/
19710928_senate_27_s49.xml
7386 lines (7386 loc) · 480 KB
/
19710928_senate_27_s49.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1971-09-28</date>
<parliament.no>27</parliament.no>
<session.no>2</session.no>
<period.no>4</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>867</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<business.start>
<day.start>1971-09-28</day.start>
<para>The <inline font-weight="bold">PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack)</inline> took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS</title>
<page.no>867</page.no>
<type>ministerial arrangements</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>867</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZQ</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for Health</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ANDERSON, Kenneth</name>
<name role="display">Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- by leave - On behalf of the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Mc Mahon),</inline> 1 wish to inform the Senate that the Treasurer, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Snedden,</inline> led Australia on 17th September to attend a meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Nassau and also to attend the annual meeting of Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development in Washington. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Snedden</inline> is expected to return to Australia on 21st October and during his absence the Prime Minister will act as Treasurer. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr N.</inline> H. Bowen, left Australia on 21st September to attend the twenty-sixth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. He is expected to return to Australia on 1 5th October. During his absence the Minister for Primary Industry, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Sinclair,</inline> will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs and will represent the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Greenwood)</inline> in the House of Representatives. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>867</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>HEALTH INSURANCE</title>
<page.no>867</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>867</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>- My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Health, is further to the answer he gave to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Kennedy,</inline> the honourable member for Bendigo in the House of Representatives, on 16th September. Is it clear that of the 184,000 families which, as low income families, are eligible for assistance with health insurance only 13,000 have been approved by the Department of Social Ser-" vices and that only about half of that small number have been protected fully by registering with a fund? Further is it clear that only about 25 per cent of migrants eligible for assistance have applied to a fund for registration and only about 40 per cent of unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries have so registered? In the light of of that, is it not clear that the system of national health insurance is breaking down completely or almost completely in regard to those low income persons and other persons in special categories whom it was supposed to assist? Will the Minister tell us what he proposes to do about this matter? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>867</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 Sir KENNETH ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para class="block">In the first place, I think I should give some of the background. A question was asked of my predecessor in the other place and in the intervening period I became Minister for Health and subsequently issued the answer to the honourable member who asked the question. I regret that the answer that I gave, which is a statistical answer rather than one dealing with issues, has been either read wrongly or misinterpreted in much the same way as the Leader of the Opposition appears to have done today. [ anticipated a question on this subject and prepared a response and perhaps it would be simpler for me to give it. Subsequently, if further information is sought, I will be happy to give it. I want to make it abundantly clear that f have asked my Department to investigate further the publicity aspect of this proposal and 1 am perfectly open to hear anybody who is willing to come along and suggest other means whereby we can give wider publicity to this very commendable proposal. That invitation is extended not only to the Leader of the Opposition but to anybody in the community. </para>
<para>It is true that it has been alleged in the Press that, because only some 12,000 low income families had applied by 31st December 1970 for assistance under the subsidised health benefit plan, which was introduced on 1st January 1970, the plan had failed in its objectives. This is not so. 1 feel that a misunderstanding has occurred in the use of published statistics relating to the scheme. I am not suggesting anything sinister about this misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the figures. For administrative and statistical purposes beneficiaries under the plan are divided into 3 separate community groups eligible for assistance, namely, low income families, unemployed, sickness and special beneficiaries, and migrants. </para>
<para>In the year ended 30th June 1971, 82,000 unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries enrolled in health insurance funds, and in addition about 11,000 low income families and about 28,000 migrants became members. The total of the 3 groups approximates 121,000. It is estimated that 84,000 of these consist of families on low incomes. This means that 84,000 families received assistance at a time of need and not 12,000 as has been suggested in some comments. Of these people on low incomes who did not apply for assistance many, no doubt, did not incur medical or hospital expenses. Notwithstanding these figures my Department recognises that the procedures should be made as simple as possible for the people whom the Government is aiming to assist. Revised procedures, to operate from 1st November 1971, will reduce greatly some of the problems being experienced. The new procedures involve the introduction of a simplified application form for low income families and the adoption of one certificate for all beneficiaries, whether low income families, or unemployed, sickness or special beneficiaries. These new arrangements will simplify procedures and enable more eligible persons to avail themselves of assistance under the plan. There is a real promlem in getting people who are entitled to free or subsidised medical benefits to take advantage of the scheme and I have instructed my Department to look into this queston. As I said earlier, I am prepared to consult interested bodies to see how this situation can be improved further. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>868</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>COMMONWEALTH OFFICES</title>
<page.no>868</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>868</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KBC</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</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 direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Do the figures released yesterday showing a sharp rise in approvals for private office buildings reveal that the Government's call for restraint in this area has been Jess than successful? Is the Government's reluctance to house its departments in Commonwealth offices, which was revealed in his answer to my question on 8th September and which has resulted in the necessity to pay S20m per annum in rent, only encouraging private developers to continue building office blocks? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>868</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JQR</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for Civil Aviation</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COTTON, Bob</name>
<name role="display">Senator COTTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is an observation directed through me to the Minister for the Interior and refers to figures released, so it is said, this morning. I have not yet seen those figures. The question calls for a comment on Government policy. In both circumstances I shall have to direct the question to the responsible Minister. The only observation one could make is that from one's own observation it has been evident that the Commonwealth has been progressivley erecting buildings to house Commonwealth officers as it has felt it both wise and sensible to do so. I am quite sure that this has been done with some regard to the effect on the total building scene and the strain on resources, both labour and materials. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>868</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>CIVIL AVIATION</title>
<page.no>868</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>868</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KRG</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LILLICO, Alexander</name>
<name role="display">Senator LILLICO</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation a- question concerning the State-Commonwealth commitee set up to make various assesments about the aerodromes, at Hobart, Launceston, Devonport and Wynyard. Is he able to define further the functions of this committee and indicate what influence it will have on the upgrading to jet standard of at least one of the 2 aerodromes in need of it? Will it have any bearing at all on such a proposition? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>868</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JQR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COTTON, Bob</name>
<name role="display">Senator COTTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The general purpose of the Commonwealth-State committees on airfields in the States - 'bodies with which I am very happy to have been associated - has been to get both the Commonwealth and the people concerned in a particular State to examine the airfield requirements in the total area of that State, the effect on transport in that State and the environmental and noise problems in that State and to try to make the best possible decision on the location and upgrading of airports and any change in their characteristics. The committee to which the honourable senator referred will have particular regard, as it goes on with its work, to what will be needed in the way of an increased capacity or change in the northern part of Tasmania, in which area I am sure the honourable senator has a great interest. I could do no more than that in defining its general functions. However, I will seek to have the expressed functions of the committee made known to the honourable senator. Equally I will give further elucidation on this matter as its work develops or as I feel the necessity to do so. so. Any other honourable senator who feels that he could aid the process of good decision making in the States by people who have a joint responsibility and who are anxious to link together in that sense should regard himself as being entitled to communicate with them. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>869</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>NATIONAL FITNESS</title>
<page.no>869</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>869</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KSY</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCAULIFFE, Ronald</name>
<name role="display">Senator MCAULIFFE</name>
</talker>
<para>- My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. How does the Minister relate the figures issued by the Department of Labour and National Service showing that 49 per cent of Australian youth do not meet Army physical standards with his claim that the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness is providing adequate physical recreation facilities and activities? </para>
</talk.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir KENNETH</inline>ANDERSONI would say at first flush in response to the honourable senator's question that the standards set down by those who examine people called up for national service are particularly high. Those of us who went through the line in years gone by know that even under different circumstances, when there was a tremendous patriotic upsurge of people offering themselves for service, there were rejections for a variety of things extending from your toes right up to the top of your head. I do not think I need to go into the whole host of reasons for which people were rejected. But a vastly different proposition is involved here. The national fitness bodies encourage young people to attain fitness. They encourage the tutors at rational fitness camps to give guidance and instruction to the young on physical fitness. I do not reject the honourable senator's question, but 1 think that there is a nice difference between the two. </para>
<para>As a small personal item, I add that 1 regard myself as being a resonably fit person, but when I first submitted myself for the Australian Imperial Force I was rejected because of some oddity 1 had. However, 1 subsequently gave <inline font-style="italic">5i</inline> years service - 34 years of it in a very hard way. I have brought that out only to make the point that there is a complete distinction between the fitness required by the Services and what a national fitness camp may set out to do. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>869</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>CIVIL AVIATION: ADELAIDE AIRPORT</title>
<page.no>869</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>869</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KQN</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">LAUCKE, Condor</name>
<name role="display">Senator LAUCKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Firstly, has the South Australian Government registered objection to the Minister to possible extensions of the Adelaide Airport at West Beach beyond its present boundaries. </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Secondly, are alternative sites being investigated as a venue for a new airport for Adelaide which could cater for international traffic? </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>869</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JQR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COTTON, Bob</name>
<name role="display">Senator COTTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not have before me, nor have I seen, any objection from the South Australian Government to development plans which are being canvassed by all sorts of people for the Adelaide Airport, to which I have referred on many previous occasions here as the records will show. With the willing cooperation of the South Australian Government I have had established a South Australian airfields committee, the establishment of which was announced. I think, early last week and about which I must say I was very pleased indeed. That committee will naturally look at proposals for South Australia in the same way as other such committees would look at them and in the same spirit of trying to get the best result for the people, in this case the people of South Australia. [ shall look at this matter when I leave the Senate after question time to see whether anything has come in by telex or anything of that kind. No letter has come before me. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>869</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>ADELAIDE AIRPORT</title>
<page.no>869</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>869</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, which is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, follows upon the question asked by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Laucke</inline> about possible extensions to the Adelaide Airport and to the future of the West Beach recreation reserve lands. [ ask the Minister: ls it now clear that there will be no acquisition of the West Beach trust lands which are now being developed under a State Act for recreational purposes? Is it also clear that there is no proposal by the Department of Civil Aviation to extend the present runways outside the present limits of the airport area? ls it possible that, when the new committee meets, the Government or the Department of Civil Aviation intends to put these 2 propositions to it for consideration, or is the matter to be determined on the premise of my first question? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>869</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JQR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COTTON, Bob</name>
<name role="display">Senator COTTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think it will be agreed that that was quite a long question. As I recall them, most of the points raised have been covered in answers to earlier questions. I have nothing to add to what I have said already this afternoon in answer to earlier questions. The honourable senator poses a series of points to me. I am anxious to establish whether or not there has been any change which is unknown to me. I ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice and I shall get a detailed answer from the Department for him. As 1 understand the position there is no problem or no change, but I want to be quite sure. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>870</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS</title>
<page.no>870</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>870</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>- 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the British Government's expulsion order against 105 Russian diplomats and officials who are accused of spying, does the Australian Government still agree with the Russian proposals, announced last May, for the Soviet owned Baltic Steamship Co. to open an office and the Russian Embassy to open a trade office in Sydney? If so, will the Minister indicate what restrictions, if any, the Government proposes to impose on the number of Soviet staff to be employed in these offices? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>870</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KBW</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Minister for Works</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
<name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
</talker>
<para>- I shall refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and advise him of the reply as early as possible. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>870</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>CIVIL AVIATION</title>
<page.no>870</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>870</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 a question of the Minister for Civil Aviation. Prior to the Australian Government's acceptance of demands by the United States of America trans-Pacific carriers for increases in their capacity on this air route, did the Government suggest any counter-sanctions in response to the ban on Qantas Airways Ltd jumbos flying to America? If no counter-sanctions were suggested, what advantages were there for Qantas Airways Ltd in the agreement? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>870</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JQR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COTTON, Bob</name>
<name role="display">Senator COTTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- We could occupy ourselves here for probably half an hour in answering the honourable senator's question in general, but I do not think 1 will do that. These were negotiations between the Australian Government and the Government of the United States of America. Contrary to the popular view expressed in the Press the Australian Government was eminently satisfied with the result of those negotiations. I think honourable senators will remember that Qantas Airways Ltd was represented in the negotiations by its General Manager. The company has not expressed dissatisfaction to me in any sense either personally, privately or by correspondence. The Australian Government wanted to establish a position in which the American carriers as such, that is the airlines, did not have an automatic right to put on aircraft to suit themselves willynilly without some review of capacity and the same general control being exercised by the American Government over its carriers as we in Australia have tried to exercise at our end. That situation has been satisfactorily established, and from the Australian Government's point of view we have succeeded, after a period of hard, protracted and difficult negotiations, in doing what we set out to do some 2 years ago. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>870</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>WHEAT SALES</title>
<page.no>870</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>870</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KBY</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">YOUNG, Harold</name>
<name role="display">Senator YOUNG</name>
</talker>
<para>- 1 direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that the Australian Wheat Board has made sales of wheat to Egypt and other Middle East countries amounting to some 2± million tons, which has more than compensated for the reduction in sales of wheat to mainland China this year? Will the current wheat sales this year equal those of the record sales of wheat in 1966-67? If so, will this mean that the anticipated carryover of Australian wheat stocks this year will be the lowest for some years? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>870</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXR</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>CP</party>
<role>Minister for Air</role>
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN</name>
</talker>
<para>- The </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Australian Wheat Board has a number of markets in the Middle East area, but its sales for shipment to that area this year will be one million tons. This compares very favourably with about a quarter of a million tons last year. I understand that shipments to the United Arab Republic this year will exceed li million tons. If one ignored the calendar year and went back to the middle of last year and looked at shipments from that time I understand that they would be in the vicinity of 2 million tons. It is true to say that shipments of wheat to mainland China were at the rate of about 2 million tons annually. In fact, over the years about one-third of Australia's export wheat has gone to Mainland China. The Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board stated 3 weeks ago that disposals this year were likely to be within half a million bushels of the record domestic and export sales figure of 375.4 million bushels - that is 10 million tons - achieved in 1966-67. He also said that the carry-over would be something less than 150 million bushels. Thus it could be said that stocks will be about 120 million bushels less than they were last year and the year before. They will still be very substantially higher than they have been in any other peace time year, despite the sales we have made. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>871</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>VIETNAM</title>
<page.no>871</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>871</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>ISW</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WRIEDT, Ken</name>
<name role="display">Senator WRIEDT</name>
</talker>
<para>- My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. Has the Vietcong made a proposal to the Australian Government to declare a cease fire against Australian troops if the Australian Government will nominate a specific date by which all Australian forces will be withdrawn from South Vietnam? What consideration has been given to this proposal? If it has not been accepted, can the Minister indicate on what grounds the Government can justify any further Australian deaths in a cause now lost? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>871</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 Sir KENNETH ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para class="block">Ignoring the last part of the question, I think the balance should go on notice. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>871</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>IMMIGRATION</title>
<page.no>871</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>871</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 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Does Australia have any reciprocal agreement with the United States as regards the reimbursement of fares for the deportation of illegal immigrants to meet a situation which was exemplified by last week's O'Lear case? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>871</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KMX</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>LP</party>
<role>Attorney-General</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GREENWOOD, Ivor</name>
<name role="display">Senator GREENWOOD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am informed by the Minister for Immigration that Australia does not have any such agreement with the United States or with any other countries. The cost of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr O'Lear's</inline> deportation from Australia was met by the Department of Immigration, but the question of the cost of the repatriation of <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs O'Lear</inline> and the 1 1 children on Friday next is still under consideration with the American authorities. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>871</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>DECENTRALISATION</title>
<page.no>871</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>871</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KAS</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</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>- I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Will the Federal Government consider taking a much firmer hand in assisting decentralisation of industry and population in Australia? Does the Government consider that it has achieved a level of success in past years in encouraging decentralisation? As a demonstration of the Government's real interest in gaining a more acceptable location of industries and people, will it consider an offer of substantially reduced charges to decentralised industries using the services of the Postmaster-General's Department? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>871</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 Sir KENNETH ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- The question of decentralisation is very wide and the efficacy of such a principle needs no special blessing from me or any other honourable senator. However, its application is a far more complex matter even though Australia is a relatively young country. The New South Wales Government has appointed a Minister whose main portfolio relates to decentralisation. That brings me to the point I wish to make in response to the question. Decentralisation falls more effectively within the administration of the States than that of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth deals rather with national issues which come within its powers under the Constitution. The States have more particular powers. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para>I am not sure whether the honourable senator suggested the straight out application of a concession by the Postal Department in the field of decentralisation. I do know that we are engaged in a Budget session in which we in the Senate will be called upon very soon to pass revenue legislation relating to the Postmaster-General's Department. Whilst it will be a revenue Bill which will not lend itself to alteration by the Senate, if the honourable senator has a point to make about decentralisation I would have thought that the debate on that Bill would provide a convenient vehicle for him to make it. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>871</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES</title>
<page.no>871</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>871</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 ask the Minister for Health whether it is true that private hospitals and nursing homes are currently experiencing quite serious financial difficulties. If so, what is the Government doing about those difficulties? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>871</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 Sir KENNETH ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para class="block">I think I answered a question on this matter last week. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>872</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>- We did not sit last week. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>872</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 Sir KENNETH ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para />
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para class="block">I meant the last week we were here, although 1 could add that I did answer a question on this matter last week. Currently it is under examination and I am not in a position to make any further comment at present. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>872</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>RAAF STATION, DARWIN</title>
<page.no>872</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>872</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKD</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JESSOP, Donald</name>
<name role="display">Senator JESSOP</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the Minister for Works aware of a report that appeared several weeks ago in the 'Northern Territory News' to the effect that the old wooden hangar at the Royal Australian Air Force Station at Darwin would be burned to the ground? Is he aware also of a subsequent report in the same newspaper that workmen from the Commonwealth Experimental Building Station and the Darwin branch of the Department of Works were preparing the hangar for fire tests, but that the reporter concerned was told by an RAAF spokesman that the hangar would not necessarily be burned down? Can the Minister inform the Senate of what is happening to the hangar and whether there is any substance in the suggestion, which also appeared in the same newspaper, that the building is infested with white ants? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>872</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KBW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
<name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
</talker>
<para>- My attention was drawn to the news paragraph that has been referred to by my colleague. The hangar is an old wartime structure which is no longer in use. It is not being burnt down, but the occasion is being taken to make fire tests on it for the purpose of considering the action of heat in such large buildings. It is anticipated that those tests will be kept under control. The fires have been carefully designed to prevent burning down the structure. But demolition of the hangar will be carried out when it is no longer required for the fire tests. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>872</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT</title>
<page.no>872</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>872</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>5U4</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCCLELLAND, Jim</name>
<name role="display">Senator James McClelland</name>
</talker>
<para>- My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Is it true, as reported in the last issue of the 'Sunday Australian', that, despite the fact that the Commonwealth Office of the Environment was created 6 months ago, it has no staff? Is it true also that only 4 positions have been established in the Office and that they will not be filled for several weeks? If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, are we to assume that the Government has in mind for the Office of the Environment a purely decorative rather than a practical role? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>872</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KMX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GREENWOOD, Ivor</name>
<name role="display">Senator GREENWOOD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I would not accept the latter part of the question. But the details are not known to me. I ask that the honourable senator put his question on notice. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>872</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>HEALTH</title>
<page.no>872</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>872</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K19</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">POKE, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator POKE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I direct a question to the Minister for Health. My question refers to the expenditure of $397,000 by the Commonwealth Government to pay management expenses' to the hospital and medical benefits funds at the rate of 6 per cent on the money that they handled in 1970-71 in dealing with bills under the subsidised medical scheme for low income families, migrants and others. In view of the fact that the insurance funds do not use their own money to meet patients' bills in this scheme and in view of the fact that the funds are not involved in insuring anyone enrolled in this scheme, how does the Minister justify this sheer waste of taxpayers' money? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>872</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 Sir KENNETH ANDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para />
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<para class="block">I do not concede that this is a sheer waste of taxpayers' money at all. Anyone who receives a management fee receives that fee because he has provided some management service. This is not peculiar to government. It is common in every facet of business. I will get the particulars of what the management function was, how long it took, what it accomplished, and what was done, lt would not reflect very well on the Senate's understanding of business methods if it agreed that a government or anyone else should pay any sum of money - in this case, it is $397,000 - for a management consultant's performance unless the service for which payment was being made was rendered. Having said that, I will obtain the details of this matter and provide them to the Senate. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>872</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>PALM ISLAND</title>
<page.no>872</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>872</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>- My question is directed to the Minister representing the </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the movement of persons between the Palm Island Aboriginal Reserve and the mainland has been restricted because of an outbreak of hepatitis or other contagious diseases? Will the Minister undertake to have inquiries made immediately to ascertain the extent of the outbreak and to arrange a special grant from Commonwealth funds to cover cases of hardship if the outbreak is of major proportions? </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>873</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KMX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GREENWOOD, Ivor</name>
<name role="display">Senator GREENWOOD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am unaware whether the honourable senator's allegations are true or, if they be true, what the dimensions of the problem are. 1 will convey his question to the Minister and endeavour to obtain an answer as soon as possible. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>873</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>AUSTRALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR IN VIETNAM</title>
<page.no>873</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>873</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1F</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">POYSER, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Senator POYSER</name>
</talker>
<para>- My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Are there any Australian servicemen held as prisoners of war, or missing believed to be held as prisoners of war, in Vietnam? If so, how many are there? What action is being taken by the Australian Government to have these prisoners released and brought home to Australia at the same time as our troops are withdrawn? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>873</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KBW</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WRIGHT, Reginald</name>
<name role="display">Senator WRIGHT</name>
</talker>
<para>- 1 shall have to refer the question to the Minister for Defence and get the honourable senator an early answer. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>873</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>ACCOMMODATION FOR FRAIL AGED</title>
<page.no>873</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>873</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JTT</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DAVIDSON, Gordon</name>
<name role="display">Senator DAVIDSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Has the Minister for Health seen a comment by his colleague the Minister for Social Services relating to the possible establishment of additional assistance to institutions providing accommodation for the frail aged? Can the Minister say whether he is receiving representations on this matter? Can he say whether the Government is giving consideration to these representations? Is he in a position to say when the Government might be able to make statements regarding any possible extension of assistance to those who are in special need? </para>
</talk.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Senator Sir KENNETH</inline>ANDERSONClearly this question is one of policy which I could not answer at question time. </para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>873</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>BRISBANE AIRPORT TERMINAL</title>
<page.no>873</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>873</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUS</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLINER, Bertie</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is the Minister for Civil Aviation yet in a position to indicate whether the Trans-Australia Airlines airport terminal at Eagle Farm, Brisbane, which was recently destroyed by fire, is to be replaced by a long overdue modern airport terminal? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>873</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JQR</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>LP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COTTON, Bob</name>
<name role="display">Senator COTTON</name>
</talker>
<para>- No, I am not, but I expect to be so before very long. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>873</page.no>