Senate
19 March 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuliin) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 437

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That leave of absence for 2 months be granted to Senator McKellar on account of ill health.

page 437

QUESTION

PRICES

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen the request which was made by Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, for an independent commission of inquiry into steel and petrol prices? I Should point out that insofar as the price of petrol is concerned he is supported by the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria. In view of the expressed concern of the Government regarding overheating of the economy will the Government agree to this practical proposal for an inquiry into the necessity for an increase in the prices of these commodities because the increases will affect the whole cost structure of the community?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have seen one comment in relation to the price of petroleum products, but I have not seen any comments in regard to the price of steel. I accept the Leader of the Opposition’s statement that the President of the ACTU has in fact suggested that an inquiry be set up to examine these matters. I cannot give an assurance that this will be undertaken at a Commonwealth level. It is clearly a matter of policy. I think it would be inappropriate to deal with the matter on a Commonwealth basis as suggested by the President of the ACTU. The price of petrol throughout Australia is influenced by the price which is fixed in South Australia. In any event, the Leader of the Opposition’s question in the terms in which it is posed asks me to reflect upon possible Government policy and, for that reason, I would not be in a position to comment at this time.

page 437

QUESTION

PEAS

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is the Minister aware that the figures which were released by the Minister for Trade and Industry in relation to imports of peas from New Zealand are very misleading inasmuch as the quantity of Surprise peas imported, which the Minister admits has increased, must be multiplied 4i times to bring it to the equivalent of the standard frozen peas? Has not the position of the Australian producer been further aggravated by previous imports of these peas from the United States of America and the United Kingdom? Will the Minister enter into discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry with a view to supplying the reason why Unilever Pty Ltd does not use its patent in Australia but apparently prefers to bombard the Australian market from overseas to the serious detriment of the Australian producer?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– A number of questions have been asked in this context during the last fortnight. I think it would be proper to put the question on notice and for me to have the benefit of a considered reply from the Minister for Trade and Industry to the honourable senator’s question. I do know that certain organisations have been set up in relation to the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement and with particular reference to the situation of frozen peas and beans. The question is completely comprehensive and I think the honourable senator is entitled to a full and lengthy answer.

page 437

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Is the Minister aware that the South Australian Government has placed a complete ban on the Australian Broadcasting Commission in that State and has refused ministerial contact with the ABC staffs and the issuing to them of Government Press releases? As this action greatly inhibits the Commission in its work of presenting a balanced reporting of public events and also upsets the traditional role of the ABC in connection with Government policy, will the Minister take some action to ensure that the ABC will be able to carry on its normal function as, in fact, has been agreed upon by the PostmasterGeneral?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I did see the Press statement referred to by the honourable senator. 1 have noted the points he has made and 1 will discuss them with the Postmaster-General. I presume that what the government of South Australia wishes to do is its own affair, but I shall take the matter up with the Postmaster-General.

page 438

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– I can only assure the honourable senator to the best of my ability. I remind him that the Royal Australian Air Force has had dependants of RAAF personnel at Butterworth for well over 10 years and over that period Australia has bad no serious fears or worries about these dependants. Something like 1,000 Australian children go to a school on Penang Island. These children have been travelling to the school by bus and up to date there has been no incident involving them. Normal contingency plans are in existence for the protection of the dependants in the event of a need arising for their protection. Our view is that the need to implement these plans in most unlikely, and I hope the situation remains that way.

page 438

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EDUCATIONAL GRANT

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science whether he is aware of the claim made by the State Government of New South Wales that owing to the limited amount of funds made available under the Commonwealth Educational Grant over 3,000 students who passed their Higher School Certificate examination in 1969 and who wished to make teaching their career had to be rejected by the State Government for teacher training scholarships although suitably qualified. This is despite the fact that the State of New South Wales is desperately short of trained teachers and has overcrowded classrooms.

I ask the Minister what his Government intends to do to overcome this deplorable position.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– lt becomes something of a catch-cry to say thai any dislocation of services arises through insufficiency of finance provided by the Commonwealth Government, In the educational field the Commonwealth Government’s financial supplies have increased out of all proportion over the past 5 years, as indeed have the appropriations made by the States from their own revenues. In relation to colleges for teacher training, it should be noted that a great expansion has been caused as a direct result of the Commonwealth’s policy instituted some 3 or 4 years ago specifically to supplement finance for this aspect of education. I remind the Senate that for a year or 2 years this Government did not accept the first recommendation to supplement teacher training grants, but 4 or 5 years ago the Government accepted that policy and during this sessional period we will be bringing in a Bill providing for very large appropriations for the various States for this specific aspect. The appropriation for New South Wales will be $9.9m.

page 438

QUESTION

SYNTHETIC MEAT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry seen an article relating to the commercial progress of substitute and synthetic foods as an alternative to or substitute for meat? ls it not a fact that there are substitute steaks, chicken, bacon and even prawns on the American market and that patents have been taken out for the production of synthetic meats from mineral oil? As these substitute and synthetic meats are a real threat to the meat industry of Australia, will the Minister take steps to see that no production licences for these so-called meats are issued in Australia? Will he also ban the importation of any of these products into Australia so that Australian meat producers will be protected?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yes, 1 have seen some reports in relation to synthetic foods, and more recently in relation to synthetic meats. The honourable senator’s question relates to a matter of policy. He has asked that the Government take certain action to restrict or prohibit the entry into Australia of synthetic meats in competition with our own meat industry. That also is a matter of policy on which he is asking me to comment. The best I can do is to say that I will refer the matter to the Minister for Trade and Industry.

page 439

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate ask the Minister for External Affairs to make a statement at the earliest opportunity on the present situation in Cambodia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yes. I, and I am sure other honourable senators, read what appeared in the Press within the past 24 hours. I am not able to make any comment on the matter. I sought some information in relation to it this morning but as yet the information is not available to me. I think Senator Wheeldon has asked a fair question in requesting that the Minister for External Affairs be invited to comment at the very earliest opportunity. Obviously at this stage there is no comment that 1 can make.

page 439

QUESTION

PRINTING INDUSTRY

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise. Has the publication ‘Australia’s Heritage’ been reprinted recently? As this reprinted publication carries the imprint ‘Printed in Australia’ will the Minister ascertain whether it was in fact printed in Australia? If the imprint is correct, why was the publication imported from Hong Kong on the motor vessel Eastern Star’?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I will obtain an answer to that question for the honourable senator as soon as possible.

page 439

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to the wool economic research report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics concerning the structure of the Japanese wool industry? Is he aware of the section dealing with hint buying in which it is claimed that the practice of spreading orders has caused unnecessary competition among Japanese wool buyers at auctions and therefore the hint buying system has been introduced to set a ceiling on prices bid at auction? Would the disastrous prices being received at wool auctions in Australia recently indicate the measure of success of this system? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Primary Industry to keep this matter under close scrutiny?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– My attention has been drawn to the report to which the honourable senator refers. I have not been able to study it in detail. The matter to which he refers has been a bugbear within the wool industry for many years now. I would not know so much about the depressing effect it may be having on present prices because hint buying and pie buying have been in operation within the wool industry for many years now and perhaps have had their effect over the years. I shall certainly take up the point made by the honourable senator with the Minister for Primary Industry and see whether he has any further information on it.

page 439

QUESTION

FAUNA CONSERVATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. In view of the multitude of questions, both oral and written, directed at the Minister for Education and Science this session on fauna conservation, can he give the date of the next meeting of State Ministers involved with this matter, since he would be the convenor of such a meeting?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I wish to inform the honourable senator that no date has been set for the next meeting of State Ministers concerned with this matter with the Federal Minister for Education and Science. It is expected that consideration will be given to such a meeting after the next conference of Australian fauna authorities which is scheduled for 26th or 29th May.

page 439

QUESTION

ESSENDON AIRPORT

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation inform the Senate of the intention of his Department in regard to the use of the present Essendon aerodrome when the Tullamarine aerodrome is fully operational for both international and internal airlines?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– What I will ask the honourable senator to do is to put that question on the notice paper. There are some ideas, some tentative proposals, but I think we al! would be better served if we had a more precise answer than I can give at the moment.

page 440

QUESTION

TAXATION DEDUCTIONS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– J direct a question to the Leader of the Government as the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that since the institution of taxation deductions allowable per child for education expenses in 1952-53 the following rates have applied: 1952-53, $100; from 1953-54 to 1955-56, $150; from 1956-57 to 1962-63, $200; and from 1963-64 to 1968-69, S300? As there has been no increase in the allowance for the last 6 years, will consideration be given in the compilation of the next Budget to increasing this allowance in line with increased costs to parents since 1964 and with average increases since 1952?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator has given the allowable taxation deductions for children’s education expenses. I do not challenge the figures that he gave. My memory does not extend to the precision of the question, but I would accept the figures the honourable senator gave as being accurate. The honourable senator then asked whether the Government would consider increasing the amount of the deductions. 1 reply to him, as I do to other honourable senators who raise budgetary matters at question time, that at Budget time, very properly, the Government and the Treasurer examine all these matters and they will consider his submissions along with the submissions of other honourable senators concerning budgetary matters.

page 440

QUESTION

MELBOURNE AIRPORT

Senator WHEELDON:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether something could be done at Melbourne airport to cover in the early hours of the morning the large panes of glass into which persons sitting in the waiting room have to stare at that time. Although my question may seem trivial, I ask it on behalf of members of this Parliament who travel from Western Australia on what is known as the ‘Midnight Horror’ and arrive at Melbourne at 6 a.m. Although they are treated to a rather spectacular view when the dawn comes up like thunder, after sitting there for a couple of hours they are almost blinded and their attention to their duties in the Senate and House of Representatives is rather jeopardised by staring into the sunshine for about 2 hours, from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m., after a night spent on a plane.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator, during the course of asking his question, received a number of fairly caustic answers from around the chamber. But I can understand his problem and I sympathise with him. There is nothing worse than looking at oneself in a large pane of glass in the small hours. I will do what I can to see whether there can be any alleviation of the problem.

page 440

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. My attention has been drawn to an article on the finance and business page of a well known daily newspaper under the startling headline: ‘Stealing of Senator Murphy’s Clothes’. I understand that the article implies that this action has been taken to try to prevent Senator Murphy moving his motion for the setting up of a select committee to inquire into stock exchange activities, or at least to make it very difficult and embarrassing for him to do so. If the headline is correct and the stealing of Senator Murphy’s clothes has occurred, is this some form of contempt of Parliament?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am not able to comment on the article referred to by the honourable senator inasmuch as I have not seen it. I shall have a look at it at the earliest opportunity.

page 440

QUESTION

MERINO RAMS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of a statement attributed in this morning’s Melbourne ‘Age’ to Mr Chandler, the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, iD which he attacked the Commonwealth Government’s decision to allow the sale overseas of merino rams? In a written answer to a question asked by Mr Edmunds, the honourable member for Moonee Ponds, Mr Chandler is reported to have said that the Victorian Government believes that there were strong reasons for opposing the sale of merino rams to competitors overseas. Will the honourable gentleman acquaint the Minister with the expressed opposition of the Victorian Government to the Commonwealth decision to allow such sales?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable gentleman to whom the honourable senator has referred is entitled to his view, but I remind the honourable senator that following a discussion in this chamber on the partial lifting of the embargo on the export of merino rams the Minister for Primary Industry gave all sections of the community an opportunity to place their views before the Australian Wool Industry Conference. That opportunity was not taken by the gentleman referred to by the honourable senator; therefore I do not think he has any comeback now. However, I will draw the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry to the question. If he wishes to pass any information on 1 will forward it to the honourable senator.

page 441

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Minister recall my several questions to him referring to a direction of the Reserve Bank of Australia that bank overdraft interest rates are to rise by ]%? Has this rise in the interest rate now been applied by private trading banks? ls it possible that this increase in the overdraft lending rate when applied to primary producers could cost producers approximately $10m per annum and could correspondingly net a profitable sector of industry a similar amount? As the Government and most members of the Parliament acknowledge that there is not at this time a profitability in all sectors of rural industry to enable it readily to absorb this increased cost, will the Minister suggest to the Government that it would be more than appropriate for it to instruct the Reserve Bank that no overdraft interest rate is to rise in the case of primary producers?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I do recall the honourable senator asking questions on this issue during the last 2 weeks. My understanding of the situation is that the increase of i% in the interest rate became operative from the time that the Governor of the Reserve Bank made his statement. So the answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is that the increase in the interest rate is operative.

The second point that I want to make is to reiterate that the primary industry sector of the Australian economy enjoys a special differential in many ways. In certain respects primary industries receive an advantage in the interest rate. So if there is an increase in the overall interest rate the differential will remain constant. The ultimate part of the honourable senator’s question is a suggestion that the Government should intercede with the Reserve Bank so that this increase is not passed on to primary industries, in which case the differential would be increased. This, of course, is a matter of policy and a mattei that I would have to take on notice and refer to the Treasurer.

page 441

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration give me any indication of the position prevailing at the Bonegilla migrant centre? ls the intake tapering off or remaining static?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– As this reply requires the giving of definite figures I feel that it would be better for mc to obtain those definite figures than to give just a general answer. I shall do this and advise the honourable senator as soon as possible.

page 441

QUESTION

COMPANY LAW REFORM

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that this week the first report of the Eggleston Committee on company law reform was presented to the Victorian Parliament? Is it a fact that that report has been in existence for 18 months before being made public? If so, what was the reason for the delay in making it public? Does the Commonwealth Attorney-General propose to make it public in this place?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I shall have to refer that question to the Attorney-General for a statement by him.

page 441

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Air inform the Parliament whether 2 airlines operating in South East Asia - -Air Vietnam and Air America - are controlled or owned by the United States Central

Intelligence Agency? If not, can he ascertain the ownership structure of the 2 companies referred to? Also, how many Australian servicemen or other Australians have been passengers on the airlines since 1st January 1965?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I do not know why the honourable senator has directed this question to me because it refers, no doubt, to civilian airlines. However, I shall take the matter up and see what information I can obtain for him.

page 442

QUESTION

EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– ( address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Regarding the question asked earlier in relation to the export of merino rams and the concern of the Victorian Ministers, is it not a fact that the Victorian farmers value the Australian merino so lightly that only approximately 45% of Victorian wool is described as merino.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I would have to take the figure given by the honourable senator as being factual because I do not know the figure. If he desires I shall obtain this information for him.

page 442

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a ques tion to the Minister for Housing. Further to the statements made during question time on Tuesday last and yesterday by the Minister, can the Minister say whether or not any applications received after this week and before 30th June next for a war service homes loan will be processed at all this financial year or is it a fact that only applications received by the Division before this week and still remaining outstanding will be processed this financial year?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I really answered all of this question yesterday. I think that the best I can do is to repeat exactly what I said, because I have given the facts. Of course processing is continuing but, as I said yesterday, because there has been a considerable increase in applications - and I would think that honourable senators are pleased that people are availing themselves of this benefit - it will be necessary to delay the settlement of some applications, notably applications in respect of existing properties. New applicants seeking finance to purchase existing properties are being advised that there will be a waiting time of approximately 6 months from the date of their applications before settlement may be expected. I went on to say that the period of 6 months covers the normal average processing time of 4 months plus 2 months waiting time. Of course processing is going on and this period is included in the time that I gave. I also informed the Senate that loans for building and other purposes are not affected by the change in arrangements and there has, of course, been no freezing of loans as suggested by Senator McClelland.

If I may I will answer a point which Senator McClelland made yesterday and which I picked up only this morning from the Hansard record, implying that there was a breach of faith. That may not be the term that was used but that is what was meant. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that in the letter of approval from the Department an applicant would be advised, prior to the introduction of the waiting period, that there was no waiting period at present for finance under the War Service Homes Act. The letter goes on to say: ‘However, this cannot be regarded as a commitment as circumstances may change in the meantime.’ So there was no breaking of faith, as that information is given to applicants, but of course, as I said, the processing is going on.

page 442

QUESTION

CAPTAIN COOK’S CANNON

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. 1 ask: Is there any significance in the fact that Captain Cook’s cannon at present in King’s Hall is aimed at the office of the Leader of the Opposition?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have not yet looked at the trajectory of the cannon but I will look at it with interest.

page 442

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING GRADUATES

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science noted claims in the Press that statistics show that the percentage of engineers graduating from Australian universities today is the lowest of any comparable country in the world. Does not this fact have the most serious implications for Australia’s future development? Is engineering an unattractive profession because the remuneration is unsatisfactory? Is one example of the unsatisfactory nature of the remuneration the recent award given to professional engineers in the employ of the Government, which has led them almost to a state of revoli?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The percentage of graduates from the engineering schools has declined. I doubt whether the honourable senator could justify the claim that it is the lowest percentage in the world.

Senator McManus:

– Of comparable countries in the world.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, of comparable countries no doubt. The honourable senator will have the satisfaction of knowing that his asking the question will impel an examination of that aspect of the matter. 1 am not in a position to attribute the declining interest to low scales of remuneration. The recent award is currently under discussion. 1 am aware that it has given rise to great disquiet, but the decision was a deliberate one given by an arbitration tribunal. I would have thought that if the decision had any real defects it could be referred again to the arbitration tribunal for further consideration.

page 443

QUESTION

SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Supply been drawn to a leading article in to-day’s ‘Australian Financial Review’ dealing with governmental offset orders? Will he comment on the implied criticism of his Department in that part of the article which states that the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow is in part idle through lack of work loads?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yes, I saw the leading article in the ‘Australian Financial Review’. It dealt with offset ordering. The Small Arms Factory at Lithgow has certain equipment idle and is not running at full capacity. So that there can be no misunderstanding, 1 point out that the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow currently has a substantial programme of high technology production current for the Australian Services and overseas customers. Honourable senators must appreciate that all factories producing war materials must always have an area of excess capacity in peace time in order to meet any emergency requirements which could arise if war should break out.

I am happy to be able to say - this is the main point that I want to bring out - that employment at the Factory at Lithgow is now at its highest level for more than a decade. Total employment is 1,532 persons. I suggest that that is evidence of a satisfactory and economic level of production. Honourable senators should understand that the Small Arms Factory at Lithgow is a tremendously important factory not only for our defence complex but also for the area of Lithgow. It is the major employer in that area of New South Wales.

page 443

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 59)

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minis ter representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

As the Postmaster-General has given an undertaking that pastoralists in Western Australia connected to the Carnarvon exchange will be connected, without cost to them, to the Geraldton exchange 300 miles away when the Carnarvon exchange is converted to automatic, will this concession be extended to farmers generally who are faced with heavy expense when their manual exchanges are converted to automatic operation.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

To provide a measure of assistance for a number of pastoralists in the Carnarvon area, plans were developed to divert their lines to remotely controlled exchanges to be established along the Carnarvon-Port Hedland coaxial cable route. Although this would have considerably lessened the amount of private construction, the subscribers would still have been required to rebuild fairly long sections of their lines and, in addition, trunk rates would have applied on their calls to Carnarvon.

Following a review of the matter, it was decided that connection to Carnarvon could continue as long as the lines concerned were capable of operating satisfactorily. When the Carnarvon exchange is converted to automatic operation, the lines will remain connected to Carnarvon under manual operating conditions. However, if this arrangement becomes too uneconomic, consideration will be given to having calls to and from the services in question handled manually at Geraldton. Nevertheless, no firm commitment has been made in this respect.

The situation in the remote Carnarvon area is very different from the majority of other areas where subscriber’s lines need to be upgraded to meet the requirements of automatic operation and it would not be appropriate to apply the arrangement concluded for Carnarvon to other areas as a matter of course. Nevertheless, it is realised that the upgrading of private sections of lines to full Departmental standards can involve subscribers, particularly those located some distance from the exchange, in substantial expenditure. When very long distances are involved, special arrangements may continue to be necessary, depending on the circumstances of each case.

page 444

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP CONVENTION

(Question No. 63)

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government pay the fares of these persons who are invited to attend the Citizenship Convention in Canberra; if so, what Department makes the bookings with the airlines.
  2. What instructions are given to the Department making the bookings with regard to the airline with which bookings are to be made.
  3. Were the bookings for persons invited from Western Australia to attend the 1970 Convention made only with Ansett Airlines of Australia; if so, is there any reason for the bias against TransAustralia Airlines.
  4. Is the same practice applied to persons invited to the Convention from other States.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Department of Immigration is responsible for making travel arrangements and for meeting the cost of fares of delegates invited to attend the Citizenship Convention.
  2. It is the practice of the Department to apportion the travel equally between the two airlines so far as this is practical. The majority of delegates are carried on special flights or in block bookings on scheduled flights. For reasons of economy therefore, each airline is allotted the traffic from specified States. Western Australian and Queensland traffic is regarded as ‘long-haul’ and each company is allotted the traffic from one of these two States. The traffic from other States is divided on a State basis, equally so far as possible between the two companies. For the 1970 Convention, the tentative bookings provided for 180 delegates to be carried by one company and 177 by the other.
  3. and (4) For the 1970 Citizenship Convention the traffic from Western Australia was allotted to Ansett Airlines of Australia. At the preceding Convention in January 1968, Western Australian traffic was allotted to Trans-Australia Airlines. The converse situation applied with respect to the other long-haul’ State, Queensland, with traffic from that State being allotted to Trans-Australia Airlines for the 1970 Convention and to Ansett Airlines of Australia for the 1968 Convention. As to other

States for the 1970 Convention, Ansett Airlines of Australia was allotted traffic from Victoria and South Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines, traffic from New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. However, each delegate when being informed of his proposed travel arrangements was asked to state alternative arrangements if these should be desired. With only one or two exceptions all delegates accepted the travel arrangements made for them.

page 444

QUESTION

KINGSFORD-SMITH AIRPORT

(Question No. 69)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

With regard to the agreement between Group Engineering and its subsidiary, Security Parking Pty Limited, and the Department of Civil Aviation involving Kingsford Smith Airport car park, what is the percentage amount of revenue that the Commonwealth is to receive over and above the S2.000 monthly rental.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

In addition to the $2,000 monthly rental, the Commonwealth is receiving twenty two and one half per cent (22½%) of the gross takings of the public car park in the present terminal area at Sydney Airport. The 20 year lease provides for rental and concession fee reviews after each five year tenancy with a special review applying should the Commonwealth during the period of the lease require the car park to be increased by the Company from its present capacity of 1,600 vehicles to 3,000 vehicles.

page 444

QUESTION

TELEPHONES

(Question No. 65)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

As the Postmaster-General’s decision to pay the cost of installation of telephones on sheep properties in the Gascoyne and Murchison districts in Western Australia was an acceptance by the Government of the principle of paying for developmental telephonic costs in remote areas, and the principle has an Australia-wide application, would the Postmaster-General inform the Parliament whether a policy decision in this regard has been reached.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The arrangements made for subscribers in the Gascoyne and Murchison districts do not mean that the Government would be prepared to meet the whole cost of lines to the Carnarvon exchange for these subscribers.

The position is that the existing lines, which are very lengthy, are being allowed to remain connected to Carnarvon for as long as they are capable of operating satisfactorily. However, the subscribers concerned are still being required to accept responsibility for maintaining the lines.

page 445

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

(Qnestion No. 71)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Air. upon notice:

  1. If and when the Fill is delivered to the Australian Government will it be possible to land or service the plane at any base other than that situated at Amberley.
  2. What was the amount overspent on original estimates in extending the Amberley runway and constructing facilities for servicing the Fill at that base.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The Fill will be able to land at all operational bases throughout Australia.
  2. Including the project for extension of the runway the total approved estimate for the provision of Fill ground facilities at Amberley is dollars Australian 6,513,000. Expenditure on these projects to date total dollars Australian 5,361,331. Current indications are the final cost will fall well within the approved estimate.

page 445

QUESTION

DETERGENT

(Question No. 73)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister advise details of the trade name of the detergent being used in the Torres Strait area and can he also advise if the detergent has been scientifically proved to be less damaging to the pearl culture beds and other marine life than the oil drifts.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The trade name of the two detergents used in the Torres Strait area are Gamlen Oil Spill Remover and Corexit 7664. No detergents are being used on any oil near pearl culture beds. In these areas other methods are being employed to contain and destroy oil drifts.

page 445

QUESTION

DETERGENT

(Question No. 91)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister aware that a spokesman for the Department of Shipping and Transport has publicly admitted that quantities of both Corexit and Gamlen have been used to correct the oil spillage in the Torres Strait.
  2. Is the Minister also aware that the second detergent is deadly in its effect on marine life.
  3. Will the Minister inform the Parliament of the exact amount of Gamlen used in the Torres Strait area.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)Yes.

  1. Gamlen Oil Spill Remover is toxic, but scientific experts support its use when applied in the correct manner in open waters. All Gamlen used on the oil spill in the Torres Strait area has been applied in the vicinity of the ship which is 24 miles from shore and in 60 feet of water.
  2. The usage to 16 March has been 119 drums, each of 45 gallons capacity.

page 445

QUESTION

PHANTOM FIGHTER BOMBERS

(Question No. 119)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Air, upon notice:

  1. Will twenty-four American Phantom fighter bombers, together with air tankers, cost approximately $300 million.
  2. If Australia opts out of the Fill contract, will this mean in fact, that the twenty-four new planes will cost the Australian taxpayers $500 million.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) To ascertain even the approximate cost of 24 Phantom aircraft together with air tankers would necessitate a complete evaluation of the aircraft configuration with an assessment of the specialist equipment, engineering changes and support elements required to permit the aircraft to be operated to the best advantage in the Australian environment and to meet Australian requirements.

In these circumstances I am also unable to answer the second part of the honourable senator’s question.

page 445

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 121)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Air, upon notice:

What is the value of Fill spares already stockpiled in Australia and the value of spares which Australia has contracted to purchase and which have not yet been delivered.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

To date Fill spares to the value of $US33.919m have been delivered and a further $US5.693m have been ordered but not delivered.

page 446

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT FACTORY

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yesterday Senator Poyser asked me a question in relation to the Government aircraft factories at Fishermen’s Bend and Avalon and I undertook to get some further information for him. I can now inform the honourable senator that the Government Aircraft Factory at Fishermen’s Bend is used primarily for manufacturing work, and the Government Aircraft Factory at Avalon is used primarily for final assembly and flight testing, although it carries out some component jig assembly work. So the question as to where any particular class of work will be done depends on the class of work received. If it is primarily of a manufacturing nature involving little assembly into major components, it will probably be done at the Fishermen’s Bend factory. The nature of the contracts for which Australian industry is invited to tender suggests that the contracts are more suitable for Fishermen’s Bend. The three major aircraft manufacturing organisations! - the Government aircraft factories. Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, and Hawker de Havilland - will be seeking the work of a nature mentioned by the honourable senator.

page 446

QUESTION

TELEPHONES

Is the Minister aware that many pensioners find difficulty in making necessary telephone calls, some of them of an urgent nature, because of their inability to use public telephones because of their locations? Will the Minister consult with the Postmaster-General for the purpose of giving consideration to removing the existing direct installation charge for new telephones applied for by pensioners.

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

The position is that a concession in telephone charges is already available to blind persons, war widow pensioners and certain other pensioners. The concession comprises a one-third reduction in the basic annual rental for a telephone service and is aimed at alleviating the recurring yearly commitment these people are required to meet in leasing a telephone service.

Since the introduction of the telephone rental concession in 1964, consideration has been given on a number of occasions to the possibility of granting a concession on or waiving the telephone connection fee. However, the conclusion has been reached that the existing arrangements represent a considerable benefit to the recipients and reflect a reasonable and sympathetic recognition of the special circumstances of pensioners and blind people. Overall, the rental reduction represents a saving of about$3m yearly to the subscribers concerned.

Concerning the siting of public telephones, every endeavour is made when determining the location of such facilities to ensure that they are placed in positions which are most convenient to the majority of residents in the area concerned. However, if there are any particular cases which the honourable senator has in mind where it is considered that the location of public telephones is unsatisfactory, these will be investigated promptly if he would be good enough to furnish details.

page 446

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator McCLELLAND (New South

Wales) - Mr Deputy President, 1 seek leave to make a personal explanation.

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My attention has been directed to a report on page 4 of today’s ‘Australian’ headed ‘Senate history if brother wins’. The report states:

Senate history may be made next year if a

Sydney solicitor, Mr J. McClelland, gains ALP nomination for the New South Wales Labor Senate team.

If he is nominated and is elected, he will join his brother. Senator D. McClelland, on the red benches in the Senate chamber. They would be the first brothers to sit at the same time in the Senate.

The Mr J. McClelland referred to in the article is not my brother or indeed any relation to me. I should have thought that the ‘Australian’ would have sought to check the story in the first instance with me. I do not know whether the story was checked with Mr J. McClelland but it certainly was not checked with me. The report is inaccurate and without foundation, and 1 take this opportunity so to inform the House.

page 446

QUESTION

FISHING

(Question No. 45)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister prepared to examine, on a national basis, the issue, and if necessary, the restriction of fishing licences in Australian waters.
  2. Will the Minister also examine the possibility of suspending the issue of licences for one year and, during this period, examining a plan by which licences would be issued only to those already engaged in the industry, and by which no licences could be issued for Queensland waters by authorities outside the State of Queensland.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The status of the stocks of fish off Australia are under continuing examination. Policies of control of effort in a fishery are already applied to the western and southern rock lobster fisheries in which’ limits are imposed on the number of boats licensed to engage in the fishery and on the number of rock lobster pots permitted to be used from each such boat. The number of fish processing boats licensed in the northern prawn fishery has also been limited.
  2. It is the policy of the Government to limit licences only where uncontrolled opportunity for boats to enter a fishery will have adverse economic effects on the fishery as a whole. Licence limitation policies are adopted in conjunction with management policies developed on the basis of scientific evidence for the conservation of the fishery concerned, including techniques such as closed seasons and areas, legal minimum sizes of fish and regulation of the type of fishing gear used. The Government has announced plans to undertake extensive scientific research in the northern prawn fishery, which is the one of most concern to the Honourable Senator, to provide data on which decisions concerning the rational development and if necessary the conservation of the fishery can be based. With reference to suspending the issue of licences for one year, I presume that the Honourable Senator refers to the issue of new licences. Such action would be contrary to the Government’s policy of supporting the rational development of our fisheries and permitting the issue of new licences where there is no evidence to justify restrictions.

The issue of licences for fishing in Queensland waters is the prerogative of the Queensland Government. Licences under the Fisheries Act are valid throughout proclaimed waters unless a State licensing authority issuing the licence on behalf of the Commonwealth and with the Commonwealth’s consent restricts its area of operation within the proclaimed waters adjacent to that State. This is done in respect of zoning arrangements in the two major rock lobster fisheries. I am aware of the present weakness of the Fisheries Act in relation to the administration of area restrictions and a solution to this problem is under consideration in a review of the Act now under way in my Department. However, even if the Act is eventually amended to enable more effective administrative machinery to be introduced, the Government will hold to its policy of avoiding placing restrictions on fishing effort except in cases where there are compelling reasons based on the conservation of stocks or the economics of the fishery.

page 447

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 99)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Territory of Papua and

New Guinea Administration intends to establish a low covenant urban settlement to alleviate Lae’s housing shortage, if so will this settlement be allowed into portion 271, east of Lae, the former Malahang airstrip site.

  1. Does the Department of Civil Aviation still hold a reserve over portion 271 and, in view of the fact that a more suitable airstrip site is available, can the Minister advise if there is any necessity to continue the reserve on portion 271.
  2. Can the Minister advise if portion 271 will be released to the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea so that the development of the area can be carried out in order to alleviate the squatter problem in the town of Lae.
  3. If the area referred to is to be released, can the Minister advise the likely date of release.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 am aware of the Department of External Territory’s desire to establish a low covenant urban settlement on an area currently reserved for aviation purposes at Malahang.
  2. , (3) and (4) Portion 271 is set aside for aviation purposes. Officers of my Department are currently investigating an alternative aerodrome site which, if found satisfactory, would result in the release of the Malahang site. Our investigations, covering engineering and meteorological aspects, are likely to extend into 1971. You may be assured that we are conscious of the need to hasten this study with due regard to Lae’s more general town planning problems.

page 447

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No, 141)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister . representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

What was the re-engagement rate per branch for senior ratings in the Royal Australian Navy during the final quarter of 1968-69.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

page 447

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 142)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

Is it a fact that a spot check at HMAS Cerberus recently revealed that although t,700 ratings went through the mess line for meals, only 800 were catered for; if so, what happened to the excess catering money.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No. The normal number supplied with meals at HMAS Cerberus during week-days is 1,700 and this drops to 800 to 1,000 during week-ends. Where alternative main courses are provided, in accordance with economic catering practice, sufficient of each dish is not provided to cater for the total number present. The overall quantity is always adequate. There is no question of ‘excess catering money involved, as under the Naval catering system a daily Victualling Allowance for each person fed is credited to a Mess Account. The value of provisions issued to galleys and messes is charged to this account and any credit or debit balance is carried forward to the succeeding day. These are book entries and no cash transactions are involved. In consequence there can be no ‘excess catering money’.

page 448

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 143)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. What is the minimum cubic capacity laid down for accommodation for a rating on Royal Australian Navy vessels.
  2. What is the cubic measurement of the 3P Mess on Whitby class vessels, do fifty-four men sleep, eat and live in this type of cabin, and what steps will be taken to remedy this scandalous state of affairs.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Minimum deck area per man for sailors in the RAN is 17 square feet. (Cubic volume is not used as this varies with the tween deck heights used in individual ships).
  2. The deck area of 3P Mess is 945 square feet which allows for an area of 17.5 square feet per sailor. The 54 sailors accommodated use this area for sleeping and recreation only.

Sailors dine in a separate dining hall, the size of which is calculated at 3i square feet per sailor. The sailors have meals in three sittings, and the dining hall caters for 60 men per sitting.

page 448

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 144)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a fee is charged when a rating applies for his entitlements from the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund: if so, what is the justification for this charge.
  2. What is the justification for keeping a portion of such entitlement from a rating who has completed his obligations to the Royal Australian Navy, if he does not sign on as a reservist.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Where a sailor, who is a contributor to the DFRB Fund, retires or otherwise ceases to be a member and is not entitled to a pension under the DFRB Act his contributions are refunded in full. There is no fee or deduction for administrative costs.
  2. In addition to a refund of contributions a saiior may also be entitled to be paid a gratuity in respect of each completed year of service subject to his enrolment in the Reserve (non active). Should lie refuse to so enrol his gratuity is reduced accordingly. His refund of contributions is not affected.

page 448

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 146)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. How many officers hold the position of Vocational Guidance Officer in the Royal Australian Navy, what are the qualifications for appointment to this position, and what steps are taken to ensure that the most suitable personnel are appointed to these vital positions.
  2. Who is vocational officer at HMAS Cerberus, and what are his qualifications for the position.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. There are no Vocational Guidance Officers in the R.A.N. However, an officer is nominated as Resettlement Officer in every naval ship and establishment. The qualifications are general naval experience and a detailed knowledge of settlement regulations and procedures.
  2. The Resettlement Officer is LieutenantCommander A. P. Negus, who has had 14 years’ naval experience and is fully conversant with resettlement procedures.

page 448

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 148)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that gardeners and other civilian personnel at Naval depots, such as HMAS Cerberus, are paid travelling expenses incurred by them.
  2. Why are similar expenses not paid to Naval personnel travelling over similar distances to depots from shore accommodation.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Civilian personnel at some isolated Naval establishments such as HMAS Cerberus are paid an allowance for the use of private vehicles for the purpose of transport to and from places oi employment.
  2. Authority for payment of such an allowance to Naval personnel has been given in respect of HMAS Coonawarra and HMAS Creswell. The question of extending the payment of the allowance to Naval personnel serving in other isolated establishments, e.g. HMAS Cerberus, is under consideration.

page 449

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 149)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. What accommodation exists at Williamstown dockyard for ratings whilst their ships are undergoing refit.
  2. Is it a fact that accommodation at present is so bad at this dockyard that ratings are forced to sleep ashore.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No shore accommodation exists at Williamstown dockyard for officers and sailors from ships undergoing refit. When conditions do not permit living aboard their own ship, the duty watch is accommodated in an accommodation ship alongside, younger sailors in HMAS Lonsdale and older sailors who prefer to find their own accommodation ashore are paid an allowance to do so.

Living conditions on board the accommodation ship are recognised as substandard, and it is planned to build a modern barracks in the Williamstown area as soon as possible.

page 449

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No.150)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. What content of the overall salary for senior sailors and ratings in the Royal Australian Navy is for accommodation and victuals.
  2. Is this amount arbitrarily deducted from all ratings, irrespective of whether they are on board or ashore.
  3. Will the Minister give consideration to correcting of this anomaly.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. The amount of S1.22 per day in respect of accommodation and victuals is deducted from a sailor’s pay at source, ie, it is taken into account when the Service Basic Wage is being calculated. This applies to all Servicemen. It is not the cost of meals and accommodation but an arbitrarily set amount.
  2. If a single sailor is living out ashore he is paid this amount as a living out allowance. A married sailor living out is not paid living out allowance but is paid Married Allowances of $1.85 per day whether living in or out. Thus the only real deduction is from the single man living in.
  3. It is not considered that any anomaly exists.

page 449

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 152)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. How many fatalities have occurred among ratings at HMAS Cerberus during the past 6 months.
  2. How many fatalities have occurred in road accidents involving ratings from Naval depots during the past 6 months.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

page 449

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 153)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. What was the total cost of the ‘Southern Cross’ cinema at HMAS Cerberus, and how was this amount raised.
  2. Does the Minister believe that such amenities should be paid for by the Department of the Navy and not from contributions by serving personnel.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The ‘Southern Cross’ cinema was built in 1956 at a cost of approximately £100,000. This amount came principally from the Ships Fund of HMAS Cerberus and derived from the profits of the Ship’s company canteen at Cerberus. In addition to the amount provided by the Ships

Fund, some monies were raised by the Ship’s company and auxiliary committees through various social etc., functions.

The scale and type of amenities provided for serving personnel of all three Services is determined by die Minister for Defence and reviewed from time to time.

page 450

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 154)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

When will action be taken to improve the accommodation for chiefs and petty officers at (a) HMAS Albatross and (b) HMAS Cerberus.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

page 450

HMAS ALBATROSS

Tenders were let during the week commencing 2nd March for a new sleeping accommodation block for senior sailors.

Cabinet approval was given in June last year for the construction of a number of additional accommodation blocks, including two more sleeping blocks and a large dining/recreational building for senior sailors. It is hoped to make the necessary approach to the Parliamentary Works Committee in mid 1970.

page 450

HMAS CERBERUS

Cabinet approval was given in November 1969 for new sleeping accommodation, and dining and recreational facilities for senior sailors. It is hoped to make the necessary approach to the Parliamentary Works Committee in mid 1970.

page 450

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 155)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister- rep resenting the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

What steps are taken by the Navy to ensure that the most suitable and most competent instructors are used at Naval depots.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Instruction at the training establishments is given by officers, sailors and civilians.

The majority of officer instructors hold degrees or diplomas and most of these relate to educational qualifications. Other officers hold special qualifications as instructors, e.g. Qualified Flying Instructors and Air Warfare Instructors.

In the other two categories some of the instructors have recognised teaching diplomas or degrees. Of these some have had sea experience.

The bulk of sailor instructors have no recognised teaching qualifications but they have bad extensive sea experience related to the subjects they teach. It is the policy to post a sailor to an establishment near his home port when practicable between sea postings and for this reason sailors are generally not posted to particular schools. Courses in instructional technique are provided for instructors.

page 450

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 157)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister given consideration to altering the status of all personnel in the Department of the Navy to actual serving personnel.
  2. Would the Minister agree that by doing this and thus increasing the total serving personnel, it would allow a higher ratio of personnel for sea and shore drafts.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Because of the completely different nature of administrative and operational tasks associated with the running of the Navy and therefore the totally different skills and experience required, the suggestion is not considered practical.

page 450

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 159)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. What facilities exist within the Navy for assistance in the education of serving personnel’s children
  2. What arrangements are available for the granting of compassionate leave in the Navy.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Education Allowance may be paid to Service personnel in Australia whose children are undergoing secondary education, at the rate of $1,205 per annum, where the child attends school as a boarder or $625 per annum where the child attends day school.

This allowance may only be paid where the member’s wife accompanies him on postings, the child has been living with his parents prior to posting and it can be established that a move would seriously interfere with the continuity of the child’s education.

Where a member of the Services is posted overseas and his wife accompanies him at Departmental expense, an Education Allowance may be paid in respect of a member’s child who . is aged nine years but has not attained age twenty. This allowance is also paid at the rate of $1,205 per annum where the child attends school as a boarder or $625 per annum where the child attends day school.

  1. Compassionate leave is granted in the following cases:

Death, imminent death or dangerous illness of wife or child.

The imminent death of a parent or near dependent relative so that the man can see his parent or the person concerned before death takes place.

The dangerous illness or death of a parent or near dependent relative - provided the presence of the man in the home is essential and there is no other son or daughter at home or readily available to give the necessary assistance.

The infidelity of the man’s wife.

Serious domestic hardship where the presence of the man is essential.

On removal, where it is necessary because of the wife’s health or because the ages of the children are such that it would not be reasonable to expect her to bear the sole responsibility for the movement of the family.

Compassionate leave of a period not exceeding seven days in any one leave year can be granted.

A member granted compassionate leave is entitled to a free travel warrant normally debited against his entitlement to free leave travel.

page 451

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question 160)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. What are the daily feeding rates for depots and vessels of the Royal Australian Navy per depot and/or vessel for the financial year 1969-70.
  2. What amount was returned from the victualling of ratings at HMAS Cerberus to consolidated naval funds during the last financial year.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Daily feeding rates in the Royal Australian Navy are fixed on a per capita scale, with varying rates according to the numbers fed in the mess. All rates are reviewed quarterly concurrently with the review of standard issuing prices, and variation is normally only one or two cents.

Rates in cents applicable during the third quarter of the current financial year are:

Messes of 50 or less - Sea 81, Shore 79

Messes of 300 or less- Sea 79, Shore 77

Messes of more than 300 - Sea 77, Shore 75

Ships in strategic reserve and Vietnam service receive supplement of 4 cents, ships on broadside messing, 1 cent. Broadside messing is the system in older ships which have not been converted to cafeteria style messing. Special higher rates are fixed for tropical establishments and junior members, ie, junior recruits, apprentices cadet midshipmen and cadets.

  1. Total victualling allowance claimed in HMAS Cerberus for financial year 1968/69 was $436,564. Amount of savings for the same period was$ 16,368.

An extremely high standard of feeding was maintained in this establishment. The savings that accrued were attributable to the economies that result from catering for a ship’s company of approximately 2,000 sailors and from absences on short leave.

page 451

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 165)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

Is it a fact that the Department of Navy received an offer from the L. J. Hooker organisation to build a multi-storey block of flats at HMAS Cerberus for the use of married ratings on short-term drafts; if so, what was the reason for refusing this offer.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No record can be found in the Navy Department of such an offer having been made by L. J. Hooker.

page 451

INCIDENT AT YUENDUMU ABORIGINAL SETTLEMENT

Ministerial Statement

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– by leave - The statement I am about to make is made on behalf of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon), whom I represent in this place.

Senator Cavanagh has made a number of charges arising out of incidents which he alleges happened at Yuendumu Aboriginal Setdement in the Northern Territory in August or September 1967. Senator Cavanagh first made these charges on 23rd September 1969 in the Senate. He was answered 2 days later. He repeated the charges in correspondence with the Minister for the Interior in December 1969 and again in the Senate on 5th and 10th March 1970. On 17th March, 2 days ago, speaking on the adjournment motion, he added to them. This made it necessary to gather more information to answer him. I want to deal with these charges as briefly and as factually as 1 can.

The first and main allegation is that, in August or September 1967, 6 Aboriginal males were directed with the approval of the Superintendent of the Yuendumu Settlement to round up 3 girls, throw them into a truck and as punishment for an offence take them into the bush to be continually raped. There are 2 separate accounts of what took place at Yuendumu in August or September 1967. The first is the one given by Senator Cavanagh, stated by him to be based on information from a Mr R. D. Nicholls, who was employed by the Northern Territory Administration from 1960 until January 1969, when he was dismissed for refusing to comply with an instruction to transfer from Yuendumu to another location. The other account of events at Yuendumu in August or September 1967 has been given by 13 men who are members of the Yuendumu Council or who were members of the Yuendumu Council in 1966-67. Their account is supplemented by information by Rev. T. J. Fleming, who has been the Resident Baptist Minister at Yuendumu for approximately the last 20 years, and by reports of officers of the Northern Territory Welfare Branch.

Senator Cavanagh referred to a statement by the councillors and former councillors but said that he did not read the statement to the Senate because it contained the names of the persons involved. I think it is important that the statement should be known to the Senate and 1 propose to read it in full, except that I will omit the names of the persons concerned. It reads:

At the time that we were Councillors at Yuendumu in 1966 or 1967 there were three young girls who were causing a lot of trouble breaking into staff houses and the Government store and causing trouble with young men at Yuendumu. The Superintendent was worried about what was going on and so were we Councillors and we discussed these troubles with the Superintendent. The Superintendent said that the parents and Aboriginal people should accept some responsibility for their behaviour and should make some suggestions about how to stop this bad behaviour. We, the Councillors, talked about this problem by ourselves for a long lime and we decided to suggest to the Superintendent that these girls should be taken by their parents and promised husbands away from the Settlement for a while. We thought that this would stop their bad behaviour because they would be away from the place where it could most easily take place, that they would be under the close supervision of their parents and would have to live hard in the bush for a while, and they would start to come under the influence of the men to whom they were promised as wives and these men would begin to take some responsibility for their future behaviour. We thought also that while they were away they might get married and become the responsibility of their husbands. We made this suggestion to the Superintendent and asked him for the loan of the truck to take these people out to Old Mount Doreen which is about 39 miles from Yuendumu. This was granted. The girls were taken out to Old Mount Doreen late in the afternoon wilh the mothers and fathers of two of the girls and the promised husbands of two of the girls. The girls did not want to go to Old Mount Doreen but they were made to go by us. There were a number of other men on the truck, some of them Councillors and some of them were men who worked on the truck. These men went out and back on the same day. One of the men was Harry Nelson who was a councillor and who has made the statement that no rape took place and everyone behaved properly. Some of the men had rifles as they often do when there is an opportunity of a hunting trip of this kind but the rifles were not used as a threat to the girls and the girls would not have been frightened by the rifles as they would have known that if any violence had been intended it would not have been rifles which would have been used. The family groups were supposed to stay away from Yuendumu for two weeks but the girls ran away after 2 days and we went out and got the other people a day later. We did not take them back to Mount Doreen and their behaviour improved after that. On another occasion a number of teenage girls were made to go to the Mount Hardy mining and prospecting camp with their parents and by their parents because they had been playing up when their parents were away. This was during the holidays and although the girls were not happy about it they obeyed their parents. We know of no time when ‘six Aboriginal males were directed with the approval of the Superintendent to round up three girls as punishment for an offence take them out to the bush to be continually raped’ and we do not believe that such a thing or anything like it happened here. There are many other Aboriginal witnesses here who can prove that no harm came to these girls.

We, as Aboriginal Councillors at Yuendumu are unhappy that our people are being used and their reputations being abused and bandied around as » tool in an argument between white people for their own selfish purpose.

I believe this statement places the incidents in August or September 1967 in their proper perspective. Senator Cavanagh has said that this statement supports an allegation of mass rape. As will be seen, it directly contradicts such an allegation, lt is consistent with the account of the incidents recorded by the Reverend T. J. Fleming which was read to the Senate by Senator Cavanagh on 5th March though Mr Fleming does not mention that the parents of 2 of the girls went with the party. Inquiries were also made amongst officers of the Administration in Darwin, Alice Springs and at Yuendumu who could be expected to have heard of the occurrence if it had been true that 3 girls were taken out into the bush to be continually raped as punishment for an offence, and none had ever before heard any mention of the alleged occurrence.

So here we have on the one hand a statement by Mr Nicholls. He is a man who was dismissesd from his position at the settlement and whose appeal against dismissal was not upheld. He has made a number of charges of irregularities at the Settlement from August 1968 onwards, including those in Question 1174 asked by Senator Cavanagh on 29th April 1969 and apparently referring to actions which took place in 1968, and Question 1177 also asked by Senator Cavanagh on 29th April 1969 which referred to incidents in January 1966. But although Mr Nicholls was making these various charges of irregularities from August 1968 his most serious charge - that 3 young girls were taken into the bush to be continually raped as punishment - was not mentioned to the authorities publicly or privately until September 1969 2 years after the most serious events are alleged to have taken place.

On the other hand we have a detailed statement from 3 councillors and former councillors at Yuendumu. I have it here. It is signed or marked by each of the councillors. It was compiled on 16th December 1969, more than 2 years after the event, but the main facts are clear. The statement shows that a behavioural problem of 3 young girls which was concerning the Aboriginal community was handled in the way chosen by the parents and the Council, and which certainly did not involve the use of rape as a punishment. This statement is supported by information from the Reverend T. J. Fleming and from enquiries amongst Administration officers who could have been expected to have knowledge of the matter.

For my part, I am in no doubt. I accept the statement by the councillors, with the support I have mentioned, rather than the statement of Mr Nicholls. There was an incident at Yuendumu Settlement in August or September 1967. Three girls were taken away from the Settlement when they did not want to go. They were taken by their parents in the case of 2 of the girls. They were not taken for the purpose of rape as a punishment. There is no evidence whatever that they were forced to have relations with any men against their will. They made no request to the Superintendent to help them stop their parents and others from taking them away. The main charge made by Senator Cavanagh is not supported by reliable evidence of any kind.

The next charge by Senator Cavanagh which I will mention is that a different attitude was taken to tribal custom in relation to the incident at Yuendumu from the attitude taken in a recent case at Gove when a young girl refused to go to her tribal husband and charges were laid in the Northern Territory court. Senator Cavanagh asked whether the distinction which he saw between these 2 cases resulted from the interests of the mining company which is operating at Gove. The two cases are in no way comparable. At Yuendumu the girls were being taken away by a group which included the parents of 2 of the girls. The group also included the promised husbands of 2 of the girls but there was no suggestion of forcing the girls to marry the promised husbands and no request was made by the girls to the Superintendent for assistance. In the Gove case the girl concerned asked for assistance and protection. In any case the charges which are before the court are charges of assault and resisting arrest.

On the question of tribal practices as opposed to Australian law, the matter is not as clear cut as Senator Cavanagh presented it. As far as the Yuendumu incident is concerned it is by no means established that an offence against Australian law occurred. The parents of 2 of the girls went with them. The other girl, who was 20 years of age at the time, has since remained with her promised husband. Nor is it correct to say that the attitude to tribal practice is this: ‘If they want to carry on this practice then let them carry on the practice. We hope in time to bring about results.’ Changes are occurring under the influence of welfare officers and missionaries. The rate of change is accelerating with the development and expansion of education programmes amongst Aboriginals in the Northern Territory. But it is unreal to imagine that the way of life of a people can be changed overnight. It is no part of Government policy to seek lo stamp out Aboriginal culture by force, even if that were possible. The transition period does present difficulties and does require intelligent judgment as to the course to be followed in the circumstances of a particular case. But serious infringements of Australian criminal law must be, and are, brought before the courts.

Senator Cavanagh’s next complaint, against the Minister for the Interior, is that he was refused right of entry to Yuendumu. Senator Cavanagh sought transport from Alice Springs to Yuendumu and back and permission to interview people concerned. In the Minister’s reply which was read to the Senate by Senator Cavanagh on 5th March the Minister said that he would always wish to facilitate visits of senators or members to inform themselves about activities of government organisations but he thought it was going beyond the function of a member of Parliament to conduct an independent inquiry as Senator Cavanagh proposed. Senator Cavanagh agreed with that but repeated his request to interview people at Yuendumu. In his reply of 4th February, 1970 the Minister said:

I have never questioned the right of a Member of the Parliament to visit Government Settlements in the Northern Territory. I do however consider it is proper for me to withhold from you facilities, including permission to interview people, in the course of what is clearly an enquiry into an aspect of administration under my control.

The Minister’s letter of 4th February, 1970 concludes:

Your letter says that I leave you very little alternative to a public declaration of the information you have received. May I remind you that you have the alternative which I offered you in my letter of 1st December of passing to me all of the information you have received, upon ray undertaking that I will see that further proper inquiry is made if necessary and will inform you of the results.

I find it difficult to understand why you do not follow this course if the matter is still troubling you. I have assured you that no action would be taken against any official by reason only of his speaking truthfully about the matters contained in the information you supply.

These are the facts about Senator Cavanagh’s claim that he was refused entry to Yuendumu.

The most recent complaint made by Senator Cavanagh against the Minister for the Interior is that he betrayed a trust in that he supplied to Senator Cavanagh a confidential document, namely, a report prepared by the Rev. T. J. Fleming about the alleged incident. It is true that the Minister supplied a copy of the report to Senator Cavanagh. This was not a betrayal of trust on the Minister’s part, but a misunderstanding has occurred. When Senator Cavanagh repeated his allegation on 26th September 1969 and referred to August or

September 1967 as being the time when the alleged incident took place, the Minister for the Interior instructed that further inquiries should be made. The material provided in response to this instruction included a copy of a letter from Mr Fleming to the Director of Social Welfare dated 1 7 th December, 1969. This was read to the Senate by Senator Cavanagh on 5th March, 1970.

I might mention that although Senator Cavanagh claimed that it endorsed everything Mr Nicholls had said, the contrary is the case. It said there was no substance in Mr Nicholls’ report and that rape as a tribal punishment had not occurred at Yuendumu. Senator Cavanagh said that he passed a copy of Mr Fleming’s report to Mr Nicholls and Mr Nicholls’ solicitors threatened Mr Fleming with proceedings for defamation. Mr Fleming has replied that the statement was submitted as a strictly confidential statement to the Director of Social Welfare. The Minister does not doubt the statement Mr Fleming has now made that this was his intention when he supplied the letter, but there is nothing on the face of the letter to this effect. The Minister, being anxious to demonstrate to Senator Cavanagh that the accusations he had repeated were untrue, supplied to Senator Cavanagh a copy of the letter from Mr Fleming. Had the Minister known that Mr Fleming regarded the report as confidential he would certainly not have sent the copy to Senator Cavanagh and the Minister apologises to Mr Fleming for this misunderstanding. 1 would also like to add my apology to Mr Fleming on behalf of this side of the Senate, and I would hope the whole Senate, for the imputation in Senator Cavanagh’s speech of 5th March 1970 that the truth of Mr Fleming’s statement may have been influenced in some way by the association of Mr and Mrs Fleming with the settlement store which is run by the Yuendumu Social Club Incorporated. All of the profits of the store go to community purposes at Yuendumu. Senator Cavanagh’s imputation was an unwarranted smear of a man who deserves much better for the 20 years of service which he and his wife have given to the people at Yuendumu. It contrasts oddly with Senator Cavanagh’s self-righteousness at having quoted Mr Fleming’s report without knowing that it was intended to be a confidential document I will not detain the Senate further. I hope I have said enough to convince the Senate that the Minister I represent here has taken a responsible and fair attitude in this whole matter and that the complaints that Senator Cavanagh has made against him and against his administration have not been sustained.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I ask for leave to make a statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am inclined to the belief that the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) has established a case for the inquiry that I have asked for. He points out that there are differences in the information I received from Mr Nicholls, the statement of the 13 councillors and the statement of the Reverend Fleming. He states that the statement of the 13 councillors does not support my accusation and it is not supported by the statement of the Reverend Fleming. When I brought this matter up in the Address-in-Reply debate on 5th and 10th March last I used solely the statements of the Reverend Fleming to prove the allegations I made, and in every detail with the exception of capability of proving carnal knowledge they were proved by the statements of the Reverend Fleming. Now we get the further information today that one girl whose parents did not accompany her was 20 years of age and under white man’s law parental approval is not necessary, but she was at least abducted and forcibly taken from the camp 37 miles, I believe, as stated in the Minister’s statement. This is the Minister’s statement. That is my complaint. The Minister has verified what 1 said and I stress the need for the Attorney-General’s Department to look into this matter.

On the question of the 13 councillors giving a report - their report differs from that of the Reverend Fleming which we have used and it was never disputed until now that it may not have proved the allegations. It only differed insofar as it named the persons concerned and it does report in relation to 2 girls there that the parents went with them. The parents went with the girls to make the girls comply with tribal custom. As we saw at Yirrkala, parents are compelled, if necessary, to use force to make their children comply with tribal custom. The parents’ responsibility is under tribal law and is not the white parents’ attitude. The taking of the girls was to make them comply with the tribal customs. The girls wanted only one thing - to associate with people of their own age. They were forced to go 37 miles into a bush environment for the purpose of living with their promised husbands in the hope that, after associating with the men, the girls would possibly marry them. That is the whole context of the Minister’s statement. The whole intention of the exercise was to get the girls to marry their promised husbands.

Now we have a report from Harry Nelson, which report is not similar to previous reports in my possession. Harry Nelson, who is subject to the Administration - whatever pressure has been applied at Yuendumu - has now made a statement that no rape took place. We are told that a number of other men went to the bush. Whether Nelson stayed with the girls to ensure that they were entirely under his supervision or whether he returned from the outback that day on the lorry is not known. The whole purpose of the exercise was to get the girls to accept husbands they did not desire - not husbands of their own choice. The Superintendent gave permission and lent a departmental truck for the purpose of carrying this out.

Senator Sim:

– Parents of two of the girls went also.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The parents had an obligation to enforce this tribual custom. We deny to these girls the white man’s protection. We say that the incident at Yirrkala is different because there the girl asked for the welfare officer’s protection. Did not these girls ask for protection when they had to be chased around by certain men, one with a rifle on his shoulder? When the departmental truck was supplied, was not there an appeal for protection under the white man’s law which we were prepared to extend in the incident at Gove Peninsula but which we are not prepared to extend here? The Minister’s statement to exonerate his Department supports the allegation that was made and does not deviate from it one bit.

The whole incident demands an inquiry. An inquiry has to be held. If necessary, private action should be taken for the purpose of obtaining evidence from men such as Harry Nelson and others involved in the incident. It is by no means settled yet. I ask the Minister why there is not a statement from anyone concerned - either the 3 girls or the promised husbands - about the incident. Statements are available from these individuals, if not from some other source. I regret that the Minister has taken this action. J do not know what my future action will be and whether such action will be taken here or elsewhere. Something must be done to give the protection of the white man’s law to these girls whom we take into our Aboriginal reserves. I move:

That the Senate lake note of the statement.

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 456

QUESTION

ENTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– by leave - I present the following paper:

Inter-Parliamentary Union- 57th Conference held at New Delhi, 30th October to 7th November 1969 - Report of Australian Delegation.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator LAUCKE (South Australia)- by leave - I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

The Australian delegation which attended the Conference at New Delhi consisted of Senator Byrne, Senator Hendrickson, Mr Birrell, M.P., Mr Hallett, M.P., Mr Devine, who was the Deputy Leader, and myself. I had the honour to lead the delegation. Our delegation played an active role in all aspects of the conference deliberations such as the council discussions, where Senator Hendrickson and I represented the Australian group, the debates in plenary session and the discussions in the study committees. It was also my honour to participate in the deliberations of the small but very important working group on the question of universality of entrance to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The report which I have presented on behalf of the delegation covers all these aspects of the Conference.

The agenda, as one would expect, was a comprehensive one and covered such questions as the role and responsibilities of medium and small powers in the maintenance of international peace, social progress as a factor and condition of economic development, prospects for agreement on the control of armaments, the role of parliament in the protection of the human environment and the conservation of nataral resources for future generations, relations between parliament and local authorities and cultural exchanges as a means of increasing understanding between countries. Honourable senators will, I feel sure, find the report of the discussions on these agenda items both interesting and informative. There is much more that 1 would like to say about this Conference, but 1 shall not take up any further time of the Senate at this stage. Therefore. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 456

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Motion (by Senator Wood) proposed:

That Notice of Motion No. I, Business of the

Senate for the day, standing ht my name, be postponed until Thursday, 9th April 1970.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– by leave - Mr Deputy President, I feel constrained to say a few words about this matter. I understand that the postponement of the proposal to move a motion to disallow certain regulations is not really for the purpose of permitting further consideration of these regulations by the Senate or members of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances but for other reasons. I feel that the practice which has been followed over a number of years of deferring consideration of motions to disallow regulations for reasons which are unconnected with the Senate is not a good one. The Senate and the other place have power to disallow regulations. It is the duty of the Parliament to keep a check on the subordinate legislation which is made pursuant to powers granted to outside bodies by Acts of Parliament. The legislature which is constituted under the Constitution is this Parliament. It is true that the Parliament may delegate its legislative powers to other persons - official or even private - and it frequently does so. But it is important that this chamber as well as the other chamber should keep a check on the exercise of these powers.

In this instance a report has been prepared by the Senate Standing Committee on regulations which have been made. The Committee is the watchdog of the Senate.

Its duty is to bring to the notice of the Senate any regulations and ordinances which it considers should be disallowed. As far back as 23rd September 1969 the Committee took the view that the regulations which are the subject of the proposed motion should be disallowed. In other words, payments have been made since before this date pursuant to regulations which, in the opinion of the Committee, should not stand, but they will stand until they are disallowed. In classifying a motion for disallowance of regulations as Busines of the Senate, which means that under standing order 66a it takes precedence of Government Business and General Business, the Senate has expressed its view that such a motion is extremely important. Unless matters of this nature are adjourned for purposes connected with the Senate - because honourable senators may have to consult their colleagues, or for some other reason connected with the business of the Senate - they should be proceeded with expeditiously. ] do not think that such a motion should be postponed in order to enable the Government to introduce other legislation.

It is important that the powers which are provided in this regard be exercised and that they be exercised in a salutary fashion so that whoever is responsible for framing the regulations will ensure that they keep within the limits provided by the Parliament. I am not in any way indicating the attitude the Opposition will take, although it is fair to say that it supports the Committee’s view which is based primarily on the point that the regulations are concerned with matters of substance and not administrative detail. It is a policy of the Australian Labor Party not to tolerate delegated legislation which deals with matters of substance rather than administrative detail. 1 feel that the Senate will consider that such use of the delegated responsibility should be disallowed. Although I am not suggesting that we should do anything on this occasion, I feel it is important that the Senate should be made aware of what is happening and that it should express its views on this matter. Once it is recommended by the Committee that a regulation be disallowed, the Parliament should deal with the matter straight away. This would be one way of keeping a check on those people who are not paying proper attention to the standards laid down by the Parliament.

Senator Byrne:

– Does the Leader of the Opposition mean that the motion should be discussed straight away?

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank Senator Byrne for his interjection. Once a regulation has been given due consideration by the Committee and it is of the opinion that the regulation should be disallowed a motion for disallowance of the regulation should be moved and debated without further delay. The Senate should not wait until such time as those who are responsible for the delegated legislation have found perhaps some other way of overcoming the matter.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - 1 am sorry that this matter has taken the form it has. I feel bound to say that ( have had discussions with the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. I sought from him some understanding in relation to the regulations the Committee proposes should be disallowed. 1 do not want to discuss the broad arguments of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) on this occasion, because we are discussing this subject in a background which is not appropriate to a full debate, although I would not shrink from a full debate on the issues which the Leader of the Opposition has raised. I feel bound to say that what is contemplated on this occasion is in accordance with a practice which has been followed in this chamber over many years. When the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has drawn the attention of the Government to regulations which the Committee feels should be disallowed the Government has, on a number of occasions, responded by saying that it recognises its responsibilities and the Government has given an assurance that it will introduce legislation which will remove the subject matter from the regulatory field and place it in the statute book. This is what happened on this occasion.

Senator Murphy:

– But the money is being paid.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I know. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to introduce another argument. All I am saying is that on this occasion I am following a practice which has been followed before. The Leader of the Opposition argues that the practice is wrong. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes it, I shall permit a debate to be held on this subject, but I feel that it should be held in a different climate from the present one. In any event, I have indicated to the Chairman of the Committee that the Government will introduce legislation which will take this matter out of the regulatory field altogether. As a result, the Committee has in ils judgment moved for a postponement of the consideration of the disallowance motion. No doubt it has done so in order to enable it to make a closer examination of the Government’s proposals. The Leader of the Opposition has raised a broad canvas situation of whether that is an appropriate way to deal with the matter. All I can say is that it is a practice which has been followed in the Senate over a number of years. I do not think we should have a debate today on the broad principles. I will give an undertaking to arrange for the matter to be debated at a later stage if necessary. But I do not think it should be debated in conjunction with the short-term problem we have at present.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– by leave - Unfortunately this matter arises in the Senate in a week in which there has been somewhat of an arrangement as to the business that should proceed today because of the pressures of time and the visit by honourable senators to the GovernorGeneral. It is unfortunate in the circumstances that a debate of this character does intrude. It would probably be even more unfortunate if the debate on the substance of the motion for disallowance were to proceed in an atmosphere of haste and hurry. I think it would be better for it to be done with consideration because it does raise broad issues.

Senator Murphy:

– 1 am not suggesting that we go on,

Senator BYRNE:

– Yes, I know that. I have discussed this motion with Senator Murphy and Senator Wood. There has been no suggestion that it now go on. The Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson), in referring to what has been the practice, drew my mind back some years. I had anticipated discussion of action taken years ago by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee strangely enough in relation to a regulation concerning one of the Service departments. The Committee, on which I happened to serve, in its tenth report recommended the disallowance of a regulation which purported to govern the recovery by the Commonwealth of damages caused by servicemen to civilian property in the course of operations. Senator Wright was also on that Committee. The report purported to provide that that recovery should take place by regulation under certain procedures of the Air Force without judicial determination of liability and things of that character. The Committee moved that the regulation be disallowed.

I have the report of that Committee here. I checked, and from recollection I think that that regulation was. in fact, disallowed. I do not know whether the Government on that occasion undertook to take alternative action or merely allowed the matter to go to the decision of the Senate. I merely wish to show that it has not always been the practice that when a motion for disallowance is brought forward the Government immediately reacts to it and the motion for disallowance does not proceed.

Senator Anderson:

– They could do it either way. We are simply going to sit pat.

Senator BYRNE:

– That is right. That is what the Government may have done on that occasion. But where the Government decides to take remedial action perhaps that has been done. I remember that on one occasion I brought in a motion for disallowance of a regulation governing the transmission of telegrams where it was provided that there be a recharge on further transmission. The Postmaster-General of the day indicated to me that if I did not proceed with my motion he would have the regulation looked at. To my recollection that was done and I did not proceed with the motion. That is certainly an instance. My motion did not go to the question of transgression of the rights of the statutes or anything like that. It merely went to the merits of the situation. That was an occasion where the Government did intervene and undertake to retrieve the matter. But I am concerned in this case, because strangely enough the regulation which was disallowed and referred to in the tenth report also concerned a Service department just as this motion concerns three Service departments.

Senator Wright:

– Did you say you confirmed that there was an actual resolution?

Senator BYRNE:

– I had a quick check with the Clerk of the Committee and, from recollection, he thinks that the regulation was disallowed.

Senator Wright:

– I am bound to say that I have a recollection that the offending regulation was repealed.

Senator BYRNE:

– That may be right. I am not sure. I did nol want to mention Mr Nicholls, the Clerk of the Committee, because his was only a hurried recollection and perhaps he may be incorrect. 1 do not recall it myself. 1 am concerned that the regulation in the tenth report and the regulation now before us both concern Service departments in a very important area and that is on the voting of public moneys. 1 think in this case in view of the history of the regulation and as it embraces that former incident the Senate should proceed to a formal discussion of the propriety of this regulation. 1 can understand the attitude of the Government, and it is a commendable attitude. Nevertheless, there is a lot to be said for the Senate pursuing this line to formally disallow the regulation. After all, the Senate itself is very circumscribed in time because the regulation must be tabled within a certain time. This shows the importance which is attached to the presentation of the regulation for discussion by the Senate. As has been said, the regulation may continue and the Senate should proceed to the disallowance or the consideration of that as early as possible. However, in the circumstances of this case I would agree with Senator Anderson, Senator Murphy and Senator Wood, that consideration should be postponed. The Australian Democratic Labor Party supports that proposal.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– by leave - As Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee I would like to say that what the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) has said is correct; that is, that he had discussions with me, and the Government intends to introduce legislation to take the place of this regulation. The Leader of the Government is also correct when he says that this has been a principle which has been worked upon for a number of years. Of course, principles are established but sometimes fresh thinking on the matter may change one’s view point. But the statements made by Senator Anderson are correct.

The point brought forward by Senator Murphy has struck a new note and new thinking so far as the Committee is concerned. 1 think the very valid point he took up and one that probably has not received attention from myself and other members of the Committee is that whilst the regulation is there moneys can be expended. The Committee has given notice that it thinks the particular regulation should be disallowed. That is a very important point. I think it is a point of which the Committee will, no doubt, take cognisance and to which it will give due consideration in the future. The Committee is concerned with the point that it should take action irrespective of what flows. The purpose of the Committee is to consider these regulations and the matter of motions coming forward for disallowance. I see merit in the points brought forth by Senator Murphy and I think they are worthy of consideration by the Committee. 1 think most people recognise that the Committee has been vigilant in its duty but, of course, the more minds that come to this matter of work and thinking the more ideas and thoughts the Committee gets. As Chairman of the Committee I certainly will bring this matter before it to see whether this principle will be maintained or whether the Committee will adopt the new sense of thinking as expressed by Senator Murphy.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 459

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 March (vide page 338), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - As there is no objection, the course suggested by the Minister will be followed.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– The Australian Labor Party agrees with the recommendation or the suggestion made by the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin).

I believe it was proposed last night by the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) that these 2 Bills, the Social Services Bill 1970 and the Repatriation Bill 1970 be taken together but be dealt with separately in Committee. The 2 Bills propose amendments to the Social Services Act and the Repatriation Act. They are in respect of 2 matters. Firstly, the proposed amendment is to cover the case of a married couple in receipt of age or invalid pensions who, because of illness or infirmity or such reasons of a similar character, are forced to part indefinitely and are not able to live in the matrimonial home.

This amendment proposes that in such circumstances a couple who previously obtained the married rate of pension will be entitled to a rate of pension at a standard or single rate, the married rate for each person being $13.25 per week and the single or standard rate being $15 per week. Under this new legislation couples may now receive an increase of $1.75 a week plus a grant of $2 supplementary assistance. We support that proposal.

The second proposal relates to the death of either husband of wife in which case the surviving partner would be entitled to payment at the married rate for 12 consecutive weeks or for 6 consecutive fortnights. We support that proposal also. In numerous cases over many years senators on this side of the chamber have advanced proposals of a similar character. I suggest to the Government - I notice that departmental officers are in the chamber at present - that explanatory documents be distributed and this aspect should be made quite clear so that the person who is receiving the additional payment will know for how long he will be receiving it. Many of these unfortunate people who are going through difficult times sometimes feel that there might be an overpayment. I think a letter should be sent to the people concerned advising the circumstances of the new legislation. I ask departmental officers to take note of this matter because, as a parliamentarian, I know that at certain periods people do not know what is taking place and a great deal of confusion can occur.

In many cases the Department has recognised the dire plight of pensioners and has done what this legislation regularises. The Bill is limited in its scope. We would have welcomed the opportunity to broaden the benefits to be made available under this legislation. I refer, for example, to funeral benefit and many other payments which are made at present. The sum of $40 for a funeral is absurd. The Australian Labor Party, which pioneered social service legislation in Australia, is far from satisfied that in this so-called affluent society our pensioners - those in need - are receiving what is necessary. In our proposals and policy put forward during the recent election campaign we made quite clear exactly what we would do in circumstances of this nature. I know that the Government has said that one of its social service aims is to seek out areas of special need. We feel that this legislation does not go far enough, and I ask that I be permitted to express the feelings of my Party on this matter and be excused, if need be, if I digress a little from the ambit of this rather limited Bill.

We have a special plan and a new plan for assistance. It has been outlined. We feel that persons dependent on pensions, particularly pensioners living alone and widows with children, comprise a large portion of the 1 million Australians who live in real or marginal poverty. We will not eliminate poverty in Australia unless we have an entirely new approach to social welfare. The Australian Labor Party has a new approach to social welfare. We will adopt that new approach. In every comparable country it is recognised that cash benefits alone cannot provide an adequate response to welfare problems. If the 1 million poor, particularly the young, are to break out of the interminable poverty cycle, it will not be done by providing cash benefits alone. It will be done by also providing advice, counsel, training and retraining and by the provision of services in the home and neighbourhood by social workers. At the level of the home and neighbourhood we of the Labor movement propose the establishment of an Australian assistance plan. We would make grants under section 96 of the Constitution to enable State governments, local authorities and volunteer agencies to co-operate in the establishment of regional departments of social welfare. We would have been anxious and eager to put features of that kind into legislation relating to improved social service and repatriation benefits. I am pleased that the Minister-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Senator, will you please come back to the Bill?

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Yes. 1 am stating that I am pleased that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has given an assurance that single rate pensions will be paid even though both partners to the marriage are in the same nursing home. That is quite an important matter. It will overcome many problems associated with that aspect of the problem.

We support the Bill. We do not want to delay it unduly because we know that a timetable is operating. We want the Bill to be passed without undue delay so that effect can be given to it. I repeat that we support the Bill.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– We support this measure which endeavours to bring into line with the general philosophy of the Government those pensioners who become separated, though married, and virtually have to live as single pensioners. 1 remind honourable senators that single pensioners receive a rate in excess of that received by a pensioner couple. As Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin suggested in her second reading speech the proposal carries out, in part in my view, the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) during the election campaign that the Government would pay pensions at the standard rate instead of at the married rate to aged couples who, by reason of failing health, lose the economies of living together. An example of that was given.

However, when we examine the Bill we find that it does not go quite that far and that there is a distinct limitation. That limitation is contained in clause 3 (c) (b) where the words the inability is likely to continue indefinitely’ appear. This means that if a pensioner couple are separated by one or other being in a nursing home or a hospital for a period of some weeks, and medical opinion is that the separation is not unlikely to continue indefinitely, they will be forced to carry the burden of living apart for that period. Very often medical opinion is divided in assessing questions of this nature. I know that the Bill provides that where the Director-General is satisfied the increased payment will be made, but I am presuming that he will look to the medical profession for assistance in satis fying himself whether the illness is likely to continue indefinitely. Because doctors are very conscientious and very careful in making these estimations, a person could well be sick for 6 or 12 months before the medical opinion would be that the separation would be likely to continue indefinitely.

We feel that some more specific period should be given. We appreciate that if the separation was for a week or a fortnight it probably would be impracticable to carry out the general philosophy that is contained in the Prime Minister’s election statement and in the Bill itself, but we would like further information as to the precise grounds on which the Director-General will be satisfied - whether it will be medical opinion or whether a time factor will come into it. We appreciate that the words “the inability is likely to continue indefinitely’ - protects the pensioner. Thank goodness. If a mistake is made and a pensioner is paid the increased pension and the inability does not continue indefinitely, he may be called upon to make a refund. But in view of the words to which I have referred. [ presume that once a decision is made by the Director-Genera) that decision is binding and the increased pension will be paid until such time at least as the separation ends. This is a feature of the Bill which we believe does not carry out the Government’s philosophy.

We contest also the philosophy contained in the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) that married people should be penalised in relation to pension because it is claimed that by living together their needs are not as great as those of a single pensioner. Many unmarried pensioners of either the same sex or of different sex live together. Why should married pensioners be penalised? This policy is based on the philosophy that nobody should receive a pension that gives him one little bit above the minimum necessary to sustain him at a specific standard.

Of course, this philosophy is impossible to carry out because it is still left to the people themselves - sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles or anybody else - to go and live together and obtain single pensioner rates. On the other hand, married people have paid their taxes throughout the whole of their lifetime and have received poor allowances in terms of child endowment and taxation deductions for keeping a wife and rearing a family, which contributes so much to our community. In their old age pensions should be theirs by right in order to give them the same standard of living as single people. If 2 people are married and remain happily married for 50 or 60 years they should not be denied the right that is available to other people, namely, to live together and therefore have a slightly higher standard of living by being paid the rate of pension that is paid to single people.

We do not accept the Government’s philosophy. We believe that it is based on wrong premises. The premises are that the pensions that are paid to people in our community should be the minimum that is capable of sustaining life and that if people happen to be married and can lift their standard slightly by living together they should be penalised whilst other pensioners have the opportunity to do precisely the same thing and to live above the standard that is imposed upon the married couple. We believe that this all boils down to the use of a wrong premise in the beginning, namely, that no pension should be paid which can possibly give anybody a standard slightly above the absolute minimum that the community can provide.

We believe that the very virtue of marriage itself and of rearing a family in this community should give the married couple the right to the advantage derived from their standard being increased slightly because their rate of pension is the same as that of single people and they pool their resources as they have done all their lives in rearing their family. That is our philosophy on this question. We are not suggesting in any way that the pension for single people should be reduced. As I have pointed out, the whole philosophy is based on it being the minimum that should be paid to anybody. We would not mind the minimum being paid to a married couple on an individual basis. We do not see why the minimum should be reduced because people happen to be married. But that is the situation that applies at the moment.

I should like to have from the Minister clarification of the matter which I have raised and which I consider to be a weakness in the legislation. According to the definition of eligibility, the illness or separation must be adjudged by the DirectorGeneral as being likely to continue indefinitely. I believe that great difficulties will be encountered in making this judgment unless some clarification is given. If it is left absolutely and solely to medical opinion, it is a known fact that even in the case of an elderly person having a broken hip it can be weeks or months before a doctor is able to diagnose whether the hip is actually fractured if it is a compacted fracture. It would be difficult to estimate the time an elderly person would take to recover from an injury such as that. A doctor could well think that in 12 months the person would be back on his feet again and would not need to stay in a nursing home; but at the end of 12 months the doctor may find that the hip will never heal and that the person will have to be a nursing home inmate for the rest of his life.

Is any provision made for the payment of the pension to be made retrospective where an opinion has been given to the Director-General who has acted on it and has not paid the pension at the increased rate to the separated couple, and after the lapse of a considerable period of time it is proved that what was thought to be not a definite separation has become a definite one? We will vote for both of these measures. They set out to do the same thing for different sections of our community. We are in favour of them, but we have the doubts that we have expressed in relation to them carrying out the desired objective.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I speak briefly in support of the two Bills before the Senate. They are not machinery measures. They are putting into legislative form part of the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) during the recent election campaign for the House of Representatives. This is a pointer to a government in action and carrying out its policy. The Government is putting into effect a policy announced in the election campaign. This legislation is also an indication that the Government is continuing its now well established policy of keeping in mind all the problems associated with social service and repatriation benefits. At this time - not even at Budget time, but towards the end of a financial year - we see another sector of social service and repatriation beneficiaries being given more financial help. In other words, the Government has had a look at what is available and where the weakness exists and has introduced into this Parliament legislation to improve the lot of those who receive pensions and other social service benefits. 1 suggest that never in the field of human conflict or endeavour and never in the life of any parliament will any chamber of parliament be unanimous in saying that benefits paid to any members of society by a government are sufficient and fair in all respects. In no way can legislation ever give a completely fair deal to all members of the community who for various reasons suffer hardship, illness and other problems. But it is heartening to see that this group of people - married couples who may be parted for various reasons - will enjoy greater financial help.

One point that surprises me is that in the second reading speeches made in another place and also in the second reading speeches made in this chamber no figures have been given as to the expected cost in a financial year of the benefits which, we hope, are to become law shortly. It would be interesting to know how many individual people this legislation will benefit because it would give some pointer to whether the legislation is as good as we are led to believe it is. After all, in this respect figures do count and can be impressive or can point up a field in which some more generous extension might be made.

I have only a few words to say. I have only one small reason for speaking on these measures. I would not like two Bills such as these to go through the Senate without at least endorsing them or, if I have criticism, putting that criticism to the Senate. I am mindful of the time factor; but if I desired or had reason to be critical or to suggest amendments no time factor would govern me in respect of social services and repatriation. But we are now in the position that the Opposition and the Democratic Labor Party are supporting the measures. I give them my support and congratulate members of the Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party for their attitudes to the two measures we are debating.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– As Senator Fitzgerald has indicated, the Opposition will give these Bills a fairly speedy passage. However, I wish to address myself to them briefly for some of the reasons expressed earlier by Senator Little in referring to interpretations given as to eligibility for benefits. I believe that at present too many differing interpretations are given by officers of the Department of Social Services, in the same office or in different offices throughout a State. I think that every member of this Parliament will have at some time approached the Department to seek an alteration of an interpretation, with successful results. Under this legislation the extra payments will be made available or Will be denied to applicants on the basis of interpretations. I have had some rather bad experiences of interpretations given by officers of the Department of Social Services.

An interpretation was given by an officer of the Department in a provincial Victorian city which denied to a 17-year-old girl an invalid pension although one of her legs had been amputated at the hip because of a malignant growth. Even during the period when she was unable to walk and was learning to use an artificial leg an officer in that provincial city told her that the amputation of one of her legs did not automatically give her a right to an invalid pension. She was refused an invalid pension. Fortunately, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has reversed that decision.

To me the most disturbing feature of the Social Services Act and the interpretations of it is that it is possible to get three different interpretations in 1 day from the same office. I have had experience of a girl at the inquiry desk of an office of the Department sending people away with her ruling that they were ineligible for pensions. Later a telephone call to an office on the second floor of the same building has gained from the officer in charge of that office the ruling that those same people were entitled to a pension. An adjustment is very quickly made, but it seems to me that this legislation has got to the stage where it should be rewritten in simple terms that can be understood by the average person in the street. This would help to eliminate the possibility of differing interpretations by officers of the Department.

The Bills we are considering contain provisions that make it very clear to me that the Director-General of Social Services will delegate his powers to officers in charge of branch offices throughout the Commonwealth. Interpretations as to eligibility for benefits will be made by officers in regional sections. One can see at those offices the departmental bible which is inches thick and contains hundreds of interpretations of the provisions of this legislation. I ask the Government to consider introducing a new and more simplified measure to eliminate the need that exists at present to make interpretations.

On this occasion the Government had an opportunity to bring before the Parliament amendments to improve the lot of many sections of the community. 1 refer, for example, to widows left in their middle 40s or younger, sometimes with children who have reached 16 years. The nation virtually tells them to find a job or the widows’ pension they have been receiving will be reduced to the level of the unemployment benefit. It is tragic that these people are pushed into a field which is very competitive, particularly for those who have been rearing a family for 15 or 20 years and find suddenly that they are forced to seek employment. These people should be looked after. The direct cost to the Commonwealth would be small. A golden opportunity to introduce benefits to assist many people has been lost.

I have expressed my concern over differing interpretations of social service provisions. I am also concerned that insufficient publicity is given to the benefits available. I am aware that the present Minister has tried to improve this situation and has made available to members of this Parliament information that was not available to them before. But many hundreds of people in the community are unaware of their rights to social service benefits. I imagine that that situation will prevail in respect of the legislation we are now debating. The Government and the Department could achieve a lot by regular publicity, not just by paragraphs in the Press but also by using radio and television facilities to advise the community periodically of the extent of social service benefits. I also suggest that registered nursing homes, aged persons homes and organisations that operate such institutions should be advised immediately this legislation is implemented that the extra payments are available. I hope that more and more publicity will be given by the Department to these matters and that steps will be taken to ensure that the advice is written in clear and concise terms that aged people in particular will be able to understand. Very often advice sent out by the Department is very difficult to understand, even by people who study these matters. It is almost impossible for aged people to interpret or understand it.

I hope that these Bills receive a speedy passage. The initial benefits they extend are very important. I agree with my colleagues that in the initial standard payment there should not be any differentiation between married and single people. However, this is a step forward to assist in bringing justice to an area that is in great need.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[12.14] - in reply - I thank honourable senators who have spoken in this debate for the support they have given to these measures. The interesting points that have been raised will be conveyed to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). I wish to reply lo one or two queries that have been raised. Senator Poyser expressed very real concern, which I appreciate, about publicity for social service benefits. I think it is very important that adequate publicity be given to the benefits available. I understood the honourable senator to say that he believed information on this legislation should be made available to aged persons homes and nursing homes. I would like to read to Senator Poyser a letter sent by the Minister for Social Services to nursing homes, and aged persons homes. It states: 5 March 1970

Dear Sir,

I am enclosing for your information a copy of a speech I delivered in the Parliament yesterday on a Bill to amend the Social Services Act.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is lo provide additional pension assistance to certain married persons whose living expenses increase because, through failing health, they leave the matrimonial home for accommodation specially suited to their particular needs. The legislation will do this by providing authority under which the pension rate applicable to single pensioners may be paid to each of a married couple. In addition, persons to whom the new provisions apply may qualify for supplementary assistance if they pay rent and are otherwise eligible.

Married persons most likely to benefit will generally be residents of aged persons homes, nursing homes and the like. In view of this I would very much appreciate any action you could take to acquaint married residents with the provisions of the proposed legislation. People who feel they may benefit should write to the nearest office of the Department of Social Services, or the Repatriation Department if a service pension is in payment. A check will then be made to ensure that the maximum pension entitlement is being paid, including any increase which may become available under the new legislation.

It will be understood that no pension increases can be paid until after the proposals have been made law, which I would hope would be before the end of this month.

Yours sincerely,

  1. C. WENTWORTH

This letter will have answered part of the question raised by the honourable senator. Senator Poyser also mentioned he had been given different interpretations on questions raised with departmental officers about pension benefits. I cannot answer his question in this regard, but I shall bring the matter to the notice of the Minister. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding in this case. If the honourable senator would like clarification on any point on which I can get information for him I shall be pleased to help.

The main point raised by Senator Marriott, who supported the legislation, was that it will achieve great results in assisting people who would suffer a great disadvantage through being separated and confined to a nursing home. ‘Treatment of married people as single people’ in the past, has meant that they have lost the advantage of the halving of income and property; under the Bill the halving of income and property will be continued although the parties each receive the single rate. Senator Little asked what was meant by the term ‘indefinitely’ in connection with this legislation. My reply is that ‘indefinitely’ means other than a short or temporary period. In the short term a married couple does not lose the economies of living together. In effect the expression means a period other than one which is clearly short term or likely to be short term. I believe firmly that this provision will he considered most sympathetically by the Department. I should mention also while referring to points raised by Senator Little that a patient in a public hospital who is eligible for the pensioner medical service receives free treatment and does not have to meet the ordinary living expenses while he is in hospital. In fact he may show a profit while he is in hospital. Hence there is no justification for paying the single rate pension in these circumstances. The situation is different in the case of a pensioner in a nursing home because most pensioners in nursing homes are there for an indefinite period. The single rate pension is to be paid in those circumstances. I remind the honourable senator that in addition the Commonwealth pays nursing home benefits in respect of pensioners in nursing homes.

Senator Fitzgerald raised a point in connection with the 6 instalments. This was very much the point made by Senator Poyser in connection with publicity and the importance of people having all information available to them. I agree with the honourable senator. I believe that the Minister and the Department are doing more and more to ensure that information is made available. The, 6 instalments to which reference has been made are to be paid by the Department, without an application being required, after the death of a spouse. They are paid to the surviving pensioner each fortnight and are added to the single pension. The honourable senator was concerned that a pensioner may feel that he had received an overpayment and would be required to repay the amount, but I do not think this has occurred. I am sure that the points concerning publicity will be noted by the Department. I believe that something is being done about this, but if it is not done and a problem arises I shall see what can be done so that the pensioners do not have this concern.

Senator Fitzgerald:

– In turn they will know for how long they are getting it, which is also very important.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I think they would know. If there is any possibility of their not being aware of it, a good point has been raised. I am sure the Department would see what could be done. I believe that I have answered the main points raised by honourable senators. I appreciate the support given by the Senate to the passage of the Bill. I thank honourable senators for their comments and the interest that they have shown.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 466

REPATRIATION BILL 1970

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 17 March (vide page 339), on motion toy Senator Drake-Brockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 466

LOAN (AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 March (vide page 357), on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator McClelland had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add ‘, but the Senate is of opinion that the Government has failed to give positive leadership to overcome the crisis in the wheat industry’.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– The purpose of the Loan (Australian Wheat Board) Bill is well known to honourable senators as there has been quite a lot of discussion about it. It is to enable the Commonwealth to meet its obligation under a guarantee given to the Reserve Bank of Australia on behalf of the Australian Wheat Board. The amount to be authorised is S300m, the need for which arises from the fact that proceeds from the 1968-69 pool are insufficient for the Board to meet its commitments to the Bank by the due date, that is, the 31st of this month. It is very noteworthy that this is the first occasion on which the Commonwealth has been called upon under guarantees given by it to the Bank for the Wheat Board in a period of 22 years since the present legislation has been in operation and over 30 pools have existed. The difficulty experienced by the Board in disposing of the wheat production over the last couple of years is reflected in the introduction of this Bill. Honourable senators will recall that the 1968-69 wheat crop was a record one of 538.6 million bushels. Arrangements were made for the Board to borrow up to $624m from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank and the slow progress in disposing of the huge amount of wheat in that pool has now led to the shortfall of finance available to the Board to meet its commitment of $250m.

We must keep the situation of the wheat industry and the Board’s present financial position in fair perspective. It reflects very creditably on the Australian Wheat Board that up to the 1968-69 crop through alert and alive sales activities the Board has been able to keep the decks pretty clear so far as carryovers are concerned over a period of nearly 30 years during which the Board has been the authority responsible for the receipt and disposal of the Australian wheat crop. In evaluating the present position of the wheat industry one has to bear in mind that the industry traditionally experiences marked fluctuations in supply and demand. The immediate postwar years were years of shortage. I think it is a good thing and a fair thing to look back over the years, and in so doing to place the present situation in proper perspective. By the early 1950s there was an enormous surplus of wheat, especially in the United States of America. By 1960 and up to 1965 stocks were at a low level as a result of restriction on acreages in the United States and the large purchases made at that time by China and Russia. Australian production increased in that buoyant sales situation.

Over the decade 1950-60 the Australian average crop was 175 million bushels, but since 1960 the crop has averaged 340 million bushels. Production broke the 300 million bushels barrier for the first time in 1962-63. In 1966-67 the very high production figure of 400 million bushels was reached. Then we had the all time record of 538 million bushels in 1968-69. Until 1968 wheat prices had held pretty well. The average return for wheat exported in 1966-67 was the highest ever at 144.9c a bushel. The situation in Australia at that time was one of mounting production and an ability to dispose of our crop to the benefit of our economy within Australia and also to the benefit of our credits in overseas funds.

The fact that we have been able to place our wheat through the years until quite recently has been due to the excellent selling activities of the Board. It has found markets for the sale of wheat well away from the traditional market in the United Kingdom before

World War II. Today we send our wheat to over 30 countries and this illustrates the continuing sales activity of the Wheat Board. Our largest purchaser of wheat is the Peoples Republic of China which will take from us this year 88 million bushels. The next most important customer in recent years has been Japan. The United Kingdom ranks third. Although we have this very heavy dependence on sales to these 3 countries, we have a very wide range of purchasers for our wheat. The policy of the Government in respect of the activities of the Wheat Board, in my opinion, does not call for the criticism which we have had from the Opposition.

The other day Senator McClelland said that the Government has in the wheat industry a record of coercion and lethargy. In my opinion that statement cannot be substantiated. It is true to say that the Government has a record of understanding and generosity to the wheat industry and this is evidenced by the history of guaranteed prices backed by the Government. There has been no coercion by the Government in respect of the imposition of quotas. The proposals for the introduction of quotas came from the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. It is good to see a spirit of independence, as it were, on behalf of the grower organisations in seeking to arrive at a solution conducive to the long term interests and certainly the immediate interests of the industry. There has been no direct coercion.

The Opposition’s amendment states that the Government has failed to give positive leadership to overcome the crisis in the wheat industry. The world ‘leadership’ implies direction. A body has been set up to receive and to dispose of the Australian wheat crop. It has a charter which it has acted upon in a way which has produced a very excellent method of receiving and disposing our wheat without undue interference by the Government. The personnel of the Australian Wheat Board include one person who is engaged in commerce and who has experience of the wheat trade, a finance member, a representative of the flour millers, a representative of the employees, 2 wheat growers representing New South Wales, 2 growers representing Victoria, 2 growers representing Queensland, 2 growers representing South Australia and 2 growers representing

Western Australia. The Board consists predominantly of farmers. Men who are interested in and are active in the industry are on the Board, with representatives of other authorities to give it a pretty well balanced background of ability and knowledge. I think it would be very wrong to intrude unnecessarily or for reasons of political expediency into the activities of this properly constituted authority which has done an excellent job for the industry.

We now have a situation of over-supply. This is worldwide. It relates even to rice grown in Japan. In recent years 14 million tons of rice have been grown each year and the maximum amount sold each year has been 12 million tons. Each year 2 million tons of rice have been grown for which a market cannot be found. This underlies the difficulties facing the wheat industry. Bearing in mind the violent fluctuations in world demands for basic food cereals, I think that with a responsible approach - as indicated by the activities of the farmers in introducing quotas and seeking to have those quotas given legislative backing - to the difficulties now before us the situation will improve. I can see an emergence again of satisfactory conditions in the wheat industry without our throwing up our hands in holy horror and saying that the world is coming to an end. The Government has shown confidence in the industry by the backing that it has given to it. I think that the industry is worthy of further confidence and that the Wheat Board is worthy of the confidence of the Parliament and the people generally.

Let me refer to the wheat and flour which is made available by the Commonwealth under the World Food Aid Convention and the International Grains Agreement. Under this arrangement Australia provides 225,000 metric tons of grain annually, this being part of the 4.5 million metric tons given annually to aid underdeveloped countries. In this sphere of participation Indonesia currently receives 25,136 metric tons of wheat or flour. I shall not mention all the amounts, but the total provided to Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Burma is 137,895 metric tons. I think that, with persistent application, we will find overseas markets for our wheat. We will have to grow those varieties which will sell in overseas markets. I believe the days are gone when we grew wheat as such without due regard to segregation. We will have to provide those types of wheat which overseas buyers require for their specific purposes. We must never forget that Australian wheat has qualities and attributes peculiar to itself. Be it in ease of milling, in colour, in moisture content or in flour yield, these attributes of our wheat are without peer throughout the world. I have every confidence in the future activities of the wheat industry. I commend the Government for its current assistance to meet the requirements of the Board. I reject the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I support the Bill. I also support the amendment, which reads:

But the Senate is of opinion that the Government has failed to give positive leadership to overcome the crisis in the wheat industry.

I realise that we have no alternative but to support the Bill to meet the Commonwealth’s obligations under the guarantee made to repay the advance to the Australian Wheat Board from the Reserve Bank in respect of the 1968-69 wheat crop. The time for final repayment, 31st March, is drawing near. It is 12 months since the drawings were made; so it is obligatory for us to comply with our responsibility, to ensure that the amount of $250m is repaid. Arrangements were made for the Australian Wheat Board to borrow up to a certain amount. The amendment highlights our view as to the lack of leadership by the Government. The matter did not come upon us suddenly.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I briefly drew the attention of the Senate to the problem facing the Australian Wheat Board arising from the repayment of $250m to the Reserve >Bank of Australia by the end of this month of certain borrowings by the Board in relation to the 1968-69 wheat crop. Arrangements were made for the Board to borrow up to S624m from the Reserve Bank in respect of the 1968-69 pool. Section 57 of the Reserve Bank Act provides that loans of this type shall be for not more than 1 year. So a time limit is associated with the passage of this legislation through the Parliament.

The Bill gives honourable senators an opportunity to examine not only the situation in which the wheat industry finds itself at present but also, as I have indicated in relation to the Opposition’s amendment, to determine whether the Government has failed to give positive leadership to overcome the crisis in the wheat industry. The present crisis is the result of a situation which has been building up over a number of years. The wheat stabilisation scheme was intended to provide some sort of future and continuity in the wheat growing section of our rural community. The idea of a wheat stabilisation scheme is a very good one inasmuch as it guarantees that people who are engaged in this most important industry will be able to not only pay their way but also to get what could be termed a reasonable return on their investment.

We have seen dramatic changes in the wheat industry in the last decade. The average harvest has increased by 50% as a result of improved techniques and good seasons. Production has increased to such an extent that the total harvest in Australia last year was in excess of 500 million bushels. But at the same time there has been increased production in other parts of the world. India and Pakistan have increased their wheat production in order to overcome their poverty and hunger problems. After a period of uncertain seasons owing to drought and the other disabilities which confront wheat growers, these countries have reached a position where they are virtually self sufficient in wheat. I understand that Pakistan has reached the stage where it is able to export some of its surplus wheat. Another important factor which has some bearing on the legislation we are considering is the decline in the world wheat trade. Countries which were previously relatively large flour users have found alternative types of basic foods. The world wheat trade has declined from the maximum level it reached of 2,300 million bushels to 1,700 million bushels in 1968-69. It is expected to drop further to 1,500 million bushels in the present financial year. In other words, there has been a decline of about 800 million bushels in the wheat sold on the world market, which accounts for some of the present surplus.

I mentioned earlier that Pakistan had reached the stage where it was self sufficient in wheat. I wish to correct that statement.

I should have said that India expects to be self sufficient by 1972. Pakistan has exported some wheat. The fact that a traditional customer like India expects to be self sufficient in wheat production by 1972 adds to the critical situation facing the Australian wheat industry. New Zealand was once a good market for Australian wheat, but it is now a competitor, as it is an exporting country. Another factor is that there is in storage at present sufficient wheat to meet the world’s requirements for 1 year. In fact, the carry over is more than 1 year’s supply. It is logical to ask the Government what plans it has in regard to the future of the wheat industry. The wheat grower has been traditionally a master of the art of growing wheat. He has understood the difficulties of contending with drought, disease and the other hazards which confront the industry.

Senator Willesee:

– And the increased cost of production.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The increased cost of production is something for which he can blame the Government. It has allowed a policy of inflation to prevail to such an extent that growers are in a critical situation in two ways - firstly, as a result of the increased interest charged on bank overdrafts and, secondly, because of the declining possibility of meeting these commitments since there is no guarantee that they will be able to dispose of their production in the future. One of the worst features of the whole thing is the fact that in recent years farmers have been able to switch from other branches of primary industry to wheat growing without any direction by the Government in regard to its policy. Over the years the Government has been content to have some degree of discipline in the industry with the wheat stabilisation scheme regulating to a certain extent the stream of wheat from the farms to the storage and onto the domestic and overseas markets.

I believe it is essential to have a stable industry. But the Government has overlooked two important areas in which a degree of regulation is also necessary. Whether or not one likes the word ‘regulation’, it is a fact of life that unless one has orderly marketing and an orderly industry one will have to face recurrent crises. I make the charge that the Government has failed to give leadership along these lines and, as a result, the grower has to carry the baby - and it is a very unwelcome baby, the product of inflation. It is a lusty and virile baby and is growing rapidly. It is thriving on itself. The Government has not produced any long range plan. It has used plenty of political gimmicks, but it has not produced anything constructive in the way of a policy which will halt this very serious inflationary process and make the industry stable.

As a result of this legislation an amount of $250m will be put into circulation. This is only one example of the many injections into the community of financial aid. But the commodities which are being produced with such aid are not being sold. The Senate is not being informed whether the Government has plans to dispose of this wheat to underprivileged countries. I can assure members on the Government side that the people of Australia in particular and people generally throughout the world today will not tolerate the precedents of the past. In Canada and the United States of America foodstuff is being burnt. Potatoes are being burnt in parts of the United States and wheat is being destroyed in Canada. As to disposing of Australia’s wheat crop in such a way, I assure the Government that it wants to give very serious consideration before adopting any policy as negative as that. Campaigns are being conducted for the supplying of food to underprivileged and starving people. Pictures have been displayed showing Biafran people who are just skin and bone. We know of the extent of starvation and the appalling hunger and poverty which exist in India and Pakistan despite the fact that those countries have reached their present level of wheat production. The understanding of this problem is not beyond the wit of decent men. Of course, in a capitalist system one finds the worst in man, the greed, the acquisitiveness and the avarice of self-seekers. One will always find these anomalies and contradictions. This brings me to the very crunch, that the crisis which is facing this country is the inevitable result of a cycle of boom and bust. This Government is always bleating about the so-called private entrepreneurs, and giving the small man opportunity. Now the small man is getting it right where the chicken got the axe. There is about as much sorrow in some of the

Australian Country Party members’ hearts and minds about the small man getting it in the neck as there would be in the heart of a bulk production chicken producer.

The Australian Labor Party feels that a crisis such as this could have been avoided with some planning. No proper planning has been done in this industry. We know of the reticence and the shuffling that went on about even discussing the matter of quotas. We know how eyes have been closed to the intrusion of big powerful financial people who have gone into the wheat industry and helped kill the goose that laid the golden egg for the legitimate wheat growers. This has been going on apace without any constructive action being taken by the Government. For the first time in 20 years it has been necessary to bridge the gap between sales of wheat and the amount we are obliged to repay to the Reserve Bank. Of course, the nation has to meet this obligation. The Government has come before the Senate with an application to the Senate to approve a loan of this extent without having put a proposition, not just to the Parliament but to the people of Australia, on what it intends to do in the future. This is a stop-gap and a temporary measure. A panic phase has been reached in this industry, but nothing at all has been heard from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) or from the responsible people in this chamber as to the future that is possible for that very conscientious and hardworking section of our community, the traditional wheat growers.

The Labor Party realises that there is a time limit and it realises the extent of the problem. It knows that the situation involves all sorts of international obligations such as the International Wheat Agreement, price fixing and the like which have been going on over a period of years. But we still come back to the very human problem that here we are with plenty while half the world’s population is poverty stricken. It is a sign of decadence rather than progress when a nation is unable to find a way to dispose of and distribute its products by extending credit to nations in need. I believe that the Australian people themselves are looking for much more positive leadership in relation to this matter than they have had in the past. The wheat industry is not the only industry which has come up against a crisis such as this. Practically every one of our primary industries face this kind of crisis in one form or another. Representatives of other sections of primary industry have been telling us about crises in the meat industry, the wool industry, the dried fruits industry, and any other section of primary industry you like to take. Our good friend Senator Lillico, by way of interjection, mentioned peas and beans.

Senator McManus:

– What about potatoes?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes, and potatoes. Practically right throughout the whole gamut of primary production there have been crises of this nature, but perhaps not as great because the capacity of our wheat lands to produce in good seasons to such an extent can result in tremendous surpluses. But in relative degrees, the whole of Australia’s primary industry complex faces similar crises in distribution, in financing the sale and dispersal of surpluses. I can only hope for the sake of the stability of our standard of living that farmers, who are the backbone of the country and who supply the food requirements of the country, will be given a degree of stability such that they can plan ahead for next year’s crop and the following year’s crops with a degree of security which will give them incentive and the assistance which they need because of the other hazards that confront them. lt seems a terrible thing to say, but it is quite likely that some people are hoping that a famine or drought will stalk some of the lands which are at present having plentiful harvests, so that Australia’s problem may be solved. This is a short term view to take and one which I hope will never be taken here. On the other hand, observations are made and remarks passed such as the Senate heard from Senator McManus who would rather see a situation such as this than the selling of wheat to Red China, even though Red China is one customer of ours which has been able to pay its way, according to the Wheat Board. No report has been made to show that China is not a very good customer of ours. The arrangements which have been made with it have been satisfactory.

Senator McManus:

– What price were they paying? How can it be satisfactory when you do not know the price?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The point is that the Wheat Board has the prerogative of fixing the price. That is its business. If the Government does not see fit to divulge those figures, the honourable senator can attack it about that. The Labor Party realises that this commitment of §250m has to be met to repay the Reserve Bank advances. The credit which has been extended to the Wheat Board has to be met. But the Labor Party also believes that the critical situation which is being faced has been brought about by inadequacy in leadership and by inefficiency. It was inevitable that these surpluses would occur but the Government has done little to try to relieve the situation.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– We have explained our point of view on this measure and it is my intention to deal largely with the amendment which has been proposed by Senator McClelland on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. Let me say at the outset that I believe that the criticism of the Government’s attitude on this matter contained in his amendment is valid, as far as it goes. We do not feel that the amendment spells out explicitly enough precisely where the Government has failed, and for that reason I move the following amendment to Senator McClelland’s proposed amendment:

At end of Senator McClelland’s proposed amendment add ‘ , caused by the failure of the Government to take necessary and timely action in recent years to:

discourage excessive wheat plantings;

provide adequate storage to meet the resulting crisis; and

diversify market outlets.

And the Senate is further of the opinion that the Government has denied to the Parliament the opportunity to make a proper assessment of the economic condition of the wheat industry by its persistent refusal to disclose the price conditions of sales contracts’.

Senator O’Byrne, in an attack on Senator McManus, said that all we proposed to do was to prevent the sale of wheat to Red China. I wonder what Senator O’Byrne’s attitude would be if an honourable senator moved in the Senate right now that we conclude an agreement to sell a large quantity of our surplus wheat to Rhodesia or South Africa. Would he put this on a political plane completely without any justification for his attitude? Those who analyse this situation, and particularly the stand of the Australian Democratic Labor Party on it, must realise that our attitude towards sales of wheat to Red China has nothing to do with the political attitude of Red China in itself. All of the arguments we have put forward over the years in relation to this matter have been an endeavour to protect the Australian wheat industry against the excesses in which it was being persuaded to indulge by the false market that was being created by selling wheat to Red China at prices below those at which we had been selling to our recognised markets such as India.

We believe also that the refusal to disclose the price at which the wheat was being sold to Red China besmirched the name of this country throughout the world and raised serious doubts as to whether we were meeting our international commitments in relation to the agreed price for wheat. We further set out to show that there was an over-expansion of the industry brought about by the twin evils of the guaranteed price and the expectation of unlimited markets - the vision splendid created by the Wheat Board which set out to get contracts for our wheat from Red China at prices below those at which it was selling to other countries.

I am not saying that the guaranteed price in itself is an evil but I do say that the manner in which the guaranteed price operated to increase the production of wheat was an evil. I hope that as a result of the criticisms contained in both proposed amendments, which I hope will be carried, the Government will give a great deal of thought to this matter and will remember that a most admirable circumstance such as a guaranteed price may be in itself very good for an industry but that when it is allowed to develop without any practical commonsense realisation of the effect it is having on the industry it can be disastrous.

It is true that we would not have our present tremendous surplus of wheat if it were not for the manner in which the guaranteed price policy was applied. The policy attracted into the industry, which obviously was reaching a maximum of production, thousands of new producers at a time when scientific improvements in the industry were tending towards tremendous expansion in production. If no new growers had been attracted into the industry our then existing wheat acreage would have been able to produce a great deal more grain, in spite of droughts, than it had been producing previously. Our criticism of the undue development of the wheat industry in this country to meet the requirements of the market in Red China, in particular, was not based on the political quality of that country. In the very early days of this trade we carried a resolution at our federal conference to the effect that where it could be shown that a country such as Red China was suffering from a famine or anything of that nature and had a tremendous need for our wheat, every opportunity should be taken to see that the requirements and needs of that country were met.

We could see, and I think anyone could see, what that market was doing, or ultimately would do, to the Australian wheat industry if it were allowed to continue unchecked and if the Wheat Board continued to give precedence and advantage to it, particularly in terms of price and payment. We could see that the Australian wheat industry would face a crisis. If we could see it, we suggest that the Government should have been able to see it. We think that the quotas which are now being imposed on people who have been in the industry for years and on people, large companies in some cases, who are recent additions to the industry would not have been as necessary as they now are had the Government been a little more foreseeing in relation to this matter.

The >first clause of our proposed amendment criticises the Government for not having discouraged excessive wheat plantings. Our second ground of criticism is that, having failed to discourage excessive wheat plantings, the Government took no steps to provide adequate storage for the surplus wheat that inevitably would be on hand.

Senator Prowse:

– That is not true.

Senator LITTLE:

– If you suggest that adequate steps have been taken to provide storage for our surplus wheat, why then are the mice running all over Victoria, particularly in the Wimmera? They have been attracted by the amateurish attempts at storage by individual farmers who have no proper place in which to put their wheat. We suggest also that the Government should have attempted to diversify our markets to a greater extent than it has.

I turn now to the final paragraph of our amendment. I am sure that members of the Labor Party will agree with us on this because of their previous attitude. At one time they supported our repeated requests to the Government for information to be given to the Parliament regarding the price conditions of sales contracts. The Labor Party put forward the suggestion that if the Government would not make available the information to which the Parliament was entitled, the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board should be brought before the bar of the Senate and compelled to give the information. For that reason alone I am certain that the Labor Party will support our criticism of the Government on that aspect. What has been the Government’s excuses for not producing to the Parliament of Australia the prices at which it has been prepared to negotiate wheat sales to Red China? It told the Parliament that this was a matter for the Australian Wheat Board and that the Wheat Board could not disclose the price to us because that would endanger its capacity to negotiate and any advantages in price negotiations it may have over other countries supplying wheat.

But what are the facts? The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen), as a representative of the Government and people of this country, goes abroad and negotiates with the wheat interests of the world the minimum prices at which wheat of certain qualities will be sold. That is a purely political action on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister. He does not have to obtain the permission of the Wheat Board or anyone else. Then he comes back to this country-

Senator Young:

– The Wheat Board and the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation are represented at these meetings.

Senator LITTLE:

– They may be. We are not saying that they are not. But who is the boss? Who negotiates on behalf of the Government? Who puts the signature on the document that says: “This is Australia’s guarantee’? Do honourable senators opposite say that the Wheat Board says to the Deputy Prime Minister that the price shall be so and so? Of course the Deputy Prime Minister does not say that the price shall be so and so. This is an agreement reached by all the countries that append their signatures to it. The Deputy Prime Minister signs on behalf of Australia. Then this Parliament is asked to believe that he does not know at what price the wheat is being sold. If he knows we are entitled to know. Nobody can gainsay that, whether he is on the Government side or the Opposition side of this chamber. If the Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to know the price at which a product for which the market is guaranteed by the Government is to be sold abroad, then the Parliament is entitled to know. I have no criticism of the Wheat Board on this question. ‘Its function is to sell the wheat, and it does sell the wheat.

Senator Prowse:

– Whose wheat is it?

Senator LITTLE:

– Let me ask Senator Prowse this question: Whose money is it that is now being lent to meet the crisis situation that has developed in the industry? Have not the taxpayers of this country, represented by this Parliament, some rights? Are they to be levied in terms of their money paid in taxes? We told the Government that if a crisis developed in this industry because some of the countries that were given favourable terms of payment for their purchases welshed on those terms the Australian taxpayers would be the people who would have to pay. Of course they would. The Government knows that and the Opposition knows that.

The most scandalous aspect of the attitude of the Government on this matter is not that we now have a crisis - anybody can make mistakes - but the deliberate prevention of the Parliament and people of Australia from being acquainted with the facts of what has developed in this industry. It represents a scandalous neglect of governmental duty and responsibility to the Parliament and people of Australia. We say that whilst Senator McClelland’s amendment may go some little distance along the way it is inadequate in expressing the criticism of the Government that should be expressed by the Parliament on behalf of the people of Australia. I believe that the amendment I have moved should be supported by all honourable senators.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Is the amendment moved by Senator Little seconded?

Senator Byrne:

– I second the amendment.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– This Bill is evidence of the Government’s support of the wheat industry. This afternoon we are legislating for a very important industry. The details of the Bill have been given to the Senate. We have been discussing them for some time now, and we have 2 amendments before us. Senator Little says that he hopes both amendments will be carried. It is difficult to see how that will occur, but it is an interesting comment. The importance of this industry is evidenced by the fact that it is the second most important export income earner for Australia. It is second only to the wool industry. For the benefit of those honourable senators who have spoken previously and suggested that the Government is doing something most unusual in this legislation, and with the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate in Hansard details of exports from 1962-63 to 1968-69.

I believe that whatever attention this Government could give to an industry nothing would be more important than ensuring that it was given sufficient finance to continue producing and to continue in a stable manner to earn export income for Australia. It can be rightly said that much of the progress Australia has achieved is attributable to the Wheat industry. Since 1950 Australia’s import bill has trebled. If the Government can provide a sound financial base for an industry to which we will be indebted for export earnings for many years to come it certainly should do so. The importance of this industry is demonstrated by its history of development and its position as an earner of export income.

Listening to the various speeches made in the Senate one has the feeling that many of the speakers have very little knowledge of the problems of rural producers. Any person who has been involved in rural production has to agree that there is always uncertainty about what may occur during the months ahead. Rural producers accept this mode of life. I think that that should be readily accepted. General propositions as to what controls should be imposed on the production of various industries can well fall to the ground in the light of the experience of the following season. Whether they be in the dairy industry, the wool industry or the wheat industry, it is accepted that the outcome of the ensuing season is very unlikely to be known. The Government has taken the opportunity to provide in relation to the wheat industry a sound base for as much confidence as one could expect in any industry. This Bill provides for a loan to the Australian Wheat Board to give it sufficient funds for the ensuing year.

It is interesting to note - this was commented on by a previous speaker, Senator Prowse - that in 1930 more than 18 million acres of wheat were planted and it was not until 1966-67 that that area was again put to wheat growing. Certainly in 1968-69 the area under production rose to over 26 million acres, and a record crop of S3S.4 million bushels resulted. The last 2 speakers in this debate have been very critical of the Government’s attitude towards the wheat industry. I do not believe that either honourable senator considered the world situation. More care was taken by people in another place who are perhaps more experienced. A member of the Opposition in another place made this comment:

In the 1969-70 season all the great wheat producing nations across the world had a good season. . . This is a unique situation. … It may well be that we are more likely to have a glut than a famine but this is conjecture at this stage. After all, we have not learned to control the seasons. . . .

That comment is very relevant to the world position. Senator O’Byrne said that the Government should have done something to control the wheat industry. I suppose there is very little doubt in the minds of rural producers as to the genuine intentions of the Labor Party in this matter. One might agree that the socialisation objectives which are part of the platform of the Labor Party would mean possible ruination for more than the wheat industry. The real interest of the Labor Party in the rural community lies in ensuring that the rural industries are denied sound political support. It is well known that the Labor Party supports a policy of one vote, one value. When members of the Labor Party attend rural meetings I think they should make that clear.

Senator Poyser:

– Do you believe in giving a vote to cows and pigs?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think Senator Poyser should take an opportunity to spell out to the rural community his beliefs on rural representation. I have just pointed out that I believe that the Labor Party’s socialisation objectives and policy of detracting from political representation for rural areas do not augur well for the rural community. Senator Little indicated that his Party has been saying for many years - and I have heard it said in this chamber for many years - that wheat plantings should be controlled. It is a fair view and perhaps in this matter his Party is entitled to say: ‘I told you so.’ I certainly give credit to Senator Little and other honourable senators who have advocated control over many years. However, I do not believe that the records of past years of world wheat stocks and sales support the belief in controls.

Senator Young:

– In 1967 we imported wheat into New South Wales.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Honourable senators opposite have not referred to that in this debate. They may not have experience of the wheat industry or other primary industries such as the dairy industry. In recent years some products of dairying were faced with an enormous problem on world markets, but within 12 months these problems were not as considerable as previously predicted. Markets expanded and the world situation was not as predicted. Expert guidance was given to the industry. Perhaps one should take notice of expert guidance. In 1963-64 there was a world carryover of 50 million metric tons of wheat, but trade in wheat in that year totalled more than 45 million metric tons. Surely that should inspire confidence that production has not been running at a level likely to break the industry.

The 1967-68 season started with world stocks of 36 million metric tons. World trading in that year reached 47 million metric tons. Honourable senators may agree that the figures suggest that it was wise to continue planting wheat, if we were to be able to take advantage of the markets as they became available. In looking around for expert opinion it is interesting to note that in October 1967 Dr A. R. Callaghan, Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, said in respect of surpluses:

Surplus wheat production by the world’s great exporters is rapidly drawing to a close. All our energies will be required to face the problems of those in urgent need.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the same year advice was given by Melbourne University to restrict acreages.

Senator WEBSTER:

– lt is not uncommon to find that the economic advisers in this country are not correct. One person or one party may urge over a period of years control over wheat production, but I think that in rural production it will be found it is not to Australia’s benefit just to follow that advice blindly without looking at the facts. Constructive criticism is welcomed. I hear little constructive criticism from Labor senators on this matter. I think it is also true to say that senators of the Democratic Labor Party have offered criticism, but not constructive criticism.

Senator Little:

– We have not known the position. We could not get the information.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think it is probably true, as Senator Little says, that they had little knowledge of the position. The Government acknowledges and recognises the interest of the Australian public in the wheat industry. Senator Little has proposed an amendment in which he chides the Government for not discouraging excessive wheat planting. The DLP has supported that proposition for a number of years. The industry itself is facing up to that proposition and I imagine that it would be most anxious to relieve producers as soon as possible of curtailments in production.

The second point in the honourable senator’s proposed amendment refers to the provision of adequate storage to meet the resulting crisis. I think this illustrates the lack of foresight demonstrated by people with little knowledge of the industry in putting forward such a suggestion. Would the honourable senator suggest that millions of dollars should have been spent this year in Western Australia to provide wheat storage? I doubt that that would have been wise. Last year Western Australian wheat growers were unable to fill their quotas. The honourable senator might suggest that money should have been spent to provide wheat storage in Queensland. Senator Lawrie appreciates that Queensland has adequate wheat storage but Queensland wheat growers were unable to fill last season’s quotas.

Senator Little is from Victoria. He should have known ‘before he advanced this proposal that the Victorian Grain Elevators Board has said that both quota and overquota wheat will be taken in by the Board during the ensuing month.

Senator Milliner:

– Will there be no excess wheat in Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not know what would be proposed for somebody who is not in a sound economic position if it is suggested that the whole of the $10rr made available by the Federal Government for the industry should have been spent in providing extra storage. That would have been to the disadvantage of producers. It is proposed by the Democratic Labor Party that there should be a diversity of market outlets. I give credit to the Australian Wheat Board for having done exceptionally well in getting markets for Australian wheat. I believe that recent sales, which were to South America, indicate exactly the point that was made by the honourable senator and show that the Board is using its best officers to try to achieve a greater diversity of market outlets. I cannot see any necessity at the moment for a motion or a suggestion that the Government should take necessary and timely action to diversify market outlets. I believe that the Wheat Board has taken that action.

The DLP is the one Party which has been absolutely opposed to a diversity of market outlets in its attitude to sales to mainland China. If the advice given by the DLP had been followed I doubt that it would have been to the advantage of the Australian wheat industry. Certainly if we had not made sales to mainland China there would have been no complaint if the Canadian Government had sold wheat to China. It is certain that the Canadian Government would be very pleased at this time to be able to sell wheat to China, which is quite a valuable market. Apparently the sales have been very successful.

Senator Little:

– We have never complained of the sales that were made. We want to know the price at which the wheat was sold.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator has been in business in his day. Does he believe that it would be wise for an industry to spell out to the world details of a confidential business arrangement? In his own business would he consider it wise to spell out to the world confidential arrangements that had been made between buyer and seller or to advise his competitors of the basis on which he was selling a product? That would be a most stupid action. Australia is selling wheat within the terms of the world wheat agreement. The honourable senator should be confident that the Wheat Board is able to do that in a respectable fashion. I support the Bill and I believe that in their hearts all honourable senators support it. I have commented on the 2 amendments that have been moved. I hope that the Senate will reject both amendments.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I rise to speak on this Bill because I think it shows the complete subservience of the Liberal Party to the Australian Country Party. That is why this Bill has been presented to this chamber. Also it has medical interest for me because all that we are dealing with in this measure is a symptom. No-one is attacking the roots of the problem - at least, not on the Government side of the chamber. When I refer to honourable senators on the Government side I must say that I am referring to about 8 or 9 honourable senators because all other honourable senators opposite are in favour of what the Opposition has said. I think 1 or 2 Liberal senators have spoken, but there has been very little support for Country Party members from the Liberal members on the Government benches.

Senator Webster:

– That is rubbish. The honourable senator was not even here to hear them.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– There are 2 Liberals and 5 Country Party senators in the chamber at the moment. So far the Senate has dealt only with symptoms. We cannot discuss this Bill without discussing its purpose.

Senator Webster:

– The honourable senator cannot count.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Nor can Senator Webster. We are dealing with the symptoms of a disease which is affecting the whole of rural industry in Australia. We should really be doing something about rural industries generally rather than handing out $300m to the Australian Wheat Board.

Senator Webster:

– Will the honourable senator tell us what he suggests?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I shall do so, if I may and if I have the Chair with me. At present we find that the Government has one policy only in regard to rural industry and it is this: ‘If you are losing we will subsidise you. Be not afraid: we will help you with a further subsidy.’ This has happened to the extent that in the last financial year the total subsidy paid to primary industries reached $260m. I am referring there to direct subsidies only. This has been the amount of direct Commonwealth assistance to rural industry. But apart from that, those in rural industries receive taxation concessions and innumerable other concessions. We find even that they are asking for a reduction in overdraft rates because they happen to be in rural industry. What does the Government do about those in secondary industry who fail? Do we hear of the Government rushing forward and subsidising them? No, not one bit. But here is a group of people who, because they have the power and the purpose of blackmail, can force the Government to keep on producing subsidies for their supporters, as a result of which we have before us this Bill to provide $300m.

Senator Young:

– Would you not agree that secondary industry has the ability to pass on its costs whereas primary industry has not that ability?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– If primary industry has not the ability it should not be there. This is the whole basis and the whole evil of the rural industry at present - the fact that we have so many uneconomic people in it.

Senator Young:

– How can costs be passed on in primary industry? Tell us how.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– If the honourable senator will hold his horses I will come to that in a moment. If we want to change the policy on rural industry we must first do something about the Tariff Board. Only about 2 people in this chamber realise that the actions of the Tariff Board make necessary subsidies for those in rural industry. Members of the Country Party are trying to get the industry people behind them, but they are cutting their own throats by supporting higher tariffs and at the same time handing out higher subsidies to rural workers. The first thing to do is to look at the Tariff Board and see what it is doing to ruin the prospects of the primary producer. Secondly, where there is economic necessity people should be removed from that industry. Nothing is to be gained by saying: ‘We will give you a subsidy; stay where you are. Your father was a dairy farmer - or a wheat farmer - and you are losing money, but do not move; we will jive you more and more subsidy’. People are being given a subsidy to keep them in an uneconomic proposition, as a result of which, it seems to me, the Government is absolutely loading the wealthy people in that industry. They are being handed a gold mine, which is far better than stocks and shares, to remain in a depressed rural industry.

Senator Buttfield:

– Ha!

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I am talking of those who are efficient. The efficient farmer is coining money from the subsidies which are given out by the Government. The policy seems to be: Because they are uneconomic we must keep them on a farm. This applies particularly to dairy farmers. We suggested at one stage that a commission should be set up, not only for primary industry but also for secondary industry, and that where people are losing because theirs is an uneconomic proposition they should be given a choice of getting out. In that event the Government would buy their property and make one final payment instead of providing a continuous subsidy year after year. The person who left the property would then be trained for some other job. If there were 2 dairy farms, both on the poverty line, they should be amalgamated. One would have to go. They could toss to see who would remain or choose in any other way, but one would have to go. In that way instead of having 2 uneconomic propositions there would be 1 property which could be economic. The person who left his property could perform some other useful task. That is one suggestion of what could be done for rural industry.

In the wheat industry there are so many things that should have been done. It is of no use for Government supporters to raise their hands in horror and sneer at the Opposition as though it was able to control the seasons. On the one hand the Government blames the seasons for causing the super-abundance and it says that it cannot control quotas. As to storages, I notice that we have no need for storage facilities in several States because the farmers cannot fill their quotas. Is that not due to the seasons? The Government says on the one hand that the seasons are good and on the other hand it refutes this suggestion.

Senator Young:

– You have gone to some length to explain how we can cut costs but you still have not told me how we can pass on the costs.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I think we will have to leave this until the next wheat Bill comes in as I am already straying a little from this one. I did have a policy about it once and I will give that policy to the honourable senator.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– As head of the Australia Party?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Yes, that is true. At least I did take sufficient interest to study rural industry problems. I spent a whole day at the University of New England with about 15 people who knew their stuff. Those people were growers, economists, professors and so on. I learned a lot from them - perhaps more than honourable members opposite have learned on the subjects about which they speak.

Senator Milliner:

Senator Webster said that there is no excess wheat in Australia.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– When Senator Little pointed out that there is an increased acreage of wheat Senator Prowse interjected - if no-one else heard the interjection I did - and, said: ‘Where did you get those figures? Is that a fact? Of course you are wrong. You do not know what you are talking about.’ Senator Webster quoted figures to show that there is an increase in acreage. What does Senator Prowse know about the subject? It is of no use for the honourable senator to ask me what I know about this subject when he does not know the subject himself. People tend to forget that there is an increase in the production of wheat. As Senator Little pointed out even without the increased acreage there is greater production of wheat. When subsidies for increased production are granted this is when the harm is done to the industry. The Government keeps on saying: ‘Subsidy, subsidy, subsidy.’ I cannot recall in which newspaper it appeared but it was once said that Australia will soon be an empty quarry surrounded by an oil slick. In my opinion the only land that will be visible will be full of wheat silos.

Senator Young:

– That is a corny one.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– No-one has ever mentioned it before. We allow the wheat farmers to grow more wheat and then we spend more money putting up silos, and when the seasons about which honourable members opposite speak rectify the position - according to the Australian Country Party - the silos remain empty. But who pays for all this?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Who does?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– That is rightwho does? The ordinary man in the street pays for this but he does not realise it. We subsidise primary industry. As a result, people living in Great Britain pay 9.8c for milk but in Hobart - the city with the highest cost of living - the people pay 10c for milk. People in the United Kingdom pay 36c for butter and in Hobart they pay 55c.

Senator Webster:

– Why?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I do not have to keep giving the reason why we are doing this. In the UK the people pay 38c for cheese and in Hobart they pay 50.1c. Bacon is 65c in the UK and in Hobart it is 100c. Eggs cost 51c in the UK and 68.8c in Hobart. The ordinary man in the street pays for the inefficiency of the rural industry. Someone has to pay for all these subsidies.

Senator Prowse:

– What is the rate of pay in the respective countries?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I do not know exactly but I will find out and let the honourable senator know. I do know that in some professions it is much better to be in the UK on the incomes there than it is to be in Australia on the higher scale of incomes that we have here.

Senator Prowse:

– What do the doctors charge for a consultation in Britain?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I should really point out to the honourable senator that he ought to study his facts before he talks about medical matters. If I am not supposed to talk on wheat then he should not speak on that matter. It is time that the Australian Wheat Board took cognisance of the fact that there are different types of wheat grown. I presume the same price is paid on the Australian market for all types of wheat, whether they be hard or soft I think I am right in that assumption.

Senator Prowse:

– Yes.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Thank you. There is no differentiation in price for hard or soft wheat. Surely it is time for the farmer who produces a better quality wheat to be paid a higher price. There is no doubt about this whatsoever. Yet nothing has been done by the Government to rectify this anomaly in the wheat industry. Senator Little referred to the sale of wheat to Red China. Originally when I first heard of this it was a question of the Democratic Labor Party refusing to sell wheat to Red China. When I say Red China, I mean the People’s Republic of China. But now of course that position has changed, and quite rightly so. Now, it is not a matter of refusal to sell; it is a matter of price. Should we sell wheat to the People’s Republic of China at a lower price even though it may be second class or third class wheat? I do not know what sort of wheat it is because we have not been given the facts.

Senator Cant:

– How do you know that?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I said I did not know if it was second or third class wheat. The point is that we are selling more cheaply to Red China. The figures are available somewhere. It is of no use for Senator Webster to say that I have been in business and I know that one cannot disclose price. Someone will find out what the price is. It is in the statistical records. I have not got them with me today.

Senator Prowse:

– You have not done your homework.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I did my homework but I left it somewhere.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– What about the common fees?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Oh, these silly interjections. The honourable senator really has not anything to criticise me about so he starts on the argument of the common fees. When he wants to hear the facts about the common fees I will be happy to talk about them. He may then realise the truth. The point is that the price paid by China is known, but the quality of the wheat, the insurance costs, the extra costs, interest rates and so on are not known.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Why do not you tell us if you know.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– 1 would have done if ‘I had thought it was coming up this afternoon. 1 have it somewhere. It is easily obtained. The Minister can easily get the facts from the departmental officers sitting next to him. They should have them. They can send out, ring up or ask the Library before the Minister replies. I am sorry that I have not got them with me. The point is that we have been selling wheat to Red Russia up until 5 years ago without any qualms by anyone.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– We are still selling it.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Then the departmental officers must be liars because I just went over and asked them when did we sell wheat to Russia and I think that they said 4 years ago, but anyway it was not within the last 2 or 3 years.

Senator Young:

– We sold wheat to China in December.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I am talking about Russia. I quoted the information that was given to me. ‘I think I was told it was in 1966 or 1967 but I am not sure. Anyway, we have not sold wheat to Russia for some years, but we may have started again. The point is that we have sold wheat to a Communist country before - whenever it was. There is no reason why we should not sell it to other Communist countries if we can get a proper price.

I support both amendments and I hope that the Australian Labor Party and the DLP can resolve their differences because if they did this would be an effective chamber and the Parliament would be effective. If on minor matters the two major opposition parties did not disagree but had the same concept, and if they got together, we could show the people that this House was worth having. I support the Labor Party’s amendment and I support the Democratic Labor Party’s amendment. I do not mind which amendment is carried. I have only one criticism to make. I do not like the wording in paragraph 2 of the Democratic Labor Party’s amendment. It contains the words:

  1. provide adequate storage to meet the resulting crisis;

Paragraph 1 of the amendment reads:

  1. discourage excessive wheat plantings;

If the Government discourages wheat planting there will be p.o resulting need for silos. I think paragraph 2 should read:

  1. provide adequate storage to meet the present crisis.

Perhaps I am being pedantic.

Senator Little:

– We could haggle over little words all day.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Perhaps I am being a little pedantic. I believe that the two amendments should be carried. If I had my way I would add to the motion for the second reading the wording of the DLP’s notice of motion requesting a royal commission into rural industry. Rural industry needs this money. To follow that course would be a certain way of ensuring that a royal commission into rural industry is held. One only has to talk to the people on the land to realise their plight. They are fed up with the present situation. They do not know where they are. They do not seem to know where they are going.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They are fed up with the Government.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– No, not fed up. They still returned the Government to office, but they are nearly fed up with the Government. They are getting fed up with the Government because they nearly voted it out. The urban population, which consists of the majority of Australians, undoubtedly is subsidising rural industry. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. I tell anyone who is on the verge of bankruptcy: Do not worry. Join the Country Party. They will give you a subsidy.’ To join the Country Party is the easiest way of getting out of economic problems.

Senator Prowse:

– If they joined the medical profession they could blackmail the country.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I have not yet seen one Australian who has not been able to obtain medical treatment; so I do not see how we are blackmailing the country.

Senat or Prowse - I have not yet seen one Australian who has been refused wheat.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Touche! The honourable senator may be right. I do not think the two instances are correlated. If the DLP has the time and the inclination it should add to its amendment the words I have suggested. I do not know whether it is possible for the Democratic Labor Party to add to its amendment the wording of that notice of motion.

Senator Little:

– I do not know whether we can do that now.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– That would ensure that ths motion would be considered. I thank you, Mr President, for letting me wander from the provisions of the Loan (Australian Wheat Board Bill). As practically every other honourable senator did the same, I suppose I was entitled so to do. I support the two amendments. I hope they will be carried.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I have not yet spoken in the debate. I do so now to make one suggestion. The Democratic Labor Party’s amendment seems to be a very good one. In general it seems to have been dug out of Australian Labor Party speeches and policies which have been announced. Indeed, the experts on wheat in our Party seem to recognise some of the wording.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The phraseology.

Senator MURPHY:

– The phraseology is that customarily used by the experts on wheat in our Party. It seems that the way in which the Senate operates now is for the Democratic Labor Party, whenever it agrees with a general proposition put by the Australian Labor Party, to adopt the Labor Party’s policy and put our suggestions as though they were DLP suggestions. The Democratic Labor Party senators read our speeches and read things said by Senator McClelland and others, and then put amendments in their names. We know that most times their hearts are in their amendments - as with nuclear weapons - but we know that at other times their hearts are not in their amendments. The proposals put forward today by the DLP are substantially our policy. We want to make one thing very clear. We do not think-

Senator Prowse:

– I know that you do not think.

Senator MURPHY:

– If that is the level of Senator Prowse’s humour, I do not think it reflects very greatly upon him. At this stage of life he ought to be able to make more sophisticated interjections. Senator Prowse comes from an area in which wheat is grown and his constituents are concerned with this problem. He ought to be far more concerned with what I am speaking about than with making quite stupid and infantile interjections. The matter about which I am concerned is the expression in the last two lines of the Democratic Labor Party’s amendment. I refer to the words:

  1. . by its persistent refusal to disclose the price conditions of sales contracts.

Concern has been expressed to the effect that if this amendment were carried it might indicate that a majority of the Senate is of the view that all details of contracts should be revealed, even matters which might be prejudicial to the conduct of the Australian Wheat Board in its negotiations with other countries. In other words, some disclosures which would prejudice the Board in its dealings with competitors might be made.

The Australian Labor Party has taken the view that the Parliament is entitled to know in general the prices and terms of sales of wheat. It is true that we need that information to make a proper assessment of the economic condition and prospects of the wheat industry. Other countries are supplied with this information. It is published in official documents. For some reason, these facts are not disclosed to us. We do not want it to be thought that we take the view that the details of all matters relating to sales should be revealed. We do not want details of the fine print, but rather the general terms as to prices and other conditions. I would like an indication from the mover of the amendment that he accords with that intention. 1 would like him to indicate that those words, properly construed, would have the same meaning as though the words ‘and general’ were inserted after the word ‘price’. That would mean that the price and general conditions of sales contracts rather than particular and detailed matters which might be embarrassing would have to be supplied.

Senator Byrne:

– Does the honourable senator mean that we should add those words to our amendment?

Senator MURPHY:

– I suggest that those words be accepted. We could do it in one of two ways. One way is to indicate that the words mean what I am saying. The other way is to alter the amendment by adding the words ‘and general’.

Senator Little:

Mr President, I seek your direction as to whether I need to seek leave to vary the amendment which is now the property of the Senate. I am quite prepared to add the words ‘and general’.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator will have to seek leave.

Senator Little:

– I ask for leave to vary the amendment.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Little:

– The suggestion made by Senator Murphy is that the verbiage of the closing clause should be:

  1. . refusal to disclose the price and general conditions of sales contracts.

I move:

That the following words ‘and general’ be added to the amendment after the word ‘price’.

The amendment now reads:

At end of Senator McClelland’s proposed amendment add ‘, caused by the failure of the Government to take necessary and timely action in recent years to:

  1. discourage excessive wheat plantings;
  2. provide adequate storage to meet the resulting crisis; and
  3. diversify market outlets.

And the Senate is further of the opinion that the Government has denied to the Parliament the opportunity to make a proper assessment of the economic condition of the wheat industry by its persistent refusal to disclose the price and general conditions of sales contracts’.

Senator MURPHY:

– I am grateful to the honourable senator for including those words in his amendment. It seems to me that when those words are added the honourable senator’s amendment accords with the policy that the Australian Labor Party has had ever since the crisis began. There is no reason why Senator

McClelland’s amendment should not be accepted. I would hate to think that the Australian Democratic Labor Party will adopt the tactics of constantly seeking to add little bits and pieces to Opposition amendments, as has been suggested. It would be far better if the expression of the view of the Senate were arrived at without the necessity for pedantics - although I am not suggesting that pedantics are involved in this case - or the tagging on of things. If something is to be gained by the adding of words to a motion - I am speaking about the future now rather than the past - I think it most undesirable for the addition to be made in bits and pieces. Having said that, I think I should say that the Opposition supports Senator McClelland’s amendment with the addition and asks the Senate to carry it as an expression of the Senate’s feelings about the Government’s handling of the wheat crisis.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I would not have risen to speak had it not been for the reference Senator Murphy made to the possibility of the Australian Democratic Labor Party tagging on bits and pieces, as he put it. I am not aware that the DLP has done any tagging on of bits and pieces. A case which comes to mind is the debate on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General’s Speech. The DLP moved the original amendment in that debate and the Australian Labor Party tagged on bits and pieces.

Senator Murphy:

– I would not go into that too far if I were you, Senator McManus.

Senator McMANUS:

-If Senator Murphy is threatening me I suggest that it would be better if he were to come out into the open. I have no objection. I merely want to’ say that the DLP s actions in regard to this Bill are perfectly legitimate. It looked at Senator McClelland’s amendment and decided that it was an expression of opinion that gave no reasons. Naturally, the DLP felt that if the Senate were to tell the people of Australia that it disapproved of the Government’s actions in regard to the wheat industry it should be able to at least tell them also why it did so. AH my Party has done is try to make the people of Australia aware of the reasons. The only other thing I want to say is in regard to the general terms. They were made available to me by the Australian Wheat Board. On 28th August 1968 I asked a question concerning wheat. In reply I was not given the prices but I was given the elaborate table 1 have in my hand which indicates the general terms.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– I desire to speak to the amendment which was moved by Senator McClelland who, I believe, is the author of it. A little while ago I was chided rather vigorously by Senator Murphy for saying that I did not think that he could give matters any thought. The evidence of this is in the amendment he has presented to the Senate. There is no vestige of constructive thinking in the amendment which is before the Senate. The Opposition has sought to gain political capital out of the plight of the wheat industry. We on this side of the chamber admit that the wheat industry is experiencing difficulty, but the amendment, which claims that the Government has not given positive leadership, is completely empty and void of any constructive thinking whatever. I wish to remind the Senate of something which happened in the 1930s. Perhaps because I was actively engaged in growing wheat at that time I remember the situation rather vividly. It is an example of what happened when the Australian Labor Party was in a position to give active leadership in a very similar situation.

I refer to some tables which were published in a book by Copland and Janes entitled ‘Australian Marketing Problems’. They record that in the year 1930-31 the world exportable surplus of wheat was 1,324 million bushels and the world import requirements were 825 million bushels. At that time the world exportable end of season stock was 499 million bushels. What magnificant leadership was given at that time? What was the contribution to the welfare of the industry at that time? The then Leader of the Australian Labor Party conducted a campaign aimed at the growing of more wheat - and he did so at a time when there was relatively a far greater surplus of wheat than there is today. On every letter which was posted was stamped Grow More Wheat’. This was the magnificent leadership of the Labor Party. The Labor Prime Minister, Mr Scullin, said: ‘If you grow more wheat we will guarantee you 4s a bushel’. What happened? Because he could not blackmail Sir Robert Gibson into printing a fiduciary note issue he reneged on his promise and the wheat growers received not 4s but ls 8d. This is an example of the magnificent contribution which the Labor Party made at that time to the wellbeing of the industry. It is interesting to recall that incident, because the growers have still not forgotten the complete failure of the Labor Party to do anything constructive at that time.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak to the amendment to the motion. In his major speech the other night Senator Prowse saw fit to go into the depths of the depression to get a datum on the value of money. Now he goes to the depths of the depression to use the leadership of the Australian Labor Party as an example. I remind the honourable senator that the Labor Party was in office from 1929 to 1931. lt took over from a conservative government whose rule from 1917 resulted in the formation of the Australian Country Party in 1919 - a party formed in the hope that it could take over the politics of the Australian Labor Party. I notice that the honourable senator has left the chamber.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– He was called away.

Senator CANT:

– 1 wish people would pick a better time to call him away. The honourable senator also failed to inform the Senate of the economic conditions which applied in 1930-31 as a result of the mishandling of the economy of Australia in the previous 13 years by the Conservatives, of the same political colour as his Party. For the honourable senator to compare the Australian Labor Party not giving a lead at a time when he was in the industry with the present type of leadership of the Government in relation to the wheat industry is like ‘Give-away’ Charlie Court in Western Australia trying to compare the so-called boom towns of today with towns in the depths of the depression in 1930-31. I have nothing but contempt for the honourable senator’s statement that the Australian Labor Party failed to give leadership in times of world economic crisis.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– The speeches on the Wheat Stabilisation Bill have been rather interesting but most of them have had very little to do with this Bill. I feel that those speeches would have been much better kept until the time when a Bill which is still in another place comes to the Senate. Honourable senators could then deal with the various problems they have found in the wheat industry. The Bill before the Senate is purely a machinery Bill which allows the Government to meet its obligations. These obligations were imposed on the wheat industry in the first wheat stabilisation scheme in the early history of wheat stabilisation. The obligations extended over a period of 5 years and they have been renewed each time the wheat stabilisation scheme has been re-negotiated. Yet after 20 years the Government, for the first time, is called upon to live up to the obligations which it undertook in those early years. This is why I say the subject matter of this Bill is restricted and it should not be a Bill on which honourable senators roam around the whole of the wheat industry, go back into the deep dark days of the depression, and so on.

The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Commonwealth to meet the obligations under a Commonwealth guarantee of repayment of certain borrowings by the Australian Wheat Board from the Reserve Bank of Australia in respect of the wheat crop for 1968-69. Why is this necessary? It is necessary because we find, as other honourable senators have already mentioned, that the income from the sale of wheat will be insufficient to enable the Board to repay the borrowings in full by the due date. For the first time in 20 years, as I have already said, the Government will be called upon to meet this guarantee. I want to take honourable senators back and recall to them first of all how this came about. I remind them that each season all wheat to be marketed is delivered by growers to the Australian Wheat Board and is treated as a pool. Upon delivery the Board pays each grower a first advance against the ultimate pool return. The money for this advance is borrowed by the Board from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank. The Board repays the Bank as the proceeds of wheat sales are received. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) on behalf of the Commonwealth guarantees repayment by the due date. The date for the repayment of the Board’s borrowings is set at 31st March in the year following the wheat season in order to comply with section 57 of the Reserve Bank

Act. This section requires that the loans of the type made to the Board shall not be for more than 1 year.

The position here is that for the 1968-69 pool, arrangements were made for the Board to borrow up to $624m from the Reserve Bank. The Board will be unable to repay the borrowings in full by 31st March 1970 which is the due date. The amount of the Board’s indebtedness to the Bank on the 1968-69 pool accounts as at 31st March 1970 is still unclear but it is currently expected to be in the vicinity of $250m. That is what the Bill is about. I am not going to traverse the whole ramifications which other honourable senators traversed but I want to reply to a few of the questions raised. I begin first of all with Senator Wilkinson who led the debate for the Opposition. He asked a question regarding interest rates. I am informed that the rate of interest on Government guaranteed loans by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank is at present 5%. I am informed that the Treasurer (Mr Bury) will determine the rate of interest to be charged on the loan by the Commonwealth to the Board at 5%, namely the present rate charged by the Rural Credits Department. This rate will apply throughout the currency of the loan and interest will be calculated on the daily balance outstanding.

Senator Wilkinson also spoke about the further pool payments. I am advised it is true that growers supplying wheat to the 1968-69 pool will not receive any further payments until the loan to the Board is repaid, and further, until such time as that particular pool comes into a credit position sufficient to enable a further advance to be paid. This has been, and is, accepted practice ever since the inception of the Board. I understand that most growers who have supplied wheat to the 1969-70 pool have received the first advance payment on quota wheat. I understand also that it has been agreed that for the 1970-71 season a first advance of $1.10 per bushel will be paid on quota wheat.

The next honourable senator to whom I want to reply is Senator Cant. He made reference to the interest rate and a number of other matters. I am advised that under section 57 of the Reserve Bank Act it is required that loans of the type made to the Wheat Board shall not be made for more than 1 year: This particular section has been reviewed by successive Governments over a period of many years and it has been decided on each occasion that the limitation to 1 year for such loans should be retained. Growers supplying wheat to the 1968-69 pool will probably receive a second payment on their wheat by mid- 1971. By that time the Commonwealth loan will’, it is expected, have been repaid and sales proceeds will be sufficient to enable a second payment to be made to the growers.

Now 1 come to Senator McClelland who was. responsible for moving the amendment in the name of the Labor Party. I reply to Senator McClelland along these lines: The first wheat, industry stabilisation plan was negotiated by the Australian Wheat Federation, which represented the industry, with the Government of the day on the understanding that when agreement was reached on this first plan, it should be submitted to a referendum of growers. Constitutional requirements’ meant that it had to be carried by a majority of growers in each of the mainland States before it could be introduced. The referendum was successful. About 60% of the growers supported it on a national basis and State majorities varied upwards from about 55%. The first stabilisation plan was for a period of 5 years and it provided for another referendum at the end of that 5-year period after negotiation again for a new and continuing plan.

The second plan was adopted by such a substantial majority of growers in each State that it was agreed by the industry and the Government that further referenda were not necessary and the industry organisation would accept responsibility on behalf of the growers. I remind Senator McClelland that the decision contained in the first stabilisation plan was made at a time when the price of wheat overseas was more than twice the cost of production in Australia. At that time, it will be recalled, those who used wheat could buy it in Australia at the cost of production despite the fact that the growers were being offered more than twice that price overseas.

The Government thought fit to write into the stabilisation plans the very obligation with which we are dealing today. It has never been called upon to meet that obligation until this year, despite the background. I have just given. In those circumstances I do not believe that this. Government can be criticised for lack of leadership. If. anyone wants to talk about positive leadership let us look at. the situation just before that time when the Labor Party took a large quantity of wheat from the wheat growers of. Australia, put a price on. it. and sent it to New Zealand- If that is positive leadership- then we in this Government do not. want any part of it.

Now I want ro deal with Senator McManus. He got back on the old track of complaining that the Government would not direct the Australian Wheat Board’ to disclose the price at which its wheat is sold. I inform the’ honourable senator that the Minister has a power of direction1. That, power has never been used. It could be used in a situation where the Government had h> direct the Board to conform with Government policy. The power of direction is a necessary requirement of the Government in order that, should it ever be necessary, it can protect the Treasury under the obligation of its loan guarantees. I remind Senator McManus and Senator Little that the Australian Wheat Board is a commercial selling organisation. It normally does not disclose details of or information about the terms and conditions of its sales. But if the honourable senators knew anything about wheat they would know that the daily asking, price of Australian f.a.q. wheat on a c.i.f. basis is available daily in London. That price is the basis on which all sales of Australian wheat are made.

Senator McManus:

– In other words, it is available in London and not available to this Parliament.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– lt is available in the Library too if you want to read the report of the Australian Wheat Board.

Senator McManus:

– Why have you refused to make it available? Why have I been receiving letters from the Wheat Board in which the Board refuses to tell us the price?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– If anyone wants to know anything about wheat all he has to do is get the c.i.f. price, trace it back to the f.o.b. price - I think Senator Little will agree with me on this - and then take into consideration the volume of the sale, the amount of wheat taken from a particular port and the time under which the contract is serviced. Let us suppose that Senator McManus andSenator Little walked into a car sales yard, asked the price of a car and, on being told the price, said to the salesman: ‘How much do you want if I take 10 cars?’ Surely to goodness in those circumstances they would expect to receive some little concession. That is how the Wheat Board operates. It has a c.i.f. price which is known daily to merchants throughout the world.

Senator Byrne:

– But is that the actual final selling price?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I will not tell you that.

Senator Byrne:

– The final selling price is on a contractual basis.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That may be so. I heard one honourable senator say that Canada disclosed the price at which it sells wheat to China. Canada has never disclosed the price at which it sells wheat to China. There probably have been a number of guesses which have been based on the c.i.f. price in London. I think I have replied to the amendment proposed by the Labor Party. The Government has given leadership to the wheat industry. It has cooperated at all times with the wheat industry in trying to meet the requirements of the industry and to put them into legislative form.

I turn now to the amendment proposed by Senator Little on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I think Senator Webster replied to a lot of the points raised in it. The Government has taken action through the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation to try to dampen down plantings of wheat. We all realise that a world surplus exists. Both the Government and the wheat industry are doing everything possible without imposing much heavier restrictions. I think Senator Webster replied adequately to the second point in the proposed amendment in relation to the provision of storage. As to the diversification of market outlets, I believe that the Australian Wheat Board is doing everything possible, in the situation which exists in regard to the supply of wheat, to try to find new markets.

We on the Government side do not accept either the amendment proposed by the Australian Labor Party or the amendment proposed by the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Little’s amendment to Senator McClelland’s proposed amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 27

NOES: 24

Majority…. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator McClelland’s amendment, as amended) be added.

The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Ayes.. . . . . 29

Noes . . . . . . 24

Majority.. . . 5

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

Bil! read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 488

COMPANY LAW REFORM

Ministerial Statement

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - Mr President, I present for the information of honourable senators the first, third and fourth interim reports of the Company Law Advisory Committee. I presented the second interim report of the Committee to the Senate on 21st May 1969. The Company Law Advisory Committee, more usually referred to as the Eggleston Committee, was appointed by the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State AttorneysGeneral in August 1967 ‘to inquire into and report on the extent of the protection afforded to the investing public by the existing provisions of the uniform Companies Acts and to recommend what additional provisions, if any, are reasonably necessary to increase that protection’. The Committee consists of Mr Justice Eggleston, as Chairman, Mr J. M. Rodd, a Melbourne solicitor and Mr P. C. E. Cox, a Sydney accountant.

I should perhaps briefly recount, for the benefit of honourable senators, that the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General initiated in the early 1960s the project of bringing the Companies Acts and Ordinances of the States and Territories of Australia into substantial uniformity. The project was a successful one, and the resulting legislation has been commonly referred to as the uniform Companies Acts. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has since kept under review the need for amendment of the uniform legislation, and the position at the time of the appointment of the Eggleston Committee was that certain amendments had been made, and a number of others were under consideration. Preliminary work had been done on the amendments that were under consideration, and this work was reflected in a draft General Revision Bill, to which reference is made in the Eggleston Committee’s interim reports. The Committee outlined, in paragraphs 54 and 55 and Appendix B of its first interim report, the topics that it considered were covered by its terms of reference. Its 4 interim reports cover a substantial proportion of those topics.

The first interim report, on the accounts and audit provisions of the uniform Companies Acts, was made in October 1968. The Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral decided not to release that report for the time being. This decision was influenced by the consideration that there was an extensive interrelation between the text of the report and the draft of the suggested General Revision Bill referred to above. Because of its character as a preliminary draft, the General Revision Bill was not thought to be a document fit for general publication. In view, therefore, of the fact that the Committee’s first interim report could not be followed without reference to the draft General Revision Bill, the view was taken that no useful purpose could be served by publishing that report until the time was ripe to publish the relevant provisions of the General Revision Bill. In the meantime, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General published a summary of the recommendations made in the Committee’s first interim report.

Legislation to implement to a substantial degree the recommendations contained in the first, second and third interim reports of the Eggleston Committee were yesterday introduced in the Victorian Parliament. It is therefore appropriate that I should now table for the information of honourable senators the first and third interim reports. I also table the fourth interim report, which relates to share and option dealings by directors and officers of companies. The relevant extracts from the General Revision Bill are printed as appendices to the reports. I table this statement and the reports to which I have referred.

Sitting suspended from 4.20 to 8 p.m.

page 489

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply: Presentation to the Governor-General

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator

Bull) - I inform the Sena.e that, accompanied by honourable senators, the President this day waited on the GovernorGeneral and presented to him the AddressinReply to the Speech of His Excellency on the occasion of the opening of the second session of the Twenty-seventh Parliament, which was agreed to on 12th March. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:

Mr President,

Thank you for your Address-in-Reply which you have just presented to me.

It will be my pleasure and my duty to convey to Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen at once the Message of Loyalty from the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to which the Address gives expression.

page 489

PAUL HASLUCK

Governor-General

General Business Taking Precedence of Government Business

page 489

SHARE TRADING IN PUBLIC COMPANIES

Appointment of Select Committee

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I move:

That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the desirability and feasibility of establishing a securities and exchange commission by the Commonwealth either alone or in co-operation with the States and the powers and functions necessary for such a commission to enable it to act speedily and efficiently against manipulation of prices, insider trading and such other improper or injurious practices as the Committee finds have occurred or may occur in relation to shares and other securities of public companies, and to recommend generally in regard to the foregoing such legislative and administrative measures by the Commonwealth as will, having regard to the constitutional division of legislative power in Australia, enable the utmost protection of members of the public and the national interest.

That the Committee consist of senators to be appointed by a subsequent resolution.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to meet and transact business notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such recommendations as it may deem fit.

That the Senate authorise the publication of all documents which may be laid before the Select Committee and of all evidence which may be given before it except such particular documents or evidence as the Committee determines should not be published.

That the Committee report to the Senate as soon as possible.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

The background of this motion is the greatest speculative boom in Australia’s history - one of the greatest in world history. In the background also are a series of company crashes during the sixties and recent evidence of improper practices, notorious and harmful to the interests of this nation.The public has been encouraged by government to channel savings and earnings into development by public companies. This is not the occasion to discuss whether this concentration on private development is the best way for Australia - or whether it . should be substantially by governments - directly, and indirectly by government leadership, encouragement and co-operation. I deal with this problem in the context of our present organisation of society, of industry, of commerce.

Australians have a passionate desire for development. They believe, and I with them, that we have tremendous resources in minerals, mostly unused, not even discovered. Governments will not, for the most part, undertake this discovery and development on behalf of the people. So Australians, if they wish to participate in this development, are forced to turn to the public companies to join in new notations, to buy into existing companies. They wish to invest in the future of Australia. They have faith in it, and they express that faith by exchanging their earnings and savings for snares. Exciting discoveries of minerals have induced enormous sums of money to flow into markets. The turnover in shares through the stock exchanges is now running at thousands of millions, that is, billions of dollars, per year. The old-world calm of the stock exchange has changed to the air of a casino. The boom recalls the South Sea Bubble and the events preceding the great Wall Street crash. Where so many enter unknown waters, there are many who do not know how to swim, and there are many sharks - not only single sharks, but schools of sharks.

In very recent times, some affairs have caused great public concern. I do not profess to prejudge but it is necessary to refer to some companies or persons to show that the laws are inadequate and that there is a good case for a securities and exchange commission along the United States lines, adapted to suit our own experience, our own conditions. In the Endurance affair a false market was created in the company shares. Members of the public were induced by false rumours to purchase shares at inflated values which could never be sustained by the company’s prospects. The shares early in 1969 were $10 and yesterday were 50c. Closely connected with that company were several persons, one of whom was also notorious in the Tasminex affair. As there is now a New South Wales Government investigation, I will not say further, except that the inquiry was announced long after the damage was done. The public will be left lamenting no matter what the findings. Turning now to the Tasminex affair-

Senator Rae:

– Does the honourable senator know that there is an inquiry there also?

Senator MURPHY:

– I do- not only 1 inquiry but 3 inquiries. The Senate will recall that during the recess I suggested publicly that a securities and exchange commission was necessary in Australia, I said:

Events on the share market in the past few months have shown the urgency for a securities and exchange commission. The present voluntary system of control operated by the exchanges is not enough. Most traders are legitimate and honest but there are many others whose activities can only be called bushranging. Stock exchange bushrangers have virtually an open slather at the moment. Millions of dollars have been lost with no redress. Respectable companies have been robbed. There are lots of little people putting their money into shares. They can win or lose but they should not be cheated. It is obvious the events of the past few months have shown there is opportunity for share manipulation and dishonesty in the conduct of companies unless there is supervision. spoke out because the day before, that is 29th January, the shares in Tasminex had risen to extraordinary heights, touching $90 in London, in the most peculiar circumstances. The fact is that for several months before then the dogs were barking in the streets that, as with Endurance, there was going to be a racket in Tasminex, a puffing up of the shares and then a collapse with the public bearing the brunt. It is impossible that informed circles in the exchanges did not suspect fraud. /

I sympathise with the reported views of a member of the Liberal Party, the Hon. Clyde Packer, MLC, who said that Tasminex shares should have been delisted some time before the report on Srd March which showed there was no justification for the price to which these shares soared to some time ago. He said the report dealt a shattering blow at the faith and confidence the people of New South Wales had in the administration of the Sydney Stock Exchange. He asked what was being done by the Government to prosecute the Tasminex directors. But the fact is that, whoever is responsible, some persons have had the opportunity to take tens of millions of dollars of public money and belatedly three governments have instituted an inquiry into Tasminex.

The statement by Mr Singline, the Chairman of Directors, that Mount Venn could be bigger and better than Poseidon and his reference to massive sulphides was calculated to inflame the speculative mania - it was like screaming fire in a public hall. The massive sulphides were not found according to the subsequent reports. It has been reported that heavy civil actions have been taken against Mr Singline. Even if such actions succeed the loss suffered can only be recouped to the extent of the defendant’s capacity to pay. Whatever may be Mr Singline’s position, one can easily imagine in other cases that a person who inflates share prices by foolish, incautious or deliberately dishonest statements, may be personally liable but not worth suing, though his friends, relatives and associates may have gained greatly from the sudden increase in prices.

The inflation of the shares due to Mr Singline’s statement against a background of rumours extending over several months, was exacerbated by some peculiar transactions on the London market: A purchasing order from Australia for a few hundred shares around the $90 mark the day after Mr Singline’s magic statement and subsequent selling orders from Australia. As a result tens of thousands of shares were sold at prices near the $40 mark. On 3rd March the directors officially let the public know what a lot of others seemed to know earlier - that the Mount Venn prospect in Western Australia had no commercial nickel prospects. Who sent that buying order which, coming from Australia, must have played a part sending the shares to those levels, extremely profitable to some persons. Who sent the 27th January selling order from Australia?

What were the transactions of the close associates of Mr Singline before and after the dramatic rise in prices? What were the transactions in Tasminex of those who were notoriously connected with Endurance? It is a case where the international market has been used and deceived because people overseas would assume there was some reasonable supervision over Australian share trading. This affair greatly injured the international credibility of Australian stock exchanges and this country’s reputation for commercial integrity. We must assume that the stock exchanges used all the powers at their disposal, all their facilities and resources, in connection with this affair. Yet whatever was done was completely ineffectual. The public was duped of millions. Yet no inquiry was announced until weeks later. The shares were never suspended from trading.

I now turn to Federated Industries, in receivership, which also poses grave questions about the extent of supervision by stock exchanges over public companies and the activities of directors. The company disclosed losses, write-offs and capitalisations totalling $6m in a preliminary report last November. On 27th January the Sydney Stock Exchange received advice from the directors that the receiver had no hope of rehabilitating the company. Shareholders were warned by letter that they faced serious losses’. One respected Sydney journal commented that the company had dressed up its statements to make the losses appear smaller than orthodox accountancy would permit’. The unsuspected collapse of this apparently thriving public company raised questions about the draining off of publicly subscribed money into subsidiaries. But on 12th February this year, one can see from Press reports that another public company, Pioneer Industries Ltd, stated it may have to provide against a possible loss of $340,000 arising from financial support for Federated Industries. Announcing this, the Chairman of Pioneer, Sir Grant Ferrier, admitted that although the whole amount is legally recoverable from Federated, Pioneer would suffer a loss if Federated were unable to pay unsecured liabilities in full. Yet Federated is obviously on its last gasp, according to the letter to shareholders and the Sydney Stock Exchange.

It seems unsatisfactory that large sums have been lent without liability being secured between companies in which the chairman of the first is a director of the second, and the chairman of the second is a director of the first. Such transactions between companies with interlocking directors should be subject to stringent supervision. The interests of one company are not always properly served by members with interests in other companies. Inquiries should be made into Federated Industries and its associates to ascertain whether the persistent rumours are correct - that the dollars have flowed to curious places. What did the exchanges do about Federated?

I should refer to the remarkable statement on 17th February by the chairman of the Sydney Exchange, Mr J. H. Cooper. He said that investors who lost money in speculative mining stocks were often the victims of their own ignorance and folly. He said the fairness of share markets depended on the ability of their participants to keep themselves informed of company situations. That is a strong argument for a securities and exchange commission because it is apparent that it is beyond the capacity of stock exchanges to keep the public informed. How are the shareholders or creditors expected to know the complex moves behind Tasminex or Federated Industries? Poseidon, the boom leader, differs in one respect from many of the exploration companies which have not found an ounce of worthwhile minerals. The justification of the speculative boom is that many people axe encouraged to invest their moneys, although they may mostly lose because the fond hopes of discoveries fail, yet on occasions they will succeed and then the investor - even the modest investing member of the public - will receive a reward justifying the risks and disappointments.

I wish to refer to a letter sent to me by a Dr Anderson of Perth, Western Australia. He wrote after he read reports of my complaints of bushranging in the share market. He had 4,200 shares in Poseidon which he had held for 2 years up to September 1969. I believe he acted prudently. He is not a foolish person as described by Mr Cooper, unless relying on the advice of stock brokers can be regarded as foolish. I will not read it all but I will deal with the material parts. He referred to my remarks about the necessity for improving the present state of affairs relating to share transactions and ensuring fairer deals for the public. He wrote:

I would like to draw your attention to my own experiences over the last six months.

In September of 1969 I held 4,200 shares in Poseidon N.L. I had owned these shares for two years.

During the week commencing Sept. 19th I noticed there was considerable interest being shown in these shares on the exchange and rang my broker for information but he was unable to furnish any reason for this activity. Two days later a report was published by the directors of the company categorically denying any knowledge of information as to why their shares were creating interest. I again rang my stockbroker and the next day another broker. Both recited the directors statements to me and advised that in view of this report it would be wise to sell my holding, which I did on Sept. 26th for $1.50. What happened subsequently is past history.

Since that date I have made various enquiries and have ascertained the following -

On the admission of the chairman of the Perth Stock Exchange the consulting geologists of Poseidon, Burrill & Associates, sought permission some time in July or August from the directors of Poseidon to buy up shares of their company. This permission was granted, and these geologists, in the guise of several investing groups purchased a minimum of 26,000 Poseidon shares during the three months prior to the directors statement on Sept. 23rd.

Many stories have been published in the press (and at least a percentage cf these must have a true basis) of people who were in some way associated with the directors of Poseidon, thegeologists or with people ‘in the know’ and, well before the directors’ statement, were urged to buy up Poseidon shares.

When the statements were issued on Sept. 23rd the stock exchange made no attempt to seek further clarification or substantiation of this denial.

My complaint is that as a direct result of these reports I sold my Poseidon shares on the eve of the company’s success while people ‘in the know’ or in the confidence of the directors were able to capitalise on this lack of published information and make considerable profits. I consider the statements were inaccurate and untruthful and that, while true assay figures may not have been available to the directors, information and evidence of a probable rich nickel find was known but that this information was suppressed and not given to the shareholders. Information which has now come to light of preceding and subsequent events, to my mind, suggest that the statements were in no way whatsoever compatible with the directors’ knowledge at that time.

At no time during the months of August or September was I told that the geologists thought so much of the area that they were moved to seek permission from the directors of Poseidon to go ahead and buy up shares in the company - that this permission was granted and they were buying as many shares as they were able to lay their hands on. This latter fact must unquestionably have been known by the directors and as, in the capacity of a shareholder, I was employing the geologists I consider I had a perfect right to have been informed of the fact.

I feel, no doubt like many others, that I was taken for a ride’ - both by the directors not having kept their shareholders accurately and honestly informed at all times and by the stock exchange, who, having requested a report from the company, did not act further to protect the public and put a curb on further trading of the shares when no factual report was made available. If the stock exchange is not willing to supervise companies’ activities in relation to what is happening to their shares on the exchange, to whom can the public turn for assistance and protection. Your use of the word ‘bushranging’ could not be more apt.

Over recent months . 1 have spoken to three stockbrokers regarding my experiences, written and spoken to the chairman of the Perth Sl.ck Exchange, written to the chairman of the Adelaide Exchange and have consulted a solicitor. The stockbrokers agree with me that undoubtedly there has been a lot of skull-duggery regarding the affairs of Poseidon. They do not know if I have grounds for legal action but unanimously say it is about time ‘some one raised their voice’. The chairman of the Perth Exchange refuses to say very much because on his own admission he is ‘personally involved’ in the Poseidon affair. He is involved to some extent in as much as his wife is a substantial share holder of one of BurrilPs investment groups, so it is little wonder that there is no help forthcoming from that direction. My solicitor is still looking into the matter and has not yet furnished a reply but says he is not optimistic.

I don’t imagine I shall ever be able to do anything in this matter as a personal action against the directors of Poseidon would be very dangerous and costly - but I feel incensed that no one raises their voice against this apparent lack of justice and that such actions which I regard as blatantly criminal are permitted to continue - actions where directors can get away with dishonest statements to the detriment of their shareholders while they themselves are feathering their own nests to the tune of millions of dollars.

He then asked for some advice on the matter. I have another letter which repeats some of the allegations raised by Dr Anderson. In a moment I shall seek leave to incorporate that second letter in Hansard. I have a reply from the President of the Stock Exchange of Adelaide to Dr Anderson. The letter refers to the stock exchanges doing all they can in these matters. In effect, it says that the stock exchanges have acted quite properly. I have a letter from Mr Hynam the Chairman of the Stock Exchange.

Senator Anderson:

– Of what State?

Senator MURPHY:

– Of Perth. He wrote to a representative of Dr Anderson. The letter deals with certain preliminary matters. Mr Hynam advised Dr Anderson to take up the matter with his own personal share broker. In his letter, he said:

The home exchange for Poseidon is Adelaide, and any complaints should be addressed to them.

I expressed the view that from my knowledge of the facts I was satisfied that the directors and consulting geologists had acted most honourably.

I stated that this was a highly speculative share and that when the magnetic anomaly was mentioned in the Sydney Statistical Service, from memory in April of last year, was the time when this company was bought to the notice of the public generally.

I pointed out that as Adelaide was the home exchange this matter had not been discussed by the Committee and we were not therefore in a position to express our views.

I pointed out that the Consulting Geologists sought permission from the Managing Director of the company, which was freely granted, before any purchases of shares were made in this company.

That seems to confirm what Dr Anderson said about the geologists purchasing shares. The letter continues:

I further expressed my personal view that your client has misinterpreted the Director’s statement, which I have reason to believe was being made by pressure being brought to bear by Sydney and/or Melbourne Stock Exchange, and at that point of time no information was available. The Directors therefore very reluctantly made a noncommittal statement which I have been informed was completely factual at that time.

I further pointed out that many brokers in Australia who had studied the geology of the Windarra area, had made substantial purchases of shares in Poseidon from April onwards, purely on a speculative basis.

I repeat that:

I further pointed out that many brokers in Australia who had studied the geology of the Windarra area, had made substantial purchases of shares in Poseidon from April onwards, purely on a speculative basis.

Finally, I emphasised that in my view Dr Anderson had misinterpreted the report.

With the concurrence of honourable senators 1 incorporate in Hansard the following letters: A letter from Dr Anderson to me, dated 2nd March 1970; a letter from the Chairman of the Stock Exchange of Perth to Dr Anderson, dated 23rd January 1970; another from the Chairman of the Stock Exchange of Perth to Messrs T. E. and G. Eyres, dated 21st January 1970; a letter from Dr Anderson to me dated 9th February 1970; a letter from Mr McArthur to Dr Anderson, undated. 43a View St.,

Peppermint Grove,

Western Australia

2/3/70.

Senator Lionel Murphy Q.C., c/o the Senate,

Canberra

Dear Sir,

Following my conversation with your office this a.m. I enclose copies of two letters. You may remember that I originally wrote to the chairman of the Perth Stock Exchange in November of last year and again in December when I did not receive acknowledgement of my first one. The chairman then rang me to answer my queries. I later wrote to my broker complaining of the lack of interest being shown and he in turn wrote to the Stock Exchange committee voicing his disapproval of my treatment. One of these letters (the copies of which I enclose) is from the chairman of the exchange, Mr Hynam, to my broker, Mr Gordon Eyres, in response to his letter. The other is a copy of the letter I eventually received from Mr Hynam, again in response to Mr Eyres’ letter to the committee.

You will notice in one of these letters Mr Hynam’s statement referring to the seeking of permission by Poseidon’s consulting geologists to buy shares in their company.

As regards Mr Hynam’s statement that he was personally involved, this was only said to me on the phone and not in any of his letters. As Mr Hynam’s wife is known to be a substantial shareholder in one of Mr Burrill’s investment groups which has large holdings in Poseidon, I take it that this is to what he refers - however, I do know that Mr Hynam did possess some Poseidon shares himself at one stage - whether he still holds them and the exact number involved I do not know.

I trust this information will be of some assistance to you and hope to hear from you in due course.

Yours faithfully,

  1. K. ANDERSON

page 494

COPY

The Stock Exchange of Perth, 23rd January, 1970

page 494

GIH/JR

Dr M. K. Anderson, 43a View St.,

page 494

PEPPERMINT GROVE

Dear Dr Anderson, re: POSEIDON (NO LIABILITY)

At the request of Mr Gordon Eyres, I am formally acknowledging your letters of 23/11/69 and 7/12/69; however, I would like to point out that having drafted a reply, with which I was not satisfied, I rang you - from memory on Monday 8th or Tuesday 9th December - and was firmly under the impression that I had explained the situation to your satisfaction.

Nevertheless, as Mr Eyres rightly pointed out, you are entitled to the courtesy of a written reply.

In response to Mr Eyres’ letter of Jan. 19th, I have forwarded to him a complete reply in terms of my letter of Jan. 21st, and have suggested that he discuss this matter with you, as your broker.

May I re-iterate my ‘phone conversation inter alia that as Adelaide is the home exchange, all queries should be addressed to the Secretary, Mr Frank Wray. In an endeavour to assist you. I have contacted Mr Wray with a request that he set out in chronological detail the events that led up to a sharp market rise towards the end of September, and hope to be able to forward this to you or Mr Eyres in due course.

Let us assure you the Perth Exchange is vitally interested in ensuring that all shareholders in listed companies are treated honestly and given a fair go, to use your own words, and it has always been the policy of our Exchange with regard to companies for which we are in fact the home Exchange.

Please accept my apologies if, as Mr Eyres states, you feel you have been slighted; this was never intended.

page 494

G. I. HYNAM,

Chairman

page 494

COPY

The Stock Exchange of Perth, 21st January, 197a

Messrs. T. E. & G. Eyres, 69 St George’s Tee.,

page 494

PERTH, W.A, 6000

Dear Sir. re: M. K. Anderson - Poseidon

Your letters of 15th and 19th of January 1970 were considered by your committee at its meeting held yesterday 20th Jan. and I have been requested to reply to you as follows.

As Chairman, I am very concerned at your letter of 19th Jan. regarding the above.

Dr Anderson did indeed write to me personally on 23rd Nov. and 7th Dec. last, and a draft reply was prepared which quite frankly did not seem to fit the enquiry. I therefore took it upon myself to phone Dr Anderson on the 8th or 9th of Dec, and to the best of my knowledge explain that he should -

I was not aware until Friday last when your Mr Gordon Eyres ‘phoned me, nor was I informed by Dr Anderson that he was a client of your office.

I repeat, and I firmly believe, that this is a matter for your client to take up with the Adelaide Exchange.

Yours faithfully.

page 494

QUESTION

G. I. HYNAM

Chairman

Dr Max K. Anderson

Dr T. C. Ryan

Dr D. Butcher

Dr J. M. Angeioni 420 Canning Highway, Attadale,

W.A. 6156

Telephone 30 2338 43a View St.,

Peppermint Grove,

Western Australia

9/2/70.

Senator Lionel Murphy Q.C., c/o the Senate.

Canberra.

Dear Sir,

I am writing primarily to thank you for having rung me so promptly on receipt of my letter of Feb. 1st, and for the interest you displayed in my case - and also to confirm what 1 told you on the phone, that you had my full permission to use my letter in your discussion with your colleagues.

Since our conversation I have received a letter from the chairman of the S.A. Stock Exchange. I think i told you I had written to him several days prior to writing to you. I enclose a copy of his letter which you will see completely side steps the main point 1 tried to make and on which I invited his comments, viz. that I consider recent events have shown the directors of Poseidon must have had more knowledge of the Windarra field than they disclosed in their statement of late September and that these statements were therefore false and completely misleading to the shareholders.

I look forward to hearing from you in the future, of any further comments you might like to make, and, in particular, of any thoughts you might have which could assist me to establish a sound case for litigation against the directors of Poseidon.

Yours faithfully,

  1. K. ANDERSON

Phone 3 4689

Dr M. K. Anderson, 43a View St.,

Peppermint Grove,

W.A. 6001.

The Stock Exchange of Adelaide Ltd, 55 Exchange Place,

Adelaide, S.A. 5001.

Dear Dr Anderson,

I have received your letter of 29th January, 1970 re Poseidon NX. shares, and offer the following comments.

The Stock Exchange has two main functions in relation to the thoughts of your letter, viz. the conduction of a well-organised market place and seeing that the investing public has sufficient information available to avoid the establishment of a false market

The latter has effect in two ways. First, listed companies have an obligation themselves, via the directors, to supply such information, and second, the Exchange has the right to ask the Directors for any information they are aware of that would avoid a false market. This frequently happens and did happen in Poseidon’s case during Sept. last year.

However, it is quite possible that the directors could quite easily and unwittingly create a false market by reporting some development which may appear to be very favourable to shareholders at that stage, but subsequently proves to be of little consequence. If this happens, directors may be accused of presenting an optimistic picture to shareholders for their own benefit and to the detriment of the shareholders. It could very well be difficult to decide whether or not to release certain information at a critical time, but 1 am sure you will agree that a conservative view is much better.

Dealing with your specific questions, 1 unhestatingly say that it is not for me to say whether or not statements were made were a tme indication of the knowledge directors possessed. When asked for a report the directors offered comments and these were accepted by the Exchange as all that was necessary at that time and this placed an obligation on the directors’ shoulders.

It is easy to look back now and suggest what could have been done. As individuals we may all have different ideas looking back, but the decisions at that time are the important ones. Those buying shares at that time took a risk that their interest in them was justified.

Yours faithfully,

DON I. McARTHUR

President

Dr Anderson has suffered. Who is responsible ; the directors or the brokers from whom he sought advice about the disposal of his Poseidon shares? Or is he to blame for acting on advice, or is it just bad luck? Dr Anderson’s complaint is of a case of insider trading, where the directors, the geologists - Burrill & Associates - used knowledge not available to the ordinary investor to buy up shares before the discovery was made public. As for Mr Hynam, if he knew enough of Poseidon’s prospects to become ‘personally involved’, then the fact that Adelaide is Poseidon’s home exchange seems little excuse for the Perth exchange not to have acted much more promptly in seeking to protect investors. It does not seem that the self regulation of the Perth Stock Exchange did much to protect Dr Anderson. We have to accept that they did their best, but their best is not good enough.

One aspect of Mr Hynam’s letter calls for some comment. He says that many brokers in Australia who had studied the geology of the Windarra area had made substantial purchases of shares in Poseidon from April onwards, purely on a speculative basis. From the reports, Mr Shierlaw, Chief Executive of Poseidon, is a shareholder and director and he is also a sharebroker on the Adelaide Stock Exchange. He and his Board have been involved in the allotment of great parcels of shares to other companies which have aroused some indignation and also some pending litigation. It is generally accepted that many brokers on most exchanges in Australia also act as traders.

The slock exchanges seem to regard this widespread practice benevolently. That benevolent view was not shared by Mr Justice Street in the Equity Court in 1968 when he rejected the application of a stockbroker, Mr Hewson. Mr Justice Street stated:

Both Mr Hewson and the Stock Exchange have, throughout the events leading up to his litigation and throughout the litigation itself, proceeded on the basis that there is no impropriety in a sharebroker carrying on also a business as a share trader. This cannot be permitted to pass without critical comment. The primary function of a stockbroker is to advise clients and to act on their behalf in the purchase and sale of shares. He occupies a position which imposes on him important obligations towards his client. This is recognised by the stock exchange itself, within whose articles and by-laws are provisions directed towards requiring proper standards of integrity to be observed by brokers. A fundamental principle of commercial morality will be gravely compromised if brokers are permitted to enter the market and to trade not for their clients but in competition with them. The words of Lord Cairns, L.C., in Parker v. McKenna (1874), L.R. 10 Ch. App. 96, at p. 118, are as true today as they were when His Lordship wrote them in 1874: “Now, the rule of this Court as 1 understand it, as to agents, is not a technical or arbitrary rule. It is a rule founded upon the highest and truest principles of morality. No man can in this Court, acting as an agent, be allowed to put himself into a position in which his interest and his duty will be in conflict,’ There is no reasonable objection to a sharebroker investing his personal funds, provided that he ensures that he docs not thereby prejudice his clients in any way. But the involvement of a broker in either a short or a long position in a particular stock, resulting from a course of business in which he buys or sells that stock of his own account, will give him a personal interest in the fluctuations of the market. There is thereby introduced an element of direct personal conflict with his duty to advise and act for his clients uninfluenced by collateral- considerations arising from his own position as a trader. The distinction between a mere investment of personal funds and the carrying on of a business of such magnitude as to render a sharebroker a share trader is perhaps in a sense one of degree. But once the degree is reached where a broker’s private transactions become of frequent occurrence or constitute a significant part of the purchases and sales negotiated by him then he is exceeding the limit placed on him by principles of commercial morality. A broker is precluded by the very nature of his position in this community from participating in what is commonly called ‘playing the market”. He is entitled to an honourable earned remuneration for brokerage from acting for such members of the public as become his clients by seeking his professional advice and services. Brokers who seek to enrich themselves by trading with the public thereby discredit themselves and their calling. They must realise and accept this limitation inherent in their position as brokers. And the stock exchange, if it is to justify ils position as a protector of the public interest, must be astute to enforce it.

It must be stated in no uncertain terms that this Court will not for one moment countenance disregard by brokers of the precept enunciated by Lord Cairns, a precept fundamental to fair and honourable conduct. Nor, it is to be hoped, will the committee of the stock exchange itself allow its members to infringe this principle.

If Mi- Justice Street, Lord Cairns and many of the other great jurists are correct on this point, and if it is true, as is widely suggested, that the stockbrokers have become principals on a grand scale it is clear that there must be supervision by some external body. The Senate select committee F propose could examine this conflict between judicial opinion and what is apparently the widespread practice of the stock exchanges. It is not in anyone’s interest that conduct which is described as offending against the fundamental principles of commercial morality should continue to be left to self regulation without inquiry as to whether it needs supervision.

One of the defects of the existing legislation is the absence of licensing of brokers. This will continue in all States except New South Wales because the proposals of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General do not provide for licensing of brokers. New South Wales has deferred to the expressions of outrage by initiating legislation for licensing of brokers, but not the other Slates. Recent developments indicate that the licensing should extend to brokers’ employees. At the moment allegations from reliable sources claim they can form, and some have formed, dummy front companies in which false markets have been created. Syndicates have been formed to buy big parcels of shares. When this pressure causes the share price to rise they sell them to the clients dealing with their own brokers as a good buy. This may cause the market to go a little higher. The clients think they have been given good advice, and after the syndicate has sold at or near the top the prices drop and drop and drop. In the state of our unsupervised markets it is easy for someone with a substantial prospect to suggest a sale to or takeover by a company so as to cause the shares in that company to jump. Then the negotiations fall through because they were never intended to be consummated. The public, which has been excited into purchasing the shares, goes flat when the price drops.

The Press reported on the activities of Mr Turner of South Australia, who is said to have offered some of his nickel leases in Western Australia to a small company, United Motels Ltd of Sydney. Publicity was given to the fact that he was flying to Sydney for the negotiations. The newspapers were telephoned from South Australia. A week before these events the shares were about 16c. After these well publicised actions the shares went to 55c on a turnover of 59,800 shares. The negotiations between Mr Turner and United broke down very quickly. The news of the failed negotiations reached the stock exchange after the close of trading. In the United States, in fairness to everyone, the SEC would be looking into such an event as a matter of course. But in Australia little happens except Press publicity. Of course, it may have been entirely honest or it may have been a scheme to extract money from the unprotected public. There should be a body to oversee such affairs. Whatever occurred in that case there is no doubt that manipulation can occur by such means and a variety of other well tried and proven methods of market rigging. Who thinks that these practices are not taking place in Australia during this wave of speculation?

Another company which should be investigated is Palgrave Corporation Ltd. Five months after forming Associated Gem Corporation Ltd with a paid up capital of $10,000, Messrs Barton, Barton and Bovill sold it to a public company they themselves controlled for a consideration of $250,000 in shares. This company was Palgrave Corporation Ltd, which issued a prospectus for a public float in January. This has been justified on the basis that Associated Gem Corporation had an asset - a huge opal split down the middle - which was claimed to be worth much more than the $250,000 which the purchase of Associated Gem cost Palgrave. As a Sydney financial writer observed, the picture of this opal on the cover of the glossy Palgrave prospectus made it look ‘as big as the Ritz’. Messrs Barton, Barton and Bovill said in this prospectus that an independent valuation stated the opal was worth Sim, but no documentation of the independent valuation was given. An SEC administering full disclosure laws would no doubt insist that much more information should be disclosed.

Then there are very many examples of what appear to be grossly excessive promotion fees in respect of companies which result in very large sums of money being obtained from the public but the companies come to nothing. Nobody can say whether the payments are justified except an investigating body. The reality is - and those who indulge in public companies know it - that the stock exchanges are not going to spend money investigating in depth the conduct of companies. A government investigation is a rarity and those who have suffered the loss cannot afford to throw good money after bad. What is necessary is a supervisory body which will in a practical business way keep in touch with what is going on, investigate informally as well as formally and, if required, apply corrective measures before the damage is done.

There has been a Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States since 1934. It was established by President Roosevelt under an Act of 1934. The members of the first Commission were distinguished by their common sense and businesslike approach. The Chairman was Mr Joseph Kennedy, whose son became President of the United States. That Commission has proved an outstanding success. Its functions are to guard at all times the interests of the public. In its own words it has the responsibility ‘to curb misrepresentations and deceit, market manipulation and other fraudulent acts and practices and to maintain just and equitable principles of trade conducive to the maintenance of open, fair and orderly markets’. Another responsibility is to ‘conduct inquiries into market fluctuations in particular stocks which appear not to be the result of known developments affecting the issuing company or of general market trends’.

I believe such a body operating in Australia in the past few years would have had its hands full. The American SEC has other powers which a similar body in this country would find necessary, such as the issue of subpoenas and the right to make surprise inspections of the books and records of brokers and dealers to determine whether their practices conform to the prescribed rules. The Commission’s investigations are conducted privately through informal inquiry as well as interrogation of witnesses, examination of books, records, registries and other documents. These powers are all relevant to proper control of the share market in this country.

Another important section of the legislation introduced by Roosevelt embodies the principle of disclosure for all new issues floated on the market. The legislation requires that a company or person offering securities for public sale must register them by filing a statement with the SEC. The information given allows the prospective investor a chance to assess potential profits and risks involved in the shares. These disclosure requirements are much more demanding than those required under Australian or British law. Moreover, the statements are analysed by experts in economics, securities law, geology, and market analysis. This means much more detailed information is required than is the case in Australia and incorrect information, half truths or exaggeration of a company’s prospects are more likely to be uncovered. Civil cases brought against company directors under these conditions usually have been settled out of court when the plaintiff is backed by the investigatory powers of the Commission. These powers to investigate also continue after the shares have been issued giving the investors continuing protection. However, the final matter of judgment is still left to the purchaser and the Commission does not comment about the merits - merely that the information must be correct. This kind of supervision here would eliminate many of the shady operators who publish prospectuses which arc works of art sardonically referred to by some market experts as swindles in pictures.

The United States Securities Act of 1934 extended the full disclosure doctrine to outlaw manipulations on and off the exchanges. Anyone taking part in a pool - a group of operators formed to bump up the price artificially and then dump the shares on unsuspecting investors - would be committing an offence. Trading by insiders - officers, directors or owners of 10% or better of a company’s shares - is subject to strict scrutiny and control by the Commission. Under the American legislation all brokers and dealers must be registered with the Commission with powers of revocation in cases of misconduct. In Australia, many current malpractices are no doubt disguised by the sheer volume of business of the exchanges during the boom of the past 6 months. Enough new mining scrip has been issued in the past 12 months to give every Australian about 100 shares each. In the past year more than 100 new companies seeking public support have raised over $134m. Established and new mining and oil exploration companies raised $2 19m on the Sydney exchange alone in 1969 compared with only $78m in 1968.

In America a similar position arose in 1968 with over 15 million shares changing hands daily. The chaos was settled only when the Commission stepped in and closed each exchange one day per week for 7 months. I am told that the same log jam exists in the broking firms of Australia with many investors still waiting for scrip they bought 6 months ago. Some broking firms in Sydney are alleged to be making clerical mistakes deliberately to fob off the clients’ demands for scrip. Exchange sources have told me that only 5% of the people were asking for scrip during the height of the boom and a great number of transactions took place purely within the books in the brokers’ offices. There is an acute shortage of scrip in Poseidon and a dangerous situation could be building up there. There is such widespread confusion caused by this volume of trading that opportunities for dishonest practices abound. A commission could have stepped in months ago. The American Commission operates efficiently and economically. The United States Budget for the fiscal year 1970 discloses that the cost of the federal Commission, even including some additional activities, was only about $20m.

Senator MURPHY:

– $20m. If one translates this into Australian terms of salaries and lower population it would be reasonable to suppose that a similar commission would be able to operate here, even on the most expansive estimates at, say, $2m or $3m. The Minister interrupts me to ask: ‘How much?’ The figure which 1 gave of $20m was taken from the United States Budget, a copy of which I have here and will make available to him. The amount of $2m or $3m which I gave as the cost of a commission in Australia is small when measured against the turnover in shares which is some thousands of millions of dollars in Australia. It would be covered many times over by the avoidable losses suffered by the public in crashes such as H. G. Palmer’s $17m, and more so by the enormous amounts milked from the public in not so spectacular or uncovered deals.

In January I made this call for a securities and exchange commission. At that time the public was virtually unprotected. I do not claim the copyright on this suggestion. Many eminent Australians have suggested it. These include members of the various parties - those in high positions in commerce as well as members of the public. The list would be long. In Australia the laws do not sufficiently protect the investing public. They are aimed rather at prosecuting offenders. In practice this means that prosecutions are launched sometimes after lengthy investigations. Because the investigations are costly, the State governments seem reluctant to institute them except where it would be politically unwise not to do so. This is not said in an unduly critical way because, after all, the public has lost its money and the governments may think it better to spend money on education or health rather than discovering how the public’s money was lost in some company or on the stock exchange.

The projected State legislation is not adequate. As I have said before it is a welcome step in the right direction. But how can 6 State governments, each with administrative bodies, cope with operations which are literally ringing the changes in 6 State capitals. Whatever the powers of a supervisory body there should be 1 body and not 6 or 7. In my opinion, even with the present limited scope of the companies legislation, there should be established 1 body either under Commonwealth law if this is constitutional or by co-operation of Commonwealth and States, which is certainly constitutional.

It is noteworthy that in its proposal for a companies commission the Eggleston Committee proposed that a single body was essential and should be constituted. It said that this body should receive authority from each of the companies acts and ordinances to grant certain relief from and to alter certain legislative requirements on accounts and audits. That report also stated:

One very important advantage which will flow from the establishment of a companies commission is that there will exist for the first time in this country a permanent and responsible organisation, which will develop a fund of knowledge on the practical operation of the legislation, and be in a position to give prompt and authoritative advice to governments as to desirable amendments in the future.

The cumulative experience of an authoritative body which is regularly dealing with problems arising under the legislation will be of very material assistance in the essential task of continual review of the statutory requirements.

In my view those comments apply with even more force to a securities and exchange commission, [f they have the will to do it, it can be done by the 7 legislatures taking co-ordinate action. I will not trouble the Senate with the constitutional methods which will no doubt be considered by the committee.

The other need is that such a body should be primarily preventive. It should have wide discretionary powers which can be used to prevent improper practices as well as to ensure that they are punished. Prevention is better than punishment. In my view a commission should approach its task in a practical way, creating an organisation to act speedily and efficiently to prevent abuses, but avoiding undue interference with the operation of markets. The existing and projected State legislation still largely leave the supervision of public share trading to the stock exchanges. Experience has shown that the committees of stock exchanges cannot successfully regulate the activities conducted through the exchanges under the conditions which now exist. In my view they are not to be criticised for their failure. They fail because they do not have the facilities or resources, nor is it their function, lt should not be their responsibility to supervise closely share trading and to detect and correct improper practices. Their role in the existing state of affairs should be to operate the stock exchanges, not be the law enforcement officers. It is not their function to detect and deter, and to instigate proceedings for assaults on the public purse.

Why should stock exchanges have the onerous task of guardians simply because the share market is used as the instrument? The solution is that we need in Australia the protection which comes from a securities and exchange commission. The State laws do not go far enough because most of them fail to license brokers and, of course, they do not go far enough in many other directions. I have referred to this when speaking of the provisions which operate in the United States but do not operate here. This shows how weak the protective mechanism will be. Now that improper practices extend across the States and have international tentacles, the establishment of a commission by the Commonwealth either alone or by the States is essential. I have no doubt that so long as this is postponed the public will continue to suffer. Frauds will occur which could be avoided if a commission were operating. Those who want the public to invest in Australia’s future by investing in public companies must recognise the disillusionment of those who have been cheated of their earnings and savings because of the absence of reasonable protection which the law should provide.

The proposal here is for the committee to investigate and report upon whether such a commission is feasible and whether it is desirable and, if so, what powers it should have to act speedily and efficiently. In any event, the committee will be asked to report generally on what measures should be taken for the protection of members of the public and the nation. During any period of speculative mania there is great instability of the share market. In my view the operation of the tax laws has introduced an element of instability where prices which have risen are held artifically at high levels because the shareholders cannot afford to sell for fear of the taxation which may have to be paid. Despite the helpful efforts of the Commissioner in endeavouring to clarify the law, it is obvious that there is great uncertainty as to the incidence of taxation on sale of shares. It is all or nothing - either full income tax or no tax at all - and it is a subjective test which is quite undesirable. lt may well be that this should be replaced by definite rules that any profits are taxable if the shares are held less than a certain period. Another solution may be to impose a turnover tax of, say, 1%. With billions of dollars being traded such a tax would reap considerable revenue. It would be as painless as a tax could be, and have the great virtue of certainty. It therefore would remove this factor which now introduces great instability into the share market. In this connection the remarks of Mr J. K. Galbraith on 29th October 1969, the fortieth anniversary of the Wall Street crash, should be remembered. He said:

The stockmarket is inherently unstable, the instability being related to ils superbly orchestrated ability to attract people with a promise of effortless riches, and later destroy these allusions in one mortal thud.

The committee will consider the constitutional and legislative powers of the Commonwealth. The powers in point here are primarily those over foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; and trade and commerce with other countries and among the States, as well as other powers over banking, insurance, taxation and incidental matters, lt will consider also ways in which Commonwealth and State co-operation can be achieved. As it stands, the motion will enable the committee to investigate and report upon the methods of obtaining full, frank and prompt disclosure by directors of the matters which affect the value of listed shares.

In order to carry out this task the committee will need to inquire into the conduct of share trading and the operation of stock exchanges. I hope that if the Senate does agree to this motion the committee will be able to recommend laws which will provide protection for the investing public and ensure the integrity of Australia’s commercial reputation. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

(.8.51] - The motion which Senator Murphy has submitted to us recommends that we set up a committee of inquiry of the Senate. In my view it would be improper for us to advocate tonight any case based upon conclusions, especially conclusions of malpractice. 1 approach the proposition saying, for the purpose of this argument tonight, that the extent of malpractice in the share and stock market is not known to me; but 1 would be not a worldling of this world if 1 did not know that in any market there is some degree of malpractice, that is to say, failure to disclose, abuse of position and sometimes actually misstatement.

It is wholly distasteful to rae to hear in support of a proposition for a Senate select committee arguments based upon ex parte statements against people outside this House who have never had the opportunity to answer those statements and, so far as I know, the honourable senator putting forward the accusations not having engaged in a complete examination of the whole facts of any one of them. I entirely repudiate any such basis as one of propriety for being persuaded to establish a Senate committee. I emphasise that because I have been regarded, I hope, as an advocate of the usefulness of Senate committees, but they will retain their prestige and usefulness only if they begin, maintain and end on a basis of their own integrity. To found a case upon ex parte allegations of wrongdoing is, to my way of thinking, wanting in the integrity of argument that should begin an inquiry of this kind which presupposes that the committee will be completely without interest, completely bona fide and completely unprejudiced in the examination of any particular matter or objective principle.

I sought some information this afternoon to apprise my mind of the degree to which the stock market is occupying importance in the country. In the Sydney market, I am told, turnover in 1964 was represented by $265m and in 1969 by $1,51 lm. In the Melbourne market the turnover in 1964 totalled $304m whereas in 1969 it totalled $823m. So it is now occupying an area of the public interest where a great many people and a great dimension of interest are involved. The point of view that I have the opportunity to put on behalf of the Government is that, where there is any concern or disquiet with regard to an area of trade as large as that, if there is any real possibility of adopting procedures to ensure true and complete statement of fact in regard to transactions of this nature it is appropriate for the Senate to accept its responsibility as part of the Parliament and to make an inquiry into whether the situation requires remedy.

Having said that by way of preliminary, the next thing I want to say is that the remedy proposed by Senator Murphy is similar to that contained in the American Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 under which was constituted the American Securities and Exchange Commission. That legislation followed the Securities Aci of 1933. In the ensuing year there was the crash of Wall Street, as the honourable senator has said. The legislation was designed to provide investors with adequate information concerning securities offered for public subscription, in the first place, and, in the second place, to prohibit undesirable practices in connection with the sale of such securities. The way in which that legislation provided those safeguards was that before securities could be offered for public sale a statement setting forth the prescribed information had to be filed with the Commission. At the expiration of the period set down by the statute the statement became effective. That period provided an opportunity for the Commission to investigate the truthfulness of the statements in the prospectus, as we would call it. If an occasion arose which warranted such action, the Commission could issue stop orders preventing sale of the securities until the statement had been amended.

As 1 have said, the Commission had wide powers of investigation for the purpose of determining whether any breach of the Securities Act had been or was about to be committed. It had power to refer, in appropriate cases, transactions for examination by the Department of Justice. That Act was designed to provide safeguards for the issue of new securities. The Securities and Exchange Act 1934 set up the Securities and Exchange Commission for the purpose of making provision with regard to trading in securities which then existed. Its purpose was to afford a measure of disclosure to the people who were buying and selling, to prevent fraud and market manipulation and to regulate the conduct of the market. In addition, the American legislation required that stock exchanges should be registered and that brokers and dealers conducting over-the-counter markets should also be registered.

The Commission had power to alter or supplement the rules of registered stock exchanges. Those who issued listed securities were required to file with the exchanges concerned, and also with the Commission, annual reports. There was a liability for filing false documents. The Commission was empowered to issue orders expelling or suspending persons from membership of the exchanges, and to cancel registrations.

If a state of affairs existed which was appropriate to such legislation I would expect that the Senate select committee would come forward with positive recommendations. But we have to remember that these matters are being considered tonight only insofar as they are relevant to inducing us to enter upon an inquiry. I, for my part, would wish to be particularly cautious about indicating any conclusions as to the appropriateness of that legislation at the present time. 1 would be paying little respect to the judgment of the committee that I hope the Senate will set up if, on the consideration I have been able to give to the matter, I attempted to offer conclusions. It would seem to imply that an investigation, which 1 hope the committee will undertake and which will involve many months, would be somewhat futile if 1 were able to offer conclusions as to the acceptance of that legislation as being applicable to our country.

It is relevant for us to remind ourselves, so that this committee will have a proper basis on which to begin when we transfer our attention from the American scene to the Australian scene, that the State Attorneys-General and the Commonwealth Attorney-General commenced to engage themselves upon the whole question of the propriety of companies transactions both on the original issuance and with regard to trading as far back as 1967. As we know, they have reached a stage where uniform companies legislation has been adopted and in many respects - material respects - strengthened insofar as it provides safeguards, particularly in relation to the provisions of prospectuses, investigation, accounts, audits and matters of that sort.

In order to have the historical and developmental story of this matter before us, let us remind ourselves that in the Australian scene the Company Law Advisory Committee presided over by His Honour Mr Justice Eggleston, whose experience in this field is very special, issued a report in October 1968. One of the Committee’s proposals was that a companies commission should be established. One of the essential elements of that commission was that it was a unified single body for Australia. But it had a different direction of work from the functions operated by the Securities and Exchange Commission of

America which Senator Murphy wishes us to take as our precedent for the objective of the Senate select committee.

From this idea of Mr Justice Eggleston’s committee of a single companies commission the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral developed studies as to whether or not the American Securities and Exchange Commission had elements that should be adopted in the Australian scene. The commission that Mr Justice Eggleston’s committee recommended had for its primary purpose something altogether different from the American Securities and Exchange Commission, namely, that in special cases in which companies were embarrassed by the comprehensive nature of the legislative provisions as to accounts and filling in forms the commission should exercise the function of granting exemptions to them from the statutory requirements.

But the commission was also designed to issue general orders giving companies of a defined class the power to omit specified information. The commission was further designed to have power to alter or add to the requirements as to accounts and directors’ reports in the companies legislation, to perform duties at present carried out by the Companies Auditors Board and to take over some of the functions being carried out by the States through their Registrars. That position was developed in this country in 1968. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General thereafter gave formal direction to a study of this idea of a single body. Having set up a committee, the Attorneys-General then followed on by, I think for the first time - this was about a year ago - taking into account the question whether a body like the American Securities and Exchange Commission would be appropriate to Australia.

In the public announcement that was made by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General after its meeting in Wellington on 27th February this year the Attorneys-General said that they had reviewed the existing legislation and administration operating in relation to companies and the proposed Securities Industry Bill introduction of which had already been announced by the Victorian Government. They said that they had also given attention to suggestions that had been made publicly that the situation in Australia demanded the creation of an Americanstyle securities and exchange commission. The Australian Ministers confirmed their approval of the Securities Industry Bill previously considered by the Standing Committee and agreed that in view of the existing situation steps should be taken as soon as possible to recommend similar legislation in all States. The Attorneys-General went on to say that penalties should be a matter of individual consideration in each State.

But it is true to say that up until that stage successive committees in all their studies had unanimously rejected the idea of a securities and exchange commission type of body based on the American precedent. That is the situation up to the present time. 1 am told that to date all the studies made by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and by the individual governments in Australia have indicated that this American-type organisation is neither suitable nor desirable in the Australian scene. The Attorneys-General then went on to recommend that the administration of companies laws should be on the basis of an administration which combined both companies laws and laws relating to stock exchanges and stock markets. They referred to a proposal then current in New South Wales for the appointment of an officer called the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs. That was the position thai the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General had evolved in February this year.

Since that time the Victorian Government has introduced a Bill called the Securities Industry Bill which sets up a system of licensing of stockbrokers who wish lo begin that type of business and sets up provisions for audits and accounts of their business, provisions for investment of stockbrokers’ trust funds, provisions for fidelity funds and some general provisions to require honesty in the trading of securities in the market, lt is not necessary for me to refer to those in detail. They are such matters as false statements designed to create an appearance of active trading in the market, market rigging transactions, operations which have the effect of creating fictitious market values, and issuing statements known to be false.

Within the last few weeks the Securities Industry Bill was introduced into the New

South Wales Parliament. In the explanatory note the objects of the Bill are stated as follows:

  1. to provide for the constitution of a Corporate Affairs Commission and to define its powers, authorities, duties and functions;
  2. to prohibit the establishment of a stock market that is not the stock market of a stock exchange;
  3. to require the approval of the Minister for the establishment of a new stock exchange;
  4. to require persons dealing in securities to be licensed;
  5. to make provision for the keeping of accounts;
  6. to provide for the investment of a proportion of stock brokers’ trust funds;
  7. to provide for the establishment and administration of fidelity funds by stock exchanges;
  8. lo create certain offences wilh respect to trading in securities and to provide for the compensation of persons suffering loss by the commission of those offences:
  9. to prohibit a person from describing himself as a stockbroker unless he is a sole trader who is a member of a stock exchange or a partner in a member firm recognised by a stock exchange;

Then some ancillary matters follow. The position has developed in Australia that the committee constituted by all the AttorneysGeneral of Australia has been tightening up the companies legislation and has now reached the stage where 2 bills have been issued, designed to provide in the manner 1 have indicated for share transactions in the stock market. Those will be very material matters for any committee to consider as to the appropriateness now of establishing a federal securities and exchange commission, firstly having regard to the constitutional power that derives from our Constitution; secondly, having regard to the opportunities of State authorities who have hitherto administered the company law and under whose general jurisdiction slock exchanges have operated; and thirdly, whether their displacement by a federal commission would have advantages.

I have mentioned those matters because they will be of relevant consideration for a committee. Of course, I hope that it is thought by honourable senators as representatives of the people to be worthy of note that the field of stock market transactions has not been neglected but is in a stage of positive development and has been, as f have indicated, from as long ago as 19<>7. 1 have referred to Mr Justice Eggleston’s report of 1968, the activities of the committee of Attorneys-General, a statement of February this year, and the 2 securities trading bills, one in New South Wales and one in Victoria.

The position of the Government for which I speak tonight is that we recognise that we have had close and productive consultation with the States through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. We recognise that the States are more directly concerned than the Commonwealth with the administration of company law and matters relating to the securities ^industry. We recognise that these consultations have not been infertile and have produced extensive amendments to the Companies Act and 2 important Bills in

I the field of securities legislation.

In addition, we recognise that the stock exchanges themselves by reason of their own constitutions and the basis upon which they operate of regulating their own membership with due consideration of commercial confidence have shown a disposition to tighten up their requirements and to administer their rules with a jealous regard to the interests of their clients. The Government expects these measures to go a long way towards providing for appropriate control in the securities industry. But the Government believes that the whole matter is of considerable public interest and it therefore feels that there would be value in having an inquiry of the kind proposed in the motion. Accordingly we propose to accept the motion to set up a select committee.

In doing so we wish to make it quite clear that this decision is not to be taken as an indication of our assent to the proposition that the type of legislation referred to is either feasible or desirable, but that it is a proper field of inquiry for a Senate select committee. I wish to add only that I hope it will be underlined that I have not sought to contest or comment upon the ex parte allegations made with regard to particular persons or transactions, because I feel that a course undertaken by me either supporting or refuting such allegations would be totally inappropriate to that degree of impartiality that should beget a Senate select committee entrusted with the field of inquiry that we propose, on the level of integrity at which it must operate if it is to operate with public confidence.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The motion before the Senate contemplates the desirability and feasibility of establishing a securities and exchange commission. Obviously it has been prompted by exhibitions of national concern following recent industrial developments in Australia. I, with Senator Wright, do not point to any particular stimulus to this concern, but we must accept as a fact that concern has been expressed in the interest manifested by the motion and in the more specific action taken in a number of States to control dealings on the stock exchange. If the motion were only to deal with a situation to be considered in isolation as some sort of sudden and unexpected emanation which was unlikely to recur, grave doubts might arise as to whether the action proposed should be pursued. Therefore I think it may be profitable at least to try to estimate the climate in which recent situations have developed and to try to predict whether there will be a continuing situation of this character, a continuing climate in which we might expect a repetition of various incidents which make the introduction of necessary controls at this stage and for the future condign and desirable.

Australia is entering a field of rapid national development. In recent years we have seen quite a dramatic change from a society which was substantially based on a rural economy to a society based on a highly industrialised economy, with all the consequences that flow from that type of organisation. We have witnessed the increased utilisation and diversion of private and public resources into the field of investment in joint stock companies with the advantages that that type of investment gives in the limitation of the raising of capital and the provision of such private capital for the purpose of development. Because of this intensification of public interest and individual interest in investment in joint stock companies we have seen a number of consequences. We have seen, first, a proliferation in the flotation of public companies for one purpose or another. At this stage I am not dealing with mining companies; I am dealing with the flotation of public companies for industrial purposes generally.

Very often that has been accompanied by certain inexpertise in control, perhaps without that high degree of skill in management - particularly accounts and commercial management - that is desirable in respect of an expansion of our commercial activities. With that have come opportunities for manipulation within companies and opportunities for mismanagement. In addition to that we have had in this community, clue to our type of banking and financial structure - that is. the proliferation of hire purchase companies outside the banking system and the absence of any constitutional control to any major degree - companies able to offer high rates of interest which have attracted the investing public with consequences which in some cases have been disastrous. All these things are manifestations of the new type of Australia which we see today.

Coupled with these things is a new type of society which is developing. We are really proceeding through a period which was peculiar to the United States prior to the commencement of the 20th century, when it had a series of bank crashes, with disastrous results, and it found it necessary to take on substantial power to control their banking institutions. In addition to that there were grave disturbances through scandals such as were mentioned by Senator Murphy in the South Sea Bubble. The effect of all that in the control through various organs in Australia has been seen in the tightening of the legislation in relation to company structure, company management and company control accounts.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Is it a case of too little too late?

Senator BYRNE:

– That may be so, but at this stage I am dealing with the various stages through which Australia has come up to the present stage. We have seen a manifestation of interest recently by the States in the tightening of company controls. Primarily they deal with malpractices within a company but which are reflected outside the company. That was control directed in a particular field and to that extent it has been effective. It is one instance of the States co-operating, one with the other, within the power constitutionally available to them, to control this area which is subject to commercial maladministration and to types of commercial deceit. The legislation in the States has been directed against malpractice by company officers, the improper release of correct information or the release of incorrect information, and against officers giving out information from which their friends might benefit. In one way or another, and one after the other, all these reports have attempted to plug gaps which were becoming manifest.

Senator Greenwood:

– Then there were the investigatory procedures.

Senator BYRNE:

– Yes, there were many things. I have taken just a few of them. Mainly the State legislation goes lo the control of a company and the operation of that company in relation to the public at large but not very much beyond that point. When the United States passed through that first period from the end of the 19th century into the 20th century and struck the great depression in the early part of the 20th century, there began this intense interest of the investing public in investing equity capital in public companies. The boom of that investment culminated in 1929 in the collapse of the stock exchange and the tremendous consequences which flowed, not only to individuals and the nation of the United States but also throughout the world. It was as a consequence of that, no doubt - -because significantly it happened in 1933 and 1934 - that the United States introduced the legislation to which Senator Wright has referred. That was to handle this new type of situation with all this investing in public companies on the stock exchange through equity capital. Australia is now reaching that second position, lt is reaching in 1970 the situation that the United States reached in 1900 when there was this tremendous equity investment by the general public. That has been stimulated in Australia in the field of mining investment.

Let us look at the Australia which is faced with this new position. First, we have a country which is developing extraordinarily rapidly. All sorts of new natural resources are being opened in every field of natural resources and that situation is operating in a most affluent society. Consequently, individuals in this country now find surpluses of capital which are available to them for investment. Thank heavens in many cases the days have gone when people had no surplus which they could put into anything, bar a few pounds in the savings bank. People find themselves with some spare capital which they can commit to a commercial investment. Thirdly, just when these two factors are operating, we find that the field for investment which is becoming available is the most seductive field of all - that of mining speculation. That is the third factor which is influencing the climate in which we are giving thought to the motion before us. Then there is the continued incidence of high taxation in certain fields of personal exertion which is driving people to try to make money which may legitimately escape the attention of the Commissioner of Taxation.

When we add all those components together we find developing this situation which is now causing us concern. The question is: Is that likely to continue? If it is likely to continue, appropriate action at this stage is not only timely but also absolutely necessary. There is one further factor in this affluent society, or quasiaffluent society, where we have this mining speculation and the mining enterprises which are available to the investing public. In many cases now the investor is no longer sophisticated and knowledgeable. Many investors now have little or no previous experience of investment on the stock exchange, little or no experience with commercial enterprises and, as it were, they are caught up in the excitement of the moment. They commit their jealously husbanded few dollars of surplus capital to some enterprise which might bring them a return. In these circumstances the stage is set for a situation such as we are concerned about tonight. With all these factors we have an unsophisticated investing public; enterprises which can be laid before them for quick returns and substantial profits; and the incentive to avoid taxation. All these things provide a reason why they should come into this field. Australia is particularly vulnerable today to situations which we would hope to be avoiding and which, without particularising any instance, are causing the nation concern.

Senator Greenwood:

– What does the honourable senator think is the obligation of society to these unsophisticated people who want to risk their money? Is there any obligation?

Senator BYRNE:

– I know that I have seen references to that in some of the digests on this subject. I suppose we cannot protect against himself the greedy person who carelessly goes in merely to make a quick dollar, and in certain circumstances it is doubtful how far we should go. But, after all, controls are exercised in other fields where the same argument might be presented. Let us take a very mundane example. Let us consider racing speculation. People go to the races and hope to win a few more dollars, but racing is subject to strict controls in the interest of the punting investor. There are stewards and committees to see that horses run on their merits, that they are fit to run, that there is no rigging of the betting market and all those things. In other words one does not just say to them: ‘If you want to make money you try at your own risk.’ A person is protected against improper practices.

Senator Greenwood:

– But the papers can say what they like about the following day’s prospects and there is no prohibition against that. That is where the people may lose.

Senator BYRNE:

– A person can take that. After all, there is no examination of experts. If a racing forecaster consistently gives out losers it will be very awkward for hiin. He does his best to give out winners. That is the obligation he has to his newspaper and to the racing game. There are occasions where society does step in. Today there are government boards which now control certain aspects of racing. These are not any longer left to the voluntary attention of committees which act in an honorary capacity, but are the responsibility of government boards, particularly in trotting and pacing in which government appointees control the whole conduct of the activity.

Senator Mulvihill:

– But they do not swab some of the companies.

Senator BYRNE:

– That is probably true. There was a time when if you wanted to invest in a mining company what you would be afraid of would be the deceit of, say, salting the mine. But there is another type of salting today which can be more dangerous. That is what I call psychological salting. That is perhaps what we are directing our minds to in the course of this debate - whether or not it is possible to build up a psychology of hope due to the manipulation on the stock exchange which might attract people without warrant and unjustifiably to commit their money when someone has done it for improper purposes. We have a community and we have a situation which are particularly subject to that type of practice, because we have the unsophisticated investor with a little money and with the incentive to try to make a little more free of taxation, and we have investments which will sell on their appearance to him, and he is very vulnerable.

I cannot conceive that society has a total obligation to save every person who may be greedy or ambitious against himself, but it certainly has an obligation to lay down certain fundamental safeguards. He is entitled in that type of situation to such protection as the law can give him against malpractice, dishonesty and deceit. At least he is entitled to that. In this completely new situation in which we have a new commercial life emerging, with new people commercially interested as investors on the stock exchange, the question arises: Are we frying to control a new situation with the old techniques? It is as simple as that.

In other words, are the old forms adequate to control a situation which sometimes can become hysterical? As it is possible that all the components mentioned are not going to disappear, the only change that can take place possibly will be a growing sophistication in the investing public. Apart from that, the whole pattern will continue, and in that case there seems to be every warrant for some sort of control or at least investigation at this stage. We do not know what that type of control should be. Senator Wright, I think very properly, did not speculate to any extent on what form the control should take, because to some extent that would depend on the iti muli which make it necessary. He said that he does not want to canvass that in particular cases. Nor do I. Nevertheless, there is an obligation on us to investigate the feasibility and desirability of control. This is the substantial purport of the motion before the Senate. I wonder, therefore, whether with control of the stock exchange in the hands in which it is - however honourably and however enthusiastically control is exercised by those who bring their best efforts to hear - the situation is beyond such type of control. That would be a type of matter which an investigating body such as this motion suggests would no doubt find within its province and its responsibility to investigate.

Deceit of the public in any circumstances in the investment of its capital has not only a personal consequence; it also has a social, community and national consequence, because in a country such as ours the mobilisation of investment capital and its direction and orientation to the best purpose is vital for a country in our stage of development. But as has been said, if we deter the investing public from investing their surplus capital in worthwhile enterprises or make them frightened to put their money into anything other than fixed securities or perhaps savings banks we will certainly deny to this country opportunities for investment that should exist and should exist legitimately. After all, it is a legitimate incentive for people to make a few more dollars by putting their money at some risk in mining companies or industrial companies or commercial enterprises. That is justifiable and desirable within our commercial system. But if we are to allow situations to develop that will create a psychology of resistance to that and nobody is going to move that will be a tremendous deprivation and denial of opportunity to this country.

We should, however, in relation to this matter express some caution, lt has been a Held in which suddenly there has come upon us this situation. Apart from the legislation in the States, to which I referred earlier, the legislation in relation to the control of stock exchanges has been a matter of only recent concern and recent action. This is rather parallel to the situation in relation to the control of the environment where we see the States expressly legislating within the competence of State laws in these fields. The Commonwealth has to be careful - whether one is a centralist or not - when the States have manifested this interest and this enthusiasm and have moved quickly, not to attempt to intrude, as it were, to take power and override that enthusiasm and to dampen it down and make total substitution for what the States have endeavoured to do and have already embarked upon doing. Therefore I suggest that we should seek - no doubt we should expect and no doubt we shall receive - the closest co-operation from all of the

States and more particularly those States that are already legislating in this field, as to whether there can be a combination of State and Commonwealth law which will enable some type of control more effective than what we have at present to be introduced and to effect the purpose which we have in mind. Only as a last resort should the Commonwealth attempt to lay aside the manifest and expressed enthusiasm of the States in what they have already done and attempted in this field. It should not arrogantly step over those activities and supplant them with some sort of national commission or national exchange and securities board.

Another aspect is that if we attempt to do that we will possibly cause delay in a circumstance in which delay would not be desirable. If a Senate select committee goes in and picks up, as it were, by consultation and by evidence, the contributions that States have made and works out quickly a formula for joint action, that will be the most effective thing that could be done. If it is not the best thing that could be done, ultimately it will be the best and most effective thing that could be done in the circumstances at the time.

Senator Greenwood:

– Do you think the problems with which you are concerned are uniform throughout Australia or do they have differing impacts and differing results from State to State.

Senator BYRNE:

– 1 would imagine that there would be some differences but substantially, I would say, the character of the problems probably would be the same. The intensity and depth of them may differ from State to State, more particularly so in the States which are bigger and stronger commercially, financially and industrially. But there is no reason why we should not get complementary and identical legislation.

Senator Greenwood:

– The Attorneys seem to think that the same legislation can be passed in every State.

Senator BYRNE:

– That may be so. It may be possible. It is very seldom that we get a totality of coincidence of legislation even though ali States attempt to do it. But I would say at this stage that the intervention of the Commonwealth through this action might very well draw together and persuade the States to have identical legislation even though some States may think that some provisions are unnecessary in their context and others may think that the provisions do not go far enough in their context. I think this is a time when both the States and the Commonwealth should welcome the closest possible co-operation. We should be delighted that the States have seen fit to move. We must be conscious of their expressed concern. We must certainly not allow ourselves to put that aside and think that the States have been supine and inactive in the matter.

Realising that the contemplated investigation by the committee will be only into the desirability and feasibility of doing certain things relating to the control of share dealings and that the words ‘feasibility’ and desirability’ no doubt bear a connotation which contemplates constitutional ability, political opportunity and desirability in the sense of co-ordination of authorities, the Democratic Labor Party is of the opinion that at this stage such a committee is appropriate. Its terms of reference would be sufficient to ensure a discovery of all those facts which it is necessary to know if the States and the Commonwealth are to introduce a body of legislation which would be appropriate not only to the present situation but also to a situation which, against the background that I have attempted to describe, will be with us permanently. This is the time to move. We must move prudently and with due solicitude to the States because of the situation in which we find ourselves. The Democratic Labor Party supports the motion.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– In broad terms I support the setting up of a select committee for the purposes outlined in the motion, but in so doing I make it quite clear that I also support Senators Wright and Byrne in their dissociation from the remarks made by Senator Murphy in support of his motion. I support the motion in general terms - not because 1 am satisfied that there has been malpractice, however strong the prima facie case may appear on the basis of some newspaper reports, but because there is public disquiet. There is a sufficient case, on the basis of what Senator Byrne said, without mentioning any names, to say that in the public interest an inquiry should be undertaken. But let us in this chamber not be accused of having prejudged the matter. I thought it unfortunate iti the extreme that Senator Murphy said - particularly after 1 asked him whether he was aware that an inquiry into the affairs of one of the companies had commenced and he replied that he was - that not only was he aware that there was one inquiry but that he was aware that there were three inquiries into the activities of that company. Having made that statement, he named an individual associated with that company and named other individuals associated with other companies. This type of prejudging and the implications contained in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition are things which I deplore and from which I wish to dissociate myself. As the committees of inquiry have been set up, there is no need for us in this chamber to attack individuals. It was unfortunate that unnecessary allegations were made against people who at this stage have no opportunity to reply. lt is a well known provision of the law that we should not attempt to poison the fountain of justice before it has begun to flow. I believe that some of the statements made tonight would have that tendency. What right of reply have the individuals? What could be more calculated to poison the fountain than to refer to them by name when some of them are already the subject matter of inquiries?

Senator O’Byrne:

– Who do you think you are, pontificating over there?

Senator RAE:

Senator O’Byrne is sitting across the chamber, jabbering. One could well understand that this debate would be above his head; so no doubt he will continue to jabber. But I shall continue to speak.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– He is using treetop language.

Senator RAE:

– Perhaps jabbering from the treetops would be a more appropriate comment to make. Last year’s Hansard contains three statements with which, in general terms, I agree. They are:

Any citizen accused of an offence is entitled to a trial before a court of justice.

We must not allow trial by politicians to follow trial by a court of justice.

Nor should we allow trial by politicians to precede trial by a court of justice. The third comment is:

It is basic to the civil rights of the citizen that his acquittal be not brought into question, especially in Parliament where he who does so is immune. How is the citizen to defend himself if that is to be the practice in Parliament?

Senator Greenwood:

– Who said that?

Senator RAE:

– When inquiries are proceeding, one would have thought that it would be reasonable to ask: ‘How can the citizen defend himself if this is to be the practice of Parliament?’ 1 have been asked: Who said that?’ The person who said it was the person who made the attacks on the individuals tonight - the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). It is recorded at page 130 of Hansard for last year. A further notorious fact is that litigation is pending in relation to certain of the individuals named by Senator Murphy tonight. For a person who knows that litigation is pending - I presume the honourable senator does because I expect that generally speaking he does know what he talked about tonight, that he has studied it and that he is well aware of his facts - to attack the persons involved in the litigation is also unfortunate. In relation to the attitude of the courts to attacks of this kind, I think perhaps a quotation to this effect is appropriate: lt is a contempt of this court for any newspaper to comment on pending legal proceedings in any way which is likely to prejudice the fair trial of the action. That may arise in various ways, lt may bc that the comment is one which is likely in some way or other to bring pressure to bear upon one or other of the parties to the action, so as to prevent that party from prosecuting or from defending the action, or encourage that party to submit to terms of compromise which he otherwise might not have been prepared to entertain, or influence him in some other way in his conduct of the action, which he ought to be free to prosecute or to defend, as he is advised, without being subject to such pressure. It may be thai the publication will be of a kind that is likely to interfere with the proper adducing of evidence in the case either by discouraging witnesses from coming forward or by influencing them in some way in the kind of evidence that they are prepared, inhibiting them in ways of that kind; or it may be, if the case is to be tried with a jury, that the publication may be one of a kind which will be apt to make a juryman approach the case without a completely open mind.

I think that perhaps it would be as well for the Senate to remember that quotation. That could very likely apply here if we gave approval to some of the wild allegations which have been flying about in the Press and which have been picked up by Senator Murphy and repeated in this chamber. That would give to the general public an impression that we agree with some of the wilder allegations which are, as yet, unproven, although they are the subject matter of investigation or litigation. I trust that the Press, in reporting tonight’s proceedings, will have due regard to the fact that it may prejudice the trial or the inquiries if it were to publish the allegations against some of the individuals - allegations which were made, 1 believe, unfortunately and unnecessarily by Senator Murphy in proposing this motion. I repeat that in general terms I support the motion but I do not - I repeat ‘not’ - support the allegations made against individuals, which allegations were unfair and unfortunate.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise also to support the motion which is before the Senate for the setting up of a Senate select committee to inquire into and report upon the desirability and feasibility of establishing a securities exchange commission by the Commonwealth. But I wish to indicate in particular that the reasons which I would have for supporting this proposal should not be comprehended within the expressions and arguments used by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). There are very good reasons why there should be an inquiry at present by a Senate select committee into the matters contained in the motion. In recent tim;s we have had evidence - and I make this statement without prejudging whether certain persons are guilty of misconduct - of share market transactions which have resulted in remarkable fluctuations in the market over a short space of time. Shares which in one week reached a peak of $98 have gone as low as S3. 50 3 or 4 weeks later. Fluctuations of this nature cause one to query why they should occur. In recent times we have also had evidence of statements being made which appear to be designed to influence trading and which do in fact influence trading on stock exchanges. As Senator Byrne indicated, the lack of information available to some persons who are venturing into this form of investment for the first time or who are not accustomed to the practice in regard to the buying and selling of shares on stock exchanges is notorious. Some of these people have a lack of understanding. All they really have is a willingness to venture into an area in which they hope to make a quick profit, lt should be realised that for each person who makes a quick profit there is another person who makes an equally quick loss.

However, some persons have an opportunity to make a profit because of inside knowledge. These people are either officers of companies, relatives of persons who are officers of companies or, which is probably more significant, are friends of persons who have some inside knowledge. With the background of that knowledge they are able to take some advantage for themselves. If they are unscrupulous enough to manipulate the market - and ways to do so are known to those who have expertise in this field - in a manner designed to profit themselves, that sometimes means a substantial loss for others. These people are prepared to buy in anticipation of a rising market. There is nothing wrong with that if they act on information which is open to every member of the community. If they are prepared to sell on a falling market there is nothing wrong with that if the information on which they act is common to all who invest. But the area in which persons who have inside information and, because of the knowledge they have and the volume of transactions they can engage in, are able to influence the market itself is an area which - together with the other matters I have mentioned - appears to me to warrant some concern and should warrant some inquiry as to whether there should be a change in the practices they have engaged in. Those remarks reflect the general area about which I feel concern and in which I am prepared to say that there should be an inquiry because of the widespread ramifications of these practices and of the consequences which flow from them.

I do not accept that any particular remedy must follow from an inquiry into these practices. But I feel it is important that there be an inquiry, because I think public concern should be allayed. I think there should be facilities to enable people who have grievances, who sense that they have been misled, who sense that they have been the subject of misrepresentation or who feel that other people have made a profit at their expense to tell their stories in the knowledge that the facts will be looked at objectively, some argument will be raised as to whether they are right or wrong and, if they are right, some remedial action will be taken in the future. I feel an inquiry is desirable in that area.

The motion has, as I understand it, as its first requirement the need for an inquiry. I appreciate that it is suggested that a securities and exchange commission may be established as a result of the inquiry. But as I understand the proposal it is for the establishment of a Senate select committee to report to the Senate on whether such a commission is a desirable remedy for the existing problems. I should imagine that if such a committee were appointed it would observe a number of the factors which are part of the current situation. I should imagine that in the first place it would examine the stock exchanges in each of the six States of the Commonwealth. I understand that the stock exchange in each State currently controls, and has controlled for many years, the activities concerned with the buying and selling of shares on the public market. I should imagine that the committee would observe that these stock exchanges control the selling and purchasing of shares, conduct the business of the exchanges, regulate the practices of members and impose certain obligations upon their members which the members must observe. 1 should imagine, too, that if the committee looks at the stock exchanges it will find a very comprehensive set of rules and what would appear on the surface to be adequate control of the practices involved. I feel that it would be proper for such a committee to judge for itself, in the light of the evidence which is brought forward by those people who would seek to sustain the existing position and those persons who would like some change, whether or not the current rules are adequate.

Perhaps the proposed committee would also observe the action which is being taken at present by the State governments. .1 think it should be recognised that this action by the State governments is the product of a long and continuing concern about the legislation under which companies operate and the conditions under which companies are administered by directors and shareholders. This concern and this activity have long been recognised. I think the first meeting of the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral was held in 1958. As a Victorian, I acknowledge that it was the Victorian Attorney-General, Sir Arthur Rylah, who took the initial steps at that time towards getting the meetings of the AttorneysGeneral under way. They have become a very significant part of the Australian political scene.

One of the early activities in which the Attorneys-General concerned themselves was the preparation of uniform company legislation. In 1961 uniform company Acts were passed in each of the States of the Commonwealth. The very fact that this legislation was passed is an indication of the concern of the States to ensure that the practices, conduct and capacities of companies are subject to the rules and the scrutiny of the legislatures of the States. Of course, from time to time over the last 10 years we have seen some defaults by companies. Some of these defaults have been of tremendous dimensions. On each occasion when there has been default by a company which has affected the public at large there have been investigations under the relevant companies legislation.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about WoolcottForbes years ago? He did not receive a sufficient sentence.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I think I would agree with the honourable senator if we were prepared to debate this aspect rationally. Woolcott-Forbes was a wrongdoer, but he was a wrong-doer of 30 years ago. Whilst there is relevance in what the honourable senator has said, I do not think that the relevance of it is as significant as the relevance of efforts in the last 10 years. Those people who are prepared to manipulate companies have become a lot more sophisticated in their methods than they are in the days of Woolcott-Forbes. All I am saying is that there is provision under the existing companies legislation for the appointment of investigators to consider any matters relating to the administration of companies whenever the State AttorneyGeneral thinks it is appropriate to do so. Provision also exists for the shareholders of a company to apply to have investigators appointed. Undoubtedly, if one looks at the record one will see that many investigators have been appointed and they have reported upon the malfunctions of the companies and the losses which companies have incurred.

Senator Poyser:

– Whom do they report to?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– They report to the Government and the reports which ate made to the Government are public. This is an area, of course, in which some injustice to individuals can occur because the investigations are conducted in private and the reports are made in public but they do have the effect of bringing to the public attention the results of investigations. I think it is significant to recognise that it is not so much the recommendations to the Government by the investigators which are important but it is the atmosphere of concern and prudence which the prevalence of these investigations involves which is equally important. 1 think that is a fair comment to make in the light of reports which have been made.

I think honourable senators will recall the collapse of the Reid Murray companies in the early part of the last decade. Substantial moneys were lost and were not recovered, even though I think in the event a lot of people will be surprised to find they receive more than they expected to receive, through the activities of the liquidator. But all that the reports of the investigators into the Reid Murray companies provided was an indication of how the losses occurred, how the development of this great commercial empire occurred, and the lack of discrimination which took place in the course of its building up. What was finally recommended was greater concern about the character of the inspection provisions and the audit provisions. I appreciate that 1 have summarised the result of that report but, in my opinion, the need for more care about the audit provisions and for greater concern by auditors was the real emphasis of that report.

I mention these things only to indicate the continuing concern which is apparent in the community and by the State governments as to the problems involved in company defalcations. For the last 4 years a committee has been acting under the authority of the Standing Committee of Auditors-General which has been investigating aspects of the Companies Act and presenting reports. I refer to the Eggleston committee which is a 3-man committee. I think Mr Justice Eggleston is the chairman and Mr Cox, who is a Sydney accountant, and Mr Rodd, who is a Melbourne solicitor, are members. The Committee has presented 4 reports in which it has focussed attention, after investigation, on certain areas as the most prevalent areas of concern. 1 regret that the Senate has not had the opportunity of investigating all those reports at greater length but unfortunately it was only today in this place that 3 of those reports were tabled. One of the reports was tabled quite some time ago and another was available, but 2 have only recently become available. Those reports are a mine of information and they represent the very considerable examination of people who have made an intensive study of this subject. I say that there is a continuing examination and investigation of problem areas in the field of the joint stock companies.

Coming back to where I embarked upon this particular examination, 1 think there is presently an examination of various areas of concern by the State governments. I know that in Victoria - I believe it is much the same in New South Wales - 3 Bills have currently been presented which are concerned to promote a greater protection for investors and a greater protection for people who engage in share dealings. The Bills in Victoria are concerned to provide, in the case of shares, that there shall be ministerial control over the rules of the stock exchanges. Provision exists that all persons who deal with securities shall keep proper accounts in much the same way as the stock exchange rules require that stock exchange members shall keep proper accounts; that members of the stock exchange and those who deal in securities shall keep fidelity accounts in the way in which solicitors have kept fidelity accounts for many years; and that those who engage in deals and their employees or advisers, shall be licensed. Certain offences have been defined which attract the very substantial penalty of $10,000. Those offences are concerned to prevent the issuing of false or misleading appearance of active trading in securities, and to guard against those who create the impression of market rigging, those who permit false rumours which relate to securities and those who use fictitious transactions to affect the stock exchange.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Bulls and bears.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I think it covers that general area. This is evidence of what the State governments are doing. I embarked upon this particular area because this is part of the scene which a select committee would find when it started to examine the area which it is charged to examine. I think it is clear that there is room for an investigation and an inquiry independent of governments and independent of the Attorneys-General to enable persons who have no access to the Attorneys-General and who are not privy to their investigations or to their processes to put forward their complaints. As 1 said earlier, it is a means whereby people who may feel that they have been taken down in some way may air their complaints and hope that those complaints will be objectively considered. Those people will have a place in which they can speak their mind. I would think, if for no other reason, that that is a sufficient reason why there should be some public inquiry, as 1 hope the Senate inquiry will be, to enable these people to express their minds.

I have certain other matters to which I may direct my thoughts for the Senate’s attention and possibly for the committee’s attention. The Senate has heard the question raised of a constitutional division of power. Under the Commonwealth Constitution the Commonwealth has no direct power to set up a securities and exchange Commission. It has no express power to make laws with respect to companies. The only basis upon which the Commonwealth could claim to be concerned with these matters is under section 5, paragraphs 1 and 20 of the Constitution. Paragraph 1 gives to the Commonwealth the power to make laws with respect to trade and commerce with other countries and among the States. Paragraph 20 gives to the Commonwealth the power to make laws with respect to foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. It may be thought, if one states those heads of power as simply as I have stated them, that there ought to be no concern. But as far as the lawyers are concerned it has always been regarded as a matter of uncertainty as to how far those powers extend.

Senator Murphy:

– We hope this may clear it up.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I would agree with Senator Murphy that it may be a help in resolving these matters. But there are certain problems along the way. The first problem is that this committee may be concerned to inquire as to matters of particular transactions such as those which Senator Murphy has raised and which, it might be fairly said, he has attempted to prejudge. Nevertheless they are areas in which a committee might be concerned to take evidence. If it did concern itself to take evidence, it might be met with the objection that a Senate committee had no power to ask questions in regard to these matters. This is not an altogether hypothetical situation. Many years ago a royal commission which was appointed by the Commonwealth Parliament was held to have no power to require questions to be answered because the questions were directed to matters which were outside the province of the Commonwealth Parliament. In 1914 the Privy Council confirmed that that was the position with regard to an inquiry into the affairs of the Colonial Sugar Refinery. Therefore there has been some restraint in the areas in which the Commonwealth will appoint a royal commission.

The proposed Senate committee will be trespassing in areas of doubtful legal validity. One can only hope that the committee, enthusiastic as its members might be to extend the range of Commonwealth power, nevertheless will recognise the need for prudence in what it does so that the ultimate objective of enabling the facts to be ascertained in many of these matters will not be frustrated. But this is part of the problem which always confronts the Commonwealth when it moves into these grey areas.

There is also the question of whether the Commonwealth does have any power to appoint a securities and exchange commission. If a securities and exchange commission is to be appointed it must depend upon either of those two powers, or maybe a combination of both of them, to which I have referred. The High Court suggested some 62 years ago that there was no power in the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to corporations of a trading and financial character. I appreciate that with the passage of the years the impression of a High Court decision has become hallowed into a precept which is almost unchallengeable. For my part I would have thought that an examination of the judgment of the High Court might suggest that the Commonwealth has a far greater power than has been hitherto supposed.

It might be that this will be one of the matters in relation to which the committee will concern itself to obtain evidence and to report to the Senate. I do not doubt that the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and the Attorneys-General of the States will take heed of a considered report of this committee on what might be the legal powers of the Commonwealth. If there is an opinion that the Commonwealth has power in an area in which previously it had been supposed not to have power, I believe that the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States will guide their future actions in the light of that viewpoint. 1 certainly am not a person who would seek to take away from the States powers which legitimately and properly are theirs, but I do feel that if there is a problem which is Australia-wide in its complexities and which has no significant differences which might arise from State to State, that constitutes a situation in which the Commonwealth should be prepared to exercise on a Commonwealth basis such powers as it has. If. on the other hand, there are local variations which suggest that a problem might be dealt with better from State to State, from region to region, from city to city, there is every reason why the Commonwealth should display any intention to make a uniform law which would have differing application and, I would suggest, an unsatisfactory application in particular States.

Senator Murphy:

– That seems to be good sense.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am gratified for what Senator Murphy has said but 1 do not know how far ideology would permit him to sustain that viewpoint. Nevertheless these are matters with which I would hope a committee would concern itself. If there is a case for a uniform Companies Act throughout the whole of Australia and the Commonwealth has the power to pass a uniform Companies Act throughout the whole of Australia, I would feel that at some stage common sense would predominate over local State autonomy or ideas and that there would be one uniform Companies Act.

I have always found it difficult to sustain the view that, when 7 Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States have agreed upon an area for uniformity, there should be 7 separate acts passed to give expression to that uniform principle. I would have thought that once uniformity had been agreed upon the commonsense view would be to have one law for the whole of Australia. That is part of the growing Australian nationhood. It is part of the appropriate development which I believe most Australians want. I believe that a recognition of that, with a retention of their own particular autonomy, is the way in which the States will best be served in promoting the kind of federalism which we hope to have in the indefinite future. 1 know that I have taken a considerable time on this matter but 1 have done so because I feel that the proposed committee should be set up and that when it is set up it should look into the matters of which 1 have given some indication as being appropriate matters within its purview. I feel above all else that there is merit in the proposed committee because it will give to those people who feel concerned a forum in which they can express their concern. If it does not amount to a forum because no persons are prepared to express their views, then maybe the point of view that I have is not so effective. Nevertheless it will have sustained the objective that people, having been given the opportunity to express their views, have chosen not to do so. In any event, if the proposed committee does its work in the way in which other committees have done their work, there is no doubt that it will be of benefit to the people of Australia.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

- Senator Murphy in introducing this motion delivered ably a very well written speech. It is noticeable that he is the only honourable senator on the Opposition side to have spoken to this matter. I rise to speak against the setting up of a Senate select committee at this time to do the things which Senator Murphy has set out in his altered motion. I do this for several reasons. Firstly, in my view sufficient investigation is being conducted at this time by the Attorneys-General of the various States, and secondly, at this time legislation is passing through the various State parliaments which will provide a very effective control on stock exchanges and on the exchange of negotiable securities. I feel that it would be better for the Senate to review this proposal in 12 months time. If that were done honourable senators who are particularly busily engaged on many Senate select committees which are at present in progress would have an opportunity to become members of the committee. I believe that it would be much better if we dealt with this proposal 12 months hence.

Senator Murphy certainly spelled out some very interesting aspects of the stock exchange as we have seen it in the past 6 months. He spelled out many stories of disappointment and loss by those who had purchased at the wrong time, those who had sold at the wrong time and those who perhaps through miscalculation or through taking notice of statements which had no foundation were caught up in purchasing stock from which they hoped some great benefit would flow. I suggest that this Senate at no time will be in a position to control fraud in the community, nor will it be in a position to control adequately the investments of private individuals. In the buying and selling of land, in the negotiating of scrip or in any other business it has always been traditional for people to make their own decisions as to how they will invest their money.

In the last 6 months there has been no necessity for people to purchase shares that had no foundation for future prospects. I imagine that, if any stockbroker had said to his principal when the price of a Poseidon share was $6: T advise you not to buy Poseidon shares’, he would have been mentioned by Senator Murphy this evening. The fact is that at the present time promoters are interested in floating companies on the basis of what may be in a lease of land, and people are willing to invest in those companies initially or to buy shares in them later at higher prices. The responsibility for that is on their own shoulders. I believe that that should be admitted by honourable senators.

I noticed a comment by Mr J. H. Cooper, who is the Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange. The headline of the article was: Exchange Chief Says You can Blame your own Folly’. Among other things, he said that Australian stock exchanges operated under rules which provided investors with enough information to avoid losses in false share booms. He went on to say:

Members have a very stringent set of rules. It speaks a lot for them that there is a very low number of casualties among members of the Sydney exchange.

The rate is as low or lower than any other professional body.

I wish I could quote some of the other statements which have been made and which indicate that no person who purchased shares in the last 6 months was forced to do so. If he saw some newspaper report - every day for the last 6 months the newspapers have reported some glowing prospect on some mineral lease - and bought shares, the responsibility is on his own shoulders if he did not make a sufficient study of the position.

In my own State of Victoria the Sharebrokers Act, which has been in operation since 1958, lays down that all brokers should establish trust accounts and provide for their day to day maintenance; that brokers’ scrips and ledgers should be audited; and that books of account must be kept by brokers. That is the law in my State. Senator Murphy would know that the Companies Acts, which are uniform throughout the States, contain provisions regarding prospectuses that are put out by companies, limits that are imposed on advertising in prospectuses, information that must be published in documents relating to takeovers and the responsibilities of directors in managing the affairs of companies.

The new Securities Industry Bill, which I imagine has been introduced not only in Victoria but also in most of the other States, will deal with the manipulation of shares on the market, the spreading of false rumours, the creating of a false impression of the market, the setting up of compensation funds to take care of clients in certain circumstances, the establishment of trust accounts and their maintenance in those States in which trust accounts presently exist, the powers of the legislature to disallow new rules that the stock exchanges may introduce and the licensing of share dealers. Incidentally, those individuals who trade in shares that are beyond the stock exchanges will be brought within the ambit of these rules, which provide for harsh penalties including gaol sentences and which certainly will be looked at with interest by those who intend to perpetrate a fraud.

At the present time 1 oppose the proposition that the Senate should set up a securities and exchange commission type of body. I note that in one American magazine the comment was made that the American securities industry is in the midst of its most severe upheaval in history and many doubt whether the Securities and Exchange Commission in America has the leadership, the toughness or the political backing that it needs to cope with the present situation. My advice to the Senate is to defer this matter for some 12 months. 1 assume that if the Senate does set up a committee to look into this matter the honourable senators who accept appointment to it will ensure that they declare their personal interests in mining or industrial stocks. l_

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– in reply - I thank those honourable senators who have said that they will support this motion. Apart from me, no one from my Party spoke in this debate because the Party announced publicly some little time ago that it unanimously supported the proposal that I was making. We also understood that that was the temper of the Senate tonight. Therefore there was no need for further debaters from our side; rather was it preferable to obtain a decision on the matter.

What was said by a number of honourable senators who spoke after me was extremely illuminating. In particular 1 was pleased to hear what Senator Greenwood said as to what might be done by a committee and what the prospects might be for the establishment of such a commission. 1 should like to make this clear - 1 thought it was clear from the very proposal that was being made: The proposal is for a select committee of the Senate to inquire into and report upon these matters. That is the basis of the whole motion. It is for the committee to investigate the matters and to report back to the Senate. As always, such a motion needs to be based on some kind of proposal that, for example, a commission such as suggested here would be something worthwhile and should be investigated. That does not amount to prejudging.

The motion also provides that the committee should recommend generally in regard to these matters such legislative and administrative measures by the Commonwealth as will, having regard to the constitutional division of legislative power in Australia, enable the utmost protection of members of the public and the national interest. That means that the committee will be entitled to investigate all these other matters, and whether or not it suggests that there should be a securities and exchange commission it is entitled and expected to make recommendations on the other matters which might protect the investing public and our country.

Some remarks were made about some of the things I said. Let me make it quite clear that I did not set out to prejudge situations and that where it appeared that I was indicating some view it was not a concluded view. I think I went to some pains to understate the position in regard to various companies and persons.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You were very generous.

Senator MURPHY:

– I think I understated the position. I was very careful not to mention names where I thought they had not been well publicised beforehand. As an example of what has been said before and in order that honourable senators might be aware of it, I ask for leave to have incorporated in Hansard reports of what has been said and published about what was said in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales and the Legislative Council of New South Wales and also what has been published about the matter of Mr Turner and United Motels Ltd.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is leave granted?

Senator Wright:

– No. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the transcripts of proceedings in other parliaments be incorporated in Hansard?

Senator MURPHY:

– No. This is what has been published in the newspapers already.

Senator Wright:

– No.

Debate interrupted.

page 517

ADJOURNMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 517

SHARE TRADING IN PUBLIC COMPANIES

Appointment of Select Committee

Debate resumed (vide page 516).

Senator MURPHY:

– As some honourable senators opposite object to the incorporation of the material to which I have referred, I cannot have it incorporated. 1 noticed that the Minister and another honourable senator who objected to the incorporation were not backward in suggesting that in some way I was stating something about people that was unfair. One would think that it would put the record straight if the Senate were to be made aware of what has already been said and publicised in the Press and by other means. It would then be seen that in these matters I had been quite fair, that I had not been suggesting things that had not been widely suggested before; and in fact that I had been understating the position. However, the Minister who made the suggestion about myself, and the honourable senator opposite who also made the suggestion, have seen fit not to give leave. I cannot do anything about that, but I regret that the Senate does not have an opportunity to judge the fairness of the criticism they made. I thank the Senate for extending a couple of minutes grace to me to complete my speech. I suggest that should the Senate agree to the motion, instead of proceeding to the consequential appointment, that be deferred until the Senate resumes from its short recess.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 517

NAVIGATION BILL 1970

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 517

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I present the first report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 517

QUESTION

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

page 517

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 6)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

If the Minister still accepts the concept of a bi-partisan approach by the major Australian political parties to immigration, why were Opposition parliamentarians excluded from functions convened by the Minister and other ministerial colleagues to honour the visiting Yugoslav Minister for Labor, Mr Anton Polajnar.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There were two principal functions arranged by the Commonwealth for Mr Polajnar during his visit to Australia in February, 1970. In Canberra, the Minister for Immigration was host at a State Luncheon on 12th February and in Melbourne the Minister for Labour and National Service was host at a luncheon on 13th February.

The Leader of the Opposition was invited to the luncheon in Canberra and the Right Honourable A. A. Calwell was invited to the luncheon in Melbourne.

Official functions were also arranged for Mr Polajnar by State Governments; invitations to these were of course extended by the Governments concerned.

page 517

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 4)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of the major shipping companies that have contracts with the Commonwealth Government to transport European migrants to Australia.
  2. What are the terms and conditions of such contracts.
  3. Do several of these contracts come up for renewal in June 1970.
  4. Will the Minister examine instances of shipping companies wrongly surcharging migrant passengers in connection with misplaced luggage, with a view towards either placing greater responsibilities on the shipping companies concerned or, in the absence of such protection, rejecting these particular shipping companies for future contracts.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The Commonwealth Government has a contract with the Sitmar Line to transport British assisted migrants and migrants approved under the Special Passage Assistance Programme from the United Kingdom and the Continent. The contract which is for three years and expires 30th June 1970 provides for a specific number of the berths to be available to meet annual transport requirements at a fixed rate per berth. Berths additional to those provided for in the contract are taken as required at the same rate. Non contract berths are also taken from other shipping companies (e.g. P. & O. Lines, Chandris Lines, Flotta Lauro. Lloyd Triestino and Shaw Savill Line) engaged in regular passenger services to Australia as needed.

In respect of assisted migrants other than British or SPAP approved in various European countries, arrangements for sea transport are presently carried out by the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration and, in the case of migrants from the Netherlands, by the Netherlands Government.

Negotiations are proceeding with various shipping companies on the availability of sea berths to meet anticipated requirements for the transport of assisted migrants from Europe as from 1st July 1970.

  1. I am not aware, nor is my Department, of any instances in which shipping companies are surcharging’ migrant passengers in connection with misplaced luggage. Assisted migrants who travel by sea are given exactly the same facilities and receive the same baggage allowance as other passengers- for goods which are regarded as personal effects. If the honourable senator cares to give me details of specific cases I will have appropriate enquiries made and let him know the result.

page 518

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 20)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What was the total external plant expenditure for each Sydney Metropolitan Engineering Division, including Metropolitan Primary Works Divisions, for the 12 months ending 30th June 1969.
  2. What was the total X.C.P. expenditure for each Sydney Metropolitan Engineering Division, including Metropolitan Primary Works Divisions, for the 12 months ending 30th June 1969.
  3. What was the total external plant expenditure for Canberra Engineering Division for the 12 months ending 30th June 1969.
  4. What was the total X.C.P. expenditure for Canberra Engineering Division for the 12 months ending 30th June 1969.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2)
  1. Total External Plant Expenditure, Canberra $311,217 and Total X.C.P. Expenditure, Canberra, 1968-69 $43,486.
  2. Note: Plant Account X.C.P. - Exchange Conduits, Asset expenditure, was not introduced until 1st July 1969. The costs shown above were recorded against D.C.P. which covered the construction and installation of tunnels, conduits, pipes and associated materials for exchange, trunk and telegraph cables.

page 518

QUESTION

YUENDUMU RESERVE

(Question No. 116)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Did the Department of the Interior Superintendent at Yuendumu Reserve give permission, in 1967, for three Aboriginal girls to be taken 35 miles into scrub country against their will by six males, one of whom was armed, to be indecently assaulted by all or some of those males.
  2. Were 14 days rations supplied to the parly.
  3. Did the manager of the reserve, after 4 days, fear for the girls’ welfare and send a truck to return the party to the camp.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer:

  1. No. There was no such incident.
  2. and (3) Sec answer to (I).

page 519

QUESTION

YUENDUMU RESERVE

(Question No. 112)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Did the welfare officer of the Department of the Interior give protection to Rita Galkama, an Aboriginal girl at Gove Peninsula, when, contrary to Aboriginal custom, she refused to become the wife of an Aboriginal male.
  2. Was the same protection refused to three Aboriginal girls in 1967 at Yuendumu Reserve in central Australia, and did the Superintendent of the reserve authorise the forceful abduction of those three girls so that they could be compelled, against their will, to accept husbands.
  3. Why was there a distinction made in the cases referred to.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes. Miss Galkama was given protection by the District Welfare Officer on 24th February 1970 and resided at his home until her departure by air for Darwin on 27th February 1970.
  2. No. Protection was not refused and the Superintendent did not authorise forceful abduction so that three girls could be compelled, against their will, to accept husbands.
  3. Miss Galkama was given protection because she sought it through the Missionary to the Welfare Officer and the Police. Protection was also sought from and given by people at the Mission. In the case of the incident at Yuendumu in 1967 which is believed to be referred to, the facts are not as stated in the Question, but according to a signed statement by the Village Council three girls were taken from the Settlement by parents, promised husbands and Councillors. The girls were unwilling to go but did not make any request to the Superintendent for protection.

page 519

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

(Question No. 76)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister noted recent experiments by the United States Coastguard Service using a giant rubber sausage to remove oil from a sinking or stricken tanker.
  2. Does the Department of Shipping and Transport contemplate the introduction to Australia of such methods of protection against oil pollution.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The Department is considering all possible methods that can be used to combat oil pollution and the possible use of dracones, which incidentally are used commercially in Australia, will be taken into consideration.

page 519

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 61)

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for the Army, upon notice: (1)Is the Minister aware that the Australian Broadcasting Commission television news recently showed Allied troops torturing an elderly Vietnamese villager with a rag being tied around the face and a sense of suffocation induced by pouring water over the rag.

  1. Does the Government condone this behaviour by either Australian troops or our allies in Vietnam.
  2. Have any Australian soldiers ever been involved in this kind of treatment of Vietnamese civilians, even if they were regarded as ‘Vielcong suspects’.
  3. Will firm orders be given to Australian troops that they must avoid any association with the torture of Vietnamese captives.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. I understand a film along these lines was shown on television recently.
  2. No.
  3. There was an incident in 1966. The matter was investigated and discussed in the House on 14th March 1968.
  4. Instructions on this matter are quite explicit and follow the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

page 519

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 96)

Senator POKE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Did the Saigon Government consult the Australian authorities before approving the establishment of an entertainment centre offering legalised prostitution at Vung Tau. the Australian forces’ rest and recreation resort.
  2. Has the Army placed any restriction on Australian soldiers patronising entertainment centres; if not, what provisions have been made for troops to be protected by regular medical examinations.
  3. Have any objections been raised by the local Vietnamese people to a project which may have far-reaching effects on their daily lives.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. An announcement by the Vietnamese Minister for Social Welfare on 14th February indicated that the President had approved in principle the establishment of a Casino. The site had not yet been chosen. The project was being planned as a tourist venture, with twenty per cent of the proceeds of the sale of admission tickets and counters going to the Government. The Casino would initially provide for gaming rooms but other facilities such as dance halls and a theatre might be added later. The Minister specifically denied that the Casino would be a centre for legalised prostitution.
  2. and (3) See (1) above.

page 520

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 163)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that officers can be granted time off to attend lectures for higher qualifications and that ratings are refused this privilege; if so what steps are being taken to correct this anomaly.
  2. What avenues are available for reimbursement of expenses incurred by ratings who take courses in their own time to obtain higher qualifications.
  3. Is it a fact that fees will only be reimbursed if courses are paid for in cash and not paid off in instalments; if so, why is this necessary.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. Under the Services Vocational and Educational Training Scheme, all personnel with less than 15 years’ service are reimbursed 75% of fees on successful completion of a course, or if the course must be abandoned due to Service exigencies. Personnel with more than 15 years’ service receive 100% refund.
  3. No. Many personnel pay by instalments, and receive reimbursement.

page 520

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday. April 7 at 3p.m

page 520

ADJOURNMENT

Airport Security - Share Trading

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I rise with reluctance on a Thursday night to speak to the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. I do not make a practice of speaking on the adjournment debate, and I do not do so unless I believe that the matter I have to put before the Senate is of a serious nature. I wish to raise again the matter of the assault - and I do not now call it an alleged assault - on a young Australian Broadcasting Commission reporter at Essendon Airport on 28th February of this year. A document was prepared for the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) which he read in this chamber yesterday. I am not satisfied with that document. I am certainly not satisfied with the attempt by officers of the Department of Civil Aviation to whitewash the whole affair because there is now evidence that convinces me more than I was convinced at the time I previously spoke about this matter that a full inquiry by the Department should take place to ascertain what really happened at Essendon Airport that night.

I believe that the Minister’s statement is far from accurate and does not in any way accord with the evidence that would be available to him and his Department if a full investigation were made. It is now quite clear to me that an assault took place and that it was unprovoked. The document presented yesterday by the Minister is full of errors and inaccuracies, and certainly full of contradictions. It points out that statements received from officers of TransAustralia Airlines and the Department of Civil Aviation, reporters and a member of the Commonwealth Police on duty at the airport on that night present conflicting information. It is obvious that there was a good deal of confusion at the time. However, the fact that conflicting information was available to the Department does not excuse the failure to hold a full and proper investigation. The document presented by the Minister states that 2 DCA traffic officers on duty both denied that the late Mr Pugh was struck with intent, but both implied that in the confusion he may have been struck inadvertently.

Senator Greenwood:

– What about the next sentence?

Senator POYSER:

– 1 will come to that, lt appears to me that despite the fact that evidence was available or obtainable to establish the fact that a bashing took place, the word of 2 DCA officers is being accepted and presented to the Senate as the final statement on the matter, lt is apparent that there has not been a full investigation and that cognisance has not properly been taken of the evidence available to the Minister and his Department if the matter were followed up. Senator Greenwood has asked that the next section be read. I point out to him that I have it underlined and ready to read and there was no doubt that it would have been included in this discussion. The statement goes on:

If this did happen, I believe the act of striking was not premeditated or done deliberately. I believe it is quite clearly established that Pugh’s method of attempting to gain access to a prohibited area was the prime cause of the incident and any force used by the traffic staff on duly was the result of strong provocation.

There is a contradiction in terms in that it is stated that there was strong provocation for an assault that inadvertently occurred. This is the kind of statement that makes me wonder what will happen in future if a full investigation of this attack is not carried out. Reports have been submitted to the Commonwealth Police Force. At least one report, that submitted by Kevin Sanders of GTV9, is not available to the Senate. Kevin Sanders admits in his report that he was an eye witness to the incident. He has stated in the Press, and I understand that he has also stated in a report to the Commonwealth Police Force, what he claims he saw happen. 1 refer to a report in the Melbourne ‘Truth’ of 14th March, which states:

Pugh walked down the covered walk-way in an attempt to join the other reporters already interviewing Burchett at the foot of the gangway.

A uniformed DCA guard stepped in front of Pugh blocking his way.

Pugh moved to one side, trying to pass the guard, who grabbed him and forced him against the side of the walk-way.

The guard ‘king-hit’ Pugh, who was weighed down with tape-recording equipment, and then landed other punches on him.

One blow caught Pugh on the right side of the face, rendering him dazed and semi-conscious.

As Pugh fell to his knees, the guard continued to bump him against the walk-way wall and to attempt to punch him.

Al this stage a plain-clothes Commonwealth Policeman intervened, forcing the DCA guard away from Pugh who was then, according to Sanders, semi-conscious.

Pugh, holding his jaw, and unsteady on his feet, was firmly led from the scene by the Commonwealth policeman.

Pugh was later treated for head and face injuries.

My investigation and my inquiries confirm what Kevin Sanders has stated in his Press release and what I understand is in the report that he has submitted to the Commonwealth Police.

Senator Greenwood:

– What were your inquiries and what was yow information? lt is important, if you are making an allegation, to say what they are.

Senator POYSER:

– I am making an allegation which 1 want to have investigated. If the honourable senator were the judge J would not make the allegation because he would be so biased against the persons concerned that they would have no hope of achieving justice.

Senator Greenwood:

– To whom are you directing your remarks?

Senator POYSER:

– To the Minister. If he desires to question me in this way I am prepared to answer him, but certainly 1 am not prepared to answer the new back bencher who has shown no attitude of justice or humanity to any person in the lower or middle class income groups in the community. The Minister may obtain the information that 1 have by asking for it. 1 would be prepared to give it to him. A report similar to the one which 1 have read to the Senate is in the hands of the Commonwealth Police and I am now asking that the report be tabled in this place when the Senate resumes its activities in a fortnight’s time.

Also 1 want it to be known that my inquiries and my information completely exonerate the Commonwealth Police in relation to this assault. The information that I have in relation to this matter indicates that a Commonwealth policeman broke up the attack on Pugh and led him away to save him from any further punishment. We have seen presented to the Parliament a report which is obviously a whitewash, something that will disappear forever if a full and comprehensive investigation is not carried out. We have a situation in which the Australian Journalists Association has asked for a full inquiry and in which, 1 understand, the Association has been able to submit the names of a number of persons who were witnesses to the incident. It is an incident in respect of which photographs exist and are in the hands of newspaper companies. The photographs show quite clearly that the assault occurred. Yet we find in a report which is submitted to the Parliament that the word of 2 DCA Officers is accepted and is to be the final word in relation to it - despite the fact that the statement indicates quite clearly that earlier there had been a great deal of confusion in association with that incident. The statement by the DCA officers contradicts entirely the statement which allegedly was given by the Superintendent of Commonwealth Police in Victoria to the Press at that time. For the purpose of putting on record the Superintendent’s statement I repeat sections of it. A Press report states:

Supt. E. S. Canney, in charge of Federal Police in Victoria, investigated Ihe allegations.

His report says tha! one federal policeman in plain clothes was present, but he definitely did not assault Pugh. 1 accept this because my subsequent inquiries completely bear out this statement. The Press report continues:

The report says that after a demonstration at Brisbane Airport, it was decided that all except newspaper photographers would have to stay behind a barrier when Burchett arrived at Essendon.

Several reporters jumped the barrier and were ushered back behind it.

The facts are that many reporters were already interviewing Burchett at the time that Pugh tried to jump the barrier, in company with other reporters. He was not the first one to break the barrier or to break the rules which had been established for that day; Burchett was already being interviewed in that walk-way. Pugh and the other reporters felt that as some reporters were able to interview Burchett, they were equally entitled to attempt to do so. The situation is, of course, that they jumped the barrier with the result that Pugh, who was a very slight person about 5 foot 2 inches tall and who weighed about 7 or 8 stone, was able to assault a DCA officer - that is, if we believe their report. The report issued by Superintendent Canney does not substantiate the report that the Minister brought before the Senate yesterday. The Press report continues:

Despite warnings to stay behind the barrier, Pugh and two others again jumped the barrier, the report says.

The Federal Policeman chased two reporters and a uniformed Department of Civil Aviation officer chased Pugh.

The report alleges that Pugh rammed his tape recorder into the officer’s face and kneed him in the groin.

Pugh was then punched and taken back behind the barrier, it says.

Yet we find that the DCA officers have said in their report that any assault, although inadvertent, was as a result of strong provocation.

Only the fullest investigation can resolve this question to the satisfaction of many people in the community. Only a full investigation will resolve to the satisfaction of the Australian Journalists Association that no assult took place. Kevin Sanders, who is a well known television newsman, is on record as stating that Pugh was king-hit and that he had observed the whole assault. He has stated also in his Press statement that a similar report has been given to the Commonwealth Police. I understand that other reports have been given by eye witnesses to this incident.

In order to resolve this question and to get it finalised the fullest investigation must be made. I personally believe that the report made by Kevin Sanders and any other reports that have been submitted in relation to this assault should be tabled in the Parliament for honourable senators to see. lt is quite obvious to me that the attitude of the Department, in Victoria, at least is this: Least said, soonest mended. If that attitude is adopted this incident will be a blight on the community for evermore. Let us have an investigation. Let us have the evidence which has been submitted to to the Department of Civil Aviation or to the Commonwealth police and let us see whether an unwarranted assault did take place.

Senator Greenwood:

– What good would an inquiry do now, Mr Pugh being dead?

Senator POYSER:

– It would do a lot of good because it would protect many people in future from the same type of unwarranted attack. This is the most important aspect to it. Throughout the world today we are finding that security officers and security police are forever trying to suppress things that they believe people should not know. This is happening in Australia as much as it is happening in other countries. The situation is arising in which if we are not outspoken about matters of this kind in the parliaments of this country, assaults of this nature will become very common and nobody will take any notice of them. There are countries where actions of this kind are commonplace. I have been in countries in Asia where, every night of the week, people are being hammered down by the riot squads because they choose to demonstrate against the government of the day or against foreign embassies. There has been provocation on both sides. But I believe that on this occasion there w« no provocation by this reporter. I believe he was attempting to do the job he had been assigned to do. I believe that other reporters already had access to Burchett on this occasion and I believe that because this reporter was the smallest one there he was the easiest one to tackle. I want to see a full and complete investigation into this matter. I ask that the documents associated with this matter be tabled in the Senate so that honourable senators may see what really happened. Let us not have a whitewash like this perpetrated in this Parliament.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I have listened extremely carefully to Senator Poyser and, as he requests, this matter will be taken seriously, as indeed 1 believe it has been. 1 do not want to go through a recital of all the previous events because we have a number of requests from Senator Poyser and I think I have noted them but I will also have the Hansard report available to me. There has been no attempt by me to whitewash this affair. I am as anxious to be as careful as I possibly can in this matter because the person concerned is not here to speak for himself. I do not want his memory in any way to be tarnished, and I do not think that anybody else does. Senator Poyser quoted a number of sources of material-

Senator Poyser:

– 1 will give you some more, too.

Senator COTTON:

– I will avail myself of them and 1 will be glad to have access to them. From what he said I think I will be able to find most of them. I will direct the further information, the queries, the additional points raised, the charges .ind the requests to those persons concerned. I will expect a full report. When I get it 1 will give a further answer and 1 will decide then what action should be taken.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– 1 wish to say something about stock exchanges further to some statements I made-

Senator Sim:

– Have you lost some ciough?

Senator WHEELDON:

– If that is to be the level of witticism coming from the opposite side I do not think I will be very bothered. I made some statements on this matter on Tuesday night. I did not wish to intervene in the debate which took place earlier this evening in case it were prolonged, but subsequent to reports appearing in the Press in Western Australia of certain statements which 1 made on Tuesday night relating to restrictions imposed by certain stockbrokers in Perth as to a 51,000 minimum amount acceptable for the purchase of shares, statements have been made by Mr Hynam, the President of the Perth Stock Exchange, which I believe require some comment. A report in the Perth Daily News’ of 18th March states:

A West Australian Labor Senator last night criticised stockbrokers who put a $1,000 minimum order limit on people buying mining and oil shares.

Senator John Wheeldon said in the Senate that a $1,000 limit would preclude small investors from the stock market. He read a circular from the Perth stockbroking firm of D. J. Carmichael & Co. which imposed a $1,000 limit on clients. 1 will not repeat the rest of the matters referred to as they already appear in Hansard, but a comment by the ‘Daily News’ reads:

Limits on the buying of speculative mining shares by new clients are imposed by many brokers throughout Australia.

If 1 may interpolate, this obviously means that the minimum requirement which I referred to as being imposed by certain stockbrokers in Perth not only applies in Perth but is also applied by members of stock exchanges in other States of Australia. Apparently it is not only in Western Australia-

Senator Little:

– By some members of stock exchanges.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I said: By members of stock exchanges in other States of Australia.’ If Senator Little cannot understand English I will not assist him at this stage. I think it is a fairly clear statement.

Apparently it is not only in Western Australia that the limits are being imposed. The newspaper report continues:

The Chairman of the Perth Stock Exchange, Mr G. I. Hynam, said today that he did not intend to interfere even though he knew some brokers were setting minimum order limits.

A quotation from Mr Hynam then appears: 1 will not interfere with the intrinsic right of a broker to conduct his business in the way he thinks fit,’ he said.

I believe that this is a very, very revealing and very serious statement for a president of a stock exchange to make. As I understand it, a requirement for the establishment of a stock exchange is that regulations should be imposed by that slock exchange upon the conduct of transactions by brokers. Yet here is a statement by the President of the Perth Stock Exchange saying that he will not interfere with any stock broker as to how he may conduct his business, and he believes that a broker may conduct his business in any way the broker thinks fit.

Senator Anderson:

– Surely, you are overstating that. They must always still conduct their business within the limits of their own laws.

Senator WHEELDON:

Mr Hynam does not say that. The report states:

Mr Hynam, the principal of S. G. Brearley and Co., disagreed with Senator Wheeldon’s statement that the small investor would be precluded from the stock market.

He disagreed that the small investor would be precluded from the stock market. He is then quoted as saying:

There has always been the stockbroker who will look after the small investor.’

Here is an admission that certain stockbrokers do not look after the small investor. The report continues:

This is how Perth stockbrokers reacted when asked if order limits were being set:

J. Carmichael and Co.: ‘No comment on that. No comment whatsoever’.

Guest and Bell: ‘We have no comment, other than to say Senator Wheeldon’s comments are ill-founded.’

I do not know what they mean by that. Either my comments are true or they are false. I do not know what they mean when they say my comments are ill-founded, as it has been admitted that a limit of $1,000 is imposed by certain stockbrokers, and I would be able to produce a letter from Guest and Bell in which this same requirement was made as was made by D. J.

Carmichael and Co. Certain other statements were made by various stockbrokers. The purport of most of them is that they tend to make no comment at all. B. K. Newton and Co. makes this significant statement:

Our old established clients are not limited. We usually ask any new clients for an initial order or orders totalling $1,000.’

That is another firm of stockbrokers whose name hitherto has not been mentioned who state that they ask new clients to buy a minimum order of $1,000. In the ‘West Australian’ this morning, Thursday 19th March, there is a further report which quotes Mr Hynam as saying:

The Exchange would act against a member firm only if the firm contravened regulations. The imposition of limits did not constitute a contravention’.

Senator Anderson:

– That is the point I was trying to get at.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am reminded by the Minister that that is the point that I put to him on Tuesday night. I put it to him that it was unreasonable that such limits were being imposed and the Minister replied that this was a matter which should be dealt with by the Stock Exchange. But here is the answer of the Stock Exchange. lt does not intend to deal with it. It does not intend to make any requirements about minimum limits. In fact the Minister’s answer appears to be of no value whatsoever. He said that this is a matter for the Stock Exchange to deal with its members and the Stock Exchange has said that it does not intend to deal with them. The Minister’s answer has not advanced the position at all. The report in the ‘West Australian’ states:

Questioned yesterday on his reaction to Senator Wheeldon’s statement Mr G. I. Hynam said he understood that in the case of D. J. Carmichael and Co. the limit had been reduced from $1,000 to $500.

The firm confirmed this. Mr Hynam went on to make the most amazing statement. He said:

Brokers, like solicitors, were free to determine what business they would handle and what they would reject.

That is one of the most ludicrous statements that one could imagine. If solicitors sent circulars to clients or to prospective clients informing them that they would not act for them unless the minimum costs to be received were §1,000, that would mean that the administration of justice would become a complete mockery. There is no parallel between the two instances. Certain lawyers handle certain cases in the same way that certain stockbrokers handle certain business. Clearly there is no parallel. Solicitors do not send out circulars stating that they will act for clients in litigation for which a minimum of $1,000 in costs will be paid to the solicitors.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– They like to know that their bills will be met.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Of course solicitors like to know that their bills will be met. So do stockbrokers. That would be perfectly reasonable. If a businessman is approached by a person who he thinks is unlikely to be a satisfactory payer, that businessman could ask for costs in advance. That is a quite acceptable practice and one which is followed by a great many people. That is totally different from sending out a circular stating that a business will not deal with anyone unless he is prepared to pay a minimum of $1,000. Mr Hynam said that particular firms had a responsibility to protect their old clients by refusing some business with other clients. What happens to the open market - the free market - about which we are told? If we live in a free enterprise society in which all persons are eligible to acquire shares, why should old clients obtain some preferential treatment over new clients? Does this mean that because in the past someone has been able to invest in shares in companies they are to be given superior rights over persons who only recently acquired sufficient money to invest in companies? Is this what is being suggested by the stock exchange, which apparently is being accepted by the Minister who says that this should be left to the stock exchange? Mr Hynam said that clients have little to grumble about - obviously they have something to grumble about - that the limits imposed had the effect of keeping many people out of the market when they would have lost money had they been able to buy. That is extremely generous. This is the first time that I know of that the stock exchange has warned people, when they intended to buy some stocks, that they had better not buy them because they might lose some money.

The statement is an absurd and illogical one because if the investment in the company is an unwise investment persons will lose more money if they invest over $1,000 than they would lose if they invested less than $1,000. Not only does it prevent people from losing money if the investment turns out to be unsatisfactory; it also prevents people who can invest only a small amount from gaining some return if the investment turns out to be successful. Although it may be said that the person who can invest only $50 is prevented by this rule from losing his $50 if the investment turns out to be unsatisfactory, equally the person who could have invested S50 is prevented from making any gain on his investment of $50. That means that the open market, which we have been told exists, does not exist. The opportunity for citizens to take part in the great development that is taking place is limited to those persons who are able to provide $1,000 for a bill. This is a very substantial sum.

Senator Little:

– That is the position if they arc the only stockbrokers, but there are many other stockbrokers.

Senator WHEELDON:

– The point raised by Senator Little is that this would be the position if they were the only stockbrokers operating but that there are other stockbrokers operating. If a limitation of this nature is being imposed, it means that those persons who wish to make investments of less than $1,000 have this limitation imposed on them.

Senator Little:

– They could go to a broker who caters for the smaller investors.

Senator WHEELDON:

– If they want lo make investments smaller than $1,000, they have to try to find a broker who will accept that investment. I realise that Senator Little, who is interjecting, is very knowledgeable on these matters, but I prefer not to discuss them with him now. The other points I raised, which relate to the production of negotiable scrip upon a salestill have not been dealt with in the answer given by the President of the Stock Exchange, nor has the point about immediate payment by cheque. I still challenge the Stock Exchange to show that the same demands are being made upon all investors - that is, that negotiable scrip should be produced before there can be a sale or that immediate payment by cheque should be obligatory on anybody who wishes to make a purchase. It would seem to be quite clear, from the number of brokers who have imposed these restrictions, that the availability of brokers to small investors is at least very much less than the availability to people who wish to make big investments. The smaller investors are not being given the opportunity to invest in what is supposed to be a great mineral and oil boom. Even if one accepts Senator Little’s point that some brokers do cater for small investors, the fact still remains that it is much more difficult for a small investor to place his money in the stock market than it is for a big investor. I would be interested to know if the policy of the Democratic Labor Party is that the interests of the big investor should be looked after but that the interests of the small investor should be subjugated to the interests of the big investor.

Senator Little:

– 1 did not say that.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I have a louder voice than the honourable senator has. If he is saying that some stockbrokers take investments from small investors, I do not dispute that But the fact remains that the large investors are being given rights which are not available to the smaller investors. This is a very serious limitation on the rights of the general public to share in whatever profits are coming to Australia and to Australian investors as a result of the developments which have taken place. The matter is a very serious one. I believe that it should be considered by the Government.

I am glad that a committee was established to inquire into such matters because obviously this matter should be considered by that committee. The matter is a most serious one indeed. A large number of stockbrokers not only are precluding investors with less than $1,000 from making any investment at all but are insisting upon the production of negotiable scrip before a sale takes place. The President of the Stock Exchange of Perth has not referred to that insistence which, I am quite certain, is made only in the case of the small investors or in the case of people who are not established clients. The matters are serious ones. The reason why I raised them was because on Tuesday night the Minister said that it was a matter for the Stock Exchange to deal with and clearly, by the answer of the President of the Stock Exchange of Perth, it has no intention of dealing with this matter at all.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

Senator Wheeldon’s contribution to the debate adds up to the fact that he is not satisfied with the regulations that the Stock Exchange of Perth imposes on its members for the conduct of their affairs on the Stock Exchange. What I said on Tuesday night is confirmed by the statements made by the President of the Stock Exchange and by Senator Wheeldon. I said that the matter was related to the regulations of the Stock Exchange. I would not know how that matter could be directed to a Minister in the national parliament. If the regulations of the Stock Exchange allow it to impose minimum limitations and it says that that is the way the affairs of its members should be conducted and if Senator Wheeldon considers that the regulations for the conduct of the Stock Exchange are not right, I suggest that he should direct his comments to the Chairman of the Stock Exchange or, indeed, if he wants to go all the way, to the Western Australian Government.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Is there no discussion between the Commonwealth and the State?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator let off a great amount of steam when he spoke. I ask him to be quiet and to listen to what I have to say. If he does not like the regulations of the Stock Exchange of Perth in relation to the conduct of its affairs, he should submit his views to the Stock Exchange. If the honourable senator is not satisfied with taking that course of action he should refer his complaint to the State Government in Western Australia which would, I presume, have some jurisdiction over the matter. But the Commonwealth Parliament certainly does not have any jurisdiction, thank heaven, over the affairs of an undertaking such as a stock exchange in a particular State. I am unable to understand why the honourable senator has again drawn the matter to my attention tonight. The honourable senator has admitted that what I said on Tuesday night was correct. I agree with the honourable senator that a case could be made out about whether the minimum purchase should or should not be set at a figure of $1,000, but that is a matter of judgment. The matter which the honourable senator has raised does not come within the jurisdiction of this Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.11 p.m. till Tuesday, 7 April, at 3 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 March 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700319_senate_27_s43/>.