19661013_senate_25_s32.xml

<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <session.header>
    <date>1966-10-13</date>
    <parliament.no>25</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>6</period.no>
    <chamber>SENATE</chamber>
    <page.no>1025</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <day.start>1966-10-13</day.start>
      <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin)</inline> took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
    </business.start>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1025</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>VISIT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON</title>
          <page.no>1025</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1025</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JQR</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COTTON, Bob</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COTTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the PrimeMinister&#39;s Department been informed by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline> of his decision to decline an invitation to attend the parliamentary luncheon that is to be given for the  President  of the United States of America? Will the Minister comment on <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh&#39;s</inline> statement, allegedly made to a mass demonstration outside Parliament House yesterday, that he would attend an anti-Vietnam demonstration in South Australia on the same day that the Commonwealth Parliament is honouring  President  Johnson? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K8N</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TOOHEY, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Toohey</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I rise to a point of order. Is this a proper question to ask in the Senate? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1025</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
              <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Order! The question has been directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. He will decide whether it is within his capacity to answer it. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Willesee</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> mayI be heard on the point that has been raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Toohey?</inline> I know that you have ruled on the matter. I think this is an appropriate time to draw your attention to the very difficult task- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKELLAR, Gerald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKellar</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is the honorable senator now acting in accordance with the Standing Orders? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Willesee</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I asked for permission to address the  President  and I understood that I had received permission. I know that this is a tremendously difficult matter to deal with. You have just ruled, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir. that</inline> in this instance it should be left to the discretion of the Minister whether to answer this question. I am wondering whether there should not be some revision of the general position. Are Government senators to be allowed to continue asking these sorts of questions, which clearly are not in the interests of the public or of this House and are clearly outside the purview of the Minister&#39;s department? Two can play at this game. Where will we finish up if this is allowed to continue? Do not let us think that honorable senators on this side of the chamber are not capable. Every one of them has come through a pretty rough school. If this sort of thing is persisted in, obviously Opposition senators will take advantage of the situation too. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WEBSTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Webster</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Do not say that they do not do so now. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Willesee</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I thought the honorable senator would be the last one to say that. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> you will have got the message from <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Webster&#39;s</inline> interjection. Let me say in reply to him that we are not asking these sorts of questions. Certainly we are not doing so nearly as much as are Government senators. Honorable senators opposite are getting election fever. But this place will have to carry on for a long time after the election is over. J suggest very seriously that everybody in this place should contribute to asking questions in a much more orderly manner than has been the case lately. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>1L5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Murphy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> may I draw your attention- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
                <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I have been generous with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate in hearing him when he is not speaking to a point of order. Are you now raising a point of order, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy?</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>1L5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Murphy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President</inline> I would like to draw your attention to Standing Order No. 99, which states, in part - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <quote>
            <para>The following rules shall apply to Questions: - </para>
            <para>Questions shall not ask - </para>
            <list type="loweralpha">
              <item label="(a)">
                <para>for an expression of opinion; </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COTTON, Bob</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cotton</name>
              </talker>
              <para>asked the Minister to comment on something. It is a very clear request for an opinion to be expressed by the Minister, and it offends Standing Orders. I ask that you rule, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, that</inline> such questions shall not be asked. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cavanagh</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I would appreciate hearing the Minister&#39;s opinion. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1025</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
                <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The real test in  a  question of this nature is whether it is a matter of public importance. The question contained a request for comment, but it went further than that. My responsibility is either to allow the question, or not to allow it. On this occasionI consider that it comes within the requirement of what I would regard as a matter of public importance. It becomes then the responsibility of the Minister to decide whether he answers it. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cotton,</inline> have you finished your question? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1026</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COTTON, Bob</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COTTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir. The</inline> question has been asked. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1026</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1T</name.id>
                <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>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President, Senator Cotton</inline> was interrupted when he was asking his question. Would you be so good as to request him to ask it again? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1026</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
                <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cotton,</inline> would you ask your question again? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1026</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COTTON, Bob</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COTTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister&#39;s Department been advised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline> of his decision to decline an invitation to attend a parliamentary luncheon to the  President  of the United States? I will leave it at that. One could say many other things. One could draw attention to comments in the Press, but if it is left at that, 1 think it sets the question I would like to have answered. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1026</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Works</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>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,I</inline> am afraid that I cannot tell the honorable senator whether <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline> has refused an invitation to the State luncheon to be tendered by Parliament to the  President  of the United States. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1026</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cavanagh</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I can tell him. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1026</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, but the honorable senator was not asked. I have no doubt at all that invitations were issued to all honorable members and all honorable senators, but whether in fact an answer has been received, I do not know, nor would I know the content of such an answer. However, if <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline> was correctly reported as to his statement yesterday, he would have refused the invitation because of the expression of extreme opinion in opposition to the Government&#39;s action in Vietnam which he then made. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1026</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>HOUSING</title>
          <page.no>1026</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1026</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYA</name.id>
              <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;BYRNE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In addressing my  question to the Minister for Housing I refer to the Democratic Labour Party Cooperative Building Society of Tasmania, of which a former senator, George  R.  Cole, and a prominent member of the Democratic Labour Party, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. T.</inline> J. Doody, are director and secretary respectively, and to a group of terminating building societies in Tasmania. As the Democratic Labour Party Co-operative Building Society of Tasmania is an accepted society under the Homes Savings Grant Act and an approved lender under the Housing Loans Insurance Act, will the Minister give an assurance that all processes of the Federal law will be used to prevent further money of the Society being diverted into financing the D.L.P. propaganda machine, and the newspaper &#34; Devon News &#34; which is now in bankruptcy? Will the Minister inquire into any other Democratic Labour Party building societies to ascertain whether large scale misappropriation of moneys is occurring in those societies? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1026</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K28</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RANKIN, Annabelle</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I think the honorable senator has asked a very strange question. I can assure him that the amount of money which is made available through the Home Builders Account to individual societies is a matter forthe State Government. Funds for the Society referred to by the honorable senator could be made available in that way. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1026</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PUBLIC SERVICE</title>
          <page.no>1026</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1026</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 ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister  whether there is any truth in the rumour that after years of unsuccessful representation by the Australian Council of Trade Unions for four weeks&#39; annual leave for Federal public servants the Government is now about to grant this request as an election gimmick. Is it also a fact that the second instalment of superannuation refunds is to be made before 26th November as another election gimmick? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1026</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>- The honorable senator bases his question on rumours, asks about future action, and, I suggest, infringes the Standing Orders by asking a question about a matter which is the subject of an amendment notified by the Leader of the Opposition. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1026</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS</title>
          <page.no>1026</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1026</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
              <electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BISHOP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question is directed to the Minister representing the </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Minister for Shipping and Transport. It refers to recent orders by the Commonwealth Railways for approximately 30 new sleeping cars, and to the calling of tenders for them. I wish to refer also to the recent reply given by the Minister, through the Minister for Customs and Excise in this chamber, after J had suggested that rolling stock of this kind ought to be manufactured in Australia. The Minister stated that the matter would be considered on the closing of tenders. I now ask: Can the Minister advise the Senate whether these passenger cars will be manufactured either in Australian government workshops or in Australian private factories? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1027</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am not in a position to give the information that the honorable senator seeks, consequent upon his previous inquiry, but I shall certainly expedite action to obtain it. If I receive the information 1 shall convey it to the honorable senator. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1027</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TRADE</title>
          <page.no>1027</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1027</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZB</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FITZGERALD, Joseph</name>
              <name role="display">Senator FITZGERALD</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Can he say what policies, if any, are adopted by the Department of Trade and Industry or by our Trade Commissioners abroad to protect the interests of Australian importers against the snide, cunning and unscrupulous actions of Eastern firms which export to Australia? I can assure the Minister that a number of such instances have been brought to my attention during the past week. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1027</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honorable senator has asked a question about trade relations and imports. It is a very comprehensive question, but the short answer, of course, is that we have our own laws which protect Australian industry. We have the tariff provisions and we also have our anti-dumping laws, which are administered by the Department of Customs and Excise, to protect Australian industry against the importation of goods which prima facie are being sold in Australia at a figure below the normal domestic value. Honorable senators may have noticed that from time to time I issue Press statements in relation to this matter and that I gazette certain commodities in respect of which there is a prima facie case of dump ing. Such cases are investigated. Securities are taken in certain instances and the matters are then referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry. If the honorable senator is aware of specific instances, or a constituent of his is aware of them, in which it is considered that persons in this country are being injuriously affected by unfair trade practices, he should bring them to the attention of my Department and they will be investigated. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1027</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>CIVIL AVIATION</title>
          <page.no>1027</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1027</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAS</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WEBSTER, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WEBSTER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is the Minister aware that certain country air services in Victoria recently have been curtailed or discontinued? What are the grounds for discontinuance of these valued services to rural people? If the grounds for discontinuance are claimed to be economic, will the Minister for Civil Aviation give urgent consideration to the applications of other licensed operators who feel that such feeder services can be operated economically? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1027</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- A question was asked yesterday in relation to the curtailment of air services to certain areas of New South Wales and 1 indicated (hen that the basic reason for the curtailment was that the operators were able to show that they were uneconomic. This is a broad question, however, because the administration of the State Governments comes into matters concerning services of this type. The Minister for Civil Aviation made a comment in this respect in another place yesterday, and for that reason I think it would be proper for me to refer the honorable senator&#39;s question to the Minister so that a considered reply can be given. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1027</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TELEPHONE SERVICES</title>
          <page.no>1027</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1027</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KOU</name.id>
              <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>- ls faha Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral aware that so few telephonists are provided to handle trunk bookings, telegrams and local inquiries at the General Post Office, Melbourne, that telephone users frequently have to wait long periods before their calls can be answered? Will he examine the shortage of staff in this branch and supply additional telephonists so that the public can be given the service which I am sure the branch WOUld wish to give? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1028</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honorable senator draws attention to what he considers to be a lack of service due to a shortage of telephonists in Melbourne. I think we all agree that the Postmaster General&#39;s Department is a huge department and is doing a magnificent job. It might well be that sometimes it would appear that something less than the maximum service is being given, but I think that such cases would be rare. However, I shall certainly draw the Postmaster General&#39;s attention to the point which the honorable senator has raised. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1028</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TELEVISION FILM</title>
          <page.no>1028</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1028</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPG</name.id>
              <electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KEEFFE, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator KEEFFE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Will the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate inform the Parliament whether the Government has arranged with the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the Petrov television film now being shown by the British Broadcasting Corporation to be televised in Australia prior to 26th November 1966 in order to assist the Liberal Parly&#39;s election campaign? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1028</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>- It has been well established, and is well known, that the Australian Government does not interfere with the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Government does not tell the Commission what it has to televise nor does it prevent the Commission from televising certain matter.I think the Senate would agree that it would be wrong to do those things and also that the Senate would be perturbed by the implication in <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Keeffe&#39;s</inline> question that the A.B.C. ought to be approached in order to prevent it from televising a particular film - in other words, that the Commission should be subjected to political censorship. That is the basis of the honorable senator&#39;s question. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1028</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PACIFIC ISLAND REGIMENT</title>
          <page.no>1028</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">(Question  No. 940.) </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1028</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKP</name.id>
              <electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GAIR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister rep  resenting the Minister for Defence, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What is the total strength of the Pacific Island Regiment? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Does the Government still believe that the Regiment will have a total strength of 3,500 by June 1968, as planned in the Defence Review of 1964? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1028</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>- The Minister for Defence has furnished the following reply - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>The strength of Pacific Islanders in the battalions and supporting units of the Pacific Islands Regiment at 31st August 1966 was 1,819. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1028</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>SERVICEMEN IN VIETNAM</title>
          <page.no>1028</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>(Question No. 941.) </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1028</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>asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Do defence authorities guarantee that a serviceman in Vietnam who nominates for the next Federal election will be repatriated and discharged from the service to undertake his campaign; if not, what is the procedure in such cases? </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1028</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>- The Minister for Defence has furnished the following reply - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>A member of the permanent forces, other than a national serviceman, who is serving in Vietnam and who wishes to stand as a candidate at the next Federal election will, if he is a bona fide candidate, be discharged for the purpose. The place of discharge will normally be the place of his enlistment. The Government intends to introduce legislation to allow the discharge of national servicemen for this purpose as existing legislation does not permit such action to be taken. A national serviceman will also normally be discharged at the place of his enlistment. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1028</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS</title>
          <page.no>1028</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">(Question No. 981.) </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1028</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6R</name.id>
              <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COHEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Supply, upon notice - </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What Australian firms or companies have contracts with (a) the United States Government and (b) the Australian Government to supply Australian manufactured goods for use in Vietnam? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>In respect of each such contract, (a) what goods have been supplied; (b) what goods are to be supplied; and (c) what is the sale price of the goods? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Have the United States contracts been negotiated directly by the firms or companies concerned with the United States Government, or through the Australian Government? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1028</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>- The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answer - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>The Department of Supply has knowledge only of the items dealt with through it. Therefore, it does not have information on contracts which might have been entered into direct by Australian firms or companies with the United States Government or its agents. </para>
            <para>It will be appreciated that many items purchased by the Australian Army from Australian firms or companies either direct under local purchasing delegation from the Contract Board or through the </para>
            <para class="block">Contract Board have been or will be used in Vietnam. It has been assumed that the question is not meant to cover items in this category but is related to purchases on behalf of United Stales Government. </para>
            <para>The question is restricted to contracts for Australian manufactured goods allotted to firms or companies. However, it is mentioned that small arms ammunition has been ordered by the United States Government from the Department of Supply, as announced on 15th February 1966. This ammunition is now being delivered. It is also mentioned that some lightweight tents for trial purposes are being manufactured by the Commonwealth Clothing Factory. </para>
            <para>Having regard to the foregoing, the following are the answers to the specific questions - 1. (a) None through the Department of Supply. (b) Colourful Canvas Co. Pty. Ltd. of New South Wales, to supply shower buckets, and the following principal companies to make up lightweight sleeping equipments of a type supplied to the United Slates authorities for trial purposes - </para>
            <para>Conlons Canvas Goods Pty. Ltd. of New South Wales. </para>
            <para>Consolidated Plastic Sales Ply. Ltd. of New South Wales. </para>
            <para>Driclad Pty. Ltd. of New South Wales. </para>
            <list type="upperalpha-dotted">
              <item label="M.">
                <para>Pennisi Clothing Pty. Ltd. of Victoria. </para>
              </item>
            </list>
            <para>Denzil Don Pty. Ltd. of Victoria. </para>
            <list type="upperalpha-dotted">
              <item label="C.">
                <para>
                  <inline font-style="italic">J.</inline>Martin Pty. Ltd. of South Australia. </para>
              </item>
            </list>
            <para>Aqua Style Clothing Co. Pty. Ltd. of Western Australia. 2. (a) The lightweight sleeping equipments have been delivered. (b) The shower buckets are yet to be delivered, (c) The sale price of the goods covered byI (b) above would approximate $75,000. </para>
            <list type="decimal-dotted">
              <item label="3.">
                <para>The purchases included in 1 (b) above were bundled through the Department of Supply. </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1029</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>POSTAL WORKERS</title>
          <page.no>1029</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">(Question No. 1041.) </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1029</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KOU</name.id>
              <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>asked the </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice - </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is the Prime Minister aware that there has been considerable delay in granting recent increases in the basic wage to members of the Postal Workers Union? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Have superannuation deductions already been made from the pay of members of this union in anticipation of the increase? If so, will the Prime Minister announce publicly, as soon as possible, the date on which the increased wage payments wilt be made? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1029</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>- The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honorable senator&#39;s question - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>All salary adjustments in respect of the recent basic wage decision have been made to members of the Postal Workers Union in Queensland. South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. In New South Wales, all adjustments will have been made by the next pay day, 13th </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">October 1966. It is expected that all payments will also have been made in Victoria by the same date. A small number in Victoria may be carried over into the next pay period but these will be finalised by 27th October. </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="2.">
              <para>No cases are known where superannuation deductions have been made in anticipation of the basic wage adjustments to salary. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1029</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TELEPHONE EXCHANGE</title>
          <page.no>1029</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1029</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- On 28th September 1966, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> asked me the following question, without notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Can the Minister representing the Postmaster General explain the delay in the occupancy <inline font-style="italic">of.</inline> the new telephone exchange at Griffith in New South Wales? </para>
          </quote>
          <para>The PostmasterGeneral has now supplied me with the following information in reply - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The building was provided to permit installation of equipment to improve the trunk service in the area and to house the trunk termination equipment for the coaxial cable between Wagga and Griffith which was then being laid. At the same time, the opportunity was taken to provide space  for  a future automatic exchange, the installation of which will commence this month. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1029</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>LODER COMMITTEE REPORT</title>
          <page.no>1029</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1029</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>- On 13th September, in reply to a question without notice from <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Keeffe,</inline> the Minister for Supply <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Henty)</inline> said that he would endeavour to obtain further information about the Loder Committee report. The Prime Minister has advised that the Loder Committee had before it a task of considerable magnitude. Its examinations were concerned with the cost of transportation to, from, and within the vast area of Northern Australia, with particular reference to the costs of transporting goods and the effects of such costs on the development of Northern Australia. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The report of the Loder Committee deals with a wide range of matters of far reaching importance affecting transport in Northern Australia and encompasses much detail. At the direction of the Government, the report has been the subject of extensive study by relevant Commonwealth departments. Because of the range and complexity of the matters embraced in the report, it was only recently and, in point of fact, at the time when the Government was entering upon its Budget discussions, that the departments were able to furnish their views on matters  covered by the report. While in some cases measures already adopted by the Government closely parallel certain proposals in the report, the findings in the report are in general far from clear cut and neither the departments concerned nor the Government itself has yet felt able to take a final position on them. Consideration is, of course, proceeding. In the meantime, it is not proposed to table the report. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>EXPENDITURE FROM THE CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND</title>
        <page.no>1030</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Report of Public Accounts Committee</title>
          <page.no>1030</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1030</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAW</name.id>
              <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</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>- On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, I present the following report of the Committee - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Eighty-fourth Report - Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the Financial </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Year  1965-66. </para>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline>I seek leave to make a short statement. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1030</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
              <name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  There being no objection, leave is granted. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1030</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAW</name.id>
                <electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
                <party>LP</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>-  This Report relates to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the financial year 1965-66 and, as I indicated on Tuesday, covers the remaining 20 items which were examined in a combined inquiry which related also to expenditure from the Advance tothe Treasurer. Over the years, your Committee has paid particular attention to the estimates and related expenditure of the various departments since a poor standard of estimating has wide ramifications. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>One feature of the evidence submitted in the present inquiry to which your Committee desires to draw particular attention is that relating to the failure of some departments to seek out their creditors. Where departments find that accounts for payment are not being rendered promptly by their creditors and. as a result, funds provided to meet such expenses are likely to remain unspent, your Committee believes that those departments have a direct responsibility to ensure that they take early positive action in order that such accounts are obtained for settlement. Allied to this, your Committee would emphasise the need for departments to maintain their liabilities registers in an efficient manner for, without the protection of this device, the financial position of departments becomes obscured to the detriment of sound financial management. </para>
          <para>From these observations it follows that any department which charges other departments for services it renders has a clear responsibility to ensure that it submits accounts for payment to debtor departments as soon as possible after the provision of the service concerned. Where the service provided is of a continuous nature, the department rendering the service should, in your Committee&#39;s view, arrange for the submission of accounts at such intervals as will ensure that debtor departments are given the opportunity to effect regular payments. I commend the report to honorable senators. </para>
          <para>Ordered that the report be printed. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1966</title>
        <page.no>1030</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>1030</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 29th September (vide page 809), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gorton</inline> - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the Bill be now read  a  second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1030</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBC</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - The Bill before the Senate contains amendments to the Public Service Act. Many of them will improve in some way certain provisions of the Act. Others will tidy up legal aspects. I do not intend to go through them all but will merely summarise what the Bill is designed to do and indicate that I shall be moving in the Committee stage four separate amendments which I shall outline in my second rending speech. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The first main feature of the Government&#39;s amendments is a provision to extend leave without pay to members of the Public Service engaged in defence service as defined in the. Act. This comes about because the Government in a state of emergency, can now call in to active service those sections of the armed forces which up to this time were never considered to be full time fighting services. The Public Service has had to make sure that leave could be granted to people affected in this way just as it would be if they were leaving with an expeditionary force. There is to be protection of the rights of members of specified defence services regarding pay, leave, promotion, appeal rights and so on. There will be a provision in relation to furlough entitlement including provision for payment in lieu of furlough. There is protection of the appeal rights of officers against selection of other officers for temporary transfer to higher positions. </para>
          <para>The amendments include the waiving under certain circumstances of the requirement that temporary employees take an oath or affirmation of allegiance. The Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Gorton)</inline> pointed out in his second reading speech that an American citizen could be appointed for a short time to a fairly junior job and it would foul up his rights of American citizenship if he were to lake an oath of allegiance to another country. This amendment does not exclude such persons, of course, from signing the secrecy pact nor does it enable them to be free of all the other challenges of law in case of malfeasance or anything of thai nature. </para>
          <para>The confirmation of the status of the permanent head of the Repatriation Department has been embodied in the legislation because, frequently, the Repatriation Commissioner is not a permanent public servant. The Act has been tidied up to make it legally clear that he does exercise the rights of permanent head of a department. 1 intend on behalf of the Opposition to move four amendments at the Committee stage. I will not read them in detail now because it would be confusing. The first is to ask the Government once again to enshrine in the Public Service Act provision for equal pay for equal work irrespective of sex. We intend to ask the Government to move with the times and grant four weeks annual leave - or recreation leave as it is known in the Act - for all members of the Public Service. The Opposition will ask the Government to make sure that furlough which is now at the discretionary power of the Public Service Board be made a right and not a matter of discretion. We shall ask that there be added to the schedules at the end of the Act setting out the heads of departments, a department of education, a department of northern development and a department of science and research. </para>
          <para>Let me deal with the Opposition&#39;s proposals in the order in which I have read them. The first is equal pay. This has been before the Senate several times. It is a matter on which we have had a lot of fine words from Government members but so far we have not been able to get them to move in the field where they have complete legal jurisdiction and that is in respect of their own employees. This principle has been embodied and enshrined in several international declarations going as far back as the Charter of the United Nations Act which approves the charter and authorises membership for Australia. The preamble states that the peoples of the United Nations determine to reaffirm faith in the equal rights of men and women and have resolved to combine their efforts to accomplish that aim. I emphasise &#34; equal rights of men and women &#34;. I refer to the International Labour Organisation Act of 1947, in which Australia&#39;s membership of that body was approved by this Parliament. There one sees the following passage - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Whereas universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice; </para>
            <para>And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such  injustice,  hardship and privation to large numbers of people as lo produce unrest so great (hat the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled: und an improvement of those conditions is urgently required; as, for example . . . recognition of the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That preamble is translated into substantive effect in Article 1, wherein it is stated - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>A permanent organisation is hereby established for the promotion of the objects set forth in the Preamble to this Constitution. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The last pronouncement on an international level from which 1 wish to quote is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also was supported by Australia. It contains this provision - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Everyone without any discrimination has tha right to equal pay for equal work. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I emphasise the expression &#34; everyone without any discrimination &#34;. </para>
          <para>There does not seem to be much doubt that this principle has been pretty well accepted throughout the world. It was pretty well accepted at the time of the formulation of the Charter of the United Nations, when we were emerging from a terrible conflict, when we realised that injustices had been perpetrated on certain peoples in the world, and when there was a great determination amongst the free peoples of the world to ensure that this would not happen again. That is why this provision is written in so many different places. But as those times recede into the distance, people are apt to forget. There is every legal justification for the Government to handle this matter, lt is interesting to have a look at the question of equal pay in the United States of America, the Constitution of which, of course, refers to equality of all people. Twenty-five States have legislated to guarantee equal pay. Five other States have legislation guaranteeing equal pay scales regardless of race, creed or any other basis of discrimination. This means that almost the whole of the United States is covered by equal pay legislation. The Federal Government there also has legislated in this regard. Virtually, the only exceptions to the provisions of the Federal legislation are intrastate service industries such as dry cleaning. </para>
          <para>Some years ago there were all sorts of taboos. People were discriminated against because of colour, creed and age and, of course, in the industrial field because of sex. 1 suppose this attitude will never pass away. As long as we have people who are basically bigoted in various degrees, thinking of themselves subconsciously as a master race, we will have some form of it. All will agree that over the last generation this type of attitude has receded, thank heavens, into the background. Today it is an abhorrent thing to be holding these old prejudices. Still, they are to &#39;be found to a slight degree in the industrial field in respect of age, but this, too, is disappearing rapidly. I suppose one of the worst offenders in this respect in the past has been the Public Service itself. If one examines old pay scales, one sees the evidence of the payment of rate for age, because juniors were not entitled to a full basic wage, and a tremendous jump between the pay rates at the ages of 20 and 21 respectively because under law the full base rate had to be applied at age 21. I do not want the Government to have the idea that if we got it to move into the field and to grant equal pay for equal work in the Public Service it would be a trail blazer and would be radically breaking ground. </para>
          <para>In 1963 the Dept of Labour and National Service issued a publication on equal pay. As far as 1 know, it has not been updated yet. At page 31 there appears a list of awards which grant equal pay for equal work. They include the following: The Confectioners Award 1959, the Footwear (Wood, Heel, Last, Counter, Unishank and Toe Puff) Manufacturing Award 1951, the Graphic Arts (Interim) Award 1957, the Journalists (Australian Associated Press) Agreement 1959, the Journalists (Worker Newspaper, Sydney) Award 1948, the Marine Stewards Award 1960, the Hotel Employees (Northern Territory) Award 1960, the Musicians Award 1960, the Printing Industry (Northern Territory News Services Ltd.) Award 1954, the Rubber, Plastic and Cable Making Industry Award 1 957, and the Saddlery, Leather and Canvas Workers Award 195 1 . Then there is a further list which I shall not read. I think I have made the point that the Government would not be breaking new ground if it moved into this area. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1032</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What proportion of the labour field does that list represent? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1032</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I ask the honorable senator to let me make my next point. The report sets out another list which J shall not read but which includes awards that provide that females shall receive the same margin as males who are engaged on the same classification. It will be noted that that relates to margins. That group of awards still retains the lower female basic wage rate but gives to females the same marginal rates as males. I am afraid I cannot tell the honorable senator the proportion of the labour force that would be involved. I would be making a guess. It would be so wide as not to be useful. It will be noted that the awards I mentioned go back quite a number of years. In my own State, for as long as 1 can remember barmen and barmaids have received the same rates of pay. I think that equal rates of pay apply in the transport industry, too. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Equal pay for barmen and barmaids was awarded many years ago by, I think, Judge Dwyer. He was not really a radical, and he suggested that if equal rates of pay were paid nobody in his sane senses would employ women. Anybody who goes into a bar - I am: not suggesting that everybody here does so - knows that barmaids are  a rather common part of the industrial scene in hotels. </para>
          <para>I put it to the Government that there is nothing new about the payment of equal pay for equal work. The Government could legislate and give a lead in this field. The late  President  Kennedy said that it was abhorrent that lines of demarcation should be drawn. He was referring particularly to the colour question, but he made the same statement in regard to the employment of women. 1 was interested to look back over the reports of past debates in this House and to read some of the remarks of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood. Senator Gorton</inline> spoke in one particular debate and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood</inline> followed him. I remember commenting at the time that 1 thought the honorable senator had been very incisive in dealing with the arguments that were advanced. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood</inline> brought the matter very much down to earth. It is all very well to talk about the legalistic approach and about what governments ought to do. but such matters must be brought back to a basis of fundamental justice. This is what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood</inline> said on the occasion in question - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>To mc. the principle of equal pay for equal work is fundamentally a matter of justice. I think it is that, iri more and no less. If women qualify in the same way. do the same work, and give the same service to the community as men do, I believe they are entitled to receive from the community equal remuneration for their work. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The honorable senator put the matter very simply. Years before we entered politics and when  1  met her on debating occasions, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Tangney</inline> used to advance the very same argument. I suppose it is natural thai women should not be worried about what the lawyers or politicians say but should look at the fundamentals o? a matter. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood</inline> continued - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>There is still a fight to be won on the industrial level. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That is very true. She continued - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>I hope that in the generation that is growing up today - better educated, perhaps more sophisticated than the generation associated with me and many of my colleagues, shorn of the prejudice and emotion that have always surrounded this question - the young men will assist the young women to get justice in their work. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Those remarks relate to the very question 1 dealt with a few moments ago - the question of getting away from prejudices of colour, creed, women in industry and the sort of super-race belief that people at least subconsciously tend to hold. 1 admired the honorable senator&#39;s speech so much that I have not tried to frame my own expressions but have been content to borrow her words. However, the disappointing part of her speech came at the end. The debate was  on  a matter of urgency calling for equal pay for equal work, raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McKenna.</inline> I commend it to anybody wishing to do research on this question, particularly on the legal side. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood&#39;s</inline> last sentence disappointed mc very much. She said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Whilst I do not support the motion, I am pleased to stand in this place and say that I shall fight on for equal pay for equal work. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That is the problem. Everyone seems to want to choose his own battle ground. It seems to me that there is no better ground on which to deal with this question than in the National Parliament in debating a Bill which is the sole responsibility of the Government of the day. This Bill concerns employees of the Commonwealth in the Commonwealth Public Service. It deals with a section of administration where women do all sorts of work at all sorts of levels. They are called on to do unusual work. I suppose the Commonwealth Public Service calls on women to do more shift work than any other employer in Australia. It employs telephonists, supervising telephonists, and girls travelling through the outback to post offices, lt asks women to perform all sorts of duties. If ever there was a clear cut case of an employer having jurisdiction to move into the field of equal pay for equal work, surely it is the Commonwealth Public Service. I do not quite understand <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood&#39;s</inline> attitude when she said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Whilst  1  do not support the motion, I am pleased to stand in this place and say thai I shall fight on . . . </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Where else are you to do something about it if you are not prepared to fight at this level in the National Parliament? It is disappointing to find such words at the end of a speech from which I was prepared to borrow because I did not think I could match its telling simplicity. I knew 1 could not improve on the honorable senator&#39;s words, and that is why I borrowed them. However, the disappointment came at the end of her speech. </para>
          <para>Some of my colleagues will be speaking at the second reading stage of the debate and we will be moving amendments at the Committee stage. A fundamental principle is involved. With every change, particularly in the industrial field, there is a surge of conservatism. That is true right back over the whole field of industrial relations. I refer, for example, to the introduction of workers compensation, the 44 hour week, and the 40 hour week. There is always resistance. There are always people who will say: &#34; This will wreck industry. This will never do.&#34; Of course, the change is introduced successfully, becomes part of the industrial structure of Australia, and nobody would then return to the old system. </para>
          <para>In the Australian wage fixing structure. Improvements in wages and conditions flow right down through all levels. In other places there is a big brotherhood of unions and the practice of collective bargaining is engaged in. When a union reaches agreement with an employer, it does not flow through the community, but that is what happens in Australia. The exception to the rule is the employment of women in industry, because although legislation such as we are discussing may contain provision for improvements in working conditions, it does not flow through the industrial levels, or find a place in the whole employer and employee relationship. </para>
          <para>The other amendment we will move relates to four weeks leave for Commonwealth employees, instead of three weeks. On this issue, as with the changes 1 have referred to. opposition arises. When the Labour Party was campaigning to have the 44 hour week reduced to 40 hours, there were two levels of thinking. From my research and from my reading of the debates which took place in earlier days when the introduction of the 40 hour week was being considered, I note that there has always been a two-pronged attack. First, it has been said: &#34; We cannot afford this.&#34; Secondly, people have asked: &#34; What more do they want? Aren&#39;t they ever going to be satisfied? &#34; That was so in the days when the 56 hour week was being introduced and it. was so again when the 48 hour week was mooted. When sick leave provisions came in it was said that they would cause malingering, and so on. Undoubtedly the same kind of approach will be made on this occasion, but surely it is obvious, just  as  it was long before the days of this technological age and long before the days when automation became  a  part of the English language, that with the advent of machinery, greater efficiency and a higher standard of living, people would have more leisure lime. </para>
          <para>It was silly to say that people had lo &#39; work for the same hours as they did in earlier times. In the last few years, with the advent of automation, we have leapt forward generations. Today, computers are doing the work at a rate which is simply not comparable wilh the rate at which it could be done before the advent of computers. Today, if we ask a computer operator how much work a certain computer can do he will say: &#34; If you had a thousand of the brainiest people in the country and they were to work for 20 years they could come up with the same kind of answer which this machine will provide in a few minutes.&#34; Where is this going to lead us? Are we to have people sitting around in industry? Are these machines to be used only for the purpose of making profits for the person who owns them, or are we going to make these tremendous advances in science available to the people of Australia? </para>
          <para>I noticed that when <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Robert</inline> Menzies gave an answer on this subject some lime ago he fell into the error which is always made by the Government. He made a simple calculation. He said, in effect, that if we want so many more men that is going to cost so much more. According to his arithmetical calculation, if you have so many people receiving three weeks leave and you give them an extra week, that means there will be so many more weeks to fill in in the year. But of course, it does not work out in that way. To be fair, I admit that in some industries it will do so. Let us take the case of a bus driver driving  a  bus between point A and point B. If he is given an additional week&#39;s leave that means an extra week&#39;s employment because the bus still has to be driven every day. That is not so, however, in the administrative and clerical fields. Anybody who has worked in fairly large offices knows that it does not happen there. In those offices there are quarterly returns and annual returns, for instance, which do not have to be prepared day by day. There is no time limit on them. If an extra week&#39;s leave is given to members of the clerical staff it is not necessary to have other men there to replace them immediately. </para>
          <para>We have only to think, about this matter for a moment or two to realise that what I am saying is correct. If a hundred people are employed to run a certain business, they are not going to be engaged at the optimum level of activity from 9 o&#39;clock in the morning to 5 o&#39;clock in the afternoon. Obviously, that would be impossible. Therefore, either there are idle hands at some part of the week or the year, or overtime is resorted to. It is a sheer impossibility for work to be done at optimum capacity all the time. The flow of business, either in Public Service departments or in private industry, does not come in at a steady rate. Some weeks are busier than others. The period round 30th June is always busier than are other periods of the year. Therefore, it is fallacious to make a simple calculation, as <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Robert</inline> Menzies did, and to say: &#34; That is the level and this is what it is going to cost.&#34; </para>
          <para> It will be remembered that when we were debating the- Repatriation Bill in the Senate recently <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turnbull</inline> illustrated very clearly the point I am making. At that time we were discussing the decision of the Senate that ex-servicemen of the Boer War and the 1914-18 War should be entitled to receive free medical treatment in repatriation hospitals. The Minister for Repatriation <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator McKellar)</inline> referred to the capital cost involved. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turnbull</inline> immediately pointed out that there would be no capital cost at all. He said that by means of a greater degree of efficiency in the hospitals beds could be made available, and he also pointed out that if it was necessary for an ex-servicemen to go to a hospital and there was no vacant bed in a repatriation hospital he could be treated at an ordinary hospital, the only difference being that the Commonwealth would pay the additional amount that the treatment cost him. The same approach is being adopted by the Government on this occasion. It is using a fallacious argument. I suggest very seriously that, as we are standing, not on the edge of full automation but certainly on. the edge of the first phase of it, this matter of rest breaks ought to be considered. It has been shown quite scientifically that rest breaks in offices pay dividends. This will be clear to anyone who has worked under a boss and who has not had leave for a time. </para>
          <para>The other point I want to raise relates to furlough. For many years an officer in the Commonwealth Public Service has been entitled to six months&#39; furlough after 20 years&#39; service. Although the initial qualifying period has been shortened, the comparative situation between length of service and furlough is still the same. An officer is entitled to six months&#39; furlough after 20 years, and to a lesser period after 15 years, 10 years and so on. However, furlough is granted as a matter of discretion, not as of right. This might have been appropriate in the old master and servant days, when the master would say to his servant: &#34; If you are a good boy for 20 years, if you do not upset me at any time, if you do your work thoroughly and if you polish your shoes the way in which I want you to polish them, at the end of that time I will consider whether I will give you furlough.&#34; </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1035</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is the provision administered so that the discretion, is effective? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1035</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- As I understand the position, whenever an application is made for long service leave, or for furlough as it is termed in the Act, a complete examination is made of the officer&#39;s record before the furlough is granted. I understand that this is done, not only in respect of the taking of the full entitlement of furlough, but also in respect of any part of it. If an officer does not want to take his full three months&#39; leave, he may apply for six weeks&#39; leave. The application is examined very carefully. I could not say to what degree penalties are imposed. I do not think that the figures in that respect would be available to people outside the Public Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1035</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gorton</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Has the honorable senator ever come across an instance where somebody who was not dismissed for misconduct did not receive furlough? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator WILLESEE__</inline>I have not personally come across an instance, but I am assured that it has happened. The discretion is effective. I am not saying that it is exercised against officers for 99 per cent, of the time, but it is there. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1035</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gair</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- On one or two occasions an officer has .been penalised for misconduct and chronic late arrivals. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1036</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- 1 think <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gorton&#39;s</inline> interjection goes to the crux of the matter. If at the end of 20 years it is considered that an officer has not been a good officer, surely he should have been charged with offences at the time when they were committed. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gair</inline> has referred to chronic late arrivals. If chronic late arrivals upset the working of an office, then the officer should be dealt with at once, because he is obviously not a good officer. I do not think that these things should be banked up in the same way as bad marks are banked up at school so that finally a student gets a wrap over the knuckles. Who suffers when this happens? lt is not only <inline font-style="italic">lbc</inline> officer, but also his wife and family who. over the years, have looked forward to. say, an overseas holiday. We say that furlough should be given as a matter of right. If an offence is committed, there is ample provision under the Public Service Act and other Acts for dealing with the officer at the time of the committing of the offence. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>There is a big brother attitude running through the Public Service Act. I mention the matter of fines in this connection only as an illustration. If an officer is fined less than &#163;2 for committing any offence, he has no right of appeal; but if he is fined more than &#163;2, he has a right of appeal. This provision has operated in the Public Service for many years. I do not want to go into the merits of it today, because we are not dealing with that matter. I merely mention it as an illustration of this big brother attitude, this stand over attitude or this threatening attitude. If the person who is considering imposing a penalty is not too sure of the officer&#39;s guilt, he fines him less than &#163;2 so that the officer has no right of appeal to any tribunal. When this happens, it works in two ways. On the occasion when a public servant ought to be fined &#163;50. he is being fin,cd &#163;2 only, because the senior officer fining him is not game enough to stand by his decision. Again we find evidence of this big brother attitude. It is to be found in this Bill. This attitude might have been all right in the early days of Federation when the Commonwealth Government took over certain State responsibilities and was finding its way. But the Public Service has moved from the conditions of those days to the present recruitment situation where a number of people are appointed to the upper levels and we do not see, as we did in the old days, recruitment made almost wholly from persons of 14 years of age or 15 years of age leaving school and joining the Public Service immediately. I think that the right of the individual has to be more firmly established than it has. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1036</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Douglas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McClelland</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The attitude about which the Leader of the Opposition complains is a hangover from the old colonial days. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1036</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes. I thank <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mcclelland</inline> for his interjection. As he points out, when the Commonwealth took over certain responsibilities from the States it also took over the old colonial attitude that the States had adopted where there was no question but that the relationship between employer and employee was that of master and slave. The Public Service has advanced a long way from those days. But that colonial attitude to a degree, is still with us as a carry-over. This is an attitude that is inclined - I am nol saying that it does - to produce a servility. I think that this is a bad thing, lt is found not only in relation to the two matters that I have raised. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>There is one point that 1 should make at this stage. If honorable senators will look at the way in which I have worded the amendment that 1 have circulated relating to furlough, they might consider that it does not make a lot of sense. They might consider further that if this section of the Act is amended then other sections of the Act which deal with furlough would have to be amended also. 1 put this amendment up as a point of principle. Party politics being what they are, 1 think that this is the right place to make my protest. Should my amendment be defeated, at least the Opposition will have made its protest. The situation and our arguments will have been recorded in &#34; Hansard &#34; and I would hope that the Minister and the Prime Minister&#39;s Department would look at our argument and see the wisdom of doing something about this matter in the future, if my amendment is carried, I shall seek the cooperation of the Minister for Works to report progress in order to enable me to draft a further amendment that would incorporate this principle in the other sections of the Act relating to furlough. </para>
          <para>I turn now to the last amendment that  1  have circulated. This is a simple proposition.It reads - </para>
          <amendments>
            <amendment>
              <Paras>
                <Para class="ParlAmend">(4) clause 28, at end of clause addand by adding the words: - </Para>
                <Para>The Department of Education. </Para>
                <Para>The Department of Northern Development. </Para>
                <Para>The Department of Science and Research.&#39;.&#34; </Para>
                <Para class="block">We seek to have those proposed departments added to the departments listed in the Schedule of the Bill. This is to further the aim of the Australian Labour Party to elevate these branches of departments to the status of full departments under the control of members of the Ministry. The objection might be raised with relation to the proposed Department of Education that this proposal represents an attempt to move in on the States. I think that this argument is somewhat worn since the last time this matter was debated. The argument has been advanced that, because of the constitutional position, the Commonwealth should stand out ofthe field of education. However, the method of financing certain services such as education impinges on the Constitution. I believe that the Commonwealth should live up to its responsibilities regarding education. When the Commonwealth took over taxing powers from the States obviously it should have taken over the responsibility of disbursing the money it collected to them in such a way that it gave a lead to them in this field in which it is so much more competent than the States are. By proposing the establishment of the Department of Education 1 am not suggesting that the Government should move into the primary education field. The Commonwealth has started to move into the education field at the university level and more lately it has provided assistance in relation to science blocks and other facilities. The present situation in relation to the Sates is that we must achieve greater co-ordination of education and lift up the standards of education. As every honorable senator knows, the advice that we are receiving is that Australia is advancing towards a crisis in education that will severely affect it in the years to come. The Australian Labour Party wishes education to be under the control of its own Commonwealth Department. </Para>
                <Para>On the question of northern development, honorable senators will remember that some time ago the Australian Labour </Para>
                <Para class="block">Party said that when it became the Government it would appoint a Federal Ministry responsible solely for northern development. The Minister in charge of the proposed Department of Northern Development would be charged with the responsibility of administering northern development and reporting back to the Parliament on the work of his department. The proposed department would have a call on the funds of the Commonwealth as every Commonwealth department has. When the present Government set up the Northern Division of the Department of National Development we said that this was not sufficient and that this branch would fall into the backwater of the Department of National Development. We predicted that northern development would not receive the stimulus that we believe it should receive. This amendment is another attempt to get the Governmentto recognise the importance of national development. </Para>
                <Para>I come to the proposed Department of Science and Research. As with the proposed Department of Education, I believe that the Government is lagging in this field. The Opposition believesthat the Government has not grasped the significance and the importance of, and the tremendous drive required in relation to science and research. Because of this fact, the Opposition seeks to have a Department of Science and Research added to the departments set out in the Bill. </Para>
                <Para>The Opposition does not oppose the new proposals contained in the legislation. The Bill succeeds to some degree in tidying up a pretty complicated Act. I suggest to the Minister that an inquiry ought to be held into the whole of the Commonwealth Public Service and also the Acts relating to it, particularly the one with whichwe are dealing today. The Opposition did consider moving an amendment to this effect but thought that it might be a little unrealistic to do so because we are dealing with a Bill which is fairly narrow in scope. In such an inquiry, for instance, the Commonwealth Employees&#39; CompensationAct would have to be looked at. This Act is lagging very badly. In dealing with our own employees, surely we can see the pressures that are being put on us from outside sources. Governments in the future will have to note these trends even if they have not been noted in the past. We have reached the situation where the private employment sector is able to suck away from the Public Service the employees that it needs. The private employment sector is not doing too badly in. this respect now. The Government needs to be able to attract into the ranks of its Public Service the tremendous efficiency that is available to it. Unless the Government can compete with private enterprise the standard of the Commonwealth Public Service will fall badly. This is happening slowly at the moment. If it were to happen suddenly, our Public Service would be jarred seriously. 1 am sure that nobody in this Parliament wants that to happen. Nobody would suggest that the Commonwealth Government will leave the fields in which it now operates. It is obvious that the Commonwealth Government will have to adopt greater responsibility in the future. Recognising this, the Opposition has formulated its amendment believing that if the amendment is carried the Public Service Act will be strengthened. The Opposition does not suggest for one minute that its four amendments represent all that needs to be done in relation to the Act. But our amendments are sufficient for our purposes today. If we can get the Government to agree to our four proposals, we will be willing to co-operate with the Government in looking at the whole of the Public Service Act in the near future. </Para>
              </Paras>
            </amendment>
          </amendments>
          <para>I believe that it would be wrong to discuss this small amending Bill without considering the context in which it is put before us. If one looks at the Public Service Board&#39;s report for the last financial year, one is almost stunned by the apparent insignificance or apathy with which the report has noted that the increase in the Public Service during the period was an all time record of 5.2 per cent. Various figures are given showing increases in almost every department of the Commonwealth Public Service. In particular I note that in respect of the Department of the Treasury, where 216 people were added to the payroll, the only reason that is given to account for that increase is the repayment of excess superannuation contributions. We made some point of that on a previous occasion. I believe that the degree to which that required a bolstering of the staff of the Treasury was very unfortunate. </para>
          <para>When  we  look further into the Report, we see that, whereas in 1950 the number of permanent officers of the Commonwealth Public Service was 61,930, today the number is 123,122. That is to say, the number of permanent officers has doubled between 1950 and 1966. I observe that in the same period the number of temporary employees has been reduced from 25,769 to 15,818. So. of the 60,000 persons added to the permanent Public Service, 10,000 were added as a result of the reclassification of temporary employees as permanent employees. In 1950 there were 69,145 exempt employees. At 30th June 1966 the number of exempt employees was 53,275. The total number of employees in 1950 was 156,843; today it is 192,215. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1038</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Douglas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McClelland</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- On what page are those figures? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1038</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  On page 17, under the heading &#34; Staff Employed in the Commonwealth Service &#34;. I have compared the Annual Report for 1965-66 with that for 1949-50 for the purpose of noting the growth in the Public Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>From page 21 one sees that there have been increases in the cost of the Public Service; that is, in salaries, wages and extra duty payments. Last financial year the total cost was $552,334,000. In 1949-50 the figure was $149 million. The average earnings of persons employed under the Public Service Act, including females and minors, were $2,937 last financial year. In view of the high grade of work on which some of the staff are engaged, the average wage is not very high. I would have thought that the average wage throughout Australia was something not much less than that figure. Other honorable senators may have the figure of the average wage in their minds. This is not carping criticism. If we are to have efficiency, we must consider our economy. For the expenditure to rise from $149 million to $552 million in the space of 15 years is extravagant and unjustified. 1 point out in particular that in 1965-66 the cost of salaries and payments related to salaries increased by $50,848,000. That helped to swell the total cost to $552 million. </para>
          <para>In order to bring that into perspective, it is necessary to recall one of the most pregnant parts of the statement on national income and expenditure that accompanied the Budget Papers. After setting out what the salary  and  wage earners of Australia reaped in the form of increases, the state  ment  went on to say - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>However,  the  income of farm unincorporated enterprises decreased by $326 million or 26 per rent, in 1965-66 following a decrease of $142 million in 1964-65. This fall in farm income resulted from a decrease in both the volume and value of farm production and an increase in estimated total costs. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">When we relate those figures to the figures published yesterday by the Commissioner of Taxation on the degree of yield that is expected from the farming community in order to meet the cost of the Public Service, wc see that we cannot promote the prosperity of this nation by allowing the economy to become top heavy in the tertiary sector, which includes the Commonwealth Public Service, and allowing our primary industries to fall to a bare bones existence. </para>
          <para>I do not intend to follow <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline> through the various explanations that he gave of his proposed amendments. I want to say one or two words about the Government&#39;s amendments that are incorporated in this Bill. I am a little intrigued when I read in the second reading speech that the necessary amendments to the Public Service Act are to be retrospective to 30th June 1965. I would have thought that the first place in which we would find provisions to make legislation conform with our compulsory national service legislation would have been in the Public Service Act. The second reading speech goes on to say - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Clause 19 provides for the automatic granting of leave from the Public Service for periods of absence on compulsory defence service. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Later I should like some clarification of the next two sentences, which state - </para>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">Entitlements of staff during their absence have been approved by the Public Service Board and notified to departments and staff associations. They will be reviewed as and when changes appear desirable. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Then we are assured that the terms and conditions during leave are no less favorable than those provided in the Defence (Re-establishment) Act, which relates to all national servicemen. I believe that it is reasonable to suggest to the Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Gorton),</inline> who introduced this Bill, that the Senate is entitled to a specific statement of the entitlements of staff during compulsory military service. </para>
          <para>I also ask why we are providing for only compulsory service. In the language of the Bill a distinction is made between compulsory service and voluntary service. 1 do not elaborate on that at the present stage. lt may be that, having introduced legislation requiring compulsory national service, we are forgetting voluntary service and not seeking to promote it at all. But having regard to the expenditure upon a recruiting campaign announced yesterday by the Minister for Defence I do not understand that to be the outlook. If we are calling for volunteers from the civilian community, what is the Public Service Board&#39;s attitude to public service personnel volunteering for national defence service? I content myself with a reference to paragraph 1 1 of the Minister&#39;s second reading speech in which he slated -  where  the  Public Service Board is satisfied than an officer with at least ten but less than IS years continuous service is ceasing duty on account of domestic or other pressing necessity. </para>
          <para>I want to know what domestic necessity is causing a cessation of duty? Having regard to the number of divorces in the country at present, I wonder whether or not domestic discord and infelicity and other fancies are to be considered domestic necessity - cases in which a man or woman might think it more conformable to conscience to clear out of the community and get away. Then there is the reference to &#34; other pressing necessity &#34;. I do ask that we be given an explanation both of the abbreviation of the period and the circumstances in which that abbreviated period is going to entitle one to payment. </para>
          <para>I should like to have some explanation also of what experience has brought up paragraph 13 of the circulated copy of the Minister&#39;s second reading speech. In the past, a dismissed officer has automatically lost the whole of his furlough credit. This is now going to be made discretionary. The discretionary powers in this respect will bc very much suspect unless they are put on the basis of a considered decision by a tribunal before whom the officer has the right to appear. Hocus pocus discretion in administrative matters of this sort has to be eradicated from public administration in my view. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1040</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>1L5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Murphy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Could we not lay down some guide lines for the administration rather than leave it to some outside tribunal? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1040</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is an alternative suggestion which would be equally acceptable to me. All I have said is a word for the protection of the individual. Once he is put at the mercy of a terrifically powerful organisation such as the Public Service Board backed by the Government, the individual is not properly protected unless there are guide lines according to which discretion is applied or unless there is a tribunal that has to exercise its authority and be subject to criticism. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I want to add one further word for the benefit of the chamber with reference to the provision entitling us to take on temporary employees. It is suggested that in these circumstances they will be United States personnel engaged without the oath of allegiance. I should like to be assured that these people are not only subject to the legislation requiring secrecy but are also subject to the provisions under the Crimes Act making it a very serious crime if there is any misuse of their temporary occupancy of office to assist the enemy or engage in subversive activity or anything of that sort. </para>
          <para class="block">This is imperative in my view. The provisions which are applicable to Australian nationals should apply also to persons exercising any public office even though we dispense with the formal requirement of making an oath of allegiance. The formal obligation of allegiance should apply to them in the exercise of that office while they are temporarily in our employ. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1040</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTA</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Douglas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MCCLELLAND</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - It always seems to be a popular thing with some sections of the Press and cartoonists to be continual knockers of the Public Service generally. But surely if, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> was suggesting, the Public Service is top heavy, overstaffed and bloated, this is an indictment not of those who work in the Public Service for their livelihood but more of the efficiency of the heirarchy of the Public Service, the Public Service Board. After all, there is an Organisation and Methods Section of the Public Service Board which conducts surveys through all the departments from time to time. Notwithstanding these surveys, there has been an increase of staff, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has said, in practically every department coming under the control of the Board. But I think it fairer to say that if one peruses the report of the Commonwealth Public Service Board one sees that the increase in expenditure and in employment has been brought about because of the demands of the Australian people for more governmental activities and more services to be provided for the people. After all, if one studies the increases that have taken place, one finds that there seems to be a logical explanation for the increases in all departments and principally they have been brought about by increased demands by the Australian people. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The Commonwealth Public Service Board as the employing agency of the Commonwealth Government certainly is one of the largest and most diverse employers of labour in Australia. A study of its growth shows a move for greater centralisation of powers in a Federal authority. On 1st January 1901 at the time of Federation, seven Commonwealth departments were created officially. They were the Department of External Affairs, the Attorney-General&#39;s Department, the Department of Home Affairs, the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Customs, the Department of </para>
          <para class="block">Defence and the Postmaster-General&#39;s Department. Five of these seven departments were little more than large offices in the vicinity of the State Parliament House in Melbourne. Indeed, until the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1902 came into effect, on 1st January 1903, individual Commonwealth employees were subject to the relevant State laws applicable to the State Public Services,  lt  is interesting to note that when the first Commonwealth Public Service Act was enacted by the Federal Parliament in 1902, there were 61 amendments moved in the Senate and of these the House of Representatives accepted 47. As at 1st January 1.903, the date when the Act came into effect, there were some 1 1 ,000 officers all of whom were permanent. </para>
          <para>But as the Boyer Committee of 1959 points out - and this was  an  agency appointed to make recommendations on recruitment for the Public Service - the real revolution in the growth of the Public Service did not begin until the commencement or during the course of the Second World War. At the outbreak of the Second World War. there were 12 Government departments employing 47,000 people. So between 1901 and 1939 there was an increase of only some 36.000 in the number of people employed in the Commonwealth Public Service. But between 1939 and 1957, the number of departments nearly doubled and the total number of employees rose to approximately 158,000, about three times as many as were employed in 1939. It is interesting to note that although before the Second World War the Postmaster-General&#39;s Department was responsible for the employment of about three quarters of the Commonwealth Public Service, today it employs only about half of the total number. As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has said, the latest report of the Commonwealth Public Service Board shows that there is a total of 192,215 permanent, temporary and exempt employees but, of course,  this great  number could  be  swelled further if one liked to take into account other instrumentalities which do nol come within the ambit of the Commonwealth Public Service Board.  I  refer to organisations and instrumentalities such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and  a  whole host of others. </para>
          <para>There are about 25 departments and each year the work of public servants seems to be increasing and expanding. As has been pointed out, last year there was a rise of the order of 9,000 in the number employed - an increase, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has said, of some 5.2 per cent. So beyond doubt the Commonwealth Public Service Board is an organisation covering a great multitude of officers and employees, affecting the lives of a great number of families and employing people covering wide and diverse interests. Ii is also an organisation that has great influence and power. The Board as part of the existing establishment seems to be very slow to accept change, especially in the industrial sphere. That is why we of the Opposition propose to move the amendments that have been outlined by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee).</inline> We believe that the Board, as the employing agency of the Government, should be setting the pace and giving the lead in terms and conditions of employment in the Public Service and generally speaking in industry. </para>
          <para>In 1958 the Director of the Institute of Public Affairs, at a meeting in Canberra of the Royal Institute of Public Administration, criticised the Commonwealth Public Service, saying that it was over staffed, that it was too remote from the everyday life of the people, that it was anti-business and condescending in its attitude. 1 do not agree with the remarks that were expressed by the gentleman concerned, although it is within my own personal experience and doubtless within the experience of other persons in this Parliament that there are empire builders within the framework of the Public Service. The bureaucrat has been the butt of jokes of cartoonists and satirists for so long that this seems to have become part of the Australian culture. Nonetheless, I suggest that this sort of image portrayed of the general public servant is completely false. The fact is that Commonwealth public servants in the main are no different from other members of Australian society. They dress in the same way, they have exactly the same habits, they live in the same kind of street and in the same kind of house as their neighbours, and a group of public servants talking in a bar of a hotel is indistinguishable from any other group of white collar workers. What in fact differentiates them from other sections of the community is their employer, the Public Service Board, which gives them the status of public servants, the place where they work, which is a government department, and the type of work that they perform. </para>
          <para>Commonwealth public servants, as workers in the community, do not expect over-generous treatment at the expense of their employer, representing the Government, which in turn represents the taxpayer, but they expect and are entitled to receive the same treatment as their counterparts in State public services and outside industry. Most private employers either make over-award payments or operate some sort of bonus system, so that the employee in private industry receives some benefit over and above his award entitlement. But the minimum determination decided upon by the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator for the Commonwealth public servants becomes the maximum amount that he will receive by way of salary. Generally speaking, every application made by industrial unions to the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator is hotly contested by the Public Service Board and the organisations representing public servants have to light tooth and nail for every determination agains the Board, which has all the powers and resources of the Government at its disposal. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1042</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The majority of awards last year were consent awards. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1042</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Douglas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MCCLELLAND</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There are consent awards, of course, but one has to look at the great bulk of cases that have been awaiting hearing by the Public Service Arbitrator. Having regard to the decreased purchasing power of the &#163;1, if a union has been awaiting a hearing for a long time, surely it is only reasonable that the Board wil say: &#34; Since the application, was lodged there has been a decrease in the purchasing power of the &#163;1, and we are prepared to negotiate and consult.&#34; In addition to these difficulties, public servants become victims of political pressures. In 1.949, when the Menzies Government came into office, one of its policy planks was a reduction in the growth of the Commonwealth Public Service. On 20th July 1951, without any warning, public servants read in the Press an item that as a move to counter inflation the Government had decided to instruct the Public Service Board immediately to prepare a report recommending how a reduction of 10,000 in the number of public servants could be made, despite the fact that the Board had said in its report that the Service was understaffed and that it had been unable to fill existing vacancies. The number retrenched proved to be higher than the original target of 10,000. When a warning was sounded about probable further retrenchments, the Public Service industrial organisations interested themselves in becoming political pressure groups. I mention these things to show that public servants not only suffer a disadvantage, for want of a better term, in relation to the over award payments that are made by outside industry but also are susceptible to the ill winds of economic and social adjustment as much as is any other section of the comunity. lt is pleasing to me, as a member of the Australian Labour Party, to see the Public Service industrial organisations now becoming interested and active in the affairs of the trade union movement. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>There is no doubt that Commonwealth public servants generally have reason to feel aggrieved about their working conditions when they compare their lot with those of their counterparts in the Public Service of the States. That is probably because of the manner in which some men and some women are regarded. It seems to be a fact of life that the ordinary public servant is not regarded by the Public Service Board as being Bill Smith, Tom Jones or somebody else with a family of three who experiences the problems of rearing a family and buying a house and various other social problems, but as Bill Smith or Tom Jones who sits behind a desk on the third or fourth floor of a large Commonwealth office building. It seems that the larger the department the larger is the problem. It ls probably fair to say, too, that the smaller the boss the larger the problem is. </para>
          <para>Let me deal with the subject of leave, to which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline> has referred and in relation to which the Opposition will be moving an amendment. Commonwealth public servants have seen workers in outside industry creep up on them in this respect. Whereas at about the beginning of the Second World War public servants enjoyed three weeks annual leave and employees in outside industry received only one week, today employees in outside industry receive three weeks and Commonwealth public servants still receive only three weeks. Commonwealth public servants saw the New South Wales Public Service Board grant four weeks annual leave in 1964 to employees who came within its jurisdiction. Only recently I read a report of the New South Wales Public Service Board. I think it was for the year 1965. The report stated that, having regard to automation and the technological changes that were taking place, the extension of leave for New South Wales public servants from three weeks to four weeks had not brought about a commensurate increase in staff. </para>
          <para>The pay of Commonwealth public servants who are conscripted into the Army is not made up, but the New South Wales Public Service Board makes up the pay of its employees who are called up for national service. Commonwealth public servants have seen memorandums issued by the Public Service Board which ostensibly were meant to apply to all but which apparently apply only to some. I suppose that like myself every other honorable senator received from the Meat Inspectors Association, Commonwealth Public Service, a letter which pointed out that recently a memorandum issued by the Board, and which ostensibly applied to all departments, provided for the payment of fares for wives and dependants of public servants whose period of transfer extended beyond three months. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Levy,</inline> the Secretary of the Association, stated - </para>
          <list type="lowerroman-dotted">
            <item label=".">
              <para>. although this memorandum was issued as applying to all departments, our members were debarred from its provisions. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">Surely this is a cause for grievance to men who are expected to leave their homes for a period extending beyond three months. Although the circular stated that the fares of wives and dependants would be paid to allow them to accompany public servants on transfer, one section, the Secretary of the Meat Inspectors Association says, is debarred from its provisions. </para>
          <para>These are only some of the matters in relation to which Commonwealth public servants believe that they have been let down. They feel that they have a grouch, a grievance. Other causes of grievance include the payment of travelling allowances and provisions relating to officers of the </para>
          <para class="block">Crown who resign their positions to contest a seat in Parliament. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> spoke about this just recently when we were considering the estimates for the Department of the Interior. </para>
          <para>I come now to clause 22 of the Bill, which deals with payment in lieu of furlough when an officer is dismissed. In his second reading speech, the Minister said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The provisions in clause 22 include authority for the Public Service Board to decide whether or not any payment in lieu of furlough should be made to an officer who is dismissed after at least 15 years of qualifying service. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The Minister said later - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The Government is satisfied that a discretionary power is essential to avoid total penalties which arc, in the light of modern practice, unduly harsh in some cases. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline>has already dealt with this matter and has pointed out that the Opposition intends to move an amendment in regard to it. It seems unjust that the Public Service Board should be given the right to dismiss an employee and then to exercise a discretion as to whether or not he will be paid in lieu of furlough entitlement, notwithstanding that until the time of his dismissal his record might have been clean and unblemished. I am not saying that the Board will be harsh and intolerant in exercising its discretion. The fact remains that it is proposed to give the Board this discretion. Irrespective of the manner in which the Board acts, there will be no redress or right of appeal from its decision. </para>
          <para>Let me touch upon the subject of equal pay for equal work. On the information that is available it seems that female officers of the Commonwealth Public Service are regarded by the Government and the Public Service Board as being second rate citizens. Let us look at the history of equal pay. There was a time in the history of the Commonwealth Public Service when the majority of female workers enjoyed equal rates of pay. The shortage of male officers during the war years was overcome principally by the employment of females. In 1942 the Curtin Labour Government proposed that females be employed to take over the jobs of men who had enlisted or were engaged on military duties and that they should be paid the same rates as males provided they were classified in the same grades, displayed the same efficiency, and were performing the same volume of work as their male counterparts. The Curtin Labour Government at the time gave an assurance that the Commonwealth Public Service Board would come within the jurisdiction of the Women&#39;s Employment Board, as it was then called, which was set up under the Defence Regulations. As a result, a great number of women were admitted to the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Commonwealth Public Service. In fact, the determinations of the Women&#39;s Employment Board superseded decisions of both the Commonwealth Public Service Board and the Public Service Arbitrator at that time. </para>
          <para>The Women&#39;s Employment Board had power to fix female rates of pay between 60 per cent, and 100 per cent, of the male rates. It set the rates at 90 per cent, for postwomen and 100 per cent, for almost all other categories. As I have said, there was a time during World War II when female workers in the Public Service enjoyed rates of pay equal to the male rates. This practice was continued by the Chifley Labour Government. Early in the lifetime of the Menzies Government - about 1 950  -  the Commonwealth Public Service Board issued instructions which brought to an end the 90 per cent, rate for postwomen and full rates awarded to other employees by the Women&#39;s Employment Board. I repeat that the rates had been continued by the Chifley Labour Government. When the women who had been receiving the rates protested, the Board agreed to continue the old rates for those women who had been receiving them, but applied to new female appointees the 75 per cent, of the male basic rate set by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court in October 1950. So that under this Government, female public servants have suffered retrogression. Today the newspapers carry advertisements calling for applications for positions in the Public Service. The salaries advertised show in some cases differentiation of $400 to $500 between the male and female rates of pay for the same classifications, requiring the same duties to be performed. </para>
          <para>The Commonwealth Public Service is failing to give the lead that it once gave in the area of reform. About 18 months ago <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Robert</inline> Menzies, the then Prime Minister, in a debate in another place on the question of equal pay for equal work, said that it would cost about S4 million to provide this measure Qf reform in the Public Service. Surely it would have been little enough for the Government to pay to embody a provision of that nature in the legislation, lt is rather ironic to learn that of the total number of officers employed in the First and Second Divisions of the Public Service, not one woman is amongst the 26 officers of the First Division, and only one woman is included in the 589 officers of the Second Division. </para>
          <para>I believe that the Government has been backward in introducing measures of reform for the Public Service. Although the measures contained in this Bill are welcomed by the Opposition, they do not go far enough. The time is rife for the extension of the additional benefits contained in the amendments to be moved by the Opposition at the committee stage. As a member of the Australian Labour Party seeking an early settlement of the reasonable claims of public servants generally, I fully endorse the reforms proposed by the amendments to be moved by the Opposition. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1044</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Works</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>. -  in reply - As I understand the position, the Bill before the Senate is not being opposed by the Opposition, either as to its clauses or in toto. However, a suggestion has been made that certain additions should be made to the Bill, and these are the subject of the amendments circulated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee).</inline> I must tell the Senate at once that the Government would not wish to accept any of the amendments, for reasons which T propose to put before the Senate. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>They are, of course, not amendments which go to the substance of the Bill. There is no suggestion of improving the way in which the legal aspects of the Bill may be drawn. The amendments relate to matters of policy. They are suggestions that policy should be altered by the Government in a way which is not now accepted by the Government. Of course, the proposals not only involve matters of policy for the Public Service, but would have quite considerable repercussions throughout the whole field  of  Australian industry. </para>
          <para>I shall deal with the proposals seriatim. The first proposal is that there should be inserted in the Bill - in effect, this is the meaning of the proposed amendment - a provision for equal pay for equal work in the Commonwealth Public Service. The first point I wish to make on that suggestion, in order to limit the ground of discussion, is that at present there is equal pay for equal work inside the Commonwealth Public Service in respect of margins. So that what is being discussed here is the matter of the basic pay. In the Commonwealth Public Service at present the Government follows the ruling of the Arbitration Court that 75 per cent, of the male rate awarded should be applicable to females. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline>referred to conferences of the International Labour Organisation, and to agreements made as to the desirability of providing equal pay for work of equal value. As far as I understand it and as far as I heard him, what he said was entirely accurate, but he did not include the fact that those instruments - particularly the f.L.O. instruments - stated quite categorically that each country should go about achieving that objective according to its own normal processes. The Government takes the view that in Australia the normal and proper processes of altering wage structures are those of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and not through unilateral legislation in this Parliament. lt is a matter for an arbitration authority to decide if the Government in fact believes that the principle of arbitration is the one that should prevail, rather than that bringing in industrial legislation by Parliament is an action which would be of long term benefit to Australia. </para>
          <para>The second proposal by the Opposition is that the Government should provide tout weeks&#39; annual recreation leave instead of three weeks for Commonwealth public servants. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline> quite accurately forecast that 1 would have something to say about the cost that such a change would impose on the Australian economy. If an extra week&#39;s leave were granted each year to the total number of Commonwealth employees, an additional 5,800 workers would be required in the Commonwealth Public Service. Of course, the annual wage and salary bill would rise by about &#163;9 million. We were told, in anticipation of this fairly factual statement, that in fact this would not happen because these people could all take an extra week&#39;s leave without the work of the departments being in any way disrupted, or somebody having to be brought in to take an officer&#39;s place or additional overtime having to be worked. Clearly, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. President,</inline> that is not true, in which case my argument as to increased cost is accurate. If it is true, then something like one in every 50 people in the Public Service is not needed. Apparently, one in 50 could leave without any alteration or change at all. I do not believe that that, is the fact. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1045</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Willesee</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I did say that in some areas people must be brought iti. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1045</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes. 1 listened to the honorable senator&#39;s argument, lt seemed to me that he was saying, with some justice, that in a particular&#39; office at a &#39;particular time a man could go away for a week and it would not be necessary to &#39;replace him, but the inference to be drawn from the extension Of that, argument is that this could happen throughout the whole of the Public Service. In fact, 1 am sure that it cannot happen, and if it cannot&#39; happen, then this again would mean a very great increase in the bill imposed on the Australian people. There would be the hill occasioned by the employment of the 5,000 or 6,000 additional people who would be required or, if it were done in some other way. excessive overtime would be imposed on the people who are already in the Service, involving cost. If additional labour were required that, of course, would impose an extra burden on the labour market of Australia and would cause repercussions throughout the whole of the community. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The third proposition put before us is that in the case of somebody taking furlough at the end of a particular period of 15 years, he should have an entitlement to the furlough payment as of right and that even though he was dismissed from the Public Service for inefficiency he should nevertheless be entitled to receive payment for furlough as a right. The Public Service legislation originally provided for a grant of six months leave on full pay after 20 years service. The provision has been altered and at the present moment an officer may be granted  4&#60;l-  months furlough after 15 years service and three-tenths of a month for each completed year thereafter. An officer is not compelled to take furlough at the moment. He may he paid money in lieu of furlough. If he dies his dependants receive payment in lieu of his accrued furlough. But if he is dismissed from the Commonwealth Public Service for misconduct, after all the processes relating to the dismissal of a public servant have &#39;been gone through - as is well known, dismissal from the Public Service is one of the most difficult things to do - at the moment he is not entitled to the full amount of furlough. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1046</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBC</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Willesee</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He is not entitled to anything. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1046</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, that is so, although under the Bill as it has been presented to us he will be able, at discretion, to get furlough which at the moment is denied to him in toto. We believe that this position should stay as it is. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The last amendment suggested by the Leader of the Opposition is one which I think will be seen on reflection to be quite useless and rather silly. It is proposed that we should amend the principal Act by adding to the list of Commonwealth departments set out in the Act the names of three departments which do not exist, lt is proposed that we should amend the list of existing departments by adding to it a Department of Education, Department of Northern Development and a Department of Science and Research. All the provisions of the Public Service Act would apply to those departments if they existed, but they do not exist, so the amendment would have absolutely no effect whatever. The adding of those words to a schedule of government departments does not mean that the departments must therefore be created. Unless and until the departments are created, it is merely an exercise in futility. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1046</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CORMACK, Magnus</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cormack</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Or a projection of the Labour Party&#39;s policy speech. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1046</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It would not be a projection of the Labour Party&#39;s policy speech to amend the Act in that way. I understand what the honorable senator has in mind. He thinks that this is an indication of something which the Labour Party would like to be brought about, but it is not going to be brought about by amending the Act. Such an amendment of the Act would have no effect whatever except to add to a bill passed through the Parliament the names of departments which are conpletely nonexistent. Therefore, I suggest that that amendment, too, should not be accepted by the Senate. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
          <para class="block">In Committee. </para>
          <para>Clauses I to 6 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. </para>
          <para>Clause 7 agreed to. </para>
          <para>Proposed new clause 7a. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1046</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBC</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - 1 move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">After clause 7, insert the following new clause - &#34; 7a. Section 30 of the principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (2.) the words  but in prescribing such salaries no variation in salary shall be prescribed solely because of the sex of the occupant of any position &#39;.&#34; </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">All that the amendment seeks to do is to insist that in the fixation of the salaries of Second, Third and Fourth Division officers, there shall be no discrimination solely on the grounds of sex. I do not intend to state again the arguments in favour of our proposal. The amendment will toe supported by some of my colleagues who will deal with other aspects of it. The Minister stated in reply to my submissions at the second reading stage that the adoption of this amendment would have an effect throughout the wage structure of Australia. Undoubtedly it would have a moral and psychological effect. As I said earlier, we always meet with this conservatism. Always there is the knocker who says: &#34; You cannot do this because of this, that and the other thing.&#34; I have pointed out that already the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has included such a provision in awards. The question of whether an arbitration tribunal, a body which is junior to the Commonwealth Government, should make such a decision is open to very wide debate. The State Governments have given a lead with legislation of this kind, and there is need for a further lead to be given by employers. The employer in this instance is the Commonwealth Government. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1046</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BISHOP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I wish to support the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Willesee). I suggest that the Government is speaking with two voices on this question of equal pay. The Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Gorton)</inline> has said that the Government, in accordance with its obligations to International Labour Office conventions, is entitled to carry on under its own processes. In this respect .1 think that is incorrect. Having regard to the kind of legislature which Australia has, our obligations to the International Labour Office are to observe the recommendations and conventions that it adopts. The Government has not done that in this matter. On several occasions since the adoption of the recommendations in the conventions it has refused to agree to requests by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to discuss the recommendations with the State Premiers. If the Government, because of its political character, cannot apply these recommendations to its own departments, it still has a responsibility to consult with the States about uniform application of the recommendations. But it has not done this. </para>
          <para>The present Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. McMahon),</inline> when he was Minister for Labour and National Service, received several deputations on this matter from the A.C.T.U., but he approached it in much the same way as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gorton</inline> does. He said that it was a mutter for arbitration and that the result might be not an increasing of standards but a lowering of them. He decided not to accede to the request to consult with the States or to apply the equal pay principle. He said that the Government did not think it appropriate to invite the Premiers to discuss the question of uniform legislation to deal with equal pay for the sexes. The Government&#39;s basic statement in regard to equal pay is that which was made in another place by the then Minister for Labour and National Service on 18th October 1962. At page 1708 of &#34;Hansard &#34; the Minister is reported to have said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Finally, the implementation of equal pay can hardly be considered apart from that other l.L.O. Convention, No. Ill of 1958, which is directed to the removal of discrimination against women in employment and occupation. So our male workers would not. be prepared to admit women do the jobs they have jealously preserved for themselves. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Government spokesmen, including the Minister for Works, are speaking with two voices. At a conference of the National Council of Women of Victoria, held on </para>
          <para class="block">I1th November 1965, the then Minister for Labour and National Service said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Another important necessity is opening up of avenues of promotion to higher levels of skill and responsibility. Women in executive positions in Australia are still rare enough to bring comment. Valuable ability and training are often wasted by employers. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">In August 1965 the same Minister, when speaking about new sources of labour and changing trends in female employment, gave some figures which ought to be noted. He said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Taking a comparatively recent period for which we have firm figures, between the 1954 and 1961 Censuses the number of females in the work force increased by an average of 3.27 per cent, a year, while males rose by only 1.48 per cent, a year. Married women rose by a total of 147,000 or 6.66 per cent, a year, and single women by 66,000 or 1.53 per cent, a year. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The Minister appealed to everybody to attract more females into industry because of growth requirements. The Vernon Committee said it ought to be recognised that females have a place in industry and that, the traditional attitude which is taken regarding female employment should bc discouraged. The Minister, in the speech which he made in August 1965, also stated - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>In other directions, too, there is scope for more modern attitudes towards the employment of females ... It seems ridiculous that we should bc short of labour in many fields of traditionally male effort while females, if permitted and encouraged to do so, could fill some of the gaps quite adequately. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The position is the same today as it was when we raised this question on previous occasions. Public Service unions and other organisations have said to the Government: &#34; You ought to face up to your obligations under l.L.O. Even if you will not accept the recommendations, you should have regard to the position in Australia generally.&#34; We know that most of the State Governments are attempting to apply the principles of equal pay for equal work. Immediately the Labour Government was elected to office in my own State of South Australia, it decided to apply the principle to female teachers in the Education Department. This seems to me to be consistent with the stand taken by the Australian Government at the l.L.O. I suggest that the Government is trying to persuade the Australian female population that it encourages female intrusion into industry, not only in the industrial sections but also in top managerial positions. However, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McClelland</inline> has pointed out, there is only one female First Division officer in the Public Service. </para>
          <para>The Minister should say that he is prepared to support our amendment. If he is not prepared to do that, he should say that the Government is prepared to consult with the States on the matter. He says that it has to be dealt with by the processes of arbitration. That is the Government&#39;s stand on this question. But the proposed amendments to the Public Service Act which we are considering today are the result of negotiation between the Government and the unions. A great many industrial conditions in Australia today have been achieved by negotiation. Not every matter is subjected to the conciliation and arbitration processes which are set up by legislation. It could be argued that some of the matters with which we are dealing, such as the question of leave, should be determined by the processes of arbitration, but the Government has decided to act on its own. I suggest that the Government ought to reconsider its position in relation to the question of equal pay for the sexes, for the very good reasons which are set out in our amendment. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1048</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>1L5</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MURPHY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I support the amendment because the Australian Labour Party is committed to the proposal incorporated in the amendment as a matter of fundamental policy. The &#39; &#34; Federal Platform, Constitution and Rules &#34; of the Australian Labour Party, under the heading &#34; Industrial &#34;, states - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">No discrimination between the sexes with the introduction of - </para>
            <list type="loweralpha">
              <item label="(a)">
                <para>Equal pay for work of equal value. </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(b)">
                <para>The rate for the job in those professions, trades or callings where there is no male equivalent. </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(c)">
                <para>The I.L.O. Convention No. 100, and Article5 of Recommendation 90 of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value. </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">There should be equal pay for the sexes. It is a matter not only of great national policy but also of international policy, because it goes to the question of the equal rights of the sexes. It has been subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is a world policy on this matter. This </para>
          <para class="block">Government should determine its attitude to this great question of policy. It should not say, in the international sphere, that it is in favour of equal pay for the sexes, and it should not pretend to the Australian women that it is in favour of equal pay for the sexes, and then avoid the issue when it has the opportunity of actually introducing it. </para>
          <para>There can be no doubt whatever that it is entirely within the competence of this Parliament to provide for equal pay for the sexes in its own Public Service. Noone would suggest that there is the slightest doubt about that proposition. So let there be no pretence that there is any difficulty, that it has to be subjected to arbitration or that there must be uniformity with everybody else. Why should a matter which is the subject not only of great national policy but also of international policy be left to the individual conscience, if one might call it that, of individual arbitrators? It is unthinkable that the Government should avoid its responsibility by saying that this matter ought to be left to some individual. What is the purpose of arbitrators but to exercise their functions according to legislative policy? It is for us to set down the legislative policy. It is for us to say here what should be done in respect of this matter. </para>
          <para>If the Government is honest, it will support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The Government has pretended for many years that it is in favour of this policy. It has avoided for all those years every opportunity to bring this principle into effect. Here is a clear opportunity for the Government to do so. If it fails to accept the Opposition&#39;s amendment, then it must be indicted for its refusal to carry out what it has pretended to be in favour of for many years.I support the amendment. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1048</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 rise to make my position perfectly clear. Whilst I was out of the chamber, the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee)</inline> quoted from a speech that I made in this place, not one word of which I would retract. I am a great believer in equal pay for work of equal value. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1048</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cavanagh</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Does the honorable senator support the amendment? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1049</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KOU</name.id>
                <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>-  Will the honorable senator vole for our amendment? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1049</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAW</name.id>
                <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>- Let me finish, please. Whilst the determination of wages and salaries rests with arbitration tribunals, I believe that it is not the function of this Parliament to alter the wages and salaries of one section of the female work force. I was most interested in what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> had to say. He charged the Government wilh not being sincere. But if the Labour Party were really sincere in its claim, for equal pay for the sexes for work of equal value, surely the Australian Council of Trade Unions has had many opportunities to present a case before our courts seeking equal pay. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1049</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cavanagh</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  lt has done so. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1049</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAW</name.id>
                <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>-  On how many occasions have cases been submitted to our industrial courts in respect of claims for equal pay? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1049</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>1L5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Murphy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  lt exists in some awards. The graphic artists award is one which was heard on appeal a couple of years ago. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1049</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAW</name.id>
                <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>- -That is one case, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy.</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1049</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>1L5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Murphy</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The Labour Government in New South Wales introduced equal pay by legislation. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1049</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAW</name.id>
                <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>- That applies to one section of the female work force but not to all members of the female work force who perform work  of  equal value. As I said before, if the Labour Party were sincere, it has had through its affiliated unions and the A.C.T.U. the opportunity over the years of presenting a case to our courts. Up to date, the Labour Party has made no concerted effort to obtain equal pay for women. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>In conclusion, let me say this: I believe that equal pay for work of equal value for the sexes will come. I sincerely hope it does. But I do object to the Opposition shadow sparring - because that is what it is doing - with this matter every time that a bill dealing with the Public Service comes before us. The Labour Party has had endless opportunities to present a sustained case in this field but it has never availed itself of those opportunities. For that reason and those I have mentioned on this and previous occasions, whilst 1 support the principle, I will not support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1049</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6R</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COHEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Chairman,</inline>I desire to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee).</inline> I say to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood</inline> that if she supports the principle of equal pay for women for work of equal value then she should do something about it. What she should do, 1 say with great respect to her, is to urge this Government - indeed use all of her not inconsiderable influence - to make it clear that it will support the principle of equal pay not only by applying the principle to its own employees but also by announcing that itwill support any application before industrial tribunals in areas where the Commonwealth cannot act alone: 1 have heardso much nonsense talked by members on the Government side on this issue during the years that I have been a senator. Thetest of sincerity in relation to this matteris that if the Government is interested in applying the principle then it ought to be interested in taking the initiative to create conditions under which &#34; the principle can be applied. We all know that there are some areas in- which the Commonwealth cannot act unilaterally. The Opposition says that the crux of the matter is that the Commonwealth should give a lead by introducing the principle in relation to the female members of its own Public Service. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1049</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAW</name.id>
                <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>-  Why does not the Labour Party give a lead? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1049</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COHEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  lt is no good trying to throw the responsibility back on to the Opposition. This Government has tha responsibility of applying the principle. I hope that it will not have this responsibility in another six weeks, but up to then the Government will have to accept it. It is no good turning to the Opposition and asking: &#34; What are you doing about it?&#34; The point is that the Opposition is not in a position to do what the Government can do, that is, introduce legislation to make this principle applicable to the Public Service Act. The Government should support our amendment. If the Government does this, we will see then the rest of the Australian industrial community following suit. When Labour governments have taken office in the various States, they have acted with a sense of urgency to apply these principles. That is what the Labour Party has done about it. What can the Government do about the principle? Firstly, the Government can support our amendment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1050</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K8Y</name.id>
                <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
                <party>IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator TURNBULL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The honorable senator is naive if he expects that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1050</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator COHEN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I know that the Government will not support our amendment. But hope springs eternal. I have not given up hope that we will tempt <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood, Senator Breen</inline> and even the Minister for Housing <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin)</inline> into crossing the floor and voting with us on a principle that they say they espouse. But, in addition to doing that, honorable senators opposite could go further. Let us wait to hear whether the Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Gorton)</inline> when he replies to this discussion says: &#34;You bring a case or have a trade union bring a case before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to this principle and the Commonwealth Government will go before that tribunal and support it&#34;. If honorable senators opposite could obtain that undertaking from the Minister, while I would not agree with the position that they take by refusing to accept our amendment, at least they would be doing something tangible to advance the cause of equal pay for the sexes. But honorable senators opposite will not do that. The Government will not do that, Therefore, the Government falls down on the very issue on which we are in confrontation with it over this amendment. This issue is whether or nol the Government is prepared to take any sort of lead in the matter. If the Government does not, then it is all talk. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1050</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Works</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>
              <inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Chairman, Senator Murphy</inline>introduced a couple of points in his speech to which I would like to reply. He suggested that the Government was sailing under false colours in its actions particularly in relation to the International Labour Organisation conference and the recommendations - that is what they are - which were made by the conference and with which the Australian </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Government concurs. I will recite to the Committee what those recommendations provide. The recommendations say that Australia, as one of the members of the convention, shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation in its country for determining rates of remuneration, take action along these lines. What does that recommendation require the Commonwealth Government to do? lt requires the Commonwealth Government to refer these considerations to the State Governments; to consult with the State Governments on their implementation; to inform the Commonwealth Parliament and the Director-General of the I.L.O. about what is being done; to submit reports to the I.L.O. when they are requested; and to consult with the States from time to time. The Commonwealth Government has done every one of those things. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline>then spoke for a long period, but quite unnecessarily, in order io show that this Parliament, in fact, has the power to legislate in respect of the wages of Commonwealth public servants. That has never been in issue. It has never been argued that the Parliament has not that power. The argument has been that it should not so legislate. That argument has been put here today. What is the point of a great, long legal dissertation on the fact that we can do something when everybody knows that we can do it? The point is that we do not believe that we should implement this principle by legislation. We believe that we should leave that to the processes of arbitration. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1050</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KOU</name.id>
                <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>- Would the Government support an application? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1050</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Nobody speaks when the honorable senator is speaking, so let him keep quiet now. We heard from <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> what the New South Wales Labour Government has done by legislation. Listening to him, one would have been led to believe that that Government introduced equal pay for equal work throughout New South Wales. Of course, it did nothing of the kind. What it did affected the New South Wales Public Service, but it has not spread throughout the whole of that State. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood</inline>is perfectly correct in saying that, in her view - I am expressing her view - what is required is equal pay for equal work throughout the whole of industry, not just in one very small section of it, which is what this amendment is designed to achieve.  Her  view is that the way of bringing that about is an application to the Arbitration Commission for nondifferentiation in the basic wage part of the composite wage. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cohen</inline> asked: &#34; What can we do about it? &#34; What members of the Labour Party can do about it, if they are as close to the Australian Council of Trade Unions as they want us to believe they are, and as union officials, as some of them are, is endeavour to have the A.C.T.U. apply for a general evening out of wages as between the sexes. That is what they can do, if they wish to do it. </para>
          <para>Our position has been made perfectly clear. Honorable senators opposite may argue against it and disagree with it here or anywhere else. Our argument is that these things should be done by application to and decision of the Arbitration Commission, and not by legislation. This request for legislation to cover one small section of industry not only seeks to do something in a way in which it should not be done but also is a pretence for seeking to achieve a general result which can and should be achieved in another way. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1051</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BISHOP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I have listened intently to what the Minister has said. He has suggested that the Government is complying with the requirements of the International Labour Organisation. I say that all he is doing in this regard is creating a smokescreen. I can understand the position that he takes up, which is: &#34; We will not apply the principle of equal pay to classifications in the Commonwealth Public Service by legislation &#34;. We say that the Government has an obligation to do that. The Minister says that the Government does not intend to do it. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Whilst the Government takes up that position, it is trying to get employers to take married and single women into the work force and to satisfy their industrial claims by giving them attractive rates of pay and attractive conditions. That is an established fact. Nobody can deny or disguise that. It is what Ministers have said in this place. The Government is asking outside industry to take the lead in this matter by providing attractive conditions and wage rates. But, in respect of the Public Service, it says, on the one hand, that it relies on the arbitration machinery and, on the other hand, that it has carried out its obligations under the relevant I.L.O. convention. It has not done that. It is no good the Government saying that it has done that. </para>
          <para>It says that it has consulted the States. This morning I quoted from a statement made very recently by the Minister for Labour and National Service, which indicates that the Government does not intend to consult the States on this question. All that it. has done in an attempt to discharge its obligation to consult with the States is send to the State Government the papers - the reports and decisions of the I.L.O. As honorable senators know, decisions on many of the reports and recommendations take years to come back. Only last week the Government presented to the Parliament a report on recommendations that were made in 1960. In 1966 we receive a report on what the Government has done about recommendations that were made in 1960. All that the Government does is make formal exchanges of correspondence and reports with the States. </para>
          <para>The Minister knows as well as 1 do what the Opposition and the trade union movement say. I am not speaking here as a union official, because 1 am not a union official. But I know the position because I was engaged on this matter many years ago. The trade union movement, through its national body which the Government accepts as the negotiating body, has put to the Government that it should confer with the States and see what can be done to implement these recommendations. The Government has said: &#34; No, we will not do that. We will send them the papers and ask them what they think &#34;. </para>
          <para>Let us be honest about this matter. The Government does not want to have within Australia a trend towards equal pay for equal work as a result of legislation. It knows that many State Governments are already trying to put this principle into effect, despite some constitutional difficulties. As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cohen</inline> has said, in this chamber the lady senators in the Government parties have always stood up and paid a great deal of lip service to the principle of equal pay. 1 include in that ladies who are no longer senators. If they do not support this principle, or if they want to say: &#34; We believe in equal pay only if an arbitration tribunal awards it &#34;, that is all right. But if they go out among women&#39;s organisations and advocate equal pay for equal work as a principle, let them take the first step here in this chamber by assisting the Opposition to have this amendment carried. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1052</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2W</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BREEN, Marie</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BREEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- .1 should like to make my position clear. I regret very much that I had to leave the chamber to keep an important appointment. Otherwise, I would have been very pleased to have taken part in this debate earlier. I wish to state very firmly and clearly that, for a number of years, I have been one of the women to whom <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bishop</inline> has referred - women who, in women&#39;s voluntary organisations, have upheld the contention that Australia should accede to this International Labour Organisation convention and that there should be equal pay for work of equal value. But on no occasion has any organisation to  which I have belonged upheld the contention that there should be equal pay for the sexes. It has always been stated very clearly that there should be equal pay for work of equal value. I believe that there is a considerable difference in the interpretations of this l.L.O. convention by senators of the Opposition. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Representations have been made to the Government by these organisations - I have had a part in them - for an amendment covering the whole of the Public Service and making possible the gradual introduction of this principle. But I have understood that at the present stage it is not financially possible to make such an amendment. Also, it has been stated clearly by Australian representatives at the Status of Women Commission that Australia&#39;s wage machinery differs very considerably from that of other countries. So the position in regard to this machinery and this convention has been clearly understood in discussions. </para>
          <para>In regard to the work that I have done in this regard, I lose no opportunity to state quite clearly that I believe that this principle should have general application,. I give what support I can to the women who are endeavouring to educate the community on the real meaning of this Convention. There is still within Australia opposition to the implementation of this Convention from men and women and so we hope by conducting an educational .campaign there will be increasingly a body of opinion that will support this principle. .1 hope that economic conditions will prevail soon which will make it possible to introduce this principle and confirm the l.L.O. Convention. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1052</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTA</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Douglas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MCCLELLAND</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I am rather amazed at the statements that have come from supporters of the Government on this question of equal pay for the sexes. I take up where <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bishop</inline> left off when he said that the Government does not want a trend towards equal pay for equal work. Not only do 1 say the Government does not want a trend towards equal pay for equal work but, in fact, by its actions it has acted to achieve the very reverse. As I pointed out in my speech on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, one of the first things the Government did when it came to office in 1950 was to reverse the trend then occurring towards equal pay for equal work. In. case <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Breen</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood</inline> were not in the chamber when I spoke on the matter, let me point out again that the Women&#39;s Employment Board between 1942 and 1949 provided in determinations for 90 per cent, of the male rate in the case of postwomen and 100 per cent, in the case of all other categories of female employees. Early in the life of the Menzies&#39;Government, in 1950, the Public Service Board issued instructions which brought to an end the 90 per cent, of the full rate classifications decided upon by the Women&#39;s Employment Board and which in fact had been continued in peace time by the Chifley Labour Government. When the women concerned protested, the Public Service Board agreed to continue the rates only to those who had in fact been receiving them and applied to new appointees the 75 per cent, of the basic male rate set by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court in October 1950. So, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bishop</inline> has said, the trend of this Government&#39;s action has been the exact reverse of the trend towards equal pay for equal work. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Gorton)</inline> has said this is a matter for arbitration but surely there is also a matter of conciliation involved in this very important aspect. Time after time, the High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations has made approaches to the Government to have this, among other reforms, effected throughout the Public Service. Indeed, in June .1961 the High Council made approaches to the Prime Minister of the day, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Robert</inline> Menzies, to the  Chairman  of the Commonwealth Public Service Board and the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service on a number of matters relating to working conditions for employees. One of them was equal pay for equal work by the sexes. Let me use that term advisedly having regard to the remarks of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Breen.</inline> They met the Prime Minister on 17th June 1961 and the Prime Minister promised the Government would consider the submissions. That was five or six years ago. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Breen</inline>raised the question of cost. Frankly, this is the first time I have heard it raised by anyone on the Government side because as I pointed out earlier, 18 months ago the then Prime Minister said, when speaking in a debate on this subject in another place, that the cost involved would be &#163;2 million, or $4 million, today, of a total budget of &#167;6,000 million. It is a mere drop in the bucket. The Government could do this if it wanted to do it. Female public servants know that&#39; the Government could do it if it wanted to do it. The High Council of the Public Service Organisations knows the Government could do it if it wanted to. I hope that each and every one of those people takes cognisance of this in six weeks time when the Federal elections take place. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1053</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>1L5</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MURPHY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Government senators have been accused of duplicity in this matter. Is this too exaggerated an accusation? I put it to honorable senators that having heard what has fallen from the Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Gorton)</inline> it is not exaggerated. The Minister has said the Government chooses to treat the recommendation of the International Labour Organisation as one that has to be carried out by the appropriate means in the individual country. It is an obligation upon the country concerned and so it is an obligation upon the Australian Government to implement this recommendation. It is an obligation on the Government - not on the trade union movement, nor on. employees somewhere but for the Australian Government to implement it by the appropriate means. The proposal is one for equal pay for work of equal value. Let us be clear on this. That is the recommendation of the International Labour Organisation and it is what is embraced by the amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee).</inline> Therefore, it is the Government&#39;s obligation to implement this by the appropriate means. It is for it to take action. The Government says the appropriate means here are the industrial authorities. The Government says: &#34; We have the power - we concede this - to do this by legislation, but we choose not to. We think it should not be done in this way but that the approach should be made to the industrial authorities.&#34; </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Has the Government at any time approached the industrial authorities for the introduction, of equal pay for the sexes for work of equal value? Never. The Government has completely set aside its obligations and has said it is for the industrial authorities to do it. The Government has said in effect: &#34; It is true we have the obligation to implement this but we have done nothing.&#34; The appropriate authorities are available but this Government has made no move whatever towards implementation. Then, when the proposition was put up that the Trade union movement approach the industrial authorities, and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cohen</inline> asked the Minister in the plainest terms to say whether the Government would support such an application to the authorities, what did the Minister answer? He went on with a lot of double talk. There was no plain answer at all. How can it be said that the Government is doing anything to implement these recommendations when it will not make any approach to the bodies it selects as the appropriate ones? It says they are the industrial authorities. It has made no approach to them and it will not even say that if an approach is made to the authorities by the representatives of the employees, it will support that approach. So how can the Government be accused of anything else but duplicity when it sends representatives overseas, joins in these recommendations, comes back and gives us this double talk? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1053</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8Y</name.id>
              <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party>IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURNBULL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I was going to speak on the point <inline font-weight="bold">Senator</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Murphy raised but before doing so, I might say that 1 was surprised to hear the Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Gorton)</inline> say he could not support the amendment to give equal pay for equal work to the sexes because lt would benefit one section of the community. 1 think that is what he said. Every week we bring in legislation to benefit one section of the community. That was a most nonsensical statement. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1054</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAW</name.id>
                <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>-  This is one section of the female work force. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1054</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K8Y</name.id>
                <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
                <party>IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator TURNBULL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood</inline> should relax. She gets more than 75 per cent, of the basic wage. The second point is that raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy.</inline> I have been listening to the debate. There were interjections and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cohen</inline> asked for an answer but we have not received a reply. I ask the Minister directly: If the Australian Council of Trade Unions brings up a case at the next basic wage hearing for equal pay for the sexes, will the Government intervene favorably in this matter? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1054</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Works</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 shall deal first with two remarks made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turnbull.</inline> In the first place, he misunderstood what I said as the reason why we do not think this should be done by legislation. I shall have to repeat the main reason. 1 hope that he understands it this time. The reason is that we believe this should be done by arbitration and not by legislation. As to the second point that he raised, I have no intention whatever of giving answers to hypothetical questions about what may happen or what may not happen at some time in the future. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>In reply to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy&#39;s</inline> reiteration of his former argument, I reiterate my former rebuttal. What happened at the International Labour Organisation conference was that Australia was called upon to accede to a recommendation that the means appropriate to the methods in operation in a country should be used for the purpose of approaching equal pay for equal work, and means appropriate to the methods &#60;n operation for determining earnings in Australia is and always has been the arbitration court. The method by which the arbitration court always has been used is by applications of the unions concerned for variations in wages, hours or conditions. 1 reiterate again that this Government does not believe that these things should be done by legislation. If this were to be done by legislation, in any case it would not be an application of the principle except to one section of the community, one section of the work force. Therefore, the objective sought would not be reached. That is where <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turnbull</inline> got mixed up. I am not saying that this is a reason against doing it. I say that it would not. attain the objective that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> says he wants to have. The way to attain the objective, if he believes that the methods in operation should be used, is to see that they are used in the normal way by an application by the Australian Council of Trade Unions or by other unions for this principle to be applied throughout the wide range of industry. But, the plain fact is, 1 believe, that these unions would not wish to make such an application, because they would not wish to see this come about. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1054</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TANGNEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I do not know what grounds the Minister has for stating that unions would not be in favour of equal pay for work of equal value. That has already been disproved in my own State. I think that the public opinion in this matter now is fast coming round to the belief that there should bc equal pay for work of equal value just as a matter of ordinary, common justice. In my own State, one big retail firm which recently, of its own volition, introduced equal pay for all its workers was able, within a few weeks of initiating the new policy, to state how much its profits had increased because it had got so much public support for the new policy, which applied not only to equal pay for equal work but also to equal margins and everything else, enabling women to attain to the highest executive positions in the firm which hitherto had been closed to them. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I am amazed that women senators on the Government benches oppose this amendment, as they have done on previous occasions. I know that they are most vocal in their support of the principle to outside organisations, but here we could really do something about it. The four of us women senators are a very small minority as far as this House is concerned, yet each one of us has accepted a decision given by this </para>
          <para class="block">Parliament with regard to our salaries. I doubt whether any of the four of us would be very happy if this House legislated for us to receive reduced remuneration because of our sex. No-one would dare to say that we did work of lesser value. If there were discrimination against us, I think there would be an outcry from my friends on the benches opposite. So this immediately takes away the force of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood&#39;s</inline> argument that by acceding to this amendment we would improve the lot of only a certain few in the work force. We have applied the principle, and we are some of the very few who have benefited. Women members of other professions, women doctors and women lawyers receive equal pay for their services. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1055</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAW</name.id>
                <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>- Not all of them. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1055</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator TANGNEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Those who do not are those who are employed in government service. This is an anomaly that could be corrected by our voting for this amendment. I have spoken from time to time here about the anomaly that exists because women doctors and other professional women are employed in the Repatriation Department and other fields of the Public Service at lower rates of pay than those of their male counterparts but are called upon to do exactly the same work. The value of their work is regarded as equal, as is that of women who are employed in various aspects of the consular and trade services. I was very pleased when a woman, <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Wilson,</inline> was appointed to a high position in San Francisco, but I was amazed to learn that she was appointed at a lower rate of pay than her male counterpart. Today is an historic day in Canberra, because a woman ambassador for the first time takes her place in the diplomatic community in this city. I am wondering whether that woman ambassador who has been appointed by another government is here at a lower rate of pay, whether she is here because she provides cheap labour. I doubt whether this is so. But surely to goodness, when many countries, which are regarded by us as being less developed and about which we speak condescendingly in many ways, have already introduced this principle of equal pay for work of equal value, it is fallacious to say that this Commonwealth Parliament has no power to fix remuneration. We do it every time we raise the salaries of heads of depart ments. If in this Parliament we can raise the salaries of heads of departments, we can also fix the salary rates of those on the lower rungs of the ladder in the Civil Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1055</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KOU</name.id>
                <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>- We can try. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1055</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K7Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TANGNEY, Dorothy</name>
                <name role="display">Senator TANGNEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- At any rate we can try, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Hendrickson</inline> says. This has been done by action in two State Parliaments, in New South Wales and South Australia. The South Australian Government, which has been in power for only a short term, has been very active in introducing legislation to remedy anomalies that have gone on for many years, the injustice of which is recognised by all members on the other side of the House. It has already begun to reduce the number of these anomalies. I am absolutely amazed that those who sit on the opposite side should vote against proposals that they advocate so fervently in the community outside, in all the women&#39;s organisations. I know from visiting many of these organisations that members of them simply cannot reconcile the talk that they hear with the action that follows it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I hope that my colleagues opposite will see the wisdom and the logic of what  1  say. We could be giving a lead in this matter. Once this is done in the Commonwealth Public Service, which is one of the biggest employers, a lead will be given to other employers to act in the same way. I would like to feel assured that when the unions do bring this matter before the appropriate authorities, their application will not be opposed by the Commonwealth Government. In many fields, through State arbitration and wages tribunals in the west, unions achieved equal pay for work of equal value as the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee)</inline> said, long before the Geneva Convention there were unions members of which received equal pay for work of equal value. Some places already have this sectional legislation about which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wedgwood</inline> speaks. Certain sections already receive equal pay for work of equal value. All we ask by our amendment is that the application of the principle be extended to cover women workers in the Commonwealth Public Service. </para>
          <para class="block">Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1056</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6R</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COHEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The Government&#39;s reply to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee)</inline> was that the proper place for the determination of the application of the principle of equal pay was in the industrial tribunals and that the Government should not act unilaterally to apply the principle to public servants. During the debate we have sought to pin the Minister down, if I may use that term, and to get him to say what the Government&#39;s attitude would be in the event of an application being made to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the payment of equal pay for work of equal value. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>We got an answer which revealed the negative thinking of the Government. The Minister said that he did not propose to deal with a hypothetical case. I am strongly reminded of an occasion when a distinguished advocate was appealing in the industrial courts many years ago. 1 had the privilege of listening to him in a major national arbitration case in which the Commonwealth was intervening. He was asked by the presiding judge: &#34; Does the Commonwealth support the application?&#34; He replied: &#34; No. Our position is perfectly clear.&#34; The judge then said: &#34; I see, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. So-and-so.</inline> The Commonwealth is again U the application?&#34; He replied: &#34; No, Your Honour. Our position is perfectly clear.&#34; The judge then asked: &#34; Is the Commonwealth neutral?&#34; He answered: &#34; No, Your Honour. Our position is perfectly clear.&#34; That is the position that the Government has taken up today in this matter. </para>
          <para>We can spell out from what has been said by the Minister that the Commonwealth does not propose to take any initiative to apply in a practical form the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. I think that is all that needs to be said about the matter. The difference between the attitude of the Government and that of the Opposition is that the Opposition wants the principle to be implemented immediately in all areas in which it can be implemented whereas the Government does not want an early introduction of equal pay for work of equal value. </para>
          <para>Question put - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>That the proposed new clause <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesees amendment)</inline> be inserted in the Bill. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <division>
          <division.header>
            <time.stamp />
            <para>The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C.</para>
          </division.header>
          <para>Drake-Brockman.) </para>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>24</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>24</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
            </noes>
          </division.data>
          <para class="block">Majority </para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="032232196610132_31_1_3_P.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>AYES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="032232196610132_31_1_1_A.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>NOES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="032232196610132_31_1_2_N.jpg" />
          </para>
          <division.result />
        </division>
      </subdebate.1>
      <para class="block">Nil </para>
      <para>Question so resolved in the negative. </para>
      <para>Clauses 8 to 16  -  by leave - taken together. </para>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1056</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>.- I wish to refer to discrimination against public servants. I relate my remarks to clause 9  -  Appointments to offices requiring professional, technical or special qualifications, and clause 10. In doing so I might be riding along finely on the rules. I wish to speak about the right of a Commonwealth public servant to stand for election to the Parliament without having to suffer any privation whatever. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1056</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gorton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I do not wish to interrupt the honorable senator, but I do not think his remarks have relevance to the clause under discussion. I think his remarks are directed toward another clause. I am told now that the honorable senators remarks relate to section 47c of the main Act. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1056</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <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>- If a State public servant stands for election to Parliament and is successful, he does not need his job back in the Public Service; but if he is defeated, he can go back to his job almost the day after the election. The election is held on a Saturday and, if defeated, he could return to his position in the Public Service on the following Monday. That might also be the position with the House of Representatives. I am not certain of that, but the position is different with the Senate. Each honorable senator can speak for himself, but there are three or four honorable senators on the other side of the chamber who have had my experience. I do not think it is so much discrimination against parliamentarians as it is discrimination against the Commonwealth Public Service. I think <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McClelland&#39;s</inline> experience was much the same as mine. Before contesting a Senate election I had first to resign. I was told that I could not contest the election while holding office of profit under the Crown. So I resigned from the Public Service. I explained this case to the Senate on Tuesday afternoon. I came to fill a casual vacancy first but I do not wish to refer to that situation now. That is another matter of discrimination, against senators, which is not covered by this legislation. I am referring now to the rights of public servants. I am defending the rights of Commonwealth public servants to get back their jobs if defeated at an election. In my case, and in the case of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McClelland,</inline> although we were elected in October, we did not take our seats in the Senate until the following June. Before a Commonwealth public servant decides to contest a Senate election, he has first to be prepared to say: &#34; I am willing to sacrifice nine months salary.&#34; That was my situation. Although I had been elected to the Senate, I was without a salary. It was said that I could not hold an office of profit under the Crown, although I was not then holding office as a senator. I did not sign on to the Senate payroll until I came here. Every public servant who wants to become a senator must be prepared to take a risk of sacrificing at least six months salary. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JUM</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DITTMER, Felix</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Dittmer</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Attorney-General would not give an opinion on the matter. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <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>- I think this is discrimination against public servants and it ought to be eliminated. It is because of a provision of the Constitution, but as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dittmer</inline> has implied, nobody is quite clear about it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JUM</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DITTMER, Felix</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Dittmer</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I said that the Attorney-General will not give an opinion on it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <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>- Whatever can be said about that, the Government in this Bill is setting out to overcome disabilities that Commonwealth public servants suffer, and to that extent the Opposition supports the Bill, although we think in other respects it does not go far enough. The situation cannot be too extraordinary, because it has applied for 20 years. I do not know why the matter has not been raised before by honorable senators who have been affected. I speak for two honorable senators on this side of the chamber, and I have given the facts as I know them. I think it is an unfair position which involves discrimination against Commonwealth public servants. At least they ought to have the same conditions as State public servants. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1057</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KKP</name.id>
            <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
            <party />
            <role>Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party</role>
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
            <name role="display">Senator GAIR</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -  The matter raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> has engaged my consideration and attention for a considerable time. As he has said, the Commonwealth or State public servant who intends to nominate as a candidate for election to the House of Representatives or to the Senate is required to resign from his position prior to nomination day. In the event of his defeat, he is not usually reappointed to his former position until after the declaration of the poll. The Democratic Labour Party which I represent has raised this matter with <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Robert</inline> Menzies, the former Prime Minister, and with the present Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Harold Holt),</inline> because many of our members who aspire to politics and who are employed in the Commonwealth and State Public Services are disadvantaged, not because of a rule in the Commonwealth Public Service, but because of a provision in the Commonwealth Constitution. This, 1 am informed, provides that no candidate is eligible for election if he holds a position of profit under the crown. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dittmer</inline> said by way of interjection that the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Snedden)</inline> has refused to give an opinion. I am not sure of the time of which he speaks. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JUM</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DITTMER, Felix</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Dittmer</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  That was two years ago. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1057</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GAIR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- We have had an opinion on it in recent times, from the </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para class="block">Prime Minister who undertook to have the matter re-examined. We obtained an opinion from a legal authority who threw a different light on the subject and the Prime Minister undertook to examine the position and find out whether the anomaly could be rectified. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JUM</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DITTMER, Felix</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Dittmer</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- But the honorable senator has not yet had an opinion from the Attorney-General. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GAIR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I take it that when the Prime Minister makes a statement to me, in the ordinary course of events he would have consulted the Attorney-General, who is the legal adviser to the Prime Minister. If the Attorney-General were not consulted directly, advice would be obtained through him. That would be the usual process, 1 should think, it is the process adopted by a State Cabinet, and 1 take it that the procedure would be very much the same at the Commonwealth level. As the first Minister of the Government, the Prime Minister speaks for his Cabinet. When he communicated with mc he gave the opinion that under the existing circumstances, because of a provision in the Commonwealth Constitution, nothing could be done about the matter without an amendment to the Constitution, it was a disappointing reply to us and contrary to the result we had hoped for. Nevertheless, I have to be realistic. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Douglas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McClelland</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I think the honorable senator and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> are at cross purposes. He was referring to a candidate who resigns his position and is successful at an election. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GAIR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> referred to both cases. I am coming to the second case. When I need <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McClelland&#39;s</inline> legal advice, I will send for it but I will not be prepared to pay much for it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JUM</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DITTMER, Felix</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Dittmer</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honorable senator always gratefully accepts my help. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GAIR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The honorable senator is always very helpful, but he should not provoke me. I have explained the position as I see it. I think one has to be realistic about it. I remember when <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn</inline> stood for election. He was a State public servant. He tendered his resignation and after he was elected he realised that he had to make a living in the interim for about six months, and had he not got employment outside the Crown he would have been in trouble. 1 was at that time the Minister in charge of the Department in which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn</inline> worked as chief inspector of factories and shops, or whatever was the designation of his job. Had we brought him back into the Department, it would have nullified his election. He would have been in a position of profit under the Crown and would not have been eligible to take his place as an elected senator. I do not know whether <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> has any grounds or any specific instances to support his contention that a Federal Crown employee of recent years at any rate would be discriminated against in the event of his being unsuccessful at an election. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <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>- 1 could not get my job back. I was successful. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GAIR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  No, the honorable senator could not get his job back for the intervening period, for the reasons that 1 have stated in the case of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn.</inline> Much as we would have liked to get <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn</inline> back for the interim peri. id, the six months between the time of the election and his taking his seat in the Senate, we could not employ him because immediately he would have been in a position of profit under the Crown. This would have been infringing the provisions of the Constitution. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <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>-  But if 1 had been defeated I could not have gone back to the Commonwealth department. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GAIR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I do not know about that. I think that men who have taken the risk, contested an election and been unsuccessful, have not experienced any difficulty in going back to their former positions. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KSN</name.id>
              <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>-  That could be used as an excuse if you wanted to get rid of them. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1058</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GAIR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Yes, I suppose so. That could be done if someone wanted to be unjust and unfair. Some years ago the same difficulty existed under State law. lt was necessary for an officer to resign. He depended on the good graces of the Slate Government for re-employment if he was defeated, but that is not the case today. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para class="block">The Electoral Act has been amended and it is now provided that an officer may be granted leave of absence to contest a State election. </para>
        <para>This is a problem which presents itself only because of the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution, lt does not arise because of provisions in the electoral law or even in the Public Service Act. The impediment arises from the Constitution which provides that no candidate is eligible for election if he occupies a position of profit under the Crown. That provision also applies after a person is elected to Parliament. I think that generally today unsuccessful candidates are allowed to go back to their former positions without any impediment and without suffering any disadvantage, lt is not an easy matter to amend the Constitution, as we all know. The provision exists in the Constitution and I do nol know how we are to get over it. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1059</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JUM</name.id>
            <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">DITTMER, Felix</name>
            <name role="display">Senator DITTMER</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - There is one matter which 1 should like the Minister to clarify regarding the position of successful candidates and the holding of an office of profit under the Crown. We know that public servants have to resign in order to contest an election. In the case of persons who are elected to the Senate, a period of two months, three months, six months or even ten months may elapse before they actually assume office and before their pay commences after they are sworn in as senators. Would the Minister be good enough to say whether such persons are holding an office of profit under the Crown if there is no profit to them? Admittedly, they have been elected constitutionally to take their seats in the following July, in most cases. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>On a previous occasion we asked the Attorney-General for an opinion on this matter and he refused to give an opinion. I was particularly concerned with the position of my friend <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Fitzgerald</inline> who, as honorable senators may know, was secretary to the late <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Evatt.</inline></para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1059</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gair</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I thought that the honorable senator had made representations on my account. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1059</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JUM</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DITTMER, Felix</name>
              <name role="display">Senator DITTMER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I did, too, and the answer was the same. I should appreciate it if the Minister would furnish an opinion on the question of what really constitutes an office of profit under the Crown in relation to a senator who has been elected but has not taken office. I refer to the interim period between the time of his election and the time that he actually takes office. During that period he is not in receipt of remuneration. When does his office of profit commence? Does it commence from the date of the election? lt is important to define the words &#34; office of profit under the Crown &#34;. In most cases a person is elected to take office as a senator from the following 1st July. If he is a public servant he certainly receives no profit between the time of his election and the time when he takes office. A person who is elected to the House of Representatives is in no difficulty, and neither are persons who are elected to most of the State parliaments. On the day they are elected their parliamentary salary commences. The position regarding election to the Senate seems grossly unfair. The Minister, in his usual helpful manner is anxious to provide full and extensive information regarding the problems posed to him, and I would be grateful if he would express an opinion in this respect. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1059</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JUH</name.id>
            <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">DEVITT, Donald</name>
            <name role="display">Senator DEVITT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -  I enter the debate merely to put before honorable senators a slight variant of the cases which have been presented by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> and other honorable senators concerning the position of public servants who contest elections. My case differs in that 1 was a State public servant, but I came under the same prohibition, if that is the right term, as have members of the Commonwealth Public Service in this respect. I made some inquiries about this matter because of the position in which one of my friends in Tasmania, who had previously contested a House of Representatives seat, found himself. He calculated that in accrued benefits and so on he had lost something like &#163;3,000, which was a very severe penalty for a public servant to have to incur in order to contest an election. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>In my further inquiries about the matter I was informed that a legal opinion had in fact been given by the Federal AttorneyGeneral, who at that time was <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Garfield</inline> Barwick. The Minister may be able to check on this and ascertain the situation. I was informed that <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Garfield</inline> Barwick&#39;s ruling was that a person apparently would be incurring the penalties of the law if he in fact nominated for a Senate or House of Representatives seat while still occupying a position in the Public Service and still receiving a salary for his services there. So, I think there may be in existence a ruling by <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Garfield</inline> Barwick, given during his term as AttorneyGeneral. It is a most difficult situation, as those who have been in this position well know. A person may be occupying a position in the Public Service, having worked through the various levels of the Service to a reasonably good position. Then, because he has been successful at a Senate election, he finds himself faced with the prospect, over a period of seven months, first of having to get a position somewhere. He must throw himself on the mercy of the community to obtain a position. Secondly, he has to incur the penalty, perhaps of limited duration, of a lower salary. In my case, this was approximately half of what I had been receiving before. The people with whom I was dealing in the Tasmanian Public Service simply could not understand how it could be substantiated that I was in a position of profit under the Crown when I was out of work anyway. I was asked whether I could rejoin the State Public Service, at least on a temporary basis. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1060</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gair</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  No. That would have been breaching the Constitution. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1060</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JUH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DEVITT, Donald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator DEVITT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes. I would have been in a position of profit under the Crown. As I understand (he situation, my nomination was out of order while I occupied a position of profit under the Crown. I think that the position needs to be clarified. Perhaps <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Garfield</inline> Barwick&#39;s ruling would clarify it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1060</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 do not think any Commonwealth governments have ever settled down to solving the problem of how to make it easy for Commonwealth and State public servants to contest seats in Parliament. I do not think they have ever been fully alive to the handicap which confronts Commonwealth and State public servants when they first entertain the idea of entering the Senate or the House of Representatives. If they continue to occupy their positions in the Public Service after nomination day, then, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Devitt</inline> has pointed out, they run the risk, in the case of their being elected, of losing their seats. That is one legal opinion that I have received. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>If they are elected to the House of Representatives, they are able to take their seats and their names go, not on a wages record but on an allowance sheet, and they are paid from that date. But the position is vastly different with a senator. If a Senate election were held in December, a successful senator could not take his seat in the Senate until 1st July of the following year. So there is a period through which he must live as best he can. If he has certain skills, of course the problem of employment does not arise. On the other hand, if he has not, he could be faced with a period of difficulty. Once public servants have made up their minds to enter either Commonwealth of State political life, they have to think of the lines of the poem - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>He either fears his fate too much, </para>
          <para>Or his deserts are small, </para>
          <para>That dares not put it to the touch, </para>
          <para>To gain or lose it all. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">We know that a parliamentarian&#39;s life is surrounded with chance. He must know, when he nominates, all the chances and risks that confront him. I think that every candidate is fully aware of what he is facing should he proceed with his nomination. I know that I, in common with others presently in the Senate, had to wait for six months after I was elected to the Senate before I could take my place in it. </para>
        <para>Another handicap that I had to face concerned the payment of long service leave. I found that it was not payable as a right. The word &#34; may &#34; is used in, the legislation, but effect has never been given to it in Queensland by the Public Service Commissioner approving of an application for long service leave by a successful parliamentary candidate. Therefore, it was said that I was not entitled to six months long service leave. But I am a man who is not easily defeated on any matter. When I entered the Senate I said to myself: &#34; I will have my long service leave in the Senate &#34;. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline> whether you believe it or not, that was 17 years ago and I am still on long service leave in the Senate. When I die, I will still be on long service leave. </para>
        <para>If we try to clear up all the problems that confront Commonwealth and State public servants in this respect we will find that we have a task ahead of us as great as some of the tasks which arise from other problems affecting not only the Commonwealth but also the States. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1061</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KH5</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Works</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 know whether I can give <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dittmer</inline> the information he sought, but 1 will do my best to reply to what I think was in his mind and that of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde.</inline> First, an opinion on this matter by <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Garfield</inline> Barwick was conveyed to the Australian Democratic Labour Party some years ago in a letter which was actually signed by me. The opinion was to the effect that it was invalid to do what we have been talking about. 1 do not have a copy of that letter or opinion with me, nor could I get it quickly, but I could get it so that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dittmer</inline> could have a look at it. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>I want to cover as much as I can of the point raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde.</inline> There may be an area still uncovered when 1 have finished. First, it would without doubt be against the Constitution for some person to be nominated while he was holding an office of profit under the Crown. He could be a public servant or a member of the defence forces. Anybody holding an office of profit under the Crown could not validly nominate. If he did nominate, and if he concealed the fact that he held an office of profit under the Crown, the nomination would be invalid and- nothing would come from it.  <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Byrne.</inline> - Would that cover a city council employee? </para>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1061</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I do not know whether he would be classified as holding a position of profit under the Crown, but I would doubt it very much. However, that matter is not at issue. The position would be known. The significant point that I want to make is that, without doubt, constitutionally a person cannot nominate while holding an office of profit under the Crown. Secondly, he cannot validly be chosen. There is no doubt that on the day on which an election is held a candidate cannot hold an office of profit under the Crown. In other words, he cannot nominate and then hold an office of profit under the Crown after nomination, because he cannot be chosen if he holds an office of profit under the Crown. Thirdly, there is no doubt that a person cannot take a seat in either House of the Parliament while he is holding an office of profit under the Crown. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>This question gives rise to the difficulties which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> has mentioned. I suppose that if a member of the House of Representatives was elected in December and the House did not meet until February- </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1061</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Byrne</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- He goes on to the pay roll the day he is elected. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1061</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- All right. That case does not matter. In the case of the Senate, we know that a senator does not go on the pay roll until he takes his seat. If this is so, then he suffers the disability which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> has mentioned. People have to wait a long time before they can get on to the Senate&#39;s pay roll. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> raised the point of whether a person would invalidate his election if between the time of being elected and the time of taking his seat he returned to an office of profit under the Crown. This is an area which I do not think I can clear up completely for the honorable senator. A legal opinion on this matter has . been conveyed to the Democratic Labour Party. I would merely suggest, by way of discussion with honorable senators, that the position would seem to be that it would be invalid for a person to return to an office of profit under the Crown after he was elected. Otherwise, the thing could be extended. A person could resign two days before he was nominated, then he could return to his job a couple of days after nomination and be employed during the election campaign. Then he could resign again before election day, return to his job after election day and then resign when he took his seat. Clearly, in my mind, this would be strongly against the intentions of the Act. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1061</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JUM</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DITTMER, Felix</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Dittmer</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- A senator between the time of his election and the time of taking his seat can receive neither an allowance nor pay. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1061</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- No, he is not receiving any allowance or pay. But he is a senator elect. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1061</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Byrne</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- But the Constitution provides that a member or a senator shall not. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1061</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes. The Constitution provides that any person who holds any office of profit under the Crown shall be incapable of being chosen. This man has been chosen. He may not be a senator or be receiving a senator&#39;s pay, but he has been chosen. The Constitution provides that he shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator. The Constitution provides further that if, later, a senator becomes subject to any prescribed disabilities such as holding an office of profit under the Crown then his place shall thereupon become vacant. The question is: When is the place of a senator elect vacant? That is the sort of thing on which legal opinion would have to be given. This deals with the nomination and the fact that a senator must continue in the same situation as he was in when he was nominated. That is the best that I can do towards putting an opinion before the Committee in trying to narrow it down.I give the undertaking that I will seek out the legal opinion that has been given and convey it to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde.</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1062</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JYA</name.id>
            <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
            <name role="display">Senator O&#39;BYRNE</name>
          </talker>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Chairman,</inline>I am pleased that this matter has been ventilated. I feel certain that the attention of the AttorneyGeneral&#39;s Department, the various Public Service associations and all right thinking people will be directed towards trying to iron out this abnormally. Several of my colleagues, as well as myself, have been through this experience. I was seriously disadvantaged economically at the time I was first elected to the Senate because of the implications of the Constitutional provisions relating to the definition of a senator even if he was a senator elect not able to take his seat. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>After I came back from the war, I was discharged in February 1946.I was elected to the Senate 20 years ago last month, actually on 23rd September 1946. From that day until the following July, being a district officer in the Department of Post War Reconstruction more or less a temporary position I found that noone, either departmentally or ministerially, was prepared to give an opinion on the position of a senator elect holding an office under the Crown. </para>
        <para>More than half of the members of the Opposition have been disadvantaged in this way.I have not heard of any members on the Government side being disadvantaged also, but I am almost certain that the same thing would have applied to some Government senators.I do hope that, as a result of this discussion, further consideration will be given to the matter. It could be that the matter might be added as a future subject for constitutional change or that a substantial interpretation might be given on the spirit of the Constitution as to whether the Constitution really meant to disadvantage a public servant who goes from one branch of the Public Service into another branch of the Public Service, the Senate. It seems ridiculous that this situation should apply because of a lack of interpretation or wording. I am certain that the Constitution would not have been drawn up deliberately to disadvantage even a small section of the community. I wish to be associated with this discussion. I wish to be added to the number of honorable senators who have a genuine grievance about the implication and incidence of the application of this section of the Constitution as it relates to Commonwealth or State public servants. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1062</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KH5</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Works</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>. - This is a matter of some significance to quite a number of honorable senators both now and for the future. I will take up another couple of minutes of the time of the Committee in view of what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Byrne</inline> has said on the subject. I want to make this point: If there is a doubt as to the Constitutional position then there is great risk that somebody can lose his seat and lose an election. If there is doubt, nobody can tell until this matter is interpreted by the High Court of Australia. Somebody has to run the risk. If there is doubt on this point, the danger signals are there. I do not think that the interpretation of this matter would solve it. It would be more necessary, if doubt exists, to put the matter beyond doubt by a change in the Constitution through a referendum. I make that point to the Committee. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Clauses 8 to 16 agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause 17. </para>
        <para>Section 68 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: - </para>
        <para>&#34;68.- (1.) . . . </para>
        <para>&#34; (4.) Subject to this section, on the first day of January in every year there accrues to an officer a recreation leave credit, or an addition to his recreation leave credit, of - </para>
        <list type="loweralpha">
          <item label="(a)">
            <para>a period equivalent to the period of his ordinary hours of duty during a period of three weeks; or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(b)">
            <para>in the case of an officer who, during the last preceding year, has served in such special circumstances as are prescribed, such longer period as is fixed by or in accordance with the regulations. </para>
          </item>
        </list>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator BISHOP</inline>(South Australia) |2.45&#39;|.  - <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline> I move - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>In paragraph (a), leave out &#34;three weeks&#34;, insert &#34; lour weeks &#34;. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">The intention of this amendment has been described already by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee).</inline> I will quickly restate the origin of this move although it has been well put already. This amendment in relation to annual leave has its origin in the fact that the level of leave throughout Australia has changed. It might be necessary for me to point out to honorable senators that in 1945 we had a standard rate of two weeks annual leave. In 1959, the level rose to three weeks because of action by the Government of New South Wales. This was followed in 1960 by an approach to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a general application of three weeks. The Commission rejected the application but implied in its rejection that the level of two weeks annual leave would not necessarily apply in the future. </para>
        <para>In 1962, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other industrial organisations made an application to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for three weeks annual leave. The Commission decided that it would agree to the principle of three weeks leave. This brought the level of leave in the metal trades industries to the same level as applied to Commonwealth public servants, lt is fair to say that a basis was then laid in outside industry for the application of the level of three weeks leave. In 1963, the judgment was confirmed. There was argument in 1962 about the effects of the possible entry of Britain into the European Common Market. But in 1963 the Commission decided to grant three weeks annual leave to the general run of employees covered by the metal trades award. </para>
        <para>The situation today, is that almost all Australian workers are entitled to three weeks annual leave. This means that leave standards in the Commonwealth Public Service have, in fact, been reduced. In this respect, I turn to the report of the Public </para>
        <para class="block">Service Board for 1965-66 which refers at page 13 under the heading &#34;Annual Recreation Leave&#34; to representations that havebeen made in relation to annual leave. It reads - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>In October 1965 the Prime Minister mct a deputation of representatives from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations, and the High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations who were seeking four weeks&#39; annual recreation leave. Having considered the representations of the deputation, the Government decided not to increase annual leave. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">The report continues - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>In May 1966 the A.C.T.U. asked that the Prime Minister again meet a deputation of A.C.T.U., A.C.S.P.A., and High Council representatives of the question of annual recreation leave. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">So, the origin of the Opposition&#39;s amendment is obviously in the representations of the organisations that 1 have mentioned in relation to the decline in the relative level of annual recreation leave in the Public Service. There is every reason to argue on that basis. It is quite a sound argument that the standard of recreation leave should be maintained in the Public Service. In addition, as we know, great changes have taken place in the Public Service in relation to which there could be argument to justify increased productivity. In the report from which I have already read I find at page 40 reference to the large number of departments in which automatic data processing equipment is being put into operation. For the reasons that I have outlined, the Opposition supports the amendment I have presented. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1063</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KH5</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Works</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 merely repeat very briefly what I said during the second reading stage as to why the Government would not wish <inline font-style="italic">to accept this amendment</inline> and so increase from three weeks to four weeks the annual leave of members of the Commonwealth Public Service. The granting of four weeks leave would mean that thousands more public servants would be required in the Commonwealth Public Service to do the amount of work that is actually being done by the present work force. The annual wages bill in this respect would be at least $18 million, lt would pose all sorts of other difficulties in regard to manpower requirements alone. I have spoken of the extra thousands of people who would be required to keep the essential services going, for instance, in the PostmasterGeneral&#39;s Department, and the exports inspection work of the Department of Primary Industry. There is a whole list of people, the requirement for whom would be greatly increased and who might not be able to be found. Basically, we do not believe that this should be granted by the Parliament now. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Question put - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the words proposed to be left out <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Bishop&#39;s amendment)</inline> be left out. </para>
        </quote>
        <para>The Commitee divided. (The  Chairman  - <inline font-weight="bold">Senator T.</inline> C. Drake-Brockman.) </para>
        <para>Ayes . .  . . 22 </para>
        <para>Noes . .  . . 25 </para>
        <para>Majority . .  . . 3 </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="032232196610132_39_2_3_P.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="032232196610132_39_2_2_N.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="032232196610132_39_2_1_A.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para>Question so resolved in the negative. </para>
        <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
        <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clauses 18 to 20 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause 21. </para>
        <para>Section 73 of the Principal Act is amended - </para>
        <list type="loweralpha">
          <item label="(a)">
            <para>by omitting sub-section (2.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: - &#34; (2.) Where an officer who has continued in the Commonwealth Service for not less than fifteen years ceases to be an officer otherwise than by death, the Board may, in lieu of the grant to him of leave under sub-section (1.) of this section, authorize payment to him of a sum not exceeding his salary for a period equal to the period, or the sum of the periods, of leave on full salary that the officer could have been granted under that sub-section if he had not ceased to be an officer.&#34;; and </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(b)">
            <para>by omitting from sub-section (3.) the word &#34; retired &#34; and inserting in its stead the words &#34; ceased to be an officer &#34;. </para>
          </item>
        </list>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1064</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KBC</name.id>
            <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
            <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -I move - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>In paragraph (a), leave out &#34; may &#34;, insert &#34; shall &#34;. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">As I explained in my speech at the second reading stage, the purpose of this amendment is merely to try to get the Government to establish the principle that long service leave or furlough, as it is known in the Public Service Act shall be a matter of right and not one of discretion. As I pointed out, the present position may have been all right in the old days, when the Commonwealth took over from the States which, in turn, had taken over from colonial administrations. This sword of Damocles was held over the head of an officer. In those days the administration said to an officer: &#34; After 20 years &#34; that has since been amended &#34; you may have six months off on full pay &#34;. Because it is a matter of discretion, the position is that the officer&#39;s record is reviewed. As I understand it, in practice his record is reviewed pretty stringently on the basis of conduct reports and reports by senior officers on the type of officer that he has been over the period of 20 years or, since the amendment was made, the period of 15 years. </para>
        <para>We believe that it is time this matter was written into the Act as the right of officers of the Public Service. We believe that the present position constitutes a big brother attitude or a threatening attitude. In some States public servants have a right to pro rata long service leave after only a few years. We have not sought that; but if the Government does not give that right and provides for furlough after this long qualifying period, at least it should be a matter of right. After all, the Government does not apply this principle to annual recreation leave. So it should not apply to furlough. As I pointed out in my speech at the second reading stage, this amendment would amend only the Bill, and if the Committee, in its wisdom, carried this amendment it would be necessary to draft other amendments to cover the rest of the Act, because this matter is referred to in several other parts of it. What we are asking the Committee to do is to establish a principle. If the Committee establishes the principle that furlough is the right of an officer, that can very easily be written into the rest of the Act. </para>
        <para>I do not think we have to labour this point. Like other things, furlough was once regarded as some sort of a benefit; but today it is regarded as something that is earned by public servants over the years of their service to the Commonwealth. The Government may rely on the argument that it is some sort of a reward and that, if somebody has been a naughty boy or a naughty girl somewhere along the line, some punishment should be meted out. But  1  do not believe that this is the way employeremployee relationships should be conducted. If officers commit breaches during their 15 years of service they should be charged when they commit those breaches. They should have the opportunity to defend themselves and to pay the penalty if they are convicted: But under this proposal the Board could say at the end of 15 years: &#34; You have not been charged or convicted of anything but there is something about you that we do not like. Therefore, we will not give you the long service leave or we will withhold part of it as punishment &#34;. This is a completely wrong approach and it is out of date. I think the way in which the Commonwealth was formed has contributed to this approach to a marked degree. </para>
        <para>I have not a lot to add to what I said in my speech during the second reading debute. We should establish the principle that here is a situation where this is a matter of right. In the final analysis, all this affects the power of the Public Service Board and the departments to recruit the best ability, the best brains and the best type of officer in the community. They will be at a disadvantage if this threat hangs over the heads of officers for years. The punishment could come al the end of a fairly long career when an officer&#39;s family could be affected. The officer himself could be affected if he looks forward to the long break from his departmental duties only to find that something has built up over the years of which he has no knowledge because there is no provision in the Public Service to inform people that they are displeasing their immediate superior or a department or, if the matter has gone so far, the Public Service Board. The purpose of the amendment is to establish the principle under the Public Service Act that furlough shall be a matter of right and not subject to the discretion of the Board. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1065</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KH5</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Works</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>. - The amendment which has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee)</inline> is, as he was the first to point out, directed at a particular clause of the Bill. But if it were accepted, the effects would extend far beyond the clause which the Opposition seeks to have amended. As I understand it, the object of the clause as it is presented to the Parliament by the Government, is to enable something to happen which at present is legally prevented from happening. At the moment, if a public servant is dismissed for misconduct, even at the end of  16  or  17  years service, he cannot legally be paid for any furlough which may have been due to him. The proposition we are putting to the Parliament, in fact, is to remove that absolute prohibition on the payment of any furlough to an officer who is dismissed and to enable the Public Service Board to make a payment, exercising its discretion as to the amount. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>The reason why this was sought and why it is conceded is that it was felt that you could have cases - and there have been cases - where the amount of furlough which normally would be payable to a public servant would be very great. Although he may have done something which merited dismissal, it may not have been serious enough to warrant his losing any chance of getting any of that furlough money which would otherwise have been payable to him. The effect this will have will be that the Public Service Board will be enabled at its discretion - and it should be at its discretion - to make payments whereas at present it is legally prevented from making any payments at all in the case of persons dismissed in that way. That is the effect of this proposition of ours. </para>
        <para>The effect of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee&#39;s</inline> amendment, as 1 understand it, would be to change this to say that an officer must receive all the furlough to which he is entitled, even though he had been dismissed for embezzlement over the years, which had just been discovered, or something of that kind. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline> would provide that, in all cases and as a right, public servants must have payment for any furlough due to them. We believe that is not a good thing to do but that it is a good thing to do as we propose - to enable some payment to be made in the judgment of the Board according to the vastly different circumstances which could arise, instead of a blanket punishment, without any chance of alteration, being imposed on any public servant who is dismissed. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1066</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KBW</name.id>
            <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
            <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- 1 ask the Minister for Works <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Gorton)</inline> whether he will amplify this statement with reference to the amount of money that might be payable for furlough. Unless some safeguards are placed on the discretionary power, it seems to me from what fell from the Minister that he might have in mind higher officers and not so much the junior or intermediate officers. It seems to me that if the furlough is payable to a. man amounting to, say, &#163;4,000, nobody should have a discretion to say: &#34; Because you committed a peccadillo and you were dismissed, we in our discretion will determine that you will get &#163;2,000 &#34;. The next day, it may be said: &#34;You will get &#163;3,000&#34;. Penalties of that sort are not to be fixed by the judgment or at the whim of officers without some guiding principle. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>I should like to have this matter illustrated by experiences of the last three years. What cases have come up? This could be stated without disclosing names, of course. What was the standard of officer concerned? What was the type of misconduct that earned dismissal? What was the accrual that was compelled under existing law to be forfeited? </para>
        <para>The second thing I rise to mention is the position with regard to superannuation. The superannuation fund provides for benefits analogous to payment for furlough. If an officer earned dismissal from the Service would he not become relegated to the class of persons who are entitled only to the return of their own contributions? Does he not then by law forfeit all superannuation benefits that accrue by reason of the Commonwealth contribution? I would be obliged if we could have the Minister&#39;s comments on these matters. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1066</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KBC</name.id>
            <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WILLESEE, Don</name>
            <name role="display">Senator WILLESEE</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, the Opposition is not opposing any of the amendments proposed by the Government. Therefore, we agree with and applaud the provision that at long last nobody who is suspended shall automatically lose the whole of his furlough rights. But under the proposed amendments at the end of 10 years a person could leave the Public Service with the full amount of furlough to which he was entitled if for reasons that the Public Service Board thought fit and proper, there were any extenuating circumstances. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> threw a doubt on what those reasons could be. He instanced the case of a divorce and said that for reasons of conscience and the desire for a clear name a person, in the terms of Australian slang, might shoot through. I do not know whether such a case has been envisaged. As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has said, these things were not laid down and no code has been set by the Board. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>So an officer may have given impeccable service for 19 years but if after 19 years and 1 month he is suspended for something or other, the Board can sit in solemn judgment to say what amount of the money due to him will be retained. In 19 years he will have earned a certain credit. Why should he be penalised in respect of that period of time? <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> points to another very important thing, namely, that a judicial body is not handling this. Officer A might not be permitted to retain any of the money due to him. Officer B might be let off scot free, and a section of the amount due to officer C might be retained. This retention might represent all the credits that he an officer had built up in the whole of his 20 years or 15 years or 10 years service. The Government is putting into the hands of the employer a power that no court would ever exercise unless for a very serious offence. Take the figure - certainly picked out of the air - by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright,</inline> &#163;4,000. ls the Board to say: &#34; We will take &#163;2,000 of this? &#34; Any court that imposed such a penalty would be judging a pretty serious offence. </para>
        <para>The Minister mentioned the question of embezzlement. If there is embezzlement, the Commonwealth has every right to get the money back by any means that it thinks fit. It can sue in the courts, and it can make sure that the money is repaid. Nobody is suggesting that a person should be allowed to embezzle a lot of money and then have these amounts paid to him. The Minister will not tell me that it is beyond the wit of a department to get money back in different sets of circumstances without retaining this entitlement. As I said, this is probably not a proper clause in relation to which to move the amendment but for the purposes of simplicity and to establish a principle we have moved it on this ground. </para>
        <para>The Minister should have a close look at the administration of this situation. There is no right of appeal, so two officers may be treated in completely different ways, labouring, as many officers do and as is inevitable in the relationships of human beings, under a feeling that, they are being persecuted, with no right to appeal to another body. After all, in the Public Service rights to all sorts of appeals are established. If an officer thinks he should be promoted to a superior position in preference to another officer who has been appointed, he may go to an appeal court. These courts were first established in their present form in 1944 and I really believe that they have been improved since. This system is followed in relation to questions in which, perhaps, a little extra salary, a little bit of prestige, or possibly another rung on the ladder of promotion are involved; but in regard to credits built up over a long period an arbitrary way of administration is picked, with no right of appeal at all. We applaud the fact that at long last credits built up over 20 years are not to be automatically cancelled. On the other hand, we believe that entitlement should be a matter of right. If some money is to be recovered, certainly it should be recovered under normal processes of law. We want to establish the principle that this is a right flowing through the whole of the Public Service Act. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1067</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K6R</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
            <name role="display">Senator COHEN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I support what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee).</inline> I think that the discretion which is granted to the Public Service Board under the proposed clause is too wide. It is unfettered in any way. It is unrestricted and, as has been pointed out. by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> as well as by the Leader of the Opposition, there is no appeal. This is not a judicial tribunal. It is an administrative body which will deal with cases as they arise. As I understand the Minister, he says that there should not be any blanket entitlement as there may be circumstances in which it would be proper to withhold either the whole or part of the accrued furlough. By the same token, I suggest there should not be any blanket discretion in the Board which would enable the Board to make up its own rules without limitation and without appeal. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>If it is desired, and one can appreciate that there could be circumstances in which it would be proper because of some gross misconduct or some other act on the part of the ex-officer which would call into question whether he should be automatically paid what otherwise would be an accrued entitlement, the circumstances in which he might be deprived of that entitlement should be spelled out. This is both a drafting matter and a matter of policy. Surely it would not be beyond the ingenuity of the draftsman to give us some proposal which would make it mandatory for the ex-officer to receive his furlough except in certain specified circumstances. Those circumstances could be spelled out. </para>
        <para>I put it to the Minister that one could conceive of a clause being drafted which would alter the word &#34; may &#34; to &#34; shall &#34; as proposed in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and which might add some words such as &#34; unless by reason of circumstances mentioned hereunder he becomes disentitled . . .&#34;. Then these might be spelled out from (a) to (e) or  (0  the kind of propositions which would give rise to the exercise of the Board&#39;s discretion. I am not putting that up as a firm proposition. All that I am saying is that if the Minister says it is desired not to give the ex-officer a blanket entitlement, we say that the Board should not have a blanket unfettered discretion. If the real solution lies somewhere between those two propositions, so be it. What the Opposition seeks to do is to underline the inadequacy of the proposed clause by substituting the word &#34; shall &#34; for &#34; may &#34; and placing upon the Minister and his advisers the responsibility of producing something which would more fully accord with the principles we have been discussing in this debate. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1068</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
            <name role="display">Senator BISHOP</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Willesee</inline> said, this clause is the result of representations from the High Council of Public Service Organisations and is an attempt to allow people who may be required to resign because of pressing necessity for special reasons, to receive certain entitlements. The Minister has said that the Government is satisfied that a discretionary power is essential to avoid total penalties which are, in the light of modern practice, unduly harsh in some cases. This is obviously an improvement on the conditions that obtained previously. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>We suggest, because of our experience in relation to cases of this sort, that the word &#34; may &#34; ought to be altered to &#34; shall &#34;, because there is no difficulty in interpretation when a man is entitled to his furlough in ordinary circumstances. If a discretion is to be exercised, even in limited form, we could have asituation wherein an officer might lose an entitlement that he would ordinarily get. I know that in the States representations have been made about similar terminology in legislation and solutions have been found. I think that what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cohen</inline> says is right. If it is the intention of the Government to meet the representations of the High Council to ensure that a person would not. unless for a very grievous reason, lose his leave an attempt ought to be made towards making such a provision because as the clause stands there is still a discretion which could be employed arbitrarily. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1068</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KH5</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Works</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>. First, I shall restate what I probably restated inadequately before. This is not a matter of giving discretion to make a payment in circumstances where that payment can now be made. This is not a matter of imposing a penalty. This proposition does not impose a penalty at all. What it does is to make it possible for a penallyto be mitigated. At the moment there is a complete prohibition; the penalty must automatically apply to a person who is dismissed. The provision in the Bill does not seek to impose a penalty against which there could  be  an appeal. As  1  said, what it does is to make it possible for the existing penalty not to  be  applied in all cases. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Cohen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  It covers resignation or retirement as well as dismissal. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  That is quite true. But the clause does not impose any penalty; it merely makes it possible for a penalty which now must  be  applied to  be  mitigated and not to  be  applied in all cases. Clause  21  provides - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <quote>
          <para>Section 71 of the Principal Act is amended - </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(a)">
              <para>by omitting sub-section (2.) . . . </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </quote>
        <para>Section  73 (2.)  of the principal Act states - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>Where an officer who has continued in the Commonwealth Service for not less than 15 years- </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">These are the significant words -  is retiring or is being retired from the Commonwealth Service, the Board may, in lieu of granting leave to the officer under sub-section (I.) of this section, authorise payment to the officer. . . . </para>
        <para class="block">The existing law provides that the Public Service Board may, at its discretion, make a payment to a Commonwealth public servant; but it confines the public servants to whom payments may be made to those who are retiring or are being retired. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Will the Minister per mit  me  to ask a question? Do I understand that to apply only to officers who retire before reaching  65  years of age or who retire at  65  years of age? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-I understand that it applies to officers at the age of  65  years who are retiring or are being retired, as distinct altogether from being dismissed. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Cohen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  But retirement there, I think, would be held to include resignation. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Yes, it would, but not dismissal. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Would it? I draw attention to sections  85  and  86. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1068</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I am told that it would. The present provision means that the Board has a discretion to make a payment to public servants in lieu of furlough but that it. can use that discretion only in the case of public servants who are not being dismissed. The clause in the Bill now before us gives the Board that same discretion, but it does not confine it only to officers who are retiring or are being retired, lt extends the discretion to any officer who ceases to be an officer of the Public Service. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6R</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Cohen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Other than by death? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes, other than by death, but including people who are being dismissed. The clause does not seek to impose a penalty but seeks to make it possible for a penalty to be mitigated. Before that situation could arise, a public servant would need to have been dismissed and to have gone through all the processes which are open to him to contest his dismissal and which are set out in section 55 of the Act. That section provides for appeals and for a hearing before a final appeal board which would consist of a representative of the staff association, a stipendiary magistrate and a departmental representative. The suggestion that this clause in some way imposes a penalty against which it should be possible to appeal seems to me to disregard the fact that it does not impose a penalty at all. Rather does it permit a penalty not to be imposed which, under the present law, must be imposed. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> asked me what a public servant would get in the way of superannuation upon dismissal. I think he himself indicated the correct answer. He would get a refund of his contributions. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1069</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KBW</name.id>
            <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
            <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I have listened attentively to what the Minister has said. I am not satisfied that the solution advanced from either side of the chamber is the appropriate one. 1 shall explain my point of view, lt is true to say that on a plain statement of the facts the amendment put forward by the Government is designed to alleviate a forfeiture of furlough and is not designed to impose a new penalty. The law as it now stands provides - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>Where an officer who has continued in the Commonwealth Service for not less than fifteen years is retiring or is being retired from the Commonwealth Service, the Board may, in lieu of granting leave to the officer under sub-section (1.) of this section, authorise payment to the officer, upon his retirement from the Commonwealth Service, of a sum not exceeding his salary for a period equal to the period of leave on full salary which the officer could have been granted under that sub-section. </para>
        </quote>
        <para>The Minister pointed out that that provision entitles the Board to pay only upon retirement. Let me state my understanding, so that the correct information may be given to the Committee if 1 am wrong. As I. understand the position, retirement means a retirement as dealt with in sections 85 and 86 of the Act. I would like to have clear in my mind in what circumstances, under sections 85 and 86 of the Act, an officer can cease to be an officer otherwise than by death within the meaning of clause 21 of the Bill. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gorton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- ls the honorable senator asking how he can cease to be an officer? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes. In what other circumstances can he cease to bc an officer? For example, if he resigns at the age of 50 years, he ceases to be a public servant otherwise than by means of death. Secondly, if he is dismissed he ceases to be an officer of the Service otherwise than by death. According to the phraseology of the Public Service Act, there may be other circumstances in which he can cease to be an officer otherwise than by death. Let us assume that there are those three circumstances - retirement upon reaching the retiring age, resignation before reaching retiring age, and dismissal for misconduct. It is pointed out by the Minister that the provision in the Bill seeks to replace an existing provision which requires that no payment in lieu of furlough shall be made in the case of dismissal. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gorton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  May I interrupt there? lt requires a payment in lieu of furlough not to be made. There is no basis for making any payment in lieu of furlough. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It authorises payment only in the event of retirement. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gorton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  That is right. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Therefore, there is no authority for payment in any other case. There is no authority for payment in the case of dismissal. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Gorton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  That is right. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1069</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- So it is true to say that one of the penalties for dismissal is the non-availability of payment in lieu of furlough. The Bill seeks to ameliorate that position by granting a discretionary right to pay. I submit to the Minister for serious consideration that, this is too superficial a view to adopt. Once you replace the alsolute prohibition of payment upon dismissal by a discretionary payment upon dismissal, the quantification of the payment becomes, in effect, a penalty. Pursuant to the exercise of its discretion, the Board may refuse payment of any of it or it may prohibit the payment of all of it. That would be a penalty equivalent to the present statutory penalty. The Board might say: &#34; This case involves a high officer. We will penalise him to the extent of 50 per cent.&#34; The matter is not to be solved by words. My words are just as applicable to the situation as are the Minister&#39;s. So my approach to the situation is not falsified by the statement that the Bill seeks to replace a statutory penalty by a discretionary penalty. In that event, the discretion becomes a means whereby the penalty is quantified. The old penalty was rigid. It demanded forfeiture of the whole of the furlough. The new penalty is imposed at the discretion of the Board, lt is my thesis that the Board should not have an unlimited discretion of that sort. I am not familiar, offhand, with this statute, but the general structure has parallelism with State statutes of the same nature. In order to establish the independence of the Public Service, all sorts of safeguards are incorporated to give to an officer a tribunal to appear before prior to a finding of fact warranting his dismissal can be reached. 1 submit that this question needs further examination because in reality this discretionary provision authorises the Board to impose such penalty as it thinks fit, whereas the old provision in the statute imposed an automatic uniform penalty on everybody. With officers on higher salaries it would be quite usual for the penalty to be more than &#163;4,000. <inline font-style="italic">I</inline> would like that amount to be put back within proper limits by the Minister if I am exaggerating, but 1 believe that for officers on higher salaries the payment in respect of furlough quite easily could be &#163;4.000. It seems wrong to give an administrative board the right to say whether such an officer shall get &#163;1 or &#163;4,000 without indicating any procedures whereby the officer shall be heard before a tribunal, although any judicial board is bound to act with all the good faith and honesty according to evidence just as a judicial officer is bound to act. As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> said this morning, in accordance wilh some rules that we lay down, the penalty should be quantified in the judgment of the Board. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>I do not want to take too much of the time of the Committee, but we must be careful that we do not adopt slipshod methods in dealing with this, legislation. I have recently had occasion to recast superannuation deeds consequent upon income tax legislation that this Parliament was ill advised enough to pass in recent years. The Commissioner of Taxation is very rigidly opposed to the forfeiture unnecessarily of the superannuation benefits of servants of companies. A provision is made that if a man is dismissed for dishonesty, his superannuation benefits may replace any cash misappropriated. If he is dismissed for corruption or dishonesty there is power to pay the money - not to forfeit the money - but to pay it to his dependants. If he is dismissed for a minor offence, there is no discretion to withhold the superannuation benefits. I mention that to the Committee to show that private individuals already take the trouble to specify a gradation according to which, if there is to be forfeiture, an amount should be forfeited. lt does not seem to me to be right to leave it entirely to the unlimited discretion of the Board to say whether or not 99 per cent, or I per cent, of a furlough payment should be forfeited without indicating the circumstances by which the Board shall be governed in its consideration, and the amount that is to be forfeited. 1 would like to have that point of view seriously considered. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1070</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K6R</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
            <name role="display">Senator COHEN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I have been extremely interested in <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright&#39;s</inline> remarks. It is true, as the Minister has said, that this provision confers some &#39;benefits on some former officers. It enlarges the category of former officers who may be granted furlough. In that sense it is an improvement on the previous provision under which only a very limited category was entitled to the consideration of the Board. As so often happens in the process of improving a provision in an existing act, the searchlight reveals other matters that perhaps might have been deserving of earlier attention. On this occasion I think we can appreciate the difficulties involved in applying the proposed clause in the way in which the Government intends, and the weaknesses and the dangers that will be included in the legislation. The Opposition has sought to make that position clear. We believe that instead of granting a blank discretion to the Board, the normal position should be that a former officer has an entitlement. A man who has worked for 15 years or more should not be divested of that entitlement, unless there are some exceptional circumstances which make it right and proper that he should be penalised. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>We believe that the kind of circumstances which would justify such a diverting of an accrued entitlement should be spelt out. I think it is fair to the Minister to point out that what he said about this provision being an enabling provision is perfectly true, but it still leaves the basic difficulty to which we have drawn attention in the proposed amendment. </para>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator MURPHY</inline>(New South Wales) 13.37&#93;.  -  This seems to me to be a very simple matter, lt is true that a benefit is conferred upon employees by the legislation before the Senate, in that no longer will their employer be debarred from paying them moneys for which they would have qualified had they stayed in the Public Service. But this has been done on the basis of an intrusion into the basic principles of industrial law. The plain fact is that no rights are being conferred upon the employees - no rights at all. A right is something you are entitled to. We are debating an industrial enactment which, if applied in other spheres in private industry, would mean that when an employer dismissed a man he may pay him something. No right is conferred by which an employee can go before a tribunal and say: &#34; 1 am entitled to so much in these circumstances. I may have to prove this fact or prove the other fact, or my union may do it for me, but if I establish those things, I am entitled to something.&#34; </para>
        <para>This is an extraordinary provision to have running through an industrial enactment. The basis of our industrial law has been the conferring of rights upon employees, not the conferring of discretions upon employers to pay. This is not the kind of benefit that ought to be provided by industrial laws. There ought to be guide lines as to matters which might have to be established by the persons concerned. Those guide lines should be a matter of law. It is the rule of law that is essential in industrial affairs. </para>
        <para>There would be absolute chaos if the principle in this Bill were to be carried over into private industry. How could you have this kind of approach in private industry where the rights of employees would depend on the discretion of employers? We ought all the time to be attempting to eliminate such discretionary powers. Sometimes it is difficult, but we ought to try. In this enactment the proper approach would be that which has been indicated by the Opposition. We have not drafted a specific proposal, but we have said: &#34; There ought to be something like this &#34;. First of all, there should be an entitlement for the employee. If he stayed on and had qualified, on the face of it he ought to be entitled. So there should be a provision that he shall be paid the amount. If necessary there could be a disqualification provision stating that if he had been guilty of serious or wilful misconduct he shall be liable to be deprived of the moneys. </para>
        <para>Then, if we wished to provide guide lines we could say: &#34; Nevertheless, if by reason of his good character or the circumstances of the misconduct, or other extenuating circumstances, the Board considered he should have something else, the relevant provision will be made.&#34; But we should not place these matters of industrial entitlement in the sphere of discretion of the employer. That is an unthinkable principle to adopt. The Minister turned, as he did in relation to other matters, to the industrial authorities. He said: &#34; Let us follow the principles and the practices which are laid down by industrial authorities.&#34; No industrial authority would make a provision in an award in this sense, where it was a matter of discretion on the part of the employer as to whether he paid at all or as to whether he paid a certain amount. That is no proper basis for fixing the entitlement of any employees, let alone the employees of the Commonwealth. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1071</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KBW</name.id>
            <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
            <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - Since I spoke previously I have had my attention directed to section 55 of the Public Service Act which clarifies the cases in which penalties can be imposed upon public servants. Having regard to the safeguards I mentioned, if honorable senators will turn  to that section of the Act they will see that it provides - (I.) An officer . . . who - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <list type="loweralpha">
          <item label="(a)">
            <para>wilfully disobeys or disregards any lawful order . . .; or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(b)">
            <para>is negligent or careless in the discharge of his duties; or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(c)">
            <para>is inefficient or incompetent through causes which appear to be within his own control; or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(d)">
            <para>uses intoxicating liquors or drugs to excess; or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(e)">
            <para>is guilty of any disgraceful or improper conduct, either in his official capacity or otherwise: or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(f)">
            <para>commits any breach of the provisions of this Act or any regulations thereunder; or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(g)">
            <para>having made or subscribed an oath or affirmation in the form of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, does or says anything in violation of that oath or affirmation; or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(h)">
            <para>has wilfully supplied to any &#39;officer or other person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth incorrect or misleading information in connection with his appointment to the Commonwealth Service, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to such punishment as is determined upon under the provisions of this section. </para>
          </item>
        </list>
        <para class="block">  The Chief Officer is invested with certain powers. Sub-section (3)(d) provides - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>If the Chief Officer, after consideration of reports relating to the offence and charge . . . is of opinion that the charge has been sustained, he may - </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(i)">
              <para>fine the officer any sum not exceeding Forty dollars . . . </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">Honorable senators will see the significance of that sum in relation to the amounts of salary that would be involved in the kind of discretionary payments to which we are referring. The sub-section continues - </para>
        <list type="lowerroman">
          <item label="(ii)">
            <para>reduce his salary; or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(iii)">
            <para>reduce him to a lower Division, class or position, and salary; or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(iv)">
            <para>transfer him to some other position  . . ; or </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(v)">
            <para>recommend to the Board the dismissal of the officer from the Service. </para>
          </item>
        </list>
        <para class="block">Therefore, care is taken to indicate the categories of misconduct and care also is taken to indicate the gradations of punishment that the authorities may impose. Sub-section (4.) of section 55 provides - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>An appeal may be made on the ground of innocence of the charge or excessive severity of the punishment, and the Appeal Board may confirm, annul, or vary the decision appealed against . . . </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">The Appeal Board is constituted on an impartial basis, 1 think with a magistrate as chairman. 1 understand it to be assumed it certainly has been asserted by two speakers on the Labour side that the discretion with which we are concerned now was not within the scope of the appeal. I emphasised, when I read from the section concerning the severity of the punishment, thatI doubted whether that would make the exercise of this discretion part of the punishment so as to be appealable. I mention this in the hope that the Minister will enlighten me on it. </para>
        <para>Suppose thatI am held wilfully to have disregarded the Post Office regulations  in  that, instead of sorting mail asI am required to do, with the envelopes face up,I sorted them on my lap, and suppose that that was taken to be a badge of fraud by the Post Office investigators. One tribunal might say that 1 was to be dismissed. Another tribunal might say that I was to be transferred to another division and yet another tribunal might impose a penalty of $40. We have taken all kinds of care to indicate that a person has to be found guilty of a specific type of misconduct and then to make the punishment fit the crime according to the guide lines that are laid down. I think, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline> that the Minister ought to be persuaded that the proposal which has been brought in is insufficient to promote proper efficiency and discipline in the Service or to give justice. </para>
        <para>At the present time if an officer is dismissed and this penalty is incurred he has something to fight for. He goes to the tribunal and the tribunal exercises all care to see that justice is done before he is found guilty of misconduct. But if he could resign before the retiring age and some smoke blew up with regard to his career, it would be a matter of very easy compromise for somebody to say: &#34; Well, slip out and you won&#39;t forfeit the whole of that gratuity. Instead of $4,000 being forfeited, we will give you $1,000.&#34; That is the very kind of thing we want to avoid in the administration of the Public Service. It is necessary to have a strong structure of discipline so that everybody will feel that these things are not the subject of compromise but are the subject of just decision. On the other hand, I do not think that anybody could really advance the Labour amendment as an  appropriate solution. I should think that the Labour solution is much more open to criticism than is the Government&#39;s proposal. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1073</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Bishop</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- it is a standard provision. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1073</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Perhaps the honorable senator will permit me to invite attention to the provision as it is printed in the Bill. Proposed new section 73 (2) provides that - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <quote>
          <para>Where an officer who has continued in the Commonwealth Service for not less than fifteen years ceases to bc an officer otherwise than by death, the Board may . . . authorise payment to him of a sum not exceeding his salary for a period equal to the period, or the sum of the periods, of leave on full salary that the officer could have been granted under that subsection if he had nol ceased lo be an officer. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">Under the Labour amendment, the word &#34; may &#34; would be altered to &#34; shall &#34;, so that instead of the provision stating that the Board may authorise the payment it would state that the Board shall authorise the payment. That is a hopeless solution of the matter. Surely no section of this chamber wishes to promote legislation which provides that if I cease to be a member of the Public Service I shall in all cases be paid for furlough, however unmeritorious, dishonest or corrupt my service may have been. That, I would think, would blemish the Service to a degree that we would never wish to see it blemished. There is nothing so distasteful as the sense of injustice that occurs when an honest, hard-working servant sees a crook getting something that he should not nave been paid. That is the worst type of injustice that one could have. It follows that I certainly will not vote for the Opposition&#39;s amendment. </para>
        <para>Until the Government&#39;s amendment to section 73 is put upon a basis that conforms with the structure of section 55, until in some way the discretion given to the Board is made to fit the situation according to some rules, and until an officer is protected not only by the discretion of the Board but by the discretion of the Board applied in accordance with some rules, I certainly could not be persuaded to accept the amendment. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1073</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
            <name role="display">Senator BISHOP</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has referred to the amendment proposed by the Opposition. I think that what is required is a very simple statement of our intention. It is obvious, </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para class="block">
          <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline>that if you have a legal turn of mind and a great capacity such as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has, you could find many reasons why practical arrangements to do justice to Commonwealth public servants should not be made. What the honorable senator has done, after all, is, by making a lot of comparisons, to suggest that people who have made an arrangement with the Government should not get something which they want, although that does not go quite as far as the Opposition desires. The basic purpose of the Opposition&#39;s amendment is to give an entitlement to servants of the Commonwealth Government who have given many years of faithful service - an entitlement to payment in lieu of long service leave. </para>
        <para>As the Minister has stated, what the Government is proposing is a vehicle to give justice in respect of furlough and extended leave or pay in lieu. I say again that we do not oppose the Government&#39;s amendment. If accepted, it will certainly improve the present situation, under which a man could be severely penalised as a result of dismissal for a minor fault. As a result of such dismissal, he could lose all the entitlements that have accrued to him. A man who has taken his leave has had that leave and cannot lose it if he is dismissed. But a man who has not taken his leave and is dismissed can lose it. </para>
        <para>As I say, we do not oppose the Government&#39;s amendment, which is designed to give effect to the representations of the High Council; rather do we endeavour to ensure entitlement by proposing our amendment. It may be that our amendment could be put in some other way, and we are open to argument on that. The Government&#39;s amendment, however, does provide a formula by which people who are entitled to long service leave can receive payment in lieu. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1073</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KH5</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Works</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 just wish to refer briefly to this matter. No doubt 1 will cover a good deal of the ground that has already been covered. I think that the debate has shown clearly that what we are proposing to do is to extend to the Public Service Board a discretion to make a payment in lieu of furlough to people who are dismissed. That discretion now resides in the Public Service Board in the case of public servants who retire or are retired. In other words, for the nearly 50 years that the the Act has been in operation there has been entrusted to the Public Service Board a discretion to make, either in whole or in part, a payment in lieu of furlough to public servants who retire or are being retired, but the Board has had no discretion to make such a payment to a public servant who is dismissed. In my view, which I think is an impartial view, the placing of this discretion in the Board certainly has not led to any discontent on the part of public servants. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>The last time that this matter was considered by the Joint Council was al. its meeting in May of 1963. Representatives of all Public Service organisations considered the matter of the Board having a discretion, and they decided not to take any action which would remove that discretion from the Board. There is no question of there being any unhappiness about that. Should our amendment not be accepted, the position would be that the Board would have a discretion to make a payment in lieu of furlough, either in whole or in part, to civil servants who retired or were being retired, but would have no discretion to make such payments to civil servants who were dismissed, even though in its judgment failure to pay might impose a great penalty. </para>
        <para>If the Opposition&#39;s amendment is accepted, then, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> has pointed out, no matter what a public servant has done, no matter what misdemeanour led to his dismissal, he would, as of right, be entitled to payment in lieu of the full amount of furlough standing to his credit. He would be just as much entitled as would a public servant of the same seniority, with the same years of service and with an unblemished record. I suggest that the Opposition&#39;s amendment should not be accepted. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1074</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KBW</name.id>
            <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
            <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I am prompted to rise again in view of what has fallen from the Minister. He has said that the Board has conceived itself to have this discretion up to this time. In the second reading debate, I asked a question about this. Perhaps the Minister in his reply to that debate gave me the information I requested, but I happened to be out of the chamber at the time. I asked whether, in the case of retirement, the Board had ex ercised its authority so as to give one man two-thirds of the amount, another man one-third of the amount and so on, or whether, having the authority, it regarded itself as being obliged to pay in all cases of retirement the amount specified - that is to say, a sum not exceeding an officer&#39;s salary for a period equal to the period of leave. 1 would have thought that the discretion to pay on retirement would have been exercised in all cases of retirement without fault - that is to say, that in a retirement that was not a dismissal for misconduct an officer would have received the amount of pay equal to the period of leave. I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell me whether that is the way in which the section has been administered. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator GORTON</inline>(Victoria - Minister for Works) T3.58&#93;.  -  My advisers do not have such statistics, nor do they know of their own knowledge of any case where the Board has applied the power that it undoubtedly has under the Act. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1074</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KBW</name.id>
            <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
            <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -  I am most obliged to the Minister. What he says reinforces my view, which is that the Board regards the discretion under section 73 (2) of the Act, in the case of an ordinary retirement, as requiring it to pay an amount which would be equivalent to the salary for the period of leave. I doubt whether any case would be found where there was an attempt to reduce that amount. Obviously, it is quite wrong to compare a discretion of that son, exercisable on retirement, with a discretion now to be exercisable in the case of dismissal. A dismissal involves a whole range of questions, including whether a forfeiture has to be made which is in accordance with the degree of the misconduct. I wish to go on record as protesting against a comparison being made of the discretion that is now in the statute and the discretion which is to come into the statute by way of this amendment. The new one will involve the active exercise of discretion according to a judgment of misconduct, whereas the old discretion was automatic almost upon the event of retirement. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1074</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KH5</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Works</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 see the point that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> is making. Perhaps I was not accurate enough in my reply to him. My advisers tell me - indeed they had told  me  before that they do know of cases we cannot give the honorable senator statistics where the Board has exercised the right and the discretion which it now has in the case of public servants who have retired, but only in the case of public servants who have retired in order to avoid dismissal. In that case, which is analogous, there have been instances of this description at present being applied. I am sorry because I thought the honorable senator was referring to people who retired in the normal way. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
        <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clauses 22 to 27 - by leave - taken together. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1075</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KH5</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Works</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 have a reply to make in relation to a question asked of me during the second reading debate by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright.</inline> The honorable senator asked whether United States personnel or other personnel who are engaged by the Public Service Board would be subject to the conditions or the penalties of the Crimes Act in relation to subversive activities and matters of that nature covered by the Crimes Act. My advisers tell  me  that the persons concerned will be subject to the laws. They have supplied me with quotations from Hailsham. But I believe that is all that the honorable senator required. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Clauses agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause 28. </para>
        <para>The Second Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words &#34;The Department of Defence Production.&#34;. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1075</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
            <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
            <name role="display">Senator BISHOP</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I move - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>At end of clause add &#34; and by adding the words: - </para>
          <para>The Department of Education. </para>
          <para>The Department of Northern Development. </para>
          <para>The Department of Science and Research.&#39;.&#34;. </para>
        </quote>
        <para>I do not think that I need spend very much time discussing this amendment. The Second Schedule to the Act lists the Commonwealth Departments. The Opposition, having made an evaluation of the importance of the matters concerned, believes that the three departments named in the amendment ought to be included in the Schedule. It may bp argued that the Division of Northern Development is a branch of the Department of National Development. But the reasons for this amendment were given by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee).</inline> Similar action has been taken before. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>1075</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KH5</name.id>
            <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Works</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>. - For the same reasons that I gave during the second reading debate, the Government opposes this amendment. I think that it is an exercise in futility to spell out and insert in an Act of this Parliament the names of departments which in fact do not exist. For instance, the amendment speaks of a Department of Science and Research. It seems pointless to add these departments to the Act- </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1075</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
              <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Byrne</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  They will exist after the next election. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1075</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  If the honorable senator thinks that he will be in charge after the next election, then he can add them after the next election. The departments do not exist now. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
        <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
        <para>Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to. </para>
        <para>Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. </para>
      </speech>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Third Reading</title>
          <page.no>1075</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Bill (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gorton)</inline> read a third time. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>GOVERNMENT BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>1075</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Precedence</title>
          <page.no>1075</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gorton)</inline> agreed to - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That Government business take precedence of general business after 8 p.m. this sitting. </para>
        </quote>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>1075</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1966-67</title>
          <page.no>1075</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>In Committee</para>
        <para>Consideration resumed from 12th October (vide page 1017). </para>
        <para>Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation</para>
        <para>Proposed expenditure,  $28,720,000. </para>
        <para class="block">Proposed  provision,  $1,292,000. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1075</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>1L5</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MURPHY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - Madam, I address myself to the appropriation for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Along with other members of the Opposition who have spoken on these estimates, I am of the opinion that this Organisation is to be congratulated on the work that it is doing under extremely trying conditions. I would like to say also that the Organisation is to be commended upon the form of its annual report. Several years ago, I had occasion, whilst recognising the contribution which the Organisation had made to scientific investigations in this community, to criticise it for the form of its annual report in that it was something like a &#34; Reader&#39;s Digest &#34; version of the various investigations that have been conducted by the Organisation. I am glad to say that last year and especially this year the annual report of the C.S.I.R.O. is a model for such organisations which have some degree of independence from the Government. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The charter of the C.S.I.R.O. enables it not only to initiate and carry out scientific researches and investigations, but also to train scientific research workers; establish awards for scientific research studentships and fellowships; make grants in aid of pure scientific research; recognise or establish associations of persons engaged in any industry for the purpose of carrying out industrial scientific research; test and standardise scientific apparatus and instruments and carry out scientific investigations connected with the standardisation of apparatus, machinery, materials and instruments used in industry; collect and disseminate information relating to scientific and technical matters; and publish scientific and technical reports, periodicals and papers. Moreover, the Organisation has to act as a means of liaison between the Commonwealth and other countries in matters of scientific research and, as far as possible, co co-operate with other organisations and authorities in the co-ordination of scientific research with a view to the prevention of unnecessary overlapping and the most effective use of available facilities and staffs. </para>
          <para>It follows that this is not simply a research organisation. This is the great scientific instrumentality of the Commonwealth. It is the body that should advise the Commonwealth on matters of science and research. It should be giving advice to the Commonwealth on how to overcome overlapping between the various scientific bodies in the community. It should be giving advice on grants for research. So its activi ties are far beyond the field of merely conducting scientific research. This body, which has these great responsibilities, also has the responsibility of presenting a report to the Minister in charge of it for presentation to the Parliament. The Executive of the Organisation, in presenting its report, has the opportunity to inform the Parliament of its progress on work and the difficulties that it may be encountering. The Executive has a responsibility to let the Parliament know about these matters. It is not merely the puppet of the Minister. If matters are not progressing well in the scientific sphere or if the Executive is encountering obstacles, it has not only the entitlement but also the duty to inform the Parliament of that. It is pleasing to see that it has done that. When one examines its annual report for 1965- 66 one finds that, in relation to buildings and accommodation, the Organisation is encountering great difficulty. The Executive, in its report, referred to certain works that had been done and then said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Expenditure on new works for 1965-66 amounted to $2,170,336. Although this is a little less than was spent in 1964-65, the programme for the year has enabled a contract to be let for an important major project, the new laboratory for the Division of Radiophysics at Epping, N.S.W. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">It mentioned certain other matters and then went on to say - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Despite these advances, progress with the building programme continues to be unsatisfactory, and this situation must persist unless substantially increased sums of money can be made available to the Organisation. A large part of the moneys allocated at present is absorbed in re-housing the staff that is still occupying the emergency, temporary, and often quite inadequate laboratory accommodation that was all that could be provided nearly 25 years ago under wartime conditions. At the present rate of progress many such groups will have no relief for up to 10 years. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That shows that the provision that is being made for this Organisation, in respect of buildings and accommodation, is inadequate. The estimate is simply not enough for this Organisation. Less money is being provided for buildings and accommodation. </para>
          <para>No doubt the Minister has done the best he can in the very little spare time that he can manage to allocate to scientific matters in view of the great number of other responsibilities that he has. A spare time Minister is not good enough for scientific research in this community. There is little doubt that, whatever superficial progress the Organisation may be making, science in </para>
          <para class="block">Australia is at a standstill and the Government is prepared to let it stay there. The annual report of the Organisation reveals that, because it cannot carry out its functions unless it has the buildings and the facilities to do so. What does the Organisation say about this matter? It says - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Furthermore, as advances in science are made, new and different facilities become necessary. This often means new buildings, so that without any extension in the programme some $700,000, or nearly one-third of the present annual expenditure, must be allocated in this way. As a result too little is left each year for the major laboratory accommodation that must be provided for new developments. </para>
            <para>Outstanding amongst the current needs of the Organisation are: </para>
            <para>A new laboratory for the Divisions of Animal Health and Entomology in Queensland. These Divisions have been restricted by unsuitable accommodation for many years. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">It goes on to set out other current needs. It says that, amongst other things, the following are necessary - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>New laboratories for the Divisions of Physics and Applied Physics of the National Standards Laboratory. Much of the accommodation these Divisions now occupy is unsuitable for their work, particularly work of the high accuracy and complexity involved in the maintenance of standards. It does not appear that a start can be made with the development of the new site for these Divisions at Bradfield Park, a suburb of Sydney, for at least five years. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">One of the functions of this Organisation is the testing and standardisation of scientific apparatus and instruments and the carrying out of scientific investigations connected with the standardisation of apparatus, machinery, materials and instruments used in industry. But this Government will not give it the facilities to perform that function. </para>
          <para>What is the use of the Government coming to the Parliament and saying: &#34; Here are the estimates. These are suitable for the activities of the various departments and organisations of the Commonwealth &#34;, when manifestly inadequate provision is being made for this Organisation? This is the major scientific Organisation of the country, and the Government will not give it the money to enable it do its work. If the Minister were alive to his responsibilities, he would resign. He comes into this chamber and presents estimates. He is prepared to sit here and listen to what is said, while his own Organisation, quite properly, is saying to him: &#34; You will not give us the money to enable us to do the job that you have asked us to do &#34;. </para>
          <para>But he carries on because, after all, this is only a spare time activity for him. What does scientific research matter? He has to attend to the Department of Works; he is the Acting Minister for External Affairs; and he represents numbers of other Ministers. So why should he bother about scientific research in this community? After all, it is only a little thing. We allocate amounts of money to it. Our organisations are understaffed. Our scientists are grumbling. They are dissatisfied because of the attitude of the Government and the Minister to them. As long as the Minister can say a few words now and again and gloss over these things, what does it matter if Australia is slipping behind while other countries are racing ahead with their education programmes and their scientific development? Australia is in the doldrums. As long as the Government provides enough money to put on some kind of a show in King&#39;s Hall, to dress it up and to publish a few public relations pamphlets, it is satisfied. Yet underneath there is this erosion of what was a fine scientific body. It still has men of great principle in it - men who want to do a job and to see the Organisation given the facilities to enable it to do the job which it can do and which needs to be done in this country. But the Government will not give it those facilities. </para>
          <para>One has only to consider the understaffing of the Organisation to realise the neglect in respect of matters such as superannuation. At last some movement seems to be taking place with respect to the interchange of superannuation rights as between the Organisation and other bodies. This matter was neglected for years. But what does it matter? This is the way the Government thinks: There are not too many votes in this field, so what does it matter? I say that in this community, if we want to be strong, we have to build up our industrial strength. We will never be able to do that unless we have a scientific community; that is, a community of scientists with proper facilities to enable them not only to engage in research but also to spread scientific ideas through industry, primary and secondary. All of these things are basic to any modern industrial society. This Government, knowing that private industry is neglecting research and that about one-tenth of the amount is being spent in Australia that is being spent in comparable countries overseas in private research, instead of encouraging private industry to engage in research and supplementing this by heavy grants does nothing to encourage research in industry. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1078</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WEBSTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Webster</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is not fair. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1078</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>1L5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MURPHY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  It is doing very little. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I withdraw the word &#34; nothing &#34; and say &#34; extremely little &#34; is being done. The Government does not supplement this by the massive efforts one would expect of a government in respect of science. The recommendations of the Australian Academy of Science are treated with scorn by the Government. They made recommendations to the Governments of years past and nothing was done. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1078</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KSS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MATTNER, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mattner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Such as what? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1078</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>1L5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MURPHY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Such as they made on four separate matters. First, there is the National Science Foundation. Secondly, there is the establishment of the flora. Thirdly, there is the activities in astronomy. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mattner</inline> himself must be so conversant with the subject, judging by his interruption, that he should be able to supply the fourth recommendation by the Academy of Science. It is obvious there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in this community with the attitude of the Government. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1078</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">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wedgwood</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Order! The honorable senator&#39;s time has expired. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1078</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6R</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COHEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I wished to direct my remarks to Division No. 150 but I intervene now only to allow my colleague <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> to continue his remarks. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1078</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>1L5</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MURPHY, Lionel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MURPHY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I thank my colleague. Perhaps I might refer to other parts of the annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to substantiate what has been put here and perhaps even to arouse some concern on the part of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mattner</inline> who interrupted. Under the heading of &#34; Staff &#34; at page 11 of its report for 1965-66 the Organisation has this to say in part - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>The 1964/65 annual report drew attention to the need for improvement in the ratio of supporting staff to professional staff in the laboratories of the Organisation. This is a continuing problem and for some years the Executive has attempted to overcome it by allotting most of the available increase in staff numbers to the recruitment of additional supporting staff. Although there has been considerable improvement, it will be necessary to continue this policy in the next financial year. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>So there is a problem with the supporting staff. Then the report goes on - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The problem of recruitment and retention of trades staff is at times critical. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Then referring to senior scientists the report states - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The Organisation is continuing to achieve reasonable success in the recruitment of research staff of high calibre. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Then at the end of the paragraph the report comments - </para>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">The Executive is finding it difficult to attract and retain senior scientists, particularly those with the ability and eminence to take charge of the Organisation&#39;s laboratories. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">It is apparent to those who are familiar with this Organisation - and there are many persons outside the Organisation as well as inside who are - that the Organisation is seriously in need of more support from the Government. It needs, not only moral support which is sadly lacking under the present control, but also financial support. If one looks down the lists of the provisions made for the Organisation in the Estimates one sees that in most instances there has either been a decline in the actual amount allotted or, when you take into account inflation and the increase in population, there has been a relative decline in the? amounts which have been provided for the Organisation. In respect of the buildings and accommodation in particular the Government has a very heavy onus to say why this Organisation has been denied the facilities it needs. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1078</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6R</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COHEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> has said, the C.S.I.R.O., whose estimates we are discussing, is an organisation in which a great deal of valuable work is being done to the credit of the scientists who work in the Organisation and, in the long run, to the credit of Australia. We have in this body a scientific and research organisation of high standing which has shown itself in a broad sense capable of attracting men of calibre and producing significant results in research. It would be unfair in any discussion of the Organisation and the implications of its work to withhold a proper measure of praise because we have all been impressed with this report. All of us who from time to time come into contact with scientists and researchers who work in the Organisation feel they are dedicated men working hard at their particular specialities within the broad framework of science. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>But the problem that should be raised on a consideration of these estimates is the problem that was broadly raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy.</inline> It is whether the Australian Government, to which we must look in these matters, is setting its sights sufficiently high in the field of science. We should inquire whether there is anything like a national science policy that the Government has clearly in mind and has set about to put into effect. I am not saying anything particularly new in this regard because the Organisation itself, in the first two pages of its annual report, makes three separate references to the gradual emergence of a national science policy and the need for it. At page 1 of the report it states - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>In the last few years there have been conscious moves by various nations throughout the world lo bring science more comprehensively into their affairs. This year has also seen the beginnings of significant changes in Australia, representing the community&#39;s growing maturity of understanding of the importance of scientific research and its application to national welfare. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>While the report goes on to give some illustrations of that proposition, it significantly fails to draw attention to the fact - although I think it is clearly implied in the report - that one of the major political parties in Australia, the Australian Labour Party, has developed for the first time in Australia a national policy of science and technology. I want later to make some reference to one or two specific proposals made in the national science and technology policy of the A.L.P. The report also notes the growing maturity of thinking in Australia on the many facets of science and technology that are important to our future. Finally, it says - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>There is now a noticeable move within Australia towards the fashioning of a policy for science. The situation today is both interesting and encouraging, and thoughts about support of science in all its aspects must form an important element of Government policy consideration for the future. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">My proposition is that this Government has no science policy. That does not mean that it is not helping science. Of course, it is helping science. It is helping science in the C.S.I.&#39;R.O. and in various other departments where some of the work of the Government is carried on - in the Department of National Development, in the PostmasterGeneral&#39;s Department and in other departments separated from the C.S.LR.O. It is, I think, legitimate to say, however, that there is no single body co-ordinating scientific activity in Australia and that the formation of such a body is an urgent requirement. It is also legitimate to pose the question whether a separation of some other scientific activity in some of the Commonwealth departments proper is in the interests of the development of a national attitude on science and on government science, or whether in the long run some of this activity should not be taken into this body, the C.S.I.R.O., which enjoys a rather high measure of independence from direct political control. That, of course, as everybody with even a nodding acquaintance with these problems would acknowledge, is one of the primary conditions for effective scientific work - freedom from political interference and freedom to carry out scientific research, to go where a problem takes you and not where some political direction takes you. </para>
          <para>Within the last 12 months the Australian Labour Party has, as I said, developed a policy which - without in any way overstating the position - &#39;has been enthusiastically received by scientists in Australia, including scientists in this very Organisation. There is a great deal of interest in the mature thoughts that have been put into the form of a policy statement by the Australian Labour Party, and I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that there is a lot of discussion about some of these matters in scientific circles - not because the Australian Labour Party has a monopoly of thinking about these matters but &#39;because it has crystallised in concrete form suggestions which have been made by people with an enlightened outlook on scientific matters. I want to put forward a few of the suggestions that have been made, because I do think it is proper in discussing the work of a department like the C.S.I.R.O. to try to fit it into the broader national and international context. That is just what the Organisation has done in its own report. </para>
          <para>Firstly, we believe that for the reasons that 1 have given there should be a Minister with a direct national responsibility for science and technology. My colleague, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy,</inline> made some remarks about this. It is obvious that it does need the attention of a Minister who is able to regard it as a single responsibility to develop the nation&#39;s potential in science and technology. It has been done in Great Britain. There is a Minister for Science in all the major countries of the world. From time to time we hear of international conferences of Ministers for Science. We have asked questions on the matter in this chamber and we have had the advantage of reading reports of such conferences that are to be found in the Parliamentary Library. All these things indicate that this close connection between modern government and scientific development is something that is appreciated throughout the world and in many countries, irrespective of the ideological flavour of the government. One finds it in so called Communist countries. One finds it in the countries of the West. One finds it in some of the developing countries. It is time there was a proper recognition by the Australian Government of the need to have a Minister in charge of the whole national responsibility for science and technology. It has been done in recent years under a Labour Government in Great Britain. There is a Ministry called, I think, the Ministry for Technology, and I believe that there is also a separate Ministry for Science. It is obvious that governments are placing very great emphasis on these matters. </para>
          <para>Secondly, we believe that there should be an Australian science council, not a very large body, but a council with a rotating membership of senior academic, industrial and government scientists with a secretariat to assist Parliament and the Ministers on matters of science and technology. It is obvious that in a national sense, without creating a huge new department, the Minister would need advice from a cross section of the mature minded persons working in the areas in which he would be looking for some assistance. Thirdly, we believe - this is of very great importance to this chamber - that there should be a parliamentary standing committee on science and technology, charged with reviewing policy on science and technology and the scientific aspects of general government policy. Such a parliamentary committee ought to have power to make investigations, to call for reports, and to have attendance of knowledgeable people before it, so that in the long run there would be available in this Parliament some considerable body of expertise in matters that are becoming less and less capable of being comprehended by laymen. I find it, and I suppose other honorable senators find it, difficult to keep up with material that is not for laymen, that is, interpretative material on the problems of science in relation to the problems of government. One feels all the time the need to enlarge one&#39;s own appreciation of these things, and I can think of no more constructive task - speaking about this subject matter - for members of this chamber and the other place, than to attempt to form a parliamentary committee which over a period of time would build up a body of knowledge and understanding which we would hope would be available to this Parliament and, through the Parliament, to the nation. </para>
          <para>Those are the particular matters to which I want to refer. My colleague, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy,</inline> when challenged by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mattner,</inline> referred to the need for a National Science Foundation. We believe that there should be an independent national science foundation to distribute funds to individuals and teams in universities, research institutes and industry and for research in the physical and social sciences and technology. The Robertson Committee was a start towards that objective but, valuable and all as its work has been in the early stages of its operations, it does not really meet the point that there is needed a national body for overall distribution of funds, whether it is to private industry, or to universities or to research institutes. I make these comments because I do feel that we are living in times when the impact of science and technology is of tremendous importance. What we have failed to achieve so far - I think through lack of appropriate machinery, lack of a proper drive and lack of imagination and initiative on the part of the Government - we must do as a matter of urgency in the near future. </para>
          <para class="block">I do not in any way belittle the work of the C.S.I.R.O. Obviously it would occupy a central place in any national science organisation. But we must look at its work in the context of these great problems. I am sure that a great deal of what I have said on this subject would be heartily endorsed by scientists who are working in the Organisation, including those who have compiled the very admirable report which the Committee has under consideration. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1081</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KSS</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MATTNER, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MATTNER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I intervene in this discussion because of the remarks that were made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy.</inline> I asked the honorable senator, by way of interjection, to state where the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation had not fulfilled certain functions. He was criticising the Government because the Organisation had not done certain things. However, he made no reply. Towards the end of his remarks, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cohen</inline> advanced a proposition which had a great deal of merit. This Organisation was established in 1926. It was set up to promote and improve agricultural practices and was directed to undertake certain fields of research. Because of the operation of a directing power, the Organisation was successful. No doubt <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> knows quite well the internal workings of the C.S.I.R.O. No man would rise and say what he said unless he knew the workings of the Organisation. The Government allocates the funds and, as I said earlier, initially laid down certain guide lines for research. In 1945 the need for industrial research arose, and since then the Organisation has directed efforts along that line. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I do not want to misquote <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy.</inline> I was particularly interested in his request for, I think, academic freedom for the research worker. I was hoping that he would indicate some of the results that have flowed from academic freedom. Honorable senators opposite say how good the results were when the activities of the Organisation were directed along certain lines. I want those honorable senators to tell me what effect academic freedom has had in the C.S.I.R.O. I want them to tell me what effect it has had on the staff. I would not know anything about this, according to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy.</inline> I suggest that, in order to improve my knowledge and perhaps to correct some of the information that I have, he might give us some of these facts. As I said, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> said he wanted academic freedom. But in the next breath he said that the C.S.I.R.O. must have political direction. I want the Opposition to explain to me how these two things can operate side by side. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline>mentioned the Australian Research Grants Committee and the funds that have been given to universities for research. What effect has the making of these grants had on the work of the C.S.I.R.O.? There is a difference of opinion about the best way in which research should be carried on. There is a divergence of opinion about whether such work should be undertaken by the C.S.I.R.O. or should be done by the universities, and about the manner in which post-graduate researchers should be employed. In my opinion, this divergence of opinion is having some effect on the C.S.&#39;I.R.O. Perhaps some of the results that are being achieved by this Organisation are not as outstanding as those which were achieved earlier in the field of agriculture, but nevertheless the overall results now may be even better within both the C.S.I.R.O. and the universities. The Organisation works in conjunction with the universities. I would like to see a happy marriage between the two. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy&#39;s</inline> great charge was that the Government is not directing the C.S.I.R.O. what to do. How can that charge be matched up with a request for academic freedom? It is not true to say that this Organisation is being denied facilities for research work. I want honorable senators opposite to point to one instance in which it has been denied facilities. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1081</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Byrne</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Every research scientist who leaves Australia is a loss to the country. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1081</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KSS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MATTNER, Edward</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MATTNER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I did not hear what the honorable senator said. Let me tell him that I am not criticising the C.S.I.R.O. I am trying to point out some of its difficulties. I am trying to get <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy&#39;s</inline> co-operation in order that some of the difficulties I see might be overcome. Perhaps some of the difficulties that he sees might also be overcome, but we will not do it bv saying in this chamber that the C.S.I.R.O. has been deprived of this and that, and that the Government has not done its job. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I shall finish on the point with which I commenced. Let us have a good look within the organisation itself at the question of whether the staff is working together amiably. I suggest that perhaps <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> might start within that area. If there is friction, that is not the Government&#39;s fault. It is not fair to say here that the Government is to blame. I am glad that there is close contact between research work in universities and the C.S.I.R.O. Although the work of the C.S.I.R.O. might not be as spectacular now as it was 20 years ago, the aggregate results obtained by the universities and the C.S.I.R.O. are far greater. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVK</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULVIHILL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I intervene at this stage, first to seek an assurance from the Minister that in the multitude of speeches that have been made my questions have not been forgotten. When the Minister replied two nights ago he dealt with questions raised by honorable senators who spoke after me on the estimates for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I assumed that he was gathering information for me. In fairness to all concerned, and particularly to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mattner,</inline> I point out that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> has had to leave to meet an important commitment in Sydney. I wanted to remove any impression that he had made a sort of hit and run raid. I think he made his point very effectively. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Honorable senators on this side of the chamber have paid tribute to the display staged by C.S.LR.O. in King&#39;s Hall, but our criticism was that it was unmistakeable that there had been a drain off of staff due to the attraction of higher salaries being offered in Australia and overseas. We went a little further and raised what I think is a most important point which has been referred to in other discussions. We have said that a lot of the funds expended in connection with such things as wool and tobacco might be subject to such a strict charter that perhaps the pure scientific approach is restricted and retarded. That is one of our basic criticisms. We feel that ways and means should be found of acquiring additional revenue so that the scientific outlook might not be restricted. That is our broad criticism. I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter I raise in relation to fringe aid to the Organisation, particularly in respect of assistance for the Wild life Division from the Navy and other Service groups, such as I instanced was given by the United States Navy in the Caribbean area. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1082</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Works</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>. - All I can say to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> is that the recollection I have of his previous contribution to this debate on the estimates for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is of a general statement of views. I will have a look at his speech to see whether it contained any specific questions to which specific answers can be given. The honorable senator referred to the United States Navy doing certain things in relation to the protection of birds, if I remember correctly. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1082</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mulvihill</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  As a former Minister for the Navy I thought the Minister might tell us whether such assistance is being given here, or is possible in the future. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1082</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is what I was proposing to do, 10 seconds ago. I thought that the honorable senator referred to the United States Navy doing something in relation to birds. I know of nothing we did in the Navy in relation to birds when I was Minister. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1082</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mulvihill</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Green turtles, not birds. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1082</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It could well be that such assistance was given. I remember that the Navy was running ships for oceanographic surveys by C.S.I.R.O. A couple of frigates took on board scientists and scientific equipment. Their purpose was to do all sorts of oceanographic work, including a search for food and studies of where fish could be found at any given time of the year. That is the type of work to which the honorable senator was referring. I do not recall any other specific jobs. I will have a look at the matter, and if there were any other instances, I will let the honorable senator know of them. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Since I am on my feet, I will take a few minutes to say what I probably would not have risen to say had not <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> asked his question. I listened to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy&#39;s</inline> rather exaggerated remarks and did not plan to reply to them. Now I say that in my view they were extremely exaggerated. It must be perfectly clear - and it is accepted by everybody on both sides of the chamber including <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> - that an organisation such as the </para>
          <para class="block">C.S.I.R.O. or any other statutory organisation cannot assume that it is to be supplied with all the funds it requests. In having regard to the need to apportion the available resources, a government has to make a decision as to how much should be supplied to various organisations, departments and statutory authorities, and must seek from Parliament endorsement of that allocation of resources. Quite clearly this would be the position irrespective of what government was running the country, irrespective of its calibre. </para>
          <para>I think what I am saying is borne out, because in seeking to prove his point and quoting from the review in the Organisation&#39;s annual report for 1965-66, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> began by speaking of the buildings needed by the Organisation and which the Organisation quite rightly says i: will not have for some years. That is correct, but it is catching up, year by year. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> began the quotation but did not finish it. He began to refer to the Organisation&#39;s outstanding need for a new Division of Animal Health in Queensland, but he did not complete the quotation. It continued - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has reported favourably on the proposal and the project has been included in the 1966/67 programme. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That is significantly different from merely stating that there is an outstanding need. He then referred to the next point in the review, which relates to the Division of Chemical Engineering. Its new laboratory is to be constructed in the next financial year, and in the following year another major new building is to be constructed at Ryde. Regard must be had to the whole picture. The whole picture shows a steady improvement and a steady increase in the requirements for C.S.I.R.O. The back log of requirements is being caught up with at the same time as new requirements are being made. </para>
          <para>At page 11 of the review, there appears another passage which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Murphy</inline> began to quote but did not complete. He did not seem to enjoy it very much because the first paragraph begins by referring to difficulties but concludes by saying - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Although there has been considerable improvement -  and there has been -  it will be necessary to continue this policy in the next financial year. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">One of the interesting points raised in the review of staff is that C.S.I.R.O.  i3  recruiting about 70 per cent, of its research scientists from overseas. If <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Byrne</inline> is correct in saying that Australia is suffering a loss every time that a research scientist goes abroad- </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Byrne</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Permanently. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The honorable senator did not say that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Byrne</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The Minister is splitting hairs. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We  are making a gain when people come here, if they come here permanently. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Byrne</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  One cannot make a full explanation in an interjection. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1083</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I cannot hear the interjection.  We  gain when people come here permanently. As an example of a good trend in relation to research scientists, the review states that, of the numbers recruited from overseas, about one quarter are Australians returning from a period of training in research in another country. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I want to make only one more comment, and that is in relation to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cohen&#39;s</inline> speech. As he freely admitted, a great deal is being done in the field of science. The Australian Research Grants Committee is in its own field, as I said before, a miniature science foundation. It deals with universities, not by its charter but in fact, as to 99 per cent, of its grants. The C.S.I.R.O. also is a miniature science foundation in that a sum of money is made available to it and the Executive of the Organisation distributes that money to the various sections of the Organisation, just as a science foundation would. It may be that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cohen&#39;s</inline> idea of a vast super-national single science foundation making grants to the C.S.I.R.O., to universities and to industry, is the answer, but I doubt it. I am sure that that has not been proved or shown to  be  the answer in any other country of which I know, and indeed, most countries are still groping towards the proper method of organisation in an effort to avoid that kind of supercentralisation in one science foundation. The position in the United States of America can be put to one side because it has plenty of science foundations. It may  be  that the kind of answer required in this country is a number of different organisations, each acting in its own sphere in the way in which a science foundation acts; but the honorable senator has tacked his flag to the mast and so, apparently, has his Party of one overall body to distribute finance to all the various disciplines, faculties and research organisations of Australia. I do not think he will have much chance of implementing that policy, nor do I think that the scientists of Australia would like it if he had. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1084</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6R</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
              <name role="display">Senator COHEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I want to refer to a matter which does not arise particularly from the discussion that has already occurred. The annual report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation refers to problems of recruitment. The report states at page 11- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Meanwhile C.S.I.R.O. continues to recruit a high proportion (usually well over 70 per cent.) of its research scientists from overseas. About one quarter of these are Australians returning from a period of training or employment in another country but the remainder are overseas nationals. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The report refers to the problem of recruitment and the analogous problems, on the opposite side of the coin, of the &#34; brain drain &#34; about which we have often complained. I wish to refer particularly to the question of fellowships. I seek the Minister&#39;s reaction to a suggestion that has been made to me. The report of the C.S.I.R.O. continues - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Overseas recruitment has been greatly assisted by the use of a short-term fellowship type of appointment for a fixed term, usually of 3 years, but this normally is effective only at an early stage of a scientist&#39;s career. The Executive is finding it difficult to attract and retain senior scientists, particularly those with the ability and eminence to take charge of the Organisation&#39;s laboratories. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">A suggestion has been made to me, and I invite the Minister to comment on it, that that is why the C.S.I.R.O. has not been encouraged to develop a comprehensive system of post-doctoral fellowships like those operated by the National Research Council of Canada. I am informed that each year that Council offers between 200 and 300 well funded fellowships for international competition. I am told that the rationale of the Canadian system is that it will attract high class research workers to Canada and many of these may remain in Canadian research establishments. In any case, while they remain there on their fellowships Canada benefits from the research that they undertake. I think that what I am putting is germane to the problem that is raised in the Organisation&#39;s report, and I ask the Minister whether he has received such a suggestion and considered it. If so, what has been his reaction? If he has not heard of the suggestion, will he consider it? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1084</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Works</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 shall obtain for the honorable senator figures relating to the number of post-doctoral fellowships which the C.S.I.R.O. is in fact maintaining. I know that it is maintaining some, but I do not know the exact number. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1084</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cohen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  This seems to be done on a very large scale in Canada. That is what struck me. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1084</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KH5</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator GORTON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not know the numbers in this country, but the principle has been adopted. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Proposed expenditure and proposed provision noted. </para>
        </speech>
        <para>Department of National Development</para>
        <para>Proposed expenditure, $31,168,000. </para>
        <para>Proposed provision, $47,492,000. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1084</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8Y</name.id>
              <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party>IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator TURNBULL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development the matter of the alpine road which I have mentioned previously in this chamber. This road was constructed by the Snowy Mountains Authority at a cost of nearly $4 million. Now, the Snowy Mountains Authority does not require most of the road. In fact it requires only 19 miles of it, and it proposes to keep that part of the road in good repair. The remainder of the road will deteriorate. Indeed, it was closed this year to winter sports because it was not being cleared. The reason for this is that no one will take responsibility for the road. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>It seems to me rather absurd that the Commonwealth should spend nearly $4 million on a road and then for the State Government of New South Wales to argue that because it did not construct the road it has no responsibility for it. The New South Wales Government ought to be jolly glad to have had the road built for it. Then, of course, it comes down to the shire level. It is said that because the road is in a certain shire it is a shire responsibility, but the shire authorities say: &#34;We did not ask for this road and we do not want to have anything to do with it &#34;. This seems to me to be rather a stupid affair. A road is built and serves a very useful purpose. I think that a count has shown that something like 110,000 vehicles per annum were using the road. Obviously, therefore, it is a necessity. This road is not only an alpine ski road but also a tourist road. That is evident from the number of people who travel over it. </para>
          <para>Could the Minister take the necessary steps to bring together the various parties with an interest in the road, with a view to seeing whether something can be done? After all, it is futile to build a road of 66 miles and then let it go to pieces. Of the 47 miles of road which the Snowy Mountains Authority does not want, 16 miles are already sealed. If the road is to be closed each winter, trees will fall across it and it will be much more difficult to get it open for summer traffic. I am sure there are commonsense people in the New South Wales Government and also in the shire councils. 1 ask the Minister to take initiating action to get these people together, for the purpose of seeing whether something can be done to save this road. </para>
          <para>The suggestion has been made, quite soundly, that a toll gate be placed on it. I do not think anyone would mind if that were done. The tourists would pay $1 to travel on the road, and skiers from Victoria who are very interested in the road, also would be prepared to pay it. There is a story to the effect that the law prevents the placing of a toll gate on the road, but surely if the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government got together that could be overcome, even if it meant amending legislation. I think everyone agrees that it is absurd to waste this road which has been built by Commonwealth funds. It should not be allowed to deteriorate, and I ask the Minister to take action to try to keep it open. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1085</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>.- When dealing with the Department of National Development I think it is advisable to ascertain its chief functions. I turn to an Executive Minute which was issued some time ago. It is entitled &#34;Administrative </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Arrangements &#34; and was published in the Commonwealth Government &#34; Gazette &#34;. I received my copy back in 1962, but I do not think the principal functions of the Department of National Development have changed very much in the intervening period. This document sets out quite clearly that the principal function of the Department is the development of national resources. When you turn to the acts which the Department is responsible for administering, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline> you seem to get lost entirely or to feel that you have strayed away from the principal functions of the Department. The Department administers the following acts: The Aluminium Industry Act - there are two of those; the Atomic Energy Act of 1953 and 1958; several acts applying to the coal industry, one of which is termed the Coal Industry (Tasmania) Act 1949; the Liquid Fuel (Defence Stocks) Act 1949; the National Oil Proprietary Limited Agreement Act of 1937 and 1939; the Oil Agreement Act 1952; the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act of 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1961; the River Murray Waters Act; the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority Act; and some other acts of very little consequence. One wonders where to turn from this point to ascertain what the Department is actually doing to develop the Commonwealth&#39;s resources. </para>
          <para>We know that an authority was appointed to attend to the development of the Snowy Mountains project. We have a pretty good idea of the progress that has been made over the years by that authority. We get good annual reports from it. We do not delve into the authority&#39;s finances because we know that it is not responsible to the Department for financial matters; it is responsible to the Department of the Treasury in that regard. All of its accounts, of course, are examined by the Auditor-General. The Snowy Mountains project is a good form of national development, especially in view of the quantity of water that will be made, available for irrigation purposes. I have nothing to say about the Snowy Mountains project which will excite the Minister&#39;s mind. </para>
          <para>I turn from that matter and I put to the Senate this question: What is Australia lacking in at present so far as development is concerned? What is the chief and most urgent form of development that should take place? If this is *o be a great country, we must find our own oil supplies. When I look at the acts which are administered by the Department, I see that there are some which allow it to pay subsidies to companies or persons engaged in the search for oil. It is remarkable that the search for oil is not treated as a major matter by the Government, but is left to this Department, which was never noted for being energetic in developmental matters. I will have something to say later on about the Department&#39;s lack of energy. </para>
          <para>A fact that is staring us in the face all the time is that the importation of foreign oil is costing Australia approximately $252 million a year. As a matter of fact, oil imports account for one-eighth of the value of our total imports. Although the Government is faced with this expenditure of $252 million a year, it does not appear to be doing anything to correct the situation. We do not see anything relating to the subsidies that are paid to companies searching for oil. At any rate, I have not seen any information upon the matter. When the late <inline font-weight="bold">Sir William</inline> Spooner was Minister for National Development, he was very attentive to the need to give the Senate information about the Department&#39;s activities. Information was always available from him. One could ask, by way of a question, whether he would make a statement upon the search for oil, and within a few days a statement would be made to the Senate- He adopted the same policy in respect of other matters that he administered. But the Department now seems to ignore the necessity to supply important information to the representatives of the people. </para>
          <para>In relation to oil search, I have made a few inquiries of my own and I have with me a journal which gives some of the amounts that were paid to Australian and foreign companies by way of oil search subsidies. It appears that foreign companies have &#39;been given preference over local companies. I am now dealing with a total payment of $7,345,947. As I have said, we are not able to obtain up to date information from the Department of National Development, which is very lax in that regard, so I have had to go elsewhere to get information which I shall give now. If I am in error, that is not my fault. But I would be prepared to match this information with any that the Department could submit. The top 12 drilling subsidy recipients between the period 1958-59 and 1963-64 as stated in the journal, were Delhi Australian Petroleum, West Australian Petroleum, Union-Kern-A.O.G., Associated Group, Phillips Petroleum, Frome-Broken Hill, Alliance Group, Oil Search (inc. A.P.C. 1958-1959), Exoil, Arco-Woodside, Planet Australia Oil and Gas Corporation. I do not want to weary the Senate with details of amounts, but over this period Australian companies were paid 34 per cent, and overseas controlled companies 66 per cent, of the total subsidies paid. That might be quite ali right, but the Minister will be able to tell me whether any special preference was given to overseas controlled companies in respect of the payment of subsidies for the search for oil. I propose to leave that matter there and see what comes forth from the Minister. </para>
          <para>I said a while ago that it is the function of the Parliament to develop our national resources. But let us move away from the Snowy Mountains project and ask: &#34; What undertaking has the Department of National Development in hand in the Commonwealth? &#34; We find that it has none worthy of speaking about, and that it does not propose to do anything in this regard. I would raise no strong objection if the Department was clearing the way for private companies or private undertakings to go ahead and develop, our resources. Nothing was done by the Department of National Development regarding Weipa. It did not do anything with regard to Mount Isa which is the greatest mineral mine being worked at the present time in Australia. It does not figure prominently in any worthwhile national form of development other than the Snowy Mountains project. It has not done anything in respect of the coal industry other than to arrange through the Joint Coal Board to have the mines mechanised and the miners given some form of leave benefits. It has improved the coal industry in some respects. </para>
          <para>Let us look at the situation. I do not want to speak idly here about these things when I can supply hard facts about the subjects I propose to raise. Australia has an area of 2,970,000 square miles. It has a population of 11 million people. More than one-third of Australia receives less than 10 inches of rain a year and a large proportion of the rest is not suitable for agricultural industry or even the most extensive type of grazing. Of the 280 million square miles which could be intensively developed in Northern Australia, less than 7 million acres have been sown to crops or pastures. If improved pastures were established on the remainder, 52 million head of cattle could be carried. At the present time, 7 million head of cattle are grazed on improved pastures. So, if a form of national development was introduced at any time in the near future for the purpose of developing the country in the north of Australia so as to make it suitable for grazing cattle in an intensified way, the project would certainly meet with success. Of course, it would require other things as well. </para>
          <para>One of the things would be the provision of irrigation facilities. There must be places in Queensland and the Northern Territory where lakes could be constructed and water could be conserved for irrigation purposes. Rivers and water courses which could be successfully dammed so that this country could be made productive instead of being left, as it were, in its virgin condition must be available in the northern part of Australia. Is not the Department interested in this? If we examine the field in which this Department must be active, I say that the first objective should be the discovery of oil. If possible, it should have its own boring equipment. Let the Department&#39;s own experts search for oil, and do not rely upon the oil companies. It is most important that oil be discovered in great quantities in the near future. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1087</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHAIRMAN, The</name>
              <name role="display">The CHAIRMAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Order! The honorable senator&#39;s time has expired. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1087</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>. -  I wish to direct my remarks to the Joint Coal Board. If you will permit me, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, I</inline> would like to put forward a few general ideas that I have in relation- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I cannot hear the honorable senator. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>-  I am referring to the Joint Coal Board. The honorable senator will be very interested in what I intend to say. The Joint Coal Board was set up in 1947 to solve a fuel problem in relation to the Australian coal industry. At that stage, approximately 22,000 or 23,000 mine workers produced about 11 million tons of coal per annum. This was only half of what Australia needed. We all remember the power famine that existed in those days. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gair</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That was in New South Wales only. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1087</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>-  The Board has both Federal and State powers by virtue of its very name - the Joint Coal Board. It had a mandate to extend its powers and influence to other States. At that stage, it attempted to do this because, obviously, the Board would be so much better as the result of having the co-operation of more States. But the approaches to the States for these powers to be extended to it by invitation or mutual arrangement fell on deaf ears because the States were a bit frightened of the Commonwealth. The approaches made by the Board were not successful. So, the Board continued to operate in one State with its sole activity relating to the development of coal production. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The Joint Coal Board has developed coal production. Largely arising out of its activities 23 million or 24 million tons of coal are being produced by approximately 11,000 men today as against 11,000 tons of coal by 23,000 or 24,000 men in 1947. This increase has been achieved by mechanisation and the re-organisation of the industry. Where there were formerly three mines, now one bigger mine operates and mines are brought closer to the point of electricity development and power. The Coal Board has really re-revolutionised the whole situation in New South Wales. I cannot see why that sort of revolutionary condition regarding power fuel and other products cannot be applied to operations in other States by this sort of organisation. </para>
          <para>I am wondering whether the Board, as it is now constituted, has not outlived its usefulness. I am still in favour of the Board carrying on because I think that the controls it exercises between the various competing mining interests within New South Wales alone are necessary. The problem becomes greater still when we remember that the coal industry is weaker in other States when compared with New South Wales. In Queensland, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gair,</inline> the coal industry is weaker in manpower, production, types of coal and that sort of thing. The coal industry in Queensland would be more in need of aid now at the Federal level than it was before. The Federal Government is extending its powers in relation to education, science and finance also. Everything now is coming under the control of the Commonwealth.  I  believe that the most important matter facing the nation today is not only the control and development of coal production - it has to be conserved and continued - but how this should be done. </para>
          <para>Coal has two competitors.  I  cannot visualise a situation in which coal would not always be the basic fuel needed in the community. Coal is available now. Our coalfields have been well mapped. But the nation and particularly the Parliament cannot stand by and allow natural gas, for instance, to flow out of the ground to the detriment of the established coal industry. This could happen. What  I  have in mind is that the powers of the Joint Coal Board ought to be extended. The title of the Board ought to be changed to the Joint Coal and Fuel Board. That title would fill the bill.  I  know that the late <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir William</inline> Spooner, who was the Minister for National Development, was interested in these problems. He was very interested in obtaining some sort of tariff protection for coal against fuel oil. As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn</inline> said, he interested himself very actively in the subject of fuel.  I  know that he had ideas of extending the powers of the Joint Coal Board. </para>
          <para>On page 62 of the Estimates the divisions of activity that come under the Department of National Development are set out. Several of them relate to the fuel industry. There is the Division of National Mapping, which is concerned with minerals and fuel and for which $848,000 is being appropriated this year. The Joint Coal Board is mentioned. An amount of $1,164,000 is being appropriated for the administration of the Bureau of Mineral Resources. These organisations work very closely together. They are allied activities. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission also has close association with the Department. So about five divisions or groups of public servants are operating in the fuel and power field. </para>
          <para>I  believe that the time has arrived when the Government should extend the powers of the Joint Coal Board. Actually, the Government does not have to give the Board the green light to go ahead and try to organise itself on an interstate basis, because already it has that power under the Act under which it is constituted and which has never been amended, as far as  I  know. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gair</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Who is the  Chairman  of the Joint Coal Board now? Who succeeded <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Cochran?</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bernie</inline> Hartnell.  He  was a public servant. Frankly,  I  do not believe that the Board, as it is now, has the same responsibilities or the same incentive to work as it used to have. We now have enough coal to be able to export about one third of our production, whereas previously we had a coal famine.  I  believe that the Board should be given more work to do. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Has the Board, as at present constituted, any jurisdiction outside New South Wales? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- No, not at the moment. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That would be one of the greatest difficulties in extending its responsibilities over a nationwide field, would it not? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>-  That is so. But the Act allows the Board to make approaches to the other States to operate through their organisations. The States have their own Mines Departments, but they are not the same types of organisations as the Board. They look after mine safety and those sorts of things. They are not interested in the problems in which the Joint Coal Board and its staff are interested. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  When the honorable senator talks about power and fuel, does he include hydro-electric power? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>-  They are all wrapped up together. They all come under the heading of power and fuel. The late <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir William</inline> Spooner had expansive views on this subject. This extension of the powers of the Board is necessary because the coal industry is being pushed out of Australian markets and is going into overseas markets. Today, about one third of the total production is sent overseas. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1088</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir William</inline> Spooner did not ever propose that the Board should take control of the whole field. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- Not as it is constituted; that is right. He approached the Tariff Board for protection for the coal industry against fuel oil. But, as honorable senators know, nothing, or very little, happened. The coal industry in many places is still being threatened by fuel oil. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir William</inline> Spooner considered that we should not allow the fuel industries to compete with one another to such an extent as to cause a depression in the power industry. That is what caused the original- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gair</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The competition from fuel oil had a good effect on the coal miners, did it not? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>-  Of course it did. I listened to the debate on the Public Service Bill today. It reminded me that only last week the mine workers received from the Coal Industry Tribunal, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Gallagher, an award under which they start to qualify for long service leave after eight years of service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  That is in recognition of the work that they have done since the industry was re-organised. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- I do not know what it is a recognition of, but I believe that it represents belated justice to the workers in the mining industry. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gair</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  For a long time they did not merit very much justice. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- I do not know about that. They are now receiving justice. In their case, justice delayed was justice denied because- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  There is no other industry in which long service leave is given after eight years of service, is there? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- I do not think there would be. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  So the honorable senator is not in a very good position to say that justice for the mine workers has been delayed. They are pioneers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- I am saying that it was delayed because over the years nobody ever thought about the mine workers not receiving paid Christmas holidays or paid annual leave. The sort of leave that they had in the days when I was in the industry- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gair</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  In most cases it was French leave. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- Yes. But the fault was not only on the side of the miners. The coal owners used to organise things. There was an 11 days working fortnight; but, if there was only six days work because the level of business was low, the coal owners would say: &#34; We will work the men for six days and put them off for the other five days.&#34; That was without pay or compensation. But all of that has gone now. Today the mining industry is almost a public service industry as regards labour conditions. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I give the Government credit for the part that it has played in that change, although it was all initiated by the Chifley Government which set up the Coal Industry Tribunal and the Joint Coal Board. They have meant the introduction of better conditions in the mining industry. I wonder what the delay in improving working conditions in the mining industry cost this nation. I also wonder what the delay that has occurred during this Government&#39;s 15 years of office in giving justice on the waterfront has cost this nation. But all of the things about which we on this side of the chamber have been talking will now be done on the waterfront. There are no strikes today. We do not have strikes like the 1949 strike in the coal industry today. We have industrial peace. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WEBSTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Webster</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The Government has changed since then. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- This has nothing to do with the Government. The only things that have changed the attitude of the mine workers to work and industrial behaviour are the better conditions in their industry and the security of employment that has been given to them. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Which all came from the mechanisation of the mines and the efficiency of production. They earned their way to prosperity. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- A good case for that can be put forward. But it was not a one sided affair. The coal owning class in this country was a pretty wild team of employers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1089</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KBW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wright</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The mine workers were badly led when the Chifley Government was in office. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1090</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>-  There was anarchy in the industry. It was a case of dog eat dog. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1090</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GAIR, Vincent</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Gair</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The man-hour rate  of  production in the State owned mine at Collinsville in Queensland was lower than that in any other mine in the State. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1090</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- That could be so. Mine workers are only individuals. The cure for industrial strife is to treat the workers as human beings. Part of my job with the Joint Coal Board was to pay some attention to the amenities of the mine workers. We decided that it would be a good idea to have bathrooms. The workers had to wash under kerosene tins and then go home in dirty or wet clothes after working in the wet or humid conditions in the mines. This is why I favour big business rather than small business. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> will support the right of a little monopoly to compete against a big one. I give him credit for that. I believe that he is a real liberal with a little &#34; 1 &#34;. Provided &#34; liberal &#34; has a little &#34; 1 &#34;, it is all right. I was one of the people who went first to the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. and said to its officials, in effect: &#34;Are you in favour of allowing mine workers to have a bath?&#34; They said: &#34;We will have to look at the cost involved. It may mean an increase of about Id. a ton.&#34; </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1090</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">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Order! The honorable senator&#39;s time has expired. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1090</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVK</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULVIHILL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I wish to direct my remarks first to Division No. 345 - Bureau of Mineral Resources. For want of a better term I shall call this the strange case of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. W.</inline> S. Hughes, geologist. The story begins on 15th February this year when <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> received a letter from the Department of National Development. The Department said it had pleasure in informing him that it had made a recommendation for his employment as a geologist class 1, Geological Branch, Bureau of Mineral Resources at Rabaul with a commencing salary of $3,666. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> received another letter on 17th February which more or less trimmed up this original letter about his impending appointment. A further letter followed in which it stated that, as a routine measure, they would more or less check his academic qualifications with the New </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Zealand State Services Commission. Then <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> received another letter on 25th March in which they referred to a medical test, X-rays and all attendant matters. He had also received a letter on 24th March which elaborated on the accommodation conditions in Rabaul and said that he would be in Canberra only a few days and then would proceed north. </para>
          <para>So everything in the garden looked lovely. But on 24th May <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> received a letter from the Assistant Secretary, Management Services, Departof National Development which referred to the correspondence which had taken place between <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> who, incidentally, was now resident in Australia and living in Coogee, and <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. N.</inline> H. Fisher of the Bureau of Mineral Resources. It pointed out that the Bureau of Mineral Resources was a Division of the Department of National Development and added - </para>
          <list type="lowerroman-dotted">
            <item label=".">
              <para>. but my Branch is responsible for all personal matters in the Department. </para>
            </item>
            <item label=".">
              <para>. due to an anticipated changed staffing situation we find it is no longer possible to offer you suitable employment in the Bureau, and we have now withdrawn the recommendation. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>We apologise for any inconvenience you may have been caused and thank you for the interest in the work of the Department. </para>
          <para>We understand there are many openings for geologists in Australia with the various mining and mineral exploration companies, and should you wish no doubt you may find satisfactory employment in this field. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline>came to see me and I asked him bluntly whether there would be any reasons to justify this eight weeks lag at the end of which he suddenly became non persona grata with the Department of National Development. I want to say at the outset that if there is nothing sinister in this, it seems slipshod that a man should wait eight weeks and then out of the blue the Department should find that its work force arrangements are such that this professional appointment is not wanted. I said to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes:</inline> &#34; What were your operations in the faculty of your New Zealand university? Did you have any membership of any political party that could be regarded as subversive?&#34; He said: &#34; Definitely no &#34;. I telephoned a couple of people in Canberra and I was told I would get further information but nothing has been forthcoming. </para>
          <para>My case rests on two points: In mild criticism, I would say that an eight weeks lag between March and May was a pretty poor show if they were not going to have this chap. Alternatively, it gets back to an issue on which I shall have more to say during the debate on the estimates for the Prime Minister&#39;s Department on certain operations of Brigadier <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Charles</inline> Spry. I am not going to indict the Minister for National Development <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Fairbairn)</inline> or the people behind him here but if I am wrong on this aspect, I think it was very casual to keep <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> waiting for eight weeks and then tell him that he was not required. There should have been a confrontation with this chap. The Department should have said: &#34; You did not tell the truth.&#34; He might even have misled me. But let us put our cards on the table. There is too much of the namby pamby stuff about not offending people. If this fellow had any subversive record or was in any campus demonstrations in Auckland or Wellington, let us come out in the open and say so. Let us say that is why he is not wanted. If this is not the case, I hope there will not be a repetition of somebody coming here from New Zealand with the best hopes in the world - he is a married man - and at the end of eight weeks being told: &#34; It is a terrible mistake. You had better fend for yourself.&#34; That is the destructive submission I am making. </para>
          <para>On the constructive side, in a discussion on the previous estimates I spoke about the transference of some of the divisions of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to the Department of National Development. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate in &#34; Hansard &#34; details of the f unctions of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in Canada. The Department has a Minister, a Deputy Minister and two assistant Deputy Ministers. The Minister administers the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, the National Battlefields Commission, the Advisory Committee on Northern Development and the Advisory Committee on Water Use Policy. The Deputy Minister has the Administration of Yukon Territory and Administration of North West Territories. Under him there is an Assistant Deputy Minister who controls administration and general services, the Northern Administra tion Branch and the National Parks Branch. The first of these branches covers editorial and information, purchasing, legal, personnel, economic and Northern Coordination Research Centre Services. Under the Northern Administration Branch there is administration, engineering, education, industrial resources and territorial welfare. The National Parks Branch deals with national parks and historic sites, engineering services and wild life. Another Assistant Deputy Minister controls the Canadian Government Travel Bureau, the Water Resources Branch and the National Museum of Canada which includes all branches of natural history and human history and also the Canadian War Museum and the National Aviation Museum. </para>
          <para>The tenor of discussions in this debate has related to the growing responsibilities in the field of Federal Government. It is obvious that we can emulate some of the other parts of the Commonwealth of Nations and for that matter the United States of America in this larger envelopment. If honorable senators study that summary of the Canadian arrangement, it will be noted that such matters as come under the Prime Minister&#39;s Department in Australia, historical matters, war graves and matters of that sort, would all come under one department. Having regard to what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> have said, it is noteworthy that the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in Canada has done excellent work in opening up Canada&#39;s northern areas. Strangely enough <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turnbull,</inline> who is not now in the chamber, referred to roads being serviced under arctic conditions. All such matters are a function of the Canadian Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It goes a little further and this is important. I notice it covers certain fields of Aboriginal work and you can draw a parallel with the Eskimos of Canada. Many commercial activities come within the province of the Canadian Department. I know that the Minister for Repatriation is wary of new innovations. If I were going to use a text I would quote the words of a famous United States  President, President  Wilson who said - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>What difference does it make if we ourselves do not reach the uplands? We have given our lives to the enterprise. The world is made happier and human kind better because we have lived. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I submit this to the Minister because he and I 12 months ago had, at least on my side, a heated difference of opinion on the red kangaroo. I noticed when I looked at this booklet of the Canadian Department that there is a reference to the commercial use of surplus buffalo. I think history is on my side here. In 1906 or thereabouts the Canadian Government saved the buffalo. Fifty years later they have found it is not merely a luxury in conservation because they have been able to sell their surplus buffalo stock as meat. I envisage the Department of National Development expanding. In my opinion kangaroos and other things will have commercial possibilities in the future as has happened with the buffalo in Canada. So with all the aces I have submitted tonight I am sure the Minister will be sympathetic and I hope that he and future Cabinets will see what can be done on these broad lines through our own Department of National Development. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1092</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for Repatriation</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKELLAR, Gerald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKELLAR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Turnbull</inline> probably already knows that the Alpine Way is no longer required for construction of the works of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority or for its operations. Consequently the Authority has no legal right to spend money on or to maintain the Alpine Way. I agree with the honorable senator that the Authority has done a very good job over the years in the construction of roads and maintained many miles of it but this is the position in a nutshell: It is not a question of whether the Authority can do it. The Authority is not allowed to do it. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn</inline>spoke about the responsibilities of the Department of National Development. It might be interesting to him if I remind him that in 1963 the Department of National Development lost the War Service Homes Division, which at that time was attached to it, and gained the Forestry and Timber Bureau. In 1964 the Northern Division was added to the Department. The honorable senator mentioned the need for additional oil exploration. He referred to what he felt had been a reduction in the amount of information that was given on national development. </para>
          <para>First, we have to remember that previously the Minister in charge of the Department was in the Senate. I think this would account for some of the difference. I remind the honorable senator that public statements are made from time to time by the Minister for National Development, usually about every two months. These give details of the companies concerned in oil exploration, the wells and their location and the amounts of subsidy that are paid. Some time ago, during a discussion with one of the top men of these exploration companies, I asked whether he considered that if the subsidy were increased this would lead to any increase in oil exploration.  His  reply was that it would not. The Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Department of National Development owned and operated oil drilling rigs in the early 1950&#39;s - the honorable senator will be familiar with this - when no commercial rigs were available. Now numbers of rigs owned and operated by companies are available in Australia and in these circumstances the Government, having given a lead to the industry, does not engage in oil drilling. </para>
          <para>The honorable senator seemed to indicate, to me at any rate, that there was a lack of energy and drive and that perhaps not enough was being done by this Department. So far as Weipa is concerned, the Commonwealth approved a loan to Queensland of $3.27 million to assist in port development. The application was examined by the Department of National Development. Somebody had to examine it. Here we had a body that was capable of doing it, and did it. Pasture development and cattle raising in the north are dear to the heart of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn.</inline> The major beef roads schemes are necessary, as he knows, for ancillary investment by private producers and the Government expects that this will occur. The beef roads, as we all know, are a stimulus to private investment. Then there is the matter of irrigation of the north. Here again the Department has been called in for careful evaluation and proper investigation, for instance of the Ord River scheme. I remind him that it is not the Commonwealth&#39;s right actually to do developmental works unless invited to do so by the States. The Commonwealth cannot go into a State and say: &#34; We are going to do this and we are going to do that.&#34; It can go in only at the request of the States and if it is decided that a joint effort is possible. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline>spoke of competition between coal and natural gas and suggested the establishment of a coal and fuel board. There is a Fuel Board within the Department of National Development and the Government is kept informed of developments in the natural gas field to assist it in forming a national fuel policy. We have to keep in mind the big finds of natural gas, and it would appear that it will not be very long before we shall be turning to atomic energy for fuel. The honorable senator mentioned that there was until some time ago great difficulty in obtaining amenities for mine workers. I note that in the estimates this year an amount of $50,000 is provided for welfare. That is something that he will probably be very pleased to see in the estimates. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> cited the case of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes.</inline> I hope that I can get some information for him on this matter a little later in the debate. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1093</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>.- Before the Minister spoke, I was fully aware of the limited power of the Department of National Development to enter a State and engage in constructional work. Nevertheless, there are certain things that the Department may do in a State which are of benefit to all the States. There would never be an objection raised by any State to the Department&#39;s entering a State not only to engage in a preliminary form of development but also to make experiments. When I mentioned the main functions of the Department earlier today, I referred to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, because this is one of the commissions for which the Department is responsible. I recall that a year or two ago certain officers of the Commonwealth went to California, in the United States of America, and there witnessed what is known in the United States as &#34; Operation Ploughshare &#34;. A report entitled &#34;The Peaceful Use of Nuclear Explosives - An Evaluation for Australian Purposes of Proposed Civil Engineering and Mining Application &#34; was furnished by the officers who went abroad at the expense of Australia and I am doubtful whether there are many senators who have read the report. I learned about it and I endeavoured to get a copy of it. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>That was in 1965. I had great difficulty. I went to the Department and asked for a copy of the report and I was told that there was one in existence but it was not known where I could have a copy. Finally, I was told by letter to apply to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission at Lucas Heights for a copy of the report. This was saying, in effect: &#34; What do you want a report for? You are only a member of the Senate. You should not read a report like this. This report deals with scientific matters and we think we should not give you one.&#34; </para>
          <para>I wanted this report for a specific purpose, because it dealt with underground explosions as a means of providing and conserving water for irrigation purposes. It is a method which can be used and which is not very costly. The information in the report did excite a good deal of interest in pastoral districts, not only in Queensland but also in the Northern Territory and other cattle producing areas. Now we have the annual report before us and it deals rather fully with the subject. </para>
          <para>I shall not quote a lot of the information that appears in the report, but I shall read some of it because this is a Department from which it is difficult to get a report and from which it is difficult to get information. Just to prove the point, I mention that the Department prepared a map showing fishing grounds in Australian waters. I asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development a question about it on 13th September. Many honorable senators wished to get a copy of the map but so far they have not received a copy and I have not received one. The Leader of the Government in the Senate <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Henty)</inline> has not obtained one. </para>
          <para class="block">Sitting suspended from  6  to  8  p.m. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1093</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1T</name.id>
                <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>- Before the sitting was suspended I had referred to a question that I had asked in this place on 13 th September concerning a fishing map that had been prepared by the Department of National Development. I asked <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Henty</inline> whether he had read a Press report about the map and whether it was possible for him to have the map made available to professional fishermen&#39;s organisations and members of the Senate. He assured me that he would communicate with the Department of National Development and arrange for the maps to be sent to honorable senators and others who would perhaps be more concerned with them than would the average citizen. As far as I am aware, nothing has been done so far. We in the Senate certainly have not received copies. Perhaps it has been decided by the Secretary of the Department that senators should not get a copy. He might be of the opinion that it cost a lot to have the maps printed and that the furnishing of a map to each senator is not warranted. If such a situation exists, at least we should have been told about it. Alternatively, there was nothing to prevent the Department from having a copy posted in Kings Hall where not only members of the Parliament but also visitors to Parliament House could examine it. There is no restriction on posting in Kings Hall an important document such as a fishing map after the matter has been discussed with the  President  of the Senate and the  Speaker  of the House of Representatives. Perhaps the Minister will be so kind as to inform me of the present situation. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Earlier today I referred to the possibility of having the cattle population of Queensland increased from 7 million to 52 million. When one knows about the natural conditions which exist in that State, one realises that it would be absolutely impossible to increase the cattle population to that degree unless irrigation projects on a large scale were undertaken. I referred also to a report by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission on the peaceful uses of nuclear explosives. Nuclear explosives have been used in parts of the United States of America to construct tunnels for mining purposes, and for many other purposes. Although perhaps at all stages of the experiments there was a doubt about nuclear fallout, experimentation has led to the development of nuclear explosions without any fallout. Time has passed since those experiments were conducted in the United States. </para>
          <para>The latest report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission contains, at page 26, a chapter which is headed &#34; Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosives &#34;. This chapter explains what was done by way of experimentation in the United States back in 1957 and how progress was made. The report points out how nuclear explosions could be used to advantage in Australia. It states - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Underground nuclear explosives can be broadly divided into shallow &#34;  cratering  explosives &#34; in which the gas pressures generated break through the ground surface, and deep &#34; contained explosions &#34; in which the gases do not break the surface. </para>
            <para class="block">The type and size of effect produced will depend on the nature and geological structure of the surrounding media, the yield (i.e., explosive size) of the device and the depth of burial. ... All devices presently available for peaceful applications behave as isotropic point sources of energy Hence, directional effects can be achieved only by channelling the shock wave through a preexplosion tunnel excavation or by the interaction of two or more explosions. The only practical method of achieving linear excavations (e.g. channels) at present would be to use simple multiple row charges fired either simultaneously or in close sequence. To date, no tests have been conducted with row charges of nuclear explosives. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The report points out nuclear explosions can be applied to projects where civil engineering is employed, and how they can be applied to mining and water storage projects. </para>
          <para>Whilst it is interesting to read out what can be done in the United States and how the matter has been studied by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, what we want to know is when it is proposed to do something of this kind in the Northern Territory, the north of Western Australia and the north-west of Queensland. If it can be done, why does not the Department of National Development have a go at it? I understand that the experimentation period is passed and that there is now no danger of fall out from explosions. To my way of thinking, this would be an inexpensive method of providing for the large scale conservation of water in parts of Australia where conservation would be of the greatest advantage to the Commonwealth. This would be real national development. I hope that the Minister for Repatriation <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator McKellar),</inline> who is in charge of these estimates, has been informed about the matter and that he will be able to enlighten me. </para>
          <para>I am not the only person who is wondering what will happen in relation to the use of nuclear explosions. We expect some authority in the Commonwealth to make a start. The call is going forth in Australia today for irrigation and still more irrigation. It may sound fantastic to say that it is possible to increase the cattle population of Queensland from 7 million to 52 million, but with modern scientific developments and the provision of improved pastures and legumes such a development is within the realms of possibility. Would it be worth while? Of course it would be worth while. There is a shortage of meat in every meat eating country. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1095</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CHAIRMAN, The</name>
                <name role="display">The CHAIRMAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>
                <inline font-weight="bold">-(Senator DrakeBrockman).</inline>- Order! The honorable senator&#39;s time has expired. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1095</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1R</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PROWSE, Edgar</name>
              <name role="display">Senator PROWSE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I wish to refer to Divisions Nos. 350 and 351 which relate to the appropriations for the Joint Coal Board and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. At the outset, 1 would like to congratulate both organisations on the excellent reports that have been made available to us. While we laymen may flounder in the mass of detail that has been provided for us, much of the knowledge given to us is of great value. 1 wish to refer particularly to pages 18 and 19 of the Joint Coal Board&#39;s report for 1964-65 which draws attention to the need for a clearer assessment to be made of Australia&#39;s coal reserves. I think it is worth while quoting what is stated in the report. It said - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">During the year a report on the coal reserves position in Australia was prepared for the Board by its Chief Geologist, in consultation with <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Harold</inline> Raggatt, formerly permanent head of the Department of National Development. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">They commented on the inadequacy of information about our coal reserves and the urgent need to prove more reserves in the light of increasing demands for domestic use and export. The report went on - </para>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">These resources include large amounts both of coking coal, hard and soft, and of steaming coal. But the knowledge of our reserves of coking coal is the matter of special concern at this stage. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">In paragraph 2.18 the report continued - </para>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">The growth in prospective export requirements in the next five years as set out in Table 2 shows that the opportunity for disposal to overseas consumers of coking coal will greatly exceed Australian usage for coking purposes by 1970. This is a matter for special comment if there is reason to believe that export on this scale may, in due course, restrain development of steel manufacturing capacity within Australia. At this stage the information available is inadequate to say one way or the other, but the Board believes that, in the national interest, it is desirable that we should be in a position to give a more definitive answer to this question not later than 1970. To this end alone, more detailed knowledge of our coal reserves is needed. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Honorable senators will recall that for quite a long period the Commonwealth had an embargo on the export of iron ore from Australia, in the interests of the Australian steel industry. At present, in the light of the knowledge of our iron ore resources, it seems that we have adequate iron ore. But the question now raised is: Are our coal reserves, particularly coking coal, adequate for all foreseeable demands? I think that this Parliament should take great note of the report, as it emphasises the need for a more accurate assessment of our known coal reserves. Our exports, particularly to Japan, have increased at a great rate. We are now exporting about one quarter of our total production. If this goes on, o/ie can foresee a dangerous situation developing. This position also arises with coals other than coking coals. At present we have developed the export to Japan of coals suitable for the manufacture of plastics. Some shipments have gone from Western Australia. The knowledge of our coal reserves in Western Australia is quite inadequate. Can we afford to export materials that we could very well need within Australia in the foreseeable future? This again emphasises the necessity for the speeding up of an assessment of our known coal reserves. </para>
          <para>I am led to some other parts of the report. I was particularly intrigued by the attitude to nuclear power expressed by the Joint Coal Board in its report, lt seems to imply that nuclear power is in the future. It sets out a table showing a comparable case for Dungeness &#34; B.&#34;, a nuclear station in Britain, and the Liddell station in New South Wales. The figures in the table show that the cost of production of power at Dungeness is 80 per cent, higher than the cost expected at the Liddell power station. </para>
          <para>I turn now to the report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for 1956-66. After reading that report, one gets a different impression altogether about the future of atomic energy. It states - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Recently the Tennessee Valley Authority decided to build a two unit 2,129 M.W. nuclear station in preference to a coal fired plant. This decision is of particular significance as T.V.A. operates in a low coal cost area. The nuclear plant was estimated to provide power for about 20 per cent, less than the coal plant, representing a saving of $100 million over the first 12 years of operation, during which nuclear fuel costs would be covered by a warranty. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1095</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CORMACK, Magnus</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cormack</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Is that on base load power production, or peak load production? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1095</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, Edgar</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PROWSE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The information is not given in that detail in this part of the report. It would be part of the grid, I take it, and would be used in the most efficient manner possible. At page 16 reference is made to Dungeness Station. It states - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>The Central Energy Generating Board estimates that the Dungeness &#34; B &#34; station will provide power at some 13 per cent, below that achievable with the most modern coal fired stations now being built, and future nuclear stations of the Advanced Gagcooled Reactor type are expected to provide savings in excess of 20 per cent. These are rather conservative estimates being based on a 20-year nuclear station life and an average load factor of 75 per cent. If Dungeness &#34;B&#34; achieves a 30-year life and an 85 per cent, load factor, the saving would approach 30 per cent. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Of course, the question arises of how much more efficient and how much cheaper is the output of the Liddell power station in New South Wales than the most modern coal fired stations now being built in Britain. There is room for very interesting speculation as to just how much weight we can put upon the two reports to which I have referred. I do not think there is any doubt, in view of the world wide evidence of the trend towards nuclear power, that we must in the foreseeable future devote our energies to the establishment of at least one nuclear power station. Unless we are to be left behind the rest of the world in our knowledge of  nuclear  technology and of the generation of nuclear power, we must act in the very near future. </para>
          <para>I have a list of the countries now in the process of developing power stations. Italy is developing three power stations, Pakistan two, Spain three, Sweden three, and Switzerland two. The United Kingdom has either built, has under construction, or is committed to the construction of 17 stations. Surely on this basis Australia should immediately be contemplating the construction of a nuclear power station, unless we are to be left hopelessly behind in the development of this form of power. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KAS</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WEBSTER, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Webster</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We are giving financial aid to some of those countries, are we not? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, Edgar</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PROWSE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We are assisting the so-called backward countries. We think of Pakistan, for instance, as one of the countries that are less developed than Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CORMACK, Magnus</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cormack</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It has no coal. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1096</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, Edgar</name>
                <name role="display">Senator PROWSE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, but when one examines the situation it is found that even in countries with adequate coal the authorities are going ahead with the development of nuclear power stations. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>There is a lot more to this question, of course, than the immediate cost and economics of the station that would be developed. A lot depends on the siting of the station and whether the power can be integrated into our electricity grids. From the point of view of technology alone, we cannot afford to be left behind in the production of the kind of power which most certainly will predominate in the world of the future. In Australia, of course, we have great areas that need development. If those areas are to be developed, power will be required. From what is known, nuclear power undoubtedly is the source which may confidently be expected to supply our needs in that respect. </para>
          <para>The provision of desalinated water also is rendered possible by the use of nuclear power. We have heard a lot about this at various times. The tendency seems always to belittle this aspect of the matter, but the report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which I have mentioned, gives one a different impression. When we refer to the section of the report which deals with desalination we find that there is a very much more optimistic attitude towards the cost of providing desalinated water supplies. The report states at page 27 that water costs from large dual purpose nuclear desalination plants likely to be placed in operation within the next 15 years or so, are expected to be of the order of 25 to 35 cents per thousand gallons. I know that people in parts of Western Australia are paying 50 cents and 60 cents per thousand gallons for water at the present time. If Australia is as short of water as we have been told it is, and if Australia&#39;s development is to be restricted by the non-availability of water, surely that is an added reason why we should press on with the development of nuclear power stations. </para>
          <para>I wish to return to another aspect of Australia&#39;s coal resources. Earlier in this sessional period I asked a question relating to the production of fertilisers from coal. I was interested to read in the report of the Australian Coal Industry Research Laboratories, at page 33, details of the action that is being taken in connection with the study of the production of nitrogenous fertilisers from coal. In Australia we have large quantities of coal that  aTe  not suitable for coking but which are quite suitable for the production of nitrogenous fertilisers. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1097</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CHAIRMAN, The</name>
                <name role="display">The CHAIRMAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Order! The honorable senator&#39;s time has expired. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1097</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>. I want to tidy up a few remarks I made earlier regarding the necessity for some sort of Federal control, under a Federal authority, of all sections of the fuel industry. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Prowse</inline> put forward a case along the lines that I had been making before the suspension of the sitting. When we examine this matter from the point of view of defence it seems extraordinary that the Government should not be interested in bringing the production of power and all three fuels under a Federal authority, having in mind the fact that that is the basis of any defence system, particularly in this modern age. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I think that when the Joint Coal Board in its report stated that coal could compete favourably with nuclear power, it was referring to coal produced in New South Wales. Under the control exercised by the Joint Coal Board and the former New South Wales Labour Government, and now carried on and supported by the Liberal Government in that State, power houses were established on top of the main seam of coal. I think the engineers use the expression &#34; in situ &#34; in this respect. That has allowed the authorities to produce electricity much more cheaply than it can be produced by an atomic power station. I think that that is what the Board meant, and I hope there will be no misunderstanding on this point. The Board did not mean that the coal areas of Queensland and Victoria could do the same thing. Despite the constitutional difficulties in this connection - there probably are some if the States do not agree - we are now supplying cheaper electricity on the grid all over new South Wales, and we are also supplying  15  per cent, of Victoria&#39;s electric power needs. I do not think there is any constitutional difficulty about that. We are assisting the Victorians in their power problems and making them less dependent on their uneconomic brown coal industry. So, although the Victorians have never granted the Joint Coal Board authority to exercise its powers in Victoria, they have not been able to prevent the activities of the Board resulting in cheap electrical power crossing the border and assisting Victoria in that way. That power is supplied through the agency of the Snowy Mountains Authority, of course, and it enables part of the energy produced by the Snowy Mountains Authority to be used to supply water for irrigation, which is the purpose of the scheme. So, all this good work already is accruing from the modern techniques that have been applied in New South Wales by the Joint Coal Board and by the coal owners in association with the Board and the New South Wales Government. </para>
          <para>Despite what we may have thought of this matter  20  years ago, having in mind what the production of power really means and how important are all the sources of power to Australia generally, it seems silly that there should be a State minded department with its own mapping arrangements in one State, a mineral resources organisation in another State and in every State a State instrumentality dabbling in these things. In the Federal sphere the Department of National Development operates a Division of National Mapping, a Bureau of Mineral Resources, and field operations. There are also the Joint Coal Board and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. All these bodies are concerned with fuel and power resources. If the Government is not sold on the idea of giving added powers to the Joint Coal Board, it should agree that there ought to be some sort of authority by which interest competing in the same fields can be made to come together and discuss these matters. Already the Coal Board does that with the coal owners in relation to research. I think the Commonwealth subsidises the combined research organisation of the Coal Board and the coal owners. But there ought to be some top authority. The coal industry ought not to have to go to the Tariff Board and ask for protection. It is in the national interest that the coal industry be protected. At least, it is in the national interest that the coal industry should not be pushed out of the local market, which is happening every day, and forced into the export market, which is always less secure than the local market. </para>
          <para>I thought that we were exporting one third of our coal, but <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Prowse</inline> said that we were exporting  25  per cent. We have the Japanese market, but we could be adopting a very shortsighted policy here because the Japanese market is not a long term market. I am not one of those who believe that the Japanese will trade with Australia forever. It may be that they will make peace with China and return to their old markets. If that happens, we will find the Australian coal industry in the doldrums again. We will not find the oil companies in the doldrums, because they are very well entrenched today. They are operating profitably and ignoring the damage that their unfair competition is doing to the coal industry. </para>
          <para>I speak not only for the men in the coal industry, but also for the owners and those involved in the coal shipping trade. Many people do not realise the economic importance of this industry to Australia. Things are going all right in the industry at present. The miners are working better than they have ever worked, and many people believe there will be no more strikes in the industry. I think the contract system has almost ended and that the men will soon be receiving weekly wages. It would not surprise me in the least if they received weekly wages within the next few years. This means continued security for the men in the industry. It would be a very serious blow to the industry if it were to lose its overseas markets and at the same time lose its local market. I agree with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Prowse,</inline> that the coal industry is an indigenous industry. It is here. Immense seams of coal are available, and we should not do anything to endanger them. They have to be worked commercially. We must not do anything to endanger our markets, because if there were no local market and if we were to lose our overseas markets that would be extremely bad for Australia&#39;s defence and for our national situation, </para>
          <para>I ask the Minister to consider what I have said, I know that constitutional difficulties are involved. The States would have to offer their rights to the Commonwealth, but we have a Joint Board using both State and Federal funds. It has worked very well for 20 years. If the States will not agree to delegate power to the Commonwealth, I think the Commonwealth should find some way of getting together all the various interests - the natural gas companies, the oil companies, the coal owners and so on. The Australian Gas Light Co. in Sydney is even talking about going out of business as a coal user. It supplies gas to the entire Sydney metropolitan area. Consumers are gradually changing over to electricity, and the gas company is gradually changing to fuel oil and possibly natural gas. </para>
          <para>This Government believes in planning because it has introduced organised marketing for wheat, wool and other primary products. I do not think that it would be foolish enough not to recognise the importance of planning for the development of the fuel industry in Australia. I think the various interests in the fuel industry should be brought together to consult with one another so that they know where they are going. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Prowse</inline> referred to a survey to discover the available resources of coking coal. All coal is not the same; there are coals for different uses. If we were able to bring together the various interests in the fuel industry, I think that it would be to the benefit of the economy and particularly of the defence of Australia. </para>
          <para>After the debate on the future of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority in the Senate recently, I went away with the sad conclusion that the Authority will be wound up. The Government has said that it does not contemplate any work for the Authority in the future. In other words, in the view of the Government, we have no national work in Australia that is crying out for action. I would not like to think that we will not see the great northern developmental programme that people have been writing about for years. I know that the problem is not as easy of solution as some speakers on this side of the chamber have said it is. You cannot easily pick up 2,000 men and transfer them to somewhere else. There is the question of where they and their families will live, for instance. I think the Government ought to make a real effort to find work for the Snowy Mountains Authority. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1098</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTL</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for Repatriation</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCKELLAR, Gerald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator McKELLAR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>, - Before I reply to the questions which have been asked, I would ask honorable senators to try to keep the debate on the Estimates within reasonable bounds. We have had second reading speeches in which honorable senators have wandered all over the place. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline>referred to the case of a <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes.</inline> I have been able to get some information for him. I understand that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> was an applicant for a position with the Department at Rabaul. </para>
          <para class="block">He is a New Zealander, and at the time of the early interchange of letters he was living in New Zealand. Appointments from overseas take some time, and in this case the vacancy at Rabaul, for which he was peculiarly suited, did not occur. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> was advised of this. When <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> made inquiries, his secretary, in his absence, was also advised. I understand that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes</inline> has recently written to the Public Service Board seeking further information on his employment. He has been told that there is no impediment to his employment. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn</inline>said something about not being able to obtain a map.  His  remarks have been noted by the departmental officers. 1 hope that we will be able to get some information for the honorable senator and also the map to which he referred. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1099</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1T</name.id>
                <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 will get one next year. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1099</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTL</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCKELLAR, Gerald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McKELLAR</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We hope to be able to get one for the honorable senator before then. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn</inline> also referred to the peaceful use of nuclear explosives. They will certainly find application in water conservation programmes in the future, but further development is required and progress is at present being retarded by the limited test ban treaty. There are indications, however, that there will be some relaxation of this treaty to permit the type of development that the honorable senator has in mind. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1099</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PROWSE, Edgar</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Prowse</name>
              </talker>
              <para>asked whether we were doing anything to get some estimate of the reserves of coking coal in Australia. The Joint Coal Board is in the process of making a comprehensive survey of coking coal reserves in New South Wales. This should indicate the extent to which coking coal could be exported, having regard to our own needs. The Board is acting in close consultation with the Queensland Coal Board, there being extensive deposits of coking coal in that State. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline>referred to the future of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. This is exercising the minds of a lot of people, particularly in the southern States. The Government has been looking at the matter for months. It is not as easy as the honorable senator has suggested. The Government cannot pick up the Authority, put it in another State and say: &#34; We are going to do so and so&#34;. In the first place, a State might have some very competent officers itself. Indeed, our States do have competent officers. In the second place, the proposed works have to be of a national character and the States have to make an approach to the Commonwealth and be cooperative with the Commonwealth in relation to work that they want done. The matter is not as easy as it might seem. By the same token, I can assure the honorable senator that this matter is receiving the close consideration by the Government. We all feel that it would be a great pity indeed if we saw disbanded what has come to be a very fine body - the Snowy Mountains Authority. </para>
          <para>Proposed expenditure and proposed provision noted. </para>
        </speech>
        <para>Department of Labour and National Service</para>
        <para>Proposed expenditure, $8,649,000. </para>
        <para class="block">Administration of the National Service Act. </para>
        <para>Proposed expenditure, $949,000. </para>
        <para>Post Discharge Re-settlement Training. </para>
        <para class="block">Proposed expenditure, $2,000. </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1099</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BISHOP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I wish to relate my remarks to Division 340  -  Administrative. I refer to the question of employment and the activities of the Department of Labour and National Service as the employment agency of the Commonwealth Government. As honorable senators know, a downturn has taken place in the motor vehicle industry. This is causing the Opposition and the unions which represent the employees in the motor vehicle industry great concern. The Opposition has made the point in previous debates that the Government to some extent could make some provision which would provide a fillip to &#39;the industry and stop the fall in employment that has been quite marked since the presentation of the Budget. The level of employment in the motor vehicle industry in South Australia is usully very high. This industry is a most important one because it manufactures a consumer durable product and related to it is the employment of a number of people in industries which supply accessories. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Let me give to the Committee the figures relating to the number of people employed in the motor vehicle industry in South Australia. There are 478 construction and assembly workers; 7,158 in the motor vehicle repair industry; <inline font-style="italic">14,625</inline> in the motor body manufacturing section; and 1,587 in the accessories field. The total number of employees in the motor vehicle and associated industries in South Australia is 23,848. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1100</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K8N</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TOOHEY, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Toohey</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They are directly involved. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1100</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BISHOP</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Toohey</inline> comes from the industry and he knows it better than I do. These 23.848 workers rely upon the activity in the motor vehicle industry for their employment. Many other workers depend on the motor vehicle industry also, lt is important that we adopt every measure we can to assist the industry in its production. 1 know that this is not the time to say that the Government could offer sales tax reductions and other stimulants to this industry. We said this in the Budget debate. We know that the Government says that it will stand aside, watch the downturn and see what happens eventually. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>As a result of the Budget introduced by the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. McMahon)</inline> employment figures have dropped in South Australia. Let me quote from a news release that was issued by the Minister for Labour and National Service <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bury)</inline> on 15th August 1966. This news release shows that the number of persons registered for employment in South Australia had fallen by 129 on that day. After the Budget was delivered, unemployment figures rose in South Australia. Retrenchments were threatened. In a news release by the Department of Labour and National Service on 19th September the Minister said in respect of South Australia that there was &#34; reduced employment in motor vehicles and components, skins and leather and heavy engineering.&#34; The Minister said also that there had been an increase of 284 in the number of persons receiving the unemployment benefit and that this increase had occurred mostly in the Adelaide metropolitan and Elizabeth employment districts. </para>
          <para>The situation in South Australia in this respect is critical. It is important that we consider it. If we put aside for the purposes of this discussion the issues in relation to what the Government should do to stimulate the motor vehicle industry, we find that we have a situation which requires some intrusion, I suggest, by the Department of Labour and National Service in a special way. </para>
          <para>I make the point that I am not criticising the work of the officers of the Department of Labour and National Service in South Australia. During and since the time, years ago. when I was engaged in the industrial employment field, I have had occasion to call upon their services and I can say truthfully that these officers have always been very attentive to the propositions put forward. They provide assistance in any way they can. But I suggest that something more than this is required. I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Anderson)</inline> to take note of what I am putting to him and make representations to the Minister for Labour and National Service in this respect. 1 believe that regular consultation ought to take place between the head of the Department of Labour and National Service in South Australia and representatives of this industry there. I refer to South Australia particularly although the same argument might apply to New South Wales and Victoria where the motor vehicle industry is pretty strong. My arguments certainly apply to South Australia. Regular consultation should take place between officers of the Department and representatives of the industry in relation to the prospects of the industry. As a result of the forecasting of trends, perhaps the placement of labour could be more easily arranged. This is the basic argument that I wish to put forward. </para>
          <para>Another peculiar position exists in South Australia in relation to the geographical situation of Elizabeth. As honorable senators know, South Australia has a very important satellite community, as we call it, at Elizabeth. Elizabeth resembles, very much, the English satellite communities. It is largely inhabited by English migrants who mostly rely on General Motors-Holden&#39;s Pty. Ltd. and manufacturers of motor vehicle parts there. Unfortunately, with the downturn in the motor vehicle industry these people cannot find a job in South Australia. So, a community problem exists in addition to the overall economic problem facing the industry. I believe that the Minister should say to the head of his Department in South Australia: &#34; You should regularly meet the employers and the unions in the motor vehicle industry. You should endeavour to anticipate what might happen between now and the end of the year. As a result of these discussions and your analysis of the situation, you should try to remove this pocket of unemployment at Elizabeth.&#34; That ls the suggestion that I put forward in relation to this matter. </para>
          <para>I wish to refer now to the Duke of Edinburgh&#39;s Third Study Conference. The Department of Labour and National Service regularly makes a contribution to this Conference. For the year 1966-67 this contribution will be &#167;20,000. The 1968 Duke of Edinburgh&#39;s Third Study Conference will be held in Melbourne. This is a good thing. I attended the Conference in 1956. The purpose of the Conference is to study human relations in industrial communities. Elizabeth is one such community in which a difficult situation is developing. The peculiar development in Elizabeth - and I am speaking about a generally British community - is resulting from an industry that is going bung. We should have more reason to look at the employment position in Elizabeth than we would normally because, as I say, Australia will soon be host to a study conference whose purpose will be to find solutions to some of these problems. That is all I wish to say in relation to this matter. I hope that, as a result of what I have said, special consideration will be given to this matter. </para>
          <para>Let me conclude my remarks on this subject by saying that I do not accept the argument that any of this trouble is directly due to the South Australian Government. The South Australian Government has done what it can to examine the situation. Obviously, the downturn in the motor vehicle industry is the result of the present economic climate. No doubt, the Minister for Labour and National Service will accept that this is the position. </para>
          <para>I move to another question which, it occurs to me, ought to be raised during the debate on the estimates of the Department of Labour and National Service. I refer to the question of automation. What is the Government&#39;s attitude to the fairly persistent representations made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions about the need to set up a special section of the Department to study automation? Everybody knows that automation is increasing gradually. This afternoon we talked about the Public Service. Automatic devices are being employed there. Tonight <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Benn</inline> have talked about mechanisation in other fields. The incidence of automation is affecting employment very quickly. The A.C.T.U. put its proposition to the Government in this form - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Wc call upon the Commonwealth Government to organise conferences between governments, employers and unions to consider all aspects of the introduction and use of intensive mechanisation and automation, with a view to securing the fullest possible agreement on the incidence of such introduction and use, and the policies necessary to bc applied to ensure that these changes confer the greatest possible benefit on all sections of the Australian people. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That has been put to the Government; but as yet it has done nothing more than say: &#34; We have instituted some studies on this matter.&#34; I put it to the Government that it is letting other groups in the community, including the A.C.T.U., accept the responsibility. This week the A.C.T.U. has held a seminar on automation. But the Government should accept the responsibility for examining the trends in industry and trying to provide the remedies. It should earnestly consider what the A.C.T.U. has said. It should make its investigations and set up some sort of machinery to provide remedies. I hope that the Minister for Labour and National Service, who attended the seminar, as a result of his attendance will adopt a more positive attitude. I trust that the Government will agree to set up such a section within the Department, with power not only to watch the trends and influences and to ensure that consultations take place with the employees and their unions in order to ease the impact of automation, but also to apply remedies. The Department has the power to apply remedies. </para>
          <para>While I am on my feet I want to mention in a general way another matter that should be raised. When I have done that, because of the time factor I will not say any more. I refer to the need for the Department to have another look at the penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. As everybody knows, last year we accepted some amendments to the Act. Section 109 deals with the powers of the Commonwealth Industrial Court. Section 1 1 1 deals with contempt of court proceedings. I have some figures which were used in last year&#39;s discussions on improvements to the Act. As honorable senators will remember, last year we provided for a breathing space in respect of actions under section 109 to which I have referred. I suggest that, because of the generally good and fairly peaceful industrial relations in Australia today, there is a need to reconsider these penal provisions and to take them out of the Act. </para>
          <para>In June 1964 there were 331 industrial disputes, involving 152,272 individual workers, a loss of 195,901 work days, a total wages loss of $1,741,000 and a loss of 1.25 days per worker involved. In June 1966 there were 334 industrial disputes, involving 93,823 individual workers, a loss of 1 1 6,249 work days, a total wages loss of $1,564,000 and a loss of 1.28 days per worker involved. Those statistics apply to a time of the year which, I suggest, provides a good test. When we relate those figures to the total work &#39; force of approximately 4.6 million, we see a very good indication that, apart &#39; from odd cases, industrial relations are good. Somebody might like to talk about the State Electricity Commission dispute in Melbourne; but I am talking about disputes in. which the trade unions themselves are directly involved and&#39; in respect of which they would be liable to be brought before the Industrial Court. I leave my contribution on that basis. I hope that the Minister will take note of what I have said and will submit my remarks to the Minister for Labour and National Service for consideration. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1102</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KBW</name.id>
              <electorate>Tasmania</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I refer to the appropriation for the stevedoring industry inquiry. In 1965-66 the expenditure on this item was $23,921. This year we are asked to appropriate $15,000. Any honorable senator who v has been here as long as I have will remember that there has. been an almost continuous series of inquiries into the stevedoring industry. We multiplied them in the years before 1956. A long and comprehensive inquiry was made by <inline font-weight="bold">Sir James</inline> Tait, Q.C., of Melbourne, immediately before the Stevedoring Industry Act of 1956. Notwithstanding that, I am not protesting against the institution and continuation of the present inquiry. lt is of a very unusual nature inasmuch as. as far as I know, the constituting document or mandate to the barrister who is conducting the inquiry has never been tabled in either House of the Parliament. In the nature of things, I would not expect it to be in any &#34; Gazette &#34; or regulation. But it is about time, as the Parliament is being asked to authorise expenditure to continue this inquiry, we knew in detail the ambit of the charter and the procedures by which the learned inquirer is enjoined by the Government to proceed. What I can gather from random references to the proceedings from time to time gives me the impression that the role that is being played by the learned inquirer is more in the nature of that of a conciliatory negotiator or of an intermediary between the Government, the Stevedoring Industry Authority, the employees on the waterfront and the employers, with the object of getting permanent employment on the waterfront accepted and, as a quid pro quo to the waterside workers, getting a system of long service leave accepted and established. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>In the presence of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde,</inline> in deference to the remarks that he ,made this afternoon in relation to the Joint- Coal Board, in which he made incidental reference to the waterfront, and not wishing to provoke him but wishing to reach his understanding, I say in the most placatory way that improved conditions for employees on the waterfront cannot be forced upon them. Because of the prospect of reducing business that they see in front of them as a result of the introduction of mechanisms that the shippers will have devised to prevent frustration of the waterfront, they are now adopting a more reasonable attitude, and it may be possible to establish permanent employment on the waterfront. It may also be possible to establish long service and retirement leave on the basis on which most industries establish it; that is to say, a proper proportionate contribution from both sides of the industry to establish a fund from which the benefits are drawn. I am concerned that the Parliament is not informed on an inquiry of this sort in the old fashioned constitutional way that prevails in the small but ideal State of Tasmania from which I come. There, an inquiry established by the Government as this has been established would immediately be explained in a statement tabled in both Houses of the Parliament so that the ambit of the inquiry and the authority of a public nature invested in those responsible would be known through the Parliament to the people&#39;s representatives and the public. I ask the Minister whether he will arrange to have that information afforded to the Senate in that way. </para>
          <list type="upperalpha-dotted">
            <item label="I.">
              <para>also ask the Minister whether he will tell us whether any interim reports have been made in relation to this inquiry so far, and ill so whether there is any objection to these being made available. I know that some people could say that the disclosure of any reports at this stage might produce discord whereas conciliation is the desired result of the inquiry. That is an unhappy point of view. Anybody who- is responsible for the expenditure of money of this sort should be afforded the opportunity of seeing what progress is made. Therefore, 1 ask the Minister whether we can have made available to us any interim reports that may have been made. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>The third aspect of the vote I want to raise, without being niggardly but with a responsibility to curtail any tendency to extravagance, is whether the $23,921 expended last year consists wholly of the learned barristers fees or whether it consists of incidental secretarial, fees or some other form of expenditure. Will the Minister indicate the compass of activity expected to be financed by the vote of $15,000 this year? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1103</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I think some explanation is due to the Committee. .1 have been called upon at short notice to take these estimates and in the circumstances I think 1 should try to keep abreast of questions so far as I can. This is not to suggest that there should be any inhibiting of requests by honorable senators. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bishop</inline> raised a number of general matters first in relation to consultation between the heads of departments and the various people involved in the motor car industry with special reference to Elizabeth. The comment I have is that as a general rule there is very close consultation with the industry, both formally and informally, at the local level wherever practicable and also at the Federal level. The whole of the work of this department and of conciliation itself is based upon this concept. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1103</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Bishop</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I am suggesting a special consultation. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1103</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
                <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>- Yes. Here again I make the generality that I shall most certainly see that officers are here to hear the points raised by honorable senators. They will be picked up and referred to the Minister. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bishop</inline> asked what is the Government&#39;s view on the request of the </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Australian Council of Trade Unions to set up a section within the Department of Labour and National Service to investigate the effects of automation. I am informed that the Minister for Labour and National Service <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bury)</inline> announced some time ago the creation of a special unit within the Department to consider the effects of automation and technological changes. This has been set up for the purpose mentioned by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bishop</inline> who recognises that these things must be looked at as a special feature. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Bishop</inline> also referred to the penal clauses of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act with special reference to sections 109 and 111. My general observation is that the Government has always taken the line that if employers or employees do not abide by the law under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. with special emphasis on conciliation, the penal clauses sanctions must be applied. This applies with equal force to employees and employers. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline>raised a question about Division No. 330, sub-division 3, item 05, Stevedoring Industry Inquiry. The honorable senator questioned the proposed vote for this inquiry in relation to the appropriation last year. He also asked about the terms of the inquiry. I understand that when <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Woodward</inline> was appointed, the Minister made an announcement in the House of Representatives. 1 have no doubt that that announcement would have been made concurrently in the Senate. So the terms of the inquiry would be a document of the Parliament. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> also asked whether there had been any interim reports. I understand that there have been no reports. </para>
          <para>The honorable senator asked for details of the costs involved in this item. The proposed vote for 1966-67 is $15,000 and the appropriation last year was $23,921. The decrease this year is $8,921. The item provides for an inquiry into certain conditions on the waterfront and was constituted in June 1965. It is expected the inquiry will be completed and the report printed in the first half of 1966-67. The following is a brief explanation of the expected cost: Fees, including clerks&#39; fees, $9,150; fares and car hire, $2,370; secretary&#39;s travelling allowance, $300; printing of report, $3,000; miscellaneous, $180; total, $15,000. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator ORMONDE</inline>(New South Wales) of the male community, particularly in Sydney, who have long hair.  J  want to speak on their behalf. As most honorable senators know I live in the King&#39;s Cross area where <inline font-style="italic">the</inline> population of longhairs is probably bigger than it would be in Wagga, Albury or any other country centre. I do not want to be critical of the Department, because <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Bury</inline> is the Minister in charge of it and he represents the electorate of Wentworth, which would have a big percentage of longhairs. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1104</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mulvihill</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He is a square. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1104</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZU</name.id>
              <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>- lt might be that some members of his staff are squares. That is the point that 1 was coming to. These boys, whether they are right or wrong, are pretty representative of a certain section of our Australian youth. Some of them are very sensitive about these things. They feel that they are being discriminated against in the Department and they are finding jobs hard to get. 1 can imagine that there are squares in the Department - to use the term that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> used; I do not say that disrespectfully - and that they have a prejudice against this type of employee. I know that many employers have prejudices against boys with long hair. Do not ask me to say why they have long hair; 1 do not know. But they are not all disreputable. Quite a lot of these boys come from respectable families. They are clean. It is just a kink that they have decided to wear long hair. If we condemned everybody with long hair, we could have dealt with the apostles long ago. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1104</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cavanagh</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Is the honorable senator jealous of them? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1104</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- No, I am not. They consider this seriously. The Reverend Ted Noffs conducts the Wayside Chapel of the Cross at Hughes Street, Potts Point. The Minister has probably heard of him. He is quite a prominent man who is doing a lot of good work amongst those who some would say are a little left of centre in social things and are careless about their dress. The Reverend Noffs has set up a psychiatric area for them. He has a chapel for them and he likes to let these boys know that they are not of a lost legion. So seriously is the matter considered that an employment agency has been set up near the Wayside Chapel under his supervision, through which the boys feel they have a better chance of getting the correct sort of employment. They are probably overstating the situation. It might not be so bad, but there is a lot of truth in their statements that they are finding it difficult to get jobs. The Department might be finding it more difficult to place them while they have long hair. I do not know. But I do not think that the fact that one has long hair ought to be a disqualifying factor to keep him out of a job, because usually these people are accepted among the work force. Probably this practice would not be very rife amongst the employment agencies, but these boys feel that they are being discriminated against, and I should like the Minister to see whether this is true. I should like him to make some inquiries, because these fellows have to be understood, particularly by an official government department. A lot of them are problems, but they are young people and it would not be a good thing if they all felt that they were not wanted in industry and were being discriminated against. I ask the Minister to give the matter sympathetic investigation. I am not being heavily critical because the position may be exaggerated, but I think that there is some truth in what they say. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1104</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6F</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator CAVANAGH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  I want to raise a point in relation to another section of youths who have had hair cuts. I refer to Division No. 330. Item 09 in subdivision 2 reads: &#34; Fares, travelling expenses and allowances to workers - Advances (Amounts Recovered may be Credited to this Item) &#34;. Last year there was an appropriation of $200 and the proposed appropriation this year is of the same amount. That will be reduced if there is some reimbursement. Last year there was a credit of $1,522. I do not know to what this payment of fares relates. It comes under the heading &#34; Administrative Expenses &#34;. I do not know whether it relates to those who work in the Department or to a particular type of employee that they place. I should like the Minister to say how the credit of $1,522 came about, as we apparently did not pay any fares, and whether it was a hangover from the previous year. I ask the Minister to give us some information on that. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Item 03 in subdivision 3 relates to technical training for ex-servicemen - tuition, textbooks, equipment and living allowances. </para>
          <para class="block">Last year we expended $27,823 under this item. This year we propose to appropriate $50,000, which is not quite double the amount that was expended last year. Does this envisage that there will be a big increase in the number of ex-servicemen who will be undergoing training? Does it relate to a system of rehabilitation of those who have served in Malaya and Vietnam? This brings up the most important question of whether training facilities are available for this section or other sections of the community at a time when the economy is not buoyant and jobs are not plentiful. I served some time on one of the committees in South Australia that was concerned with the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme, lt related to the building industry, which possibly took the biggest number of trainees amongst ex-servicemen of the Second World War. </para>
          <para>If this scheme is to do anything on this occasion, the building industry must play its part and train ex-servicemen. I think that the unions would be willing to train those who had served in Malaya and Vietnam, but no industry in South Australia and no union could take part in this training at the present time because of lack of opportunities on the job for training. This is a question that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ridley</inline> and I brought up in relation to the estimates for the Department of Works. We discovered then that this was more a question for the Department of Labour and National Service. </para>
          <para>The Department of Works claims that it calls tenders and lets contracts for particular types of building and is not concerned with the question of training operatives in this industry. It then becomes possibly a question of Government policy as to whether conditions relating to (he training of labour on construction jobs should be stipulated. If there is to be a recommendation for consideration of this by any department, :t must be by the Department of Labour and National Service, which has a responsibility for employment and training. While the earlier plea was for apprentices, one can sec the impossibility of training men returned from service overseas, to whom we have some commitment - possibly a greater commitment. There is an inability to train because the method of construction in Australia today does not permit the employment of persons for the purpose of training. We have developed a method of contracting with sub-contractors. A builder, who has continuity of work, does not employ and therefore cannot employ either apprentices or ex-service trainees. The subcontractor has no continuity of work other than the particular job on which he is working. Building construction jobs are notorious for their short duration. Therefore, he cannot train or take responsibility for training because he lacks continuity of work. So we find that the apprenticeship scheme in the building industry in South Australia has fallen down. The State Government is endeavouring to do something about the matter by insisting that contracts let by the Housing Trust provide that a certain number of apprentices shall be employed on construction jobs. One of the biggest construction organisations in South Australia is the Commonwealth Government, which is responsible for numerous building activities including the Edinburgh-Penfield munitions site and the Woomera rocket range. But the Government has told us that the Department of Works can let contracts without making certain stipulations. If contracts stipulated that work had to be performed on a day labour basis or that a certain number of trainees or apprentices had to be employed, contractors perhaps would have to reorganise their method of construction or their method of employment. </para>
          <para>The Department of Labour and National Service should be greatly concerned about the future training of operatives in the building industry. One of the ways in which it could provide for a satisfactory system of training would be to ensure that work was available for trainees on government jobs. The Government has expressed a desire for an increase in adult training, but the unions have rejected the proposal because an insufficient number of apprenticeships is available. Young men are applying for apprenticeships, but because of the present system of construction they cannot bc offered employment. Often mediocre tradesmen are employed. Although such employees have to satisfy certain requirements, the difference between the quality of the amateur and the tradesman is such that extra time is involved in building and so building costs soar. I ask the Minister to recommend to the Government that stipulations of the kind I have mentioned bc included in contracts, and that an inquiry be conducted into the present system of construction to ascertain whether it is conducive to the training of apprentices, particularly if I am right in my belief that there will be an increase in the number of ex-servicemen who will offer for training. The Government has a responsibility to do something for this particular group. </para>
          <para>I refer now to sub-division 3, item 01 - Apprenticeship training - Financial assistance. Last year a sum of $420,744 was expended. This year the appropriation is to be reduced to $380,000. I ask what this money will be expended on. Why, in a time when there is a shortage of skilled men and the Government is seeking the adoption of a system of adult training, is there to be a reduction in the expenditure on this item? Do the figures indicate that the number of apprentices who are to be trained in country areas this year will be smaller than the number so trained last year? I ask the Department to consider the position of a country lad who cannot obtain training in the country in either his own area or another area. Opportunities for training in small country towns are limited. In those areas businesses are small and they employ only a few men. In many cases it is necessary for applicants, after submitting themselves to a vocational guidance test or an aptitude test, to go to the city for their training. This necessitates leaving their homes in the country where their parents are employed. </para>
          <para>They are required to pay a greater sum for board and accommodation than would be paid by a city lad who is transferred to the country or a country lad who is transferred to another country area. On numerous occasions the employer in the country takes a lad into his own home and charges him only a small sum for board and accommodation. But a lad who has to go to the city because there are no training facilities in the country does not receive a living away from home allowance. This seems to be quite unfair. As I indicated, possibly this lad has to pay more for accommodation than does the city lad who goes to the country. A lad living away from home who is getting his training in the country receives an allowance from the Department. I ask the Minister to tell me the purpose of the item to which I have referred and whether anything can be done for lads who find it necessary to go to the city for training. We are losing many potential apprentices because they cannot afford to accept training in areas where it is available. </para>
          <para>For some time I have been advocating participation by Australia in an international competition for apprentices. Such a competition has been held for some years now. I have asked a series of questions on this subject and have received replies which have set out the history of the competition, the length of time for which it has been conducted, and the countries that have participated. Participation in this competition would provide training for the most successful apprentices. It would offer an inducement to apprentices to reach high standards of training. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1106</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
              <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wedgwood</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Order! The honorable senator&#39;s time has expired. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1106</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K1Y</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BISHOP, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BISHOP</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I shall speak only briefly. This will give <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline> an opportunity to continue his remarks in a moment or two. The Minister, in his reply on the subject of automation, missed the point. 1 know that in 1966 the Department sought to set up a research section. I suggested that the Department should do what the Australian Council of Trade Unions asked it to do. This was what the Australian Council of Trade Unions said - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>We are of the opinion that there is need for a section of the Commonwealth Department of Labour and National Service to be established as a permanent organisation equipped to deal with the effects of automation and mechanisation, and to co-ordinate remedial measures that must be taken to replace labour and overcome the social problems involved. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">It suggested joint consultations, a training and retraining programme, severance pay and planned resettlement. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labour Party want a department with the ability lo act. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1106</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Ormonde</inline> raised the question of possible discrimination in the employment agencies against boys with long hair. I am assured that such a practice would be quite contrary to departmental policy. There is no acknowledgment that discrimination exists against boys with long hair. However, the honorable senator&#39;s comment will be passed on to the Department as an expression of view and of his concern. Looked at objectively, it would he a tragedy if a boy with long hair had his character affected to the extent where eventually he felt he was being victimised. We have to recognise that employers, for any number of reasons, might prefer to employ a lad with the old Army haircut - short back and sides.  1  assure the honorable senator that from a departmental point of view, it would not countenance any suggestion of discrimination. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- In the Army they have to get their hair cut. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1107</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
                <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>- Those of us who were in the Army found it was most convenient to have our hair cut short. For a period of two years in the Army I had my hair completely cut off, because it was more hygienic that way in the difficult circumstances. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline> referred to a number of items, not necessarily in the order in which  1  will answer them. The honorable senator referred to the provision in Division 330 for fares, travelling expenses and allowances to workers. The estimates state that amounts recovered may be credited to this item. During 1965-66 recoveries exceeded expenditure by $1,522 The provision of $200 is a nominal provision and it is normal for recoveries to finance further advances during the year. The sheet that  1  have shows that the estimate for 1966-67 is $200. Expenditure for 1965-66, because of recoveries, achieved a credit of $1,522. Therefore the increase is $1,722. This provision enables the Department to make advances to workers on an individual undertaking to repay or to groups of workers on an employer&#39;s undertaking to repay. The bulk of the transactions in this item is in connection with the Sunraysia dried fruit harvest and amounts paid in one year are normally recoverable in the following financial year. The recovery in the early part of the financial year enables payments to be made towards the end of that financial year. The $200 is a nominal provision to enable payments to be made early in the financial year before recoveries provide the funds for further advances to bc made. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline>also referred to the appropriation for apprenticeship training in Division No. 330. The appropriation is $380,000. The expenditure for 1965-66 was $420,744, so that expenditure is expected to fall by $40,744. This item provides for incentive payments to employers in the engineering, electrical and building trades as a means of increasing the number of apprentices and for living away from home allowances to country apprentices. </para>
          <para>The three categories of allowance are as follows: For 17 to 20 year old apprentices there is a living away from home allowance for country boys while attending full time training. In respect of the country scheme, there is an allowance of $6 per week to employers in country areas for each additional apprentice employed, and a living away from home allowance for country boys working with a country employer. In July 1965 the scheme was extended to include additional trades in the electrical and engineering trades group from 14th October 1964. At the same time, the base period used to determine an employer&#39;s normal intake was altered from 1958-62 in respect of (he electrical and engineering trades and from 1959-63 for the building trades, to the five years ending 30th June prior to the month of the claim which offset (he additional amount required for the new trades. </para>
          <para>The decrease of $40,744 is due to nonrecurring payments in 1965-66 to employers in the electrical trades or arrears due lo the inclusion of new trades from 1 4th October 1.964 amounting to $1.5,000; an estimated reduction in employers incentive payments due lo the introduction of a new base year for the purpose of calculation amounting lo $23,894: and non-recurring payments to employers in respect of 1 7 to 20 year old apprentices undertaking the special 20 week training courses. This part of the scheme ceased on 31st December 1965. That factor involved $1,850. The three factors contributed lo the decrease of $40,744. Conditions of apprenticeship are a matter for the State apprenticeship authorities. The Commonwealth as an employer has the maximum number of apprentices it can get and train. That is a general observation. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline>also referred to the appropriation for technical training for exservicemen - tuition, text books, equipment and living allowances - in Division No. 330. The appropriation for 1966-67 is &#167;50,000 and the expenditure last year was $27,823. An increase of $22,177 is expected. Expenditure charged to this item is incurred in connection with training under the KoreaMalaya training scheme and the disabled members and widows training scheme. Expenditure includes fees for tuition for full time, part time and correspondence trainees; books, requisites, equipment and other expenditure incidental to training; reimbursement of examination fees; subsidies paid to employers at whose establishment trainees complete training to 100 per cent, proficiency; cost of issues of tools of trade to full lime vocational trainees; and living allowances paid lo full time trainees. </para>
          <para>The variation of $22, 1 77 is comprised of provision of $23,000 for the national service vocational training scheme less $823 for the continued downward trend in expenditure under the Korea-Malaya training scheme. I think honorable senators can understand that downward trend because of the passage of time. </para>
          <para>The downward trend reflected in the previous year&#39;s expenditure under the Korea-Malaya training scheme is expected to continue, with the payments under the disabled members and widows training scheme assuming a greater proportion of the total expenditure. The provision of an additional $23,000 for training of national servicemen on discharge is based on an estimate of 50 trainees in 1966-67 divided equally between part time and full time courses. The .estimated annual costs are as follows for full time trainees: Living allowances at the rate of 52 times $32 amount to SI, 664; books and equipment, SI 00; fares. SI 00; tuition fees, $60; living away allowances, $100; and incidentals such as exam fees and travelling expenses amount to $50, making a total of S2,078, or nearly $2,100. For part time trainees the estimated annual costs are as follows: Tuition fees, &#167;35; books and equipment, &#167;80; fares at $1 per week, $52; and incidentals $30, making a total of $197, or nearly $200 for the purpose of the appropriation. As it is unlikely that trainees would be enrolled for the full current academic year, it is estimated that $23,000 will be required for 1966-67. The increased provision covers also the rehabilitation training of those national servicemen who may be discharged prior to the completion of their two years training period. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline> also made some general observations. Those have been noted and will be conveyed to the Department. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1108</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>. - I refer to Division No. 330, sub-division 2, item 05  -  Official publications. If the reason for the increase in the provision for this item has already been given by the Minister 1 am sorry to raise the matter again, but if the explanation hits not already been given 1 shall refer lo it. I notice that there is a big increase in the proposed expenditure. Last year the appropriation was $2S,600 and the expenditure $26,240. This year the proposed expenditure is 566,500. As a senator I see many government publications. 1 realise their value and the need for them. As a member of the Printing Committee of the Parliament I have the right to say from time to time whether or not a paper shall be printed. I was a member of the Government Publications Committee, a joint committee of the Parliament, whose report was presented in May 1964 and debated in this place. Since that time I have been pleased to see, as a former member of the Committee, that aspects of the Committee&#39;s recommendations are being adopted. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The aim of that Committee was to bring about not only uniformity but also economy in relation to government publications. It also wished to ensure that the publications prepared by government departments reached the right people. I shall be interested to have an explanation of the reason for the proposed increase of expenditure under this item. I say quite frankly that I do not remember having had delivered to me a publication under the name of the Department of Labour and National Service. We see annual reports, and I note that in sub-division 3 of Division No. 330 there is a provision for textbooks for the rehabilitation of ex-servicemen. I know of the wonderful work which this Department does in respect of rehabilitation. At the moment I am not complaining about the amount of the item but I would be most interested to have a worthwhile explanation of the reason for the great increase. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1108</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6F</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator CAVANAGH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  First, I would like to thank the Minister for the very thorough reply he gave to the questions 1 asked and for the detailed accounts of expenditure he gave. 1 think that the officers of the Department also should be congratulated for this. They have set a much higher standard than that of some of the other departments which have supplied information during the Estimates debate. The Department&#39;s example could well be copied by other departments. The Minister said that 1 had raised questions of a general nature and that those had been noted by the Department. I. take it that in this respect he referred to my comments concerning apprentices in the country who are forced to go to the city for training, and my suggestion that the Department should seek to have written into the specifications on building jobs a requirement aimed at promoting the training of apprentices. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>J hope that, consistent with the Department&#39;s thoroughness and courtesy in relation to the other matters f raised, the examination of those questions will be carried through and that I will receive from the Department an indication of the manner in which they have been considered and of whether decisions have been made in respect of them. If this is the last that is beard of those matters, the suspicion may arise that they have not reached the Department and that when the somewhat tiring exercise of getting rid of the Estimates is completed, that will be the end of them. I noted from the Minister&#39;s remarks that training was provided for members who had served in the Korean War and in Malaysia. I wish to know whether there are any plans for rehabilitation training to tradesmen status of servicemen who are at present serving in Vietnam and, if not, whether there is any proposal to introduce a system of training for returned men from that area. </para>
          <para>When my time expired earlier I had been referring to my repeated requests that Australia should participate in an international competition for apprentices as a means of inducing young people lo take up apprenticeships and as something that would further the training of apprentices. In addition, I suggested that apprentices who went overseas would bring back to Australia fresh ideas concerning apprenticeship systems in other countries. I said earlier that there are arrangements for the inter change of policemen and teachers, the purpose being to achieve a more universal type of knowledge. Surely a similar arrangement is most desirable for apprentices in industry. I suggest that the best time for a lad to go overseas would be towards the end of his apprenticeship. He would then have demonstrated, by the marks he had obtained at examinations, whether or not he was an outstanding apprentice. If he was one of the top apprentices there would be some recognition of his success. At the present time I understand that 1 1 nations, including Great Britain, participate in such a competition. Last year the competition was held in Scotland, lt is held in a different country each year, and that fact tends to broaden the outlook of apprentices who participate and to give them a greater knowledge of their work. </para>
          <para>The Minister for Labour and National Service <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Bury),</inline> in answer to a question from me, said that this would be considered by the Australian Apprenticeship Advisory Committee which advises the Minister on such matters. The Minister also stated that the matter was considered at the eleventh meeting of the committee, which was held recently in Perth. He said that the subject of international apprenticeship was discussed and that the conclusion reached was that the possible benefits of participation would be far outweighed by the cost, and that weighing all considerations, Australia should not seek to participate in the competition. 1 have been informed that this matter was in fact listed on the agenda of the eleventh meeting of the committee which was held in Perth. When the matter came up for consideration the  chairman  said: &#34; We cannot have that. It is too costly.&#34; 1 understand that some sort of a case was put up by the  chairman  of the apprenticeship committee from South Australia, but no-one discussed the cost or the advisability of entering the competition. I would respectfully ask the Minister to say what consideration was given at the eleventh meeting of the Australian Apprenticeship Advisory Committee to the desirability of Australian lads participating in this international competition. </para>
          <para>It has been said that participation is not warranted because the costs would outweigh any benefits. What would be the costs involved? If the Committee rejected the proposal because it believed that the costs would outweigh the benefits, it must have known what the costs were. 1 think the Minister should supply us with information as to how much it would cost to participate in this competition. We know that under the conditions laid down for the competition, if Australia were a participating country the competition would be held in Australia a; some time or other. 1 do not think we could say that the costs would outweigh any benefits unless we made a check to see what benefit these lads would get from an international competition and what would be the actual costs of their participation. 1 ask the Minister to tell us how the Committee arrived at its decision. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1110</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Customs and Excise</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
              <name role="display">Senator ANDERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Marriott</inline> raised a question concerning Division No. 330. subdivision 2, item 05 - Official publications. .1 assure him that this matter has not been raised previously. There is a proposed appropriation of $66,500 this year, as against an expenditure of $26,240 in 1965-66. So there is an increase of $40,260. The item covers the cost of publications produced by the Department for sale to the general public, or in the case of career pamphlets, for distribution among school leavers to assist them in their choice of profession or vocation. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I think that the main reason for this increase of $40,000 odd is to be found in the increased provision of $31,560 for the printing of career pamphlets. The programme for printing these pamphlets in 1965-66 was severely curtailed due to lack of funds. Provision is now made for a complete printing programme of pamphlets covering 26 different careers, of which six are with the Government Printer and a further seven drafts have been completed. </para>
          <para>There is an increased provision of $2,610 for printing the Personnel Practice Bulletin to meet additional requirements due to the current subscription drive. There is a provision of $290 for the additional cost of the printing of the Industrial Information Bulletin due to increased contract price. There is a provision of $3,000 for printing the Industrial Relations Handbook. There is an increased provision of $2,600 for the printing of other technical publications, and an increased provision of $200 for printing on departmental machines, including the cost of plates, blocks, covers and bindings. That represents an increase of $40,260. The increased provision of $31,560 for printing career pamphlets was the main reason for the overall increase. As I have said, the item covers the cost of publications produced by the Department for sale to the general public. Perhaps the honorable senator would not have seen them because they would not be presented to the Parliament. </para>
          <para>I cannot assist <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline> very much on the point he raised regarding the reason for non-participation in this international apprenticeship competition and the costs that would be involved in participation. This decision was taken across the board by the State and Commonwealth authorities. I shall certainly attempt to get some information for him. I have been a member of the Senate for 13 years and I have taken part in many Estimates debates, in the same way as honorable senators are doing tonight. 1 can assure <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline> that by saying I will attempt to get the information for him I am not conducting an exercise in getting the Estimates through. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cavanagh</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I said that people might get that suspicion. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1110</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZQ</name.id>
                <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>- After til, officers from the Department are present. The comments made by honorable senators are extracted from &#34; Hansard &#34; and they are brought to the attention of the relevant departments. I can assure <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cavanagh</inline> that my own experience as a Minister &#62;s that when something is said about my Department in the Parliament, it is not very long before I am made aware of it. I understand that the question of the rehabilitation of national servicemen, particularly those who might have been to Vietnam, is currently being examined. I cannot offer any further information beyond that point. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Proposed expenditures noted. </para>
          <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Anderson)</inline> agreed to - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>That consideration of intervening divisions  be  postponed until after consideration of divisions relating to the Prime Minister&#39;s Department. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <para>Prime Minister&#39;s Department</para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="032232196610132_85_2.jpg" />
        </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1110</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVK</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MULVIHILL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I rise  to speak to Division </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">No. 433, which concerns the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. At the outset, I think that I should refer to a speech that I made on the same estimates last year. I commenced on that occasion by referring to the operations of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Herbert</inline> Morrison, who was Home Secretary in a very serious time in Britain. I contrasted his broad attitude to all forms of subversion, in which all people were treated the same, with the present situation in Australia. We find that this year&#39;s estimates for this Organisation provide for an increase of approximately &#163;575,000 over last year&#39;s appropriation. 1 want to apply a few guide lines. I think that 1 could do no better than to refer to something that was said by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Walsh</inline> of the United States Senate around about the period of the First World War, when there was an Attorney-General  named Mitchell Palmer who was very trigger happy and keen about rounding up people whom he believed were enemies of the United Stales. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Walsh</inline> defined the right to criticise in a democracy in this way - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>It is treason to attack the Constitution, save in a constitutional way; it is treason to say or do anything to the detriment of the government, or the country at large; it is treason to insult the flag or the uniform of the national forces; it is treason to do anything tending to reduce the American chances of winning (he war. But to criticise or even censure the  President  or any of his subordinates, the  Congress, or army or navy commanders, or groups of citizens in respect of their war activities is lo exercise a normal function of citizenship. It is always right, and sometimes a duty. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Taking that statement more or less as a beacon, I want to apply the thoughts expressed in it to the year 1966. I want to contrast the vigilance of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in relation to what I call small fish in comparison with the big fish. I need do no better than refer to a Press conference held by the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Harold Holt)</inline> and which was reported in the Press on 1st October 1 966. The Prime Minister was questioned about the case of the school cadet in New South Wales and the rundown that he had given in another place on the boy&#39;s mother and the organisation to which she belonged. The Prime Minister is reported as saying - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>There has been a security service in Australia going back as far as I can remember in administration. </para>
            <para>After all, its purpose is to strengthen the security of the Australian community. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The Prime Minister continued -  lt is not a case of enlarging the action of the schoolboy . . . It is simply a case of giving all the facts of the people concerned. </para>
          <para class="block">If we accept the Prime Minister&#39;s attitude in relation to this matter, I feel that  it  is necessary that I should draw the attention of the Committee and the Prime Minister to one or two matters where a strange reluctance has been apparent on the part of the Government to provide answers. </para>
          <para>I refer to a question that I asked upon notice in which I referred to a gentleman who was found dead in peculiar circumstances in the Kurrajong Heights region of New South Wales. This person&#39;s name was Hyhory Berkuta. I pointed out that his wife, among other people, had claimed that he had wartime membership of the German S.S. movement. There were all sorts of stories as to whether this person had done a deal with our own authorities here and whether he actually held Australian citizenship. I asked that question on 16th August of this year, and I am still waiting for an answer. Another question I asked refers to this famous or infamous gentleman, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lesic.</inline> I am still waiting for an answer as to whether he has been given citizenship. I repeat my allegation which has never been denied here - I know that it will not be denied - that that gentleman had his own home-made bomb which blew off some of his limbs. The punishment that he inflicted upon himself is terrible. But I say that this incident provides a strong warning to the Government and to Brigadier Spry that they should not continue to say that these people are harmless. I hate to think what would have happened if this incident had occurred on a crowded bus or crowded train. </para>
          <para>The Government said that it had deferred this man&#39;s application. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lesic</inline> indulged in some grandstand antics. But there has been no indication whether he has been naturalised. The point I am making is this: If it is good enough to discuss the background of a person or reveal the fact that his parents, for instance, are far Left and say that this is fair comment, I think that I am entitled and the Senate is entitled to know what the score is in relation to Lesic and what really happened concerning this man, </para>
          <para class="block">Hyhory Berkuta, who allegedly had membership of the German S.S movement. Surely it would not take all this time since August for Brigadier Spry and his officers to supply that information to the Prime Minister. </para>
          <para>Then I go from the sublime to the ridiculous. I refer to the Sydney &#34; Daily Mirror&#34; of Sth September 1966 in which it was reported that Security officials were believed to have ordered a certain Miss Sandra Nelson to come from King&#39;s Cross to Canberra in relation to an episode involving a former Malaysian High Commissioner to Australia. Now, we have received no information as to whether this was a legitimate request or a publicity stunt. Does the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation regard Miss Nelson as a counterpart of or Australia&#39;s answer to Modesty Blaise or somebody like that? This shows the Committee the way in which our thinking can turn when we are not given the information that we seek. </para>
          <para>Recently, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Alfred</inline> Earl, the new DirectorGeneral of Intelligence in the Ministry of Defence in Great Britain held a conference in Australia with Brigadier Spry. Nothing was said in the Press about that conference. We did not receive any information in relation to it. 1 turn to another interesting incident. There were fun and games at the Auckland University concerning a part-time student named Godfrey and the question of whether or not he was a member of the New Zealand Security Service. But this incident presents a vivid contrast between what happens in New Zealand and what happens here in relation to these matters. Brigadier Gilbert, who is the Director of the New Zealand Security Service, went on television to discuss this matter. I think that his action was very commendable. Naturally, Brigadier Gilbert did not take all the dossiers and so forth in relation to the matter and put them before the viewing public. At least, he established a principle of how he evaluated the situation. I only wish that this sort of thing would happen in Australia. </para>
          <para>I can imagine that one or two honorable senators are saying: &#34; <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> reads too many James Bond stories. He is getting a fixation on the subject of security.&#34; But I have some amazing allies on this matter. I refer to an article in the &#34; Bulletin &#34; written by a gentleman, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Brian</inline> Buckley, who is known, I am sure, to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline> and other people from Victoria. I do not think that Brian Buckley would be regarded as a Leftist. But in his article, amongst other things, he refers to the twin branches of the Balkan Ustashi, the Croatian Liberation Movement and the Croatian National Council. He says - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The disciples of the Ustashi movement are only a small minority of the Yugoslavs in this country, but they actively work against the assimilation of their countrymen into Australian society, and perpetrate minor acts of terror in their own communities against political opponents (whom they always call Communists). </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">On numerous occasions, I have given here classic examples of the probing irritation tactics against people who are completely above political suspicion. As a matter of fact, if ever 1 was challenged in relation to my statements - what honorable senators might call a confrontation between Brigadier Spry and his officers and myself - I know that 1 could serve the A.S.I.O. some great aces that would have the Brigadier and his officers floundering. 1 have been able to confirm a number of cases in relation to which our Security Service declined originally to accept certain people for naturalisation. But when more evidence was given by my Federal leader, the Leader of the Opposition in another place <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Calwell)</inline> and by myself, Brigadier Spry and his officers had to beat a strategic retreat and get away from the idea that they are infallible. 1 wish to give the Government the choice of two alternatives as to how we can avoid situations such as the ones to which 1 have referred arising. Let me refer first to the United States of America. I wish to quote from &#34; Newsweek &#34; of 30th May and 25th July. I think all honorable senators recognise that the United States Central Intelligence Agency is a pretty important body even though some of its evaluations of situations at times may be wrong. I do not think that any realist would question that America has to have its CLA. just as Australia has to have its Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. What I do object to in relation to our Security Service is the gross political partisanship that it has shown. If it has not shown this partisanship, and 1 am wrong, then I would like some specific answers to the matters that I am raising now instead of what happened last year when not a word was said in reply to the matters that 1 raised. However, let me return to the matter that 1 wished to discuss in relation to the C.I.A. in the United States at the present time a special sub-unit of the Armed Services and Appropriations committees which is headed by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Richard</inline> B. Russell meets from time to lime with the C.I.A. As a matter of fact, what is really a demarcation dispute is now taking place because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is arguing that it should have the right to discuss with the C.I.A. some of the errors that it has made. But the principle to which 1 direct attention is that the parliamentary setup in the United States provides that a senior committee can confer with an important body such as the CLA. A security organisation has an extremely important responsibility in a democracy. But we see that senators in America have access to the C.I.A. and can examine matters concerning it. </para>
          <para>Nobody would suggest that the Brigadier and his officers should come before the Bar of the Senate and be probed on matters concerning them. But I do put this suggestion to the Minister. Surely we could have the situation in which the Leader and  Deputy  Leader of the Government and Opposition Parties in the Senate and in another place as a committee or whatever they might be termed could meet with the A.S.I.O. If this happened, then the taxpayers would not be wondering whether the Government paid for Miss Sandra Nelson to come to Canberra or whether the Government has covered up, as I think it has, on some of these Balkan extreme Rightwingers. For instance, we receive a list of ISO people who are refused naturalisation. I do not object to the number of people involved but I would be much more satisfied if this number could be broken up into fragments and the Government could say that these people were rejected because they were part of Franco&#39;s Falangist Party in Spain or that someone else had put allegiance to Moscow or Peking first. If this was done, I would be satisfied. But I am not receiving the information that I seek. This is why the general public feels today that there is a certain loaded approach to these matters. </para>
          <para>I am offering to the Government the L.B.J, way. My own Party prefers that oar Security Service operate along the lines of the set-up in Britain. My Party provides for a Minister for Home Security. We would have a Commonwealth Court of Review to have a look at particular cases. Last year, Australia was visited by the Prime Minister of Singapore, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lee</inline> Kuan Yew. Honorable senators will concede that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lee</inline> is a tough administrator. He had a difficult situation in Singapore where there was subversion involving Asian minorities. He still has a tribunal. 1 think honorable senators will agree that I have put a very strong, documented case. I do not believe in making attacks without offering alternatives to the existing situation. </para>
          <para>I know that the age in which we live, with all the new gimmicks in espionage and so on, probably means that costs in this respect are rising. But I do not think that we should let democracy take a holiday. If it was good enough for the Prime Minister to hold a Press conference in a democracy to explain what motivated the Government, in the case of the reluctant cadet, in putting the cards on the table in relation to the boy&#39;s mother, I believe that we members of the Opposition are certainly entitled to know what will actually happen to Lesic and Berkuta. this former S.S. man. Every honorable senator pays tribute to the Departments of Immigration and ils dedicated officers. But 1 do not think it is fair when ineptitude, which apparently emanates from the Prime Minister&#39;s Department through the security service, results in a biased approach as a result of which the Government says: &#34; We will forgive this fellow or cover up for him. This other fellow is a bit radical. Let us lay it on the line and tell everybody what a bad boy he is.&#34; 1 submit very strongly that, if the Prime Minister felt it necessary to hold a Press conference a few days ago, I am entitled to specific answers, which I did not receive 12 months ago and have not received since, in respect of the people to whom I have referred. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1113</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPK</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KENNELLY, Patrick</name>
              <name role="display">Senator KENNELLY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I wish to deal with two matters. First of all, I follow up what <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> has said. There has been an interesting case in Victoria. &#39;1&#39;he <inline font-weight="bold">CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman).</inline> - Order! I take it that the honorable senator is referring to the appropriation for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1114</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KENNELLY, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator KENNELLY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, 1 am. According to the Press, this recent case concerned a man by the name of Cyril Sudholz. He is well known in Victoria. He has fought three or four Federal election campaigns, including a Senate election campaign. 1 understand that he went to China. It seems that officers of the Intelligence Organisation went to have a few words with him. Having known this man for a number of years, I wonder why. He certainly knows something about wheat. He has a rather large farm in the Wimmera - the best wheat land in Victoria. Tt seems to me that these officers have very little to do. They can trace this man&#39;s history back over many years.  His  father before him lived in the district in which he lives. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>If possible, I would like the Minister to give me some information about this episode. Or is the door closed on it? Docs it mean that these officers can go along and question anyone at all? We know what questioning a person means in a country town, lt is like a bushfire. Having known this man for a number of years, all I did when I saw references to this episode in the Press was grin and laugh. But it is more than annoying to the people concerned. This man has taken a very active interest in the affairs of his country. Of course, he could be classed as a person with radical thoughts on banking. He is in the same category as the Government in that he has no qualms about selling wheat to China. I know that members of the Government will say: &#34; That is not us; that is the Australian Wheat Board &#34;. The fact is that this man agrees with the selling of wheat to China. When we hear that a man who is as well known as this man is has been approached by intelligence officers, or whatever they are called- </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1114</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYA</name.id>
                <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
                <party>ALP</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;BYRNE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Security officers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1114</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KENNELLY, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator KENNELLY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am sorry that I gave them that name. If I insulted them in any way, I ask your pardon, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman.</inline> I believe that this is the place in which the facts of such cases should be made known. Why did the security officers go there? On what information did they act? After their investigation, are they satisfied that he is a loyal and true citizen of this country? A certain stigma attaches to any man who is questioned by security officers. Let us hope that we will get to know something about this matter. 1 am not against this country having a security organisation. I believe that we are just as entitled to have one as any other nation is. I believe that Australia has the right to protect itself and its citizens on all occasions. When cases such as this are brought to one&#39;s notice and receive the Press publicity that this case has received, whilst the individual himself may be perfectly happy with his own position, the facts ought to be made known, particularly to the people of his State. As I say, this man was a candidate in the last Senate election. If I remember correctly, he and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline> fought for the last position. That shows that his name is known and that the people of his State will recall it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I pass on to another matter. Not long ago T read in the Press that the Commonwealth was paying more than $500,000 in rent for certain office space in London. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1114</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K28</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RANKIN, Annabelle</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  To which item is the honorable senator referring now? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1114</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KENNELLY, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator KENNELLY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I have here a letter from the Prime Minister&#39;s Department. 1 suppose this matter would come under Division No. 407  -  High Commissioner&#39;s Office - United Kingdom. I took the trouble to write to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Lawler,</inline> who was the Acting Secretary of the Prime Minister&#39;s Department at the time. In the courteous way in which departmental officers handle these matters, he sent me a reply. I asked him to give me the total rent paid for offices in London and the area of office space involved.  His  answer reads as follows - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">The Total Rent Payable and Area Leased. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="032232196610132_89_3.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para class="block">I asked him what departments had space in those premises. He gave me the following answer - </para>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">Canberra House- </para>
            <list type="loweralpha">
              <item label="(i)">
                <para>Upper six floors - </para>
              </item>
            </list>
            <para>Migration Branch of High Commissioner&#39;s Office </para>
            <para>Australian News and Information Bureau </para>
            <para>Australian Atomic Energy Commission </para>
            <para>Civil Aviation </para>
            <para>Customs and Excise </para>
            <para>Postmaster-General&#39;s </para>
            <para>Taxation </para>
            <list type="lowerroman">
              <item label="(ii)">
                <para>Lower four floors - </para>
              </item>
            </list>
            <para>To be sub-let, negotiations are proceeding. 186 The Strand. </para>
            <para>Occupied by Migration Branch of High Commissioner&#39;s Office prior to move to Canberra House. Lease to the Commonwealth &#39;runs&#39; till 1 959. Part has been sub-let and negotiations are proceeding for the sub-letting of the remainder. </para>
            <para class="block">Aldwych. </para>
            <para>Occupied by P.M.G.&#39;s and Civil Aviation prior to move to Canberra House. Lease to the Commonwealth &#39; runs &#39; to 1959. Negotiations for subletting the space are proceeding. </para>
            <para>Africa House. </para>
            <para>Australian Scientific Liaison Office. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>What is the total amount spent in rent each year? I bring this up because we are told particularly at election time, that this is a business Government. According to the Government, nobody knows how to run anything in Parliament except those who are now in power. I totalled the amount paid in rent and found it came to $576,000. That is over half a million dollars. In the normal way, I capitalised that amount and estimated that at 5 per cent per annum it would pay the interest on $11 million. Now. $11 million would build something we could be proud of if we were fortunate enough to go to London. The present Australia House is like a morgue. I am not saying anything about the occupants of the offices because I had great courtesy from them everywhere I went. I did not worry them too much. I have a habit of looking after myself; but when I asked for information I got nothing but courtesy for which I was very grateful. I was proud that these officers were representing Australia. </para>
          <para>But the buildings were an absolute disgrace. Australia House ought to have been pulled down when I saw it, about 1947. We should build something that would raise the status of Australia in London. New Zealand has not the population of my home State of Victoria but it has a very fine building in London and what appealed to me most about it was that the rent they were getting for areas they could not use was paying for the building while they occupied it rent free. If those who comprise this Government were business entrepreneurs as they like to tell us, they would be doing something about a building for Australia in London. According to the Government, very few of us on the Opposition side have any business ability or we never have a chance to show it but at least I know that the Government is wasting money on rents in London. I do not give marks to anybody who is prepared to pay that much in rent each year. </para>
          <para>I cannot recall where Canberra House is but the offices occupied by the Department of Immigration before it shifted were worse than the Motor Registration Branch at the old State Parliament House in Melbourne which was a rabbit warren. The building in London brought no distinction or credit to Australia. The Government should show some of the business acumen its supporters will claim when they go to the people in a few weeks time. They will be telling the people that members of the Opposition could not run anything. That has been said so often over the past 40 or 50 years at election time that at least some people believe it. Because this is a private industry Government, it claims to be alone in business ability. It is the responsibility of the Government to run the affairs of Australia in a businesslike way. The rents it is paying in London are a waste of the nation&#39;s money. </para>
          <para>I told the former High Commissioner in London when <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Robert</inline> Menzies was Prime Minister that Australia House gave me the creeps. I asked why they did not pull it down and build something worthwhile. He began to shudder and talked about architecture and its beauties. It is like a morgue and it looks like a morgue. In this modern age a great many people go to London from Australia and the Government should build something there of which it can be proud instead of handing out this much money in rent. Let us do what our sister dominion has done. Any of its people who go to London must be proud of their building. I mentioned this matter last year and I raise it again because nothing has been done. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1116</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHAIRMAN, The</name>
              <name role="display">The CHAIRMAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Order! The honorable senator&#39;s time has expired. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1116</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>. - I have a good deal of sympathy with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kennelly&#39;s</inline> plea for business like methods on the part of the Government. I would say there is nothing more unbusiness like than the way in which the Prime Minister&#39;s Department distributes the vote for fostering arts and culture in Australia. Under Division No. 400, subdivision 3, Other Services, we find all kinds of bits and pieces. They include historical and other works of art, the Commonwealth Literary Fund, the Queen Elizabeth the Second Fellowship Scheme, acquisition of bust of the late <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Winston</inline> Churchill and several others I would not describe as culture. Then you come to Grants-in-Aid and you would expect that arts and culture would all come under the same roof but here we find the Royal Australian Historical Society, the Social Science Research Council of Australia, the Australian Humanities Research Council, Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust and a host of others. You might think that finishes them but when you turn a couple of pages you find more grants at page 71 and page 74. It seems to me that scattered all over the estimates for the Prime Minister&#39;s Department are bits and pieces of cultural, educational and artistic organisations. It is untidy and unbusiness like. I should like to see all these things put under one heading. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>It is well known that there is intense dissatisfaction among people associated with the arts in Australia about what is happening. It is quite clear that if you want to get a good contribution the first thing to do is to nobble somebody in high places and make him a patron. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1116</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mulvihill</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Show it to <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Coombs.</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1116</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUD</name.id>
                <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>- Unlike <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Byrne</inline> today, I am not mentioning any names. But I direct attention to the Elizabethan Theatre Trust which has a patron in a very high place and gets, not only most of the milk, but also most of the cream. Last year it got $320,000. This year, accord ing to the estimates, it is to get $600,000, despite the fact that there have been continual complaints from all kinds of artistic bodies, which say that what a body gets seems to depend upon what influence it has, and which complain that under the Eliza.bethen Theatre Trust certain types of art are being more than well looked after while other forms of art are being completely neglected. There were very stern and severe complaints about this matter at the Australian Citizenship Convention when we were talking about culture in Australia and the representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission joined with others in saying that it was high time we had an arts council or some such kind of organisation which would undertake the distribution of the largesse and which would not give it on the basis that a member in a particular area thought it might help him if a hundred quid was given to the local school of arts, or on the basis that one had to give this particular group a lot because it had somebody in a high place on the executive and had made him a patron. I am sure that every honorable senator has correspondence from cultural and art organisations saying that they are tired of the system whereby there is no co-ordinated attempt to assist the arts in this country, and it seems to be a matter of hit or miss as to who gets the money and who does not. I hope, therefore, that the new Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Harold Holt)</inline> will proceed to set up an arts council which can deal with this matter in the proper way. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I now want to turn to a section which interests me - travel. It interests me because I have been in this Parliament for seven and a half years and one is unique if he has been in this Parliament for seven and a half years and has not had a trip abroad. I make no complaint. I suppose if I had pushed and fought and struggled enough on one of the parliamentary organisations I might have got there. What I want to refer to are those trips that are not associated with parliamentary organisations, but what appear to be outside trips, the ordinary trips that are scattered, about among members. I make no complaint. We are told that it is necessary for them to know what is going on abroad in order to make a contribution to parliamentary discussions. I presume that it would help the members of our Party if we were given the opportunity to make a contribution to parliamentary discussions from experience, but we are never asked. </para>
          <para>When we began this term, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gair</inline> and 1 approached the Prime Minister&#39;s Department and pointed out that we frequently heard from people in the other parties that this was to be done or that was to be done. They had received letters about things that were proposed to be done and we had not received letters. A request was made that if letters were to be sent informing the different parties of certain governmental decisions we receive a letter too. But during the last recess I read about members going here and members going there, members criss-crossing this continent, and members criss-crossing that continent. I am not complaining about the parliamentary associations. I regard them as quite legitimate. What I am complaining about are those other trips which appear to depend upon the will of the Government, to which we are not invited and about which we do not even receive any information. I make a request to the Prime Minister to let us know whether these trips are to be held. Even if we are not to be invited it would be nice for us to know that they are on. 1 am interested also to see that a number of people who go on these trips are not now members of the Parliament. Whilst that is happening, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gair</inline> and myself are completely ignored. \ make the request: That if communications are being sent from the Prime Minister to the representatives of the different parties, they be sent to the Democratic Labour Party. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1117</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cavanagh</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Who is away who is nol a member? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1117</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUD</name.id>
                <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>- There have been instances where such people were away. I do nol want to mention their names again. I think the honorable senator knows that persons have been away at a time when they had ceased to be members. 1 would appreciate it also if we got information in regard to some of the committees. I point out that a number of committees make conditions affecting members and we have not a representative on them. Apparently the other parties hear what is happening and we do not. I should like to be supplied, therefore, with the minutes of the committees, if we cannot be given a representative on them, so that we will know what is going on and not learn what is happening from heresay round about the House. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I do not suppose there is any security service in the world that does not at times receive criticism, but I agree with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kennelly</inline> that we must have a security service. It was instituted in this country by a man at whom nobody could point a finger. The late <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chifley</inline> instituted the Security Service. The allegations and suggestions that all kinds of people are being accused interest me, because I was accused in connection with the Security Service, but in another way. In 1955, when certain people took action which resulted in splitting the Australian Labour Party, 1 read that the former leader of the Labour Party had made a statement in the Press that I had, in association with  Colonel Spry  - he is now Brigadier Spry - concocted the Petrov plot. At that time I had never met Petrov and I had never met  Colonel Spry  and I would not have known either of them. But that did not prevent the then Leader of the Party from making the allegation, and repeating it in every newspaper in Australia, that I had concocted this plot with two men whom 1 had never seen in my life. So if at times the Security Service may, in the opinion of some members, err, it is also obvious that the security section is at times the victim of unfounded allegations. </para>
          <para>I know <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Sudholz</inline> and nobody is less of a Communist than he is. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Sudholz</inline> is a very good and reputable Australian. But when I read that he had been interviewed four times, what I said to myself was this: All that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Sudholz</inline> had to say to them was, &#34; Please leave &#34;. Nobody has to be interviewed by members of the Security Service. If anyone does not want to talk to them, he tells them to leave. One came to see me in the days when I was an official of the Labour Party. I informed him that I did not want to talk to him and I requested him to leave, and he did very courteously. I think that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Sudholz</inline> is a very good Australian without a single tittle of Communism in him. He is a good, solid Labour man, but I think he may have brought some of the trouble on himself by listening and talking to these people when he had no necessity to do so. </para>
          <para>There is only one other matter. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> and I occasionally have friendly discussions on the question of the Serbs and the Croats. He sometimes, I think, suggests that while he may be on the side of the Serbs I may be on the side of the Croats. Let me say that I have no favouritism or antagonism towards any racial group. I have friends among the Serbs and friends among the Croats. I do think that the Croats get a lot of bad publicity undeservedly, because the great majority of them are good people, in the same way as the great majority of the Serbs are good people, and the trouble is caused by a small minority group, lt is unfair to blame a whole nation for what a small section might do. To indicate what does happen, however, I point out that a year or two ago some young Croats went back to their homeland, apparently with the aspiration to raise an attack on the government. They were caught as soon as they got over the frontier. Some people have suggested that agents provacateur who were planted in Australia deliberately inspired these young fellows to take this action. What interests me is that a gentleman named Platz, who was a member of the Australian Labour Party in Victoria, announced in a document which I saw- </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1118</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KENNELLY, Patrick</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Kennelly</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Oh. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1118</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUD</name.id>
                <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>- He is a Labour councillor in Fitzroy. This gentleman went over to Yugoslavia. He must be well in, because he said in an official A.L.P. paper that he was allowed to examine the files of the Yugoslav secret police. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1118</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6R</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COHEN, Samuel</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cohen</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Where did the honorable senator see this? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1118</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUD</name.id>
                <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>- In a report to the New Australian Council. In that report he. was able to say that, as a result of his investigation of the files of the Yugoslav secret police, these young fellows had been trained in terrorism and bombing in my office. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1118</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KAW</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The</name>
              <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wedgwood</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Order! The honorable senator&#39;s time has expired. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1118</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K28</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Housing</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">RANKIN, Annabelle</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>&#91;10.42&#93;.  - <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> referred to Division No. 433  -  Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. All I can say to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> is what has been stated in this place previously; I cannot give him any information on this matter. Many of my colleagues know that, under both Labour and anti-Labour Governments, it has been the practice to adopt that attitude. I shall make a note of his comments about questions on the notice paper. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kennelly</inline>referred to Australia House. The honorable senator might be interested in a reply that was given by the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Harold Holt)</inline> yesterday. I think. He said that the office space available in Australia House is insufficient to accommodate all Australian Government staff in London and that it has been necessary to lease Canberra House to accommodate the overflow. Australia House is now almost half a century old and major remodelling Would be needed to bring the office space up to modern standards. In these circumstances, the  Government has judged it prudent to set up a committee of senior officials to review the position and report back to the Government on the approach it considers the Commonwealth might follow to make satisfactory provision for its future accommodation needs in London. The committee&#39;s investigations are purely exploratory. Any action considered to be necessary will be a matter for decision by the Government in power when the committee makes its report. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline>referred to a variety of matters. He directed attention to a variety of grants that are made to assist worthwhile organisations. He commented on what the Government was doing or. to use his words, was not doing in supporting the arts. I inform the honorable senator that I believe the Government is reviewing its policy for supporting the arts. The honorablesenator referred also to the Elizabethan Theatre Trust. It has submitted to the Government proposals for an inquiry into the future roles of both the Commonwealth and the Trust in aiding the performing arts. The Commonwealth is receiving proposals for a Commonwealth inquiry into all the arts. No decision has been announced as to whether an inquiry will be held. To continue its activities in the interim, and to meet rising costs, the Trust estimates that it will need a Commonwealth grant this year of $600,000, which represents an increase of $80,000 on the amount that was agreed for 1965-66. A proposal to establish a Trust orchestra from the beginning of 1967, involving an additional sum of $80,000, is to be examined. So also is the possibility of the Commonwealth giving to the Trust a guarantee against losses of up to $150,000 on Australian ballet participation in Expo 67 and a possible extended tour in Pacific and Asian areas. No decision has yet been announced on either of those possible commitments. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline>said that his Party should be informed of trips that were being arranged and also committees that were formed to deal with matters that were of interest to honorable senators. 1 shall be pleased to note his comments and to pass them on. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1119</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JQQ</name.id>
              <electorate>Victoria</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CORMACK, Magnus</name>
              <name role="display">Senator CORMACK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - 1 relate my remarks to Division No. 400 - Administrative, which has been referred to by other honorable senators. I leave with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Kennelly</inline> the remarkable and rather deep analysis that he has made of Australia House. I want to let that subject alone on this occasion. I must say at the beginning of my speech that I absolve the Minister for Housing <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin),</inline> who is representing the Prime Minister at the moment, from making any comment on any matter that I propose to raise hereafter. In Washington last year 1 was sitting in the Mellon Art Gallery. I was sitting on a marble slab. I began mentally to reminisce about the characteristic connection that seems to exist between art and the bankers. My mind turned at first to Lorenzo the Magnificent, the great banker of Florence, who spearheaded the development of renaissance art. Historians might say, of course, that, having occupied the seal of exchange, the Medici were exploiters. They may have been the progenitors of Karl Marx; I do not know. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>We come back to the Mellon Art Gallery where I was sitting and which was established by Andrew Mellon, the great American banker. In that art gallery you see the results of the rape of the world&#39;s art. Here in Australia in the middle of the twentieth century we have advanced to a quite different posture, which the traditional banker seems to accept. I was interested in <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus&#39;s</inline> allusions to banking and art in Australia. May I make the single comment that the taste of the modern Medici in Australia does not appeal to me in any way. I must say that a picture of Ned Kelly, not in perspective, standing on a piece of sand with a piece of armour plate over his nose and with a dying Victorian constable lying stretched out beside a shear log, does not mean a thing to me. But apparently that is the epitome of the Australian artistic outlook that is favoured by our present Medici. </para>
          <para>I turn now to the provision for a contribution of $61,500 to the Commonwealth Secretariat. Two years ago there crept into a statement made in this Parliament by the then Prime Minister an allusion to the establishment of a Commonwealth Secretariat in London. As a result of the lobbying of the new members of the British Commonwealth of Nations a <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Arnold</inline> Smith was selected to become the master of this new organisation. It appeared in the newspapers that he was present at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting in Montreal. I do not have the faintest idea by what right he appeared there. He has aggrandised himself by taking the title of &#34;  Excellency  &#34;. He has managed in a very partisan spirit to absorb a great number of echelons in London under his own control. 1 make (his prophecy: Within a very few years <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Arnold</inline> Smith of the Commonwealth Secretariat will have organised one of the greatest pressure groups to put the squeeze on Australia that one could ever possibly imagine. </para>
          <para>I think it is worthwhile for the Senate even at this late hour to ponder on the word &#34; commonwealth &#34;. What does it mean? As I see it, from its ancient derivations it means the common weal. Does a common weal exist in relation to the amorphous mass of nations which is alleged to be the Commonwealth of Nations? In the last 18 months two peoples of nations supposedly interested in the common weal - Pakistan and India - have been fighting a bloody war. In the last 18 months President Nyerere has said that he no longer belongs to the Commonwealth of Nations. He invoked the aid of the United Kingdom to send a battalion of troops by air from Aden in order to protect him from citizens whom he alleges he represents as President of the African nation to which they belong. 1 have sat in the United Nations and have seen the Indian delegate, who in the common parlance is described as &#34; the distinguished delegate from India &#34;, standing at the podium in the General Assembly  and  blackguarding the United Kingdom because it had arrested three or four terrorists who had bombed and murdered half a dozen people in Aden, notwithstanding that the United Kingdom had promised - and will honour its promise as it. always has done - to allow Aden to move out and become an independent entity in 1.968. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1120</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mulvihill</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  ls not Ian Smith also blackguarding the British Government? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1120</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CORMACK, Magnus</name>
                <name role="display">Senator CORMACK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  If the honorable senator wishes me to deal with Rhodesia, I will do so in a moment. At present 1 am describing the speech of the Indian delegate standing on the podium at the United Nations General Assembly and blackguarding the United Kingdom because it had arrested three or four terrorists in Aden, notwithstanding that the United Kingdom has said that Aden will get its independence in 1968. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>In the last two or three months the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Harold Holt)</inline> has visited London to attend a conference of the members of this Commonwealth of Nations, which seems to have no interest in the common weal. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1120</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JYA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">O&#39;BYRNE, Justin</name>
                <name role="display">Senator O&#39;Byrne</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He is the big wheel of the common weal. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1120</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CORMACK, Magnus</name>
                <name role="display">Senator CORMACK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator O&#39;Byrne</inline> is entitled to an Irish pun whenever he likes to express one. At the conference an agenda had been made out, but six days were taken up with a discussion on Rhodesia. On his return to Australia the Prime Minister said: &#34; This is quite something that I. do not understand. We were held up before the meeting. It did not take place at the scheduled time because the African nations were having a caucus.&#34; He seemed surprised about it, but anyone who has represented this Parliament as an observer at the United Nations will understand quite readily that this is the normal procedure of the new nations - and particularly the African nations - inside the United Nations. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>In common with many other delegates from other parts of the world I have been through the experience of waiting for one and a half hours outside the fourth committee assembly room while the African nations took over possession of it. The doors were locked while that caucus made up its mind as to what its members would do and what their attitude would be in relation to the agenda which the other nations of the world were supposed to discuss inside the assembly room. At the last Prime Ministers&#39; Conference in London the same thing went on. </para>
          <para>I hope honorable senators will permit me to analyse this situation. The new nations in the Commonwealth of Nations are attempting to use the Commonwealth of Nations, not for the common weal, but for their own interest. I suggest to honorable senators that the whole of six days was taken up at the Prime Minister&#39;s Conference in London as an exercise in order to manoeuvre first the United Kingdom, then Australia, and perhaps New Zealand - Canada is always anonymous - into a situation which would suit the African nations in relation to the problem of Rhodesia, to which <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Mulvihill</inline> referred in an interjection. </para>
          <para>At the London Conference, there was no obvious intent to attempt to solve the problem of Rhodesia on the basis of a rational discussion between people who have a rational understanding and a rational acknowledgment of the common purpose which is the common weal. The whole of the London Conference was used for no other reason than to set up a means by which a group of about 40 nations could exercise pressure in the United Nations in relation to a specific problem. I suggest that we have reached a situation where it becomes important for the Parliament to consider where we are going in the United Nations. </para>
          <para>Because it is ancillary to the argument I am putting at the moment, I suggest that it is important to look at where we are going in relation to such a group that intimately touches Parliament as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. My first experience of the caucus system to which I have referred came when I represented this Parliament with another honorable senator under the wise guidance of the  President  of the Senate <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator the Honorable Sir Alister McMulIin).</inline> That was in Kuala Lumpur two years ago. We discovered that the African members of the Commonwealth of Nations had held a caucus meeting in Kenya before they got to Kuala Lumpur. </para>
          <para>Let me refer to this word &#34; commonwealth &#34; which I separate into two words - common weal. What exists that is common between these disparate nations, both in race and colour, and in ethos and wealth? What is the connecting link? lt may be said that the connecting link is allegiance to the Throne, but there is little allegiance to the Throne. Only four nations in the Commonwealth of Nations pay allegiance to the Crown as the unifying link which should exist between nations. By a process of analysis, through which I do not have time lo go at present step by step, we are reduced to the situation where the Commonwealth of Nations has now become a matter of convenience by which other nations can extract from the Commonwealth of Nations solutions which they consider are necessary and proper. </para>
          <para>Therefore I refer to the appropriation for the Commonwealth Secretariat in the estimates for the Prime Minister&#39;s Department and say that there seem to be indications - let me say this with the greatest possible care that 1 can command, because I feel very strongly on this matter, belonging to a generation with a much simpler and, I believe, a nobler concept of the common weal - that there is no interest in the common weal. There tends to be an exploited system. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1121</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- There is interest on this side of the chamber. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1121</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CORMACK, Magnus</name>
                <name role="display">Senator CORMACK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What is the common weal, senator? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1121</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JZU</name.id>
                <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>- Humanity - brotherhood. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1121</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CORMACK, Magnus</name>
                <name role="display">Senator CORMACK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- 1 am interested in brotherhood. I love my brother. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1121</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K6F</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Cavanagh</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If he is while. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1121</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JQQ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CORMACK, Magnus</name>
                <name role="display">Senator CORMACK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Cavanagh is attempting to put words into my mouth. I believe that there is a brotherhood of people who have a like understanding and a like acknowledgment of truth, law, justice and the common destinies of mankind. I am suggesting that the nations I. have been describing acknowledge none of those five simple elementary qualities that are necessary for the maintenance of the common weal. Therefore, I express my sadness and my sorrow that we are moving into world patterns in which racialism is non-existent among the Europeans. Certainly there is no racial malice and animus in this country. The drive and the dynamic of a large part of the United Nations Organisation and a large part of the Commonwealth of Nations are racist, but the racialism is not here. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1121</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KTA</name.id>
              <electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Douglas</name>
              <name role="display">Senator MCCLELLAND</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - In relation to the estimates for the Prime Minister&#39;s Department I wish to refer to Division No. 400, subdivision 4 - Grants in Aid, and particularly to item 09 which relates to the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust. I think that the Minister, when replying to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus,</inline> said that the Trust has now submitted to the Government a proposal for some sort of inquiry to be conducted by the Trust on the one hand and the Government on the other for the purpose of considering the aid that can be given to the arts. The Minister went on to say that no decision had yet been announced as to whether such an inquiry would be held. I think she also said that the Trust estimated that it would need in this financial year a grant of more than $600,000, representing an increase of $280,000. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1121</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K28</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">RANKIN, Annabelle</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- An increase of $80,000. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1121</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Douglas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MCCLELLAND</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If the Minister turns to the estimates I think she will find that the appropriation last year was S320.000 and the expenditure was $320,000, while this year the proposed expenditure is $600,000. According to my mathematics, this means that there has been an increase of $280,000, not $80,000. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The grants to other organisations which receive grants in aid remain static, and for this reason I think that great weight is lent to the argument advanced by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus,</inline> that this appears to be a case of not what you know but whom you know. If we compare the grants received by the Trust with the grants awarded to other artistic bodies which receive subsidies from the Commonwealth, we see that there seems to be something of a most favoured nation treatment accorded to the Trust. </para>
          <para>Two years ago when the estimates for the Prime Minister&#39;s Department were being discussed 1 referred to the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust and suggested at that time that the Government could well have a look at its activities, including its successes and its failures. The Trust was established about 12 years ago. At that time its purpose was stated to be the presentation of the theatrical arts to the Australian community, the encouragement of patronage of the arts, and the creation of an image of Australia through the portrayal of the arts. Frankly, I think the question should be posed: Has the Elizabethan Theatre Trust succeeded in accomplishing this task? Not so long ago the work of the Trust was referred to in an issue of the &#34; Current Affairs Bulletin &#34; published by the Department of Tutorial Classes at the University of Sydney. In that publication it was pointed out that the expenditure involved in maintaining the Trust had to be watched with some particularity. Yet we find that notwithstanding all these things that have been said about the Trust, not only in this Parliament but also outside, there is an increase of $280,000 in the proposed grant for this financial year. </para>
          <para>Two years ago I pointed out that the Director of Adult Education in Victoria had stated that the large subsidy, which at that time was $400,000 each financial year, only seemed to encourage the Trust into increasingly lavish expenditure in the face of indifference on the part of the general public. Therefore, 1 think it is fair to ask: What, if any, are the terms and conditions imposed on the subsidies granted during the decade or so that the Trust has been in existence? What terms and conditions are imposed in relation to the $600,000 allocated for the Trust in this financial year? Does the Government think that the Australian community, the ordinary wage and salary earners generally, are receiving value from this expenditure, and does the Government feel that the Trust in fact is achieving the task of bringing patronage of the arts to the Australian community? </para>
          <para>As <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline> pointed out, a number of organisations receive subsidies from the Commonwealth, as set out in Division No. 400, subdivision 4, which deals with grants in aid. I notice that amounts also are paid to other organisations under subdivision 3 - Other Services, item 03 of subdivision 3 relates to the Commonwealth Literary Fund. In that respect the proposed expenditure of $66,000 this year is exactly the same as were the appropriation and the expenditure last year. The niggardly sum  -  I use the term advisedly - of $66,000 has been provided for this purpose. Under subdivision 4 I note that item 01 relates to the Australian Academy of Science. The proposed grant this year is $88,000. The appropriation last year was $88,000 and that also was the expenditure last year. For the Social Science Research Council of Australia the proposed grant is $16,000, as it was last year. For the Royal Australian Historical Society the proposed grant is $1,000, as it was last year. I could go on in similar vein. </para>
          <para>Apart from the grant to the Australian Humanities Research Council, the amounts to be appropriated this year for these worthwhile bodies are exactly the same as they were last year. When we consider that fact in relation to the fact that the grant to the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust is to be increased this year by $280,000. I think it is reasonable to expect the Minister to give a more detailed and a more explicit explanation of the increase. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1122</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K8Y</name.id>
                <electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
                <party>IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Reginald</name>
                <name role="display">Senator TURNBULL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  In the light of the Asian pageant, too. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1122</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Douglas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator MCCLELLAND</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We could speak of other things, but my concern at the moment is for the sorry plight of the Australian author. I think that every member of this Parliament has had his attention directed in recent times to the state of the Commonwealth Literary Fund. In this respect I refer to Division No. 400, subdivision 3, item 03. Recently <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Donald</inline> McLean, the  Chairman  of the Management Committee of the Australian Society of Authors, and Miss Jill Hellyer, the Secretary of the Society, wrote to all members of the Parliament setting out a case for an urgent inquiry into the state of letters and the arts in Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>They pointed out that a considerable proportion of the annual budget of $66,000 goes to literary pensions. They stated that the fact that the Commonwealth Literary Fund has to turn down proposals which it grants in the following year shows that its funds to support the writing of books are completely inadequate. They pointed out also that the policy of the fund of guaranteeing authors of the less paying types of books, such as books of poetry as opposed to novels, has resulted in reduced opportunities since publishers are now unwilling to publish unless the writer gets a guarantee. In the letter the writers pointed to the great and overwhelming difference between the niggardly treatment of Australian authors by the Commonwealth Literary Fund and the arrangements existing in Great Britain, Canada, France, Holland, Sweden and many other countries. </para>
          <para>Frankly, I believe that the way to establish a national culture is by proper encouragement of professional authors and poets. Australia is being badly left behind in this regard. It is time that Australia got on the march and did something to encourage its writers, who can create and publish abroad a national Australian image. The present system -of patronising the organisations to which I have referred certainly is a piecemeal and higgledy-piggledy one. It is frustrating the efforts of those who could put Australia on the world literary map. </para>
          <para>To say the least, the present system is just not good enough. Therefore, on behalf of all artists I make a plea that the Commonwealth institute a general inquiry into the plight of people to see whether more assistance, over and above the assistance that is made available to them- now, could be given. As 1 have said, the present arrangement is just not good enough. There certainly is an urgent need for an inquiry into the state of arts and letters in Australia. I particularly draw the Minister&#39;s attention to the large increase in the appropriation made available to the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust. I ask the Minister to specifically answer the questions that 1 have posed in that regard. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1123</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K6F</name.id>
              <electorate>South Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CAVANAGH, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator CAVANAGH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I. rise to say a few words about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, which has been referred to by three previous speakers. I recognise the importance and the unusual features of this Organisation. I am mindful of the Minister&#39;s statement that the operations of the Organisation are strictly secret and that nothing can be told about it. But when its operations are secret, we do not know whether it is doing the job for which it was established. We have heard suggestions that it is wasting its time in interviewing a farmer in Victoria. This year the appropriation for the Organisation is approximately $500,000 greater than last year&#39;s appropriation. I think we should be told whether this increased sum is required to meet the costs of increased security for this country, or whether the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is becoming more costly. 1 would like to know at least some of the reasons for the increased appropriation. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Secrecy in security operations is important. We cannot tell everyone what our Security Service is doing. We have sacrificed much because of the need to have this Organisation. Individual rights and freedoms have been sacrificed in the interests of security. We have given a group of people the right to inquire into individuals&#39; lives. We have given them the right to tap private telephones. The Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Snedden),</inline> in reply to a question by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wheeldon</inline> concerning the tapping of telephones of members of Parliament, said -   . . I will not either by confirmation or denial disclose what action has or has not been authorised under the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act. </para>
          <para class="block">Everybody is aware that there is a need for  the  Security Service, and we have given it the right to inquire into the private lives of individuals. But before we surrendered our individual freedoms a guarantee was given that the Organisation&#39;s job was to inquire only into anything that might be a threat to our security or our system of government. We cannot find out whether the Organisation is doing only that, because  its  operations are secret. </para>
          <para>During the course of this debate honorable senators have asked whether some Croats or Serb&#39;s came to Australia &#39; who should not have come here, and whether they are S.S. men. If this is so, it could be an indication that the Organisation is not carrying out its job. But we do not know. The security people might have known the history and the character of these individuals before they came to Australia, or, having discovered that, it might have reported the matter to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister might have acted against security interests by permitting such individuals to come to and remain in Australia. There could he condemnation either of the Organisation for not doing its job or of the Prime Minister for not carrying out the duties that he should carry out for the security of Australia. </para>
          <para>When we surrendered our individual freedom and gave the Organisation the right to lap telephones, it was stated that the Organisation was responsible only to the Prime Minister and that what it discovered was not to become public property. Lord help us if what the Organisation might find out about the intimate lives of some of the people it inquired into were made public. The Prime Minister was to hold this information in trust. If it was discovered that the actions of any individual constituted a risk, to the nation&#39;s security, action was to be taken against the individual, lt was considered that at that stage the Prime Minister would be justified in disclosing the evidence that had been gathered by the Organisation in ils endeavours to pro;ect the security of the nation or of our way of government. The security information was not to be used for any other purpose. The Security Service was not to be used to tick tack on the private lives of citizens. Information gathered by it was to be used only when some action was to be taken against an individual who was a threat to the nation&#39;s security. </para>
          <para>I turn to the case of a 15 year old cadet whose actions were not a breach of any Government decision but a breach of certain school regulations. They were not a threat to Australia&#39;s security. The cadet expressed opposition to a particular government&#39;s policy. That was all the lad did. The security file was produced for no other reason than to discredit someone who opposed government policy. There was never any question of our security being so threatened as to justify the use of the security file. An answer to a question asked in another place yesterday showed that apparently four Liberal Party members of the Parliament belong to the same organisation as does the mother of this lad. But there is no suggestion that they are a threat to the nation&#39;s security. The action taken in this case brings into disrespect an organisation that was set up, at the sacrifice of individual freedom, to protect the security of the nation. </para>
          <para>We should hesitate before we vote extra money to an organisation that carries out private investigations for the purpose of holding up to ridicule or contempt those who oppose the policy of (his Government. The production of a security file for the purpose of condemning someone opposed to Government policy when security was not in question is one of the most despicable acts that could ever take place in the Parliament of this Commonwealth. We should not tolerate the use of security files for such a purpose. A person, no matter what his status is, who does such a thing must forfeit any right that he has to control such a service. I make a submission to the Government in this way. We agree that Australia should have a security organisation. But we should see that this organisation works for the security of Australia and not for the purpose of finding out information about all those who oppose Government policy. </para>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Dame</inline>ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) &#91;10.21&#93;.  -  I wish to reply to a query raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McClelland.</inline> The information that I have might assist him on his point in relation to the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust. The Commonwealth agreed to pay the Trust a grant of $400,000 per annum for five years from 1963-64. In last year&#39;s estimates, an amount of $200,000 was originally provided because of advance payments of the 1965-66 grant made to the Trust in the previous year. Because of the mounting financial difficulties, the Commonwealth and the Trust then agreed that the Trust should revise its plans for future development and, in the meantime, consolidate its activities at a level within its current resources. For the approved interim programme, however, rising costs in 1965- 66 increased the need for Commonwealth aid to $320,000 for the year and this the Commonwealth agreed to provide. The approved annual rate of Commonwealth grant in 1965-66 was thus $520,000. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McClelland</inline> also mentioned a review of the Arts. I thought that I had said earlier, in reply to another honorable senator, that the Government is reviewing its policy of support to the Arts.. I presume that such a review would indeed cover all the Arts. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1124</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>.- 1 am very concerned about the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust. We have just heard the Minister for Housing <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin)</inline> speak in regard to this appropriation which has risen from $320,000 in 1965-66 to $600,000 this financial year. She mentioned that the Trust was asked to reorganise itself and to keep its expenditure within a certain range. I am concerned with the operations of the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, lt is supposed to carry the theatre to, and provide live entertainment for, people throughout Australia, not just people in the capital cities. The Trust should go out on to the highways and byways of the countryside. I think it can be said of the Trust that it has not been successful as far as the job that it has done in this regard is concerned. In view of this, the generous way in which the Government treats the Trust amazes me. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Expenditure has taken place that I feel should not have taken place. The basic conception of the Trust was to provide entertainment for our own people. But what do we find? The Trust has undertaken certain overseas ventures. It sent the Australian Ballet Company overseas. It has sent a similar organisation overseas. The Tintookies are to go overseas and, I believe, some support although not complete support is being given by the Trust to this venture. These theatrical attractions are being sent overseas, yet we find that losses are being incurred in the presentation of these attractions to the art or theatre world in other centres. The original conception of the Trust was that it would provide threatre for the Australian people. Why should we extend our boundaries, as it were, to people overseas when Australians in outlying areas do not get a fair deal as far as the Trust is concerned? </para>
          <para>For some reason or other the Trust receives very favorable treatment from the Government in comparison with other organisations which are trying to provide a service to people in outlying centres. Such organisations include the Arts Council of Australia. I am associated with this organisation. It is doing a good job in taking theatre to the outlying centres of this country. If it was not for the part played by the Arts Council of Australia in my own State of Queensland,  1  do not know what the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust would do in many respects there. The co-operation of the Arts Council has enabled the Trust to carry out a lot of its work in Queensland. But the Arts Council is run on a shoestring budget. Its subsidies come mostly from State Governments. I believe that the subsidy to the Arts Council in Queensland is approximately  $5,000  per annum. That figure may be varied this year but the subsidy to the Arts Council in Queensland is approximately that amount. The subsidy provided by the Commonwealth Government to the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust is astronomical in comparison with the subsidy paid to an organisation such as the <inline font-style="italic">Arts</inline> Council of Australia. For some reason, the Commonwealth Government will not give a penny towards the cost of the work carried out by the Arts Council. </para>
          <para>I believe - and  1  am sure that the average Australian will agree with me - that plenty of room exists for the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust to take the theatre and the Arts to the Australian people. If it did so, the Trust would build up theatre conscious people in the community. This is preferable to the excursions overseas on which money that could be better spent in providing theatre to the Australian people is lost. I do not know whether the Commonwealth Government through one of its instrumentalities has made any thorough examination of the workings and expenditure of the Trust. Certainly, to my way of thinking, the Trust needs <inline font-style="italic">to</inline> be <inline font-style="italic">gone</inline> through with a very fine toothcomb. If the Trust is guilty of extravagance in certain directions, or is spending money in the wrong directions instead of building up the appreciation of our own people for theatre and providing them with the entertainment to which they are entitled, I think the Commonwealth Government should take a strong stand in the matter because the Trust is receiving an excellent contribution from the Commonwealth.  1  do not cavil about this. I would not care if the contribution was larger provided the Trust was giving a service to the people not only in our capital cities but also in our outlying areas. I do not believe that this is the case. The Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, to a very large extent, has failed in relation to the grand conception from which it originated. The Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Harold Holt)</inline> should see that close scrutiny is given to the work of the Trust. The Trust should be reminded that its job is to cater for the Australian public first. In years to come, if it can afford excursions overseas and wants to undertake them, the Trust can extend its activities outside this country. </para>
          <para>The other matter on which 1 wish to speak is the Universal and International Exhibition to be held in Montreal in 1967. </para>
          <para class="block">Last year, the expenditure regarding this item was $295,599. This year, the vote is $2,173,000. This means that the total expenditure in this regard for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 will total nearly $2.5 million. 1 appreciate that participation in such a big exhibition is considered to bring some prestige to a country. But from the point of view of the Committee, we have to consider what value we will get out of our participation in this exhibition. The vote this year is a huge contribution. When we think of other expenditure on the promotion of the export trade and our tourist industry, this is a large appropriation. </para>
          <para>My own opinion on this matter is that this amount of money spent in other directions might well bring to Australia a great deal more revenue and lead to the dissemination of more information about Australia than will be accomplished by participation in this exposition in Montreal next year. If the amount of money involved is any guide the exhibition must bc on quite a grand scale. I know that the exhibiting countries try to compete with each other. They try to outdo one another and more and more money is spent on these endeavours. If the Government is prepared to spend money to advertise Australia, this money should be spent in a way that will give us the best return. 1 feci that the amount of money to be spent on this particular exposition will not give us the return that we could obtain otherwise. The Government must keep a check on this sort of thing. </para>
          <para>Consideration interrupted. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1126</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CHAIRMAN, The</name>
                <name role="display">The CHAIRMAN</name>
              </talker>
              <para>
                <inline font-weight="bold">-(Senator DrakeBrockman).</inline>- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question - </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Tiwi the  Chairman  do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate. </para>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. (The  Chairman  having reported accordingly) - </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>1126</page.no>
        <type>adjournment</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Television - Housing</title>
          <page.no>1126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMulIin).</inline> - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question - </para>
        <para>Thai the Senate do now adjourn. </para>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Senator CANT</inline>(Western Australia) &#91;I ! .30J. - I am loath to keep the Senate for very long on a Thursday night after we have sat late each night of the week. But my attention has been drawn to a leading article in the scurrilous publication known as the &#34; West Australian &#34; - the leading newspaper in Western Australia - which is critical of members of this Parliament, particularly members of the Senate, for what it terms the lack of action in support of television services for country areas. I say at once that I am completely in favour of television being provided at Geraldton and Kalgoorlie in Western Australia. But I am not in favour of and I will not support television stations being established at Geraldton and Kalgoorlie by TVW7. No pressure that the &#34; West Australian &#34; can apply or threats that it can publish, as it has published in this leading article, will induce me lo think otherwise. </para>
        <para>West Australian Newspapers Ltd. owns and controls the morning newspaper, the &#34; West Australian &#34;, which is the substantial newspaper in the State, lt also owns ind controls the afternoon newspaper, the </para>
        <para>Daily News &#34;. It owns and controls TVW7. the chief commercial television station in the State. There is another commercial television station at Bunbury. A group of six country newspaper interests was granted a licence to operate that station. And what did West Australian Newspapers Ltd. do? It bought a controlling interest in three of those six country newspapers. If it. is granted licences to operate television stations at Geraldton and Kalgoorlie, it will have almost a complete monopoly of the media of public information in the State. </para>
        <para>I am opposed to monopolies at any time. I am particularly opposed to monopolies that tend to brainwash the people as the &#34; West Australian &#34; newspaper does. It never prints the truth at any time at all. All it does is manufacture news and then try to bring pressure on members of Parliament to support policies that it wants. One can get a byline in the &#34; West Australian &#34; newspaper only if one is plugging something that West Australian Newspapers Ltd. wants. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1126</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2I</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator Branson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Such as the Ord River project. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1126</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>- Yes. If one plugs that, the &#34; West Australian &#34; will give one  a  byline. It is the most scurrilous rag in Australia. It is time the Government had a look at this monopoly of the media of public information because today the people of Western Australia are being brainwashed much more than the people of Germany were ever brainwashed under Hitler. This is one matter at which the Government should bc having a look. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1127</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KVK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MULVIHILL, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Mulvihill</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Who is its editor? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1127</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3W</name.id>
                <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>- A man by the name of Macartney. I have no love for him. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1127</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KTA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Douglas</name>
                <name role="display">Senator McClelland</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He is a good golfer. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1127</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K3W</name.id>
                <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>- He is a pretty good liar if he publishes in his newspaper that West Australian members and senators can only blame themselves if the electors turn on them because they will not support TVW7 having control of all the commercial television stations in Western Australia. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I object very strongly to what West Australian Newspapers Ltd. does. It has representatives of its newspapers here in this building, but all they do is read the eastern States newspapers and publish what they read as &#34; Comments from Canberra &#34;. They have not the energy to be in the chamber to listen to the debates and to see what goes on. They do not know how Western Australian senators and members represent Western Australians. Yet they have the effrontery to publish statements that are critical of the work that is being&#39; done by. senators. 1 will not support at any time the granting of any further licences to TVW7. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1127</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K2I</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
              <name role="display">Senator BRANSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I wish to speak on the same subject as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cant.</inline> It is very interest-&#39; ing to hear him speak. Obviously, he subscribes to the age old principle that the best form of defence is attack. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1127</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KSN</name.id>
                <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>- From  a  coward&#39;s castle. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1127</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2I</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator BRANSON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No, I would not say that. He has every right to defend himself when he has been attacked in the Press by inference.  His  speech tonight was an example of defence by attack. But, to me, it was very ironical that he should attack the &#34; West Australian &#34; newspaper on the basis that what it said was not necessarily right when that self-same newspaper has been plugging for the Ord River project and he was the Western Australian senator who raised the project as a matter of urgent public importance in this very chamber on the same basis as that on which the &#34; West Australian &#34; was plugging for it. Honorable senators may make their own deductions from that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Let us have a look at this matter ot television services for Geraldton and Kalgoorlie. Let us be completely fair. The only television interests in Western Australia that have shown any interest in these two centres have been TVW7. Looking at the number of people to be served in these two areas for a capital investment ot $250,000 and the cost of employing four to six people all the year round in both areas, quite frankly I do not think a company would make a penny out of it. I stand to be corrected here, but I cannot sec the population of Kalgoorlie growing much greater. But I believe that the population of Geraldton will grow. So I do not think it is completely fair to charge TVW7 on the basis that it will make a lot of money out of these stations or that it will use this vicious influence that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cant</inline> says it has. He has every right to make that charge. But let us have a look at it. </para>
          <para>If he is really interested - 1 know he is, because we have discussed this matter - in seeing &#39;that these country people receive this amenity, who else will provide it? Had he put forward an alternative suggestion, perhaps I would not have risen. I know that Channel 9 has shown some interest, but nowhere near the interest that Channel 7 has shown. The Kalgoorlie and Geraldton people know ..that they themselves cannot raise the capital to establish these stations, because they would not be paying propositions. A station in these areas has to have a parent station which already has in existence programmes that can be used again at very little expense to itself apart from the establishment and running costs. So, I would have been a little more impressed by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cant&#39;s</inline> argument against Channel 7 if he had said that there was an alternative to it. But, quite frankly, 1 do not see it, because of the very economics of the matter. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1128</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>CJO</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHEELDON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Senator WHEELDON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - 1 rise to speak on the same subject. I was silent last night when it was raised by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Branson</inline> in the adjournment debate. .1 rise this evening in order to support my colleague, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cant.</inline> I do not wish to impute to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Branson</inline> any motives whatsoever in raising this subject. In company with a number of my fellow Western Australians, including <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cant.</inline> I believe that if an additional television station licence is granted to TVW7, which is under the control of West Australian Newspapers Ltd., that will be merely a step towards a further strengthening of the monopoly of the dissemination of news thai is held at present by that company. Very many people in Western Australia have been disgusted over the years by the partisan attitude adopted by that company. I believe that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cant</inline> has acted completely properly in raising this mater this evening. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The proper action for the Government to take is to induce the Australian Broadcasting Commission, by whatever influence it can bring to bear on the Commission, to establish a publicly owned television service in the Geraldton and Kalgoorlie areas and in other areas of Western Australia which at present are not served by television stations. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1128</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2I</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Branson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It would not be profitable. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1128</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>CJO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHEELDON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WHEELDON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Australian Broadcasting Commission is not in the television business to make a profit. If it would not pay the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Branson</inline> himself has stated, it would not pay Station TVW7. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1128</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2I</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Branson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I am sorry. I did not know you were talking about a national Station. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1128</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>CJO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHEELDON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator WHEELDON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  In considering the establishment of a national station, we should remember that the purpose of the A. B.C. is not to make a profit but to provide a service for the people of Australia. I was tempted to intervene in the debate last night although I felt the subject was ably dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Willesee)</inline> and other speakers, but I did not intervene. However, I feel the point should have been made when <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Scott</inline> referred to the invest ment which had been attracted to Western Australia by the present State Government that the State Liberal-Country Party Government in Western Australia has not been altogether attracting investment but rather has been selling Western Australia to overseas speculators in the name of northern development but the basic facilities for the people living in the north of Australia have not been provided. This reflects the attitude of the Government, lt is prepared to take all steps to provide facilities for overseas investors so that they can make colossal profits from the natural resources of Western Australia but at the same time it is not prepared to provide facilities for the people working in that area. I agree with <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cant</inline> that if any steps are to be taken to bring television to the people of northern Western Australia, and of Kalgoorlie and Geraldton, it should not be done by granting a further extension of the monopoly rights at present held by West Australian Newspapers. I submit that it should be done by extending the activities of the publicly owned corporation, the Australian Broadcasting Commission. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1128</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K2I</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRANSON, George</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Branson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I wish to make a personal explanation. I. completely misunderstood <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wheeldon</inline> when he used the expression &#34; publicly owned company &#34;. Not being a lawyer, 1 took the interpretation that he meant &#34; owned by the public &#34; in the way of a private company. I did not understand that he was referring to a national television station. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1128</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5K</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</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>. - Both <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cant</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wheeldon</inline> have attacked West Australian Newspapers and TVW7 which it owns for endeavouring to obtain a licence from the Commonwealth Government to erect a station at Geraldton and Kalgoorlie. These towns have a population of approximately 20,000 in Kalgoorlie and 16,000 or 17,000 in Geraldton. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1128</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>CJO</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHEELDON, John</name>
                <name role="display">Senator Wheeldon</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  More in Kalgoorlie and less in Geraldton. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1128</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>-  Yes. I would say both senators know that TVW7 is doing this out of the goodness of its heart. The company does not expect to make and cannot make a profit for at least 10 years. If you consider television stations throughout the Com,mon.wealth. including the one in Canberra, which serves a population of more than 100,000 and the second commercial station in Western Australia which serves a population of 400,000, you find that in their early years they operated at a loss. But because TVW7, the first commercial station established in Western Australia, has been able to show reasonable profits, it is prepared to extend its operations, providing it can obtain a licence, to the country areas of Western Australia. The company has said this and it has also stated that it would not expect to make a profit but wants to give a service to the country people of Western Australia. This is notwithstanding the violent attacks on it by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cant</inline> and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wheeldon.</inline></para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1129</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KPG</name.id>
              <electorate>Queensland</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KEEFFE, James</name>
              <name role="display">Senator KEEFFE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - 1 realise that 1 shall probably be unpopular for speaking at this hour on Thursday night but I have an important case and I want to direct a plea to the Minister for Housing <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin)</inline> and probably also to the Postmaster-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Hulme)</inline> on evidence supplied to me by officials of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union regarding the housing situation at Mount Isa. My colleague <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Cant</inline> spoke forcibly about the problems of Western Australia. We now go across the continent to Mount lsa. I want to provide for the Minister a little of the background history of this case. My appeal is directed in part to the plight of the linesmen employed in this area. There are 22 linesmen employed at Mount lsa, six at Cloncurry and two at Camooweal, making a total of 30. No Housing Commission homes have been allocated to members of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The Department of Civil Aviation and some other people apparently are able to get some sort of assistance in the area. I am not complaining because they are able to get it while other people are unable to obtain the same facilities. The Department of Civil Aviation owns 21 houses for a staff of approximately 40 in the area and their rental is 10 per cent, of salary. The houses are currently occupied by installation staff pending the transfer of permanent staff of the Department of Civil Aviation from Cloncurry to Mount Isa in November. In the interim, it appears that at least two of these houses are occupied by single men and another by a single woman. The Mount Isa Fire Brigade has six houses rented from the Housing Commission on a guaranteed rental basis. The staff are currently paying $12.60 a week but are subsidised by the Fire Brigade to the extent of $4 a week. Undoubtedly the Minister is in possession of much of this information but I think the details should be given to clarify the position. </para>
          <para>The Mount Isa Shire Council owns 21 houses and also has the use of seven Housing Commission homes. Council staff pay $6 to $8 a week but with a Council subsidy this payment is actually $4 to $6 a week. At Camooweal approximately 120 miles north west of Mount Isa, the Council owns four houses rented to staff for a nominal weekly rental of $1. People in these areas are entitled to these concessions. </para>
          <para>Theiss Brothers have a number of Housing Commission homes in Mount Isa on a ten year guaranteed rental basis. We have not been able to get the information we want about these privately rented houses out it is obvious that assistance has been given. The Postmaster-General&#39;s Department has five houses at Mount Isa, three in Cloncurry and two in Camooweal. These are sufficient for ten employees only in an area where 30 linesmen are employed. None of the linesmen occupy any of these houses. I should like it known, of course, that the union is not complaining about this at all. What it wants is decent housing for all&#34; of its members. The Mount Isa houses occupied by postal workers are allocated in this way: The postmaster has a house for a rental of about 10 per cent, of his minimum salary; the technician and telegraphists pay a weekly rental of $10.98; and two Commission homes on a ten years guaranteed rental basis are occupied by a postal assistant and a supervising technician at $12.35 a week. Apparently the Department of the Interior has a couple of houses in this area which are occupied by two members of the postal service on a weekly tenancy basis without any guarantee of continuity of occupancy. </para>
          <para>The Queensland Housing Commission has concentrated activities in a couple of areas, building homes for major business organisations, particularly in the Gladstone-Moura area. We realise that as new industries are developed accommodation is required for employees. But while this is happening, it appears that many other parts of Queensland are being neglected so far as housing is concerned. I shall elaborate on that a little in a moment or two. </para>
          <para>Mount Isa employees generally receive a lead bonus and competition for housing in Mount Isa is quite fierce, so if one is able to obtain private accommodation usually it is at a fairly high rental. A lineman&#39;s weekly wage does not allow a high rental to be paid, so he is at a distinct disadvantage when trying to secure accommodation. Mount Isa is a major town in the north west and it ought to be looked at as part of the development of the north, and the provision of suitable homes for people who have to live in these isolated places is one of the matters that this Government should be examining. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1130</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>- Steady up, brother. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1130</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPG</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KEEFFE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator KEEFFE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Scott</inline> is not interested in people living in isolated areas having decent accommodation. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1130</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>- I say that the Labour Party was never interested in Mount Isa. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1130</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPG</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KEEFFE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator KEEFFE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Scott</inline> just implied that he did not think that people in isolated areas needed decent accommodation. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1130</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>- I did not say that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>1130</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KPG</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KEEFFE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Senator KEEFFE</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  He may correct it later. For a number of years the matter of rental houses in Queensland has been a very serious problem for the average working man. Even in the Brisbane metropolitan area there are very, very few places where rental homes can be secured. I ask the Minister, with all due respect, to have a serious look at this problem and see whether some alleviation can be granted in an area where relief ought to be granted. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>1130</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5K</name.id>
              <electorate>Western Australia</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>. -  I think it is about time that we had a few truths told. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Keeffe</inline> accuses the Queensland Government and this Government of not providing housing in Mount Isa. 1 have been in the Senate for some time and I have made several trips to Mount Isa. When there was a Labour Government in Queensland the mines people of Mount Isa informed me that they had to provide practically all, if not all, of the homes that they required for their employees. Then there was a change of government and the first thing that the new government did was to look at the housing in outback areas of Queensland and make finance available for housing in Mount Isa. At this moment houses are being built by the Qeensland bousing authority with finance provided by the Commonwealth Government. This is something that never happened while a Labour Government held office in Queensland. The honorable senator said that I was not interested in outback areas. I am, and that is why I went to Mount Isa. I was horrified to find that a State Government was not prepared to make finance available for the building of homes in outback areas. That Government was the Labour Government of Queensland. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <adjournment>
      <adjournmentinfo>
        <page.no>1130</page.no>
        <time.stamp>23:55:00</time.stamp>
      </adjournmentinfo>
      <para class="block">Senate adjourned at 11.55 p.m. </para>
    </adjournment>
  </chamber.xscript>
</hansard>