland not so long ago. He went to a so-called conference at Weipa. Just before that he brought in this Bill.

Senator Keeffe:

– What do you mean by saying it was a so-called conference? He had a good conference at Weipa.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-Senator Keeffe had his say a little while ago and I will have mine now. Senator Cavanagh made this visit just after he introduced this Bill into the House. I want to quote a question and answer which appear in the Hansard report of the Queensland Parliament for Wednesday, 23 October 1974. Mr Ahern asked the Queensland Minister for Conservation, Mr Hewitt, the following question:

  1. Has he seen Press reports indicating a cut-back in funds from the Commonwealth Government to Queensland for Aboriginal welfare?
  2. What will be the effects of this decision on Aborigines?

The following answer was given:

  1. and (2) I am aware of the reports and also have seen the Bill, the States Grants Aboriginal Assistance Act 1974 introduced by Senator Cavanagh last week which provides for a payment to Queensland in 1 974-75 of $ 10,362,000.

In his Budget the Treasurer provided an amount of $13,552,000 so that in effect Senator Cavanagh proposes reducing Queensland’s allocation by $3,190,000 in spite of commitments in writing given by him and his Department as well as consultation at officer level which indicated the amount as being for housing for Queensland ‘s Aborigines.

Although, even based on the Commonwealth census figures, Queensland has at least 34.58 per cent of Australia’s total Aboriginal people, Senator Cavanagh is reducing allocation of moneys on their behalf to only 25 .4 per cent of the total.

I am greatly concerned over this action by Senator Cavanagh as it has now become necessary for me to have my Department carry out an exhaustive investigation of total fundings which at this stage appears to require a drastic reduction in the housing programme activity which must be disastrous not only for the building industry generally in the State, but as well dash the hopes of so many Queensland Aborigines for an early relief of their housing problems.

On the other hand, we have the Federal Minister for Housing (Mr Johnson) at the weekend stating he was very worried at the low commencement rate for new buildings in Queensland, yet at the time he must have been fully aware of this action by Senator Cavanagh which can only contribute to further chaos in the building industry.

It is futile for the Senator to claim that he proposes reallocating the money so that Queensland ‘s Aborigines will not be disadvantaged when he is fully aware that his Bill reallocates the amount to other Slates and also that during the past financial year his Department underspent by $9m in the housing section alone, as indicated in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech.

I feel, therefore, I must emphasize to honourable members that any further unemployment or slump in the building industry in Queensland will be the direct responsibility of the Federal Government.

I can only assume that his reducing funds is based on a desire to retard the improvements and developments in Aboriginal welfare in this State which so significantly highlight the failures in the Northern Territory and other areas under direct Federal influences and policies which have been admitted as disasters.

The previous speaker, Senator Keeffe, mentioned Old Mapoon. I do not think that he stated the facts correctly. Mapoon was finally abandoned. It was not a departmental settlement, except at the very end. It was run by the Presbyterian Church. The population kept dwindling, and when the Presbyterians could not obtain any more missionaries to run the place the Department took it over for a little while and then decided to abandon the settlement.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where is that?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-Old Mapoon. The soil there is unsuitable for gardens or for growing anything. There is a lack of water supply in the dry times. The underground water supply has such a high bacteria count as to be almost unusable. The available water is polluted. In the wet time when the river ran, in the previous settlement it ran through the latrines, the kitchen and the dining room. Consequently, there was a high incidence of disease. There was a 25 per cent incidence of hookworm, the highest in Australia. About 10 years ago the Queensland Director-General of Health inspected the area and condemned it utterly. There has been talk about the people being removed at gunpoint. This is absolutely wrong. I am informed that when the last few people were taken away the only guns in evidence belonged to a couple of the old men who took their fowls, dogs and everything with them. The guns had been used for hunting. Statements have been published- I do not know to whom they are attributed- to the effect that the site was cleared for bauxite mining. That is not quite right either, because the Queensland Government has reserved an area up and down the coast and to a certain extent inland which, as an Aboriginal reserve, cannot ever be used for rnining. It is not available to the rnining companies. It is not part of their lease.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But Old Mapoon is. The mining lease is held by Comalco.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-I beg to differ. There is a story about burning down the huts.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr Deputy President, I want to raise a point of order. The honourable senator is reading from a brief. It has been badly compiled. I think that he should not be able to read his speech in this Parliament. He ought to be made to comply with the Standing Orders and not read his speech.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Order! No point of order is involved. I think that the honourable senator is referring to copious notes. At the same time I think that the honourable senator should adhere to the Standing Orders.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I am not even reading from copious notes. I am using as notes a few words on a page.

Senator Keeffe:

– Just a letter from the Premier.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The honourable senator may read it if he likes. I will give it to him. As I was saying, the position with regard to the buildings on this settlement being burnt down is that after the people had left the place and eventually had gone further north a few of them were sent back to clean up the rubbish. They did a few days work there. They burnt the rubbish. Some of the original shacks are still standing. What is more, for Senator Keeffe ‘s benefit the

Queensland Government built a holiday home for residents of Old Mapoon so that they could come back and stay there, for fishing and hunting or for sentimental reasons if they wanted to. It was hardly ever used.

Senator Keeffe:

– I thought you said it was full of hookworm. There is too much hookworm to live there but not too much for holidays. Make up your mind.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I can make up my mind. After Senator Cavanagh’s conference at Weipa- I do not know how many were present there- one newspaper report said ‘Blacks will defy State over land’.

Senator Poyser:

– Which newspaper was that?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– It was the ‘Courier-Mail’ of Friday, 1 November.

Senator Keeffe:

– At what page?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– At page 9. It contains a quotation from the statement which was apparently made to Senator Cavanagh by a Mrs Jean Jimmy, an original Mapoon resident. She is supposed to be one of those going back there. Senator Cavanagh did not investigate the health position or the other conditions that I have mentioned. According to the Press reports he has agreed to give the people more transport and some camping gear to start another settlement in this unsuitable spot. In case Senator Cavanagh wants further information on the position I will quote from a letter from Reverend G. L. Filmer of St Paul’s Presbyterian Church, Gordonvale. He was the last missionary in Old Mapoon. Amongst other things, he wrote:

The only wrong thing with moving Mapoon is that it was not done ten or fifteen years ago. Most of natives who were there 6 years ago were reasonably educated- they could read, write, handle currency, owned motor boats, horses, radios, rifles and all spoke English. They could live in a town as well as any white man (which has been amply proven) and the impression gained will be that such folk ought not to be on a reserve at all.

It is a reasonable thing however for an uninformed person to ask, ‘ Why not let the people stay on their original place? ‘

The Presbyterian Church and the Queensland Government would have been only too happy to do this, only for the fact that the old site of Mapoon is less than worthless- in fact it was a constant liability. The site is on an exposed peninsula; the whole terrain consists of deep drifts of sterile sand which is very hard to cultivate without the addition of huge quantities of humus and water. The sand causes buildings to topple, blows into every nook and cranny under the pressure of high winds, penetrates stationary engines, ruins the mechanisms of vehicles and causes eye troubles among the children.

The area is impregnated with hookworm, resulting in anaemia and low resistence to illness. Plagues of mosquitoes are frequent. I have been all over Queensland and have not seen the flies worse anywhere. Anyone who has been told that Mapoon is a good place has been gravely misinformed, and it is small wonder that during the 10 years from 1950 to 1 960 there were no fewer than 7 superintendents.

Senator Keeffe:

– Who said that? What is his name?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– He is Reverend G. L. Filmer. He is in charge of St Paul’s Presbyterian Church at Gordonvale. It was mentioned as part of the Weipa story that, according to the Minister’s informants, conditions at Normanton were not good. Not long ago Mr Dexter, who is the senior officer in Senator Cavanagh ‘s Department, and Dr Coombs visited Normanton. I think that they made a report about it. I do not know whether it was a written report. They agreed that conditions in Normanton were pretty good.

Senator Cavanagh:

– When was this, senator?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-I will try to find the date for the Minister. The report was made and a limit was put on the number of houses that could be built each year in Normanton. When I was last in Normanton- not too long ago- I saw the type of houses that the Queensland Government is building for the aboriginals there on the high ground near the old railway station. They are proud of these cottages. They have plenty of room, a good water supply and room for gardens. At the present rate if they can only get enough money to build these houses- not have it cut off- they will have the whole problem at Normanton under control.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Normanton told us that they will not build another aboriginal house there until the Queensland Government puts water there.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I do not know about that. I am talking about the visit of Senator Cavanagh to Weipa- the week before last, I think it was. I should like to quote again from a rather lengthy answer from the Queensland Hansard of 31 October. A question was addressed to Mr Hewitt, as the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs. The question was:

  1. 1 ) Is he aware of the present visit of Senator Cavanagh to Weipa?
  2. What is the nature of the visit and is it causing further disruption and unrest among Aborigines?
Senator Keeffe:

– Who asked the question?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

- Mr Crunchen asked the question on behalf of Mr Ahern. The answer was as follows:

  1. 1 ) and (2) From Press reports and a telegram two days ago from Senator Cavanagh, I understand that he is visiting Weipa at the end of calls at a number of other centres. There is no doubt that the visit is designed primarily to endeavour to create unrest and disharmony amongst Aboriginal people, and I would forecast also for party political purposes in view of the election, but especially as a result of a particularly vitriolic attack on him and his department by a group of Aborigines in North Queensland. I have a copy of the message sent to him, but at this stage must respect the privacy of those who told him they have no trust in him or his department. 1 am sure that the whole exercise is most embarrassing to Senator Cavanagh and must have been aggravated by yesterday’s efforts in Canberra when the people his department has been financially sponsoring for so long, finally turned upon their masters. I very much regret having to foreshadow his intent as I have at all times endeavoured to encourage both the Commonwealth Government and others to refrain using Aborigines as political ‘footballs’ and political pawns’. My information on the so-called Weipa conference conveys that it is a determined attempt by radical people in North Queensland, as a result of manipulation by Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs’ officers and others, to create distrust and unrest amongst former residents of Mapoon. The vast majority of these people over many years have established themselves in conventional urban society in many towns in Queensland and are raising families of whom anyone could be proud. The Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs through its various agencies, has gathered together numbers of the former residents from Silkwood, Townsville, Cairns, Normanton and other northern centres. Senator Cavanagh, with an entourage of Canberra officers, is visiting Weipa today in a VIP aircraft, but also there have been at least three special aircraft charters, at public expense, including a DC3, to convey people from Cairns, Normanton and northern centres. There is no doubt that a preliminary meeting at Weipa yesterday, under the chairmanship of Mr Joe McGuinnes of Cairns, who is well known for his radical left-wing attitudes, is nothing more than designed to tear at the heartstrings and the emotions of such people, who are well adjusted, and are bringing up their children as normal and conventional Queenslanders.

It can do nothing more than create further emotional and family disruption and probably destroy the painstaking work of years on the part of the families, the Presbyterian Church and my Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs, who have done all possible to assist in the transitional stage of urban living which the people voluntarily undertook. 1 can only express my extreme sorrow that a Minister of the Crown would be associated with such a project. There is no doubt in my mind that the whole exercise is a deliberate attempt designed to force upon Queensland’s citizens, the recommendations of the Woodward Report in the Northern Territory and the objectives of the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which are to create black’ States inhabited only by Aboriginal people in an apartheid situation, to the overall detriment primarily of the people themselves and secondly Australia as a nation. I must emphasize that the site of the former Mapoon Mission has been preserved by the State Government as a holiday area and people encouraged to visit there from time to time as they would wish and numbers have done so. I have no doubt that the majority of the former Mapoon people are wise enough to see through the obvious manoeuvres of this diabolical attempt to subvert them from being citizens of Queensland and Australia and reject it with the contempt it deserves. 1 am informed that last night at Normanton, the Minister’s response to a simple request by the local authority (the Carpentaria Shire Council) for a few thousand dollars to improve the water supply, to permit extension of services to more Aboriginal homes was a threat to virtually annihilate the town by fostering a separate ‘village’ of Aboriginal people. Surely apartheid in the extreme! Yet at the same time, he must be aware that his department’s secretary, Mr 13. Dexter, and the chairman of his Advisory council, Dr H. C. Coombs, have stated that the rehousing program for Aboriginal people at Normanton is more than satisfactory and proceeding at a rate within the absorption capacity of the

Aboriginal people and the town itself. After his tour of the west and visits to some selected centres, including border camps of refugees from his Northern Territory policies which he himself has described as a national disaster, he claims neglect and underspending. Until he became Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, he probably was never out of a city or into the spinifex and seen Aborigines in real life. I must refute such allegtions by this despicable dealer in despair of his own creation. The facts are that contrary to his claims, his own actions have virtually condemned hundreds of families to despair by his diverting to other States more than three million dollars, allocated by the Commonwealth Treasurer to Queensland in his budget. Surely he will recall his approval of one million dollars, as advised in the following telegram of March 22:- ‘Your telegram re housing funds stop Minister has just approved of your being authorised to undertake additional commitments up to one million dollars during current financial year against additional funds of this amount being included in next years allocation stop This course being adopted because release of additional funds now would require appropriation by Parliament and would take time stop If however you have savings on other sections which could be utilised for housing this could be authorised with ministerial approval stop Should you favour this course as well please provide details.’ He further gives the lie to his words of underspending by his own letter of May 26, 1974, which reads: ‘. . . I refer to your letter of May 1 1974 detailing the anticipated carry-over of funds as at June 30, 1974 and recommending a further commitment against the 1974-75 program of $1,271,000 to be used to continue the housing program. I am now pleased to inform you that I have approved a further commitment, making a total of $2,271,000 of additional funds available to continue the 1973- 74 housing program. My department will adjust the 1974- 75 request to include the additional commitment . . . ‘ How can anyone have confidence in a Government comprised of such persons! I am sure honourable members would be interested in hearing the attitude of a number of Aborigines as conveyed in a telegram on October 22 to Senator Cavanagh, a copy of which has been made available to me:- ‘. . . So far you have done nothing to help Mapoon people except promises stop.

Yesterday police and DAIA threatened Jerry Hudson in Weipa not to return to Mapoon stop Transport is needed now supplies are needed now stop We are busting our guts to keep supplies going to keep police and DAIA away from Mapoon while your useless mistrusted office ‘boys’ in Cairns write you false reports stop In our books you are just as bad for your braggadocio false promises and time-wasting tactics while the people with the guts are now being threatened and intimidated and you have the gall to say you are waiting and considering a further report stop Just where do you stand? If you stand at all stop Whose side are you on anyway? You shot your mouth off saying you would fund Mapoon as soon as people moved back stop They trusted you and your promises but you have let them down very convincingly stop You have had one month to put your money where your mouth is but again you have failed miserably stop Meeting must be held in Weipa or Mapoon where the real people are where the action is taking place stop Restrictive boycott with the Press and TV and the people will be put on any such meeting in Cairns stop Also this meeting must be organised by one of our North Queensland representatives who is trusted by the people not Grimwade nor Wallace stop Give us Joe McGuinness to organise this meeting stop We won’t accept any other of your stooges stop By the way we used our own money for this telegram. ‘ A report just to hand from Cunnamulla advises many complaints from the Aboriginal people there about the visit of Senator Cavanagh and more particularly members of his party, who invaded their homes and their privacy for photographic purposes without prior permission or approval. A petition of objection has been delivered to the department’s officer who says the people are particularly irate over the photographing of a young lad standing outside a toilet door. They consider this a gross invasion of personal privacy and are seeking legal advice on possible action against the offenders. I sympathise with the people of Cunnamulla who have been subjected to such intolerable circumstances as a result of the Senator’s visit and can assure them that whatever action my department can take to redress their wrongs will be readily available.

Senator Cavanagh has made a statement that he intends, amongst other things, to try to throw open the Queensland reserves to any Aboriginals who care to go to them. I think that he is a little out of touch with the Aboriginal councils which run these reserves. He is not fully conversant with the position. I have been to Palm Island and to other reserves. I have met the members of the councils who have been elected by the people in a democratic ballot. One thing that the Aboriginal people want to keep is this permit system which allows people to come to the reserves only with a permit.

I will take the position on Palm Island. There is accommodation for about 1,200 people there. All the facilities are there for that number of people. If the reserve were thrown open to Aboriginal visitors from all over Queensland and elsewhere I am sure that as it is such an ideal place to live the population on the Island would probably double in a short time. What would be the position then? The houses would be overcrowded and there would be many other problems. There would be more people than the water supply, power and other services could cope with. I think that Senator Cavanagh should respect the wishes of the elected councils regarding this matter of the permit system. Whatever he thinks about other things, about the reserves and about what the Queensland Government has done- he has the right to his opinion on those matters- he should respect the wishes of the local people regarding this matter of the permit system. Every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island reserve in the State has its elected council. Most of the councils are pretty well run. They have asked that this permit system should be continued. They have asked for a few other things. I think the Queensland Government will give them some of the other things they have requested. They want 3 laws changed, but certainly not the permit system.

I should like to refer to one other matter. Probably it does not directly concern this question, but it concerns the question of grants for Queensland. We know that communication is not good between the Torres Strait Islands. The whole area is studded with reefs, and there are other problems. The matter of communication between the other Torres Strait Islands and the base at Thursday Island has been looked at for a good while. The Queensland, authorities have come to the conclusion that the most suitable means of communication would be to build strips for light aircraft on the islands which are big enough, which have enough level land and which have suitable materials. The question of a hovercraft, which has received some publicity lately, has been considered. Apparently Senator Cavanagh has decided to introduce a pilot scheme using a hovercraft. I do not know whether he has actually ordered a fairly large sized hovercraft to communicate rapidly with these islands.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do you oppose that scheme?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I do not know how a hovercraft will operate over the coral reefs that are to be found just on the waterline. There will have to be fairly good navigators. But one matter has not been mentioned, and I know it well. At certain periods of the year the Fly River, which runs out of Papua New Guinea into the Bay of Papua, brings down enormous quantities of rubbish including big logs. The logs are difficult to see because they float just on the waterline. They float right across Torres Strait into Queensland waters. I have seen them in Thursday Island harbour and when making trips to Horn Island to get a plane. I have seen the men who run the ferry for a distance of about 2 miles have to cut back their engine to one-half or one-third speed in order to try to dodge these logs in Thursday Island harbour. I would hate to think what would happen to a hovercraft if it hit these logs.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It would go over them.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I have my doubts about that.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Have you seen one operate?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I have seen them in the English Channel and in other parts of the world. I believe one operates in Sydney Harbour.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is not a hovercraft.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The ones that I have seen in the English Channel are. I only hope that there will be no accidents with some of these marine hazards in Torres Strait. If something hits one of these reefs or logs or other obstacles, I only hope that there will not be any fatalities or anybody seriously injured. I make it quite clear that I am not opposing the provision of money for Aboriginal housing and for the other things covered by this Bill. All I am saying is that there is not enough money for Queensland. It has been cut back unjustly and unnecessarily.

Senator Rae:

– And in breach of faith.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– And in breach of faith. We have the position where the Queensland Government is obviously spending all this money, despite what Senator Keeffe said about the Queensland Government being behind in its spending, and it will now have to cut back on Aboriginal housing to the detriment of the Aboriginal people. During the hearings of Estimates Committee G we were told that there were 29 building societies in Queensland run by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, but apparently they have not yet got off the ground. It will be some time before they are in a position to build a substantial number of houses. Even if Senator Cavanagh refunds this amount of $3,190,000 to those organisations, he will not get many houses built in the 7 months between now and 30 June next year. I recommend that he reconsider this matter and get the Queensland Government to continue its housing program at a greater rate. As has been pointed out, Queensland has one-third of the total number of Aborigines in Australia, and the Queensland Government has been housing Aborigines pretty well in many areas which I know pretty well. I hope that Senator Cavanagh will reconsider this matter and give the money to the Queensland Government if it can show that it can get on and build these houses. I just want to state quite clearly that we want to see that we get the money for housing for Aborigines. We are not against the legislation in any way at all. I hope that Senator Cavanagh will get some better advice from some of his Queensland advisers or else change his advisers so that we can get on with the job of housing the Aborigines in my State.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

-Under standing order 364 1 move:

That Senator Lawrie table the documents from which he quoted and which he stated were extracts from the Queensland Parliamentary Hansard.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do the documents include the alleged telegram?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Milliner)- Are you prepared to table the documents?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

- Mr Hewitt included the telegram in his answer. I am prepared to table all the documents.

Senator POYSER:

-I ask that they be tabled by resolution of the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– Like my colleagues I do not oppose the Bill. As a matter of fact I personally welcome it and particularly welcome the substantial overall increase for Aboriginal advancement in Australia. I have found nothing wrong with, and am not ashamed of, using the words ‘Aboriginal advancement’, even though the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) seems to find something wrong with them. I personally and many of my Aboriginal fellows find nothing wrong with money being allocated for Aboriginal advancement as the advancement must be taking place in a new environment that is different from what was the Aboriginal way of life before the 1788 invasion of Australia. As I say I welcome the Bill and particularly welcome the increase in expenditure on Aboriginal advancement. Like my colleagues I too am concerned that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has seen fit to take away from my State a substantial amount of money- some $3.1 9m.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He has not taken it away.

Senator BONNER:

– It is being taken away from the Government of Queensland. It is a breach of faith because in the Budget that amount of money was included in the overall amount that was to be made available to Queensland. I intend quoting from the Minister’s second reading speech. It gives me some idea of the pettiness of taking this money away from the Queensland Government so that it would not have this money to expend on Aboriginal advancement. The Minister said:

Not only have the Queensland Premier and the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs refused to co-operate, they have refused even to participate in discussions on matters of mutual concern to the Queensland and Australian Governments in the Aboriginal affairs field.

In effect the Minister is saying that he will pick up his marbles and go home. Unless other people are prepared to talk to him and to do what they are told he will take their money away from them so that he will get credit for what the Australian Government is doing for Aborigines. The Minister is not prepared to give any credit for what was done over a number of years before 1967. It was only in 1967 that the Australian Government or the Commonwealth Government, to use its correct title, came into the field of Aboriginal affairs at all in the State. To my knowledge the Commonwealth Government had the responsibility for Aborigines in the Northern Territory. I do not think anyone should boast about what happened in the Northern Territory under the Commonwealth Government or even under the now supposedly Australian Government.

The Minister, during his wanderings through Queensland, made some very nasty comments in relation to the Government of Queensland. I wonder how many members of this chamber, including the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, really and truly understand the situation in Queensland as it has existed for a number of years. Queensland, as has been stated before, has the largest number of Aborigines of any State in the Commonwealth. There are approximately 60,000 Aborigines there. In Queensland some 27,000 to 30,000 Aborigines are known to live on government communities or mission stations and are regarded as assisted Aborigines. The State Government in Queensland, over a number of years, has accepted responsibility for these Aborigines to the extent that it provides for these communities in every field- education, health, housing, the whole box and dice of what is required. But the balance between the 27,000 to 30,000 Aborigines who live on government communities or mission stations and the 60,000 Aborigines in Queensland- that is the 30,000 Aborigines who do not live on Aboriginal communities- are not being catered for by any government- the Commonwealth Government, the State Government or the present Australian Government, as it calls itself.

Just recently, after the referendum, the Commonwealth Government decided that it would accept some responsibility by channelling funds into each of the 6 States for Aboriginal advancement. Since that happened Queensland has received not an equal share, pro rata of population, but has received some moneys from the Government in Canberra for Aboriginal advancement. Out of this amount the Queensland Government, through the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs, has provided a very substantial number of houses for Aborigines. I might add that these houses are a credit to the Government and particularly to the people who work in the Department, who have chosen wisely and have chosen the best houses that the money could provide. Some of the Aboriginal people in Queensland are certainly living in far better houses than I could provide for myself and my wife. They have wall to wall carpets, all modern conveniences and everything that the heart could desire.

Senator Milliner:

– Where are these homes?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Give me the addresses of some of them.

Senator BONNER:

– There are some in Rockhampton. If the Minister is prepared to come to Ipswich I am quite prepared to take him around and show him some of these houses. As a matter of fact if the Minister would like to come to Toowoomba anytime he likes I will show him a number of houses there. Houses of this sort have been built in Townsville, Cairns and Mount Isa. The Department built all new houses in Mount Isa. The Department has been building some 10 houses a year which cost within the vicinity of $13,000 or $15,000 each. The Department is still building them. There are many other areas to which I could refer such as Mareeba. I could go on for the next half an hour talking about the different places.

I am surprised that Senator Milliner should ask such a question. Being a senator from Queensland, he must go around with his eyes shut or he has no interest in Aboriginal affairs whatsoever. He can take his pick; whichever cap fits he can wear. I think the Queensland Government has a reasonable record. I am not trying in any way to paint the Queensland Government lily white. It has made mistakes. It has not always done what I thought it should have done or what other Aborigines thought it should have done in relation to Aboriginal affairs. But at least it has tried. We are told by the Minister that he will reduce the amount of money by some $3,190,000.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is not so.

Senator BONNER:

– There is no point in the Minister’s saying that this is not what he will do because this is what he is doing. Then the Minister tells us that he will make money available to a number of Aboriginal housing societies. Far be it from me, as an Aborigine, to reject the involvement of Aborigines in Aboriginal affairs. But by the same token, would it not be far better in this instance- if the Minister desires to support Aboriginal housing societies by all means he should do so- not to do this at the expense of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs which is able to administer this scheme at cost. The administrative cost comes out of the resources of the Queensland Government. It does not come out of the money which is allocated by the Australian Government for Aboriginal housing in Queensland. Consequently, any money which is made available to the Queensland Government for Aboriginal housing is spent by the Department on housing.

On the other hand, if we take that $3m-odd away from the Queensland Government and give it to building socities, they in turn have to set up their own machinery. They have to pay for expertise. As Senator Keeffe read out, they have to get advisers, consultants, architects and the whole box and dice. These expenses will have to be paid out of this money thus reducing the amount which will be spent on actual housing. Again the only people who lose out are the Queensland Aborigines, not the Minister. He will still get his salary. He will still be able to live in his nice home. But a number of Aborigines in Queensland will miss out. It was stated by Senator Keeffe that the Queensland Government- let us refer more to the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland- did not spend all the money which was allocated to it last year. That is not so. The Queensland Department spent all the money which was allocated to it. As a. matter of fact, the money which is provided in this Bill has already been committed by the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. It has been committed to the extent that the Department, from now to June next year, will not be in the market for the purchase of houses for Aborigines over and above the money provided in this Bill. For someone to say that the Queensland Department did not spend the money which was allocated to it is quite wrong.

Senator Rae:

– It overspent by $2m with the Minister’s approval.

Senator BONNER:

-Thank you, Senator Rae. It overspent and the Minister okayed that. He has said that he will reduce the Queensland allocation this time by that amount and that Queensland will get only the normal amount which will have to be allocated out of the money which will be made available to Queensland now. So Queensland spent not only all the money last year but also it has already committed this money which it has not yet received. If that does not show to all and sundry that the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs is trying to do a good job by providing as many houses as possible for Aborigines in Queensland then I am a Dutchman. I w3l be the first black Dutchman in captivity. The Minister, in wandering around Queensland, made some very nasty comments about housing in Queensland. The Queensland Department would if it could give every Aboriginal in Queensland a house to live in. But it can only work within its budget. It can only use the money available to it. If honourable senators look at the Bill they will see it shows that this financial year Queensland will get from the Australian Government $10,362,000. This is a very nice gesture. But when we put that alongside the amount of some $7m provided from the Budget of the

Queensland Government it does not look so jolly good.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

Senator BONNER:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to matters pertaining to the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. There was some mention that the Department had not spent all the money which had been allocated to it for Aboriginal advancement. It was, I believe, Senator Keeffe who mentioned this and it was sort of backed up by the Minister. In his reply will the Minister give me proof that the Queensland Department has not spent the money, or will he inform the Senate how much money that Department has spent on Aboriginal advancement out of its allocation from the State Government? I am aware that the Department has used all of the money that has been allocated to it for Aboriginal advancement and, in fact, has fully committed the amount of money that will be allocated to it under the Bill we are now debating.

Earlier I pointed out the problems faced by the Aboriginal people in Queensland. Queensland has approximately one-third of the total Australian Aboriginal population. I am very conscious of the conditions under which many of my Aboriginal fellows live in the State of Queensland particularly in the outlying areas. The conditions in some areas certainly are not what I would want or what the Aboriginal people themselves would want. But again, it is a matter of finance to provide the kind of housing that is needed in those places. If the Federal Government, the Commonwealth Government, the Australian Government- it is confusing these days- accepted the responsibilities given to it following the referendum in 1967 it would ensure that sufficient finance was made available to the different States, and particularly to my State of Queensland, so that housing can be provided for many of my people who live under pretty shocking conditions, because they do not have the finance to provide the homes themselves. I believe it is the responsibility of this Government to ensure that the indigenous people of Australia live under conditions equal to those enjoyed today by every other Australian.

I again question the allocation of money by the Australian Government to the various States, and particularly to my own State. I have already referred to the matter of housing. Now let me mention welfare and refer to the amounts of money to be allocated to the States by the Australian Government. In New South Wales some $270,000 is being allocated for Aboriginal welfare. An amount of about $384,000 is being allocated for South Australia and in Western Australia the amount involved is $1,468,000. But when we look at the allocation for Queensland we find that it is a mere $70,000. 1 find this hard to understand. I am hoping that the Minister will clarify this when he replies and that he will give us some reason why the State of Queensland is not getting at least the same amount, as if not more than, is being allocated for Aboriginal welfare in the other States. After all, there are more Aboriginal people in the State of Queensland than there are in any other State of the Commonwealth. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us a good reason and not the kind of reason that was mentioned by Senator Rae who said that it is because the Queensland Government is not prepared to do as the Australian Government wants it to do or is not prepared to be dictated to by the Australian Government. Again Queensland seems to be missing out on the kind of finance that is required for Aboriginal welfare.

I want to comment on some of the issues that were raised by Senator Keeffe in relation to my State of Queensland. He said that fruit and vegetables were not grown on Aboriginal reserves, and he seemed to blame the Queensland Government for this. I point out that I lived in an Aboriginal community for 17 years, namely Palm Island. All my children were born there, and were partially raised and partially educated there.

Senator Rae:

– How do you think your experience compares with Senator Keeffe ‘s?

Senator BONNER:

– In relation to what Senator Keeffe said, from my experience I think it is ludicrous that he should say that these things were never provided in these communities because in my day on Palm Island I was the assistant settlement overseer responsible for a workforce of some 350 men and women. We had a farm on Palm Island in those days. We milked some 120 cows. Every household was provided with milk; every household was provided with free vegetables. As a matter of fact, I recall many a day when I would send from the vegetable room back to the farm to be given to the pigs dray loads of cabbages, cauliflowers, lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, the whole box and dice. But that happened under the bad old Act of Queensland, you know, that racist Act that was talked about in Queensland when there were approximately 1,500 people living on Palm Island and every able bodied man was required to do a certain amount of work to provide those things in the communities. But the Act was changed because various people said that it should be changed and they brought in what was called cash economy and then the people were not required to do this kind of work. They could do as they liked. The farm today is a wilderness. They have completely done away with the dairy farm and the dairy farm now is just a wilderness. Consequently, the people on Palm Island are suffering because of people like Senator Keeffe and those who cried for the Act to be changed.

Senator Keeffe mentioned a place called Old Mapoon. This issue is being completely blown out of proportion. I realise that there are many of the old people from Mapoon who have a desire to return there because this is the place where their people lived for perhaps thousands of years, but because of its isolation and because it is almost impossible to service, the Government in Queensland decided that in the interests of the people perhaps another settlement should be established for them. I personally as an Aboriginal, more as an Aboriginal than as a Senator of the Commonwealth, spoke to many of the older people of Mapoon. Yes, Mr President, they want to be able to return to Mapoon but only for short visits. They want to be able to take their children back to the place of their birth, to the old sites and to the sacred sites. They want to be able to show the young people how it was before. They want to be able to take the young people back to the springs. They want to take the young people back and show them what was Aboriginal culture in the old days.

The old people realise that they can no longer live there as they used to do prior to the coming of the white man. They wish to educate their children. Mr President, they wish to give their children the same opportunities that you, I and everybody else wish to give our children, but the Aborigines still have this desire to go back on occasions. It is on special occasions that they wish to go back to that place, when there are stories that they must relate to the children- stories of the Dream Time and of the culture of the Aboriginal community prior to the white man that they wish to tell to the younger generations. Like you and I, Mr President, they are realistic and intelligent people. They know that they can no longer live there because of the advances that are being made now by the Aboriginal people. They want their children to enjoy everything that every other Australian is enjoying today. So much for the bluster and that kind of thing that goes on in relation to Aboriginal people.

Much needs to be understood about the Aboriginal people; much needs to be understood of the thinking of the Aboriginal people. Many young Aboriginal people today are becoming educated and more sophisticated. Last week many young Aboriginal people were out in front of Parliament House demonstrating and trying to show to us here in Parliament that all is not well in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. As many of the young men said to me, they were not demonstrating against Government policy. Although I sit on this side of the chamber, I do not condemn many of the policies that have been brought forward by the present Government. I give credit to the Government for many of its policies. I think that it has instigated policies that perhaps my Party when in government should have instigated. But let that be. The people who demonstrated outside Parliament House were demonstrating against the implementation by the Department of some of the policies.

The money that has been allocated for Aboriginal advancement is not getting down to the grass root levels where it is needed. It is not getting down to the people who are in need. It is being eaten up in administrative costs. It is being administered by people who unfortunately do not understand the Aboriginal people and who cannot understand the feelings of Aboriginal people. As I have said on so many occasions, it is about time that the Department started to employ and involve competent Aborigines. I am talking of the mums and dads who have suffered discrimination and prejudices and who have come up the hard way but who today, because of their hard work and their perseverance, are living in the community in decent homes which they have obtained by the sweat of their own brows. I am talking of those people who are holding down good jobs and who are educating their children. These are the people who can be utilised. They can be employed time and time again at the Estimates committees hearings concerning the employment of Aboriginal people in the Department. We have in the Department an Aborigine who through his own guts and determination got himself to one of the highest positions in the Public Service that an Aborigine has been able to reach. He has done this through his own guts and determination. What is he in the Department? In his own words, he is a lackey in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. He says that he is treated like a lackey.

Senator Rae:

– Who was brought to the Estimates Committee?

Senator BONNER:

– I asked why in the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs not one Aborigine was present. I was told by the Minister and by the

Secretary that Mr Perkins was invited and he said that he had nothing to contribute. He came to Parliament House to a dinner engagement. I spoke to him outside the chamber and I challenged him on this subject. I said: ‘Charles, why are you not at the Estimates Committee? Why are you, the lone Aboriginal at a high level in the Public Service, not down at the Estimates Committee?’ He said: ‘I was not invited. I was told by the Minister a few hours ago about the Estimates Committee meeting and I was under the impression that it was a Public Accounts Committee to which I had already given evidence.’ Mr Perkins reiterated at the meeting, when finally under pressure from my colleague Senator Rae he was brought forward to say something, that he was not invited. We hear so much from the Government of its aim to involve Aborigines in the decision making process in the Department. In what greater way can we involve Aborigines in decision making than in that Department, which has the responsibility for Aboriginal administration throughout the Commonwealth?

I wish to comment briefly on what is now called I think, the mission at the front of Parliament House. In 1972 when the Aboriginal people set up what they termed at that dme an embassy I was against what the Government did because I believe that the Aboriginal people have a right to demonstrate. Until such time as a building is provided in the capital of this nation, which used to be their nation, where Aborigines Will have a permanent lobby, they have every right to do what they are doing today in front of Parliament House. If the Government and the Parliament of this nation will not provide a permanent lobby for the Aboriginal people, the Aboriginal people have every right to sit out there on the lawns in front of Parliament House. Yes, it might embarrass the Government. Yes, it might look unsightly. Is there anything more unsightly than some of the things that I have seen around this nation- some of the conditions under which the original inhabitants of this nation are living?

Is there anything more unsightly than to see the Aboriginal people in a place such as Camooweal? Camooweal is a little town with one hotel, one police station, one general store, a cafe and half a dozen houses. It is out in the wide open plains. There is hardly a tree in sight. When I visited there I saw Aboriginal women and their children, babes in arms, living in a series of constructions which consisted of 2 sheets of galvanised iron 6 feet long and 3 feet in height, side by side, with a sheet of iron over the top. They crawled into them in day time temperatures of 1 10 degrees. People say that what is in front of

Parliament House is unsightly. They should go and see some of the conditions under which some of the original inhabitants of this country are living. Certainly it is unsightly but so are the conditions under which I see Aboriginal people living.

It seems to me that the time is fast approaching when Aboriginal affairs will be taken completely out of the political arena because for far too long the Aboriginal people of this nation have been used as a political football. I believe that the time is fast approaching when we will have to set up- I do not care what you call it, a commission or whatever- a statutory body which is completely administered by Aborigines and responsible to Parliament.

Senator Rae:

- Senator, is it your belief that there are sufficient Aboriginal people to be able to conduct such a statutory corporation or do you agree with the other attitude that has been expressed that there are already too many in the Department?

Senator BONNER:

– I believe in respect of this body that, as is the case in every other department and every other statutory body, expertise can be bought. Aborigines have the expertise in Aboriginal affairs. They have the understanding of Aboriginal people. They have the communication with Aboriginal people and if they need expertise in the fields of housing, agriculture and the various industries they can purchase that expertise. But at least, for God ‘s sake, let the Aboriginal people administer their own affairs.

I support the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Rae, because I believe that in this BUI Queensland has been victimised and the Aboriginal people of Queensland will suffer by being deprived of this amount of money for housing. Certainly the Minister will say: ‘We are taking it away with one hand and giving it back with the other’. As I pointed out earlier, that is not completely right, because $3. 1 9m, from what the Minister is saying, will not go to housing in its entirety. Much of it will be eaten up in administrative costs. We should allow that amount of money to go back to the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs, which, as I said earlier, has the machinery to carry out this work. If the Minister in his sincerity, and I congratulate him for it, wants to involve the Aboriginal people in housing societies then he should make the extra funds available to the housing societies, but do not deprive the Aboriginal people of Queensland, through the Queensland Government, of that $3. 19m. So I support the amendment moved by Senator Rae which reads: but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government’s action in reducing the grant to the State of Queensland by $3,190,000 is a petty action which is contrary to the best interests of the Aboriginal people of Queensland and that the Government should take immediate steps to grant to the State of Queensland the further sum of $3,190,000 as promised in the Budget.

I support that amendment with everything I have. I would say finally that if the Government supported the amendment it could not be accused of double standards in this Bill in relation to Aboriginal affairs.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– I too rise to support the amendment moved in respect of the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1974. The issues have been covered most completely and it was most heartening to hear our only Aboriginal senator issue a damning refutation of some of the charges that have been laid against the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Government today as being somewhat less than the truth. The facts of the matter are simple. Queensland has approximately onethird of the Aborigines in Australia and for many years has received approximately one-third of the revenue granted to the States for the care of Aborigines. The current Federal Treasurer (Mr Crean) allocated one-third of this amount to Queensland this time. This amount was confirmed in writing by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) and his Department and negotiations got so far as inter-officer consultation.

Then the Queensland Government refused to go along with the Federal Minister’s plan to take over the Aboriginal reserves in Queensland. In what appeared to be a fit of pique the Minister excised that portion of the allocation that he could excise, the $3. 19m we are talking about now, from the grant to Queensland and thereupon allocated that amount, $3. 1 9m, to the other States. Queensland remonstrated about this and the Minister, apparently realising the extent of his act of discrimination against the Queensland Aborigines, suddenly decided that he could pull $3. 19m out of a trust fund and that is what he is attempting to do now. I presume that the money will come from the $9m he failed to spend on Aboriginal housing last year. It cannot be described as anything less than an act of discrimination against Queensland ‘s Aborigines because they are the ones who will suffer. The Minister proposed to excise the 16 Aboriginal reserves from Queensland and turn them into 16 separate States. Imagine the vastness of the administrative problems that would create, particularly if white men are not allowed to go on these areas, as was proposed. We would have our own

Berlin Wall type Australian Labor Party apartheid set-up in Australia. This, of course, was the issue which the Queensland Premier stood on in rejecting the Minister’s proposals- and, I think rightly so.

The charge that was laid earlier that the Queensland Premier would not speak to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has no basis. The Premier refused to talk to the Minister only about the Woodward report which, of course, recommended that this be done. I was fortunate lately to have been appointed a member of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory and sent to help write new legislation for selfgovernment in the Northern Territory. The Committee visited many of the Federal Aboriginal reserves in the Territory. Of course, it had a lot of plans that it put to the Aborigines and asked how they would like to be represented in the new Northern Territory legislative assembly and sought thenviews on different electorates, different candidates and different methods of electing members. To a man on all those reserves the Aborigines rejected those plans saying: ‘That would be discriminating in favour of the black man. If you discriminate in favour of us you are discriminating against the non-Aborigines ‘.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where did you go, Senator?

Senator SHEIL:

– Banyili, Roper River, Nhulunbuy, Yirrkala, Maningrida, Umbakumba and plenty of other places. I was proud of the Aborigines for the way they decided that they just wanted to be Australians. They even said: ‘We have a body like you, we have blood like you. We are Australians and we want to be treated as Australians. We do not want to be discriminated in favour of or against. ‘ On the subject of discrimination in Queensland, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and another senator in this chamber have said that Queensland provides an outstanding example of racism. I point out that Aborigines can move to and fro on those reserves quite freely. The arrangements are completely voluntary. They seek shelter on the reserves. For an Aborigine, going on to an Aboriginal reserve is something like joining a club. There are rules to follow if one joins any club or association, just as there are rules in this Parliament and rules for belonging to the Australian Labor Party. If one wants to be in those sorts of associations one has to obey the rules. I might say that I think the rules allowing one to belong to the ALP are a lot more stringent than any that apply to Aborigines in Queensland.

Senator Milliner:

– What about the hospitals that are condemned?

Senator SHEIL:

– Which hospitals are condemned?

Senator Milliner:

– The one you own.

Senator SHEIL:

– I have never heard of that one.

Senator Milliner:

– What about the fire risk at Fermoy Private Hospital at Auchenflower?

Senator SHEIL:

– It is not condemned.

Senator Milliner:

– It is not? Have a look at the fire brigade report.

Senator SHEIL:

-It is licensed. What has that to do with Aborigines?

Senator Milliner:

– Have a look at the fire brigade report.

Senator SHEIL:

– I have seen the fire brigade report.

Senator Milliner:

– Do you want me to get the Hansard report?

Senator SHEIL:

-A11 right. The honourable senator had to revert to arguments on other subjects. That certainly shows the weakness in his argument.

Senator Rae:

– Tell us again of the promises the Government made to make this money available, the promises it is now breaking.

Senator SHEIL:

– I mentioned earlier that the Minister had actually signed that he would deliver this money but in a fit of pique he refused it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where is that?

Senator SHEIL:

– It is in correspondence. I can provide the Minister with the quote from the Queensland Hansard report if he wants it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I think Senator Lawrie did that but he did not establish anything.

Senator SHEIL:

– Well, Mr Minister, try your letter. Finally I invite the Minister to send a joint parliamentary committee to Queensland to look at these places, to read the relevant Act and to see whether there is anything discriminatory going on in Queensland. I am sure he would find, to his joy, that Queensland has the best administration for Aborigines and that they are happy. Tonight we heard Senator Bonner speak in glowing terms of the Queensland Administration. I assure the Minister that he and his delegation would be most welcome to go around any of the reserves in Queensland. I support the amendment.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I do not want to say a lot about this Bill. I have had the pleasure of talking at some length with Aboriginal leaders and I intend to renew those contacts because I greatly enjoyed learning more in this field. The one great factor I came away with after my first real meeting on that level was that those people really wanted to be Australians and to end discrimination in this community. I think that the amendment proposed by the Opposition would further discrimination, not end it. I listened with great interest to Senator Bonner, and especially to -

Senator Rae:

– Ha, ha!

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I shall have something to say about Senator Rae a little later in my address. One of the great flaws in the Opposition case in this matter is that it has Senator Rae putting it. I will elaborate on that matter at another time.

Senator Rae:

– Thank you. My word can be taken.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I will illustrate how a senator’s word is not to be taken as he puts it. A man who has promoted the untruths as Senator Rae has done is not the man who should lead for the Opposition on this very delicate question. Senator Bonner said very rightly that this should not be a political question. One understands, of course, that there is an election campaign in Queensland at this time and that this is a very political debate in this chamber. As I understand it, in 1967 the Australian people directed that Aboriginal affairs was to become a matter for the Australian Parliament.

Senator Bonner:

– The people gave the Australian Government the right to make laws pertaining to Aborigines. I do not remember anything in that referendum which said that the Australian Government should take over the responsibility of the State departments in any State.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It certainly gave the major responsibility for Aboriginal affairs to the Commonwealth Government and, as I understand it, under this legislation that Government has made arrangements on a negotiated basis with all the other governments concerned with Aboriginal affairs except the Queensland Government. As I understand it from the arguments put from both sides of the House, the Queensland Government has not agreed with the Australian Government.

Senator Bonner:

– The Queensland Government is not prepared to shirk its responsibilities as other States have done.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I do not agree that the South Australian Government has shirked its responsibilities in this matter. I had something to do with the early stages of this transition. On both sides of politics in South Australia there has not been a disagreement nor an assessment that the South Australian people or the South Australian Government, of either colour, has shirked its responsibility by co-operating with the Commonwealth Government. This legislation is being discussed here by the Opposition as if somehow the Queensland Government is the chief beneficiary of it. I thought we were dealing with the welfare of Aborigines in Queensland rather than the Queensland Government which Senator Rae is supporting in his amendment. I am not enamoured of the Government led by Mr Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland as far as it represents Australians in that part of Australia. I have no doubt that he will be returned to office on a minority vote in that State but for a number of particular reasons he is not regarded outside Queensland as an estimable leader of Australians. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) outlined in his second reading speech instances of the Queensland Government being unwilling to talk with the Australian Government about Aboriginal affairs. I find that an incomprehensible action on the part of a government which at least has a duty on behalf of the people it represents to consult with the Australian Government. No valid excuse has been given in this House as to the inaction of the Queensland Government in this matter. None has been forthcoming and I cannot envisage that any will be forthcoming which will excuse the laxity and apparent determined intention of the Queensland Government to ignore its responsibility in this matter.

Senator Rae:

– Did you know that Mr Hewitt, the Queensland Minister, is in hospital at this moment otherwise there would be a meeting next Monday? Did you know that?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-As I said earlier, Senator Rae is not a responsible senator in regard to this matter. I can demonstrate to the House, and I might do so directly if he continues to pursue this vein, that his word is not to be taken as it is said. I am not concerned with Senator Rae in this debate.

Senator Rae:

– How about responding?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-May I tell the honourable senator that I am not concerned with his utterances because I do not necessarily believe them.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Please disregard Senator Rae’s interjections and address the Chair. The interjections are disorderly anyway.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-And probably not believable either, according to the record. Let us disregard the Senator whose words are often not believed. The situation therefore seems to me to be that one has to give credence to the Minister when he says that he will make available to Queensland a sum greater in total than the amount voted here, plus the amount which it is said has been subtracted from the sum mentioned in regard to this debate. I understand that at a later stage the Minister will assure the House that Queensland Aborigines will not receive less than the amount which is contained in the vote plus the amendment. I ask the Minister if that is to be the case.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is so. It will get an additional grant.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-The Minister assures the Senate that this is the case. We are talking about the welfare of Aborigines in Queensland whom we want to remove, as soon as the Federal Parliament can do so, from a discriminatory area. Therefore the amendment is irrelevant. What we are talking about is the inability of the Queensland Government to accept its responsbility to talk to the Australian Government about the welfare of Aborigines in Queensland. That is the essence of the case.

Senator Bonner:

– The Minister has already made an appointment.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– If the Queensland Minister intends to talk to the Federal Minister we can therefore accept the word of the Minister in this House that the Queensland Aborigines will not be affected detrimentally by the sum which is to be provided for them. If that is the case, what are we talking about in regard to this amendment? It seems to me that we have got into the situation which Senator Bonner says we should not have got into- that is the political arena- in relation to Aboriginal welfare in Australia and particularly in Queensland. I regret that. From my contact with Aboriginal leaders I believe that this is quite the opposite direction from that which the debate in this House should take. I would not support amendments to the motion for the second reading of the Bill.

Senator Jessop:

– Which leaders have you contacted? I think you ought to tell us.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– If Senator Jessop cares to take his lead from Senator Rae he can believe what he likes. I will not tell Senator Jessop names because I respect confidences in this place and outside it.

Senator Jessop:

– You would not know an Aboriginal leader.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, I do not care what Senator Jessop thinks and therefore his remarks are irrelevant to me.

Senator Jessop:

– You stated that you had had communication with the Aboriginal people. We respect that. I think you ought to say -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I must insist that Senator Hall be heard in silence.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I find it remarkable that Senator Jessop thinks that I cannot talk with Aboriginal leaders. I do not think that the leaders of the Aboriginal community would refuse to talk to any honourable senator. In my contact I have found them determinedly nonpolitical. Therefore I believe that they would talk to any honourable senator. I think that Senator Jessop ‘s interjection is peurile

Senator Jessop:

– I know more Aboriginal leaders than you do.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I congratulate Senator Jessop. I do not intend to be mean about that. I hope that he sees more of them and I congratulate him for it. I will not demean those congratulations by making any other remark.

Senator Jessop:

– I have sat with these people in a camp fire environment. The honourable senator has not done that.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– My word! The honourable senator is very astute indeed to know all these things.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask Senator Steele Hall to disregard the interjections and to address the Chair.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-I am sure that Senator Jessop will enlighten us directly. In basic terms it seems to me that the argument has become political. We have got away from the Minister’s assurance in the vote before the House that the Queensland Aborigines will not suffer any financial deprivation by the deliberations in this House. Senator Rae has come along with an amendment which is in traditional form. It is in the style of an amendment he moved before. I suppose that when the amendment is defeated- I hope it will be because I intend to vote against it- he will go away and telephone some news editor and get someone to print up some fashion of story about how it was defeated. This time I would like him to tell the truth for a change. I would not like him to rush off, as he did to the newspapers in Tasmania, and put up a story which inferred very great untruths about Tasmanian senators and myself. I hope that Senator Rae will tell whomever he will rush away to telephone directly- I am sure that he will- the truth as to why at least I did not vote for this amendment. The reason why I will vote against it in the first instance is that it has been moved by Senator Rae and I do not trust him. After my previous -

Senator Rae:

– I will quote that.

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LM; LP from June 1976

– Let me finish. After my previous experience with Senator Rae -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask Senator Rae and Senator Bonner to desist from interjecting and I ask Senator Steele Hall to address the Chair.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Yes, Mr President, I shall. After my previous experience with Senator Rae I do not trust him. I hope that when he tells people that I helped to defeat his amendment he will tell them the reason- that I do not trust him.

Senator Rae:

– That is a very poor reason.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-There are other reasons. That is the major reason. Another reason is that Senator Rae is injecting politics into an area in which party politics should not intrude to this degree. He is trying to take advantage by using the Senate in the guise of moving an amendment to the motion, although no doubt he will rush out and infer that it was an amendment as he did with the Bill relating to Tasmania. After seven or eight days a letter was printed in South Australia which went on, in the cold, hard light of fact, to infer that I had voted against money for Tasmania. In fact, the way he put it -

Senator Rae:

– It obviously cut you to the quick.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-I am sure. It cut so many people to the quick that I understand legal action is being taken by others against the honourable senator. I do not take legal action; I take political action. I say that for the honourable senator’s information. I remember in regard to the other Bill- I think I should mention it in passing because it is pertinent to this amendmentthat Senator Rae moved an expression of opinion that the Government should do something more in relation to financial aid for Tasmania. Yet in a letter printed in a newspaper in South Australia he said: ‘This would have honoured a promise made before the 1972 and 1974 elections.’

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

- Mr President, I take a point of order. I think that the speaker should be asked to keep to the Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Senator Steele Hall to connect his remarks to the Bill.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I submit that I am doing so because I said, in addressing myself to this point, that I was doing so in passing to give judgment upon the amendment- or should I say the expression of opinion- which Senator Rae is moving to insert into the motion for the second reading of this Bill. I think it is relevant to illustrate the type of activity in which Senator Rae is engaging. As I said in relation to the Tasmanian Bill, Senator Rae tried to insert into the motion for the second reading an expression of opinion but in the South Australian Press- he viciously attacked me on my home ground- the honourable senator said: ‘This would have honoured a promise made before the 1972 and 1974 elections by the Prime Minister.’ It would have done no such thing. It would not have honoured anything. It was an expression of opinion. To the public of South Australia the word ‘honour’ means that it would have voted a certain sum of money to Tasmania. That was a distinct falsehood. I use that example in the hope that the honourable senator will not try to use that very undesirable practice of inferring what did not occur. May I compliment him on his letter? As Senator Withers would know, no one could have read -

Senator Withers:

– If you understood English you would know that he may have implied it but you inferred it.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Not at all. I do not know whether Senator Withers helped Senator Rae write the letter. I would not know whether Senator Rae was capable of doing so. I was told that he had assistance at a very high level in writing the letter, even above Senator Withers’ level. I can give Senator Withers a copy of the letter if he does not happen to have read the document. He will find that it contains almost half a column of attempt to tell an untruth.

Senator Missen:

– I take a point of order, Mr President. If reference to Tasmania was irrelevant I suggest that the literary style of a certain honourable senator is even more irrelevant. Senator Hall is ignoring your ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have asked Senator Hall to connect his remarks to the Bill. I expect him to do that.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I thank Senator Missen for his point of order because I think the point has been made. I come back to this companion or parallel attempt by Senator Rae to do as he did before, this time in regard to the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill. I make some matter of this only because I do not want the public to be misled again by Senator Rae in similar fashion. I hope that he will at least tell the public- if he intends to rush away to a telephone directly- why some people do not like his particular amendment. It is seen, at least in my case, as an attempt to influence the election in Queensland by putting a clause in the Bill which is against the Australian Government and is for the State Government of Queensland. It is an attempt to use politics. It is an attempt to use this particular Bill, which is for the welfare of the Aboriginals, politically. I will not vote for an amendment which will make Aboriginal welfare suffer because some politician wants to gain some votes from it. For that reason I will not vote for Senator Rae ‘s amendment. I hope that if he tells people why I do not support his amendment, he will tell them that the first reason is that I do not trust him and the second reason is that 1 do not want the welfare of Queensland Aboriginals to be made a political football as Senator Bonner himself has said it ought not to be. 1 will hold Senator Rae to the responsibility of telling those he informs that those are the 2 major reasons why I will not support his amendment.

I have little more to say. I would like to indicate to the Minister that I will certainly support him. I will support the Minister in those areas where he can endeavour, by new forms of legislation, to give personal responsiblity to Aboriginals who have not previously experienced it. He will have my support in any moves he makes in that regard. Let me say to the Opposition that it will have my opposition when it tries to stick to the methods of the past and refuses to venture into an area which gives dignity to the Aboriginal people and ends discrimination against them, as has been acknowledged in some areas of administration by the Queensland State Government. I therefore support the Bill and oppose the amendment so futilely moved by Senator Rae.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I oppose the amendment moved by Senator Rae. Of course, if he wants to interject and make rude comments I suppose he is entitled to do that. Tonight he tried to convince people about the terrible things on the lawns of Parliament House. But he did not tell the Senate that he was over there talking to those people one day. It amazes me that Senator Rae has the temerity to talk to us about the terrible people on the lawns of Parliament House.

Senator Rae:

– I did not say they were terrible people. I said I upheld their right to protest.

Senator MILLINER:

-Senator Rae was talking to those people on the lawns in front of Parliament House when he should have been at an Estimates Committee meeting. So Senator Rae should not play that game with me. It is amazing how Senator Rae, in support of his arguments, referred to an editorial in the ‘Courier Mail’. Is it not amazing that he did not refer to other sections of the editorial? I will refer to the editorial of 25 October 1974, which is headed ‘A time for a change’, which stated:

The Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Councils have acted wisely, and certainly not before time, in recommending changes to the State ‘s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Acts.

The changes sought are a good deal less than sweeping, but they do cover some of the areas which understandably have brought charges of undue control over Aborigines.

The Premier (Mr Bjelke-Petersen) is committed to make any changes to the controversial Acts sought by the councils. The alterations decided upon this week by a conference of Aboriginal and islander leaders must be put through without delay.

I ask honourable senators to note the date of that editorial- 25 October. Further on it states:

The recommendations want it made clear that Aborigines and islanders have complete freedom to manage their own property. So they should have.

There are more comments but I will not read them to honourable senators unless I am challenged to do so. It is amazing that everything is well in Queensland with the Aborigines. The Premier of Queensland is said to have been the salvation of the Aboriginal population, yet on 25 October the anti-Labor ‘Courier Mail’ was pressing the Queensland Government to introduce drastic amendments to the Act in the interests of Aborigines. What did the ‘Courier Mail’ say? It said that the Aboriginals must be given greater authority over their own property. What does the Minister want to do in this matter concerning which he is now being criticised?

I wish now to relate my remarks to Estimates Committee G, of which Senator Rae, Senator Bonner and Senator Sheil were members. What came out of those discussions in relation to this matter? The Minister said that he was going to pass a sum of money over to the Aboriginal councils. Mr O ‘Rourke of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs was asked where the Aboriginal housing societies were located. Mr O ‘Rourke said:

Mount lsa, Cloncurry, Red Lynch.

The Chairman then interrupted and said: One in each of these places?

Mr O ‘Rourke said:

Yes. Black Community Centre is in Townsville.

That gives us four to start with. Later on, pressed as to where the remainder of these councils were by Senator Bonner- Senator Bonner did not refer to this this evening- Mr O ‘Rourke said that they were at:

Yumba Meta, Jupiter, Mossman. Burdel Community Cooperative at Ayr, Kuranda, Yarrabu, Innisfail, Stradbroke Island, Mareeba, Hughenden, Cardwell, Mackay, Bowen, Ingham, Mount Garnet, Aurukun, Mossman, Torres Strait Co-operative, Erub Co-operative, Moa Island, Horn Island, Prince of Wales Island, Nanyetta and Bundaberg.

Bear in mind what Senator Bonner himself said should be done- more authority should be given to the Aboriginals to run their own affairs. What precisely, is the Minister doing in this legislation? Yet he is being criticised for it by some pious motion that even if it were carried would not matter one iota -

Senator Withers:

– Well why do you not vote for it then, if it does not matter?

Senator MILLINER:

-I will not vote for it because it is a futile exercise in political jiggery. The honourable senator knows that is true. If Senator Withers had seen the smile on Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s face when he was talking about the amendment he would have formed the same opinion- the opinion that we know to be true.

I say, with respect, that the members of the Opposition, particularly the Opposition members on Estimates Committee G- Senator Rae, Senator Bonner and Senator Sheil- had every opportunity to press for information in relation to this matter we are debating this evening. But not one of those honourable senators pressed their point in relation to this matter. I refer honourable senators to page 395 of the Hansard report of the meeting of Estimates Committee G which was held on 22 October 1974. Senator Bonner asked a question about an Aboriginal who was supposed to be receiving money for a hostel in Queensland. Senator Bonner was asked to name the person so that the matter could be investigated. He was told that if he did not want to do that he could see the officers of the Department afterwards, give them the name, they would investigate the matter and take it to its conclusion. Whether he has done that I do not know.

Now I come to Senator Sheil. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind that Senator Rae, who is the Opposition spokesman on Aboriginal affairs, did not ask one question about this matter in the hearings of the Estimates Committee. Senator Sheil, to his credit, did ask a question about it. I will read what Senator Sheil said because it is important that honourable senators should know what he said. It is also important to know the Minister’s reply. It is important to know that Senator Sheil then said: ‘Well, I am satisfied about that now. ‘ Yet he has the audacity to stand up here tonight and criticise what this Government and this Minister in particular are doing. At page 395 of the Hansard report of Estimates Committee G Senator Sheil is reported to have said -

Senator Rae:

– You are -

Senator MILLINER:

- Senator Rae did not ask a question about this matter. He has a great interest in these matters! Senator Sheil said:

In the Treasurer’s Budget Speech - (Quorum formed.) I was about to relate to the Senate what was stated in the hearings of Estimates Committee G. I said that Senator Rae had no interest in Aborigines on that occasion but that Senator Sheil did, and I give him great credit for it. This is what Senator Sheil said:

In the Treasurer’s Budget Speech, he budgeted for $30Vim in grants to Queensland, and that would have been about one-third of the total allocation which was opposite. But you, Mr Minister, in your States Grants Aboriginal Assistance Act, reduced that $ 1 3 V% m to $10 1/3m. That is a drop of something over $3m. Talking about the housing in Queensland, most of that allocation you maintain is going to be spent through Aboriginal groups in Queensland primarily for housing, and yet in the Treasurer’s speech he said that the housing allocation last financial year was underspent by $9m.

Some words were spoken by Senator Cavanagh and then by the Chairman, Senator Keeffe. Then the Minister said- and this bears out precisely what Senator Hall has said tonight:

The difference between the $13m and the $10m, which would normally have gone to the Queensland Housing Commission will now go to Queensland Aboriginal housing organisations.

That is precisely what Senator Bonner said should be done. The Minister continued:

So there will be no reduction in the houses in Queensland for the Aboriginal people, but there will be more funding through the housing organisations than through a Government that we cannot have a conversation with.

The Chairman made some comment, then Senator Sheil said:

It is still in the bank accounts, as I understand it.

The Chairman said: lt is still in bank accounts and various areas allocated to various districts and so on.

Senator Cavanagh said:

With the Queensland Government?

The Chairman said:

Yes.

That was the end of the conversation. Yet we came in here this afternoon to hear Senator Rae, who never asked the Minister or the officials of the Department one question about this matter, try with all the sanctity in the world to condemn the Minister for, in effect, trying to by-pass the Aborigines in Queensland in relation to their financial entitlements.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do you trust Senator Rae?

Senator MILLINER:

– No, not in the slightest, Honourable senators opposite do not tell all the story. It is an amazing thing that they denigrate the Australian Government for what it has done for Aborigines. Later in the hearings of Estimates Committee G, when again dealing with Aborigines, Senator Cavanagh said:

I would like to say, to clear myself on a statement that I made earlier, 1 did speak to Mr Perkins at Tullamarine Airport last night and did discuss the Estimates Committee today.

Senator Rae:

– Would you trust Senator Cavanagh?

Senator MILLINER:

– Yes, entirely; of course I would. He does not go down and curry favour with the Press as Senator Rae does. Mr Perkins was paraded tonight as being downtrodden by the Department. In the hearings of Estimates Committee G Mr Perkins said:

When you said the Estimates Committee I was under the impression you were meaning the Public Accounts Committee. At that time I was on my way back from Swan Hill where I had attended a conference. … I was never informed that it was an Estimates Committee: so my impression was that you were talking about the Public Accounts Committee.

Senator Cavanagh had the audacity to say to him:

I mentioned the Estimates Committee.

Mr Perkins said: Yes, you did.

Yet it is suggested tonight that Mr Perkins knew nothing at all about it. Let us try to nail something else that was said tonight, because Senator Rae adopts some very low attitudes when he comes into the chamber.

Senator Poyser:

– 1 rise to a point of order. I heard Senator Rae interject that Mr Perkins was browbeaten into something by the Minister. I think that this is highly offensive and that it should be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not amongst the words that are called objectionable. It is inelegant, and I would like the honourable senator to withdraw the words, as he has been requested to do. Senator Rae, are you prepared to withdraw the words, as you have been requested?

Senator Rae:

- Mr President, I certainly do not want to cause the debate on this matter to be drawn out by a debate in relation to whether, under the Standing Orders, inelegant as opposed to unparliamentary words are to be withdrawn. May I simply put it on this basis: Rather than you being committed to require an honourable senator to withdraw an inelegant word I will, at your request, be happy to say simply that I do not want any trouble.

Senator Poyser:

– You are a man of peace.

Senator Rae:

– Yes, I am a man of peace in relation to this matter.

Senator MILLINER:

-Earlier tonight we heard Senator Bonner say that he met Mr Perkins outside and asked: ‘Why do you not come to the Estimates Committee meeting?’, or words to that effect. Mr Perkins, when giving evidence on oath, is reported at page 405 of the Hansard report of Estimates Committee G of 22 October as saying:

I happened to come along because I had dinner tonight at Parliament House with friends who invited me. I was not invited by anyone to be present here.

Yet tonight we heard one honourable senator opposite say that he met Mr Perkins outside and invited him to come to the meeting. Mr Perkins continued:

I was under the impression that it was a Public Accounts Committee meeting; that is why I made the suggestion I had nothing to contribute.

Yet 2 minutes later, in the same document, he is reported to have admitted that the Minister, being disgusted with him, told him that it was an Estimates Committee meeting, and he agreed that the Minister had said that to him. Where do we go when people try to bolster up their case with such outrageous statements about what happens at Estimates Committee hearings? We heard earlier that Estimates committees were the saviours of the nation, and that they must continue. Yet Senator Rae, the ‘alleged’ spokesman for the Opposition on Aboriginal affairs, did not ask one question about what is now regarded as a very important issue. How can Senator Rae say such a thing as that and sleep with his conscience?

Senator Rae:

– There are pages and pages of questions which I asked in the Estimates Committee.

Senator MILLINER:

– On that issue?

Senator Rae:

– On matters related to Aboriginal affairs.

Senator MILLINER:

- Senator Rae has not asked one question on that issue and he knows it. He is condemning himself out of his own mouth. I refer to Senate Hansard of 12 November 1974, at page 2287, which records a question asked by Senator Georges of Senator Wheeldon in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. The Minister for Social Security in the answer he provided to Senator George’s question referred to the fact that the Queensland Government requires private hospitals to meet fire safety specifications. He went on to say

The names of the approved private hospitals which currently have adverse fire reports and the principals or proprietors of these hospitals are . . . Fermoy Auchenflower . . .

The Minister stated that the owner was Dr G. Sheil. I shall read further from the answer and refer to some of the fire reports from the Fire Brigade, an independent authority in Brisbane. The Fire Brigade referred to Fermoy and gave the dates of fire reports as being 17 September 1971, 19 November 1973 and 10 December 1973. There are extracts from the fire report of 10 December 1973. The report states:

Attention is drawn to previous report 17 September 1971 especially to comments re poor design- materials of constructionhigh fire risk and recommendation that building be replaced with first resistant structure having a 4-hour fire resistant rating.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What building was that?

Senator MILLINER:

– Fermoy Hospital which is owned by Senator Sheil. The report continues:

Since the latest fire report the proprietor has not indicated his intentions regarding the implementation of these recommendations.

That report defines the public risks in a private hospital which is owned by Dr G. Sheil. I was challenged -

Senator Cavanagh:

– Does he have patients in there?

Senator MILLINER:

– Yes, of course he has. I was challenged to read that report. I did not want to raise it but I was challenged to do so. I accepted the challenge with a great deal of enthusiasm because I have the utmost respect for the Fire Brigade in Brisbane. I have no respect for the Queensland Government which has not enforced the report of the Fire Brigade in Brisbane. The Queensland Government has not done so and honourable senators are at liberty to place their own construction on that.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– When one holds parliamentary office one must face the slings and arrows that are used by one’s fellow members of Parliament. Senator Milliner did not rise to speak on matters relating to Aboriginal affairs but rose in an attempt to slate Dr Glen Sheil. I say that that is his parliamentary privilege and perhaps the honourable senator’s character is revealed by that type of move in a debate on Aboriginal affairs. He is more interested in slating one of his fellow senators than he is in debating Aboriginal affairs. He criticised a building that is owned by Dr Glen Sheil apparently because the Brisbane Fire Brigade has not approved a building of some years as having an up to date standard of fire protection. As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Accounts I read reports of the Commonwealth Fire Board on many occasions which showed that buildings owned by the Commonwealth and the Australian Government would not be approved by the Commonwealth Fire Board because they did not meet the up to date standards of fire protection. Senator Milliner might well take that into account and perhaps be a little truthful when he speaks on matters such as this. I do not doubt that hundreds of hospitals throughout Australia, including my own State of Victoria, which were built years ago could not, having regard to the costs which are applicable today, meet the appropriate fire standards and ratings that are set today. I suggest that the large majority of those buildings are owned by the Commonwealth or the Australian Government.

The matter that we are discussing is one of importance. The States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill appropriates some $40,790,000, in a way in which the Australian Government feels it should be appropriated, for Aboriginal affairs. It is useless our saying, as Australians, that we are not a racist nation. I refer to a question answered by Senator Cavanagh. It is a matter of great interest. He was asked by Senator McManus whether he would accept the definition of Aboriginal. Senator Cavanagh replied and put on record in Hansard what we all feel is the definition today apparently of an Aboriginal, not what should be the definition of an Aboriginal. Senator Cavanagh said:

The accepted definition- the definition accepted by the McMahon Government-was a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait descent who accepts himself as an Aborigine or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he lives. This Government has accepted that definition which, as I have said, was the one accepted by the previous Government.

I believe I recall correctly an answer to another question asked of Senator Cavanagh since that time in which he stated that he was dissatisfied with that definition. I think I am correct in saying that.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are not correct.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Well, I beg you pardon. To me the definition seems most inappropriate for an Aboriginal. I thought I could remember some comment by Senator Cavanagh that the official definition should be changed.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No. One of your colleagues was to ask me whether we had considered it and he backed out of it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I see. I know there was something that went into Hansard on this matter. If it could be found it would be interesting. The Australian society apparently is willing to have one group within its community which, if that group wishes to declare itself as being of a particular race, will be accepted by the Australian society as being of that race. If that occurs an appropriation similar to the one before the House would then be directed to those people. Aboriginals, at least in the 1971 census, were counted as people separate from the Australian community. The population statistics for Aboriginals in 1971 show that, of some 106,290 individuals, 53,919 were male adults and children and 52,371 were females. I imagine that it would be our aim to encourage all the finance that is available to be appropriated by this Government to assist the less fortunate of the Aboriginal race. Some of us, and I myself, feel that there are instances where persons who have declared themselves Aboriginals over the years perhaps do not require the special race assistance which is being meted out by this Government today. The most important matter which should face us under the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill- this is of particular importance to the Senate- is that the amount of $40,790,000 was allocated as set out by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) at page 74 of Budget Paper No. 7. The volume of money which would be paid to the 6 States is there set out. Senator Hall when he spoke this evening prompted the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) twice. I prompt the Minister again because I know him to be an honest man. Senator Hall said that he would support the Bill because the Minister had given a promise that the money which had been denied Queensland in the allocation made under this Bill- that is the amount of $3,190,000 which had been taken away from Queensland- would be allocated in Queensland in various forms to assist Aboriginal groups. Senator Hall twice got the Minister’s promise that that money would be spent in this year. I hope that if the Minister does not hold to that promise he will have sufficient fortitude to resign at the end of this year.

Senator McLaren:

– Oh, what nonsense.

Senator WEBSTER:

-We hear the comment from Senator McLaren: ‘Oh, what rubbish’. I think that is typical of a Labor man. You can say one thing today and if you do not keep to it, it ‘s a case of ‘Oh, rubbish’. That is a typical comment by Senator McLaren. I know that he often comes out with that sort of thing. The honourable senator may think that. I do not believe that of the Minister. Perhaps that is the reason why some members of the Labor Party are Ministers and some are backbenchers. But I believe the Minister. He has given a promise to a senator that the $3, 190,000 which has been taken away from the Queensland Government will be applied in other areas of Queensland. I hope that promise will be adhered to. The Minister has said that and he has encouraged an honourable senator to vote with the Government against the amendment.

Senator Cavanagh:

– If I keep my promise will the honourable senator resign? Now he is doubting my word. It should be a reciprocal arrangement.

Senator WEBSTER:

-One can never tell. I am at risk at the next election so I might have to resign. I do not think the Minister is necessarily at risk. I may have a forced resignation; the Minister may not.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Earlier attention was drawn to relevancy. I would like the honourable senator to connect his remarks to the matter which is before the Senate.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I acknowledge your comment. Having let Senator Milliner go on while he slated Senator Sheil I believe that you will allow me the liberty of talking on Aboriginal affairs.

The PRESIDENT:

– On a previous occasion someone made the mistake of saying that 2 wrongs do not make a right. I ask Senator Webster to please bear that in mind.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am speaking on Aboriginal affairs. I am speaking about an allocation of $40m. Nothing could be more closely associated with this Bill. The fact is that an honourable senator has said that he will vote for this Bill provided the Minister gives a promise that the $3,190,000 which has been taken away from the Queensland Government- although promised to it in the appropriate Budget paperwill be expended in Queensland in this year. The Minister has twice given that promise. I draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that the $3,190,000 which has been taken away from Queensland has, under this Bill, been reallocated in other amounts to the other States. The amount of $3,190,000 has been taken away from Queensland. The original grant in the Budget was $13,552,000. It has now been downgraded to $10,362,000 which is a decrease of $3,190,000. That money has been allocated to the other States. I draw the attention of the Minister to that. I hope he will tell us whence the $3, 1 90,000 will now come.

Under the Bill with which we are dealing an extra $1,877,000 has been allocated to New South Wales, $730,000 has been allocated to Victoria and $583,000 has been allocated to South Australia. That makes a total of $3,190,000. The Minister might well chew the butt of his pen. I think it is a very serious matter that a Minister would encourage an honourable senator to believe that that money which has been taken away from the Queensland Government will be spent within Queensland with various Aboriginal housing societies and other groups. I point out to the Minister that this cannot be done. I believe that he should get Senator Hall to come back into this chamber. Perhaps he is working in his room and listening. I believe that the Minister should say to Senator Hall that there is another area and point out to the honourable senator from where this $3,190,000 will come because in truth, Minister, you have allocated it to the other States.

Senator Rae:

– What about the breach of faith aspect? Apparently Senator Hall does not mind that undertakings were given by this Minister to the Queensland Government authorising it to spend the money and now he is not giving it. It is a total breach of faith.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I take the 2 points made by Senator Rae. I again say that I have every faith in the Minister.

Senator McLaren:

– The way the honourable senator talks he could have fooled me.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator McLaren, that would be one of the easiest things to do in this chamber. I do not take any pride in it if that has happened. I ask for leave to table the figures which I have mentioned. They are in columns indicating the amount allocated by the Treasurer as shown in Budget Paper No. 7 at page 74. I really believe that this is not new to the Minister. He knows that that money has been reallocated to other States. I know that the Minister will allocate this $3, 1 90,000 before the end of this year. It will be allocated and paid to other areas of Queensland. My interest and the interest of Senator Steele Hall is: ‘From where will the Government get that money? Will the Minister tell us from where it is coming so that we will know? Undoubtedly we will see a new allocation of money for Aboriginal assistance. I think this is an important point.

Another important point is that if ever there were a Bill before the Senate for rejection on constitutional grounds it should be this Bill. I am not aware of another Bill which has come before the Senate during my time here in which the Australian Government in an attempt to force its view on a State has said to that State: ‘Unless you accept lock, stock and barrel the Federal Government’s policy you will get less money.’ I say for those honourable senators who may be listening and for those who are here that the fact is that that is why the Senate was constituted- to protect State rights. If ever there were a reason, not to deny Aboriginals this benefit, but to maintain State rights that is why this Bill should be defeated. I say to honourable senators from other States that this could happen to them. I say to other State Premiers that this will happen to them. They will see this happen under a dominant socialist Labor Government in Canberra. Unless the States agree with what the Government wants them to do- of course we have seen this in many instances- they will be denied funds. We have heard the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and other Ministers demonstrating the way they feel. I think it is probably their inexperience that makes them act this way. As I have said, this legislation is a disaster for Australia.

I make the point that constitutionally this Bill should be thrown out. We as senators will not be performing our proper task unless we throw this Bill out. We are all enamoured of the idea of $40m being made available as quickly as possible to assist Aborigines. Because this assistance is to be given, the Bill in general will be supported by the Opposition but an amendment will be moved to indicate that we feel the Government’s proposal to reduce by $3m the allocation which was promised to Queensland should not be implemented because it is contrary to the interests of the Aboriginal people in Queensland. The amendment was moved by Senator Rae. I have high regard for him and also for Senator Steele Hall. But I cannot understand why every time Senator Steele Hall speaks on a matter in this Senate the first thing he does is to slate a member of the Liberal Party. I say to Senator Steele Hall, who has been here for some four or five months, that if he can during the time that he is in this place elevate himself to the position and gain the reputation that Senator Rae has achieved amongst his fellow senators in the time that he has been here, he will be very pleased with himself. The comments made by Senator Steele Hall do not reflect my view of Senator Rae.

I have said that the application of the Australian Government’s desire to dominate the States has been a disaster. The word ‘disaster’ is a good word to use when considering the attitude that has been taken to Aboriginal affairs by the Minister. In the adjournment debate on 29 October I raised 2 matters. Honourable senators may recall that I raised the issue of the double standards that were being applied by the Australian Government and consequently we, as Australian citizens, were being carried along with them. We have clothed ourselves with the spite of many people in the world because we voted in favour of South Africa’s expulsion from the United Nations on the basis that South Africa had an apartheid policy and because it practised discrimination. Let me read how Senator Cavanagh is reported at page 2095 of Senate Hansard. He said:

I admit that there are sections of discrimination against Aborigines.

I would have thought that the Minister might have conveyed that information to those who were voting at the United Nations. After all, while we have discrimination and indeed apartheid in this country, we wanted to push out South Africa if we could without taking notice of the other black countries in the world today which practise apartheid. To me it seems to be a most unsatisfactory double standard for us to have. I think that the actions of the Australian Government will not elevate Australia’s position in this and in many other spheres.

Let me turn to the reason that this Government’s POliCY on Aboriginal affairs is a disaster. In the adjournment debate to which I have already referred I mentioned that Senator Cavanagh had said that Labor’s policy on Aboriginal affairs was a disaster. In his speech Senator Cavanagh said that it was not the policy that was a disaster but that it was the implementation of the pOliCY that was a disaster. I know that newspapers misinterpret things but I would like to quote a few headlines which appeared in the newspapers in February this year. The Melbourne ‘Herald’ contains an article headed ‘Disaster, Says Cavanagh’. Another newspaper article is headed ‘Cavangah lashes policy on blacks ‘. Still another is ‘This bungle is a disaster’.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You must keep a scrap book on the Minister.

Senator WEBSTER:

-No, I do not. The Parliamentary Library keeps it for me. The ‘West Australian’ of 27 February contains an article headed ‘We’ve bungled native policy, says Cavanagh’. An article in another newspaper is headed ‘Tattered shreds of a mess go on painful show’. The ‘Canberra Times’ on 27 February contains an article headed ‘Policy implementaton a disaster Cavanagh’. The Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ contains an editorial headed ‘What a mess’. An article in the same newspaper is headed ‘We bungled policy, says Cavanagh’.

Senator McLaren:

– Now read Hansard of a fortnight ago and see what Senator Cavanagh really said. You are misrepresenting him in quoting from newspapers.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am misrepresenting the Minister, says our good friend from the other side. Let me read what the ‘Financial Review’ of 27 February had to say. I do not think that is the proper one to quote, I think it is the ‘Melbourne Herald’.

Senator McLaren:

– That is typical of you.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why not quote from the statement that was issued. It is available.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have some quotations here and they are the best I can get. This newspaper states:

Above everything, Senator Cavanagh is a capable politician. He demonstrated a high degree of courage in his Canberra address yesterday when he admitted in his opening words that Labor’s Aboriginal policy had been disastrous.

On this same matter the ‘Melbourne Herald’ reported:

Senator Cavanagh said that the Government’s policy had injured some aspects of Aboriginal culture.

It -

That is, Labor’s policy- has created in Australia a white man ‘s hatred in many areas against Aboriginals’, he said.

It has had a very big effect on members of the public service who work in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, possibly affecting them physically and mentally. ‘

That article went on to read:

He said that there was developing in the Australian community a section of people who saw a career ‘in championing the cause of the oppressed ‘.

That same article goes on to read:

From the actions that were taken, decisions were made that would not have been taken if we had sat down and reasoned it out thoroughly, ‘ Senator Cavanagh said.

I have referred to those articles because I wonder whether, if earlier this year when the Minister was making known to the Australian public that Labor Party policy had been disastrous in the early days, the public can have any confidence that the same mess does not exist today. Mr President, in raising this comparison you may think that I am getting away from the point but I just quickly draw this comparison in an attempt to show that if there was a mess running earlier this year when the Minister admitted that the Government’s policy was disastrous, it may be that there is still a mess today in this area. To illustrate my point let me refer to the economy which Mr Whitlam said, prior to May, was right and that we are on the up turn.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I object to this on the ground that it is irrelevant. What has what Mr Whitlam said on the economy to do with grants to the States for Aboriginal advancement?

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Senator Webster to connect his remarks to the subject before the Chair.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I was attempting to connect them before Senator Cavanagh got to his feet. I was drawing a comparison when I asked how could we be confident that Aboriginal affairs were being handled correctly today. The Minister made a statement six or seven months ago in which he said it was a disaster.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I did not. It is as truthful as the rest of your speech.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The implementation of the policy was a disaster.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why do you not quote the statement?

Senator WEBSTER:

– The implementation of the policy was a disaster. Do I hear the Minister say anything?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, you do not.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Thank you. The implementation of Labor’s policy on Aborigines was a disaster. What is there to which we can turn today to say that it is not? Under this Bill, the Government is taking certain steps. If one likes to re-read and re-quote what I have just said, one will see that some little time ago Senator Cavanagh was saying that if the Government had stopped and thought it out a different approach would have been taken. I believe that that is what the Government should be doing under this Bill, and not denying Queensland $3,190,000. The Government promised that the housing societies, which in many instances are yet to be formed, will spend this money within six or seven months. With 2 months of close down ahead of us, it would be almost a physical impossibility to do so. I was getting to the point that Mr Whitlam told the people before May that everything was right with the economy. We know that today it is worse than it was before May.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are straying again. Get back to the point.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am making a point. I am glad that Senator James McClelland has come in to listen. It will probably do him good to hear something about Aboriginal affairs. The point in relation to the matter is that there has been great sorrow over a period. I do not know whether it is the shame of what was brought out at the Public Accounts Committee meeting in relation to the former Minister and the correspondence that he sent to every member of Parliament telling them to take no notice of what the administrative officers of the Department had said on Aboriginal affairs. One can rest assured that Aboriginal Affairs was in a complete mess. I have some confidence in the present Minister. He is a fairly hard handed sort of Minister. He may be getting the Department on to a better basis. I feel that what he is doing under this Bill -

Senator Cavanagh:

– For God’s sake, sit down. You are driving all of us crazy,

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not doubt that I am driving you crazy.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is a standing order that refers to tedious repetition. I draw Senator Webster’s attention to the fact that he is being repetitive. He should deal with the subject before the Chair.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And tedious.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I acknowledge that the Minister said that. Undoubtedly we will see that the President’s ruling is applied to others. I believe that I am not being tedious, but it might be hurtful and harmful to the majority of those involved in the policies of this disastrous Government.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This socialist Government.

Senator WEBSTER:

-This socialist Government to see what is taking place. In this regard, over the whole series of matters, whether in the statements that were made at the Public Accounts Committee meeting -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For God’s sake, say something.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am saying a great deal.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are saying nothing.

Senator WEBSTER:

-This famous lawyer-if you would give me the opportunity, Mr President, of saying this- attempted all this afternoon, this man from New South Wales, to hit Senator Greenwood on every occasion that he got under the skin of honourable senators opposite. I do not doubt that that has been a designed attempt by Labor in this place.

Senator McLaren:

– I rise on a point of order. Mr President, I ask you to bring Senator Webster back to the Bill. I remind the Senate that Senator Webster, as Chairman of Committees, ought to know better. He enforces his will on other senators. He should be the first to set an example. He should stick to the rules of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Senator Webster to connect his remarks to the Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I certainly will. I am speaking about Aboriginal Affairs. The point I was making was that Aboriginal Affairs was a disaster. The matter is pertinent. We are spending $40m of the public’s money under this Bill. It was only a few months ago that a cheque for $465,000 was sent to a person in the Northern Territory.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are romancing again.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am romancing again? It is just a romance if $465,000 of public money is spent. How could the incident have occurred in a properly run department?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I did not occur. The Press is your informant again.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Your answer is recorded in Hansard. You said that it was sent to a group. If the Minister wishes me to quote from Hansard I will do so. There was a newspaper article headed ‘Cheque is ‘back in custody’ ‘. The article states:

A cheque for $465,000 which had erroneously been sent to an Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory was now back in the custody of the Northern Territory division of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh, said yesterday.

Do you remember saying it?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No.

Senator WEBSTER:

-He does not. That is one reason Aboriginal Affairs may be a disaster. Perhaps it was a slip. Undoubtedly it was. It was meant for a purpose. One cheque was written out. I cannot imagine how it would be. As I understand it, without reading this article further- I do not wish to do so- a fellow tried to cash the cheque at the grocery store. Do not say that I am wrong. I am right.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are totally wrong.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I hope to hear from you.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Sit down and I will tell you.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I hope to hear from you on that matter because you said that I was totally wrong about the block of houses at Redfern for Aborigines. During the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate on 29 October I said that this Government was pursuing an apartheid policy in Australia. It is very well demonstrated in Queensland where Senator Cavanagh and the Government apparently wish to see areas of land taken over and handed to the blacks so that there will be black communities only in that area. Rows of houses will be built, and they will be available only to blacks. It may be the correct policy, but it is an apartheid policy. It is a policy of separate development. I brought this matter up when I was speaking on the South African matter. Senator Cavanagh said:

Misstatements have been made about the tying up of a group of Aborigines in one settlement in Sydney. In Redfern, where the Aborigines mostly live, there is a row of attached houses which not a government but an Aboriginal community purchased and is in the process of renovating.

Let me make the point that- the Minister knows he said this- he referred to a row of attached houses. What he meant to say was that there were a few houses. He said to the Senate that there was a row of attached houses. Perhaps he made a mistake. He may be able to correct it, but let me correct it for him.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is right.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is wrong.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is right.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It is right? When Senator Cavanagh referred in the Senate to a row of attached houses he meant that there is a block containing 74 terraced houses and 2 factories. To date 34 houses and one factory have been purchased. Grants totalling $907,750 will be available for this separate Aboriginal development project. I believe that that is an apartheid policy which the Government is following in that matter. I believe that it is a wrong policy, but it is a policy which the Government is following. I believe that it will be disastrous for Australia. I believe that the Government should stop and rethink its policy relating to Aborigines or it will be doing as it has done in so many other areasstopping, rethinking and doing an about face on policies, as it did on overseas investment and profits for companies. One could go through the whole ambit. This week this great socialist Labor Party has done a complete double flip.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise the point of order which I raised previously. I raised the point of relevancy. Other activities of the Government have nothing to do with the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have asked Senator Webster to connect his remarks to the Bill. I again appeal to him to do so.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I noted no interruption when Senator Milliner took on Senator Sheil regarding a building of his which may have been a fire hazard. For some we do, for some we do not. That is the position as I see it. My remarks were connected to the Bill. I was saying that the policy of this Government relating to Aboriginal Affairs is a disaster.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise another point of order. Mr President, I suggest that Senator Webster is defying your ruling. He was certainly commenting on the foreign policy or the economic policy of this Government, not on the Bill. He immediately commences where he left off in complete defiance of your ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have followed the longstanding practice of allowing honourable senators time to connect up their remarks. I have made a number of appeals to Senator Webster to connect his remarks to the Bill and I again ask him to do so. I must say that Senator Webster has not been using offensive words against any honourable senator. I want him now to connect his remarks to the Bill.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is the same tedious repetition every time he speaks.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Thank you very much, Mr President. I note the point. If you will allow me, I again take up the point I was making and Senator Cavanagh may wish to rise and stop me again. But he knows that my remarks are appropriate and are very much on the subject of this Bill under which we are spending $40m because, as the amendment which has been moved indicates, the allocation of funds is unfair to Queensland. This is incorrect and the amendment should have the support of the Senate. The point I was making is that one can see this incorrect policy applied in so many areas and I say to the Minister: If the Government is changing its mind in so many areas then it should change it now in relation to Aboriginal Affairs and support the amendment moved by Senator Rae.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

- Mr President-

Senator Rae:

– No tedious repetition, please.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– There is no need for it because there is a multitude of inaccuracies to reply to. This has been a rather interesting debate and I think the accusation is well made that it is not until one goes to Queensland or comes into this chamber that Aboriginal affairs is drawn into politics. That is unfortunate. No matter when I first saw an Aborigine or what I knew about them then and notwithstanding what is indicated in the documents of the Queensland Minister, tabled by Senator Lawrie, after some 1 3 months in charge of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs working with a department that is knowledgeable in Aboriginal affairs, and after the miles I have travelled and the thousands of Aborigines I have met, I now have some cognisance of Aboriginal thinking, Aboriginal people and Aboriginal affairs. That knowledge is important and what I have heard tonight indicates that there are very few in this chamber who understand Aboriginal affairs.

I would like to give credit to Senator Bonner. It is obvious that he has a knowledge of this subject but it is unfortunate that he cannot do justice to his people because of his political affiliations. And although he has a knowledge of Aboriginal affairs he has no knowledge of government departments and how they have to work or how they should work. Of course, Senator Rae has not opposed Government policy on Aboriginal affairs and confined his remarks to the Bill. He brought in a political element by suggesting that we were not giving sufficient to a certain brand of government in Queensland.

Senator Rae:

– I did not mention the brand of government.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I know. I mentioned the brand but it has a close affiliation with the hallmark of Senator Rae’s Party. It is said that the Government has adopted this attitude to Queensland because Queensland was not cooperative and Senator Rae suggests that my interpretation of ‘non-cooperation’ is that Queensland will not do as it is told, it will not do as we tell it. As he says, the greatest consideration should not be this ‘I will take my bat home ‘ attitude, it should be the interests of the Aborigines. If that is the only consideration then the amendment means nothing because it is an expression of opinion. Senator Steele Hall came into the debate and, as a political strategist, said that Senator Rae had made another mistake. He sought as the opinion of this Senate that the Government was doing the right thing for Queensland and indicated that he would not get support and that the result will be when the question is put to the vote of the Senate that the Senate will express its belief that we are doing the right thing by Queensland. There has been no condemnation of the Government’s policy. Labor’s policy is essentially land rights and Aboriginal self-determination. It is not a question of our saying what Queensland or anyone else should do; it is what Aborigines should do. And the attempt to get this amendment carried has been based on falsehoods and slander from the start. There is no truth in the accusations. Let us look at and clean up first the expenditure in this field last year. Queensland never spent its grant in respect of Aborigines.

Senator Rae:

– Housing?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– In respect of housing it exceeded its allocation and got my permission to do so. There was granted $1.2m for Aboriginal health which was not spent, and the grant given to Queensland for education and amenities was not fully spent. So while admitting that Queensland overspent on housing, and this extra amount would be deducted from this year’s allocation for housing, Queensland never spent all the money made available by the Australian Government for Aborigines last year. As I have said before, although Senator Webster challenges me on it, there will be no reduction in housing this year as a result of Government policy. Senator Bonner said that there must be a reduction if we give this $3.1m to the housing societies because there will be a duplication of administration and therefore less housing.

Senator Bonner:

– How do you get out of that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I suppose there is some logic in that. Senator Webster said that we have yet to form the housing associations. But is Senator Bonner going to say that we should not give this money to the Aboriginal housing associations when they want to develop housing? Where is his logic there? He is fighting against his own colleagues in making an emotional and passionate appeal here. He wants this Government to give the money to the Queensland Government which has not done the right thing in respect of housing nor the right thing by his own people, as it was put there to do. It is asked: Where are these associations that are yet to be formed in Queensland? I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a list of Aboriginal housing associations that are already formed in Queensland. That list will show that there are at present 8 housing associations on reserves and 25 housing associations operating off reserves, making a total of 33 housing associations operating in

Queensland at this moment, and all of them wanting money to build homes.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– How many houses have they built so far?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Our purpose was their formation but it is alleged that we have stopped that. These associations have either purchased or built a number of houses in Queensland for the benefit of Aborigines.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister seeks to have the list incorporated, ls leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The housing associations have an added benefit. Where they are able to do so Aboriginal labour is employed. They are creating employment opportunities. They are a better avenue. So we have the organisations. The Government believes in Aboriginal participation. It believes in helping Aboriginal societies and that is its motto. It believes in Aboriginal determination and in these people making their own decisions on their own type of housing and in them building their own homes. We are to be condemned because we seek to put the money into co-operative societies and not into an uncooperative government. I want to refer now to the challenge that if the money does not go into housing I will resign at the end of the year. A politician never takes such a risk as offering to resign. However, I am prepared to take this risk if Senator Webster, who knows I will not do it, is prepared to offer his resignation at the end of the year if I do fulfil the promise which he doubts I will fulfil. Senator Rae went on with many other misstatements. He said that we stopped the housing project at Redfern because we stopped the money. The Redfern project has not stopped because the money was not forthcoming. It has been funded on every occasion. There was a stoppage because of a dispute over payment with the builders labourers organisation in Redfern. The Redfern project is going ahead today.

Senator Rae:

– When did that change? When did that come about?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not know.

Senator Webster:

– Were there a few houses, as you said?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Senator Webster was trying to make out that we were making an Aboriginal compound. I said that it was a row of houses. It has now been demonstrated that it is a block of houses facing 4 outlet streets. The dividing fences are being pulled down and they are making it a garden avenue. At present they have 34 out of 74 houses. It is the ambition of the

Aborigines finally to get the 74 houses and establish an Aboriginal community. It is said that this is apartheid.

Senator Webster:

– They can have their separate development.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I told the honourable senator that in the first place. This is Aboriginal self-determination.

Senator Webster:

– And we hate South Africa.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That remark demonstrates the honourable senator’s lack of understanding. South Africa has enforced restrictions. These Aborigines have the same rights as the honourable senator’s relatives have of purchasing a property and saying that they want to live in the homestead on it. They have the same right of freedom. They have complete freedom to live in Redfern or anywhere else. These people are not imprisoned behind barricades as they are in South Africa. Because someone wants to live away from someone else does not mean that they are racist and that this is apartheid. This is a stupid argument that the Opposition has advanced.

I have some sympathy for Senator Keeffe ‘s approach in regard to the money paid to consultants and architects. These are high fees. The practice relating to Government expenditure is that everything has to be processed and there have to be feasibility studies. We get reputable consultants in our Department and they charge the standard recognised fees for the services. Like all professional services the fees are high. However they are one of the things we have to pay.

I tura now to remarks made by Senator Lawrie who obviously was briefed either by Mr Hewitt, the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland, or Mr Killoran, the head of that Department. The only thing wrong with his briefing was that there was no truth in it. It was all lies. Senator Lawrie started off by saying that at no time the Queensland Minister refused to meet me. I want to examine this statement. In accordance with a Cabinet decision I contacted all mainland States. Let me say, firstly, that I have had discussions with Mr Hewitt. Mr Hewitt, like all Liberals, does not bring politics into Aboriginal affairs.

Senator Rae:

– He is a member of the Country Party actually.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Is he? Mr Hewitt is happy for there to be discussions between his Department and my Department. The Liberals in Queensland favour doing what the Liberals in all other Australian States have done and give the responsibility for policy planning and coordination to the Commonwealth Government. Only the Country Party is outside. One might guess that the Country Party has a vested interest. The Aborigines have been a cheap source of labour on cattle stations, on peanut farms and other Country Party activities. They built the cattle stations in Australia with their sweat and their slavery. If we can ever emancipate them so that they can get a decent living the Country Party will have lost a cheap source of labour. We will never be able to achieve that unless we can overcome what is happening at present in Queensland. Mr Hewitt, Mr Killoran the head of the Queensland Department, Mr Dexter and I have conferred. Mr Hewitt was quite happy to have a conference with the Department and to hand over Aboriginal affairs to the Commonwealth Government. However, while he was making that arrangement and before I left Queensland that night the Queensland Premier said in a Press statement that the Government in Canberra would get nothing from Queensland. The Premier made this statement while the responsible Minister was making this agreement with me. Our departments did meet following that but they never came to any decision. I believe that Mr Hewitt took the question to Cabinet. He knew he had the Liberal Party numbers in Cabinet but before the Cabinet meeting the Premier started talking about changing portfolios. The Country Party follows the same procedure as the Liberal Party does and he has the right of selection. He talked about changing portfolios and he got his way endorsed in that Cabinet.

The next matter I want to mention relates to the Woodward Land Rights Commission report. We approached all State Premiers to see whether they would extend to the States what Mr Justice Woodward recommended for the Northern Territory. Again, with the exception of Queensland, we have complete agreement with all States to set up land councils of some description to hear

Aboriginal claims to land rights and to make recommendations on those claims to their governments. We asked the Minister in Queensland to meet us on the Woodward report and to discuss next year’s Budget allocation. He said he would not meet us on the Woodward report but would meet us on the subject of the Budget allocation. I then wrote to the Queensland Premier and asked whether it was any use continuing this fight and whether we could meet and discuss this question. The Premier wrote back and said:

I have your letter of 28 August, 1974, suggesting that we meet to discuss your Government’s proposal concerning Aboriginals within Queensland as it relates to the Woodward Commission Report on Aboriginal Land Rights.

The Premier concluded his letter by saying:

I am sure you will appreciate our attitude and having made this clear to the Prime Minister, I do not see that anything can be achieved by your discussing it either with me or my Ministerial colleague concerned.

Senator Sheil:

– That relates to the Woodward report?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is the Woodward report, and there is the refusal. I asked Mr Hewitt to discuss with me the question of Palm Island at the time he visited this democratically elected council. As a result of the Cabinet decision he refused to discuss Palm Island with me. I said I was not prepared to go there to discuss Budget allocations because we would have to reallocate and we were not going to get knocked back.

Senator Bonner:

– He was disgusted with you.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If the situation is as Senator Bonner stated, that the Queensland Government will not shirk its responsibility- I think that was an honest expression- then he has cast aspersions on every other Liberal State government in Australia. They have shirked their responsibility. Do honourable senators think that the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia are selling the Aborignals out by handing over planning and policies to the Commonwealth?

Senator Bonner:

– Can you tell me what amount of money out of the other States’ Budgets was made available for Aboriginal advancement? I can tell you that the Queensland Government made $7m available for Aboriginal advancement. Can you tell me how much the other States have made available?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I have questioned everyone about relevancy tonight. I do not know that what we have made available to the other States is relevant.

Senator Bonner:

– I am talking about the other States.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The States have made a lot of money available for Aboriginal affairs out of Commonwealth moneys. Queensland has not spent as much as Western Australia on Aboriginal affairs.

Senator Bonner:

– You cannot answer the question.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– You have just been through the Estimates Committees reports and the figures were there. As a result of correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Premier of Queensland, the Premier said that our Ministers should get together. My office telephoned Mr Hewitt’s office to see whether we could make arrangements to see him. We received a reply that Mr Hewitt is in his office on Mondays, he is away campaigning all the week and he is at home at Charters Towers at the weekends. It seemed that it was impossible for him to see us. I said that I would go to Charters Towers at the weekend or would see him in his office on Monday. The appointment was fixed for next Monday in his office in Brisbane. We received a telephone call today informing us that on doctor’s advice Mr Hewitt was going into hospital because he is completely exhausted. We have sent our sympathy. So it was a rejection by Mr Hewitt, and Senator Lawrie was wrong.

Now we come to the question of Mapoon. The first question is: Is there a rnining lease there? I released a Press report because I had heard that the Aborigines had been driven off the station as Nabalco Pty Ltd held the mining lease. Mr Bunny, who is the managing director of Nabalco, telephoned me in great distress and said that this was not so. He said that the company did not have a mining lease at Mapoon but had a mining lease over Red Sands which is some distance down the coast. I said: ‘Why do you not make a statement and correct it in tomorrow ‘s newspaper?’ He said: ‘Yes, I will.’ He telephoned me again the next day, full of apologies. He said: ‘When I checked up our lease I found that we have a lease over Old Mapoon but the mineral content is of no interest to us and we are not concerned if the people go back. ‘ So there is a lease at Old Mapoon. I have a letter signed by about 20 residents of Old Mapoon- it is available for honourable senators to peruse- appealing to me for assistance for them to return.

Senator Bonner:

– Will you incorporate that in Hansard?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, I am not prepared to do so because it would make public the names of the individuals.

Senator Webster:

– I move:

The PRESIDENT:

– When the Minister has completed his speech you may move such a motion.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I will not incorporate it in Hansard because all the names will be made public.

Senator Webster:

– Are you frightened of that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not know why you want the names. I will not voluntarily table the letter. If a resolution of the Senate is carried it will be tabled. Those who want to use the names to refer them to the Queensland Government so that it can use duress against the signatories must take the responsibility for carrying such a resolution. The letter is there and I am prepared to show it to anyone in confidence to prove that it is not a phoney letter. If honourable senators want it published so that duress can be used–

Senator Rae:

– We accept your offer, senator.

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the Minister’s attention to standing order 363 which says:

A document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister of the Crown, unless stated to be of a confidential nature or such as should more properly be obtained by address, may be called for and made a public document.

I repeat the words ‘unless stated to be of a confidential nature’.

Senator Rae:

– We accept the Minister’s offer that he will make it available to anyone on this side of the chamber who may wish to see it. We will not pursue the matter any further.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I thank Senator Rae for that. I have more trust in Senator Rae than obviously Senator Steele Hall has. Senator Lawrie read out a document ‘telling Cavanagh and the Department to put their money where their mouth is’. It said: ‘You are useless and you do nothing. ‘

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– They were not my words.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No. It was a telegram that I received. Again I am prepared to show this to anyone. This telegram is signed by 22 Old Mapoon residents who want to go back and by 25 residents of an Aboriginal community at Weipa. They condemned me because I would not give money to them until I had been up and had a talk to them about going back to Mapoon. I have been criticised because we let them go back. It is claimed that I and my Department would not give them the money and permit them to go back. They are used to support an argument against our condemnation of the Queensland Government. Such people include Mick Miller, Clarrie Grogan and Barbara Russell. Those people are known in the Cairns area for having fought against and condemned the Queensland Government for years. They are notorious for that. Yet today those names have been used in an argument in support of the Queensland Government. Because we will not go far enough they condemn us. They have been used to boost up an argument on this question tonight. We went up to Old Mapoon and met the people. We had a meeting with 150 people in attendance. It is not true to say, as Mr Hewitt said, that 3 aircraft were used.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– This was not at Old Mapoon; this was at Weipa.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-At Weipa. We went to Weipa and had a meeting.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– But you did not go to Old Mapoon?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No. We did not use 3 aircraft at public expense. I travelled in a VIP aircraft but we paid no fares for anyone else to travel to Weipa. There were 150 one-time Aboriginal residents of Old Mapoon assembled at the meeting. They applauded us, gave us a midday meal and sang Polynesian songs to us. One could see the mission influence as they sang a hymn of goodbye as we left. It is possibly one of the most emotional scenes I have ever witnessed. They expressed anxiety to go back to Old Mapoon. Some of these people could not go because they had commitments. We do not decide where Aboriginals will live. They have an affinity with the land. Whatever the difficulties are in living on that terrain, it is our job to overcome the difficulties. They make the decision about where they want to live and we come in to try to improve their accommodation. Their land is sacred to them and it means more to them than living in a town like Weipa could mean. The result was that we offered them tents and transport facilities so that they could travel from Weipa. Are we condemned for that?

When we went to Normanton we saw poverty, distress and suffering. This was emotionally referred to by Senator Bonner today when he referred to how his people live. The Australian Government is attempting to rectify this position. It has arisen because of 200 years of Queensland Government. Senator Bonner has stated that the Queensland Government has done nothing off the reserves. We can prove that that is so. When we went to Normanton we saw how the Aborigines lived in barricades. They are living in big tents, dirty houses and unlined galvanised iron sheds. They have barricades with partitions of unlined galvanised iron. The Aborigines have no ablution facilities. There is a kitchen measuring 10 feet by 6 feet which has to service 30 families -some of which comprise 10 people. People live in a room which is 10 feet by 8 feet. They have to cook their meals in a small annexe out the back on a normal wood burning kitchen stove which serves 30 families. Of course, they are lighting fires all around the place to cook their food. That settlement is a Queensland Government settlement. The Australian Government is trying to rectify that situation.

Nowhere else are there conditions as bad as those which we saw in Queensland. I have been through the Kimberleys in the Northern Territory and other Aboriginal settlements but I have not seen a settlement as bad as those in Queensland. I have proof of the fact. Objections have been raised to the photographs which have been taken by staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I believe that the film will be shown on the television program ‘This Day Tonight’. It has been stated that the program will bring out, in all its glory, the horrors of Queensland. It has been stated that we invaded the privacy of the Aboriginals at Normanton when we visited their homes. We visited those homes at the invitation of the residents. We were invited to come into their kitchen in order to photograph it. We have been accused of taking a photograph of a boy outside a toilet. We were taken down to the place at which the photograph was taken to see that there was no toilet in existence. (Extension of time granted) I thank the Senate for the extension of time. I will be brief because I would like this Bill to pass through the Senate this evening. I have given an indication of the horror and the squalor that exists in Queensland. I have also given an indication of what the Australian Government is trying to do in Queensland. No honourable senator can condemn us for that. I do not have time to refer to all the matters to which I would like to refer.

In Normanton about 8 houses have been built for the Aborigines. This is where they have 4 blocks each containing space for 30 families in the barricades. The town council has said that no more Aboriginal houses can be built in the town because they do not have a water supply. It has been said that Senator Cavanagh will not give them the $ 1 34,000 that is necessary to establish a water supply. To provide the Europeans in Normanton with a water supply is properly a State Government responsibility. The State Government has done nothing for Normanton. The town council, because of its Country Party representation, is justifying everything the State Government has done. The Council has stated that they will not have any more houses built for Aboriginals because they do not have sufficient water. It is said that if more homes are built, gardens will be established and more water will be used in Normanton.

I have illustrated the life of the Aborigines in Queensland. Time will not permit me to go much further into this matter. The Government wants to overcome the problems of the Aborigines in Queensland. The Racial Discrimination Bill 1974 introduced by Senator Murphy is aimed at overcoming the differences between whites and Aborigines in some respects. We seek to bring in legislation that will render invalid Queensland law that has the effect of preventing the Aboriginal islander from terminating the management of his property. We want to exempt an Aboriginal islander from the requirement to obtain a permit to enter a Queensland reserve; prevent the punishment of an Aboriginal islander on a Queensland reserve for misbehaviour unless the conduct is shown to be unreasonable; supersede the wide powers of entry into the premises of an Aboriginal islander on a Queensland reserve; render invalid laws requiring compulsory labour on Queensland reserves except reasonable community work where ordered by a court; and provide a right of legal representation before Aboriginal or island courts. The aboriginals have no right to legal representation. They are forced to work and they are not paid the award wages. This is what the great Queensland Government does. This indicates the fight that we are having to improve the conditions of Aborigines. Because a Government of the Opposition’s kind is in office in Queensland, Opposition senators would condemn the Aborigines. Even Senator Bonner sacrifices his people for political preservation. It shall not happen.

Senator RAE (Tasmania)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator RAE:

– Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented not by the Minister but by a previous speaker. Two matters were raised by Senator Milliner. Firstly, he said that I was talking to protesting Aboriginals outside Parliament House whilst the Estimate Committees were sitting and that I was absent from the Estimates Committee of which I was a member. That, as will be shown from the Hansard report of the Estimates Committee meeting of 3 1 October, is not correct. The Estimates Committee report shows that the Committee sat from 12.11 p.m. until 2.52 p.m. The time.at which I was talking to those Aborigines was well after 3 p.m. I was showing to those Aborigines that we were prepared to talk to them and to listen to their matters of concern.

Secondly, Senator Milliner said that I asked no questions in relation to Aboriginal housing in Queensland during the hearing of the Estimates Committee in relation to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. As the Hansard record will show on page 395 that statement also was inaccurate.

Senator BONNER (Queensland)-I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

-Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator BONNER:

– Yes. I was in my room just a moment ago listening on the public address system to Senator Cavanagh ‘s speech. As he finished his speech, he claimed that I was using my people for political purposes. I do not believe this is correct. I think the Minister should withdraw those remarks because during my speech I even gave credit to the Government for some of its policies in relation to Aboriginal affairs. At no time have I ever used the Aboriginal people for political purposes in this chamber. I have no intention of doing so in the future. I believe that the Minister should withdraw those remarks because I do not use my people for political purposes.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Rae’s amendment) be added.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Debate interrupted.

page 2450

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional orders I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative.

page 2450

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1974

Debate resumed.

Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Mr Chairman, the time of night is 10.35 p.m. The Senate is about to rise. We are anxious that funds of just over $40m which are to be provided to Aborigines in Australia should be made available to them as soon as possible. I wish simply to explain that it is only for that reason that at the Committee stage I do not raise a number of matters which otherwise would have been raised in the debate. They will be raised at the next opportunity which presents itself when we are dealing with some general aspects of the administration of Aboriginal affairs. I simply want to take the opportunity to explain that it is not because there are no unsatisfactory aspects of the grant to Queensland and our desire to see it increased that I do not take the matter any further at this stage.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2450

ABORIGINAL LOANS COMMISSION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

- Mr President, under an arrangement with Senator Rae, I refer to the amendments to the Bill which have been circulated. They are only corrections to the original copy of the Bill. I believe that there is no opposition to the amendments. I draw the Senate’s attention to them in case Senator Rae wants to say something about them in his speech during the second reading debate.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I have indicated to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) that as far as the amendments were concerned, two out of three were amendments concerned with errors in the Bill to which we had intended to draw attention. We certainly support the other amendment. It appears to improve the Bill. The Bill itself takes further a concept which was introduced by the Liberal-Country Parties when in government. In 1968 the Aboriginal Enterprises (Assistance) Act was enacted by this Parliament, and its objective was to enable Aborigines in Australia to obtain financial assistance from a central fund, provided out of public moneys, upon terms which are not the normal commercial terms but which are those likely to assist people to be able to engage in business enterprises which have a reasonable prospect of success and in respect of which people should be entitled to receive assistance on appropriate terms. As a result of the educational background and as a result of the geographical location of many of the Aboriginal people of Australia it is necessary and desirable that they should be given an opportunity to apply for funds which would not be made available in the normal course of commerce and enterprise within our society.

This scheme is now being taken further by the present Government and we support the action it is taking. The purpose of the Bill is to convert what was the Aboriginal Enterprises Fund into something a little more sophisticated in the Aboriginal Loans Commission, which will be a commission dealing with 2 particular types of funds. The first will be the old Aboriginal

Enterprises Fund and the total concept will be transferred to the new Commission. The second fund, and I believe it a desirable development, will be the Aboriginal Housing and Personal Loans Fund. As my colleague, Senator Bonner, has said to me there are many Aborigines in Australia who would very much like to be able to have the opportunity to obtain a loan upon reasonable terms to improve their houses, their furnishings and their opportunity for some of the material benefits of life, but who do not want to have a handout and be simply getting something for nothing. They rather wish to have access to loan funds so that they are able to purchase items for themselves as do many other members of our society.

Part of what will be happening under the Aboriginal Housing and Personal Loans Fund is that funds for both housing and house equipment will be available. I am cognisant of the time of night and of the desire of the Senate to pass this piece of legislation tonight. So I simply take the opportunity to indicate that this legislation is carrying forward and further a concept which was introduced by the Liberal and Country Parties when in government. We support it. We believe it is desirable for the same reasons as we introduced it originally. We believe it is desirable that it be carried forward in this way. One or two small corrections did arise and have now been rectified. There is one question of the power of the Auditor-General which I will raise in the Committee stage only by way of query. Otherwise I indicate that the Opposition supports the legislation as being in the interests of the Aboriginal people in Australia and in the interests of Australia because it is in those interests. We support the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole?

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I do not know that it is. I wish to amend clauses 7 and 25. If I am permitted to move my amendments in globo I am not opposed to taking the Bill as a whole. I seek leave to follow that course.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Clause 7.

  1. The Commission shall include in each report prepared under section 32 particulars of any directions given by the Minister under sub-section (2) during the period to which the report relates.

Clause 25.

  1. Moneys of the Fund may also be applied-

    1. in making loans to approved bodies for the purpose of enabling them to make loans that they have the legal capacity to make to Aboriginals, and their spouses, for all or any of the purposes referred to in sub-section ( 1 );
    2. b) in making payments in respect of the investigation or supervision of an approved body-
    1. to which a loan may be, or has been, made in accordance with paragraph (a); or
    2. in relation to which a guarantee may be, or has been, given under section 26;

    3. in meeting any liability under a guarantee given in accordance with section 25;

Amendments (by Senator Cavanagh) agreed to:

In clause 7, sub-clause 3, leave out ‘section 32 ‘, insert ‘subsection 36 ( 1 ) ‘.

In clause 25, sub-clause 2, insert the following paragraph: (aa) in making payments in respect of any inquiries necessary in relation to loans that may be, or have been, made in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) or guarantees that may be, or have been, given under section 26;

In clause 25, sub-clause (2) (c), leave out ‘25 ‘, insert ‘26 ‘.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: That the Bill, as amended, stand as printed.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I draw attention to clause 31. 1 inquire of the Minister: What is the meaning of ‘Securities of Australia’ mentioned in clause 31 (b)? The phrase is not defined in the definition clause. I just inquire as to the meaning of that phrase.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I am told it means Government bonds.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2451

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Food Aid- Hansard Report- Newspaper Article- Incidents During Minister’s Visit to China

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise to claim the attention of the Senate very briefly while I refer to a matter which I believe is of some importance and substance and which is contained in a question I addressed to the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in this chamber this morning. I believe the question was an important question. I draw attention not only to the substance of the question involved but also to the somewhat summary and I believe unworthy reply that 1 received on that occasion.

Senator Devitt:

– Does Senator Wriedt know that you are addressing yourself to this matter?

Senator SCOTT:

-I have asked that he be advised. I believe that the Government, the Opposition and indeed all Australians have a right to expect proper clarification of a matter raised in a responsible substance-filled question asked here this morning and particularly such clarification from one whom I know must be classified as a responsible Minister. Because I do not think this happened I draw the attention of the Senate to this problem. Briefly and very shortly I shall recall the main substance of the question and the chief thrust of the somewhat brief and irrelevant reply that I received. The reply, I believe, did neither justice to the Minister nor to the question. I asked:

What is Australia’s commitment in food aid as pledged by him at the World Food Congress? What form will this food aid take? Will it be solely wheat and mixed grain or will it involve meat in processed form? Is it true that the Minister now asserts that our commitment made at the World Food Congress was only approximately $A19m? If that is the case, why was a note bearing the Minister’s letterhead pinned on the Press gallery board this week saying that the commitment was $30m? Did the Minister in an interview on Sunday last say that the commitment was $30m.?

I do not believe that any part of that particular question can be ruled off as briefly as the Minister ruled it off this morning.

I turn now to the significant matter, and that is the nature of the Minister’s reply. When he rose he described the question as being unworthy of reply, as being facile and stupid. Facile, amongst many things, means easy, fluent or flexible. I am quite sure that the Minister did not intend to be complimentary to the question or to myself so I presume he did not have in mind that sort of definition of the word ‘facile’. The word ‘stupid’ which was the other adjective involved means, among other things, unintelligent and uninteresting. As far as unintelligent is concerned, I do not believe that the matters referred to required no intelligence. Although perhaps from a somewhat biased angle, I suggest that even the questioner may not have been unintelligent. But be that as it may, I am sure that the Minister can answer this section of the problem merely by saying, as he has on several occasions to me with reference to other questions, that it is just a matter of judgment. Of course, it is a matter of judgment whether this question or the questioner were unintelligent.

As for the second part of the definition of the word ‘stupid’- that is ‘uninteresting’- I think that is incredibly bad. I cannot really believe that the Minister sincerely thinks that the subject matter of this question is uninteresting. Once again let me refer to the major matter of the question. I asked: . . what is Australia’s commitment in food aid as pledged by him -

That is the Minister-

At the World Food Congress?

Is this a facile or stupid question? Is it uninteresting? Is it irrelevant? I continued:

Will it be solely wheat and mixed grain or will it involve meat in processed form?

Is that a facile or stupid question? I further asked: ls it true that the Minister now asserts that our commitment made at the World Food Congress was only approximately $ 19m?

Is that facile or stupid? The question continues:

If that is the case, why was a note bearing the Minister’s letterhead pinned on the Press gallery board this week saying that the commitment was $30m? Did the Minister in an interview on Sunday last say that the commitment was $30m?

Was it $ 19m or was it $30m? I do not believe that any section of the main body of the question is facile or stupid. I believe that the whole question is of supreme significance to the Australian people. If there is any facile or flexible quality in the Minister’s reference to the question then it can only be flexible with regard to his attitude to mathematics which, in his assessment, seems to vary between a figure of $ 19m and $30m. Surely there is quite a significant area of flexibility there. I am concerned because I believe we should be thinking in terms- my Party, the Australian Country Party thinks in these terms- of a food stockpile around the world to make, in some way, a real contribution to the hungry nations. So I am convinced that no part of this question was facile or stupid. I regret that that should have been the reply of a responsible Minister to what I believe was generally conceded to be a sensible and important question.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I rise to make a personal explanation in relation to yesterday’s Hansard in which I was described as a senator from Tasmania. I have considered the consequences of the matter. They seem to place me in a dilemma. I am an honourable senator who is the subject of defamatory advertisements in newspapers; alternatively Tam a senator who is a member of the Liberal Party; and the third possibility is that I am a so-called independent senator. I do not contemplate those situations with any equanimity of mind. .In those circumstances I feel that I should explain to the Senate that I am, in fact, a senator from Victoria. As a new honourable senator I regard.it as onerous to be placed in that dilemma. . . . .

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise briefly to confirm the allegations which I made earlier today-. Mr President, without any further ado I solemnly table for your information an extract from the Cairns ‘Post’ of Thursday, 7 November which denigrates Senator Maunsell by calling him just ‘R. Maunsell’. This confirms what I have said, that the National Party and the Premier of Queensland are out to denigrate the Senate. I table the document.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Mulvihill, you need leave to table it.

Senator MULVIHILL:

- Mr President, I ask for leave to table this document for your perusal.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– It is well known that the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party, Mr Sinclair, made a statement relating to the behaviour of ministerial staff going overseas. Referring specifically to an incident during the recent visit to China of the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns), the Deputy Leader of the Country Party called on the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to comment on whether a member of the Deputy Prime Minister’s staff had punched an exhibitor at the Aus.tralian Trade Fair in Peking, had assaulted the Australian Ambassador Dr. Stephen Fitzgerald and had also assaulted an American diplomat attached to the United States mission in Peking. Replying, the Prime Minister stated that he would investigate the situation. Apparently he was unaware of the facts. Since that question was asked it has emerged that the incident which the Deputy Leader of the Country Party detailed occurred and that it occurred within the precincts of the Australian Embassy in Peking. It has since been confirmed that the assailant was a senior member of the staff of Dr Cairns. His resignation is now pending.

Before going further it is worth looking at the staff of this darling of the left wing. Dr Cairns has on his staff his son, a former honourable member for Bendigo, a Peking basher, and during the visit to Peking not only did the Deputy Prime Minister take his wife but also his daughterinlaw and, it is alleged, his former daughterinlaw. It appears to me that when Labor comes to power not only is it jobs for the boys and jobs for the kids but also trips for the family. Even the Prime Minister, as we know, has offended here. But what concerns me is the nature of the incident within the precincts of the Australian Embassy. Three respectable and responsible men were assaulted. No action was taken by the Deputy Prime Minister to send the offending staff member home. No apology was made to the Chinese officials who saw the incident and who, I understand, were appalled by it. From what I can gather about the trip which can be called the Cairns trip to China it apparently was a number of days of pretty straight boozing by a large section of the party which accompanied Dr Cairns.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I draw the attention of Senator Webster to standing order 418 which states:

No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

I ask Senator Webster to refrain from making personal reflections on a member of Parliament.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, if you would draw my attention to what I have said which has reflected on a member of Parliament I will be pleased.

Senator Poyser:

– I raise a point of order Mr President. There was no withdrawal by Senator Webster. He was asked to withdraw a reference he made.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not ask Senator Webster to withdraw. I simply drew his attention to the fact that he must not again make a personal reflection on the Minister.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I assure you I made no personal reflection on the Minister or a member of the other House. I will re-state what I said.

The PRESIDENT:

– You must not re-state what you said. I took exception to it and I drew your attention to it.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, you drew my attention to the point that apparently I was referring to a member of another place. Let me repeat what I said. I said: From what I can gather about the Cairns trip to China it was just 16 days of straight boozing by a large section of the party that accompanied Dr Cairns.

The PRESIDENT:

– You reflected on Dr Cairns.

Senator Poyser:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I understand that there is a standing order which provides that if any senator is quoting from a Press report he must be able to substantiate the authenticity of that report. Obviously Senator Webster is quoting from some report that he has read somewhere and I want the authenticity of that report established.

The PRESIDENT:

– In response to the point of order, I have drawn Senator Webster’s attention to standing order 4 1 8. 1 ask him to observe it and also to submit to the authority of the Chair.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I want to speak to the point of order. It would be equally as rude for me to say that Senator Webster was an alcoholic.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Keeffe:

– I am not making that accusation. I am saying that it would be equally as rude for me to say such a thing.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask the honourable senator to discontinue along that line.

Senator Keeffe:

– I would not say it. Even if he were, I would not say it because that is the type of illness from which some people can suffer from time to time. But he has cast aspersions on a whole group of people including the Deputy Prime Minister of this country.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have already ruled on this point of order. I have prevented -

Senator Keeffe:

– I am saying that -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have given a ruling on it and I do not think we should pursue it any further.

Senator Keeffe:

– Well, he should apologise and withdraw it if he has got any guts.

The PRESIDENT:

– I asked him to refrain from making these personal reflections on a member. That is the position at the moment.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The attitude of this section of the Australian party must be regarded as a significant factor in the failure of Australian exhibitors at the Trade Fair to achieve substantial contracts with the Chinese. What fascinates me about this whole incident within the Embassy is that nothing was done about the offending member of the Deputy Prime Minister’s staff.

This may suit Senator Keeffe. According to a letter sent tonight to the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party one can only assume that no action is contemplated. Let me read that letter. This letter is from the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade, Parliament House, Canberra, 14 November 1 974. It is addressed to the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party, Mr Sinclair and reads:

Dear Mr Sinclair,

I refer to your question to the Prime Minister concerning the behaviour of one of Dr Cairns ‘ personal staff one evening in Peking.

From advice now given to me, I confirm that there was an incident substantially in the terms you have described. Dr Cairns was not present.

No Senator shall allude to any Debate of the current Session in the House of Representatives, or to any Measure impending therein, unless such allusion be relevant to the matter under discussion.

The PRESIDENT:

– If Senator Webster continues I will be able to make an assessment of whether he is alluding to a debate.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I resume my reading of the letter from the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade:

The individual concerned has tendered his resignation from Dr Cairns’ staff in September with effect from end November. That effective resignation date still stands.

There has been no communication from any other government concerning the incident.

Following your question I arranged for the Prime Minister to be advised of the foregoing- I am advised that he had not been aware of it beforehand.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I rise to take a point of order. I support the stand taken by Senator McLaren. I think standing order 416 is quite clear. In addition to that, the amendment to that standing order adopted on 26 September 1969 states the position quite clearly by adding the words: unless such allusion be relevant to the matter under discussion.

This is not relevant to the matter under discussion. The only way in which Senator Webster could introduce the subject matter that he is trying to debate in the Senate tonight is under standing order 4 1 6a. That standing order states:

Where a Session of Parliament has continued for more than fifteen months, Standing Orders 133,413,41 4, and 416 shall not apply to any subject or matter that has transpired or been dealt with more than six months previously.

I respectfully submit that the submission made in the point of order taken by Senator McLaren, in addition to the amendment to standing order 416 carried on 26 September 1969, is relevant and that Senator Webster is totally out of order in trying to raise this matter in these circumstances.

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr President, I rise to speak to the point of order. In my submission, you should regard these points of order as completely specious and as an unwarranted attempt to prevent the facts of a matter of public concern to be aired in a house of the Parliament. In the first place, Senator Webster has not alluded to any debate which has taken place in the House of Representatives. Secondly, the matter which is the subject of the honourable senator’s remarks tonight has not been the subject of any debate, nor is it a measure which is pending in the House of Representatives. Accordingly, the point made by honourable senators opposite is absolutely without substance. The fact that it is completely without substance indicates what the points of order being raised are really intended to do. They are an endeavour to prevent the embarassment of 2 members of the Labor Party who see in what is being alleged by Senator Webster something which they would like to have hidden. They are doing what they can to have it hidden. The truth ought to come out.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, I rise to speak to the same point of order. My recollection is that when Senator Webster first introduced this matter in the Senate tonight he referred to a question asked in the House of Representatives today by his Deputy Leader in that place, Mr Sinclair. They were the very words that he used.

The PRESIDENT:

– The standing order which has been referred to states:

No senator shall allude to any Debate of the current Session in the House of Representatives, or to any Measure impending therein, unless such allusion be relevant to the matter under discussion.

So it can be seen that the standing order refers to a debate. I call Senator Webster.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, to assist you in this matter I shall repeat the comment that I made at the opening so that you may be aware of whether I refer to a debate in another House. I ask Government supporters to be patient. I think that they would be as anxious as I was to see that the reputation of Australia is upheld. If they do not wish that, they may keep on acting as they are acting now.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! I ask Senator Webster not to be provocative.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, would you wish me to read the introductory statement that I made so that it may clear the matter for you?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator is entitled to continue his speech. -

Senator WEBSTER:

– I believe that the man concerned is in receipt of a salary of about $30,000 a year. He resigned in September, went to Peking in October and his resignation does not become effective until the end of this month. In other words, he is drawing a salary of several hundred dollars a week after causing grave embarrassment to the Australian Government. He not only caused offence within the precincts of the embassy but also he caused further offence outside. I am informed that he was travelling in a Chinese cab when he began abusing the driver and, on alighting from the cab, tried to wrench the licence plate from the cab. This almost provoked a riot when the Chinese driver remonstrated in a main Peking street.

Senator Poyser:

– I rise on another point of order. The honourable senator is saying: ‘I have been informed of these things’. He should have more factual evidence than the kind of nonsense that he is putting up now. It is absolutely ludicrous for any senator to be able to make these charges without factual evidence in documentary form which he could present to the Senate.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The letter from which I read, from the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade, was signed by Lionel Bowen. Attached to it was a Press statement which I will table for the benefit of Senator Poyser. I was saying that a riot was almost provoked in a main Peking street. There was still no action taken after this incident. The entire Chinese trip seems to have been marked with unfortunate and unseeming incidents. In Shanghai a member of the party who had become so inebriated vomited all over a senior Chinese railway official. This has been fleetingly referred to in the ‘Nation Review’. His performance drew no official censure from the Deputy Prime Minister. In fact a trophy was presented to the offender by a top Australian official. I do not find it funny that such an incident occurred, and I believe that such incidents should draw rebuke and an apology from the individual. I have detailed three of the incidents that occurred in China, all of them disgraceful and all of them smacking of debauchery. The Deputy Prime Minister has this week been visiting the United States. God knows what happened there. It has already been -

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

– I rise on a point of order. I refer to standing order 418 which states:

No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House . . . unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

Senator Webster referred to alleged incidents in Peking. He said: all of them disgraceful and all of them smacking of debauchery. The Deputy Prime Minister has this week been visiting the United States. God knows what happened there.

I suggest that quite clearly the honourable senator was reflecting very seriously on the reputation of the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, a member of a House of this Parliament who is not in that House to protect himself at the time that the accusations are made. I suggest that Senator Webster be asked to withdraw his remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Webster, you have been asked to withdraw the remark: “The Deputy Prime Minister has this week been visiting the United States. God knows what happened there’.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, on your request, I will withdraw the remark. I am referring to the staff that accompanies Dr Cairns, and that is quite evident. If I have made an offensive remark about a member of another place, I withdraw it. I said:

I do not find it funny that such an incident occurred, and I believe that such incidents should have drawn rebuke and an apology from the individual. I have detailed three of the incidents that occurred in China, all of them disgraceful.

I think members of the Government Will agree with me. When a Minister and his party go overseas they go overseas not only to represent the Government of the day but also to represent the Australian people. I cannot think of any one Australian who would hold his head in pride when hearing of these incidents in China. I think that officials who go overseas should demonstrate their best behaviour. This was always the case in the past and it is why personal staffs of Ministers were issued with official passports- not the normal run of the mill passports but passports which emphasised the status and importance of those people within the Australian community. It wil be interesting to find out whether these individuals were on official passports or on diplomatic passports. However, here we have an incident of a person travelling as an Australian official, behaving like a pig and . . . He is not on the Washington trip; he is in Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Webster, I must draw your attention to standing order 418 which states that no senator shall use offensive words against any member of either House and aU personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly. You have reflected on the Minister and I ask you to withdraw those words.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, if anywhere in my statement I have reflected on the Minister I withdraw. However, here we have an incident of a person travelling as an Australian official- I repeat, travelling as an Australian official- behaving like a pig and . . .

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask Senator Webster to withdraw the words. I believe that they are a reflection on the Minister, and I ask the honourable senator to withdraw those words and refrain from repeating them.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I withdraw the remark, Mr President, if it reflects on the Minister. I want to discuss this person -

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

- Mr President, Senator Webster has said, in response to your request, that he will withdraw the remark if it reflects on the Minister. You have ruled that it is a reflection on the Minister. I suggest that Senator Webster’s remarks are not a withdrawal and I ask you to redirect him to withdraw his remarks.

Senator Greenwood:

– On a point of order, Mr President, I only say that Senator Webster has indicated very clearly that he will comply with your wishes and that he Will withdraw any indication, any suggestion, any imputation, any reflection that might be construed by you, as the custodian of the Standing Orders, as reflecting upon any member of the other House. He has made that abundantly clear many times. Of those words which you asked him to withdrawordinarily quite innocuous words, and . . .’-he said: ‘I do withdraw them if they are regarded as reflecting on the Minister’. I only say that that is reasonable conduct which you, Sir, in comparable circumstances, or I, or anybody else, would regard as an appropriate withdrawal.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have asked Senator Webster to withdraw the remark. He said he would withdraw it. I would expect the words to be deleted from Hansard and that no record would be made in Hansard of the reflection on the Minister.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I believe, Mr President, you would agree in your position, if I am speaking about an official who is an official representative of the Australian Government- I am not speaking about the Minister, I am speaking about an official- that, if there is a reference of criticism of a Minister because he has not taken action, that is a reasonable proposition. If any member of this chamber was in employment and had to work out his resignation period he would report for duty until the period ended. This man has not done so but is still collecting his salary. I can only assume that he is not attending work because it has been suggested that he have a few pleasant weeks off. That attitude is not good enough for me or anyone else, particularly when one considers his high salary and the fact that there is mounting unemployment in this community. I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister deserves strong condemnation for not exercising restraint on the behaviour of his staff while overseas and this Parliament and the people should be given a full explanation -

Senator McLaren:

– I rise to order. Mr President, I draw your attention to standing order 416 which states that no senator shall read his speech. This is precisely what Senator Webster has done this evening.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I will not repeat the last remark I made because it will appear again in Mansard. The people should be given a full explanation and an apology for the behaviour of the Deputy Prime Minister’s staff.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I hope that the speech that Senator Webster has made tonight will be widely circulated throughout Australia.

Senator Wriedt:

– And accurately.

Senator WHEELDON:

-And, so Senator Wriedt says, accurately reported throughout Australia, because I do not think that any speech that has been made in this Senate over recent months more accurately reflects the depths of slime in which some members of the Opposition are prepared to wallow in order to discredit this Government than the exhibition that we have heard tonight from Senator Webster. Senator Webster has come into the Senate and said that he has been informed of certain things, certain episodes, which, if true, would indeed reflect very great discredit upon the individual who performed these acts. If true, they would. Senator Webster was challenged by me by way of interjection, and he heard my interjection, during his speech to produce some evidence for the serious allegations which were being made. He declined to produce any evidence whatsoever. He has made the remarks in this Senate -

Senator Webster:

– I rise to order. As there is a senior Minister speaking I wonder whether he would speak truthfully and acknowledge that I have tabled the documents which refer to this incident.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator WHEELDON:

– If I may see the document I will refer to it.

Senator Jessop:

– I rise to order. I believe that the Minister ought to apologise to Senator Webster.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is your point of order, Senator Jessop?

Senator Jessop:

– I ask him to apologise.

The PRESIDENT:

-Unless you name objectionable words that the Minister has uttered he does not need to apologise.

Senator Wheeldon:

– As a point of order has been raised I will speak to it. I said that allegations were made by Senator Webster and I challenged him to produce evidence of them.

Senator Baume:

– He did.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I will read the statement he tabled and if this is what Senator Baume calls evidence I suggest that he seek some advice from some of the legal luminaries he has sitting around him who are grinning and cackling so much and finding this amusing. He said that an episode had occurred when some person had vomited over somebody else. He said that an episode had occurred when a person assaulted a taxi driver, when he tried to tear the number plate off the taxi. I challenged him to produce evidence, and he now says that he produced evidence and the evidence was a statement.

Senator Webster:

– Read it.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Yes, I shall read it.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! May I put the situation in order so that Senator Wheeldon may continue his speech. He was speaking to the point of order. I understand that he has completed his remarks on the point of order and is now continuing his speech.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I am still on the point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to ask to which standing order the Minister is referring.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I am still on the point of order. I know Senator Greenwood is enjoying it because he has a night when he can engage in a little more slander- and nothing Senator Greenwood loves better than a little personal slander. But I shall get back on to the point of order.

Senator Sheil:

- Mr President, to which point of order is the Minister speaking?

Senator Wheeldon:

– The point of order to which I am speaking is that which Senator Jessop raised when he said I should apologise to Senator Webster because I had said that he had not produced evidence for his statement that somebody had vomited over somebody else, that somebody had engaged in an altercation with a taxi driver, that somebody had tried to tear off a number plate.

Senator Sheil:

– I would still like to know what point of order.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I am referring to the point of order that was raised by Senator Jessop. Senator Sheil should ask Senator Jessop. He raised the point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Jessop raised a point of order that referred to offensive words. I ruled that no offensive words were used and therefore no point of order arose.

Senator WHEELDON:

-If there is no point of order I am perfectly happy to continue in the vein in which I had been speaking before Senator Jessop raised the point of order which Senator Sheil apparently did not hear. I said that Senator Webster had made allegations and had not produced evidence to support those allegations. He has produced a statement from the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), who has said that an incident occurred. A statement that an incident occurred is not evidence that somebody vomited over somebody else or tried to tear the number plate off a car. What is the purpose of raising this alleged episode? The purpose is to discredit the Minister for Overseas Trade by guilt by association, by saying that because a member of his staff allegedly -

Senator Jessop:

– Can the Minister produce evidence to the contrary?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I can produce no evidence to the contrary. I do not know whether a member of the staff of the Minister for Overseas Trade became drunk or did not become drunk. I cannot produce any evidence. What Senator Webster is endeavouring to do tonight- he has brought an admiring group from his own Party in another place to hear him- is to say that because a member of the staff of the Minister for Overseas Trade may or may not have done something- apparently his resignation is in hand- the Minister for Overseas Trade should be discredited. I believe that this is reducing parliamentary debates to a level to which they have never descended before. It has been a standing practice in this Senate over a long period that members on one side would not refer to the inebriation or the personal conduct outside this Parliament of another member of this Parliament. Tonight Senator Webster tries to discredit the Deputy Prime Minister of this country because of something which may or may not have been done, which he alleges to have been done, and for which he produces no evidence. If we wanted to have discussions on disgusting personal behaviour- this is the first time I have heard them raised in this vein- there are many of us here who could say many things about members of the Opposition and members of the staff of the Opposition. We could have said them but we did not.

Senator Missen:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. Surely that remark is a reflection on members of the Opposition. I object to it and I ask for it to be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– What are the words to which you object?

Senator Missen:

– The reflection made on honourable senators. The Minister said that he could say many things that would reflect upon members of the Opposition. He was speaking about honourable senators. He said also that he could produce this material.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance to the point of order.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Mr President, is the conduct of this Parliament to be based on making personal allegations not only about members of this Government or members of the Aus.tralian Labor Party but also about members of the staffs of this Party, and based on innuendo without one skerrick of evidence? I ask for evidence. When this debate continues- I know that Senator Greenwood will want to have plenty to say about this matter because this is the sort of field in which he revels- when that great civil libertarian Senator Missen gets up to speak in order to support his colleague Senator Webster, I would like him to produce to us evidence of these episodes that are alleged to have occurred in Shanghai and Peking. Let statements be produced from people who were present.

Senator Webster:

– Why should he? You read -

Senator WHEELDON:

– I do not want to read. Senator Webster raised this matter. He introduced it. I ask members of the Opposition, if they are going to make charges of this kind about a member of the staff of the Deputy Prime Minister, not just to say that they have been informed but to say by whom they have been informed. Senator Webster now finds this funny. He has been able to slander somebody and now he has sat down. Senator Greenwood finds it a subject of tremendous merriment. If ever there was an argument for the televising of the proceedings of the Parliament, we are seeing it this evening on the part of Opposition senators. I repeat that I would like Senator Missen, who has a high regard for civil liberties and who apparently supports Senator Webster in what he has said tonight, to stand and give us the evidence about these episodes which are alleged to have occurred. He is nodding his head. Apparently Senator Webster does have a statement about the matters that occurred in Peking and Shanghai. In view of the fact that this person whom I do not know has resigned from the staff of Dr Cairns, I would be interested to know what connection there is between this matter and the Government. Is it to be suggested that members of the Government or members of the Opposition are responsible for what some member of their staff does while not in the course of his duties, or even within the course of his duties if the person concerned subsequently leaves the staff?

Senator Webster:

– The left wing is a bit hurt.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Now we hear mention of the left wing. We have moved now from debauchery to Marxism. I hear Senator Jessop asking what is the difference. That is the point of the whole magnificent contribution we have heard from the Opposition tonight. Its members are unable to tell the difference between what they describe as debauchery and Marxism. They think the two are linked. The Opposition would have us believe that it is composed entirely of teetotallers, men of total abstinence in all fields, men who have never experienced the carnal lusts of the flesh, men who never touch a drink at any reception. One of those we have never seen. We must say it ourselves- never once have we seen them touch alcoholic liquor in their lives. Nor, indeed, have they ever associated with or been in the company of anybody who has. They expect us to believe that this is the position they take. So bereft are they of policy arguments that they have to resort to personal abuse. So bereft are they of personal allegations against the Deputy Prime Minister to justify this behaviour they have to descend to attacking not only a member of the staff of the Deputy Prime Minister but also a former member of the staff of the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that accurate copies of Senator Webster’s speech are distributed to every citizen of this country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.35 p.m.

page 2460

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

South Australia: Grants to Schools (Question No. 226)

Senator Young:

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

  1. Which school in South Australia will receive the $ 1 5,000 allocated to that State out of a total further grant of $5.3 million made to non-Government schools throughout Australia.
  2. How many applications for further grants were received from South Australia.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

  1. The grant of $15,000 has been offered to Immanuel College, Nova Gardens, S.A., for the provision of lockers, toilets and change room facilities.
  2. Sixty three applications have been received from South Australia for assistance under the General Building Program of the Schools Commission. So far a total of thirteen South Australian schools have received offers of assistance for grants totalling $897,500 under the General Building Program.

Mr Frank Sinatra (Question No. 45)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that the controversial telecast by American entertainer, Mr F. Sinatra appeared on the Nine Network on 16 July 1974, in spite of forecasts that it would not get to air because of the attitude of unions associated with the entertainment industry.
  2. What action was taken by the unions and the television stations concerned to ensure that the telecast went to air.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

I am aware that the last performance by Mr Sinatra in this country was telecast throughout Australia and I am very much aware of the exhaustive negotiations that preceded it. In fact Mr Rigby of my staff was involved on my behalf in consultation with the unions concerned.

Arising from Mr Rigby’s report to me, I wish to place on record my appreciation of the way that officers of the Actors and Announcers Equity, the Professional Musicians Union and the Theatrical Amusement Employees Association, together with representatives of Channel 9 settled this matter. The settlement was achieved in a sensible and, I understand, an amicable manner and this instance clearly demonstrates that goodwill can be achieved. As a result millions of people throughout Australia were able to see the Sinatra concert live on television.

The union leaders are to be commended on behalf of all their members for the decision they took in what they considered to be the overall public interest at the time. I well appreciate their point of view that the particular circumstances existing in this instance should not be taken by anyone as the establishment of a natural precedent.

Local Government Bodies

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On October 17 1974, I undertook to ascertain for Senator Carrick the position regarding payments to local government of grants totalling $56.3m to be made on the recommendation of the Grants Commission. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government accepted the Commission’s recommendations as part of its Budget measures, and preparation of legislation was put in hand without delay. The Budget was introduced by the Treasurer on 17 September- about a month later than usual because of the double dissolutionand the Local Government Assistance Bill was introduced on 23 October. The grants will be paid to the States for passing on to local government following enactment of the Bill.

Senator Carrick also asked whether the Government has given consideration to any program to underwrite semigovernment and local government borrowings. The Government at present underwrites the borrowing programs of the State Governments and, under the Financial Agreement, raises virtually all borrowings for them. It lacks the Constitutional power to raise loans on behalf of local government and, earlier this year, a referendum to establish that power was unsuccessful. The referendum was, of course, opposed by the Opposition.

Petroleum and Minerals Authority

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 24 October 1974 Senator Webster commented that the Estimates Committee was informed that only very minor commitments were proposed by the Petroleum and Minerals Authority during the Financial Year 1 974-75 and then asked the manner in which the Authority has evaluated the true worth of the $3.5 million investment in Wambo mine.

The Minister for Minerals and Energy has provided the following answer:

In the announcement which I made about the Petroleum and Minerals Authority and the Wambo Mining Corporation Pty Ltd I said that the Authority’s participation will require direct equity investment of approximately $3.7 million not $3.5 million as the honourable senator says together with an immediate loan of $700,000 to overcome urgent financial problems.

The evaluation upon which the investment will be made has regard to the freehold property and buildings including the colliery buildings, the mine and coal preparation plant, and other vehicles and equipment engaged in the mine operation together with the value of the proven and inferred reserves of coal and the mine development which has taken place to date.

Wheat Industry Stabilization Act: Directions (Question No. 262)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister made or given any directions under section 41 (2) of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act 1974.
  2. If so, what are the exceptions made to the Board’s powers, rights, functions, liabilities and duties conferred or imposed on it by any, and if so what, State Act.
  3. 3 ) What are the terms of any such direction.
  4. For what reasons was the direction made or given.
  5. 5 ) If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the negative, is it intended to give or to make a direction under section 41 (2) of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act; if so, what direction is intended to be given or made and for what reason.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. to(4) See answer to (1).

    1. There is no present intention to give or make a direction under section 41 (2) of the Wheat Industry Stabilization Act. State legislation to complement provisions of the Australian wheat stabilization enactment has, however, yet to be passed; it is understood that the States are currently giving attention to the matter of the form of the legislation.

Imports of Heavy Crude Oil (Question No. 237)

Senator Young:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What amount of imported heavy crude oil is needed to meet Australia’s requirements for the by-products of heavy crude, including bituminous products for road construction.
  2. What are Australia’s current imports of this type of heavy crude and how do those tonnages compare with Australia’s minimum requirements.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) Imports of crude oil during 1 973-74 amounted to 65 million barrels, about half of which were heavy crude.

Product yields vary with individual crudes. From the heavy crude imported during 1973-74 were obtained Australian production of bitumen amounting to 3 million barrels and lubricating oil amounting to Vh million barrels, as well as other products.

Income Tax (Question No. 42)

Senator TOWNLEY:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What would be the loss to the Treasury if the maximum rate of personal taxation was limited to 50 per cent, (a) expressed in dollars, and (b) as a percentage of the Treasury’s total income derived from personal taxation.

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. Approximately $ 1 30m.
  2. About 1.7 per cent of the tax payable on estimated 1974-75 incomes of individuals at the rates proposed in the 1974-75 Budget.

Antarctic Research Base

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 24 September 1974, Senator Marriott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science the following question, without notice:

Will he inquire from his colleague and inform the Senate as soon as possible whether purchase of land at Kingston in Southern Tasmania for the construction of an Antarctic research base has been completed? If so, is it known whether and when construction of the base will be completed?

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

The purchase of a site for the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science in Kingston, Tasmania, has been completed. Building plans are at present being developed as also is the environmental impact statement. The Government is proceeding as quickly as possible with the project, but it will be appreciated that an undertaking of this magnitude will take several years to complete.

Sonar Tracking (Question No. 168)

Senator Primmer:

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

  1. Is the Royal Australian Navy co-operating with American scientists to hunt submarines of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics in the Indian Ocean, using sonar equipment.
  2. Have the Americans set up sonar tracking stations around the Australian coast, including one inside territorial waters adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef; if so, was such a station established with the concurrence of the Australian Government.
  3. What control over the station referred to in (2) does the Australian Government have.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) No. The Royal Australian Navy does not go into any ocean to hunt the submarines of any particular nation in cooperation with any other nation. The Royal Australian Navy does of course take a proper interest in any naval activity, surface or below surface, in the waters surrounding Australia. It also conducts surveillance, and will continue to do so. Australia also co-operates with friendly nations in the development and improvement of scientific techniques and equipment for such maritime surveillance.
  2. No.
  3. Not applicable.

Avoca Street, Randwick, New South Wales (Question No. 174)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Is 50 acres of land in Avoca Street, Randwick, New South Wales, held by the Department of Defence for Defence purposes.
  2. Is it intended to build residential accommodation on this land; if so, what kinds of buildings are planned.
  3. How many floors are planned for any buildings and how many persons or families are expected to be accommodated.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Department of Defence holds 68 hectares of which it is proposed to re-develop 28 hectares with a frontage to Avoca Street for working and living accommodation for Army units in the south eastern metropolitan area of Sydney. The balance of 40 hectares is occupied by the Navy Supply Depot.
  2. Yes. It is planned to build residential accommodation in permanent construction for officers, sergeants and rank and file members of the Army who are required to work at Randwick and in the Sydney metropolitan area. All new buildings will be in modern construction and designed to complement each other and harmonize with the surroundings.
  3. Plans are not yet firm on the numbers of floors to be constructed in each building. The number of storeys is under investigation with the Department of Housing and Construction. Accommodation is expected to be provided for some SOO single service personnel. This is still being examined. When eight married quarters currently under construction are completed, a total of 19 service families will be accommodated.

Construction of Australian Naval Vessels (Question No. 223)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Defence promise a delegation of shipbuilding workers on 20 September 1972 that a series of small naval vessels would be built in Australia to patrol the Australian coast-line in a manner similar to that of the United States Coast Guard.
  2. Has the Government now ordered two patrol frigates from the United States of America.
  3. 3 ) Could these frigates have been built in Australia.
  4. Why was a contract to build these ships not given to an Australian shipyard.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) The Government’s decision to purchase two patrol frigates from the United States of America was taken only after a thorough examination of all the factors involved.

By entering the United States program the Australian Government will be sharing in a larger ship production run based on a well researched development program with the attendant benefits of lower technical risk, cost savings, and product support. A contract for the purchase of the vessels has not yet been negotiated with the United States. A Memorandum of Arrangements has been signed with the United States Deputy Secretary of Defence which meets our firm intent to proceed with the purchase only if satisfactory technical, financial and contractual conditions can be negotiated.

It should be noted that while the 1973 estimated value of the DDL project was $355m, only $37m would have been attributed to Australian dockside labour. The DDL project would not have been, by any means, a primarily Australian project.

Australian Naval Vessels (Question No. 224)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. What arrangements has the Government made to replace two patrol vessels that have been given to Indonesia, and a further five patrol vessels should such a number be given to Papua New Guinea.
  2. When will the proposed combat support ship tentatively named HMAS ‘Protector’ be built.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. The five patrol boats transferred to the Papua New Guinea Defence Force were built in the late 1960’s specifically to undertake tasks in Papua New Guinea waters. Since these tasks will now be performed by the Papua New Guinea Defence Force, the five patrol boats need not be replaced.

The two Attack Class patrol craft given to Indonesia were drawn from Reserves. The question of the need for patrol craft is a matter which is under continuing study along with other Defence capabilities in the current cycle of the five year programing process.

  1. 1 refer the honourable senator to a statement made to the House of Representatives on 23 August 1973 in which the Minister for Defence announced that:

We have decided that there is no need to proceed at this time with the construction of a Fast Combat Support Ship, capable of underway replenishment of the fleet. It has been assessed that such a ship would not be required before 1980, when HMAS ‘Supply ‘ is expected to be retired. I believe that a less sophisticated and less costly ship than that originally proposed at a cost now estimated at around $69m might be more suitable. This is being further examined.

The type of vessel to be acquired, its. cost and the timing of its introduction into service are also being considered alongside other defence capabilities in the current cycle of the five year programing process.

Postmaster-General’s Department: Charges

Senator Bishop:
ALP

– On 2 October 1974, Senator Townley asked the Attorney-General the following question, without notice:

I ask the Attorney-General a question relating to the increased PMG charges. Is the Attorney-General aware that under the common law where a fee for service is paid in advance this constitutes a contract and the fee cannot be altered until the contract expires? I ask: Do not telephone rentals and mail box rentals paid in advance constitute a contract between the renters and the Postmaster-General’s Department? Does the Attorney-General feel that the Postmaster-General should not be allowed to ignore such contracts until they are at an end?

At the end of his statement in reply, Senator Murphy said that he would refer the matter to me to see whether I could give Senator Townley any further information. The following information is now provided:

The Postal Regulations prescribe that the fee ordinarily payable for leasing a private box covers an annual period from 1 April to the following 3 1 March. The increased fees recently authorised by Parliament do not become effective until 1 April 1 975 except in the case of new services let after 30 September 1974, for which the new rates apply straight away.

In the telephone case, for obvious practical reasons, not all subscribers’ bills can be sent out on the same day, so rental charges are not statutorily tied uniformly to specified dates. The Telephone Regulations provide that where rental for a telephone service is paid in advance (this is the normal situation) and the amount paid is greater than or less than that prescribed, the subscriber is entitled to a refund of or is liable to pay the difference between the two. In these circumstances, the Post Office has a statutory obligation to apply to all telephone subscribers services from 1 October 1974 the rental charges authorised by the Parliament to operate from that date.

Radio Licence Fees

Senator Bishop:
ALP

-On 30 October 1974, Senator Guilfoyle asked me the following question without notice:

Is the Government aware that the policy to increase by 100 per cent the licence fee which has to be paid by amateur radio operators will disadvantage voluntary organisations such as the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia and the Volunteer Coastal Patrol which provide services to the community.

The following is the answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government is aware of the effect of increasing the licence fees for radiocommunication stations. The new scale of fees has regard to the cost of administration and supervision involved in the licensing and regulatory functions associated with the different classes of stations.

The reduced fee for outpost stations such as those in the Royal Flying Doctor Service or stations used solely in connection with rural fire fighting or ambulance operations have been maintained at $2 for many years. This concessional fee was recently extended to private voluntary organisations concerned solely with the preservation of life (such as life saving organisations).

Avoca Street, Randwick, New South Wales (Question No. 175)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) What zoning regulations control the land surrounding the Department of Defence land in Avoca Street, Randwick, New South Wales.
  2. Do the regulations concerning zoning of land in the district surrounding Avoca Street, forbid the building of high rise appartments
  3. Would any high rise development by the Department of Defence be out of character with the surrounding area.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. The draft zoning regulations to control the land use surrounding the Avoca Street Defence property are Residential Al to the north and west of the propery and Residential B to the South of the property. These zonings restrict construction to single unit dwellings and town house/duplex type dwellings.
  2. Both Residential Al and Residential B zoning do not provide for the construction of apartments. Also it is understood that the approval of the Administrator of the Council is required to high rise proposals.
  3. No. In view of the size of the Defence area, a limited high rise building set back from the boundaries and properly landscaped, would not be out of character with the surrounding area. However an earlier proposal to construct a high rise building for a rank and file barracks block is being reviewed and it is possible the number of floors will be less than the nine originally envisaged. The plan for the development of this area features extensive landscaping, tree plantings, and general aesthetic treatment to ensure that the property will be attractive when viewed from outside the area.

Avoca Street, Randwick, New South Wales (Question No. 176)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that the area around Avoca Street, Randwick, New South Wales is extensively built-up.
  2. Is the Minister also aware that there is a need for more open space in the area of Randwick-Coogee.
  3. Will the Minister examine the possibility of having 10 acres of land presently held by the Army available as open space for the use of the people of the Randwick-Coogee area.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The land being developed is Australian Government owned land and will provide much needed updated working and living accommodation for many service personnel in the Sydney metropolitan area. The State and local authorities have raised no objections to this proposal.
  3. The Avoca Street land occupied by Army will be fully utilised when the redevelopment is achieved. There will not be residual land available for other uses. However plans for the redevelopment of the Naval Supply Depot adjacent to the Army area are still to be considered. Whilst it is unlikely that land could be made available from the Navy area, your proposal to make available open space for the people of the Randwick Coogee area will be investigated during the development of the Navy scheme.

Construction of Australian Naval Ships (Question No. 222)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Did the Minister for Defence meet a delegation of shipbuilding workers on 20 September 1972 and promise them that no Australian naval ships would be built outside Australia.
  2. Is that still the Minister’s position.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The Government will continue to ensure that the feasibility of local production is examined whenever proposals arise for the acquisition of new ships for the Royal Australian Navy. Many factors are involved and it is not possible to give an unequivocal assurance that all such vessels would be constructed in Australian shipyards.

Australian Broadcasting Control Board (Question No. 239)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

  1. Who are the present members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
  2. When was each members first and last appointed.
  3. What is the term of office of each member.
  4. Was the Minister aware at the time of their appointment whether any of the members of the Board were (a) members of any, and if so, what political party, and (b) supporters of any, and if so, what political party.
  5. If the answer to any part of (4) is in the negative, did the Minister make any inquiries as to whether the proposed members had political affiliations; if so, what did the inquiries reveal.
  6. Does membership or support of the Australian Labor Party prevent or inhibit a member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board from discharging his obligations as a member of the Board.
  7. What were the qualifications of each member for his appointment to the Board.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Broadcasting and Television Act provides that the Board shall consist of three full-time members and two part time members and are as follows:

Full-time Members

Mr Myles Fortunatus Evelyn Wright:
TASMANIA

- Chairman Mr John Edwin Neary, O.B.E.- Vice-chairman Mr William Leslie Carrington Davies

Part-time Members

Mr Edmund Netterville Williams

Mr Harold James Souter

  1. Mr M. F. E. Wright appointed 15 March 1966, reappointed 15 March 1971. Mr J. E. Neary appointed 27 June 1973, appointed Vice-chairman 1 February 1974. Mr W. L. C. Davies appointed 1 February 1974. Mr E. N. Williams appointed 31 January 1973. Mr H. J. Souter appointed 1 March 1974.
  2. Mr M. F. E. Wright-15 March 1971 to 15 March 1976. Mr J. E. Neary-1 February 1974 to 1 February 1979. Mr W. L. C. Davies- 1 February 1974 to 1 February 1979. Mr E. N. Williams-3 1 January 1 973 to 3 1 January 1 976. Mr H. J. Souter- 1 March 1974 to 1 March 1979.
  3. I knew of my own knowledge that Mr Souter was a member of the Australian Labor Party at the time of his appointment. I also knew of my own knowledge that he was Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and in conformity with Government policy that there should be a member of the Trade Union Movement appointed to Government statutory boards and commissions, Mr Souter was so appointed.
  4. It is not my general practice to enquire into the political affiliations, if any, of any person being recommended by me for appointment to an authority for which I am the responsible Minister.
  5. 1 would not think so.
  6. At the time of their respective appointments I released a press statement setting out the qualifications of the members of the Board who have been appointed by this Government. Each of them has various skills and qualifications warranting their appointment to the Board.

Australia’s Petroleum Resources ^Question No. 265)

Senator Young:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister stated that Australia has fifteen years of petroleum supplies in reserve, based on present known quantities.
  2. What was the basis of the Minister’s calculation.
  3. Did the Minister take into account the problem of maintaining present production rates when some wells and fields are eighty to eighty-five per cent depleted, and when a similar position applies to the extraction of condensates in gas fields.
  4. Will the change in the Government’s resources policy encourage the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in both on and off-shore areas of Australia.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) The context of my statement on 15 October 1974 was a clear and explicit reference to the publication issued by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd.
  2. The reserve/consumption ratio stated in the publication related to current production and current consumption and was not concerned with changes in the rate of supply or demand.
  3. The Government’s policy has been clearly stated. There has been no change in that policy.

Radiation Levels in Australia (Question No. 242)

Senator Carrick:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the current level of radiation in Australia.
  2. What contribution to that level has been made by (a) natural radiation and (b) nuclear testing.
  3. Has any measurable fall-out been detected in Australia from (a) the French tests and (b) the Chinese tests; if so, what was the nature and volume of that radiation.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. & (2) The following table gives the radiation doses estimated to have been incurred by the Australian population during the past 12 months from natural sources and from fall-out from nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. The radiation doses are expressed as man-rads, that is the product of the dose estimated for each group of the population and the number of persons in the group. The doses include the contributions made during the 12 month period, from fall-out from all nuclear tests to date. However, fresh fission product fall-out is still reaching Australia from the recent series of nuclear tests by France in Polynesia and fallout over Australia of long-lived radioisotopes will continue for some years from the high yield explosions that both France and China have carried out in the atmosphere.
  1. (a) & (b) The above table of doses for the past 12 months gives estimates of the doses to the Australian population due separately to nuclear tests conducted by China, by France and by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. The doses in the table include the contributions made during the 12 month period by fresh fission product fall-out as well as by the long-lived component of fall-out in Australia. Complex analyses of the data obtained from the Australian Government fall-out monitoring programs and of data published by other countries permit apportionment of these doses between the countries that have conducted nuclear tests in the atmosphere. The apportionment in relation to fresh fission product fall-out in the past 12 months in Australia is as follows:

    1. Fresh fission product fall-out in Australia has been positively identified with nuclear explosions conducted by France in Polynesia and the French tests are responsible for all of the radiation dose to the Australian population in the past 12 months arising from fresh fission product fall-out;
    2. No fresh fall-out in Australia has been identified with any nuclear tests by China.

The Australian Government Fall-out Monitoring Programme has assessed the radiation doses to the Australian population to date in 1974 as a result of fresh fall-out from the recent series of nuclear tests by France in Polynesia. These doses are notably higher than those recorded following the series in 1 972 and the series in 1 973.

In addition, I would mention that the South Australian Premier has informed the Prime Minister that the Engineering and Water Supply Department of South Australia assesses routinely the level of radio-activity in rainfall and water supply storages and that the results of radio-activity tests on rainfall over the period 1970 to 1974 indicate that significant increases in levels have been detected following French nuclear testing in the South Pacific Ocean. The levels for 1974 show the highest peak for rainfall precipitation ever recorded by that Department’s laboratories ( 1648 picocuries per litre on 13 September 1974). Other readings at the same site were 657 picocuries per litre on 30 July 1974, 868 on 6 August 1974, 742.9 on 4 September, 728 on 19 September 1974 and 738 on 8 October 1 974.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 November 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741114_senate_29_s62/>.