1969-03-05 26 2 3 SENATE 271 0 1969-03-05 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. 271 Questions 271 271 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. I refer to a question which I asked of him yesterday and which he answered but he then corrected the answer last night. The question related to the resignation of Mr Hoffmann. I ask the Minister: Will he, before question time tomorrow, check again the answers which he has given to the Senate? In particular, will he check whether Mr Hoffmann ever did tender a resignation to the Department of Customs and Excise or whether a resignation was prepared for him by the Department? Will he check the date on which that was actually done and will he tell the Senate when Mr Hoffmann was informed that his resignation was accepted? 271 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - Mr President, I know very well the deep concern of the honourable senator about this question relating to persecution of an individual by left wing members. I corrected the answer I gave yesterday as soon as I found out from Hansard that I had incorrectly answered the question. Everybody knows that I did this; everybody knows that that was my right and that it was the right thing to do. In relation to the question as to when the resignation was initially received from Mr Hoffmann by the Public Service Board or by the Department of Customs and Excise, that date remains the same as I gave in my statement and is the date that we all agree with. 271 271 JTT 0 0 DAVIDSON, Gordon Senator DAVIDSON - I address my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. It relates to a reply he gave yesterday about evasion of customs duty, indicating that a number of charges and prosecutions were in hand. Can the Minister say whether this evasion has been very extensive. What are the details of it? 271 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - When I was asked a similar question yesterday I mentioned that customs duty had been evaded. 271 KB9 0 0 WILKINSON, Lawrence Senator Wilkinson - It was a considerable amount. 271 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - It was a considerable amount. I want to say now that the goods involved were cigarettes and tobacco. This case had nothing to do with the Hoffmann case. The officers have not been charged, but they have been reprimanded, and legal proceedings are being taken. 271 271 K3J 0 0 BULL, Thomas Senator BULL - I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. In view of the importance to our economy of the Government's protection to industry policy, plus the added work entailed by new procedures to .be undertaken by the Tariff Board, and having in mind resignations from the Board, which appear to be all too frequent, and the apparent difficulties the Minister has in rilling vacancies, will the Government give consideration firstly to increasing the full time membership of the Board and, secondly, to approving an increase in salaries commensurate with the very important work performed by the Board? 271 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - The honourable senator prefaces his question by a general indication of the importance, magnitude and significance of the work of the Tariff Board. None of us would disagree with that proposition. Questions relating to the size of the Board and the emolument of its members are clearly matters that I shall have to refer to the Minister for Trade and Industry. I suggest that the honourable senator put his question on notice and I shall get a considered reply for him. 271 271 ISW 0 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Has the Minister seen a statement made yesterday by the Chairman of the Hobart Marine Board that there were grim indications that unless determined action were taken events in the shipping world in the next few months could sound the death knell of the export industry of Tasmania? Will the Minister take immediate steps to convene a meeting of interested parties in Tasmania to ensure that Tasmania receives the same benefit from containerisation as will the mainland States? 272 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - This matter might well come within the portfolio of the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I think the logical thing to do is to direct the honourable senator's question to both the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Shipping and Transport. If we get two answers, then that will be all the better. But I shall certainly get an answer. 272 272 KQN 0 0 LAUCKE, Condor Senator LAUCKE - I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in todays Australian Financial Review' referring to the steep increase in imports of New Zealand jam by Australia in the first seven months of the current financial year, wherein imports were stated to be 40 times greater than the total such imports for the whole of the year 1967-68? Is the Australian jam industry suffering an inordinately heavy economic handicap arising from the differential between sugar prices paid by Australian jam makers on the domestic market and the world market price paid by the New Zealand manufacturers? If so, what steps can be taken to ensure a reasonably competitive position for the local jam and fruit industries? 272 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - This is a question which might better be directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Following a Press comment I was informed of some of the facts relating to this matter. It has been claimed that the local industry is at a severe disadvantage because of the cost of sugar to the Australian industry, which is $191.60 a ton compared with $94 a ton paid by the New Zealand industry for sugar used for export production. The degree of injury to the Australian jam industry has to be considered in terms of the quantum of trade at present between Australia and New Zealand. In that regard, the New Zealand component is a very small proportion of the Australian market. From June to December 1968. 271,000 Jb was imported from New Zealand, but in the same period 965,000 lb was imported from other countries. The Australian production in 1968 was 84,150,000 lb. That gives a very quick appreciation of the degree of injury that is allegedly being sustained because of this differential in the sugar price. There has been no industry request for increased duties. Jam does not come within the complex of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement, but if the industry suggested that it was being injured it would have the right to go to the Tariff Board to seek protection on the basis of that injury. That is a procedure that normally applies in these matters. 272 272 JZB 0 0 FITZGERALD, Joseph Senator FITZGERALD - Has the Leader of the Government seen the announcements that motor car prices are expected to rise by as much as $100 in the very near future? In view of the large profits recently announced by a number of motor car firms - General Motors-Holden's Pty Ltd announced a profit of more than $l0m last year - plus the fact that the Government last year forced a price increase in Japanese cars, what action does the Government intend to take to slop this increase, which obviously amounts to gross profiteering? 272 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I do not subscribe to the last sentence of the honourable senator's question in which he has expressed an opinion. I did see in a very quick way that there was to be an increase in the price of some motor vehicles, but I did not take on board the actual amount of the increase. I shall refer the question to the Minister for Trade and Industry for his comment. I feel bound to say, however, that we cannot simply take the profit of a company out of the air and say that because it amounted to $Xm then it must be profiteering. Profit must be considered in relation to capital investment and in terms of plant and machinery. It must be considered in relation to a whole host of accountancy problems before one can start making judgments as to whether the company is making a big profit, a reasonable profit or a small profit. To demonstrate the point further, there could be a situation in which a company made a profit of $10Om and that still would not be a reasonable profit in view of the capital costs involved in the undertaking. 273 273 K3O 0 0 BUTTFIELD, Nancy Senator BUTTFIELD - My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. In view of the determination of Australian Labor Party politicians in South Australia to influence the people of our State against their own best interests with regard to the building of a new dam on the River Murray and, seemingly, for purely party political purposes, I ask: If the Chowilla Dam were to be built in South Australia, would South Australia get one jot more water than it has rights to at present under the existing River Murray Waters Agreement? Is it likely, when the Ministers of the three States concerned with the control of River Murray waters meet with the Commonwealth Minister on Friday, that the agreement which fixes the allocation of water for South Australia will be altered to allow more water to pass to South Australia if the Dartmouth dam is constructed? 273 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I must say that last night South Australian members of the great Australian Labor Party criticised the honourable senator quite severely in relation to her attitude of endeavouring to persuade the River Murray Commission, the Commonwealth Government and the States concerned that South Australia should be given the maximum amount of water possible. The River Murray Commission's technical advisers who met in 1961 and recommended Chowilla are now recommending Dartmouth. The reason that they now recommend Dartmouth is that it can provide for South Australia 0.86 million acre feet of water more than Chowilla. Consequently, at the meeting of Ministers to be held this Friday South Australia has a great opportunity to gain an increase in the amount of water it is to receive - something above the amount of only 1.254 million acre feet which Chowilla could provide. As a capacity of 0.86 million acre feet more water is planned for the Dartmouth dam than would be provided by a dam at Chowilla, that amount of water can be sent down the river to help South Australia. I am sure that the people of South Australia will be able to get an amount of water considerably in excess of the amount they would get from a dam at Chowilla. 273 273 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: Prior to the resignation of Mr G. C. Hoffmann from the Commonwealth Public Service were representations made to the Public Service Board on his behalf by Mr P. Cullen? Did Mr Cullen then hold any office on the staff of the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives? What were the representations made by Mr Cullen to the Public Service Board? On what date were the representations made? 273 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - If I were to answer the honourable senator's question I would be relying at this time on newspaper comment and the debate that took place in the Senate last night. I do know that Mr Cullen was at some stage a secretary to the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, but so that 1 can get a complete answer f. think the question should be put on the notice paper. 273 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator Murphy - He was on Mr Whitlam's staff. 273 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - Yes. 273 273 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS - I desire to interrupt the series of arias from the 'Tales of Hoffman', which was written, appropriately enough, by Offenbach, to ask a question on a really important subject. Will the Minister for Supply comment on allegations made in a circular sent to senators by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom that Australia is linked with preparations for chemical and biological warfare and that the placing of an advertisement by the Department of Supply in January for a senior principal research scientist with a record of achievement, preferably in the study of the behaviour of compounds of biological significance and associated procedures, suggests that Australia may shortly be co-operating more fully in biological warfare7 Is the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom one more organisation where innocent and idealistic women are manipulated as a front by a shrewd minority coterie, behind the scenes, of Communists and extreme leftists? 274 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I received a copy of the circular referred to by the honourable senator. I have kept it in a folder after reading it with interest, since my name is mentioned in the second paragraph. I have had a reply prepared in anticipation that an honourable senator would ask me a question about it. The note I have on the subject states: The whole of the second paragraph of the circular - I have had a good look at this paragraph - draws a completely misleading inference. It is well known that Australia is a member of the technical co-operation programme with the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada, and that one field in which information is exchanged is chemical and biological defence. I have made it quite clear that it is Australia's policy to be well informed on defensive measures in this field, but not to have an offensive capability. A small group of scientists in Australia has the responsibility of keeping up to date our technology on advances in this field. Such knowledge is essential to the protection of the Australian people. The advertised position mentioned in the circular is in relation to work of a defence nature. 274 274 JXR 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that a contract negotiated by the Western Australian Potato Marketing Board to sell Ceylon 2,100 tons of seed potatoes is being jeopardised through lack of shipping space? Is the Minister aware also that this contract has been described as the forerunner of what could develop into the biggest potato deal ever negotiated by the Board and that it is in an area in which Western Australia has a natural freight advantage? In view of the fact that repealed requests to shipping companies throughout Australia, to the Department of Trade and Industry and to the Western Australian Department of Industrial Development have failed to obtain the required shipping space, will the Minister ask the Minister for Trade and Industry to take up this question as a matter of urgency? 274 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry is in contact with the shipping lines, which are making every effort to lift the cargo by the due date specified in the contract. The Department's Western Australian office is keeping the shippers informed of developments. That is the information that I have to the moment. The honourable senator may want to put his question on notice so that he can obtain an answer which may supersede the answer I have given him. That is a matter of judgment for himself. 274 274 JXX 0 0 DRURY, Arnold Senator DRURY - My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise, is it a fact that his Department needs al least 100 additional officers to help smash syndicates handling the increasing entry of illicit drugs into Sydney? Is it a' fact also that the narcotics branch is gravely understaffed at present and finds it impossible to slop all illicit drug smuggling or to keep the problem in check? Does the same situation prevail in other Australian ports? What action has been taken by the Department to overcome this very serious situation? 274 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I know of the honour-' able senator's concern about drug trafficking. I can tell him that there is not a shortage of 100 officers at Sydney. Within the past 3 years we have increased the staff of the prevention and detection service - they are the officers who handle this kind of work - by approximately 100% . We are equipping the officers with the latest gear, such as modern ships and means of transport, to help them in carrying out their duties. We are running schools to teach persons joining the Department the best methods of detecting people who are bringing in drugs on ships and so on. We haw turned our interest to the north of Australia in an endeavour to keep the drug problem at a minimum. In addition, recently in Canberra a meeting of State Ministers concerned and representatives of the police and health departments was held. I was the chairman of the meeting, lt was decided to set up a standing control committee to look into all the problems associated with drugs in Australia. 274 274 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - I address my question to the Minister for Housing. Is it a fact that the maximum amount of S500 payable by the Government under the homes savings grant scheme has not been increased by one cent since its introduction on 2nd December 1963? Is it a fact also that this scheme was first announced in the Liberal-Country Party policy speech for the 1963 general election and that the only variations to it since then were contained in the 1966 policy speech? Does the Government believe that it was so extraordinarily generous in 1963 in granting $500 that this amount will absorb all building cost increases for the next 20 or 30 years and that there is no need to review frequently the sufficiency or adequacy of the $500? Does the Minister agree that this scheme appears to have taken its place with pensions and family allowances as levers to be manipulated solely at election time without regard for any social justice merits of the payments? 275 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - That was a long question. 275 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - It was a worthy one. full of merit. 275 K28 0 0 RANKIN, Annabelle Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN - The honourable senator commented first of all that since the inception of this scheme the payment of the maximum grant of $500, which is a tax free gift to persons under 36 years of age who fulfil the required conditions and become eligible to receive it, had not been altered. This is correct. But I thought I also understood the honourable senator to say that the legislation had not been amended at all since it had been brought in. 275 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator Gair - I did not say that. 275 K28 0 0 RANKIN, Annabelle Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN - I beg the honourable senator's pardon. I was going to remind him that it had been amended on two occasions. 275 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator Gair - I said in 1966 in the Government's policy speech. 275 K28 0 0 RANKIN, Annabelle Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN - It was amended again, the honourable senator will recall, in 1967. 275 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator Gair - The amount has not been altered. 275 K28 0 0 RANKIN, Annabelle Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN - No, not the amount of $500. The honourable senator will recall that the limit for the value of house and land with improvements was increased from $14,000 to $15,000. I would remind Senator Gair also that when he speaks of this scheme he apparently feels that perhaps it is not doing a tremendously big work in assisting young people to get their own homes and also in assisting them in the field of saving. 275 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator Gair - Do not attempt to read my thoughts; just answer the question. 275 K28 0 0 RANKIN, Annabelle Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN - I think you will be pleased to know. Senator Gair, that since the inception of the scheme the grants paid out amount to S5S,458,980. These grants have been paid to 134,832 young couples who have benefitted from them. I believe that these figures show that this scheme is now not only doing a very fine work for these young persons who get the grant or whatever proportion of the grant they become eligible for but also it is benefitting them by saving. When we say (hat we have paid out this amount pf money, the Senate will recall that the Government pays $1 for every $3 saved by a young couple. This is a very great amount of money saved in the field of housing. 275 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator Gair - What is the percentage increase in building costs? 275 K28 0 0 RANKIN, Annabelle Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN - I can assure the honourable senator that this matter of the value of the housing grant, and other matters concerning this grant, of course are reviewed from time to time. 275 275 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. I ask: Is it a fact that the Minister for External Territories and the Administrator of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea shortly will announce the name of the consultant who will conduct the survey and later recommend the improvement pl'an for Port Moresby and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea? Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the fact that honourable senators have pleaded with Ministers who have been called upon to make similar decisions that it is in the Australian public interest that firms be used which are truly Australian based and recognised as Australian firms? Can the Senate be assured that the Minister and the Cabinet are fired wilh the importance of establishing the confidence of Australian consultants, and indeed the regard of the world for Australian consultants, in the use by the Australian Government of Australian consultants? 276 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - It is the fact that the appointment of a consultant in town planning for Port Moresby is expected to be announced shortly. The point that the honourable senator makes, not for the first time, so enthusiastically, is well understood. But our purpose in Papua and New Guinea is not to be the torch bearer of the Australian flag per se. We will make an appointment of a person who has the most merit from the point of view of competence in town planning. 276 276 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE - Is the Minister for Customs and Excise aware of serious charges in last Sunday's Sydney 'Sunday Telegraph' that Federal members of parliament used their influence to prevent customs investigators carrying out inquiries into allegations that certain New South Wales police officers are running an international drug smuggling ring? Is it a fact that customs men were about to move and make arrests when they were instructed by a senior member of the Government to delay action? Will the Minister confirm or deny that he or any person in his Department instructed Mr Harvey Bate, the chief of the detection branch of the customs service in Sydney, to curtail certain action relating to Mr Bate's investigations into drug smuggling? If instructions of this nature have been given to Mr Bate, how can the Minister reconcile this serious impediment to his Department's determination to stop smuggling with his recent public announcements on the same matter? 276 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I am aware of all the charges spoken of in last Sunday's newspapers. I say right here and now that the charge that members of parliament - not Ministers, but members of parliament - had interfered with customs officers to stop them doing their duty in relation to the drug traffic is a complete fabrication. To the best of our knowledge, there has not been one member of parliament who has intervened in the interests of drug peddlers in Australia. 276 276 K3O 0 0 BUTTFIELD, Nancy Senator BUTTFIELD - My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, follows my previous question which was related to the attitude of the Labor Party in South Australia in influencing South Australians against their best interests. In view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition in the South Australian Parliament has said publicly that if the waters of the Murray were to be impounded in a Chowilla reservoir, and therefore inside the South Australian borders, South Australia could simply help itself to the water when necessary, will the Minister explain the possible effects of such contemplated rebellious action by any future South Australian government? 276 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I have not seen in the Press any statement relating to the action that Mr Dunstan, the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, may take, if the Chowilla Dam is built, to give water to South Australia in times of extreme drought - that is, by opening up the gates and letting the water go. All I can say to the honourable senator is that the River Murray Waters Agreement has been in existence for over 55 years and nobody - not even the Premier of a State - has broken that Agreement. Therefore, it would be the action of a completely irresponsible person if a Premier or any other person broke the Agreement so that a State could get water to which it was not entitled under the Agreement. 276 276 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - I direct a question to Senator Anderson in his capacity of Leader of the Government in this chamber, not in his ministerial capacity otherwise, lt is a question which I do not ask him to refer to anyone else. Will he deny that the Government was involved in the stealing of commercial information from the Japanese embassy? 276 JQQ 0 0 CORMACK, Magnus Senator Cormack - I raise a point of order, firstly, on the basis of the framing of the question by the Leader of the Opposition and, secondly, on the basis that the Leader of the Opposition has no right to ask Senator Anderson in his personal capacity to give an opinion on matters that do not come within his ministerial responsibility. 277 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator Murphy - I directed the question to Senator Anderson as Leader of the Government. 277 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! I must admit, Senator Murphy, that it was an unusual question. That comes largely from your composing questions as you go along. I believe that that is where the trouble comes in. It makes it difficult at times to decide whether a question is in order. I will let this question go to Senator Anderson. 277 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - As Leader of the Government in the Senate I answer questions relating to the management of the Senate. As Minister for Supply 1 answer questions relating to my Department. I represent the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for External Affairs. If it is within my competence to answer questions directed to me in relation to those portfolios I do so. If it is not within my competence I refer the questions to the Ministers concerned. 277 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will he deny that the Government was involved in the stealing of commercial information from the Japanese Embassy? 277 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I request that any question of that character, directed to the Prime Minister, be put on notice. 277 277 JTT 0 0 DAVIDSON, Gordon Senator DAVIDSON - My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Has the Minister seen any recent Press articles, some of which have appeared in Adelaide, which recount reports of young people holding degrees in arts or science who have been unable to obtain employment in line with their educational qualifications? Does the Minister agree with Professor Badger's statement that university courses, however abstract, should contain at least something realistically designed to fit in with what the student will have to do after graduation? Can the Minister say whether any attention has been given to this kind of inclusion so that the time, talent and money expended on the obtaining of university degrees will not be wasted? 277 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - I have had my attention directed to Professors Badger's contribution to the Press on the subject referred to by Senator Davidson. I am informed that arts graduates who do not enter the teaching profession are having some difficulty in obtaining appropriate employment. About three quarters of the arts graduates of Australia enter the teaching profession. Nevertheless it is thought that there may be some merit in the Professor's suggestion that what I might call subjects of working experience be included in an arts degree course, and the Diploma of Education is a step in that direction. I hope there would not be one member of the Senate who would accept the proposition that the arts degree and its merits should be subordinated to economic purposes. It is hardly to be expected, as Professor Galbraith has suggested, that we would wish St Peter to ask those seeking entrance to Paradise: 'What was your contribution to the gross national product?' 277 277 JZU 0 0 ORMONDE, James Senator ORMONDE - My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Government concerned about the threat of a coast to coast railway strike on Friday next? ls it not time that the whole system of arbitration in Australia was overhauled in the interests of industrial peace? 277 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - Yes, Mr President, the Government is concerned about any industrial difficulty that arises in the Commonwealth because industrial strife affects everybody in the Commonwealth and it al'so affects our capacity as a nation. As to some variation of the industrial law which, by inference from the honourable senator's question, would resolve this threatened strike, I would not have a view. After all, changes in our industrial laws, so far as Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration are concerned, come to this place and are debated here. I think it is a complete over-simplification of the situation, or of any industrial situation, to suggest that some magical change in industrial law can be produced out of the bag overnight in order to resolve a strike that may occur next Friday. 278 278 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - I ask the >Minister for Customs and Excise whether his attention has been drawn to a reported statement of Mr H. C. Sleigh, chairman of H. C. Sleigh Ltd, to the effect that following the fixing of the price of indigenous crude oil in accordance with the formula announced by the Prime Minister late last year, a rise in the retail price of petrol is inevitable. Will the Minister say what anticipation he has as to the retail price of petrol following the fixing of the price of crude oil? 278 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I know of considerable debate by various organisations and some companies on this subject of the price of oil and the fixing of the price of petrol following the new oil pricing agreement between the Prime Minister and Esso-BHP. Between now and the end of this year Esso-BHP will come into production. The first oil is expected to be delivered to the refineries in about August. Because the price has been reduced under the new agreement from $3.19 to $2.43 or $2.47, according to quality, this will mean that people going to bowsers to get petrol will not have to pay the substantial increases outlined by various members of the Opposition and by university people. In fact the price of petrol is not expected to rise, because of this new pricing formula and agreement, by more than half a cent per gallon between now and Christmas. 278 278 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator LITTLE - I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry the following questions: What was the sum total of devaluation compensation promised to the dairying industry by the Federal Government on the devaluation of the British £Stg1? To what extent has the Government fulfilled its promise? If there is a balance of payment still to be made, how much is it and when does the Government propose to make a further payment of the whole or part of the amount necessary to compensate the industry? 278 KTL CP 0 0 MCKELLAR, Gerald Senator MCKELLAR - If the Senate will bear with me for a moment, I think I have some information on this matter. The amount of compensation paid to the Australian Dairy Produce Board and the Queensland Butter Board for immediate loss was $2. 6m. Out of an estimated $9.1m to be paid with respect to 1967-68 the sum of $4.4m has been paid. In December 1968 it was announced that compensation would be paid with respect to the 1968-69 production. It was estimated that $17.4m would then be payable by way of compensation. The total amount of devaluation compensation to the dairying industry is estimated to be S29m. 278 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - I rise to order. I draw your attention, Mr Pesident, to the fact that a question similar to the one just asked is on notice. I refer to question No. 918. 278 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - An answer has been given. The honourable senator is a little late in taking 'his point. 278 278 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator MULVIHILL - I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In the light of the grave concern expressed by the President of the New South Wales Branch of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union at the effect on employment opportunities in the industry of the proposed closure of slaughtering facilities at the Canberra Abattoir, can the Minister indicate whether a statement will be made on the future of this establishment before the Senate rises on Thursday? 278 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I think that this question should more properly be directed to the Minister for the Interior. I shall see that it is so directed. 278 278 KQV CP; NCP from May 1975 0 0 LAWRIE, Alexander Senator LAWRIE - My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in today's Brisbane Press of the arrival in Brisbane of the first ship under the new customs rule relating to oral declarations by incoming passengers? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether any unnecessary delay was caused to passengers in clearing customs in this case? Will the Minister do all he can to see that passengers are cleared in the shortest possible time, as many of these people are tourists from overseas and the tourist industry is of great importance to Queensland? 279 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - The Department of Customs and Excise has now introduced the principle of oral declarations by overseas visitors who come here by ship. The new system is similar to that which has been operating for over 12 months with respect to people travelling to Australia by air, and it has been introduced because of the great success achieved by this system in connection with overseas visitors who arrive by air. At the moment the system is going through a trial period. At a later date I shall be pleased to report upon the success or otherwise of the system of oral declarations by people travelling to this country by ship. 279 279 K8Y IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970 0 0 TURNBULL, Reginald Senator TURNBULL - I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the final survey of smoking attitudes yet been received from the National Health and Medical Research Council? If so, when will it be made available? If it has not yet been received, what is delaying the Council? 279 K28 0 0 RANKIN, Annabelle Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN - "Hie Smoking Sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council met on 29th January, and again in February of this year. This Sub-Committee's survey of smoking attitudes will be referred to the Medical Statistics Committee, which will meet on 2nd April 1969, and to the Public Health Advisory Committee which meets on 12th and 13th May. Then these Committees will submit a recommendation to the National Health and Medical Research Council which will meet on 15th and 16th May. After these meetings it is expected that an announcement will be made concerning smoking attitudes. 279 279 K3O 0 0 BUTTFIELD, Nancy Senator B BUTTFIELD - I address a question to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities, it relates to a question I asked him earlier this session concerning the possible development of Central Australia to attract tourists to that part of the country. Is it a fact that, since I asked my question, the Minister has taken the trouble to visit Central Australia himself? Will he give some idea of his impression as to whether it is possible lo develop a train of stations to encourage tourists to go there? Did he. while he was in Central Australia, announce details of an expert team to study various areas and plan the development of that part of the country? 279 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - It is a fact that within the last 3 weeks I have visited Alice Springs and the area of Ayers Rock and Mount Olga. My visit there confirmed the view that it is a unique area of Australia which has a fascinating interest for overseas tourists. At one resort I was informed that last year there had been bookings for 600 American tourists and that this year there were already bookings for 1,000 tourists. I announced during my visit there, as I had previously announced in the Senate, that the Australian Tourist Commission has engaged experts to make an assessment of the area and expects the co-operation of the Northern Territory Reserve Board in having the area around Mount Olga and Ayers Rock assessed conjointly by the same team. I expect that assessment to be made within the next 3 or 4 months. 279 279 KTA 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator MCCLELLAND - I address a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. I remind him that he said yesterday that in the last 12 months the payment of a large amount of money as customs duty had been evaded and that the officers concerned had been charged. Does the Minister now say that the officers have not been charged but have been reprimanded only? Were they reprimanded only because of the latest interpretation of Public Service practice that if they were charged and found guilty they could tender their resignations and escape scot free from any punishment? What was the amount of customs duly evaded in respect of cigarettes and tobacco? What legal proceedings are in fact being taken and against whom? Finally, has any investigation been made to ascertain how deep these rackets are running within the Department of Customs and Excise? 279 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I mentioned in the course of my speech that the officers concerned had been charged and disciplined for negligence. In relation to the other part of the honourable senator's question, I ask him to place that on notice. 280 280 K1R 0 0 PROWSE, Edgar Senator PROWSE - Mr President, some time ago I addressed to the Minister for External Affairs a question which I believe would have been more appropriately addressed to the Minister for External Territories. Have I your permission to address the question to the appropriate Minister? 280 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Yes. 280 K1R 0 0 PROWSE, Edgar Senator PROWSE - So that the Minister may be reminded of the question, I restate it in these terms: What reaction, if any, has been evidenced in New Guinea following the United Nations mission calling for a vote under United Nations supervision for determination of a date for New Guinea's independence? 280 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - It will be recalled that in December the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for a target date and for elections in New Guinea. The voting was 72 for and 19 against. In answer to the honourable senator's question 1 am happy to inform him that the House of Assembly in New Guinea has passed this resolution: That this House rejects as an unwarranted insult to its members, the Administration and the people of this Territory the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly calling for elections under United Nations supervision. The House of Assembly went on in its resolution to state that it considered that the United Nations General Assembly's resolution was utterly unjustified by the facts and could tend to undermine the confidence that the Territory would have in the continued goodwill expected from the United Nations. 280 280 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator GEORGES - I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. I refer to the sum of $22,906 in Commonwealth subsidy paid to the Queensland company Artesian Basin Oil Pty Ltd. Is the Minister aware that this money was used to upgrade the value of the lease held by the company to enable it to sell its interest to Exoil (NL) at a great profit? Is the Minister also aware that Mr Bjelke-Petersen was the prime mover in the share transactions? What steps will the Minister's Department take to prevent misuse of oil subsidy money? 280 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT -I am fully aware that the Commonwealth Government's policy in relation to oil exploration has achieved wonderful and staggering results inasmuch as we hope to be getting in the very near future at least 70% of Australia's oil requirements from our own companies drilling for oil. We will have it refined in Australia by companies established in Australia. Our petrol will flow through petrol bowsers to our motorists at reasonable prices. As to the honourable senator's charges against a State Premier and his question about an amount of $22,906, I ask him to place the question on notice and I will get an answer from the Minister for National Development. 280 280 KQQ 0 0 LAUGHT, Keith Senator LAUGHT - I address my question to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. I was very interested to hear the Minister's recent reply which stated that a team of experts for inspection of the Alice Springs area is envisaged. Has the Minister considered the desirability and practicability of causing the team of experts to examine the areas in the north of South Australia, in the Flinders Range, and even the areas containing the opal mining centres of South Australia at Coober Pedy and Andamooka, as places with unique outback attraction for tourists from overseas? 280 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - It is considered possible that the areas to which Senator Laught has referred could be embraced within the proposed study; that is, the area of the Flinders Range and the northern area in which Coober Pedy is located. Whether that extension of the ambit of the assessment is made will depend primarily upon the South Australian Government's wishes in the matter. I have reason to believe that this matter has not escaped its consideration. 280 280 K8N 0 0 TOOHEY, James Senator TOOHEY - Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development been drawn to an article in the Melbourne 'Sun' of 16th August 1967 which contains a statement by Sir Henry Bolte on the building of the Buffalo Dam? Sir Henry is quoted as saying that Victoria is not likely to give away its water to someone else and would no! consider sharing its water from the new Buffalo Dam unless the River Murray Commission made a very attractive offer. Does the Minister not believe that this makes nonsense of the alleged fight being waged for South Australia to receive an extra .25 million acre feet of water a year through the building of a dam at Dartmouth instead of at Chowilla? 281 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - No doubt Sir Henry Bolte was endeavouring to look after Victoria. I say to the honourable senator that all the questions he is directing to me as the Minister representing the Minister for National Development in relation to the Chowilla scheme tend to make me believe that Opposition senators are anxious to deprive the people of South Australia of the amount of water the honourable senator has mentioned, namely, about .25 million acre feet a year. 281 281 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate inform the House whether he and/or the Government approve the allocation of oil search subsidies to companies which obviously have been formed for the purpose of speculation? ls the Minister satisfied beyond all doubt that subsidy paid to Artesian Basin Oil Co. Pty Ltd was not in fact used as a lever to bolster the price of shares in that company? 281 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I think the question might more property have been directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Therefore I suggest that it go on notice, directed to the Minister for National Development. 281 281 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator POYSER - I address my question to the Minister for Supply. On Thursday, 27th February, I asked him a question relating to the modification of Mirage aircraft at Avalon, in Victoria. Did he in his reply indicate that the work would be completed in the shortest possible time? I ask him whether he stated also: it should be appreciated that this work is an integral part of the operational capacity of the RAAF and therefore cannot be spoken of in detail. I accepted that statement in good faith as the implication was that further detailed information was classified. I ask him further whether the honourable member for Kennedy last night in another place quoted the Minister for Supply as replying to me in the following words: The work will be completed in the shortest possible time. . .In fact the work is ready in hand and will be completed by 1971. As that information was not supplied to me by the Minister, has he given information on this matter to the honourable member for Kennedy which he was not prepared to disclose to me in this chamber? 281 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I should like to see what was said in the other place, so I shall have a look in Hansard at the end of question time. There is no doubt that what I said to the honourable senator is recorded in Hansard but without having a quick look at it I think I said words to the effect that the work would be carried out in the shortest possible time having regard to RAAF requirements. As far as I can recall I have had no communication with the honourable member for Kennedy and I will have to make inquiries later to find out what this is all about. Later: 281 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I have had a look at the Hansard record, which Senator Poyser was kind enough to send to me. Quite clearly there is a misquotation of the answer I gave the honourable senator. The honourable member purports to quote what I said in this place and, as the honourable senator has pointed out, I did not say that. As far as I can remember I did not say anything about 1971. 281 281 K1Y 0 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP - A Although I address my question to the Minister for Repatriation it concerns also the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. It relates to changes in the Defence (Re-establishment) Act last year when provision was made for national servicemen to extend their period of service by 3 months. As the result of that, however, they lose the right to re-establishment benefits, including vocational training. Since this mistake became evident has any administrative action been taken to provide these benefits to servicemen in that category? If legislation is pending, when is it likely to be introduced? 282 KTL CP 0 0 MCKELLAR, Gerald Senator McKELLAR - It is true, as the honourable senator has said, that national servicemen were given a period of 3 months to apply for re-establishment benefits. Unfortunately in one sense, some of the national servicemen decided to re-enlist. Apparently in doing so they did not realise that they were cutting themselves adrift from the re-establishment benefits. We have been assured by the Army now that in cases of re-enlistment these chaps are told of the position which confronts them. The matter has been examined by a committee which has been set up and which is chaired by an officer of my Department. I have taken up the matter with my ministerial colleagues - the Minister for the Army, the Minister for Labour and National Service and the Treasurer - but as yet we have not arrived at a decision. However the matter is being considered. 282 282 JQR 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - -My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will he ask the Treasurer whether the policy of seeking to raise capital for the Australian Resources Development Bank within Australia only is to be changed in order to encourage investment in the Bank from overseas as well? I am prompted to make this comment because of the remarkable success of the latest issue of transferable certificates of deposit, which demonstrates the confidence of the Australian people- 282 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! You will ask your question, Senator Cotton. 282 JQR 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - I asked the question at the beginning. I was explaining why 1 did so. 282 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I will make inquiries from the Treasurer along the lines mentioned by the honourable senator. 282 282 KUS 0 0 MILLINER, Bertie Senator MILLINER - I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. In view of the threat of substantial unemployment in the metals industries in Queensland and the subsequent decision of unionists employed in those industries to impose overtime bans, will the Minister influence his colleagues to release foreseeable government contracts to ease the situation and ensure that all contracts, be they for the Government or for private industry, are executed in Australia rather than farmed out to overseas interests? 282 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - I have no doubt that the proper course for me to take is to refer the question to my colleague for consideration, but in doing so let me add that I think that the implication, in the latter part of the honourable senator's question, that overseas interests would be given work to the detriment of Australian interests is without foundation. 282 282 CJO 0 0 WHEELDON, John Senator WHEELDON - Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen today's Sydney 'Daily Mirror' in which there is a report of an interview with the wife of Mr Gerard Charles Hoffmann? It reads: We would welcome the tabling in Parliament of a full transcript of the tribunal proceedings into my husband's conduct. . . . 282 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! Senator Wheeldon, you are out of order in reading from a newspaper and framing a question on a newspaper article. 282 CJO 0 0 WHEELDON, John Senator WHEELDON - For my guidance, Mr President, would you point out to me the standing order which prevents my doing that? 282 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - It does not m alter about the standing order. You are out of order in reading from the newspaper and in framing a question on it as you go along. Either reframe the question or resume your seat. 282 CJO 0 0 WHEELDON, John Senator WHEELDON - As I am assured that the standing order does not matter, and as you say that I am out of order, I will accept your ruling, Mr President. I ask the Minister whether he has seen a copy of today's Sydney 'Daily Mirror' in which Mrs Mary Anna Hoffmann, wife of Mr Gerard Charles Hoffmann, said: We would welcome the tabling in Parliament of a full transcript of the tribunal proceedings into my husband's conduct in the Public Service. In view of the sympathy which was expressed during last evening's adjournment debate by the Leader of the Government for Mr Hoffmann in his present position, and in view of the statements that have been made by various Government senators that the actions in recent days of the Opposition have in some way embarrassed Mr Hoffmann, will the Government accede to the request of Mr and Mrs Hoffmann as reported in the Sydney 'Daily Mirror' and, for the sake of this couple, agree to table the papers? 283 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - The answer to the first question is no. As all subsequent questions stem from the first question, I am not in a position to answer the honourable senator. I have not had the opportunity of reading this afternoon's 'Daily Mirror'. Having regard to the type of work that one does in this place, if one can read the newspapers the day after they are published one is doing very well. If the honourable senator likes to put on notice any subsequent questions that he asked on this basis, he is at liberty to do so. 283 283 KSW 0 0 MAUNSELL, Charles Senator MAUNSELL - I ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development: Is it a fact that oil subsidies are paid on actual results of expenditure by oil prospecting companies or during prospecting operations and not in anticipation of drilling operations? 283 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - The honourable senator is asking me whether or not it is a fact that oil drilling subsidies are paid after the work is done. My recollection of the Act and the administration of it is that a company has to perform and give notice of the reason for performing before it is entitled to the subsidy. 283 283 KOU 0 0 HENDRICKSON, Albion Senator HENDRICKSON - I ask a very simple question of the Minister for Customs and Excise. Can he tell me to whom did Mr Hoffmann issue advice that a by-law to issue 5,000 pairs of turtle skins had been approved, knowing that this was not true? 283 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I would like the honourable senator to place that question on notice because there are problems associated with the answer. 283 283 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator CANT - I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. What means will be used to transport water between the Dartmouth Dam and Adelaide? Will this transport be by pipeline? If so, what size pipe is to be used? What is the estimated quantity of water that will be delivered to South Australia each day? If transport is to be by means other than through pipeline, what form will the transport take? If it is to be by open channel, what is the distance to be traversed? How will flow pressure be maintained? What percentage of the water leaving the dam will be lost by evaporation and soil absorption? The Minister was pretty loquacious before; let him answer that. 283 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - As the question requires so much detail to be provided in the answer, I ask the honourable senator to place it on notice. 283 283 JZU 0 0 ORMONDE, James Senator ORMONDE - I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question. Last week, I would inform the Minister, the Minister for Health, Dr Forbes, in another place publicly endorsed demands by Victorian doctors for restriction on the sale of what he called 'bromide relaxant tablets'. My question is: In the public interest, will the Minister spell out and publicise the trade names for what he calls 'bromide relaxant tablets'? 283 K28 0 0 RANKIN, Annabelle Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN - I recall seeing the comments to which the honourable senator refers. I shall place before the Minister for Health the request of the honourable senator. 283 283 KQV CP; NCP from May 1975 0 0 LAWRIE, Alexander Senator LAWRIE - Yesterday the Minister for Works answered a question concerning Aboriginal scholarships in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Will the Minister inform the Senate from which States the nine students for university scholarships came and from which States the thirty students for secretarial and business coll'ege courses came? 284 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - In answer to the question of the honourable senator, I wish to inform him that I will have to get these details from the office records, and I shall be pleased to do so. 284 284 JXX 0 0 DRURY, Arnold Senator DRURY - I ask the Minister for Supply a question. Is it a fact that because of the ability of New Zealand jam makers to purchase sugar at a price much tower than Australian jam manufacturers pay, New Zealand jam makers are able to underquote Australian jam manufacturers for Department of Supply contracts? Have New Zealand jam makers obtained contracts from the Department because of this and, if so, what is the amount involved in these contracts? 284 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - I would need to refer to the Department of Supply to get the facts in relation to the question. I see no reason why I would not be able to get them and have them available tomorrow. 284 284 JQR 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the statement recently emanating from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area that there was approximately 50,000 tons of rice husks available for processing and that these rice husks currently were going to waste? Will the Minister ask for the help of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Forest Products lo see whether these rice husks would provide sufficient raw material for a wall board plant in the area? 284 KTL CP 0 0 MCKELLAR, Gerald Senator McKELLAR - I have seen an announcement regarding the disposal of the huge quantity of rice husks as mentioned by the honourable senator. I will convey his request to the Minister. I have seen some of the huge quantity of rice husks in this area. I have the greatest confidence that the CSIRO will come up with a scheme to enable the effective use of this large surplus of rice husks. 284 284 K6F 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH - I preface my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise by drawing his attention to the reply that he gave to Senator Cohen yesterday. Referring to the interview between himself and Mr Hoffmann, the Minister stated that Mr Hoffmann came to him to thank him and officers of the Department of Customs and Excise for what they had done. I ask: What had the Minister and the officers done for Mr Hoffmann, other than charge him with serious breaches of the Public Service Act? Does this action justify thanks? 284 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I am sorry, but I was interrupted half way through the question. If it is clear, Senator Cavanagh is asking me what did the officers of my Department and I do to help Mr Hoffmann after his resignation had been accepted. I saw Mr Hoffmann on 26th November. In answer to a question from Senator Cohen yesterday, I gave the reasons for the interview. It was to discuss his new life in Sydney, with a new job. He wanted to thank me and the officers of my Department. He did at this interview. The reason for his thanks I will state now. We have to get this quite clear. This is why I hate this persecution attitude of members of the Opposition in trying to belittle Mr Hoffmann. Mr Hoffmann was employed by the Department of Customs and Excise from 1951, 1 think, to 1968, a matter of 17 years. He committed one offence. 284 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - How does the Minister know? 284 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - He was charged for that offence and he lost his job. 284 KTA 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator McClelland - No, he did not. He resigned. 284 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - He lost his job. He was given notice of dismissal and his resignation was accepted before the notice of dismissal became applicable. I ask the honourable senators who are interjecting to let me finish, because we want to get this matter quite clear. Because Mr Hoffmann had made only the one mistake, officers of my Department contacted employment agencies, or an employment agency, and obtained for him a job in Sydney. 284 K6F 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator Cavanagh - At $9,000 a year. 285 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I do not know the amount of salary. That is between him and the company for which he is working. A satisfactory job was obtained for him in Sydney. I thought that would be the end of the matter. Because he had obtained this job on the recommendation of the chief officer of the Department, through the Commonwealth employment agency, he thanked the officers and me for the work done for him. 285 285 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator CANT - I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is it a fact that the profits of oil firms operating in Australia have increased sixfold in the past year? If that is correct, can an increase in the price of petrol be justified? 285 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - The price of petrol in Australia is cheaper than that in many other countries. It is interesting to know that in America and Canada the price paid for indigenous crude oil is about $3.50 a barrel. We will be producing crude oil in Australia, and after 17th September 1970 Esso-BHP will be receiving a price of only $2.06 a barrel. The honourable senator asks: Why should that put up the price of petrol? The answer is that come 1.7th September 1970 the price of petrol should be, or will be, the same as it is at the present time if we take into consideration only the Government's oil pricing policy. 285 285 KOU 0 0 HENDRICKSON, Albion Senator HENDRICKSON - I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. I do not know whether I heard or interpreted correctly the answer he gave a few minutes ago regarding the reason for Mr Hoffmann's visit to him after Mr Hoffmann's dismissal. If I beard him aright, he said that Mr Hoffmann came back to thank him and the officers of the Department of Customs and Excise for finding him a position with some private firm. All I want to ask the Minister now is: Is it the normal practice of the Minister and/or officers of his Department to find employment for employees who are dismissed or who resign from the Department, or was Mr Hoffmann given special, privileged treatment? If he was, for what reason was Mr Hoffmann given the preferential treatment? 285 K5K CP; NCP from May 1975 0 0 SCOTT, Douglas Senator SCOTT - I did not say that Mr Hoffmann came back. I saw him on only the one occasion. I explained to the Senate the reason why some treatment was given to Mr Hoffmann. Because of the long service that he had given to the Department, the Department, having sympathy for him, endeavoured to get and succeeded in getting him a job that was satisfactory to him. 285 285 JQR 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to a recent comment by the Victorian Department of Agriculture, which stated: 'The way to beat failing prices and increasing costs is to improve the quality of the produce sold off the farm'? Will the Minister for Primary Industry ask his Department to obtain from the Victorian Department information on positive suggestions that it has to bring about this position? 285 KTL CP 0 0 MCKELLAR, Gerald Senator McKELLAR - I did not sec the announcement made by the Victorian body, as mentioned by Senator Cotton. But I agree that if suggestions could come from the body that made this statement they would be very valuable indeed and a lot of credence would be given to them. The only point is that I am afraid that when we do receive the suggestions they probably will not hold water. However, I will transmit the honourable senator's suggestion to the Minister for Primary Industry. 285 285 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - Will the Minister representing the Minister for Air tell us what he knows about the latest reported crash of an F111 aircraft in America? 285 KTL 0 0 MCKELLAR, Gerald Senator McKELLAR - The Minister for Air made a statement on this matter in another place this afternoon. There has been a crash of an F111 on a training flight. The two pilots ejected. The Minister for Air and his Department are keeping in close contact with the relevant American department in connection with the crash. 285 285 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE - My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that about thirty senior journalists including employees of the Australian Broadcasting Commission have been rejected for appointment to the vacant position of Canberra commentator for the top rated ABC programme 'This Day Tonight'? Is it true that since Mr Michael Willesee's departure from this post last year it has been empty and vital political issues have failed to reach the millionstrong audience that regularly watches this programme? Will the Postmaster-General ask the ABC to appoint immediately an unbiased political commentator in Canberra and to stop attempting to reduce the status of the programme by having an infrequent Canberra coverage using temporary journalists? 286 K28 0 0 RANKIN, Annabelle Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN - Because of the detailed nature of the information contained in the question I ask that the honourable senator put his question on notice. (Question No. 813) 286 286 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: Can the Minister inform the Senate whether it is intended to grant a licence to Central Pacific Airlinesto fly DC6 passenger aircraft between Australia and Nauru and, if such licence is to be granted, whether the company will operate on a tax exempt or tax concession basis? 286 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answer: I am advised that to date my Department has not received an application for an international airline licence from Central Pacific Airlines to operate DC6 passenger aircraft between Australia and Nauru, although this company has discussed the possibility of such a service with the Department. The company's proposals are still under consideration. (Question No. 824) 286 286 K6R 0 0 COHEN, Samuel Senator COHEN asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: Has any request been received from the Government of Victoria for extra provision to help the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology overcome its serious financial problems? Would the Commonwealth Government be willing to make available further funds if the Government of Victoria were prepared to make an appropriate matching grant, so that this leading Victorian educational institution may carry on its work without serious cuts in next year's programme? 286 KBW LP 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - The Minister has provided the following answer: A request has been received from Victoria for the Commonwealth to match additional State funds to be paid to the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology to meet the costs of one particular course. The Commonwealth Government has recently agreed, on request from the States, to make supplementary recurrent grants available for the balance of the triennium, to meet costs of academic salaries increases which have occurred in the course of the triennium and to meet certain additional costs which could not have been foreseen at the beginning of the triennium. The precise level of the supplementary grants is under discussion with the respective State Ministers. (Question No. 917) 286 286 KUS 0 0 MILLINER, Bertie Senator MILLINER asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice: Is the Prime Minister aware of any parallel action to that taken in relation to the recent acceptance of a resignation by a Government employee when the employee was to be dismissed for serious misconduct arising from his employment? Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that apprentices in a Government department have had their indentures cancelled when found guilty of the offence of stealing watermelons, and representations on their behalf have been rejected by the Government? 286 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have been informed by the Public Service Board of two other occasions during the last 2 years on which the resignation of an officer, concerning whom a dismissal certificate had been issued, has been accepted. No. However, I am informed that in 1960 a Technician-in-training in the Postmaster-General's Department, Brisbane, was dismissed from the Public Service from the close of business on 24th February 1960 for convictions, involving the stealing of water melons, and wilfully and unlawfully destroying a window. On 26th October 1959 the trainee had been reprimanded by the Public Service Board in relation to a conviction on 14th September 1959 for the stealing of a chair. After the officer's dismissal, the Public Service Board received representations from his mother but the Board indicated that it was unable to vary its decision. If the honourable senator will provide me with the names of the apprentices to whom he referred I will make further inquiries. 286 287 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: Can the Minister inform the Parliament, if, in the course of the investigation by his Department in relation to the charge against Mr G. C. Hoffmann, it was suspected or, indeed, found to be true that Gerard Charles Hoffmann was acting on the instruction of, or in liaison with, Mr James Francis O'Brien, then an officer of the Department of Trade and Industry? Did both officers resign as a direct result of the investigation referred to? 287 K5K LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I provide the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There is no evidence that Mr Hoffmann acted on the instruction of Mr O'Brien. Mr Hoffmann did state to the Department of Customs and Excise that Mr O'Brien had contacted him seeking to expedite a decision on the by-law application for turtle skins. 1 have advised the Senate of the circumstances leading to Mr Hoffmann's resignation. I have no knowledge why Mr O'Brien resigned. 287 287 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: Was any officer of the Department of Customs and Excise involved in the widespread conspiracy to evade customs duties on a great scale, to which the Minister referred publicly last year? 287 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT -I provide the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Customs and Excise has delected several incidents in the last year or more in which there had been a substantial evasion of customs duties. These matters have been referred to at various times in Parliament. In respect of one of these, where certain companies evaded duty payable on the importation of cigars and cigarettes, a number of officers of the Department were charged and disciplined for negligence. This matter was also referred to in the last Auditor-General's report. 287 287 K6F 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: Did Gerard Charles Hoffmann, in order to arrange the import of turtle skins without payment of duty create a new by-law under the Minister's authority for such illegal importation? 287 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I provide the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No. He improperly issued advice that such a by-law has been made. 287 287 KTA 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator McCLELLAND asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: Bearing in mind the Minister's statement in the Senate on 4th March 1969 that he had received a letter from Mr G. C. Hoffmann, dated 1 1th November 1963. seeking his permission to resign, can the Minister say whether the article first appearing in the journal 'Incentive' of 11th November 1968, the same date, relating to activities going on within his Department, had been brought to the Minister's notice before it was decided to allow Mr Hoffmann to tender his resignation or before the Minister had interviewed Mr Hoffmann? 287 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I provide the following answer to the honourable senator's question: This article had not been brought to my notice before Mr Hoffmann submitted his resignation. 287 287 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: Were there any instances, other than for which Mr Hoffmann was charged and found guilty, in which Messrs Hoffmann and O'Brien were involved; if so, what was the total amount of duty avoided? 287 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I provide the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I have been advised by the Department of Customs and Excise that it is not aware of any other instances in which Messrs Hoffmann and O'Brien were involved. 287 287 K6F 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: Did a person employed in Parliament House last November ring the Minister and arrange the interview between Mr Hoffmann and himself? 287 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I provide the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A Mr Cullen, employed by the Parliamentary Leader of the Australian Labor Party, rang my private secretary on approximately 7th November 1968 to arrange an interview between Mr Hoffmann and myself. Mr Cullen was advised by my private secretary that an interview could not be arranged at that stage and he suggested that Mr Hoffmann should sent a letter to me stating his reasonsfor seeking an interview. 287 287 KTA 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator McCLELLAND asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice: By what amount was Mr G. C. Hoffmann's furlough pay reduced as the result of a determination by the Public Service Board, referred to by the Minister in his reply to Senator McClelland's Question No. 907? 288 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I provide the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Pay equivalent to three-tenths of a month, i.e. $167.25. 288 288 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - On 25th February, Senator Cant asked me, as Leader of the Government, the following question: Mas any pressure been brought to bear on the Australian Government by the Government of the United States to ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty before nuclear energy is used to develop a harbour at Cape Keraudren? Has the Government of the United States ratified the NonProliferation Treaty? In the course of my reply, I said that I might want to give a supplementary answer in relation to the present signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I have ascertained that the NonProliferation Treaty has so far attracted 87 signatures and 9 ratifications. It requires 43 ratifications, including those of Britain, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which are the depositary governments for the Treaty, to bring it into effect. Britain is the only depositary government to have deposited its instruments of ratification to date, although the USA and the USSR have signed the Treaty. Ratification procedures are in progress in the United States. (Question No. 912) 288 288 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator POYSER asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice: Is it a fact that James Francis O'Brien resigned as an officer of the Department of Trade and Industry as a result of certain investigations but was not charged. Did James Francis O'Brien lose all or any of his furlough entitlement under section SS of the Public Service Act as a result of the investigation carried out into his activities? 288 JZQ LP 1 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided me with the following information: At the request of the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, an investigation was conducted by the Commonwealth police in 1968 into certain aspects of the conduct of Mr James Francis O'Brien. Before the investigation was complete, Mr O'Brien resigned. No charge was laid against him. The relevant provisions of the Public Service Act are contained in section 73, not in section 55. Under those provisions Mr James Francis O'Brien was paid an amount of $3,846.75 representing payment in lieu of 6 9/10ths months' furlough, 3/10ths of 1 month having been deducted from his maximum entitlement of 7 2/10ths months. 287 288 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice: If James Francis O'Brien lost all or part of his furlough entitlement as a result of investigations into his activities in the Department of Trade and Industry and in accordance with the provisions of section 55 of the Public Service Act, why was he not charged for the same offences and dismissed in the same way as originally applied to Mr Hoffmann? 288 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied me with the following information: The situation in relation to Mr O'Brien was that the investigations were incomplete when he resigned. I am advised that an officer who has resigned from the Public Service cannot be charged under the Public Service Act. 287 288 K6F 0 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice: During November last year, was an officer of the Department of Trade and Industry interrogated for eight hours by Commonwealth police? Was the interrogation in relation to the officer's employment and was a report from the Commonwealth police made to the Minister? 288 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator ANDERSON - The Minister for and Industry has supplied the following information: There was no interrogation during November, but in September Mr James Francis O'Brien was questioned by the Commonwealth police. The questioning related to certain aspects of this officer's conduct. The Commonwealth police reported to the Secretary of my Department, who is responsible for matters of discipline within the Department. 289 miscellaneous 289 289 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I have received from Senator Keeffe an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency, namely: The failure of the Government to give adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. Is the motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) - 289 JQQ 0 0 CORMACK, Magnus Senator Cormack - I rise to order, Mr President. 1 address myself to the point of order on the basis that I hope I shall obtain from you the wisdom which you accord to interpreting both the Standing Orders and the practice of the Senate. An urgency motion has been moved and has been supported by honourable senators. The motion is in accordance with and pursuant to standing order 64. I seek your guidance on this matter, Sir, because standing order 125 reads as follows: No Motion or Amendment shall anticipate an Order of the Day or another Motion of which Notice has been given. Standing order 419 states: No Senator shall digress from the subject-matter of any Question under discussion; nor anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper: . . . Obviously that refers to the Senate notice paper. I direct my attention to these two standing orders, which I suggest must be read in conjunction with standing order 64, because the Senate already has this matter under its survey and surveillance. A Senate select committee has been charged by the Senate with the examination of this problem. The matter appears on the notice paper. I suggest, that under the two standing orders I have referred to - I consider they must be read in conjunction with standing order 64 under which Senator Keeffe and his supporters have moved this motion - honourable senators opposite are out of order. 1 suggest that they are canvassing a matter which is before a select committee of the Senate; therefore it should not be debated on the grounds that it is anticipating a matter which at present appears on the notice paper. 1 know there are difficulties associated with this matter. I also address my attention to the 'Australian Senate Practice', third edition, in which the eminent and learned Clerk who sits in front of you, Sir, deals with the problems in which the Senate finds itself involved from time to time. I refer you, Mr President, to chapter 14, page 198 of 'Australian Senate Practice' which is headed 'Motion for Adjournment to Debate Matter of Urgency'. In that chapter the learned Clerk of the Senate properly provides for the instruction of senators matters that arise in relation to a motion for adjournment in order to debate a matter of urgency. For example, I direct attention to the second paragraph on page 198 in which a 1957 case is used as an illustration. The author states: A Senator gave notice to the President of his intention to move the adjournment of the Senate to discuss the effect on Universities of a Bill before the Queensland Parliament which related to the administration of the University of Queensland. The President ... in a private ruling, indicated that the motion, if proposed, would be disallowed because the Commonwealth Government had no administrative responsibility in tha matter. The President went on to refer to 'May*. Then, in the ultimate paragraph of that page - and I quote it because it can be said that perhaps in quoting it I am taking a point against myself - it is stated that the President upheld a point of order that a motion was not in order because it dealt with a matter that was not a Commonwealth responsibility but one for which the Government of Western Australia was responsible. I mention those two paragraphs only so that no honourable senator present can say that I am being anything less than fair. The motion of which Senator Keeffe has given notice gives as its reason: The failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the- I pause there to direct your attention to the subsequent words that appear in the terms of the motion. They are: the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. The passage reads, in full: The failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance thai oil drilling and mining in the Great Burrier Reef areas will not be permitted. I direct your attention, Mr President, to the fact that the Commonwealth Government does not have jurisdiction over the Great Barrier Reef, even under our Petroleum (SubmergedLands)ActwhichIhave examined. Here I would refer to what the Attorney-General (Mr Bowen) said during the course of his second reading speech when introducing that measure in another place. He said that involved in this was the inability to distinguish what was the area of jurisdiction of the Commonwealth under that measure and what was the area of jurisdiction of the sovereign State of Queensland. I direct attention to the fact that the motion in question here refers to the Great Barrier Reef areas. This is an all-embracing designation which concerns a matter in which there is a division of authority as to what is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government of Australia and therefore the ministerial, responsibility of the Commonwealth. The second matter is the areas which are the responsibility of the sovereign State of Queensland. Therefore I suggest that, in accordance with the rulings and practice of the Senate, the Parliament has but limited powers to argue as to assurances in relation to, for example, matters that deal with the sovereign rights of the State of Queensland. It was only on 4th March - yesterday - that a similar motion was introduced in another place. As discussion of that matter is now concluded I may refer to it. The debate is reported in full in yesterday's Hansard of another place. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), a member of the Opposition in another place, launched debate on a matter of urgency in terms substantially the same as those contained in the motion which Senator Keeffe has moved this afternoon. After the honourable member for Dawson had completed his introductory speech the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) replied, and I seek your permission to quote what he said for your information so that you may advise me on the question that I have raised with relation to the jurisdiction of the Senate in this matter and the propriety of Senator Keeffe's moving of the motion, bearing in mind that it refers to an area that is not specified or designated and where there is a division of authority which is not specified. On page 331 of Hansard of another place the Minister for National Development is reported as having said: We are concerned that any proposal might lead todamageordesocrationofthismagnificent wonder- Then he goes on to say: But we cannot ignore the fact that it is not easy to determine where our powers lie in this matter. I am told on the best legal advice that any land above low water mark is the property of Queensland. He continues: A tremendous number of islands on the Reef- The word 'Reef comes in here - not Barrier Reef'- are above low water mark and, therefore, are Queensland territory. If we accept that Queensland has authority over an area extending seaward for 3 miles from all its territory it would have authority for 3 miles all around those islands. So it is not simply a matter of the Commonwealth making a decree, as has been suggested by the honourable member for Dawson, and saying to Queenslanders, 'To hell with you'. The next and pregnant sentence is: We must respect Queensland's authority wherever it exists. So, as I did when opening my remarks, I suggest that the motion in the terms as submitted to the Senate is out of order. Firstly, it seeks to examine the jurisdiction of the sovereign State of Queensland in an area which is not defined; but implicitly it seeks to extend authority over the sovereign State of Queensland. Secondly, there is constitutional propriety involved in this question. Thirdly, 1 suggest that this is a device which is being used for party political purposes and not in the interests of public urgency. Therefore, I suggest that the motion is out of order and should not be accepted. 290 1L5 0 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator Murphy - I suggest that the point of order is not well taken. So far as constitutional propriety and other points taken by the honourable senator are concerned, one has only to consider what the Senate did with relation to the appointment of the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources to understand that this Parliament, and therefore the Senate as part of it, has a legislative interest in all these areas; otherwise we could not have set up that committee. It is one of the particular subject matters of inquiry by this Senate and there is no substance in the objection at all. You might as well say we were not entitled to set up the Select Committee to inquire into any of these matters. At best, the honourable senator says there is some doubt about who owns the areas. These matters are not resolved by doubts. The reality is that apparently the permits have to be approved or consented to at the Federal level. Therefore this Parliament is concerned with the matter, because the Federal Minister can take action to prevent drilling being done. It is clearly a matter of Federal ministerial responsibility. We are concerned with it, and it is being suggested that that responsibility should be exercised in a certain way. Then the honourable senator says that the motion is contrary to the Standing Orders in that it anticipates something. Standing order 125 reads: No Motion or Amendment shall anticipate an Order of the Day or another Motion of which Notice has been given. No order of the day is being anticipated and there is no other motion of which notice has been given and which this motion anticipates, We therefore suggest that this motion is entirely in order. A somewhat similar motion was moved on 16th October 1968 dealing with the Gulf of Carpentaria and Great Barrier Reef waters. The matter of definite public importance there, was the failure of the Government to initiate action to police, control and preserve the resources of the waters of the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Great Barrier Reef. I ask you to reject the point of order. 291 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - Mr President, I seek a ruling on a point of order which, if it is not identical with the point raised by Senator Cormack, concerns an allied matter which would be covered in the objections which he raised. At the outset, by way of desiring to assist you, the point which has been taken by Senator Murphy with regard to a motion in October last year was, 1 put with all respect, irrelevant to the consideration here. That motion was concerned with the waters of the Great Barrier Reef and the Gulf of Carpentaria whereas what is involved in Senator Keeffe's motion are the actual resources of the sea bed. But leaving that aspect aside, it is clear that the Senate has appointed the Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources to examine the provisions of legislation relating to off-shore areas and, in particular, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. That Select Committee must operate under the provisions of chapter XXI f of the Standing Orders. The Senate having appointed a committee to investigate a matter which comprehends the substance of what Senator Keeffe raises by his motion of urgency, it appears to me that problems arise, not only for the Senate but also for the senators who are members of that Select Committee. Standing order 308 in chapter XXII states: The evidence taken by any Select Committee of the Senate and documents presented to such Committee, which have not been reported to the Senate, shall not be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person. 291 JQQ 0 0 CORMACK, Magnus Senator Cormack - ls Senator Keeffe a member of the Committee? 291 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - He is certainly a member of the Committee, and there are seven other senators who, with Senator Keeffe, constitute the membership of that Committee. 291 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - Mr President, I rise to order. Senator Greenwood is casting aspersions on what I am going to say. 1 think he is entirely wrong in this attitude and should not pursue this line of argument. 291 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - The point of order is not upheld. 291 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - I do hot desire to anticipate what Senator Keeffe will say; to a certain extent that would be beyond me. However, it is apparent that the work of the Committee and the provisions of the legislation which the Committee is investigating comprehend what are the relative powers of the Commonwealth and what are the powers of the State with regard to the Great Barrier Reef area. Looking at the terms of the urgency motion which Senator Keeffe has raised, it is quite obvious that questions of power must arise. He stales in the terms of the motion that he has proposed: . the failure ot the Government io give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. I do not know what Senator Keeffe is going to say. It may be difficult to forecast, in any event, what he would say as to the words 'adequate assurance'. It is clear, nevertheless, that one reasonable interpretation of those words would be as to the power of the Federal Government or the power of a State government to take the necessary steps. Therefore I suggest that one attack which is to be made is on the sufficiency of Commonwealth powers. That was one of the principal matters aired in this chamber as justification for the appointment of the Senate Select Committee. Accordingly, as I said earlier, there is comprehended within the terms of reference of the Select Committee the very matter which this motion contemplates. It is a matter of public knowledge, and not a disclosure of committee affairs, that the Committee has been to the Great Barrier Reef area for the express purpose of hearing submissions and, in due course, considering them. Therefore it becomes a matter of what is the limit upon the Senators and what constraint should be exercised by the Senate in the light of standing order 308. lt would be very difficult for honourable senators to speak on matters in this field without offending the Standing Orders. That is one point. A second point is that the Senate ought to recognise the difficulty into which it puts its members. Furthermore, having appointed a select committee, the Senate ought to consider whether in those circumstances the honourable senator should embark upon a discussion when it has already given to the Select Committee the obligation of making a major consideration of these matters. I have entered this discussion because I sense that there is here a very real problem. I do not know whether this matter is expressly covered by the Standing Orders, but I certainly ask for your ruling upon it, Mr President. It appears from the Standing Orders that the Committee may report at any stage, or it may report when it has completed its deliberations. If it reports when it has finished its deliberations then, according to standing order 317 the consideration of that report must be by specific motion, of which notice must be given in the usual manner. That would suggest, I submit, that if the report of the Committee were before the Senate it could not be discussed in this way. Therefore I ask whether it is proper for the Senate to discuss matters which are within the terms of reference of the Select Committee, prior to the Select Committee reporting. Obviously there is embarrassment. 1 suggest that it is proper for the Senate to be concerned with the matters 1 have canvassed, both as to the position of individual senators and the Senate itself. I support the point of order because there is, to my mind, a problem which arises. I ask for your ruling. 292 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Is the honourable senator asking for my ruling now? 292 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - 1 understood that Senator Cormack had raised a point of order and had asked for a ruling. I am likewise seeking a ruling on substantially the same matter but raising, as they appear to me, different considerations. 292 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Is the honourable senator supporting the point of order? 292 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - Yes. 292 K6R 0 0 COHEN, Samuel Senator Cohen - It was not until the last moment when Senator Greenwood was pressed to define his attitude that we understood him to be supporting Senator Cormack's point of order. He seemed to have half a foot in Senator Cormack's camp and to move into some esoteric area of his own in order to put a submission which was not based on any of the standing orders. I respectfully suggest to you, Mr President, that whether or not it is the same point of order as Senator Cormack raised, you should overrule it. Senator Cormack has invited you to shut out the Senate from debating the matter of urgency, namely, the failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. Senator Keeffe's notice of motion complies entirely with standing order 64 which deals with motions for adjournment to debate matters of urgency. The only way in which it can be excluded from consideration is if it falls within the terms of standing order 125 which reads, simply: No Motion or Amendment shall anticipate an Order of the Day or another Motion of which Notice has been given. One would have thought that Senator Cormack would have a very difficult job persuading you and the Senate that this motion was anticipating an order of the day because he has not indicated which order of the day it could possibly affect, nor has he referred us to another motion of which notice has been given. What is really being said is that we have a Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources and legislation relating thereto. He has suggested that these are wide terms of reference which might cover some of the matters which may be canvassed in this debate and, therefore, for some extraordinary reason, the Senate is precluded from debating these questions. That is an extraordinary proposition if it is to be upheld because it means that one can effectively gag the Senate by appointing a select committee. If you uphold the objection it means that anything that falls within the terms of reference of that committee is ipso facto shut out from the consideration of the Senate. I am sure that you would lean against any such construction of the Standing Orders if, indeed, such a construction were open to you. The plain fact is that the subject matter of this motion involves the Federal Government. It calls into question the failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef area will not be permitted. It is clear that the Federal Government has power to decline to give the permission that is involved in the motion. We are asking the Minister to take a serious view of his responsibilities and to make it plain that such oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef area will not be permitted, because it is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. 293 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - lt is not. 293 K6R 0 0 COHEN, Samuel Senator Cohen - You may say that is debatable as a matter of law. There may be another point of view that can be put. I do not know what it is at the moment, but I am perfectly clear in my mind, and I respectfully suggest that honourable senators should be clear in their minds, that this is pre-eminently a matter than can be discussed in the Federal Parliament. There is not a tittle of substance in the point of order because no foundation has been laid upon which it could succeed. There is not an order of the day. There is not a notice of motion with which this would interfere, and to ask you, Sir, to fall back upon some inherent jurisdiction of some esoteric illdefined character to say that the Senate should not debate this motion would be assuming a responsibility that is entirely beyond the powers of the President of the Senate. 1 suggest that we should not waste time on this discussion, that the point of order is completely without substance and that you should rule so at the earliest possible moment. 293 KQV CP; NCP from May 1975 0 0 LAWRIE, Alexander Senator LAWRIE - Mr President, I wish to support the point of order raised by Senator Cormack. I do so partly on the ground of jurisdiction. Until Federation there was considerable doubt about the location of Queensland's maritime boundaries. As recently as I 10th June 1925 - that is, considerably after Federation - Royal Letters Patent were issued from the United Kingdom defining the boundaries of the sovereign State of Queensland. The relevant passage states: The maritime boundary ot Queensland is the coastline from Point Danger to the 138th meridian in the Gulf of Carpentaria together with all island* within the outer edge of the Barrier Reef and within a line drawn from the north-west point of the Reef to the 138th meridian. That quotation is taken from the book Triumph in the Tropics' by Cilento and Lack, lt is authoritative and I submit that the Government of the sovereign State of Queensland has complete jurisdiction over the Great Barrier Reef and all the islands within the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef. I support the point of order. 293 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator Scott - Mr President, in all the circumstances 1 am prepared to accept that there is sufficient ministerial responsibility in the matter for the discussion to proceed. 293 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I consider the motion to be in order. There appears to be some ministerial responsibility as evidenced by the statement of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott). As to the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources, I think the only limitation should be that the proceedings of the Committee should not bc referred to until it has reported to the Senate. Senator Keeffe, you may proceed. 293 KPG Queensland 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - I move, pursuant to standing order 64: That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till tomorrow at 11.15 a.m., for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, namely: The failure of the Government to give adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. I regret that an argument about Standing Orders has taken place and that a challenge was offered in respect of the subject matter of this debate. I regret in particular the inferences drawn by Senator Greenwood, a Liberal senator from Victoria, who implied that I proposed to disclose confidential matters associated with a Senate select committee. 294 K2I 0 0 BRANSON, George Senator Branson - 1 rise to a point of order. Standing order 64 (2.) states: In speaking to such motion, the mover and the Minister first speaking shall not exceed thirty minutes each, and any other Senator or the mover in reply shall not exceed IS minutes, and every Senator shall confine himself to the one subject in respect to which the Motion has been made. In accordance with that standing order, on this occasion Senator Keeffe or any other honourable senator shall1 speak only in respect of the failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. Senator Keeffe is not permitted to launch attacks against honourable senators on this side of the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Senator Keeffe, would you please keep to the terms of the subject as you have submitted it to the Senate. 294 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - 1 bow to you ruling, Sir. I. feel that I was quite justified in making the statement, but I shall temper my remarks in accordance with your ruling. It is not my intention at any stage of this debate to disclose any confidential information that has come into my possession as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources. However, matters which have been raised in publ'ic session of the Committee have been published in many sections of the Press. I suggest that these are public matters and that in referring to them I will not breach any confidence gained in any discussions that have taken place inside the Committee or with witnesses appearing before the Committee. There is one matter that I think should be cleared up now and placed permanently on the record. I suggest that on a previous occasion when we discussed the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Great Barrier Reef in the Senate, at least a gentleman's agreement was reached between honourable senators opposite and Opposition senators who are members of the Committee, that if we followed the general course of action that I have said I will follow, there would be no problem. As time is limited I wish to proceed now with the argument as outlined in the motion. The Great Barrier Reef is not a parochial issue, lt is not a subject that concerns only a limited number of people in this country. It is a national asset, or indeed an international asset, and ought to be treated as such. In these circumstances I hope that honourable senators opposite appreciate that this is not a joking matter. The Great Barrier Reef stretches for about 1,200 miles down the coastline of Queensland. It is basically, and perhaps most importantly, a tourist attraction. From time to time the Minister in charge of Tourist Activities (Senator Wright) distributes reports stating that a very large number of visitors to Australia from overseas make a point of seeing the Reef, or at least some of its attractions. The area is rich in fishing resources. I refer not only to the types of fish to be seen in small aquariums but also to the fish that are caught for food in many countries. The Reef acts as a protection against tides and cyclonic disturbances. If the Reef were interfered with to a large degree, one theory that operates holds, a major effect on tides would follow. If the Reef were permanently damaged over a large section, not one surf port on the coast of Queensland would be able to stand up to heavy weather and heavy seas. lt is not necessary to create artificial damage to the Reef, because it has many natural enemies. In the past cyclones have created damage that now, many years later, is still in the process of repair. There is a common misconception as to whether the Reef is dead or living. No accurate survey has been carried out, but estimates of the amount of living coral have varied from 60% to 80% of the total area. In some parts of the Reef, particularly at its northern end, the Crown of Thorns starfish has caused tremendous damage. Currently surveys are being made to discover an agent to control this starfish. The damage that can be caused by silt is apparent in the Townsville area. In the Cleveland Bay area in days gone by there were a number of small reefs which were alive, but unfortunately most of them now are dead or have disintegrated and have disappeared. The theory expounded by experts on many occasions, and which has not been contradicted, is that this has been caused by silt coming out of the Townsville Harbour. No tests have been carried out in Australia into the effect of oil or any other hydrocarbon type of mineral on living coral. 295 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to rule whether Senator Keeffe is breaching standing order 308. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - No. The President gave a ruling on that matter earlier. 295 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - Thank you, Sir. The Opposition calls for a series of tests extending over a lengthy period. Until that is done is there anyone in this chamber - I doubt whether anyone in Australia can - who can tell us authoritatively whether the Reef will be damaged by an oil blowout or by an escape from gas wells? Marine life in the vicinity of the Reef depends on the minute creatures of the sea, on things smaller than themselves such as plankton, seagrass and seaweeds. It would be reasonable to assume that an escape of oil directly or indirectly would lake great toll of the type of life on which the larger marine creatures feed. I must refer in a way which I hope will not be offensive to Government members to the joint agreement entered into by the Commonwealth and the States. I am not breaching any confidence of the Off-Shore Petroleum Committee in doing so. In this chamber I and members of the Opposition opposed the legislation as it stood when it was before us on the ground that we felt there was insufficient protection for the Barrier Reef. It is true that a Committee has been set up but 1 cannot make any reference to its findings or deliberations at this stage, nor can I properly do so until its report has been presented. 295 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - Nor to the evidence before the Committee. That is the point. 295 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - 1 will make my decisions with the assistance of Mr Acting Deputy President and Senator Greenwood might prefer to remain quiet. When the legislation was before the Queensland Parliament that was one point uppermost in the minds not only of members of the official Opposition, the Labor Party, but of other members of the Parliament as well. They were particularly keen and anxious to see that the Barrier Reef was protected. It is significant that the Minister has said outside the chamber, as he did inside the chamber on that occasion, that there was nothing to fear. Probably I could quote a facetious statement he made to the State Legislative Assembly but I do not think it would be the proper thing to do. He said that he would be personally responsible to see that no damage was caused to the Reef or the areas continguous to the Reef. lt is well known, and has been mentioned in this chamber this afternoon, that yesterday in another place there was a debate on this subject. 1 am not satisfied with what the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) had to say. I am not attacking the Minister. He has to speak in accordance with the policy of the Government. Today some sections of the Press indicated that certain assurances had been given that there would be no drilling in the Reef area. I should like to quote very quickly three or four statements. To me, sufficient assurances have not been given that proper precautions have been taken or that there will be any blocking of exploration or drilling permits on the Reef or in the immediate area of the Reef, and I hope that the Minister who in this place represents the Minister for National Development will convey my sentiments to his colleague. The Minister for National Development said that he agreed entirely with the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) who said that we would have to be very careful in respect of future permits for oil exploration. That would be construed as being a sympathetic statement. Referring to the Queensland Minister for Mines, who was the Designated Authority under the joint legislation and who in this case will have to wear two hats when carrying out his duties, the Minister said: This is the man who, in consultation and cooperation with the Commonwealth Government, is seeing that the Reef is not despoiled. I do not want to use rude words but this is not strictly in accordance with facts. Then he said: The Commonwealth is having discussions with Queensland about searching off-shore for other than oil. Later the Minister for National Development went on to say- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder! Senator Keeffe, you must not read place yesterday in another place. 296 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - If I cannot quote statements that he made a lot of this debate loses its sense completely. May I do so without reading from the report? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTYes. 296 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - The Minister said that three exploratory wells had been drilled but none of them was within 20 miles of the Great Barrier Reef. That is not good enough because it has been proved by the explosions that took place in the Santa Barbara area on one occasion, and on another occasion by oil slicks which drifted many miles with the tides and currents, that damage can be done to the Reef. That is exactly the kind of thing which will take place if there is an accidental spillage from a well or from a pipe in the Barrier Reef area. In the Brisbane daily newspaper, the Courier Mail', on Friday, 13th September 1968, the following report appears: The Premier (Mr Bjelke-Petersen)- Now a well-known name in the oil industry - gave a strong assurance yesterday that the State Government would protect the Great Barrier Reef against exploitation. He said that no mining industry based on harvesting dead coral was permitted on the Reef. He has made similar statements, many of which he has based on the surveys carried out by Dr Harry Ladd, an American marine biologist, but as I develop my argument I shall prove that this also is not sufficient assurance that the assets of the Reef will be protected or that the Premier intends to protect them. In addition to the damage that J have mentioned earlier, foreign fishing vessels have played a fairly large part in activities particularly on the northern end of the Reef. As my colleague in another place, the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton) could tell you, many Chinese, Japanese and other foreign vessels for a long time have been taking away meat from the giant clams. Of course, once the meat is removed the clam dies. This could upset the ecological balance of all marine life on the Reef. Not enough is known about this. Those people who are scientifically or academically qualified to tell us say that we should not touch the Reef until a suitable period has been spent in carrying out a proper physical and scientific survey. 296 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - Why did Labor give permits to mine the Reef? 296 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - Senator Webster of the Country Party who is interjecting might like to be recruited as a labourer to remove some of the crown of thorns fish. If this survey were carried out- 296 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster -I think I made a valid comment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! 296 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - I think I can get over the childish voices, Sir. If this survey were carried out we would be able to form a proper assessment of whether this kind of exploitation or exploration should take place. I think that it is fairly commonly known that apart from some investigation carried out at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef, in the Heron Island area, there are no other scientific stations of any sort of a permanent nature anywhere along the length of the Reef - a total distance of 1,200 miles. 296 KBL 0 0 WOOD, Ian Senator Wood - Heron Island is not part of the Great Barrier Reef. 296 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - I did not say that it was part of the Great Barrier Reef. If Senator Wood had listened to me he would have heard that. He ought to know where Heron Island is. I said 'at the southern end of the Reef in the Heron Island area'. If that is not clear enough for the honourable senator, I will write a letter to him about it next week. May I make further quotations as to the depredation that has been caused by the movement of foreign fishing 'boats into the area. I refer honourable senators to the issue of the 'Courier Mail' of 23rd July 1968. I will have time to quote the headlines only. The article is headed: Second Chinese Boat Seen Inside Limits. Pirates' protest expected. Diplomatic repercussions are expected to follow the interception of two Nationalist Chinese fishing boats inside the 12 mile limit off the Queensland coast. It is now history that a great argument developed. Once before I have produced here a map to show that the Barrier Reef does come into this area. It is looked upon as a lucrative fishing field. It is clearly shown on this map. To substantiate further the arguments that I have been developing, I want to quote from the American magazine 'Time' of 14th February 1969, only 2 weeks or 3 weeks ago. Before doing so, may I say that we received all sorts of assurances, and some of the overseas news items were slanted suitably, to prove to us that no great damage was being caused in Santa Barbara. 'Time' has been looked upon as a reliable magazine even by some members of the Liberal Party. It has this to say: The huge bubble of oil and natural gas boiling up from beneath the surface of Santa Barbara Channel at a rate of almost 1,000 gallons an hour spilled across the blue water for 11 days. It finally coated an area of at least 400 square miles and fouled 40 miles of incomparable beach front with acrid, tarlike slime. 'Time' Correspondent Robert Anson, flying over the despoiled sea, found the fumes noxious at 1,000 feet. A little further on, the article refers to similar tragedies that have taken taken place. It refers to the breakup off Baja, California of the tanker 'Tampico': . which dumped 59,000 barrels of diesel oil into the Pacific and 'utterly impoverished animal life' in the area for 5 years. I suggest, Mr Acting Deputy President, that if this type of catastrophe takes place within the Great Barrier Reef area the Reef will be spoiled for a much longer period. If such pollution killed off the top of the Reef over a fairly lengthy area - places like the coast east of Ingham, the Townsville area, the Halifax area, particularly the Lucinda Point bulk storage area, possibly the Cairns area and Mission Beach and the other delightful beaches that we have along the Queensland coast - the area of the Reef involved would be ruined by the high tides and the heavy seas experienced there. The theory has been expounded by people with scientific knowledge. This is what they believe. With no evidence to the contrary, I am prepared to believe it. I refer to the 'Torrey Canyon' incident. That ship spilt 100,000 tons of crude oil into the English Channel. We are told that 90% of the animal loss was caused by the detergents used to clean up the oil. No real survey has been conducted to inform us whether or not the chemicals used in cleaning up the mess had any serious effects. However this information will come forth in due time. The situation at Santa Barbara is even worse than that. Direct blame is placed on the oil companies. One oil company in particular is named in this article in Time' because it did not exercise proper supervision. One of the State officials asked the then Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, for an extension of the buffer area in this locality of something like 2 miles. Such an area would be completely useless off the Queensland coast with its heavy seas and high tides, even for the protection of the Reef. In Santa Barbara, when an extension was sought, it was not granted. But this is the comment. Santa Barbara County supervisor George Clyde said: Always, Interior and oil officials led us to believe we had nothing to fear. This is what is happening in Australia now. We are told by the representatives of the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government that we have nothing to fear. The oil companies say exactly the same thing, except that they are a little more vocal because they are the people who stand to make the greatest profit. The Time' magazine report continues: The Government, of course, profited by the drilling; last year it made $1.6 billion in rentals, royalties and bonus payments from the Santa Barbara concession. The block that included the leaky Union well was good for $6 1.4m in bonus revenues to the Federal Government. The next statement from 'Time' refers to the oil company responsible for the permit in this area: While known in southern California as 'the gogo company', Union also has picked up something of a reputation as a polluter. Only 2 weeks ago. the company was accused of dumping 1,500 barrels of crude, into the Santa Ana River after a mud slide broke a pipeline. Twice in 1967, the company was brought up on violations of California fish and game statutes for polluting Los Angeles harbour. Indeed, its competitors complain that Union is giving the industry a bad name. Of course, when this problem blew up, its competitors decided to get behind Union for the sake of mutual protection. I am charging the Commonwealth Government with responsibility in this matter. I think that the onus must come back to the Commonwealth Government because the Queensland Government is not prepared to take the responsibility. The Queensland Government will make every cent that it can out of royalties from oil. Because the Great Barrier Reef is a national asset, I believe that onus is on the Commonwealth Government to give a complete assurance - much better than that which was given by the Minister for National Development in another place approximately 24 hours ago - which will convince all Australians and all Queenslanders in particular that the Commonwealth Government means what it says. The statement outlined by the Minister for National Development yesterday does not appear to convey that impression. If any doubt exists about the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and State Governments, this doubt ought to be the matter of some sort of emergency discussion so that this question can be resolved satisfactorily. I wish to make one or two more points and that will conclude my contribution to the debate. I feel that, so far as Queensland is concerned, we have very little chance of overcoming the problems to which I have referred. The Queensland Premier and the Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity on numerous occasions have given this assurance but have not backed it up with anything. There is no legislation to back it up at all. The Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity has said publicly on several occasions that licences or exploration permits will be granted for the Great Barrier Reef area, but only after conditions have been decided. This would take many months. If honourable senators want my authority for that statement they may refer to the 'Queensland Mines Magazine' of January 1969 where this statement was made originally. Perhaps we will find out yet. May I say this also: In his statement the Minister for National Development said that no more permits in certain circumstances will be granted. It might be advisable for a proper investigation to be carried out. Such an investigation might indicate that there is no more reef for which to issue permits and that that has not been made public yet. Because it has not been made public, it creates a further area about which one must be worried. As I said a few minutes ago, the Queensland Minister clearly indicated that a statement on the successful tenderers for the Reef area would not be made for a long period of time. Under pressure - I leave honourable senators to judge whether from his own Government or from interested oil companies - he said that the announcement would be made in March. For the benefit of those honourable senators who think that I may be going close to the bone in regard to the Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources, 1 point out that these are all public statements appearing in Queensland newspapers and other newspapers in this country. I repeat that the Queensland Minister said that he would make the announcement in March. Then he got down to the day. He said that it would be made on 1st March. Today is 5th March, and the announcement has not yet been made. Perhaps I should refer to the Queensland Premier here. 1 believe that it is appropriate to do so because he also has been vocal in statements that the Reef area would be protected. Those honourable senators who read the newspapers will know that at the moment the Queensland Premier is in serious difficulties in regard to his holdings in oil companies. It is more than a rumour that one of the reasons why the successful tenderers have not been announced is that the Premier is associated with one of the consortiums seeking to take out leases of Barrier Reef areas. 298 KSW 0 0 MAUNSELL, Charles Senator Maunsell - Who told the honourable senator that? 298 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - This is a shocking state of affairs. 298 KSW 0 0 MAUNSELL, Charles Senator Maunsell - Where is the honourable senator's evidence? 298 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - If Senator Maunsell from the Country Party can understand the prospectus of an oil company, I suggest that he study it tonight. This is what is likely to happen, and this is why no decision has been taken and no firm announcement has been made in relation to the allocation of the permits, and, worst of all, why no firm decision has been taken on whether the Reef is to be protected. When I find that a State government is prepared to involve itself in things of this nature, I despair of the future. That is one of the reasons why we have decided to raise this matter and to make this appeal to the Commonwealth Government to be powerful and strong enough to take the initiative in protecting this natural asset. Honourable senators who are supporting me will develop other points. I am certain that they will cover adequately those details which time has precluded me from including in my contribution to the debate. 299 JQR New South Wales 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - I think I will be excused for referring to the fact that in speaking in this debate I am placed in a more difficult situation than perhaps any other senator apart from the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott), who represents the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn). 1 am the chairman of a committee appointed by the Senate to investigate and in due course to report on the off-shore petroleum legislation under very extensive terms of reference to which I will refer later. I am extremely concerned that in no sense will I, as chairman of that committee, breach the rules of the Senate or the secrecy of the proceedings of the committee. This is a problem that will confront all of us who are members of the committee appointed by the Senate when we talk about this matter. I was conscious that Senator Keeffe was labouring under this difficulty. I ask honourable senators to bear with me and to understand that, while there is a lot of evidence about which I would like to talk, in my view I am precluded from doing so. I put it to the Senate that the function of select committees, in which we are engaged much more now than we have been hitherto, is a very important extension of the work of the Senate. The success of select committees is very much the province of the whole of the Senate, not of any one part of it. I believe that anything which in the end tended to diminishThe status of select committees or to denigrate their work would do harm to the institution which we respect and which we hope will reach a higher status and a greater responsibility. Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. 299 JQR 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - -Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had dealt quite briefly with the genera] position of Senate select committees and with the problems that discussing their activities prior to the preparation of their reports presented to the members of the committees and, I suggested, particularly to the chairmen, who always have to be concerned that the committees operate within the terms of reference laid down for them by their colleagues in the Senate, and also in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Senate which lay down rules for the conduct of our affairs. I am concerned about discussing some of these matters within the terms of the urgency motion as they affect the work of the Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources along the lines upon which the Committee was set up in November 1967. I think it would be appropriate if I, in my position as chairman, referred to standing order 308, which no doubt has been dealt with before and I am sure will be dealt with by other honourable senators in the course of this debate. I think it is appropriate to mention some of these things in their proper order. Standing order 308 is a very clear Standing Order, in my interpretation, and has concerned me from the time I became Chairman of the Committee. Standing order 308 states: The evidence taken by any Select Committee of the Senate and documents presented to such Committee, which have not been reported to the Senate, shall not be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person. That Standing Order restrains one, as a member of the Committee, from discussing freely some of the matters that have been referred to earlier and which, I am sure, will be referred to later. I think it is also proper for me to remind the Senate of the terms of reference given to the Committee by the Senate under the resolution passed on 8th November 1967. I propose to read these terms of reference. They are: That, with respect to legislation relating to the Exploration for, and the Exploitation of, the Petroleum Resources of the Continental Shelf of Australia and of certain Territories of the Commonwealth and of certain other Submerged Land, a Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon: Whether the constitutional conception underlying the legislation is consistent with the proper constitutional responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States; whether the system of administration established by the legislation is the most effective to fulfil the purpose of adequate utilisation of Australia's off-shore resources of oil and natural gas; whether the legislation makes adequate provision for free interstate trade in gas and oil; whether proper provision is made in the legislation for adequate royalties used in the national interest; whether the areas of permits confirmed or authorised in the legislation are excessive; whether proper provision is made relating to renewals to prevent stagnating oil exploration; whether the legislation makes adequate provision for Australian ownership and/or control or Australian participation in the ownership and/or control of Australia's offshore resources of oil and natural gas; and the provisions of the legislation generally. When we debated the petroleum Bills it was stated that the legislation was perhaps the largest piece of legislation to pass through the Commonwealth and the States since Federation. The operation is an immense one. Those who are engaged in the work of the Select Committee realise what an immense piece of legislation it was. It took something like 6 years to draw together. About 120 drafts went through the hands of the various draftsmen prior to completion. I read the terms of reference to remind honourable senators, and anybody who may be interested, of the extremely wide range of inquiry placed upon the Committee and therefore how difficult it is in this debate not. to impinge upon some area upon which evidence has been given to the Committee or upon opinions expressed which have not been reported to the Senate. I hope the Committee will permit me to make a progress report of our activities to the Senate fairly shortly. I have the progress report drafted, but I believe it only proper that the Committee as a whole should approve it prior to its being reported to the Senate. In many ways it would have been a good thing if I had been able to present the report this evening, but 1 cannot do that. I will do that as soon as the Committee reads the report and makes the changes that it thinks desirable. The Senate gave the Committee very wide terms of reference so it is entitled to hear the Committee's progress to a certain date. I have referred to standing order 308. I would be indebted to any of my colleagues, and anybody else interested, for any further discussion in which they may care to involve themselves on the meaning of standing order 308. I refer again, briefly, to term of reference (h) which states: the provisions of the legislation generally. One of the difficulties with which we were confronted in this broad investigation was these areas of what might be called great public interest which were not specifically referred to within our terms of reference but obviously came under clause (h), a fairly wide clause which enabled us to look at and examine such matters. Early in our work it was quite apparent that the problem of drilling in the area of the Great Barrier Reef, and any possible damage that might flow from this drilling, was a matter of public interest not only in Queensland, and North Queensland in particular, but also in Australia generally. We took some trouble to consider the whole matter of our authority - I suppose that is the best word - to take this matter in hand and do what we could to find out about it. We did this. I . will refer to that later. Two facets of the legislation, it seemed to me as chairman, gave us sufficient authority to take some cognisance of this matter. Section 18 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act states: (1.) The Designated Authority may, by instrument published in the Gazette, declare that a block specified in the instrument (not being a block in respect of which a permit or licence is in force or over or in which there is a pipeline) shall not be the subject of a permit, licence, special prospecting authority or access authority and that a pipeline licence shall not be granted in respect of a pipeline over or in that block. (2.) While a declaration under the last preceding sub-section remains in force in respect of a block, a permit, licence, special prospecting authority or access authority shall not be granted in respect of that block and a pipeline licence shall not be granted in respect of a pipeline over or in that block. I apologise to those who are not fascinated by legal words and who would have some difficulty in understanding that clearly on hearing it the first time. ] want to be fair to the Senate and to tell the Senate of the processes of thinking that went on in order to ensure that, firstly, we were doing what the Senate asked us to do; secondly, we were not in any way doing anything outside our terms of reference; and, thirdly, we were doing what we believed the Senate ought to do, representing, as it does, the broad mass of the Australian people wherever they may be. Section 1 24 states: A person carrying on operations in an adjacent area under a permit, licence, pipeline licence, special prospecting authority, access authority or instrument of consent under the last preceding section shall carry on those operations in a manner that does not interfere with: navigation; fishing; the conservation of the resources of the sea and sea-bed; or any operations of another person being lawfully carried on by way of exploration for, recovery of or conveyance of a mineral, whether petroleum or not, or by way of construction or operation of a pipeline, to a greater extent than is necessary for the reasonable exercise of the rights and performance of the duties of that first-mentioned person. Those honourable senators who have followed this and have an interest in it will see, 1 think', that there are two areas where quite properly the Senate Select Committee, under term of reference (h) which relates to the legislation generally can look at the difficulties or problems associated with the region which is popularly called the Barrier Reef or the Great Barrier Reef. 1 do not want to canvass the issue of the extent of the Barrier Reef, nor do I want to canvass the possibilities or otherwise of damage because it seems to me that it would be not quite proper to do so. I have expressed the view in the Committee and 1 have also expressed it here in the Senate, that while it is quite in order for people to say that standing order 308 is wide and that they can make their own conclusions about it and behave in their own fashion according to their own interpretation of it, there is placed upon the Committee a very heavy responsibility because under that standing order, for the Committee to divulge its evidence and to speculate upon this mutter could bring upon it or its chairman a charge of breach of privilege. 301 K2I 0 0 BRANSON, George Senator Branson - Or on any member who breaches that privilege. 301 JQR 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON - 1 understand what Senator Branson is saying and that is the reason for my concern. I further say to the Senate that the Committee has been concerned about this because we believe that Senate select committees now operating are inevitably laying down rules which could be called rules of precedent. Every later Senate select committee will have to take notice of these things and will say: 'Well, if it was good enough for them to do it. it is good enough for us.' If, in our case, we are wrong then we are setting the pattern for a series of wrong events. That is why we have been very careful indeed. As I said earlier, there is a great area of public concern about possible activities in the Great Barrier Reef. The Committee recognised this very well and being conscious of it went to north Queensland. It spent the best part of a week in Townsville, in February. My colleagues and I had the fascinating experience of being in Townsville on the hottest day for 45 years. We met in a room with broken down air conditioning. Nobody could say in this instance that the Committee was not prepared to go there and try to find out about conditions in that area. We did our best, on behalf of the Senate, to be available to any person who felt that he had a genuine case to put about the Great Barrier Reef and a genuine concern to express. From the point of view of the Senate, I think this was welcomed by the people in that area. They felt that this was a chance for them to express their views. One did not necessarily always agree with them. After leaving Townsville we went to Brisbane and did some more work in this regard. Since returning to Canberra, the Senate having resumed its sittings, we have done a little more work here. This is what we have tried to do and this will, in due course, come out in our report. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. 301 KUS Queensland 0 0 MILLINER, Bertie Senator MILLINER - I believe it unnecessary to express the importance to Queensland, and indeed to Australia, of the natural wonders of the Great Barrier Reef and the desirability of preserving them. I believe it would be generally acknowledged that as a tourist attraction the Reef would be worth millions of dollars to Australia in terms of direct and indirect spending. However, that alone is not a sufficient basis on which to determine this issue. The exploitation of the Reef is a national problem and one that must be tackled by the national parliament. As the Great Barrier Reef is one of the wonders of the world it is unnecessary, I believe, to stress its importance, but as a representative of Queensland it is necessary to stress the real fears of the people of Queensland that insufficient is being done by the Commonwealth Government to preserve the Reef. Surely their fears are well founded when they read the statement made by the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) who said that while the Government was concerned that any proposal to mine at the Great Barrier Reef might lead to damage or desecration of this magnificent wonder, we cannot ignore the fact that we do not know where our power lies in this direction. Mr Deputy President, here we have a responsible Minister of the Crown saying that he does not know where the powers of the national government lie in relation to the preservation of the Great Barrier Reef. What a statement to make! There was no indication as to how the Federal Government was endeavouring to extend its influence in this matter; there was no indication of discussions between the Federal and State Governments aimed at resolving the situation; there was no indication of the Federal Government exerting all the power at its disposal. I have always believed that in the federation of Australia, where the statutes of the State and Federal parliaments conflicted the Federal statutes were supreme. In those circumstances I suggest that the national parliament should see that its powers in this direction are supreme. However, at the present time we have a negative approach on the part of the Minister for National Development. He does not indicate that there is to be any change in approach. I suggest that the Commonwealth Government and the Commonwealth Parliament are not so slow to enforce their supremacy in other directions. For instance, in the trade union field, if a branch of a union has a rule which differs from that of the federal union the branch rule is disallowed. I believe the same procedure should be adopted in this matter under discussion because I believe all would agree that the control of the Great Barrier Reef is a national responsibility and should not be left at the discretion of any State. We appear to be doing nothing positive about the Great Barrier Reef. We seem to be hoping that something will turn up. This was evident from the remarks of the Minister yesterday in another place. In his speech he said that the Commonwealth is unlikely - and I stress the word 'unlikely' - to grant future applications to mine in the area of the Great Barrier Reef until more is known of the possibility of damaging the Reef. Yet the State Government ofQueenslandisatthisverymomentcon- sidering the granting of leases to institutions to mine the Great Barrier Reef. The Queensland Government probably has before it at this very moment an application from a consortium to mine the Reef, the principal of the consortium being no less a person than the Premier of Queensland who has a substantial number of shares in it. What will be the situation if we, as the national parliament, say that we do not know where our powers lie in this direction while the State Government grants a permit or lease to mine the Reef? Surely we have a responsibility to Australia, and indeed, to the world, to say that we shall do everything possible to preserve this natural wonder for posterity. Could it be that the application now before the Queensland Cabinet is being considered because of the factors I have outlined; inasmuch as a consortium has made the application? I repeat that the Premier of Queensland is a principal shareholder in that consortium, holding 1 million shares of a total of 15 million. I repeat that this is a particularly shameful proposal and the national Government should see that it does not come to fruition. It is criminal even to consider any application to mine an area before proper precautions in the way of adequate investigations are taken. And those precautions must be taken at this stage. I am confident that honourable senators will agree with me that as yet no proper investigation has been made. Indeed, the Minister for National Development admitted that yesterday in another place. If this is to be the way in which the national parliament treats the situation with regard to one of the great wonders of the world then I believe future generations will look upon the national parliament with some degree of disgust for not having protected the interests of Australia. Let us examine the dangers inherent in the granting of a licence to mine in this area. Firstly there is the danger of possible immediate damage to the Reef. Secondly, a well having been sunk, who can guarantee that an incident similar to the Bass Strait happening will not occur? Thirdly, oil having been found, what are the dangers of a ship loaded with oil foundering on the Reef, and what damage could result therefrom? ls it worth the risk to endanger one of the wonders of the world in order to find petroleum? This is the question which honourable senators must answer in arriving at a decision on this motion. If they are thinking only of immediate gain they will answer yes, because they will be looking for a dollar. On the other hand, if they answer no, then they will be indicating that they are conscious of the worth to Australia of preserving the Great Barrier Reef in its natural state as against any immediate monetary gain. I suggest with respect that the Government is not doing all that it could do to protect the Reef. We on this side say that no mining leases should be granted until proper investigations have been made, and we implore this Government to do its utmost to influence the Queensland Government to adopt a similar attitude and thus protect one of the great wonders of the world. I have referred to the remarks of the Minister for National Development in another place. After hearing those remarks, is it any wonder that the Opposition brings forward this emergency motion which refers to: The failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. We know that the Minister himself is genuinely concerned that irreparable damage may be done to the Great Barrier Reef should mining operations continue in that area. Consequently I submit the Opposition is justified in bringing this emergency motion forward so that honourable senators might express their dissatisfaction with the way in which this problem has been approached up to date. I repeat that I do not believe that the national Parliament has exercised sufficient power in dealing with the problem. 1 believe that it is the responsibility of the national Parliament to use its powers, because the Great Barrier Reef is somthing that should be preserved for the future of Australia. 303 K5K Western Australia LP 1 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - 1 have noted with interest what the honourable senator has said. The interesting feature about his remarks is that he criticises the Commonwealth Government in respect of some action that it might take to exercise control over the Great Barrier Reef. It must be remembered that, under the off-shore legislation that was passed some time last year- 303 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - You are a year out. 303 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - Or the year before, under that legislation the designated authority is given the power to grant leases. That designated authority may be a State officer, but the Commonwealth retains the right of veto. It is all very well for members of the Labor Party to criticise us for what action they think the Commonwealth Government might take. What happened when a Labor government was in office? It granted the only lease in perpetuity to mine tin on the Queensland coast. Honourable senators opposite may attempt to contradict that if they wish, but the fact is that a Labor government granted a company a lease in perpetuity for the mining of tin on the Queensland coast, and everybody in Queensland was disgusted at its action. 303 K6R 0 0 COHEN, Samuel Senator Cohen - They are pretty disgusted today. 303 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - And we are disgusted at the Opposition's attitude. But we want to discuss the facts of life so far as oil is concerned. I say at the outset that the Government is appreciative of the wonderful asset we have in the Great Barrier Reef which extends for some 1,200 miles along the coast of Queensland. 1 understand that the Queensland Department of Mines received two applications for permits to drill for oil adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. The sites were 18 miles away from the Reef. One was the Elliston Reef and the other was Pentecost Island. The application for a permit to drill adjacent to Pentecost Island was refused by the Queensland Government. Anyone who peruses the speech made by the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) in another place must agree that we are working in complete harmony and unanimity with Mr Camm, the Queensland Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity. 304 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - That is no recommendation. 304 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - That, of course, is a stupid statement. I do not want to get tangled un in that. The Minister for National Development said in another place that he had had discussions with the Queensland Minister of Mines about the Great Barrier Reef and the Queensland Minister of Mines said quite clearly- 304 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - I rise to order. I was taken to task earlier today for reading from yesterday's Hansard. I now draw attention to the fact that the Minister for Customs and Excise is quoting directly from yesterday's Hansard. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- This question has been raised to me from time to time, but where a Minister or a senator has referred casually to a Hansard report I have lel it go. 304 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - The members of the Opposition can always give it, but they can never take it. I shall go on with my speech in my own sweet way and I shall not quote from Hansard if I can possibly avoid it. The Queensland Minister for Mines is reputed to have said that he has known that there has been a great deal of controversy over the Great Barrier Reef. He should be one person in Australia who at least knows as much about this matter as anybody else because he has lived on the Great Barrier Reef. Indeed, the Reef is in his electorate. Because it is in his electorate he has made a complete study of it. I should like honourable senators to know that 1 also have been in a position to make a complete study of parts of the Barrier Reef. Having heard of the Reef's great tourist potential I visited it in August last year. I went out to Green Island, which is off Cairns, and 1 was amazed at the great tourist potential of that island. I was told, and T believe, that Green Island has the only observatory in the world where people can go below the surface of the water and look outside the observatory to see the fish. 304 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator Georges - Who was looking at whom? 304 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - They were looking in to see me. At all other places throughout the world the fish are in the observatory and one looks in to see them. I was very impressed by what I saw. While in the observatory we saw hundreds of different species of fish swimming about within a few feet of us. I thought that the colours of the Great Barrier Reef were some of the most marvellous and dazzling colours that would be available for one to see in any part of the world. Honourable senators opposite have said that the Government must be most careful about what it does in relation to the Great Barrier Reef and Senator Keeffe has objected to my reading from Hansard. I agree with his objection, up to a point, but I thought it necessary to read this passage and to memorise it because it is quite important and relates to the approach to the mining industry taken by some honourable senators. Members of the Opposition in another place have said that there should be no mining or drilling in searching for oil within 100 miles of the east of the Great Barrier Reef. Of course, this is very learned stuff because the maps reveal that the depth of the ocean 100 miles east of the Great Barrier Reef is probably greater than the depth to which any well can be drilled at the moment. 304 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator Georges - There is a new technique in America at the moment. 304 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'Byrne - They can drill to 12,000 feet. 304 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - Honourable senators opposite are saying, in effect, that no one should bc permitted to drill within 100 miles of the Great Barrier Reef on either side of it - and there is land to one side of it - even if this area, which would be about 100 miles wide and 1.200 miles long, contained the richest oil fields in the world. 304 K2I 0 0 BRANSON, George Senator Branson - How could Australia prevent anyone from drilling there who wanted to do so? 304 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - That is what they have said. This suggestion needs consideration. I do not agree with what Senator Milliner said about the Minister not being responsible. He is a responsible person and is aware of the significance of the Great Barrier Reef. The honourable senator concluded his remarks by saying that the Commonwealth Government, in conjunction with the Queensland Government, should be aware of its responsibility to preserve the tourist attractions of the Great Barrier Reef. Let us look at the position of oil drilling in Australia and consider what the Government has done. In the interests of the industry and in the interests of the Commonwealth and State governments we have appointed a Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources and the Committee has been given terms of reference. As a Senate we have said to the Committee: That, with respect to legislation relating to the exploration for, and exploitation of, the petroleum resources of the continental shelf of Australia and of certain Territories of the Commonwealth and of certain other submerged land, a Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon - whether the constitutional conception underlying the legislation is consistent with the proper constitutional responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the States; It is very important to find out exactly where we stand with regard to constitutional problems relating to oil search and the oil rights off the coast of the States of Australia and in determining whether an area is Commonwealth territory or belongs to the States. These are among the things that the Committee is empowered to investigate. The terms of reference continue: whether the system of administration established by the legislation is the most effective to fulfil the purpose of adequate utilisation of Australia's off-shore resources of oil and natural gas; The Committee has been set up to inquire into this aspect of oil search. At the moment the Committee is making a complete examination of all these aspects of oil drilling in Australia and on the particular subject of off-shore resources of oil and natural gas. The Committee has been taking evidence and it will present its report on these subjects. I do not propose to refer to all the terms of reference, but I remind the Senate that the Committee is empowered to mates recommendations to the Senate as to what the Government should do in respect of the problems that have been raised during the debate on this motion introduced by the Labor Party. The urgency motion refers to the failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted, but that is a subject which will be examined and analysed completely by the Select Committee. All that the Labor Party is en deavouring to do is to play political football as it did with the Chowilla Dam and as it has been doing over the last fortnight on another issue. Its purpose is to gain a cheap political advantage. 305 K6R 0 0 COHEN, Samuel Senator Cohen - What is the Government's policy? 305 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - Senator Cohen is a left wing member of the Opposition and he knows what he is saying. The honourable senator has taken part in the debate on a subject that has been referred to tonight in relation to a certain gentleman whose name I shall not mention because I do not want it splurged all over Australia. 305 JUM 0 0 DITTMER, Felix Senator Dittmer - The Minister will cop it tomorrow. 305 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - We are prepared to cop anything that the Opposition may like to give us tomorrow and we will enjoy it. Honourable senators opposite have used the subject of the Chowilla Dam as a political football. 305 K6R 0 0 COHEN, Samuel Senator Cohen - Tell us about the Barrier Reef and your policy. 305 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - First the Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects and talks about the Chowilla Dam and now he interjects and says: 'Come back to the Great Barrier Reef. 305 K6R 0 0 COHEN, Samuel Senator Cohen -I said nothing about the Chowilla Dam. 305 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I ask you to listen carefully, because you came flat on your face in your endeavours- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! 305 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - I mean the Labor Party, Mr Deputy President, not Senator Cohen. I do not want to cast any reflections at all on the honourable senator.I am simply saying that members of the Labor Party fell flat on their faces as far as the Chowilla Dam is concerned and are liable to fall flat on their faces in relation to this particular motion we are discussing tonight. 305 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator Cant - Paul Hasluck said that Ministers could fall on their faces, too. 305 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator SCOTT - If you could make me fall flat on my face, I have no doubt you would do so. The matters referred to in the motion we are debating are being looked after completely, in every aspect, by the Select Committee set up to examine and report upon them to the Senate. The Australian Labor Party has members serving on the Committee and they will make their recommendations. The Opposition should wait until the report is available and then, if it does not like its contents, it can criticise the Government. 1 absolutely deplore the action of the Labor Party in bringing this motion before the Senate tonight. 306 KKP Queensland Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - As a member of the Senate Select Committee appointed to examine and analyse the very important off-shore oil exploration and exploitation legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament I desire to express my disappointment that: the important question of the Barrier Reef and its future should be the subject of a debate as a matter of urgency in the Senate this evening. I share the views expressed by Senator Cotton, Chairman of the Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources. I have endeavoured lo conform to standing order 308 and to reserve the deliberations of the Committee as a subject of debate until our work is completed and we are in a position to report to the Senate in conformity with the requirements of Senate Standing Orders. I believe that the question of the future of the Barrier. Reef is too all-important to discuss in these circumstances. As a member of the Select Committee appointed by the Senate I believe I am restricted in my contribution to this debate if I am to continue to conform to standing order 308. It states very definitely and without any ambiguity that in my position 1 am not to disclose the deliberations of the Committee until its report has been presented to the Senate. Senators of all political shades from all States are members of the Committee. I say without hesitation that there is not one member of the Committee who is not genuinely and sincerely concerned and interested in the future of the Barrier Reef, irrespective of which State he comes from and the Party he represents. Not one member of the Committee has a monopoly of interest in or concern about the future of the Barrier Reef. Every Australian accepts the Reef as one of the wonders of the world, as it would be classified by most visitors from overseas who have been privileged to see it. I wonder what is the real purpose of this debate tonight, lt is being conducted prematurely before the Committee has had time to submit its report. Is it because this debate is being broadcast and someone believes that he can gain a cheap political advantage? 306 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - Is that why you are speaking in it? 306 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - I am speaking in defence of the work of the Committee. If 1 were not as concerned about the Barrier Reef as Senator Keeffe is 1 would not claim to be a Queenslander. I repeat: Is it because the deliberations and proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast tonight that someone thinks he can gain a political advantage? It is a very poor political outlook and a very feeble attempt to gain an advantage. Every member of the Committee is just as concerned about the future of the Barrier Reef as is Senator Keeffe, who introduced this debate into the Senate this evening. 306 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator Georges - But time is running out. 306 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - I believe that time ran out completely a long time ago for the Australian Labor Party. 306 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator Georges - We are talking about the Barrier Reef. 306 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - I see. All the honourable senator's statements are confusing to himself and to those to whom he addresses them. Senator Milliner very magnanimously surrendered the Great Barrier Reef to the Commonwealth Government. As a Queenslander I do not. I believe that the Barrier Reef belongs to Queensland and that it is the responsibility of the Queensland Government to see that it is properly protected. I cannot go into the subject of the evidence that has been submitted for and against the exploitation of the Reef for oil. I have already explained that as a member of the Committee I am pledged to observe the Standing Orders. It will suffice to say that I cannot for the life of me imagine that any responsible person in the Commonwealth Government or any State government would knowingly and consciously permit exploration for oil on the Barrier Reef unless he was completely and entirely satisfied that the exploration could be carried out without any adverse effect on the Reef, in part or in whole. 307 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'Byrne - That is what we want the Government to say. You are saying it, but will the Government say it? 307 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - Senator O'Byrne is a member of the Committee as I am. He has heard the evidence of responsible men in the north and in Brisbane, including evidence from a chief mining engineer. He has heard evidence from legal men who participated in the long deliberations that after a period of 6 years brought forth the legislation. Six States reached agreement with the Commonwealth on this unique legislation. Indeed, it was an epochal event for six States and the Commonwealth to come to agreement on anything. I do not subscribe to the view that a Minister of the Crown in Queensland or anywhere else, irrespective of his political party, would be so irresponsible as to approve of work being done on the Reef until he had had evidence to satisfy him beyond doubt that the work could be done without damage to or destruction of the Reef. I would like to have had a real debate on the Reef in this chamber tonight and I would have enjoyed it, just as I am sure everyone who is privileged to listen to a debate on such an important matter as this would have enjoyed it. But in the circumstances we are not able to have that debate. It is to be regretted that the matter was introduced in this way - prematurely and ill-conceived. It occurs to me that senators selected to do the responsible work of committee investigation are not given very much security in the work they are doing. 307 JZU 0 0 ORMONDE, James Senator Ormonde - It is a public committee. 307 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - It is a public committee but very lengthy periods of its deliberations are in camera and are subject to the Committee's decision in that regard. But I wonder whether in future senators would be desirous of serving, or even anxious to serve, on committees if they feel that the very subject matter they had been appointed to investigate would be raised for discussion. 307 K2I 0 0 BRANSON, George Senator Branson - A very good point. 307 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - At the present time my inclination is to tender my resignation from the Committee. I have been a regular attender at the sessions of the Committee and have found them to be most interesting, educational and informative, but for all that I find that a Committee member wants to go off on his own representing himself as the great defender of the Great Barrier Reef and giving the impression that the other members of the Committee have no concern about its future and would sacrifice it to the oil companies. That is my present inclination. If this is to be the pattern of conduct of members of committees in the future I feel that a committee will be just a waste of time. I inform the Senate that it can rely on the Committee that it has selected to take every precautionary measure, and that the Committee will exert every effort and make every possible attempt to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is not destroyed or damaged in the exploration for oil. I cannot say any more than that. To suggest that the appropriate Commonwealth Minister or State Minister cannot be relied upon is, 1 think, stretching the bow a bit too far. To refer to the State Minister as someone who is not responsible enough to be interested- 307 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little - And he is not here to defend himself either. 307 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - That is right. If the Commonwealth Minister or the State Minister agrees to the grant of a permit or a licence to carry out this exploration or exploitation, whichever you like - one precedes the other, of course - and the Reef is damaged, he will win the wrath of the people. He will have to face 'the people and answer for what he has done. 307 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - It is too late then. 307 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator Georges - Then it is too late. 307 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - The honourable senators on my right, who normally are on the left- 307 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - Always. 307 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR - Well, normally. They would have you believe that there is no other threat to the Reef. Before the question of oil exploration is considered at all there is a danger from oil tankers which travel the coast of Queensland delivering oil to Cairns and Townsville and other points. If a tanker was unfortunate enough to be wrecked or damaged and there was a leak from it and the oil was swept to the Reef, the Reef could be damaged just as badly as any exploration would damage it - that is, if oil has the damaging effect that we believe it has. But even in regard to that matter there is a difference of opinion by people engaged in scientific research into these questions. I do not want to proceed any further because I will be enticed into the field of evidence, and I do not want that to happen. Let me reiterate that 1 support, concur in and share the views of the Chairman of the Committee as expressed at the outset of his speech tonight. I say again that it is to be regretted that this debate has been brought on and that this matter unquestionably has been made a party political football. Senator WEBSTER (Victoria) 18.57] - Any honourable senator who prompts a debate in the Commonwealth Parliament on the subject of exploration for or exploitation of oil or minerals within Australia or in the submerged lands of Australia does a service to this Parliament and to the people of Australia. The subject that has been brought forward by Senator Keeffe for debate as a matter of urgency certainly has a two pronged purpose. I do not believe he brought it forward for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. I believe he brought it forward for purely political reasons, as an election is imminent in Queensland and he is seeking some way of embarrassing the Queensland Government. However, the wording of his proposal does not seek so to do. lt refers to: The failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. It will be seen from that wording that the honourable senator has avoided altogether the subject of submerged lands. When I read the motion originally I believed that for the Senate to debate this subject certainly would be contravening the Standing Orders. I do not feel that those honourable senators who, because of the discussions ot the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources, have criticised Senator Keeffe for bringing this matter forward are being quite fair, having regard to the ruling of the President that the Senate was in order in discussing this subject. Whilst accepting that view. I disagree with it. Standing order 308 provides: The evidence taken by any Select Committee of the Senate and documents presented to such Committee, which have not been reported to the Senate, shall not be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person. The wording is 'any evidence taken". T took a point of order with the Chair when Senator Keeffe, disclosed evidence which, 1 believe, would not be available to the general public. However, the Chair ruled against me. 1 accept the ruling of the Chair that the position is that this subject may now be debated by the Senate. 308 K2I 0 0 BRANSON, George Senator Branson - At any time standing order 308 can be broken. 308 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - The Opposition alleges the failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance that mining will not be permitted in the area of the Great Barrier Reef, lt is interesting to note the words of the Queensland Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity, the Honourable R. E. Camm, when speaking to a mining bill in November of last year. He said: 1 wish to remind the honourable member that it was an ALP Government which issued the only dredging licences which have ever been issued in perpetuity. 1 remind him that they were for mining of mineral sands on the Queensland coast and they cannot now be repudiated. In actual fact, Senator Keeffe wishes to advise this Government that it should give adequate assurance that mining such as was allowed in perpetuity by a Queensland Labor government will not be permitted now. He wishes us to break the assurance that was given by that Labor government. 308 JXX 0 0 DRURY, Arnold Senator Drury - In what year was that? 308 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - That statement was made in November of last year. Some very interesting points are associated with mining in the Great Barrier Reef. If as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources I am allowed to traverse one or two of my own thoughts in relation to this matter, 1 must say that I myself certainly have informed this Senate that 1 am concerned that permits to explore for oil in the Great Barrier Reef and in submerged lands may be granted. It is a ridiculous proposition that we hear from Senator O'Keeffe to the effect that this Federal Government has no right whatsoever to advise the Queensland Government- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - Order! The honourable senators name is 'Keeffe'. I think Senator Webster should know that. The honourable senator's name is 'Keeffe', not 'O'Keeffe'. 309 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - 1 accept your ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President. The honourable senator suggests that we should exercise some right over the Queensland Government, with respect to the granting of licences on islands in the Reef. This Commonwealth Government has absolutely no control of the land areas of Queensland. But it has some control in submerged lands. 1 believe that the Commonwealth Government should administer its responsibility by obtaining some greater authority to control the exploitation of submerged lands in the Great Barrier Reef. I put the point, forward in a question which I thought was a much better way of doing a service not only for the State of Queensland and its people but also for the Australian people as a whole. You may remember my question asked at the beginning of this session, Mr Acting Deputy President. 309 CJO 0 0 WHEELDON, John Senator Wheeldon - Remind us of it. 309 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - I will, lt appears at page 167 of Hansard of 27th February 1969. I said: I address a question lo the Leader of the Government in the Senate, or lo the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, whichever Minister considers this matter of sufficient importance lo his portfolio. My question relates to the granting of oil exploration permits hy [i designated authority under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 and the associated agreement.1!, ls it a fact that a designated authority, in grunting an exploration permit, grants the approval of both the State and the Federal governments? Is it known to the Federal authorities, and is it a fact that the Queensland Government is likely within the next few days to announce (Ite successful applicants for exploration permits over a considerable area of the Great Barrier Reef? Will the granting of such permits indicate the Commonwealth's acquiescence in exploratory drilling for oil in the Great Barrier Reef area? ls the Minister or Ministry aware that oil exploration companies are at this point of time unable to give an assurance that no damage will occur to the various interests of the Great Barrier Reef should an oil leak occur such as happened in the Santa Barbara Channel in the State of California, United States of America? Will the Minister consider that wisdom might suggest that an announcement of successful applicants for exploration permits in this particular area should be delayed until such an assurance can be given? 309 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'Byrne - lt sounds like the Forsyte Saga'. 309 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - Indeed, the honourable senator is right. He will find that demonstrated from this corner of the Senate on many occasions. The fact is that at this point in time there is no knowledge or method known in the world - 1 speak not from evidence presented to the Senate Select Committee but from my own experience overseas - as I understand it, to control the flow of oil should such a flow occur in such a submerged drilling. Indeed, had the leak in Bass Strait been an oil flow instead of gas flow it would have been a disaster. What a redundant type of argument it is for Senator Keeffe to put forward in this Senate that an adequate assurance should be given by the Government that no oil drilling or mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will be permitted - full-stop. None will ever be permitted! Surely there is enough intelligence in this Senate to appreciate that some progressive thinking takes place somewhere in the world - even though it may not be on the left side of the Senate - and that in due time it will be possible to control an oil flow if there should be a leak such as occurred in the Santa Barbara Channel. Incidentally, you may recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, that I asked a question on this very point in the Senate, lt appears at page 170 of Hansard of 27th February 1969. Wishing to avoid the very difficult position of discussing a matter that is before the Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, Senator Scott, this question: Can the Minister representing the Minister for National Development advise the Senate of the preparations which have been made by either Slate or Commonwealth authorities to reduce the incidence of damage which may occur should an oil tanker founder and break up on the Australian coast? ls it a fact that no preparations arc in hand which would be effective to meet such an occurrence? Would the Minister request hi* Department lo meet appropriate State authorities and give urgent consideration to this important matter? I believe that question time in the Senate is for this purpose. In a very wide and new field of legislation and remembering that there are six States joined with the Commonwealth in this matter, I feel that it is necessary to alert any authority as to what should be done for the protection of certain areas of our coast. Indeed, it may not be on the Great Barrier Reef where the first oil tragedy of this type may occur on the Australian coast. We should be well aware and well alert as to what can be done. Indeed, there are moves afoot these days whereby, if a tanker founders, it is possible to use polystyrene type submerged pontoons which can be floated around the stricken vessel and used to control it so that it can be dispersed at a later date. When I was in New York last year, I viewed a film of the use of a disperser which is put out by the Esso organisation. This is able to be sprayed on the surface of the water and so granulate the oil and make it possible for bacterial action in the sea to disperse the oil by natural methods. It is redundant for the Opposition to put forward the suggestion that no permit should be granted particularly when the Australian Labor Party was the first one to breach this suggested principle some years ago by granting permits for dredging on the Queensland coast. The Opposition should be greatly dishonoured by the facts which have come to light this evening. May I congratulate Senator Cohen. He is one member of the Labor Party in the Senate who raised last year a question, which was answered, regarding what companies have been granted oil or mining exploration leases in the Great Barrier Reef area. The answer is very interesting. I suggest that honourable senators look at it on page 83 of the Senate Hansard. The point that I make in relation to the terms of reference of the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources is that this question may have produced the first answer to the first term of reference. Senator Cohen asked: Are any ot these companies actively engaged in oil or mineral exploration on their lease areas; if so, which companies? The reply that was given is the first instance in which a Minister may have abrogated his ministerial obligation to the Federal Parliament. The Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) said this in the answer that he gave: The titleholders are responsible for carrying out the exploration programmes required by the terms of their titles. The detailed administration of these matters is the responsibility of Queensland. In short, the question and answer produced the view that we in the Federal Parliament may not be able to obtain answers to questions relating to this joint legislation. 310 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - That would be pertinent to paragraph (b) of the Select Committee's terms of reference. 310 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - I remember that Senator Wright argued this point when the legislation was before this chamber. 1 do not doubt that some of the points that he put forward then will prove to be correct in the long run. The Great Barrier Reef is an important area. Not one member of the Senate would not wish to see it protected. I wish to see it protected. 1 took the normal course of asking questions in the Senate in order to alert the Minister for National Development. I am pleased to know that the announcement made in Queensland - that the allocation of oil search permits would be announced during March - has been retracted for the time being. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. 310 7V4 Queensland 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator GEORGES - I refer honourable senators to a map of Queensland that appeared in the 'Queensland Government Mining Journal' of January 1969. If they care to peruse that map they will see straddled across the area of the Great Barrier Reef the lease allocations and lease areas. I also refer honourable senators to page 7 of that document which, under the heading 'Off-shore Applications', says: Applications for permits under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act of 1967 for designated off-shore areas Q/1PA and Q/14PA closed on January 2. Then under various headings are listed the firms that applied for the lease areas. The Queensland Minister for Mines, Mr Camm, promised that this week he would announce the successful applicants. That simply is the reason for the urgency motion that has been brought before the Senate today. It is urgent that we clear up the area of dispute as to who has the authority to grant these leases. The heading "Area Q/1PA' has listed below it the names of about forty companies that applied for it. The heading Area Q/2PA' has listed below it the names of about thirty companies. The numbers of applicants foi the rest of the areas then fall away. 1 suggest that this matter should be resolved immediately. We on this side of the Senate are considerably concerned about the activities of the present Queensland Government, lt has been said here tonight that not one off-shore lease has been granted. But that is not so. Exoil NL was awarded lease Q/8P under the transitional provisions of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act as from 1st September 1968. That off-shore lease was granted to Exoil NL, which is a company about which 1 have been asking questions in this chamber. The reason why I have been doing so is that one of the prime movers in the establishment of Exoil NL was the present Premier of the State of Queensland. 311 KBY 0 0 YOUNG, Harold Senator Young - That is the only reason why the Opposition wanted this Great Barrier Reef matter brought forward as an urgency motion. It wanted to play politics. 311 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator GEORGES - That is not the reason for the urgency motion. The reason for it is that we believe that the present Queensland Government led by the Premier is not a fit body to decide- 311 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! The honourable senator will not pursue that line of argument. 311 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator GEORGES - Will you please explain why, Mr President? 311 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! The honourable senator must not reflect on the Queensland Government. 1 will not allow him to do so. 311 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator GEORGES - I am afraid I must insist that the present Queensland Government is not in a position to deal impartially with the matter. 311 JQR 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator Cotton - Mr President, I raise a point of order, ls it correct for Senator Georges to help to fight the Queensland State election in a Senate debate? 311 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order ! There is no substance in the point of order, but I suggest that Senator Georges should not pursue that line of argument. 311 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator GEORGES - I will try to moderate my approach. However, I feel strongly on this matter. Earlier tonight Senator Scott indicated that the Queensland Minister for Mines, Mr Camm, was considerably concerned about the Barrier Reef; that he lived close to it; and that he thought it was a place of great beauty. But let me refer to the Queensland 'Government Gazette', No. 23, which contains a notice of grant of permit Q/8P signed- by Mr Camm. Mr Camm - the Minister who showed such concern about the Great Barrier Reef - was the man who signed away a lease within the Great Barrier Reef area. He signed it away to a company in which his leader is one of the major shareholders. I am sorry, Mr President, but I must insist that this is fair political comment. I suggest to honourable senators that if they want to make a quick quid they might have a look at the list of areas available for lease and look particularly at area Q/9PA. 311 K2I 0 0 BRANSON, George Senator Branson - Why does not the honourable senator bid for it himself? 311 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator GEORGES - There are no applications for that area. I suggest to honourable senators that they pay $4 and obtain the right to explore or exploit that area. If they have the facilities of one member of the Queensland Government in particular, they could turn that $4 into $720,000 within the space of 4 years. This is a dangerous situation. Oil exploration - something that we badly need - is being used not to find oil for the benefit of Australia but to make a kill on the share market. I believe that it is a reasonable comment to make that the activities of the present Queensland Government and the improper behaviour of certain of its Ministers place in doubt its ability to supervise the exploitation- 311 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - Mr President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator referred to Queensland Ministers acting improperly. 311 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! I have been endeavouring to keep Senator Georges from going completely off the rails. An honourable senator is not allowed to impute improper motives to another parliament. That is quite wrong. Senator Georges should confine himself to the Standing Orders. If he does not I will stop him. 312 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator GEORGES - I represent Queensland and I have to live under the Queensland State Government. I submit that in Queensland a conflict of interest endangers the future of the Barrier Reef. I hope that does not offend the sensitivity of honourable senators opposite. The matter in question is an important one. The recent transactions in Queensland, with one lease having been granted by the present Queensland Government, are cause for concern and cause for urgency in this House. Mr Camm was to have made a statement yesterday, 4th March 1969, regarding which applicants were successful, but this statement has been held back; posibly for two reasons. Honourable senators opposite may say that I am not charitable, but I think the reason why the names of the successful applicants have not been announced is that one of the prime leases has been applied for by the company that I mentioned before, Exoil (NL), in which a Queensland Minister has considerable holdings. But I will be more charitable than that. Yesterday Mr Fairbairn stated that the Commonwealth is unlikely to grant future applications to mine in this area - the Reef - until more is known of the possibility of causing damage. I am prepared to accept that that statement has thrown the Queensland Government into a flap. It is not prepared to announce the names of the successful applicants. I took time off to ask someone to ring the Queensland Department of Mines, which would not say a word. It would not state when it was likely to announce the names of the successful applicants. I hope that the statement made by the Minister for National Development is sufficient to make the Queensland Government think twice. I also hope that this debate tonight will make the Queensland Government think again. 1 believe, as all honourable senators on this side believe, that the Barrier Reef must be protected at all costs and should not be subjected to the risk associated with oil drilling and oil exploration. The Reef, as a tourist attraction, has an economic potential far greater than that which it would have if oil were produced in the area of the Reef. Honourable senators should consider all those people who are under the age of 20 years, who are not represented here and who have no voice, and should consider that these people need the Reef as a heritage and as a resort to which they can go to see one of the greatest wonders of the world. The Reef has more economic potential through tourism than it would have if oil were discovered there in large quantities. It is a matter of urgency that we should take great care. As 1 suggested before, time is running out. If the Queensland Government is permitted to proceed with the granting of applications and if the oil companies defy the Commonwealth Government, all the work that has been done by the Senate Select Committee will have been wasted. It is urgent that something should be done now. 1 ask honourable senators to support the motion. 312 KBY South Australia 0 0 YOUNG, Harold Senator YOUNG - I am surprised and I regret very deeply that the Opposition has seen fit to move an urgency motion on a subject such as this. In November 1967 the Senate Select Committee on Off -Shore Petroleum Resources was established to consider all the aspects of Australia's off-shore oil areas. It had very wide terms of reference, which covered consideration of such areas as the Great Barrier Reef. Since that time the Committee has worked, 1 consider, being a member of the Committee - as members of other select committees would agree - very effectively, very fully and very conscientiously and has been willing to take evidence from everybody who showed any concern about any aspect whatsoever of the oil industry or of the off-shore areas of the Commonwealth. I thought that the Senate would have shown enough respect for the responsibility and personnel of the Committee to give it the opportunity to presenting its report before certain sections of the Senate, particularly the Opposition members, should see fit to move an urgency motion, to play some other game and to try to weaken the strength, the work and the efficiency of the Committee which has worked so hard. Tonight Senator Gair said that he felt like resigning. ) am not trying to stress the importance of the work of one committee any more than the work of any other committee, but I happen fo be a member of this Committee so I shall speak within this area. I. along with the other members of the Committee, accept full responsibility for what it is doing. 1. along with other members, attended regularly. The Committee meets outside of Senate sitting time and outside of parliamentary time and is working to present a report which it considers, in its judgment, will be in the best interests of the Commonwealth. It is with regret that tonight we see the Opposition moving an urgency motion. I discount the Opposition thinking that the Committee is not functioning extremely well. I hope that the Opposition has more respect for the personalities on the Committee than to think that. I hope I am right in my judgment on that aspect. Therefore I look to two alternatives. We now realise, as was pointed out tonight, that this year Queensland will have an election. If we did not realise that before we only had to listen to Senator Georges, when he went out of bounds and took advantage of the President by saying the things which he said. His speech was not a speech on the preservation of the Barrier Reef; it was an election speech and I regret that the honourable senator saw fit to make an election speech at this time in this chamber. If honourable senators opposite see fit to denigrate the Select Committee for the sake of politics I think it is high time that some of them slopped and had a good look at the origin of the parliamentary institution. I agree that in all probability politics provided one of the main reasons why the urgency motion was moved. Another reason - and let us consider this - is that today, Wednesday, the proceedings are broadcast. The Opposition was aware that today the defence statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) was to be debated. What happened? We are aware that a discussion on defence has been taking place in another place. We are aware also that the Prime Minister has made his statement on defence and that it has been accepted not only by the people of Australia and by the Press of Australia but that it has been accepted and welcomed very warmly by the Prime Minister of Singapore. The Opposition saw fit to try to find some weak spots in the defence statement made by the Prime Minister. It tried to do this in (he other place, Sir, but the plan backfired. The Opposition therefore was nol very keen to speak on defence today while the Senate proceedings were being broadcast so what did it do? It turned to an alternative subject and brought forward an urgency motion relating to the Great Barrier Reef. The Opposition may want to chicken out, but I regret very much that honourable senators opposite have seen fit to denigrate the work of a Select Committee of this Senate. 313 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator Georges - We did not denigrate it. 313 KBY 0 0 YOUNG, Harold Senator YOUNG - The Opposition has denigrated the work of the Select Committee. It knows that members of that Committee have a responsibility. The Committee realises that it must work within the confines of a select committee. If Opposition senators do not believe this, let mc refer again to standing order 308. I will read it again for the benefit of those honourable senators who do not clearly realise what it means. Standing order 308 states: The evidence taken by any Select Committee of the Senate and documents presented lo such Committee, which have not been reported to the Senate, shall nol be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee, or- And very importantly - by any other person. So how much ground can we cover tonight in this discussion on the Great Barrier Reef? Let me go further on this point. One would think from the way that the Opposition is carrying on tonight that this Select Committee does not even know that the Great Barrier Reef exists. The debate is being broadcast and I will let the people of Australia who are listening - and I hope there are a lot of them - know that the Committee saw fit, before the Parliament resumed for this sessional period, to go to Queensland to take evidence about the very thing that we are discussing tonight, the Great Barrier Reef. The Committee took evidence in northern Queensland. We heard evidence from anybody willing to appear before us. All sorts of evidence dealing with the Barrier Reef was presented to the Committee. The Committee then moved lo Brisbane and there again all who felt they had something to contribute, be it from one point of view or another, were given the opportunity to come along and give their evidence. The Committee has shown conclusively that it accepts the fact that there is a Great Barrier Reef. May I say also that it is very conscious that we have only one Great Barrier Reef. 1 do no intend to say anything more about the Great Barrier Reef. As Senator Gair said tonight, we are privileged to serve as members of the select committee and to do what we consider will be in the best interests of the area in which we work. However, we also know that we have responsibilities to that committee and to this Senate. Therefore it is not for me tonight to comment on evidence that has been given. I could talk very easily about newspaper reports. I am referring to the reports about evidence given to the Committee. However, I am not prepared to speak about the type of evidence that was given to this Select Committee. I will say that we have received evidence which completely conflicts with other evidence given to us. 1 think this shows conclusively that the Committee has a big job to do and a great responsibility when it comes to its final conclusions. Would it be right for a member of the Committee to show any bias whatsoever tonight about aspects of the Great Barrier Reef? I say it would not be right. Is it right for any member of the Senate at this stage to start forcing issues one way or the other about the Great Barrier Reef? I say it is not right. Members of the Opposition have seen fit tonight to stand up and to spruik, for political advantage, about the Great Barrier Reef. We all know of the possibilities of the Great Barrier Reef and I want to make that point clear; but Opposition members are speaking, as Senator Georges did tonight, in a certain manner and with an extreme political bias. They are trying to take political advantage of a situation and at the same time are denigrating the responsibility of the Committee and the responsibility of those who are members of it. I would say to Senator Georges that if he is so concerned about the Great Barrier Reef why did he not give evidence to the Committee when it was in Queensland? Why did he not give evidence while we were in Townsville or Brisbane? Why has he not bothered to come before the Committee when it has been sitting in this House? He would only have to wait overnight in order to appear before the Committee. We would hear what he has to say. But no; he waited until the Senate debates were being broadcast. Why did he do this? He did so to make political capital. I wonder now. Sir, in all sincerity, which has the greater influence on his mind at the present moment - political gain or the preservation of the Reef. If it is the Great Barrier Reef why did he not come to Queensland and give evidence to us? We were willing to hear what he had to say. I say to honourable senators opposite who have stood up tonight and carried on as they have done, that the Senate Select Committee is a responsible Committee and we welcome those who are willing to give evidence to us. We are doing a job and we will gladly hear evidence on any aspect which a person wishes to bring forward, so long as it comes within the confines of our terms of reference, so that in the long term we will be able to bring down a report which is in the best interests of this Senate, this Parliament and the nation as a whole. In conclusion I say again that I regret very deeply that this issue has been brought into the Senate before the Senate Select Committee has had time to bring down its report. The subject has been raised either to dodge an issue that the Opposition was not prepared to debate tonight, because the proceedings were being broadcast, or in order to gain help for an election campaign in Queensland because the Opposition thought that this subject might bring it political capital. So far as I am concerned, certain principles should be observed. As a member of this Senate I shall stand up for my principles and pass no comment whatever about the Great Barrier Reef at this stage. 314 JUM Queensland 0 0 DITTMER, Felix Senator DITTMER - I have listened with interest to what has been said by honourable senators on the Government side. Mostly they have been concerned with attempting to impute improper motives to honourable senators on the Labor side. 314 K5K 0 0 SCOTT, Malcolm Senator Scott - I cannot hear the honourable senator. 314 JUM 0 0 DITTMER, Felix Senator DITTMER - I said that you have been most concerned with attempting to impute improper motives to Labor senators. That is not unusual with you, is it? I hoped, Mr President, that there would have been a more analytical and dispassionate approach to this particularly important problem. As we realise, the Great Barrier Reef is a State asset but it is part of the national heritage. 1 should have liked to see a wider motion than the one we are discussing. I think the motion is worthy of serious consideration but I would have liked to see it state that there was to be no despoliation of the Reef until more is known about it. I heard a Minister tonight refer to the Queensland Minister for Mines as having a complete knowledge of the Great Barrier Reef. Let me assure him that no one has a complete knowledge of the Reef; nor has any particular group of scientists. Nor has the Liberal and Australian Country Party Government spent much money in furthering the scientific knowledge of the Reef. The Government has been miserably parsimonious on all occasions. The only place where there is a chair of marine biology is at Townsville and no special grant has been made by the Federal Government through the Department of Education and Science for its work. That is the approach of this Government. There is a small marine biological research station at Heron Island and on one occasion the Government granted $10,000 for that work. The staff there today consists of one scientist and one maintenance officer. These are the only people engaged on full time marine research and located within the precincts of the Great Barrier Reef. Heron Island is part and parcel of the Great Barrier Reef. Irrespective of what an honourable senator on the Government side said, the Reef is all around it. The Great Barrier Reef is an extraordinary structure; it is the biggest structure ever made by man or animal in the history of the world. It is magnificent and it is attractive. The Government has the responsibility to see that it is maintained in this way. Irrespective of the camouflage that has been introduced into this debate tonight about the Senate Select Committee, we are attempting, Mr President, to do something to avoid the granting of leases to a particular company, if possible. The Government has the right of veto. There is this dual pattern of control. The Government has the right of veto, because there is a dual system of control over exploring for oil in submerged lands. I know the constitutional position with relation to the ownership of the Great Barrier Reef. 315 KBY 0 0 YOUNG, Harold Senator Young - I hope you can explain it. 315 JUM 0 0 DITTMER, Felix Senator DITTMER - The State owns the Great Barrier Reef but this Government has never bacl the courage to declare the waters between the Reef and the mainland to be Australian waters. This is typical of the lack of courage this Government constantly exhibits. I do not think the Attorney- General (Mr Bowen) has ever explored the possibility of declaring these waters to be Australian waters. After all, they are in fact sea waters covering submerged mainland. The history of the area is that this land was part of the Australian continent many years ago. It is now submerged land, but this Government, has not had the courage to explore the possibility of declaring the waters of the Great Barrier Reef to be Australian territorial waters. Let us look at the position as it really is. Exploring for and mining of oil will not be the only methods of destroying the Great Barrier Reef. Part of it has been destroyed already by the Crown of Thorns starfish as a result of the removal of Triton shellfish by tourists. I do not know whether honourable senators know how the scientists believe that parts of the Reef have been destroyed. It is their opinion that destruction has resulted from the removal of the Triton shells. The ecology of this area is based on the relationship between the Triton and the Crown of Thorns starfish. This is responsible for the preservation of the coral. An infinitesimal organism, the coral polyp has built up this tremendous structure of dead coral with live coral on top of it, surrounded by a multitudinous array of marine organisms and plant life. Yet, when the Labor Party proposes an urgency motion such as the one before us Government senators impute to our members all the improper motives they can possibly devise in their extraordinarily low minds. That is the best way I can put it. Senator Georges has tried to impress upon the Government tonight the concern that he and other honourable senators on this side have to see that no further leases shall be granted. He outlined in detail how a particular consortium of oil exploration companies is seeking to exploit the position. He mentioned Exoil (NL) and Transoil in particular. A Mr Stiller is Chairman of Directors. They are major oil companies. They are applicants for exploration leases. One lease has been granted already. We must look at this position in a fair, factual way in order to arrive at what is likely to be the outcome. I am not imputing improper motives to the members of the Queensland Cabinet at all. I am merely adopting a realistic, practical, factual approach to the position in which these men are placed. They happen to be cronies or very great friends of their leader, the Premier of Queensland. He had a lease in northwestern Queensland. Fifty-one percent of the shareholding was ultimately taken over by an American company. Then the Exoil company, of which Mr Stiller is Chairman, took over Artesian Basin Oil Pty Ltd, which held the earlier exploration lease, that company being granted I million shares of which the Premier of Queensland holds 49%. He has since bought another 45,000 shares so that he actually owns over 500,000 shares in this oil company. His colleagues are now sitting in judgment to decide whether a company of which he is the major shareholder shall be granted the right to explore for oil in the vicinity of the Great Barrier Reef. Is it any wonder that the Labor Party sees fit to bring forward this urgency motion? It is to Senator Keeffe's credit that he was prepared to submit the motion and so face the odium that Government senators seek to hurl at him. Let us consider some of the things they have said. It has been said by Government senators that a Labour government granted a tin lease in perpetuity in Queensland. I do not know where they got this information. No Queensland government, whether it be Labor or otherwise has granted any lease in perpetuity in the last 50 years. I think the lease to which reference was made is a coral dredging lease granted to the Queensland Cement and Lime Company when it was running short of lime. It is a lease over a patch of dead coral which is not connected in any way with the Great Barrier Reef. It is in the south of Queensland. I point out for the information of honourable senators on the Government side that the Great Barrier Reef extends from near Torres Strait in the north down to Sandy Cape on Fraser Island, which is just outside Maryborough. It covers a distance of 1,200 miles. No part of the Great Barrier Reef is off Moreton Bay or anywhere just outside Brisbane at all. The lease mentioned was a dredging lease which was granted by a Labor government to provide the Queensland Cement and Lime Company with a reasonable and permanent supply of coral. But no lease is granted in perpetuity. All leases, whether mineral or oil, are granted for specified periods. The exploration company, or the developing company, has the right to apply for an extension of lease at the end of the specified period and, depending on whether the work they have done or the development they have carried out is satisfactory, approval is given to their application. If what they have done is satisfactory, their lease will almost certainly be extended. This is not unreasonable. It is a reasonable policy, and it ill becomes the members of this Government to seek to besmirch a Queensland Labor government so unfairly and so untruthfully. But, of course, this is but typical of this Government's approach to such matters. And Government senators have the temerity, the colossal impudence and the hide to suggest that we are merely electioneering in submitting this motion. 316 KBY 0 0 YOUNG, Harold Senator Young - And that is the truth. 316 JUM 0 0 DITTMER, Felix Senator DITTMER - It is not true at all. Anyhow, if it is, what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with it. This afternoon, a distinguished lady senator from South Australia who sits on the Government side submitted a couple of questions in which she sought to impute improper motives to Labor senators from South Australia. She sought to enhance the declining prestige of the Liberal Government in South Australia. Is that not electioneering? Is that not trying to bolster up the political party with which honourable senators opposite are associated? Of course it is. We are proud of the Party to which we belong and we look forward to the day when the interests of Australia will be safeguarded by Labor governments not only in the States but also in the Commonwealth sphere. Honourable senators opposite have displayed remarkable ingenuity in finding reasons for our submitting this motion. Senator Young suggested that it was introduced in order to avoid debating the Prime Minister's defence statement. When is the defence statement to be debated here? If the Government wants the debate to be broadcast, the Government could easily put it on for discussion on the Wednesday after we resume. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has been procrastinating for far too long now. Indeed, he has not yet produced a defence plan. He has merely told us that he is going to place some troops in Singapore, some Air Force personnel in Malaya and a ship in the Straits of Singapore. Where is his plan for defence equipment? 317 JQQ 0 0 CORMACK, Magnus Senator Cormack - I rise to order. Are we engaging in a debate on the Great Barrier Reef, or are we now commencing a debate on another matter on the notice paper? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laught) - Order! I ask Senator Dittmer to revert to the subject matter of the motion before the Senate. 317 JUM 0 0 DITTMER, Felix Senator DITTMER - I thank you. Mr Acting Deputy President. 1 do not appreciate that action from an honourable senator whose tolerance I have always admired in the past. It would seem that with age he is getting less tolerant. I was merely replying to what had been submitted by his colleague for the consideration of honourable senators here assembled. I would not have otherwise brought the matter up at all. I would not have been interested. We can defend ourselves. The Government can bring on the debate on defence whenever its suits its convenience. Perhaps Government senators do not want that debate to be broadcast. 317 JQQ 0 0 CORMACK, Magnus Senator Cormack - Will you guarantee that we can bring on the defence debate on the Wednesday when we come back? 317 JUM 0 0 DITTMER, Felix Senator DITTMER - Is not that in your own hands? You are the Government? Let us get back to the Barrier Reef. I do plead with honourable senators on the Government side to adopt the approach that has been suggested. In this Barrier Reef we have a magnificent structure. Anyone who has been there has expressed for the Reef an admiration far in excess of that expressed for any other natural phenomenon. In the Great Barrier Reef we have an extraordinary array of colours. We have myriads of different forms of fish, we have a multitudinous array of plant life and numbers of islands of various types. Some are of coral formation; others are of volcanic formation. These have sunk into the sea and, with the coral formations surrounding them present a spectacle which excites the admiration. This great wonder attracts people from all over the world. Do Government members propose only to worship Mammon? Is money all that they think about when considering the search for oil in this area? Is their only consideration going to be the amount of coral that can be taken from the Reef for cementmaking purposes especially when there are tremendous deposits of coral on the mainland. Is this all that is going to be in the minds of Queensland Cabinet Ministers when they see fit to grant oil leases as they have to their Premier? Is monetary reward to be all that spurs them on? We suggest that in the Great Barrier Reef Australia has something of which all can be proud and for which all have a responsibility. The Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) said that it was unlikely that there would be drilling on the Reef, but he gave no real assurance in the other place yesterday that there would be a preservation of this structure until scientific information was available to show that it would suffer no damage if oil escaped during exploration projects. Someone mentioned tonight that Mr Morley, the present State Mining Engineer who is likely to retire, appeared before the Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources and said that there was no evidence that damage had been caused by oil. If he had only read the newspapers he would have known what had happened on the south coast of England when a tanker broke up. In that instance millions of dollars were spent in an endeavour not to eliminate the nuisance but to minimise it. There was recently an oil leak in the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of California, as a result of which the people of that area alone are seeking from the oil company, through the United States Government, damages to the extent of $ 1,300m. That is the result of one oil leak. I believe that since that leak was stopped another has developed. Fish have been destroyed and birds have died. Yet Mr Morley, a witness before the Select Committee, said that there was no evidence that oil in the sea had caused any damage. It is interesting to note that the Premier of Queensland, who has done so much in the interests of the oil industry in that State, did not see fit to appear before the Committee. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laught) - Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. 318 KMX Victoria 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - 1 oppose the motion. The Senate is discussing a motion moved by Senator Keeffe that the Senate should adjourn until tomorrow for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, namely, the failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. The moving of this motion at a late stage this afternoon was an exercise by the Opposition of the powers conferred by the Standing Orders of the Senate whereby senators may move that a matter of urgency be discussed. It is significant that if this motion had not been moved the Opposition in this place would have been compelled, through its various spokesmen, to indicate which of its various views on defence put forward by its spokesmen in the House of Representatives they were prepared to espouse. I imagine that was the challenge that was before honourable senators opposite. So we have had a discussion this afternoon and this evening on whether or not oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas should be permitted. The Opposition feels on safer ground with this somewhat innocuous subject than it would be with the very difficult subject of defence on which its views are so numerous that it does not know where it stands. 318 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - I rise to order. Senator Greenwood is not relating his remarks to the motion. He is discussing the subject of defence and not the Great Barrier Reef. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I rule that Senator Greenwood has been in order so far but that he should very soon come to the subject of the Great Barrier Reef. 318 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - In deference to your ruling, Sir, and if I may be permitted to say so in deference to the sensitivity of Senator Keeffe, because possibly some of the barbs have struck home, I shall now deal with the subject of the motion which is whether or not oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas should be permitted. In a consideration of the urgency of this matter it might be relevant to mention to the Senate that this issue was discussed in the House of Representatives yesterday where the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn), on behalf of the Government, stated explicitly what the Government's attitude was. I should have imagined that if the Opposition was sincere in what it was putting forward today it would have accepted what the Minister said yesterday. But that is not the case. We know that at present the Labor Party feels that in Queensland it may be able to score a point, whereas it has not been able to score points anywhere else in the Commonwealth. There is to be an election in Queensland this year. The Labor Party wants to be able to say to the people of Queensland: 'We will protect the Barrier Reef. To give support to this view it has developed an argument against Mr Bjelke-Petersen. We have heard some of the most rank and unfair statements that one could expect to hear levelled against this gentleman in this chamber tonight. But leaving that aside, I turn to the terms of the resolution which states that the Government has failed to give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. I must turn to the terms of the motion in order to answer it because nothing that the Opposition has said in the course of this debate has demonstrated what is meant by 'failure to give an adequate assurance'. Not one of the five senators who have spoken has given any indication of what is meant by that expression. That is because they cannot give such an indication. What assurances has the GoGovernment given? First, the Government, through Mr Fairbairn, has said that it values highly the unique characteristic which Australia possesses, namely the Great Barrier Reef. The Government has said that it is worried about the effects of mining on the Great Barrier Reef. It has said that it will do its utmost to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is not despoiled. Furthermore, the Government has said that it is unlikely to grant future applications for permits until more is known of the possibility of exploration and exploitation causing damage. But let me mention further what the Government has said, lt is useful to indicate to the Senate what the Government has said because the Opposition has chosen to ignore it. The Government, in conjunction with the Government of Queensland, has the advantage of one of the world's most renowned geologists, a Dr Ladd, who was commissioned to investigate the Barrier Reef and who has presented a report to the Queensland Government. The contents of that report have now been made public. In it he indicated, firstly, the dangers of mining in the Barrier Reef if protective measures are not taken and, secondly, that if protective measures are taken we should be able to protect the Barrier Reef even if mining occurs. The Commonwealth Government is sending an officer of the Bureau of Mineral Resources to America to make an on-the-spot investigation of the leak which occurred at the off-shore rig in the Santa Barbara Channel. The Queensland Government has also sent its senior mining engineer to make a similar investigation. A further fact which I think is relevant is that the Queensland Government has rejected applications for drilling, not for petroleum but for other minerals, at Ellison Reef and Pentecost Island. It is a fact also that at present not one drill is being put down on the Barrier Reef. The Opposition has suggested that the Government has failed to give an adequate assurance. This is a matter which, if it is to be tested, depends upon the power that the Commonwealth Government has to give any assurance at all. lt is this field of power of the Commonwealth Government and of the State Government over the Great Barrier Reef which is comprehended by the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act passed by this Government in 1967. Legislation complementary to that Act was passed in remarkable fashion in each State Parliament. The Act attempts to give to Commonwealth and State authorities a joint control over offshore areas in which petroleum may be found. The legislation was designed in that way after 5 or so years of discussion and negotiations because, in terms of constitutional law, there are many competing views in respect of off-shore areas. Who has authority to determine what shall happen in the seabed off the coast of Australia? Is it the State alongside which the seabed is found, or is it the Commonwealth because the Commonwealth broadly has legislative power in respect of the Commonwealth? These are difficult constitutional matters that could have been fought out in the High Court of Australia as happened in the Supreme Court of Canada, but the result of such litigation would be to create further difficulties which, when clarified, would still have required negotiations and a solution arrived at by the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth and State governments, showing horse sense of which Australians ought to bc proud, got together and the petroleum (submerged lands) legislation was agreed upon. Such is the pattern of that legislation that the Commonwealth and the State each have independent authority with regard to the Barrier Reef. It may be that if the State had to justify its authority, or if the Commonwealth had to justify its authority, neither would be able to sustain it as a matter of law; but they have agreed that they will collaborate and in that way it is hoped that any problems of constitutional power will be overcome. Acting in that way, the Queensland Government has power over the land mass which constitutes Queensland, and the islands of the Great Barrier Reef area above the low water mark are part of Queensland. In that respect the Commonwealth Government has absolutely no power at all. It would be a strange thing if the Queensland senators who have been protesting so vigorously today were not aware of that fact. With regard to the seabed areas of the Great Barrier Reef the Queensland Government has certain powers, but it is agreed in the negotiations and the agreement which constitutes part of the petroleum (submerged lands) legislation framework that the power will not be exercised except on consultation with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is similarly bound. Therefore the Commonwealth has not an absolute power over what happens in regard to drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef. It must consult with the Queensland Government. It is said that the Commonwealth is not satisfied with the general knowledge which exists with regard to possible dangers to the Barrier Reef. In those circumstances it is a voice which is saying: 'Caution'. la sought by the Opposition would be an assurance lacking legal effect and contrary to what has been solemnly agreed between the Queensland and Commonwealth governments. Members of the Opposition may say, as part of their general1 irresponsible attitude: What do agreements matter? Just override them. On that issue we can avoid them'. That is what would be involved if the Commonwealth were desired to give a more explicit assurance. There are two types of permit currently available for the Great Barrier Reef area. Firstly, there are the permits issued by the Queensland Government before the legislation came into force in 1967. As to those permits the Commonwealth Government has no power at all. They were issued by the Queensland Government and are preserved by the legislation. They are honoured because they were granted before this legislation came into force. Secondly, there are permits which may be granted under this legislation. No such permits have yet been granted, but if permits are to be granted subject to the terms and conditions of the Act one can justifiably suppose that conditions designed to protect the Barrier Reef will be imposed. The vital issue involved in this proposition is whether all exploration for oil in the Barrier Reef should be stopped or should bc permitted under the most stringent safeguards. The Minister has said that he is not satisfied at present that those safeguards exist. I think that is a very reasonable attitude. The matter of urgency we are debating suggests that the Government has failed to give an adequate assurance. As I have said, it has been raised to seek some political advantage by a desperate and frustrated Opposition. A realistic examination shows that it is a matter of balancing what is in the best interests of Australia, and the determination of whether drilling and mining is to occur in the Barrier Reef must await further information. That is the general approach which the Commonwealth Government, to the limit of its constitutional ability and to the extent of its legislative power, is adopting. For the Opposition to say that in those circumstances an adequate assurance has not been given is to ignore the provisions of the legislation. I repeat that it is an attempt to gain some advantage. Unfortunately, the attempt has been made ignoring the powers of the Commonwealth and without doing the obvious and necessary homework which ought to justify the proposition put forward. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laught) - Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. 320 K3W Western Australia 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator CANT - I, like other members of the Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources who have spoken in this debate, do so with a feeling of inhibition as to how far I can go in discussing the matters that have been raised tonight. However, I relieve my mind quite considerably, and I take little notice of standing order 308, because of advice from the Clerk of the Senate as to the disclosure of evidence by the Committee. To free my mind a little in this respect I propose to quote briefly from the advice given by the Clerk of the Senate. In talking about freedom to allow the evidence given before committees to be perused, he said: The important consideration is that the official transcript is prepared for the use of members of the committee and, strictly, should not be disclosed before report to the Senate. Practice, however, allows disclosure of the official transcript to (a) witnesses who have given evidence, for the purpose of correction; (b) prospective witnesses as the committee thinks fit; and (c) such other persons as the committee thinks fit. 320 K2I 0 0 BRANSON, George Senator Branson - Then do you not think it is time that the standing order was amended. 320 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator CANT - I listened very quietly to honourable senators who have spoken in this debate. There will be time for Senator Branson to make his speech. The advice of the Clerk that a practice has grown up that would seem to have gone over the top of the standing order, or at least to be in conflict with it, considerably relieves my mind. The terms of reference of the Committee have been referred to tonight. However, not all the terms of reference have been referred to. Under item 3 the Committee has power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in open court or in private. Substantially we sit in open court. The Press is admitted. It is allowed to publish reports of the proceedings and the evidence given is not secret the circumstances, any greater assurance from the public any more than the proceedings of the Senate are secret from the public. The galleries can be filled at any time. So the restrictions that are placed upon senators in speaking in this place on matters with which a Senate select committee is dealing are not so great as they were made out to be earlier in this debate. Has anyone stopped asking questions about health matters because there is a Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs? Of course not. Every day there are questions on matters related to the health services in Australia. It is sheer humbug to say that we cannot discuss these matters. I agree with what was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cohen) today to the effect that if we were to adopt literally standing order 308 we would muzzle the Senate for the period that a Senate select committee was in existence. The Senate would not be justified in muzzling itself on any subject that it thought it should discuss. Now we take it a little further. It has been said by speakers on the Government side that this matter has been raised for political purposes because it is an election issue. However, Government senators are pretty adept in the art of using this Parliament for the purpose of influencing the electorate. If the Liberal Party is allowed to use this Parliament for the purpose of influencing the electorate, I do not know why the Labor Party, the Country Party or the Australian Democratic Labor Party should not have the same opportunities to do so. The day members of the Liberal Party cut it out is the day on which we will cut it out. Even recently when a Minister in this place was under severe pressure the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), in order to get him off the hook, started to drag a red herring across the trail. He called it a left wing conspiracy. Do not claim that that was not electioneering. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Senator Cant. 1 suggest that you should connect your remarks to the matter before the Senate. 321 K3W ALP 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator CANT - With all due respect to you, Mr Deputy President, these matters have been canvassed by speakers on the other side and I think that I am entitled to reply to them. However, out of respect for you I will not go any further on those lines. Although the debate centres on the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, about which the Labor Party is very concerned and about which the Minister for National Development (Mr Fairbairn) and the Minister for Mines in Queensland purport to be very concerned, it is noticeable that not one Queensland senator on the Government side has stood in his place to express his opinion on what should be done with the Reef. I leave honourable senators with those few thoughts on that aspect. It has been said in this debate, and by the Minister in another place, that permits to explore and exploit the Great Barrier Reef area off Queensland will not be issued. It is wrong for people to come into this place and make that kind of statement. It is well known to anyone who has studied the legislation that if a permit was issued to an exploring or an exploiting company prior to the passage of the legislation that permit must be re-issued to the same party in accordance with the transitional provisions of the legislation. 321 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - You agree, then, that Senator Georges made a very poor point. 321 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator CANT - All I am saying is that there are senators on the opposite side of the chamber who would attempt to mislead the Senate in respect of the provisions of the legislation. It is well known that no power is vested in the Commonwealth Minister or the State Minister to withhold permits or licences if permits or licences were held prior to the passage of the legislation. It is true that the work provisions that the Designated Authority may apply to the issue of any permit may be such that they would prevent an applicant or a person holding a permit or a licence being able to explore and exploit. The conditions that he will apply to the issue of a permit are a matter for the Designated Authority, but it is not true to say that permits will not be issued for the Great Barrier Reef areas if permits were issued before this legislation was passed. The very purpose of the legislation was to keep faith with people who had taken out permits to explore the sub-soil of the sea bed on the continental shelf of Australia, lt would be an act of gross bad faith for anyone to refuse the permits, because the transitional provisions of the legislation do not allow anyone to refuse them. My very good friend Senator Greenwood said a little while ago that the Queensland Government had engaged an adviser in the person of Dr Ladd to advise whether the Great Barrier Reef could be protected. It is true that Dr Ladd has submitted a report which has 'become public. The salient feature of that report is that Dr Ladd has said that there should be at least 2 years scientific survey on the Great Barrier Reef before anything is done. We have controlled the Great Barrier Reef for many years and have done practically nothing to explore its possibilities, scientifically or otherwise, yet we have expected Dr Ladd to come to this country and produce a firm and concise report in 2 months on the effect of oil exploration on and exploitation of the Great Barrier Reef. Dr Ladd had only that short period of time but he has recommended that at least 2 years survey work should be done. That is the salient point of his report. 322 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - Does the proposal mean that permits should be issued at some stage or would you prohibit them altogether? 322 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator CANT - I think the honourable senator is able to read as well as I am. 322 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - What are the terms of your proposal? 322 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator CANT - It refers to: The failure of the Government to give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef areas will not be permitted. 322 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - There you are, forever. 322 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator CANT - That is right. However, I remind the honourable senator that Senator Scott said today that if we had the greatest oil province in the world in the Great Barrier Reef area it would be unreasonable to expect that we should not exploit it, but you could have the greatest oil province in the world and reap a crop from it for only a limited time. However, you could reap a crop from the Great Barrier Reef for year after year ad infinitum. Irrespective of the amount of oil found there, I believe that the Great Barrier Reef will pay greater dividends to Australia as a tourist attraction than as an oil producing area, but of course the vested interests of overseas capital might determine otherwise. That is what worries Labor Party senators, even if it does not worry Government senators. We feel justified in bringing this matter before the Senate for discussion at this time because, as most honourable senators on the other side who have spoken know, we believe that it will be some time before the Committee which is dealing with this question will be able to present a report to the Senate. Then, it will probably take several months before the Government acts, if it does act, on the report of the Committe. We believe that this is the time when some action should be taken to prevent the Great Barrier Reef from being exploited and destroyed. I say quite frankly: How can the Government give an assurance that the Barrier Reef will be protected, in view of what happened in the Santa Barbara Channel, what has happened on several occasions in the North Sea, what happened to the Moonie pipeline near Brisbane and what happened in Bass Strait? Can this Government give an assurance that no blow out of an oil well or a gas well will occur in the area of the Great Barrier Reef if exploration and exploitation are allowed to take place and continue to take place? We know that the crop can be reaped every year, year after year but we say that the value of the Great Barrier Reef to the national interest is greater than all the oil that may be found under it. For that reason, we say that the Government should give an adequate assurance that oil drilling and mining in the Great Barrier Reef area will not be permitted. There is no let out for the Government. We say that there should not be any exploration for and exploitation of oft in this area. 322 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - The honourable senator knows that the Federal Government cannot do that. 322 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator Georges - lt ought to try. 322 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator CANT - We are all aware that the Liberal and Country Party governments are not interested in the national interest. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order! The honourable senator's lime has expired. 323 JQQ Victoria 0 0 CORMACK, Magnus Senator CORMACK - I rise to pursue a matter which has interested me since I had the honour, by the direction of the Senate, to join a Senate select committee. That committee did me the personal honour of asking me to accept its chairmanship. Honourable senators will recollect that there was a stage where I fell into some sort of bother with one of my colleagues. A matter arose in a debate and evidence that had been given in a meeting of that select committee was quoted in the Senate. The argument turned upon whether the evidence quoted was evidence that was in the executive committee, if I may use the American expression, or whether it was given in open forum. The reason why 1 mention this is that this was the stimulus that caused me to jump to my feet earlier today to take a point of order in respect of the matter raised for urgent discussion by Senator Keeffe and which has been convassed in the Senate for the last 2i hours or 3 hours. The problem has not been resolved. 1 say that notwithstanding the advice entitled Disclosure of Select Committee Evidence' that the eminent Clerk of the Senate, for whom I have a great respect, circulated and which I have not seen because it was circulated to the members of the existing Committee, the fact is that I do not believe that a select committee of the Senate can pursue properly the responsibility that the Senate places upon it when the matters which have been given to that committee and are within its terms of reference can be, at the whim of any senator supported by four other senators standing in their places, subjected to scrutiny in debate in the Senate. The realities of the debate that has taken place in the Senate this afternoon and in the evening are that the forms of the Senate have been distorted for the purpose of partisanship. This is what we have been attempting to make clear. Notwithstanding anything that Senator Cant from Western Australia has said to the contrary - he made out as glib a case as he could - the facts are that the forms of the Senate are being distorted for the purpose of partisanship and this detracts from the efficacy of select committees which should be protected from this sort of operation. It is for this reason - I am glad to see you back in the Chair, Mr President - that I was prompted to take a point of order this afternoon, supported by my colleagues, Senator Greenwood and Senator Lawrie. I hope that the last has not been heard of the propriety of the matters in which we have been involved. I was heartened tonight by Senator Greenwood who left the strong impression upon me of the young David involved with a sort of collective Satanine Goliath- 323 7V4 0 0 GEORGES, George Senator Georges - Who is this? 323 JQQ 0 0 CORMACK, Magnus Senator CORMACK - They are in the Opposition. It seemed to me symbolic of this Old Testament character that the Australian Labor Party so often assumes, filled with prejudice and partisanship, myopic, living in the past, and trundling out the shibboleths that Senator Cant has trundled out tonight. Whenever there is a mineral discovery, we can calculate and lay down as a certainty that an honourable senator on the Opposition side will get up and say that its development is not in the best interests of Australia. An Opposition senator will say, for instance, that it is not in Australia's best interests that a rocket range should be established and that this will interfere with something. An Opposition senator will suggest that we must not pursue alumina in the Gove Peninsula because of some sacred tribal grounds there or that we must not allow somebody else - this is where the curiosity occurs - to fish for prawns because this is a sacred ground or something else. One can bet one's life that whenever problems of the reasonable extraction of the primary resources of the country are involved one will find in the Opposition someone who will get up and say that this is a bad thing and that it is not in the national interest. Of course it is in the national interest. What is the position when the reporter who has been engaged by the Commonwealth Government and the Queensland Government reports that, without prejudice to the ecology of the Great Barrier Reef, it is possible to extract, let us suppose, gold from sea water? The question is whether this is or is not in the interest of tourist traffic or the Barrier Reef, which is one of the wonders of the world. Tt is not a question of oil or of lime for the manufacture of cement. No-one knows what can be extracted from the sea. The matter raised for urgent discussion by Senator Keeffe asks the Commonwealth Government to give adequate assurances that oil drilling - that has been canvassed - and mining on the Great Barrier Reef will not be permitted. This argument can be extended as far as to take in all other aspects of Australian development. It may be said that it is not in the interests of South Australia to allow oil drilling rigs to operate in St Vincent Gulf because it is not in the best interests of the city of Adelaide. This sort of argument can be pursued to the most illogical conclusion. I suggest that the Senate should not take undue cognisance of what Senator Keeffe has been saying. It should turn its attention to the propriety of using evidentiary matter received by Senate select committees for useful debate and partisanship purposes in this chamber. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - Order! The time allowed for the debate having expired, the business of the day will be proceeded with. 324 motion 324 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT -I bring up a report from the Standing Orders Committee relating to the manner of asking questions on notice. Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed: That the report be printed. 324 KPK Victoria 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - Mr President,I believe that we should give this matter some consideration, even before we agree to the report being printed. 324 JZQ 0 0 ANDERSON, Kenneth Senator Anderson - I intend to move subsequently that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 324 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - All right. Question resolved in the affirmative. Morion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to: That the report be taken into consideration at the next sitting. 324 bill Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. 324 Motion (by Senator Scott) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time. 324 KPK Victoria 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - This motion gives any honourable senator the opportunity to discuss more or less any question that he cares to discuss. This debate is similar to a budget debate. In view of the happenings of last evening I desire to discuss matters that have been before the Senate off and on for the last 2 or more days. It is not my intention to deal with Mr Hoffmann at all. I am most touched by the crocodile tears of honourable senators on the Opposition side for any worker who may have made a mistake. In fact, my heart bleeds when I hear what they have to say about the individual concerned in this case. 324 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'Byrne - I think the honourable senator meant to say ' honourable senators on the Government side'. 324 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - Yes, I meant my friends opposite. I could feel drops of blood from my heart when the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) said: Oh, the poor worker'. I leave the unfortunate individual to himself. I hope that his future life is what he wants it to be. I believe in the old saying that it is human to err and divine to forgive. I am concerned with the matter of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. That is what worries me. Today it seems that anyone who stands up to speak about the Security Service of this country either is left wing or unpatriotic or is one who wants to affect the security of his country. If this Organisation acted only in the field of the security of this country, I for one would have nothing to say against it or even about it. I am not one who believes that we should not have a security service. 1. believe that we should have one. But I believe that it should work within the ambit of its constitution. In this case, irrespective of what anyone says, I believe that the Organisation was in contact with a lady who worked in the Japanese embassy and that she and one officer of the Organisation did something that I believe affects this great nation. I hate to think that in this day and age - not on a matter of security but on a matter, as I understand it, of pure commercial practice - copies of documents were taken from the embassy of a nation which at the moment is friendly, whatever it may be in the future. Why was that done? First of all people are asking: Was it done? I understand that a letter which states that it was done was about this building. Unfortunately I have not a copy of it. But the letter was read within the precincts of Parliament House. It was brought to this building by the lady in question. 325 KSN 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator Marriott - To whom was it addressed? 325 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - I am not in a position to say to whom it was addressed. All I am concerned about is that it was brought into this building and was read by a person whom I happen to know. 325 JQQ 0 0 CORMACK, Magnus Senator Cormack - Who was that? 325 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - It is not my purpose to say who anybody was. The fact is that I am convinced in my own mind that what I am stating is true. If anyone wants to know whether it is true, I ask him to listen to a comment from the one journal in this nation which since 1949 has never seen the Government do a wrong act. I refer to the Sydney 'Telegraph'. The Sunday Telegraph' stated: One thing is certain, Mrs Hoffmann did, in fact, act as agent for ASIO to obtain secret information from the Japanese embassy, where she worked as a trusted secretary. Knowing the political thoughts of the owners of that newspaper, is anyone going to tell me or anyone else in this chamber that they would print something like that against this Government if they did not believe and know that it was true? In the Australian' we read: But at best it is a half-hearted and ambiguous denial. That referred to a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) on this question. From his high and mighty position, he thinks that the only way to get out of this situation is to use the old dodge of flinging political mud. I regret that he thinks that way. He spoke about the left wing of the Labor Party. I shall trace what has been said, prior to elections, over the years by Governments of his political complexion. In 1917 the Government said that it would win the war. In 1920 it was against the Bolsheviks. In 1925 it spoke about the British seamen's strike. It raised the familiar catch cry: 'Do not vote for Labor; the Corns will rule the country.' That is the history of what has been said over the years. That is what the Liberal Governments have done each time an election was to be held. Novices here have spoken about left wing members of the Labor Party. Who are the left wing members? I have been a member of the Party for over 50 years. All I know is that I have been a member of the Labor Party. How will the Government extricate itself from the position in which it finds itself today? It has placed the nation in a position in which it should hang its head in shame because its security organisation, acting outside the ambit of its powers, has belittled itself and the nation by obtaining papers on trade matters from another nation's embassy. Instead of trying to win a political argument the Government should stand up to something of which it ought to be ashamed. The people will not be convinced that there is nothing wrong simply because the Government continues to sling mud. I am reminded of a writing by Samuel Johnson that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. That is all honourable senators opposite know. They want to think that they are super-patriots and that they are the only people who guard the welfare of the nation. There are others. I remember what happened in the war years. Honourable senators opposite talk about what the Government did for the nation. I remember when the Government had to be voted out of office by some of its own supporters in the early part of the last war because it could not run the country. I also remember that, in order to keep in office since then, it dummied up the Petrov affair. I also remember that at one election the Government bought the votes of one section of the community by allocating less than £2m for science blocks. I also remember an ex-Prime Minister sending the then Minister for Supply to the United States of America to buy aeroplanes to save the country. 325 K1Y 0 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator Bishop - What plane was that? 325 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - That was the famous Fill. We have not seen it yet. In order to fool the people the Government arranged to have large American planes visit certain cities a fortnight before the pending election. The Government got away with slinging mud and not answering its critics then, but it will not get away with it now unless it makes an explanation of this whole affair. The whole business is crook and the Government knows that it is. The Government is a party to it because it will not answer. If it has any love left for the nation, if it wants to see the nation hold its head up as it should, it should investigate the whole affair. It is no good saying that the allegations are not true. It is no good saying, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) said - and personally I have great respect for him - that we cannot discuss anything about security. All we seek is an assurance that members of ASIO will act within the ambit of the powers bestowed upon them by their charter. They should ensure that the country is secure, but they should not make us hang our heads in shame because they put a young lady in the Japanese Embassy to make extra carbon copies of letters. How wrong is that? How will we be respected in the world of commerce today? A lot has been said about the Japanese trade treaty, how Japan is helping in our development and what it is doing in Western Australia. I know what I would do if I were they, and if it suited me. I would say: 'If we are friends play the game as it ought to be played and play it decently'. Last night one honourable senator opposite rose in one of his typically heroic efforts to try to bolster up the stocks of the Government. He is new in politics. He comes from my own State. He has to learn. He can throw mud, and he throws it, because he knows that within a short space of time he will shift to a vacant seat on the front bench. 326 KTA 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator McClelland - He thinks he will. 326 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - I think he will, too, because sooner or later the Government will learn that it cannot put all the responsibility on the shoulders of one or two of its members all the time. This is not the last that the Government will hear about this. We want the matter cleaned up. 326 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little - It is not the first that we have heard about it, either. 326 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - I will be interested to hear where the honourable senator stands in relation to the matter. I do not mind. 326 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator Gair - He will be on the right side, for sure. 326 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - He will be on the right side as regards numbers. One would expect a statement from the Government on the matter. Where do we go from here? We should clean this matter up. lt is no good the Government saying that the allegations are not true. The last thing the Government would expect its friends to be saying is that it has something to answer. The Government may expect that from the Opposition, but it would not expect it from the people who put their columns at the Government's disposal at the right time. I hope, in the interests of the nation and in the interests of everyone here, that, the guilty person - and there is a guilty person because the party did hand over extra copies of the letters - is identified. I do not want to hurt Hoffmann at all. The funniest remark I have heard was Senator Scott's statement that after the man had lost a $7,000 a year job the Department or the Minister helped him to get a $9,000 a year job. 326 JZB 0 0 FITZGERALD, Joseph Senator Fitzgerald - He got a good reference. 326 KPK 0 0 KENNELLY, Patrick Senator KENNELLY - I do not know. Leave him alone. I suppose he has his own worries. But the whole matter is so funny that it is an insult to the intelligence of honourable senators to hear the Leader of the Government say that he has nothing to answer. I believe he has. I believe it will help the nation if he answers as quickly as he can. 326 DV4 Western Australia 0 0 WITHERS, Reg Senator WITHERS - The Senate should be grateful tonight to Senator Kennelly for again raising this matter. I think Senator McManus's comment was fairly apt this afternoon when he spoke about the Tales from Hoffmann'. Perhaps we should go back to the music hall song entitled 'Who Threw the Turtle Skins in Senator Murphy's Chowder' because that is what this matter has developed into. I am also grateful to Senator Kennelly for reminding me of the sort of nonsense we have heard tossed up by the Labor Party about this subject for years and years. There is no doubt in my mind that the Hoffmann affair has been trotted out as a vehicle to attack the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It was trotted out for that and no other reason. It is all right for Senator Kennelly to accuse people on this side of the chamber of mud slinging but he would be well advised to realise who started the mud slinging. It was started by the Opposition as an exercise to denigrate ASIO. There are no two ways about this. The entire attack has been based on this. When one recalls the debate on this subject, which commenced 4 or 5 sitting days ago, it included an attack on Hansard for allegedly producing false pulls of what the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) had said; then the Public Service Board was under attack and then the Minister was under attack. But ASIO has been mentioned throughout the entire attack. This debate has been a convenient vehicle to denigrate the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Why is this so? It is all very well for Senator Kennelly to come into this chamber and pose as the great patriot. But one wonders why, if he is the great patriot, he wants to attack ASIO. This is what I want to know. He is saying that the Government has something to hide. Ministers have been quite frank in their answers about what has happened, yet Senator Kennelly goes on and on with the same old story. The same thing has been trotted out hour after hour. There has been a continuing attack on ASIO. 327 CJO 0 0 WHEELDON, John Senator Wheeldon - What is the honourable senator telling us? 327 DV4 0 0 WITHERS, Reg Senator WITHERS - We even had Senator Wheeldon going back to 1964 or 1965. We have heard Opposition senators going back to an episode which they allege happened when a woman was employed some 7 or 8 years ago. These things have been trotted up as a vehicle to attack ASIO. 327 K8N 0 0 TOOHEY, James Senator Toohey - Are you proving what he said is wrong? 327 DV4 0 0 WITHERS, Reg Senator WITHERS - It is quite a simple proposition, as I see it. The Opposition is making the accusation and therefore it should make it stick. For a long time we have heard Senator Murphy prating on and on this chamber about the Declaration of Human Rights. However, irrespective of the modern versions which arise out of the discussions of that organisation known as the United Nations, there is a very old principle of British law to the effect that the onus of proof is on the prosecution. Does the Opposition wish to throw aside that principle? This is what it is attempting to do. Opposition senators are picking out some newspaper allegations and are saying: Here is some proof - now you answer it.' If this is the way that members of the Opposition attempt to build a case and if this is the way in which they seek to represent their unions in industrial advocacy, then it is no wonder that trade unions complain that they cannot get a fair go from our arbitration and conciliation courts. If the presentation of the unions' case is as good as has been the presentation by the Opposition of this affair in this chamber, then God help the people that they are supposed to represent. The Opposition's standard of advocacy and presentation of a case is deplorably low, Mr President. 327 KUS 0 0 MILLINER, Bertie Senator Milliner - You would be a judge. 327 DV4 0 0 WITHERS, Reg Senator WITHERS - If this is the standard of advocacy, if all the Opposition can do is to abuse the other side, then it does not say much for honourable senators opposite. All they have done is to trot along here with allegation after allegation, attacking various officers of the Parliament and of the Public Service Board, jumping from one to the other. As the Opposition has failed with one attack it has tried to attack another target. Well, Mr President, I do not think it says much for the validity of the Opposition's case if that is the most it can do. We keep coming back to the point I made earlier when I said that this is purely a vehicle to attack the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The matter has been raised for no other reason. The Opposition has no other purpose in mind than to promote this in an attempt to uncover some scandal which it has never been able to prove existed. Yet it is quite convenient for its members to attack along these lines. Senator Kennelly has dragged in another point by saying that there is a letter. Which letter is this? He says that there is a letter in existence which was read within the precincts of the Parliament. I think it fair enough that he should disclose who has the letter and why it is not being read. Again there is this mysterious evidence. Is this another allegation? Is there something else floating around the Parliament? Not one answer has been given about this. What are we doing? Are we having a trial by ambush? Is the Opposition attempting to trot out matter after matter in an attempt to confuse the issue? Mr President, with respect to all that Senator Kennelly said tonight, I am afraid that so far as the Opposition is concerned it has failed in its attempt throughout this whole sorry business. We have had this subject brought up night after night and to what stage have we advanced? We have come to the crux of the matter, as stated by Senator Kennelly tonight. The crux of this matter is definitely an attack on ASIO. We can forget about turtle skins; we can forget about Mr Hoffmann; we can forget about the Hansard reporter allegedly doing wrong things when reporting the Minister for Customs and Excise and we come back to ASIO. Mr President, I feel sorry for the Opposition. The Parliament has been in recess for some 2 or 3 months and it appears that this is the best sort of vehicle that the Opposition can raise as a matter of national importance in this Parliament. There are great questions to be debated, such as the defence statement. As Senator Marriott pointed out quite rightly this afternoon, the Opposition has chickened out and has run away again. The Opposition does not want to get down to debating the great national issues. It would rather dash off and talk about turtle skins. Is this the sort of mentality that the Opposition possesses? It is no wonder, as Senator Kennelly said, quite rightly, that my distinguished colleague, Senator Greenwood, will one day sit on the front bench. We all hope that this is so. If the attack launched tonight by the Opposition is an indication of the thinking of the 'Labor Party then it will be in opposition for a long long time and Senator Greenwood, who will be in this chamber for many years to come, may expect that he will naturally gravitate over the next 20 or 30 years to the front bench of this Senate. He has all the time in the world because the Labor Party will be staying in opposition for the next 20 years. It will be sitting on that side of the chamber for the next 20 years because I am quite convinced that the Australian people will not fall for the sort of nonsense that has been trotted out here night after night about the tales from Hoffmann. This is a fairly sorry affair, Mr President. It is regrettable that we have spent most of this day talking about an alleged urgency motion and are now dealing with this matter. These great patriots on the other side talk about what they did in the war and all the rest of the clap-trap that we have heard tonight. So many of my colleagues on this side of the chamber were otherwise engaged in those times on the Queen's business. One would have thought that these great patriots on the Opposition side would have wanted to debate the defence statement or the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) on Australia's attitude in our far north. But no; they would much prefer to attack the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. If this is the best that the Opposition can come up with then I repeat that the Labor Party will be in opposition for a long time. 328 CJO 0 0 WHEELDON, John Senator Wheeldon - The honourable senator has said that five times. 328 DV4 0 0 WITHERS, Reg Senator WITHERS - It is regrettable that the Opposition must indulge in these old-fashioned histrionics and try to advance a case built up on allegations from newspapers. I regret that the time of the Senate has again been wasted on this subject. Debate interrupted. 328 adjournment 328 328 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. 328 KPG Queensland 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator KEEFFE - I wish to raise a very important matter but I do not propose to detain the Senate for any length of time. I advised the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) representing the Minister for National Development that I proposed to speak this evening on what appeared to be the misuse of Commonwealth subsidies paid in connection with the search for oil. It will be necessary for me to raise a number of points. I am mindful of the fact that it is not permissible to criticise the activities of a State Parliament in this place. Therefore I propose to deal with that matter only insofar as the funds of Commonwealth taxpayers are affected indirectly by the payment of subsidies to encourage and assist the search for oil in this country. I think all honourable senators are aware, even at this early stage of my remarks, of the matter to which I intend to make reference. I wish to refer first to the Artesian Oil Co. Ltd which started off originally with a capital of $4 and which subsequently attracted an oil search subsidy of $22,800. Working on the farm-out system, a drilling company known as Lucky Strike Drilling Co. spent something like $70,000 over a period of 3 years in the search for oil. I might say that the original $4 was the total investment at that particular time by Johannes Bjelke-Petersen who, today, is Premier of the State of Queensland. The subsidy that was attracted by the combined drilling and exploration operations that I mentioned a moment ago was $22,800. During the signing up process in a subsequent amalgamation or takeover by a company known as Exoil (NL), this company received a refund of something like $60,000 allegedly as compensation for its oil search activities. This meant that somewhere along the line the sum of $12,000 changed hands, to put it in simple terms, twice. Ordinarily, in view of the search, or lack of search, that had taken place, this $12,000 should have been returned to the Government. I am not aware that it has been returned. Perhaps the Minister representing the Minister for National Development can tell me that in fact a refund of $12,000 was made to the Government. I hope he can. If no refund was made perhaps the Minister can tell us where the money may have gone. Perhaps the transaction may be looked upon by some as a proper one. Did this money go into the pockets of certain persons associated with the companies involved? One significant fact about all this is that, according to the documents available, the personal expenditure by Mr Bjelke-Petersen in this fantastic oil search was something like $170. I take the Senate back now to the year 1959. Apparently at that time the gentleman to whom I have referred filled in a tax return for the year which showed the sum of £140 3s 9d as being proceeds from the sale of his interest in the lease in question which, incidentally, was in northern Queensland. From memory, the lease is described as Authority 69P. Some months later the taxation authorities contacted Mr Bjelke-Petersen. I am quoting now from documents which are available to the public. It was explained that there had been an error and that in fact the amount of £140 3s 9d should have read £14,039. There was a very big mistake and the tax consultants were blamed. Permission was obtained for an amended statement to be submitted. I would now like to refer to notes taken from the transcript. I will be as brief as I possibly can and will refer to only the relevant sections. This is a statement made by Mr Bjelke-Peterson and it sets out how his investment in the fantastic oil search was made up. The document states: We spent a full week flying the area from the 14th to 19th December 1958. Hours flown 25. Cost: As it was my own aircraft and pilot, the cost to me was not so great. The document sets out the wages of the pilot at £25 - this would be $50 in today's currency; the fuel used at 8 galls per hour at £50; and hotel expenses at £10. The document continued: During this period we flew to various points across the width of the area. Our investigations took us also to the furthest north-eastern corner on the Saxby River, and through the length of the area in different directions until finally reaching the eastern boundary. The other expenses were in connection -with the trip. I also had to go to the area which I flew by passenger plane via Townsville to Hughenden to inspect drilling sites . . . fare £24. On this occasion I also flew some hundreds of miles with a friend, Mr Jack Smultz of Hughenden with whom I stayed. He flew me in his twin engine aircraft. I paid for all the fuel and running expenses, a total of £26 10s Od. On that occasion I inspected by car possible drilling sites in the area. I also made two trips to Sydney at my own expense to interview the Directors of Longreach Oil Search, and the Directors of Oil Drilling Exploration with a view to having them participate in assisting us in our drilling, and thus throughout I spent many weeks of personal endeavour, particularly in the Mackay area, seeking to bring the drilling operations to a successful conclusion. My conclusion is that apparently a total sum of about $170 was involved. If one peruses the records of these three companies it is obvious, of course, that there has been a very, very substantial return made on the original very minor investment of $4. I think that this situation is deserving of a pretty thorough investigation to see where the $12,000 has gone. If it has been returned to the Government I would be happy to have that explanation. We ought to look at this matter from another angle because it was mentioned in various places today and at other times that licences for off-shore areas are currently being held up for some reason or other. I have very good reason to believe that one of the licences is included in the Premier's chosen company, that there were 18 other applicants and it is a glamour lease on the Great Barrier Reef. 1 believe that if this is the way subsidies are to be used to enrich people personally - to enrich those who participate in small mushroom companies that grow into major companies overnight - the Commonwealth Government will have to be much more discreet and searching before it decides to pay out these subsidies on the scale on which this subsidy was apparently paid out, and in circumstances such as those to which I have referred. It seems ridiculous that such a small sum should be spent by one individual and the ultimate turnover to the company and to the individual runs into many thousands of dollars. The facts I have stated can be verified from any of the documents I have quoted. Perhaps Senator Greenwood, who was doing some challenging a moment ago, would be interested in this. The documents I referred to are associated with the appeal to the taxation people. I suggest in all sincerity that this is a matter deserving of very deep and searching investigation. 330 KBW Tasmania LP Minister for Works 1 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - The first thing that should be noted, if there is anything to be made plain in reference to the matter that Senator Keeffe has brought up on the adjournment, is that legal proceedings were concluded in the High Court of Australia in regard to the taxability of the income of the Premier of Queensland as far back as 1963. The miserableness of the motives of a senator who can rise tonight without giving any statement to this Government of what he proposed to say in substance- 330 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - Mr President, I object to that statement. I advised the Minister. 330 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - To what is the honourable senator objecting? 330 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - Senator Wright said that I gave no notice. I did. 330 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! The honourable senator can make a personal explanation later. 330 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - I accept the honourable senator's statement that he indicated to the Minister that he proposed to raise this subject, but he did not give to the Government any summarised or adequate statement of the matters of finance that he proposed to raise. It is quite obvious that the only purpose that Senator Keeffe had in raising this matter tonight was to smear a man, whose responsibility is complete and adequate in another Parliament, by ex parte insinuations in this chamber on a subject more than 6 years old. On his own statement of the facts it originated 10 years ago. The irony of it is the miserableness of the matter as presented by Senator Keeffe. This is brought in at a time when the State parliamentarian concerned is about to engage in an election in Queensland. The Premier of Queensland has made his own statement in the Press today. I have not had an opportunity to read it. I did not know that it would come within my responsibility to hear Senator Keeffe's statement tonight. I concede that the honourable senator's remarks are pertinent insofar as there is some suggestion that subsidies paid by the Commonwealth Government have gone to a company. The honourable senator does not suggest that they have not been refunded; he inquires whether they have been refunded and whether there is an obligation to refund. Of course, the matter having been stated here, inquiry will be made. With regard to the suggestion of evasion of income tax, I had the opportunity yesterday to read the High Court report on a question as to the taxability of some matter arising out of mining investments by the Premier of Queensland. That was reported in 1963 Argus Law Reports. It will be noted that Senator Keeffe said that he relied upon matters accessible to the public. I presume that he was referring to the documents that are filed in the registry and stated in the Law Reports. I hope that the honourable senator will not presume to discuss in this Senate, or expect us to inquire of the Commissioner of Taxation or any of his officers, the personal details of any taxpayer in this country, high or low. Not only is that within the confidential custody of the Taxation Branch as a matter of acknowledgment on all sides, but the statute of this Parliament specifically enjoins that neither the Commissioner nor any officer shall make available to any person any information with regard to the private affairs of a taxpayer on whom we have placed the obligation to render a return as to his income. If anything further is to be said after the High Court has decided the taxability of the taxpayer concerned, I have no doubt that that too would be inquired into by the Treasurer and dealt with in due course. It should be stated further that the issue that came before the High Court was as to whether the receipt was of an income nature or was in the nature of capital. I think it is only fair to say that that question is very indefinite in its definition and in many cases is a line ball, especially in modern commerce. The very fact that a man comes before an appeal tribunal, either at his own instance or at the instance of the Commissioner to contest the question as to whether money received in certain circumstances is in the nature of income or in the nature of capital is no indication of want of integrity or any questionable bona fides. It is a common experience that can be shared by any taxpayer who has a difference of opinion on that very indefinite field of law in relation to which the Commissioner and even the High Court in recent cases have gone out of their way to acknowledge that the criteria are very indefinite and uncertain. That is as much as I need say with regard to this stale and miserable insinuation that Senator Keeffe characteristically has brought forward in the Senate 6 or 10 years - at least 6 years - after this matter was publicly reported in the law reports of the High Court of Australia. 331 KPG 0 0 KEEFFE, James Senator Keeffe - Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation. Senator Wright accused me of not giving reasonable notice that I intended to speak on this matter. I was unaware that Senator Scott had been deposed as the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. I informed Senator Scott that I intended to speak on this matter tonight, and I believe that, as a matter of courtesy, I have complied with all the forms of the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. 331 23:19:00 Senate adjourned at 11.19 p.m.