/
19620227_senate_24_s21.xml
5669 lines (5669 loc) · 389 KB
/
19620227_senate_24_s21.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1962-02-27</date>
<parliament.no>24</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>1</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<business.start>
<day.start>1962-02-27</day.start>
<para>The <inline font-weight="bold">PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIlin)</inline> took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>MOORABBIN AIRPORT</title>
<page.no>141</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K4S</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SANDFORD, Charles Walter</name>
<name role="display">Senator SANDFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Minister for Civil Aviation a question without notice. Has the Minister seen a report in to-day's Melbourne " Sun NewsPictorial " claiming that the Victorian Cabinet has instructed the Premier to write to the Prime Minister protesting about the granting of a liquor licence to the Royal Victorian Aero Club at Moorabbin airport? The report states that the Minister asserted in the Senate last week that he had cooperated closely with Victoria in granting a liquor licence to the club. If the newspaper report that the Minister co-operated with Victoria is correct, how does the Minister reconcile that fact with the protest now being raised by the Victorian Cabinet? </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZY</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for Civil Aviation</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
<name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not think I can add anything to the answer that I gave to a question asked by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hendrickson</inline> on this subject in the Senate last week, in which I mentioned piece by piece the correspondence that had been exchanged on this matter between myself and the Victorian Government. I await with interest the arrival of the communication from the Premier of Victoria. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>SHIPPING</title>
<page.no>141</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K2S</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTSON, Agnes</name>
<name role="display">Senator ROBERTSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is the Government aware that recently the oil tanker " Bridgewater " broke in two during heavy storms off the west coast of Western Australia? Is the Government aware also that the master and crew of the tug " Yuna " showed fine seamanship in completing a long and hazardous tow of the stern section of the crippled vessel, thereby saving valuable cargo? Is the Government aware that the derelict bow section of the "Bridgewater", which was not salvaged, is becoming an increasing hazard to ships on the Colombo to Fremantle run? As international maritime law forbids anybody but owners or underwriters to sink wrecks, will the Commonwealth Govern- ment contact the owners of the " Bridgewater" and seek permission to sink the wreck and thus remove what may prove to be a cause of a very serious shipwreck? </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7A</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for National Development</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have no more knowledge of this matter than the accounts I have read in the newspapers. Like most people, I followed this matter with a good deal of interest. All I can say is that I will convey the honorable senator's suggestion to the Prime Minister in the hope that some course of action may be available to him. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>CHILD ENDOWMENT</title>
<page.no>141</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6P</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
<name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to ask a question of my good friend, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I am sure that he will answer it to the best of his ability. After all, he is the Barry Jones of the Government's quiz team. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5K</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
<name role="display">Senator Scott</name>
</talker>
<para>- Will you ask your question to the best of your ability? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BROWN, Gordon</name>
<name role="display">Senator BROWN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes. I always do so. I ask the Leader of the Government: Is not the child our best new citizen? Has not child endowment encouraged people to have children and has it not assisted to maintain them? If that is so, why has the Government been so reluctant to maintain the purchasing power of child endowment? In view of the undoubted appeal an improvement in child endowment payments would have to the electorate, can the Minister give us the real reasons for the Government's failure to increase child endowment and maintain the value of this most beneficial social service? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>141</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7A</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am very glad to have <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brown's</inline> assurance that despite all vicissitudes I am still his good friend. His question relates to child endowment. I give him the answer that we cannot look at child endowment as a social* service benefit in isolation. In its wisdom and as a result of policy decisions made from time to time, the Government consistently has increased the standard and level of social services. It has not increased child endowment directly. However, the honorable senator will notice, in the legislation that will come before the Senate to-night, that increases have been made in child allowances for people in receipt of unemployment benefit. Doubtless <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Brown</inline> will recollect, upon consideration, that there have been many increases in child allowances both under the Repatriation Act and under the widow pensions legislation over a period of time. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>142</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>PEAS</title>
<page.no>142</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>142</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRG</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LILLICO, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Senator LILLICO</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the Minister for Customs and Excise able to tell me whether any action is proposed to grant increased protection to the growers of blue peas and peas suitable for treatment by the quickfreeze process? Does he regard the present importations of those two commodities as detrimental to the Australian growers? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>142</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KOW</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HENTY, Norman</name>
<name role="display">Senator HENTY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am not aware of any action to increase the protection afforded to growers of these two commodities. The normal method by which an industry seeks to gain increased protection is to apply to the Tariff Board. If the growers of either of these commodities consider that the protection for their industry is insufficient, their normal approach is to the Minister for Trade, seeking a hearing by the Tariff Board of an application for increased protection. I am aware that the tariff on blue peas is only 1 8d. a cental. That has been the tariff for many years. If the growers feel that it is insufficient, the remedy is an approach to the Tariff Board. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>Because of seasonal conditions in a great part of Australia in which peas are grown, last year the imports of blue peas and green peas increased greatly. I do not think those imports will affect the position. Most of the frozen green peas have been used. Over the last quarter imports have dwindled to practically nothing. That indicates, I believe, that the large increase in imports was only to fill the gap in supplies to consumers which occurred because of the bad season in Australia. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>142</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>WYNDHAM AIRPORT</title>
<page.no>142</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>142</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K3W</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CANT, Hartley</name>
<name role="display">Senator CANT</name>
</talker>
<para>- My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I preface it by saying that in answer to a question that I asked him a few months ago about the condition of Wydnham airport he advised me that if the Wyndham airport were out of service at any time the Kununurra airport could be used in its place. I now ask the Minister whether he is aware that for the first six weeks of 1962 the Kununurra airport was in service for only two days and the Wyndham airport was out of service for a considerable portion of that period of six weeks. In view of those conditions in the Wyndham area* and the town's almost complete lack of communication with the outside world, will the Minister advise me whether the intention of the Department of Civil Aviation is to make either of these airports serviceable in all weathers? If it is, when can we expect work to commence on one or both of them? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>142</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
<name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The airport at Kununurra was constructed by the State Department of Works and, as far as I know, is owned by that department. It is not a Commonwealth responsibility. The airport was built from funds which were made available for the development of the Ord River project, but it is not a Commonwealthowned airport. I told the honorable senator previously, when he asked a similar question, that the Department of Civil Aviation proposed doing some work during this year at Wyndham. I shall ascertain exactly what progress has been made there. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>142</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>MENTAL HEALTH</title>
<page.no>142</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>142</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KAW</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEDGWOOD, Ivy</name>
<name role="display">Senator WEDGWOOD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I preface a question to the Minister for Health by saying that on 10th October last I asked the then Minister for Health, the Honorable Donald Cameron, a number of questions about the future availability of money to Victoria and Tasmania under the States Grants (Mental Institutions) Act 1957. My question is: Can the present Minister inform the Senate of the progress, if any, that has been made in examining the proposals put forward by the State Treasurers in relation to funds for mental health and for mental institutions? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>142</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KAF</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>CP</party>
<role>Minister for Health</role>
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
<name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
</talker>
<para>- At the recent Premiers' Conference the Premiers of Victoria and Tasmania submitted a case for the grant of additional money to aid them with their mental hospitals, and subsequently the Prime Minister asked me to endeavour to arrange a conference with those two Premiers. I can tell the Senate now that it is my intention to meet both of these gentlemen in Melbourne on Friday, 9th March, to hear their submissions on this matter. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>143</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS</title>
<page.no>143</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>143</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUD</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCMANUS, Francis</name>
<name role="display">Senator McMANUS</name>
</talker>
<para>- My question, which is directed to the Minister for Health, refers to the reported withdrawal from sale of certain drugs, following claims that they are causing infant deaths and infant deformities. Is <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Hugh</inline> Hunter, the assistant medical secretary of the Australian Medical Association, correct in saying that new drugs are coming on to the market every day and that it is impossible to test them for side-effects beforehand? If so, does not this represent a serious danger to the community? Why is it impossible to hold up the sale of new drugs until they have been adequately tested? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>143</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KAF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>CP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
<name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I took a personal interest in the matter dealt with in the first portion of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus's</inline> question, and I asked the Director-General of Health to give me some information on it. I ask the honorable senator to put on notice questions dealing with any matters that I leave unanswered, because I think a written reply to the points he has raised is demanded. The drug to which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline> referred is known, I think, as Distaval. It is a proprietary line. Until late November, 1961, it was available in all States, including the Australian Capital Territory but excepting Queensland, for purchase over the counter. In Queensland it was available on doctors' prescriptions only. Distaval was not a pharmaceutical benefit. It is reported to have harmful effects in early pregnancy. At the end of November, 1961, the manufacturers of Distaval wrote to every chemist in Australia advising that, as a result of unfavorable reports received by their United Kingdom principals, Distaval and certain other drugs were being withdrawn. The manufacturers requested the retail chemists to return all stocks, pending pharmacological and other studies to determine the effects. The wholesalers were also notified. The retail sale of all drugs is a matter for individual State control. I think that last sentence answers, in general terms, the final question that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline> asked, but I may be able to obtain additional information which will help him in his approach to this problem. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>143</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>LAUNCESTON AIRPORT</title>
<page.no>143</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>143</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KSN</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MARRIOTT, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator MARRIOTT</name>
</talker>
<para>- My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Is it a fact that tenders have been called for the construction of new taxi-ways at the Launceston airport and for other work that will have to be done before the proposed new passenger terminal can be commenced? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the progress that is being made with the designing of the new terminal building, and can he forecast when the constructional work will be commenced? Will the Public Works Committee have to examine the plans of the Department of Civil Aviation before money can be voted by the Parliament for expenditure on the building? </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>143</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
<name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes, it is a fact that tenders have been called for the construction of certain taxi-ways at Launceston. It will be necessary for further taxiway and other engineering work to be done before the building of the terminal can be proceeded with. Design work is going ahead steadily, but I am not sure of the precise point which it has reached. It is quite impossible for me to state a probable date of commencement, because, as suggested in the question, it will be necessary for work of this size to be referred to the Public Works Committee for examination and report before construction can begin. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>143</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET</title>
<page.no>143</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>143</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1T</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BENN, Archibald</name>
<name role="display">Senator BENN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to ask a question of the Minister who represents the Minister for Trade. Did the Minister observe an item in yesterday's press under the caption "Market Six Review British Bid"? Did the Minister notice that the bid was an Australian request to send an observer to the negotiations relating to special Australian problems which may be discussed at the next ministerial meeting on or about 22nd March? Does the treaty between the six member nations of the European Economic Community permit Australia to be directly represented at the discussions of the Ministers of the Common Market? Should the Ministers agree to the request to permit an Australian observer to be present when they are discussing Australian affairs, will the Minister for Trade or an officer of his department be the observer? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>143</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7A</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Naturally, there is a great number of newspaper reports about this matter. I do not remember whether I saw the one to which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn</inline> referred, but I think I can answer the question quite satisfactorily in this way: At present Australia is making representations so that she can be a party to the negotiations and the discussions at times when Australian interests are affected. Australia is, of course, not a member of the present European Common Market organization. Therefore, Australia has no rights. Australia cannot make any demands; she can only make requests. It is a matter that is at present under consideration by The Six. We have not yet had a final answer to our representations. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>The honorable senator asked whether the representative would be the Minister for Trade. I hesitate to answer that question, though I think it would be almost impossible for him to be the representative because once the negotiations commence they will be spread over a great number of commodities which will be dealt with one by one. I should imagine that the negotiations will go on for quite a lengthy period and it would be quite impossible for a Minister te be present at the discussions for the whole time. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>144</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>SIREX WASP</title>
<page.no>144</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>144</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQQ</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LAUGHT, Keith</name>
<name role="display">Senator LAUGHT</name>
</talker>
<para>- My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and concerns the sirex wood-wasp problem. Last Wednesday when I questioned the Minister he was good enough to state that he expected to meet in conference State Ministers for Forests yesterday to discuss the details of this urgent matter. My questions to-day are - (1) Did a meeting take place yesterday as planned and, if so, what States were represented? (2) Was any basis agreed upon by the States and the Commonwealth for contribution to the fund for fighting the sirex wood-wasp? If so, what basis was agreed upon? (3) Broadly what lines of research and attack are contemplated? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>144</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KAF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>CP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
<name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
</talker>
<para>- A conference took place yesterday between the appropriate Commonwealth and State representatives. Unfortunately, the notice that the conference was to be held was so short that all of the State Ministers could not be present. However, those who could not be there sent their deputies. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lindsay</inline> Thompson, the Victorian Minister, and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Ward,</inline> who holds the portfolio of Forests and </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Housing in Tasmania, were present. Other Ministers were represented by their senior officers. The conference took some time to debate the proposals put before it, but finally unanimous agreement was reached on the proposal that appropriations be made by the States to build their contributions to £100,000. It was agreed that the contributions should be on an acreage basis, having regard to the State government plantings in the various States </para>
<para>I think it is fair to say that the Victorian Minister for Forests accelerated the reaching of that unanimous decision by making a very generous gesture in offering to increase Victoria's contribution by £5,000, thereby relieving South Australia, which has the biggest acreage, of a similar amount. The conference agreed to appoint a committee of officers to implement a threepronged attack on the wasp by way of survey, eradication and research. When I state the names of the personnel appointed to the committee, I think honorable senators will agree that we have the best-equipped men in the land to undertake this task. <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Harrison,</inline> who is the director of the Division of Plant Quarantine in the Department of Health, is chairman of the committee. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is represented by <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Waterhouse,</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Jacobs,</inline> the Director-General of the Forestry and Timber Bureau, is also a member. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania are making available the services of their senior forestry officers. They will be the remaining members of the committee. The committee met this morning and is Sti in session. I am informed that it is making good progress. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>144</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>SEARCH FOR OIL</title>
<page.no>144</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>144</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KBL</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WOOD, Ian</name>
<name role="display">Senator WOOD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. According to a report in the latest issue of the Sydney "Sunday Telegraph", <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Harold</inline> Smith, the chairman of the American Liquid Gas Corporation, which is a subsidiary company of the Union Oil company, one of the American companies drilling for oil at Moonie, Queensland, has said that accounts of the recent 30-day test of oil flow at Moonie were relayed daily to Union Oil in the United States of America. Does the Minister not consider that it is unfair to the shareholders in the Australian </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Oil and Gas Corporation Limited, the Australian company in the Moonie project, that they had to wait for the full 30-day test to be completed before they received any information as to the oil flow tests? As this has possibly meant that many Australian shareholders of A.O.G. have sold their shares to Americans at a cheaper price than might have been the case, because of the more up-to-date information that the Americans had; and further, as this particular group of companies - two American and one Australian - has been, and still is, receiving subsidies for oil drilling, which is paid for by the Australian taxpayers, through the Commonwealth Government, will the Minister take up the matter with the Union-Kern organizations and the A.O.G. group and ask that the same information on drilling and testing for oil be given to the Australian shareholders and public as is given to the shareholders and public in the United States? </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>145</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7A</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think I should commence my answer by saying that this is a matter upon which I would prefer not to comment. I have adopted the attitude of being restrained in what I have had to say from time to time about oil discoveries because of the obvious effect that any statement would have on the share market. The matter in question is one between the two companies concerned, and we are discussing a newspaper report. Whatever right to comment I may have is lessened in this particular case, because the Moonie No. 2 well is an assessment well. It is not eligible for a subsidy under the Commonwealth subsidy scheme; it is being drilled by the companies entirely without any subsidy from the Commonwealth. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>I am deeply conscious of the very good relations which exist between the two American companies and the Australian company in this joint venture. I should be surprised indeed if any information is going to America about this drilling operation which is not being made available concurrently to the Australian company. Therefore, I finish my answer where I started it. This is a matter for the directors of the companies concerned and I do not think I should express views on it. This has been a very successful venture in every way. Without making any further comment, I doubt the accuracy of the newspaper report. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>145</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>STARTING PRICE BOOKMAKING</title>
<page.no>145</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>145</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZU</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ORMONDE, James</name>
<name role="display">Senator ORMONDE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the Leader of the Government in this place aware that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Askin,</inline> the Liberal Party leader in New South Wales, has announced that he will introduce starting price betting agents into workshops and factories in that State if his party is elected to office on Saturday next? <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Askin</inline> made that promise to the electors of New South Wales over the television network on Sunday evening last, and he has repeated it. Does the Minister think that this monstrous proposal, if implemented, would be in the interests of the national economy? Does he not think it would seriously interfere with production in Australia? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>145</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7A</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
</talker>
<para>- From the tenor of the question I gather that this would be the only proposal which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Askin</inline> has put forward that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Heffron</inline> has not forthwith adopted and included in his policy. The current New South Wales election campaign is most extraordinary. Every time the Liberal Party makes a statement of policy on a particular matter, the Labour Party includes that item in its policy the following night. The ink is hardly dry upon the Liberal Party's policy before the Labour Party has adopted it. I listened to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Askin's</inline> television interview on Sunday night and I did not hear him say anything about putting starting price betting agents into workshops. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>145</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>SEARCH FOR OIL</title>
<page.no>145</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>145</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5K</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SCOTT, Malcolm</name>
<name role="display">Senator SCOTT</name>
</talker>
<para>- Has the Minister for National Development seen a press statement to the effect that a recent oil share flotation was considerably over-subscribed? Does the Minister believe that the Government's policy in recently amending the income tax legislation to permit 100 per cent, of money paid in response to calls by oil companies to be treated as an allowable tax deduction has had any effect in encouraging the subscription of capital for this purpose? Since the legislation was amended, have any flotations not brought in the amounts required by the companies? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>145</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7A</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I believe it to be true to say that the Government's policy on the search for oil is now being proved sound and successful. We started with surveys to provide basic information. The next step was the subsidizing of operations to increase the tempo of the search. The next step was the altering of the income tax legislation so that people subscribing the capital necessary for oil search could get tax deductions if they so desired. This policy is now proving itself to be successful. The evidence is, first, the actual discovery of oil; secondly, the substantial increase in the volume of drilling and other search transactions; and thirdly, the number of companies now being floated to intensify the search still further. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>146</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS</title>
<page.no>146</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>146</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTN</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCKENNA, Nicholas</name>
<name role="display">Senator McKENNA</name>
</talker>
<para>- I understand that the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs has an answer to a question which I asked on Wednesday last. The question was - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Has the Government inquired into reports that tankers carrying fuel oil from Indonesia to Australia are being buzzed or intimidated by aircraft of the Indonesian Air Force? If there is substance in the reports, what action, if any, has the Government taken? </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>146</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for the Navy</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am informed that a report appeared in the " Sydney Morning Herald " and that on the following day action was taken to find out whether or not the report was in fact justified. The reporter concerned has refused to reveal the source of the story which was printed, but it appears likely that the story came from a crew member of one of the tankers which had recently returned from Indonesia to Kurnell. In the week preceding the publication of the story, there were in Kurnell only four tankers that had returned from trading with Indonesia. They belonged to Ampol Petroleum Limited and H. C. Sleigh Limited. Both those companies, and Caltex Oil (Australia) Proprietary Limited, have denied having any knowledge whatever of the occurrences reported. No complaint as to such occurrences has been lodged with the Navigation Section of the Department of Shipping and Transport, nor has any master complained that his ship was in fact approached by Indonesian aircraft. There would not appear to be any official or semiofficial justification for the story. Although it is always possible that in the area in question an Indonesian Gannet or other aircraft may have flown near a ship, the story of buzzing or intimidation is not believed to have any basis. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>146</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>HYPNOSIS ON TELEVISION</title>
<page.no>146</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>146</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K3O</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BUTTFIELD, Nancy</name>
<name role="display">Senator BUTTFIELD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the Minister for Health a question. I refer to a report in this morning's press, emanating from Canberra, which states that four films from the British Broadcasting Corporation's famous " Lifeline " series, dealing with hypnosis, have been banned by the Commonwealth Director-General of Health. Is it constitutionally possible for the DirectorGeneral of Health to override a decision of the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board as to what films are suitable for admission into Australia from overseas for use on television? Did the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board sanction the entry into Australia of the films to which I have referred? In view of the widespread misapprehension among the Australian people concerning the already great and rapidly increasing medical benefits to be derived from the specialized use of hypnosis, will the Minister confer with the Prime Minister in order to prevent one department overriding the decisions of another department and imposing a ban that would obstruct the demonstration of the proper use of hypnosis in Australia? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>146</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KAF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>CP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WADE, Harrie</name>
<name role="display">Senator WADE</name>
</talker>
<para>- As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Buttfields</inline> question refers to action taken by my department, I have armed myself with some information on this matter. I thought that this matter might be of great interest to people generally and to honorable senators in particular. I have been informed by the Director-General of Health that programmes of a medical nature broadcast or televised by the Australian Broadcasting Commission are referred for prior approval to the Commonwealth Director of Health in each State under a delegation of my authority as Minister for Health. In Sydney on 12th January last <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Wienholt,</inline> Commonwealth Director of Health, viewed four films of the " Lifeline " series. Those films were titled " Judgment and the Unconscious ", " Reality and the Unconscious ", " Medicine and the Unconscious " and " Hypnosis and the Unconscious '. He considered that they were medically unacceptable for transmission. There is no State legislation that prohibits the public performance of hypnosis for entertainment. However, a theatre audience is a captive audience and is under control. This is not so with a television audience. Furthermore, what is regarded by the State authorities as acceptable entertainment is not necessarily suitable material for television audiences. It is considered that no programme should contain matter which, if imitated, could be harmful to the well-being of the individual or of the community. Standards of acceptability require the observance not only of good taste, but also of common sense. In the commercial field the appearance of a patient receiving treatment or under the influence of a drug or hypnosis is not approved for advertising purposes, and last year, when the press code was being revised, advertisements concerning cure by hypnotism were regarded as unacceptable. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>MELBOURNE AIRPORT</title>
<page.no>147</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SANDFORD, Charles Walter</name>
<name role="display">Senator SANDFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- Will the Minister for Civil Aviation inform the Senate what progress has been made in providing Melbourne with a jet airport? When may we expect that a start will be made on this important project? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
<name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Only last week I answered a similar question addressed to me by another honorable senator. I said then that I had nothing to add to the statement on this subject that I made last year to a deputation headed by the Lord Mayor of Melbourne. I told the deputation that it would not be possible for the Government to consider the proposed new airport for Melbourne until late in 1962. I indicated that a factor having an important bearing on the decision was the type of aircraft that would be acquired by the domestic airlines, and that although the domestic airlines were examining certain types of aircraft that were available to them, they would not be placing orders for such aircraft before 30th June, 1962. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS</title>
<page.no>147</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KAC</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">VINCENT, Victor</name>
<name role="display">Senator VINCENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, refers to a statement by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Robert</inline> Kennedy concerning the present unfortunate quarrel between Indonesia and the Netherlands over West New Guinea. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Robert</inline> Kennedy is reported to have said that if hostilities broke out between the two countries, provoked by Indonesia, the United States of America would have to consider her position. Does the Minister interpret that statement to mean that in such circumstances the United States would intervene in the armed conflict on the side of the Netherlands? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KH5</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not think I am in a position to interpret the statement to which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Vincent</inline> has referred because it is, after all, not a statement in an official communication that I have received but rather a newspaper report of something that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Robert</inline> Kennedy is alleged to have said. I do not think I should interpret any statement made on this subject and certainly not one of the kind referred to by the honorable senator. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>SUPERANNUATION</title>
<page.no>147</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KOU</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HENDRICKSON, Albion</name>
<name role="display">Senator HENDRICKSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Last week, I asked a question relating to reductions in superannuation payments, if any, which would be made because a new position had been found for the former chairman of the Public Service Board. I now ask a similar question concerning a former secretary of the Department of External Affairs who, having resigned from the department, is alleged to have been given a position with the Australian National University. Will his superannuation be reduced because of his new assignment? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZY</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALTRIDGE, Shane</name>
<name role="display">Senator PALTRIDGE</name>
</talker>
<para>- As I indicated in reply to a similar question asked recently by the honorable senator, I do not know. I will have inquiries made and see whether any information can be made available to the honorable senator about this matter also. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTION</title>
<page.no>147</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZQ</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
<name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question which is related to the question asked by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> about the New South Wales election. Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Labour Government proposes to build a £14,000,000 tell road to nowhere and that if it persists with this action New South Wales will be denied, as a consequence, funds desperately needed for housing, education and health purposes? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>147</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7A</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I must confess that at times I derive a good deal of satisfaction from the election campaign in New South Wales. We have the spectacle of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Landa,</inline> my opposite number in the New South Wales Government, crying to high heaven that he cannot get sufficient money for housing from the Commonwealth and, at the same time, his Government proposing to build this expensive toll road. I do not think the cost of the road will be £14,000,000. My recollection is, although I am not certain on this point, that the figure mentioned was £85,000,000. Perhaps some honorable senator from New South Wales knows the correct figure. At all events, the New South Wales Government proposes to spend a large sum of money on a road that private enterprise is prepared to build. If the building of this road were left to private enterprise motorists would still be able to choose between the new road and the existing Governmentowned road. But despite its extravagance, the New South Wales Government continues to complain about the inadequacy of funds provided by the Commonwealth. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>148</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>THE PARLIAMENT</title>
<page.no>148</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para class="block">Lecture by Professor Bok. </para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>148</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K3O</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BUTTFIELD, Nancy</name>
<name role="display">Senator BUTTFIELD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question. In view of the marvellous events that are now taking place in the outer atmosphere, will the Minister invite Professor Bok, of the Mount Stromlo Observatory, to deliver a lecture or series of lectures in Parliament House so that honorable senators and other persons may, if they wish, inform themselves of the many ramifications associated with man's conquest of outer space and the benefits to be derived therefrom? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>148</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K7A</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPOONER, William</name>
<name role="display">Senator SPOONER</name>
</talker>
<para>- This is a matter more for the presiding officers than for me, so I will refer the honorable senator's request to the President. </para>
</talk.start>