Senate
23 July 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

THE PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 329

PETITIONS

National Health Scheme

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia.

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the existing National Health Scheme involves a vast amount of public money distributed by private Benefit Societies and that it is necessary to join one of these to qualify for the full Government Health subsidy.

That it is far too expensive and discriminates against lower income groups a lot of whom cannot afford the cost of membership or private medical treatment.

That it is inequitable, inefficient and does not satisfy the needs of the community.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will urgently legislate for a Comprehensive National Health Insurance Scheme, financed from taxation, and covering everybody instead of only those who can now afford it.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

A petition in identical terms from 57 Citizens of Australia was presented by Senator Button.

Petition received.

Joint Russian/Australian Installations

Senator Greenwood:

– 1 present the following petition from 1 5 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable, the President, and senators of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

We are opposed to the establishing of any joint Russian/Australian Installations of actual or potential military significance on Australian soil.

1 ) The policies of the U.S.S.R. are a potential and continuing threat to Australia ‘s security;

The linking of Australia with the U.S.S.R. in joint Installations imperils relations with U.S.A., and the future of the A.N.Z.U.S. Treaty;

Australia and U.S.A. have common interests and common policies, and no action should be taken which would suggest that our future lies with the U.S.S.R.and not the U.S.A.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of Australia will completely reject any offer from U.S.S.R. for the establishing of joint Russian/Australian Installations on Australian soil.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-I present the following petition from 63 citizens of Australia.

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That inflation which now besets so many countries today and in Australia is now at the rate of 1 4.4 per cent per annum is most seriously affecting and making life intolerable for those least able to take corrective action to maintain their position, namely, pensioners and those now retired living on fixed incomes.

Whilst the Australian Government is giving effect to its election policy of making $1.50 per week pension increases each Autumn and Spring such actions have been completely nullified by the stated rate of inflation.

This fact of life impels your petitioners to call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Make a cash loading of $5 per week to those pensioners who have little means other than the present inadequate pension eroded by inflation.

That each Autumn and Spring the increase in social security pension payments be not less than $3 per week to ensure that within a reasonable period the Government’s policy pledge to affix all pensions at 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings be acheived.

In order that money may go to areas of greater need the Tapered Means Test ceilings of income and assets be frozen.

To allay the concern of social security recipients as to their future when in 1975 the means test has been abolished and replaced by a National Superannuation Act that there be an assurance by the Australian Government that the said Act will provide a guaranteed minimum income to social security recipients based on the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation and that of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, namely, the payment of 30 per cent of average weekly earnings adjusted from time to time in accordance with figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician and published quarterly.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Health Scheme

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I present the following petition from 24 citizens of the Commonwealth.

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth: that the present systems of financing of hospital and medical care in Australia are outdated, complex, unwieldy, and provide inadequate or no security against health care expenditure for a substantial proportion of the people of Australia; that the costs associated with the present schemes fall disproportionately on people having low and middle incomes; that there is an urgent need for a new national health insurance scheme, to which each person receiving an income should contribute an amount which is equitably calculated on the basis of that income, and which provides adequate security to each person against the costs of care for every kind of illness and injury.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will speedily pass appropriate legislation to bring the benefits of an equitably financed, universal, and comprehensive health insurance scheme to the people of Australia.

And your petitioners as, in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

A petition in identical terms from 24 citizens of Australia was presented by Senator Missen.

Petition received.

page 330

NOTICES OF MOTION

Evidence Act

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move that leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Evidence Act 1905-1973.

Senate Committees

I give notices of motion relating to the reappointment of 5 legislative and general purpose standing committees and the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control.

Opposition Senators- Why not seven?

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That can be discussed.

Disallowance of Regulations and Ordinances

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I wish to renew 3 notices of motion which were outstanding at the end of last session and which were given on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. The notices of motion are as follows:

  1. 1 ) That 6 sitting days after today I shall move that the amendment to the Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1973 No. 223 and made under the Public Service Act 1922-1973 be disallowed.
  2. That 6 sitting days after today I shall move that section 8 of the Pyramid Selling Ordinance 1973 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 56 of 1973 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1972 be disallowed.
  3. That 6 sitting days after today I shall move that the Seaweed Protection Ordinance 1974 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 3 of 1 974 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1973 be disallowed.

page 330

QUESTION

FILM INDUSTRY

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is addressed to the Minister for the Media concerns a newspaper report yesterday of a seminar on overseas participation in the Australian film industry held by the Department of the Media in Sydney on Sunday. Was any consensus reached by the seminar and can the Minister inform me what the attitude of the Government is to overseas participation, firstly, concerning the investment of foreign capital in films made in Australia, and, secondly, in regard to coproductions with other countries involving the use of overseas creative talent?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was obvious that a polarisation of sections of the industry was developing as to whether the Australian film industry, at this stage of its development, should concentrate entirely on Australian indigenous films or whether that development should include co-productions with other countries and involve the control and employment of Australians. As a result of the polarisation that was developing within the industry my Department decided to convene a public seminar. This seminar, which was held in Sydney on Sunday, related to the creative and technical sides of production, coupled with the distribution side. I am informed that there was very frank and open discussion between everyone at that seminar. A tape recording was taken of the proceedings. I understand a record of the proceedings will be made available to the Interim Board for the Australian Film Commission which has been established to make recommendations to the Government concerning the future development of the film industry in Australia.

So far as Film Australia- the Australian Government Film Production Unit- is concerned, we have been engaged in co-production arrangements with the Canadian Film Board. Recently I asked Mr Denys Brown, the producer-in-chief of Film Australia, to go to New Zealand to consider co-operation arrangements with the New Zealand Government. Likewise the Australian Broadcasting Commission has been engaging in co-production arrangements with the British Broadcasting Commission and other organisations. I assume these matters will be taken into account by the Interim Board for the Australian Film Commission when it considers the discussions which took place at the public seminar and when it makes recommendations to me.

page 330

QUESTION

BUILDING INDUSTRY

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of the statement reported today of the Federal President of the Housing Industry Association of Australia that thousands of labourers and tradesmen have been sacked in New South Wales alone over the past few months? Is the Minister also aware that the same President has indicated that home builders in

New South Wales expect a drop of 60 per cent in business over the next year? Is this the reaction to Government policies? Is this the precursor notoriously of general depression throughout the community? If so, will the Government make a statement as to what it proposes to do to enliven the building industry of this country?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Minister for Housing and Construction is well aware of the statement. If it is correct, some thousands of employees have been dismissed by certain employers but they have not lost their right to operate within the building industry. The housing construction situation was such that last year, despite the money available, houses could not be constructed because of the materials position and because of the shortage of skilled labour. The intention of the Government was to bring the housing situation down to the level at which we could house the Australian population. The Government’s action has had some effect insofar as it is hopeful that this year we will be able to construct more houses because those engaged in building operations in undesirable types of development, such as high rise buildings, can now be employed on housing construction. The Minister has the position well in hand. If there is unemployment in Australia, it is unlikely that there will be any unemployment in the building industry while the need for housing is so great as it is today.

page 331

QUESTION

DR HENRY KISSINGER

Senator DEVITT:

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Could Australia, as an expression of its most ardent wish to see peace between nations and peoples of the world, and as an acknowledgment of outstanding efforts towards this end, suitably recognise the great work of Dr Henry Kissinger as a mediator in international disputes? When deciding suitable alternative forms of recognition of outstanding public service in place of the former honours awards, would it not be appropriate to provide an Australian honour running even to a special citizenship status for international figures who render great service to mankind, regardless of colour, class, creed or nationality? In any event, is it possible to suitably express the sentiments of all Australians for the incredibly successful endeavours of this man who is undoubtedly the most outstanding figure of our time?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I can answer that question in both my capacities, that is, as Minister for Foreign Affairs and as Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I agree with the eulogistic terms used in relation to Dr Kissinger I think everybody in the world is grateful for his tremendous energy and for the successes which he has had and which we hope he will have in the future. The question of an Australian honours award is a matter for the Department of the Special Minister of State. I shall convey the honourable senator’s suggestion to the Minister and let the honourable senator have a reply when that Department is in a position to let me have one.

page 331

QUESTION

CZECHOSLOVAKIAN MIGRANTS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it not a fact that Australian citizens of Czechoslovakian origin cannot obtain a visa to visit their former country of birth unless they forfeit their Australian citizenship? Will the Government have discussions with the Czechoslovakian Government to abolish this discrimination and to protect the rights of these Australian citizens?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I shall find out the details for Senator Young and let him have them.

page 331

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER COMMISSION

Senator POYSER:

-Has the Minister for the Media seen reports in today’s Press commenting on the fact that the Government is undertaking a feasibility study for an Australian Government newspaper commission? Can the Minister say whether this study is being undertaken? If so, what stage has it reached? Can the Minister say whether such a commission would have regulatory functions that would empower it to undertake general Press reform?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator will be equally aware as I am that the Australian Labor Party’s platform states that the Labor Government will initiate a study into the feasibility of establishing an Australian newspaper commission along lines similar to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. If it were considered feasible as a result of the study, the Government would establish such a commission. My Department is preparing a position paper on the subject. As long ago as December of last year the Prime Minister, in reply to a question directed to him by Mr Nixon, pointed out that the Department of the Media was about to embark on such a study. The position paper which my Department is preparing on the matter involves, in the first instance, a plan for a definitions study and the practicability of organising a feasibility study on the question of cost. The definitions study will look at the various demands and utterances that have been made from time to time especially from journalists and the Australian Journalists Association concerning their requests for the establishment of an Australian newspaper commission.

The last aspect of the honourable senator’s question is concerned with a regulatory body. I assume the honourable senator is referring to what might be called a ‘Press council’. I am given to understand the position to be that because newspapers published throughout the States are registered under the various newspaper Acts the question of the establishment of a Press council is rather a matter for the State legislatures. However, I will look at the matter.

page 332

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the Minister representing the Treasurer agree that, 1 8 months after a state of growth, low inflation and economic prosperity, Australia is now in a state of economic danger, astronomic interest rates and employment uncertainty? Does he agree that this state has been brought upon us by unwise, extravagant and unco-ordinated action by the Government, its variously viewed Ministers and its plethora of advisers, many of them outside the normal areas of departmental responsiblility? When will he tell the Senate what action the Government proposes to get Australia out of this massive inflationary situation into which the Government has manoeuvred itself? Does he concede that all the State Premiers and the Opposition in this Parliament have expressed their willingness to help deal with the problem?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

– I do not think any sane or rational person would agree with the implications of Senator Cotton’s question. If the honourable senator would like to recall the time when we took office 1 8 months ago he will remember that the annual increase in the gross national product in this country was about 2.5 per cent. That rate has doubled in the time this Party has been in power. It is sufficient to say that the measures which were taken by this Government, difficult as some of them were to take, were made necessary by the mess we inherited when we took office. There is no necessity for the Government to make any statement elucidating any so-called mess as mentioned by Senator Cotton. However, a statement will be made tonight in this chamber and a statement will also be made in the House of Representatives by the Treasurer.

page 332

QUESTION

NOVELTY BALLOONS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Customs and Excise seen a recent Press report concerning balloon-blowing novelties which, by virtue of the fumes emitted from the balloon substance, may make children sick? If these novelties are imported, what action does the Minister propose to take against them?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I have seen the reports. There has been consultation with the Department of Health, which has a responsibility in this regard, and it has advised that these goods are dangerous to children because of the compounds included in the substance used for the blowing. I have taken steps to prohibit any more imports.

page 332

QUESTION

QUARANTINE PROCEDURES

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to serious allegations made by the senior quarantine officer in Western Australia that quarantine procedures in Western Australia were lax. Is it a fact that the allegations were investigated by a departmental committee? If so, who comprised the committee, from whom did it seek evidence, and what was the nature of the report?

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, I am aware that there has been some criticism of the quarantine procedures in Western Australia, particularly at Fremantle. I take it that that is what Senator Sim refers to. Obviously any criticism of quarantine procedures is taken very seriously by the Department of Health. I think all honourable senators would agree that Australia has a quite outstanding record so far as quarantine is concerned, even to the point that some people say that it is unnecessarily strict and severe. That certainly is not the view of the Department or of the Senate. After these complaints were received, at the direction of the Minister for Health 3 senior officers of his Department were sent to investigate the matter. They were the First Assistant DirectorGeneral of Quarantine, who is a veterinary surgeon with many years of private and governmental experience; the Director of the New South Wales Division of the Department, who is a qualified medical practitioner with many years of experience; and the Assistant DirectorGeneral of the Department’s policy secretariat. They went to Western Australia in the middle of March to make an on-the-spot investigation of the complaints that had been raised. During their visit to Western Australia they interviewed everybody who could be in any position to shed any light on the matter, particularly in regard to any of the specific allegations that had been made.

These 3 senior officers reported that they could find no evidence to suggest that there had been a break-down of the procedures in Fremantle in particular or Western Australia in general. They found particularly that quarantine security had not been impaired in any way by the decision of the Western Australia Director of Health, who is also a very experienced medical officer, to reserve for himself the authority to order the fumigation of vessels, which I think was one of the matters particularly concerning the people who had been critical. More recently there was more criticism in the Press to the effect that the grain ship ‘Lorana’ was not fumigated with cyanide gas while it was in Fremantle last month. The Director of the Department of Health in Western Australia has been instructed to issue a Press statement setting out the full facts of the case. As far as I understand, that has been done. For the benefit of honourable senators I should add that the Minister for Health assures me that he is satisfied that proper quarantine measures were taken in regard to the ‘Lorana ‘. All the procedures were carried out. They were entirely in accord with the recommendations that were made as late as 1972 by the World Health Organisation, and they were consistent with Australia’s very high standards of quarantine.

page 333

QUESTION

TARIFF CUTS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Leader of the

Government in the Senate aware that the majority of major stores in Australia are purchasing goods, particularly clothing, from Asian countries and are manipulating store records in such a way as to avoid passing on tariff cuts to the consumer? Is he also aware that documentary evidence is available to prove that some major stores are marking up the goods to which I have referred to provide a profit margin in many instances in excess of 400 per cent? Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the Prices Justification Tribunal has sufficient powers and authority to initiate an inquiry, as a matter of urgency, to cause such morally dishonest practices to cease forthwith?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-It has been evident for some time that the landed price of certain goods has dropped dramatically and that in many cases the drop has not been passed on to the consumer. In other cases it has been clear that various devices have been used to puff up the price of goods which have been purchased fairly cheaply overseas, sometimes by the use of dummy intermediaries and sometimes by the deliberate puffing up of prices at the place of purchase. The Department of Customs and Excise, by using its computer, has been able to ascertain many of these facts. Some of them have been made available to the Prices Justification Tribunal. I think it is public knowledge that the Tribunal is initiating some action in regard to the retail prices of goods which have been purchased overseas.

page 333

QUESTION

DELIVERY OF STEEL

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration say what progress is being made in solving the dispute between the Transport Workers Union and the Waterside Workers Federation which has held up delivery of 10,000 tons of steel from the roll-on roll-off terminal of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd at Port Adelaide since March of this year? I understand that the Waterside Workers Federation is prepared to go to the disputes committee of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, but the TWU will not agree to that course of action. As many contracts are being seriously delayed because of this dispute, what is the Government doing to effect an early settlement?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I know that officers of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had discussions with the 2 unions. On Friday last the Premier of South Australia met representatives of at least one of the unions. I am not aware of the current position, but I will see what information I can get for Senator Jessop and I will let him know.

page 333

QUESTION

EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Will the Minister for the Media tell the Senate the measures that are being undertaken to expand educational broadcasting for schools? Has the Government any plan to co-ordinate, at a national level, the initiatives that have been reported from time to time in the Press? I refer to the late night transmissions of video taped material for recording in South Australian schools which were approved by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board last year.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I can tell the honourable senator that, at or about the time of the recent double dissolution, arrangements had been made by my colleague the Minister for Education and me to hold a meeting with State Ministers for Education to consider the future of educational broadcasting throughout Australia. The last conference of that nature, from recollection, took place under the previous Government as long ago as 1967 or 1968. As a result of the double dissolution and the election we were not able to proceed with the proposed joint educational broadcasting conference. I am now asking officers of my Department to confer with officers of the Department of Education to make arrangements again for the early convening of an Australian Government-State Government conference of this nature.

Last year the Australian Broadcasting Control Board gave authority to one of the commercial television stations to arrange for late night transmission of educational broadcasting on to video tapes for transmission to schools. This is one of the matters which the Government hopes to take up further. I understand that the Australian Broadcasting Commission also is engaged in this area in one or two respects. My Department has put out some educational media kits which are for distribution throughout the various schools. We regard educational broadcasting as a thing of the future. The Australian Broadcasting Commission expects to hold an international seminar on this matter in Australia in 1975. 1 can inform the honourable senator that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is renowned internationally as being to the fore in educational broadcasting arrangements.

page 334

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address to the Minister for Agriculture a question concerning meat. The question, which is in 2 parts, seeks some information- and I am not being derogatory in saying that. The first part of the question refers to a report of a considerable purchase of beef by Russia from the European Economic Community. I ask the Minister: Has any approach been made by the Australian Meat Board or by the Government to the authorities in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the purchase of Australian meat, as occurred some years ago? In the second part of my question I ask whether there is any information regarding an agreement that has been made or is likely to be reached with Iran on the supply of sheep meat to that country. Is this trade to be in the form of live sheep or in mutton, and is any Australian investment involved in the set-up? If so, where and how much?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-As regards the first part of the honourable senator’s question, no, I am not aware of any major purchase of beef by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from the European Common Market countries. The USSR recently negotiated a contract for the purchase of 40,000 tons of mutton or lamb from New Zealand and this stimulated some interest in the possibility of an easing of the current position so far as trade in lamb or mutton is concerned. But I have not been informed that there has been any major purchase in the EEC. Such a purchase is not unlikely because the EEC currently has very large stocks of beef for sale, and there could be a sale to the USSR just as there were large sales of butter to the USSR last year in order to lower the surplus EEC stocks. If there is any further information on that aspect of the question, I will obtain it for the honourable senator.

As regards shipments to Iran, yes, basically the authorities in that country want live sheep, and my current information is that they have recently made inquiries for additional orders of about 600,000 live sheep. I am not aware of any Australian equity involvement in such a venture. It is my understanding that those inquiries have come from the trading authorities in Iran. This is largely a matter, I think, for the Minister for Overseas Trade to advise me on. Again, if there is any further information I will obtain it for the honourable senator.

page 334

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture. As there have been varied reports of the outcome of the Australian mission’s visit to Japan to discuss the meat situation, can the Minister indicate whether the talks were satisfactory? Further, is there any likelihood of the Japanese market opening up in the near future for our meat exports?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– A trade mission did go to Japan about 3 weeks ago under the auspices of the Minister for Overseas Trade to discuss with the Japanese the question of the re-opening of Australian meat imports into that country. Discussions were held with the Ministers for Agriculture and Trade in Japan. The Australian delegation emphasised to the Japanese the need for Japan to protect its long term sources of supply. The Japanese recognised this problem but were not prepared to give any commitment in relation to the reopening of the market in the immediate future. However, they did make the point that should it be possible to reopen those quotas then the Japanese Government would certainly do so. Those talks will be continued next month when the Japanese-Australian ministerial conference takes place in Australia.

page 334

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

- Mr President, I take this opportunity to answer a part of a question asked earlier by Senator Drake-Brockman which I overlooked. The question concerned the Australian Meat Board’s activities in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It is true that some years ago the Board did negotiate a very good contract for Australian meat in that country but I am not aware of any activities by the Board in the Soviet Union at the present time. If the Board is operating there I will advise the honourable senator accordingly.

page 335

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER COMMISSION

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for the Media, is related to the comments which the Minister made earlier with regard to the Australian newspaper commission. The Minister referred to the various demands by journalists of the Australian Journalists Association. My understanding is that the demands from the journalists of the Australian Journalists Association would be best served by a Press council formed from within their Association. Will the position paper mentioned by the Minister put into balance the danger which could be developed through government influence in a profession which needs to observe its own ethics without prior censorship and government control? When will the position paper be available for study by the Opposition?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-First of all, I think the honourable senator should understand that it is the policy of the Australian Journalists Association that Press councils should be established throughout Australia.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is that Party policy too?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not Party policy at present That is what I tried to explain earlier, and I am sure successfully, to my colleague Senator Poyser, but obviously Senator Greenwood was not listening. Senator Guilfoyle has said that it is the request of journalists of the Australian Journalists Association that a Press council be established. I think the request for the establishment of an Australian newspaper commission was heightened very considerably last Friday by the announcement that the Canberra News’, a newspaper which had been published in Canberra since November 1969, was going to disappear. Following a motion carried by, I understand, the Canberra branch of the Australian Journalists Association, a request was made that the Australian Government implement its policy of conducting a feasibility study into the establishment of an Australian Newspaper Commission along the lines of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. When my Department was established, I asked my officers to have a look at the matter because it is my Party’s policy. The Department has been investigating it. A couple of officers were engaged on it but unfortunately they had to be taken off the work, because they were required to go to New Guinea recently to assist the Government of New Guinea on media matters. Those officers have returned to Australia and they will be asked to re-commence their studies. I do not know when the report will become available.

page 335

QUESTION

CONCORD REPATRIATION HOSPITAL

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. What is the current position on the proposal to establish a casualty department at the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-This question is rather similar to one asked by Senator Mulvihill which I answered recently. For some time the Concord Repatriation Hospital has been available for the treatment of people who have been injured in accidents, particularly road accidents, in the vicinity of the hospital. As I understand it, at the present time appropriate steps are being taken by the Repatriation Commission to see that the facilities are extended so that there is a full-scale, properly conducted casualty department within the Concord Hospital and so that these services are provided on a systematic basis rather than on the more ad hoc basis which exists at the present time. As soon as I am in a position to know when the casualty department will be functioning, I shall advise Senator Brown.

page 335

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, refers to a statement made some 9 weeks ago by the Prime Minister that:

The Government’s anti-inflationary policies are working. Inflation is falling and will continue to fall.

In view of the record rise in prices in the June quarter, as revealed in the consumer price index- a pre-warning of which must have been available to the Government at the time of the Prime Minister’s statement- does the Government reject the validity of the consumer price index as an indicator of general price movements? If not, why did the Prime Minister mislead the people in this manner? Alternatively, if the Prime Minister and his Cabinet still support that statement, why is the Government now contemplating savage new punitive measures?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The Prime Minister did not mislead anyone. The statements by the

Prime Minister as to inflation no doubt will be borne out in the goodness of time. The honourable senator opposite would do a lot more for his Party and for this country if he were to assist the Government in having passed the measures which would help to deal with inflation. I remind the honourable senator that he was one of those who sat opposite and delayed legislation for month after month throughout last year and this year until the double dissolution. He would not even let us bring to debate the bills on trade practices and consumer protection which everyone recognised were necessary in the battle against inflation. I only hope that the election has taught him a lesson, that he will stick to his legislative functions and help the Government to deal with inflation.

page 336

QUESTION

CAR TELEPHONES

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour and Immigration · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Postmaster-General may have seen a report in the weekend Press stating that there is a heavy demand for car telephones. Can the Minister give an indication of what steps are being taken by his Department to improve this service?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– There have been some demands for car telephones. At the present time, the telephones are supplied by private suppliers and are available in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne. The Post Office is of the belief that it should provide these telephones and improve the systems. It is presently engaged in studying to what extent a new system of telephones might be applied in this category and also to what extent the Post Office itself will provide this service. The study is not yet complete, but as soon as the information is available I will let Senator Donald Cameron have it.

page 336

QUESTION

APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Did the Minister for Agriculture, in explaining to the Senate the proposed Apple and Pear Corporation, say on 6 December 1973 that the Corporation would consist of 9 part-time members, including an independent chairman- I emphasise the word ‘independent’ plus 4 members to represent growers, and other members? Is it a fact that the Minister has now appointed a chairman? Is it also a fact that far from being an independent person, that person, although undoubtedly expert and experienced, currently holds a senior executive position in a major fruit exporting company which is in direct competition with other exporters? If so, why has the Minister departed from the undertaking given to the Senate and, I understand, to the industry that the chairman would be truly independent?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-It is true that originally I made the comment that an independent chairman would be appointed. An independent chairman has been appointed. The word ‘indepentent’ means that the man will act independently of other interests which may conflict with his job as chairman of the Corporation. I have no reservations about the person in question, Mr Bain, who I believe not only is competent, as Senator Rae has said, but also knows the industry. It is quite true that he has business interests in the apple and pear industry. I have discussed these matters with him, of course, and I am quite confident that Mr Bain will act impartially and in the best interests of the industry as chairman. If any evidence was ever brought to my knowledge that he was not acting like that, I would reconsider it and discuss it with him. But I do not believe that that situation will arise.

page 336

QUESTION

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL BENEFIT FUNDS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware of the recommendation by the Finance Committee of the Hospital Contribution Fund to raise the salary of one executive from $24,000 a year to $3 1,500 a year, plus an expense allowance of $1,500 and a free car, and that this salary level is similar to executive salary levels in other voluntary health funds? Does not the disclosure of this level of salary and size of increase without reference to members support the Government’s proposition that these funds are wasteful, are used as empires by their executives and should be replaced by a central universal fund?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am glad, Mr President, that Senator Grimes asked that question. You may be surprised to learn that I agree with the conclusions he has drawn from the facts which he has, with such a sense of public responsibility, brought to the attention of the Senate. Certainly we are all aware that the conduct of private hospital benefit funds has been that of private entrepreneurs engaging in a businessand the business they have been dealing with is the health of the Australian people. It has not been a public service which they have been providing. It has been to a very large extent a means of providing very great rewards for these people who have occupied executive positions in a series of organisations which have not in any way served the best interests of a national health scheme for the Australian people. It is for that reason and for many other equally good reasons that the Australian Labor Party adopted its policy towards national health insurance. It is for that reason that we presented these Bills to the Parliament. It is for that reason that we went to a double dissolution- and the Australian people re-elected us to govern. And it is for that reason that we will once again in the very near future be putting these propositions to Parliament at a joint sitting of both Houses.

page 337

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYED SCHOOL LEAVERS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration: Is it a fact that when governmental announcements are made from time to time giving the number of unemployed persons in Australia, a rider is added indicating that the figure given is exclusive of school leavers? Can the Minister inform the Senate at what stage students leaving school and not gaining employment become recognised by the Department of Labor as unemployed members of the Australian work force? Will the Minister advise how many such unemployed erstwhile students there were as at 30 June last who were not included in the number of total unemployed at that time?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-I have not got the figures available but I will get the information concerning school leavers for Senator Laucke. Usually figures issued by the Department of Labor and by the Minister for Labor over the years, including Ministers for Labor in the Governments of which Senator Laucke was a member, have been compiled on a yearly basis at the end of the school year with a notation that they included a number of school leavers. I will get a detailed reply and pass it on to the honourable senator.

page 337

QUESTION

POSTAL CHARGES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Postmaster-General relates to the position of journals and magazines published by churches, charities, community establishments and similar organisations. Because they contribute to our quality of life, will the Minister take this fact into account and protect them from any steep increase in postal charges? Will he ensure conditions and circumstances that will enable them to have a useful distribution without undue hardship?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– That sounds like a sensitive question. I cannot answer it at this stage except to say that this afternoon I will table the Vernon Committee Report. I think that Senator Davidson has already heard the news that the Committee believes that the 2 commissions should pay their way. 1 can only say that the honourable senator will have to wait to see what Government policy is with respect to the categories of mail about which he has asked his question.

page 337

QUESTION

CHILEAN REFUGEES

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that nearly 7,000 Chilean political refugees were granted asylum by about 20 embassies in Santiago after the overthrow of President Allende. In view of the fact that the Chilean regime accepted a legal obligation only to grant safe conduct out of Chile to refugees who had fled to Latin American embassies, will the Australian Government take steps to secure an international agreement to a universal convention on diplomatic asylum so that refugees fleeing from political persecution can enjoy the same protection?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Senator Gietzelt has raised a matter which is of particular interest to me. I think that the figures which he mentioned in his question are broadly correct. He has put his finger on the problem that unfortunately there is no international convention on diplomatic asylum. What happened in Chile was that a number of embassies in Santiago were able to offer diplomatic asylum because they were signatories to the Caracas Convention. But that convention is peculiar to Latin America and countries outside that area are not signatories to the convention. A number of other embassies, including our own, were not so fortunately placed as the Latin American embassies and as a result we were left in a very doubtful legal position. I suggest that when we are dealing with the lives of people we want to be fairly certain of what we are doing. Prior to the overthrow of the Government in Chile, I was worried about the absence of a universal convention. Subsequent events there certainly have underlined the need for such a convention.

Territorial asylum- that is where a country grants asylum to political refugees in its own territorywas the subject of a United Nations declaration which was adopted in 1967. The United Nations Commissioner for Refugees has submitted to the General Assembly a draft convention on territorial asylum. But diplomatic asylum, which is the type of asylum raised by the honourable senator, was stated for consideration by the United Nations International Law Commission in 1949 and has received little attention since then. After the coup in Chile I realised that this vacuum existed, and we had an embarrassing time over it. I asked the Department of Foreign

Affairs to study this whole situation. I was able to announce in Adelaide on 15 June that we would be dealing with this matter and that as an initial effort we hoped to be able to make a start on preparing it for submission to the General Assembly this year. Obviously the time is ripe for such a convention. It is time for us to try to stir the United Nations Law Commission in New York. In addition to this step we have asked our diplomats around the world to raise this matter with the countries to which they are accredited to see what interest there is. The idea is initially to inscribe an item on the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly. Fortunately at this stage we are getting some encouraging reactions at least. As a preliminary step to the preparation of a convention we are proposing that the United Nations General Assembly adopt a declaration on diplomatic asylum which would be an important element in the next task of elaborating and codifying precise legal rules relating to the subject of diplomatic asylum.

Let me say that I believe that the general acceptance of principles governing diplomatic asylum will be useful to all the parties concerned. It will help the state granting asylum since it will acknowledge its right within international law to grant protection to political refugees and to receive a guarantee of safe conduct out of the territories for the asylees. It will also be helpful to the territorial state since conditions will be laid down under which the right of asylum may be exercised. Finally, and probably most important of all, it will also help the asylee by codifying a humanitarian practice so as to protect him in urgent cases from a breakdown in the rule of law.

page 338

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Did the Labor Party claim in full page Press advertisements just prior to the May election that the Prime Minister had beaten inflation? If so, was that a false claim or is the present mere 16’/i per cent rate of inflation attributable to causes which have thrust themselves upon the economy only since the end of March this year? If the latter is true, does the Prime Minister still blame inflation on the previous Government as he did throughout 1973?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The honourable senator is making the assertion- a fallacious one I think- that the rate of inflation for a quarter can be multiplied by four to achieve an annual rate. He asks whether there have been factors since the statement by the Prime Minister which have affected inflation. Of course there have been. One of the factors is the wage claims and wage increases, although it seems clear that they are not the primary causes but, rather, the endeavours by persons to keep up with the cost of living. I think that the question of the causes of inflation which the honourable senator raises ought to be explored by a full debate in this chamber at an appropriate time. I hope that the honourable senator listened to what I said earlier and that he now has learned his lesson and will no longer endeavour to obstruct the efforts of the Government when it introduces legislation to protect consumers and to stop the rackets in industry which have forced up prices. I trust that the honourable senator will lend his voice and his vote to the passage of the trade practices legislation when it once again comes to this chamber from the House of Representatives.

page 338

QUESTION

IMPORTED MOTOR VEHICLE TYRES

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Customs and Excise aware that motor vehicle tyres, rated only to 100 kilometers per hour, are being imported into and sold in Australia? Does he consider that such tyres may be potentially dangerous? If so, what action does he intend to take in the interests of consumer protection and the safety of road users?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am aware that such tyres have been imported recently and also that other shipments are on the way. The tyres are marked, not very satisfactorily, to show 100 kilometers per hour. This is the only indication that their safety limit is 100 kilometers per hour which is, of course, a very low limit for highways. The tyres are really not suitable for use on the roads. In Europe they are restricted to farm and similar use. They are not used on road vehicles. The import of these tyres has concerned the Department of Customs and Excise, the Interim Commission on Consumer Standards and the Department of Transport. Tests are being made on the tyres now. If those tests bear out the contentions which are being made, it is proposed that steps will be taken to prevent further imports. If necessary further regulations will be made.

Senator Devitt:

– Are they cheaper?

Senator MURPHY:

-Yes, they are a cheap kind of tyre which is sold overseas. The reality is that apparently someone has bought up a large shipment of these tyres which are not allowed to be sold overseas. They have brought them in here and people are buying the tyres thinking that they are suitable for use on the roads as ordinary tyres would be. The suggestion is- it is being verified- that these are quite dangerous. There is a marking on them ‘radial’ which ordinarily would indicate that they are suitable for road use. I assure the honourable senator that those who have responsibilities in this regard are endeavouring, as rapidly as possible, to take all such action as will protect the public if the tests bear out the hypothesis that these tyres are substandard and dangerous. Action will be taken, even to the confiscation of the tyres if they come within the category of prohibited imports.

page 339

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister agree that the latest consumer price index figures indicate a current inflation rate of 16 per cent in Australia? Will he agree that this is the highest rate for more than 20 years? Will the Minister also agree that Labor Party advertising in May 1974 claimed that:

Only Whitlam has reduced inflation by one-third.

Will the Minister now agree that such advertising was misleading and untrue and unsubstantiated by subsequent events?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I will not agree with that because the advertising was right. The action taken by the Government no doubt materially assisted in holding down the inflation which was under way and which was commented on by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as having begun here in the time of the previous Government, and as being rampant overseas. Instead of honourable senators opposite making smart remarks I think what the Government would like them to do and what the country would expect them to do is to co-operate with us in dealing with the problems that we face. I trust that, this time, honourable senators opposite will do so. I recognise that the honourable senator has not been a member of this chamber previously. He came here through the errors of his colleagues. 1 trust that the honourable senator will appeal to his colleagues and see to it that those errors which led to the loss of seats by some of our departed senators will not be repeated.

page 339

QUESTION

FEDERAL DIVISION OF STIRLING

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to the Chief Electoral Officer’s rebuke published on 20 July to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate concerning Senator Withers’ innuendos in this chamber last week which reflected upon the diligence and/or honesty of electoral officers in the Division of

Stirling in Western Australia. I ask: Will the Leader of the Government again invite Senator Withers to withdraw and apologise for his scurrilous allegations? If Senator Withers again declines to withdraw will the Leader of the Government consider moving, at an appropriate time, a motion to dissociate the Government from the Opposition Leader’s deplorable imputations and also provide honourable senators in the Opposition with an opportunity to repudiate their Leader’s slanders?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I think all honourable senators are aware of the imputations which were cast by the Leader of the Opposition upon the Electoral Office. The Chief Electoral Officer on 20th of this month said:

In my capacity as chief Australian electoral officer, I wish to refute this totally uncalled for implication that a fair and proper recount of votes, and final result, in the division of Stirling, would not have been achieved without the ‘alertness’ of Liberal Party scrutineers. 1 wish to stress that the recount of votes, together with the initial count, was conducted by officials of the Australian Electoral Office with their customary thoroughness and impartiality. It is not unknown for counting errors to be made in the course of the initial scrutiny of ballots in the case of any Federal division. This is precisely why the Australian Electoral Office always attaches the utmost importance to a completely thorough recount process, so that any errors may be rectified.

He made some remarks about the statement by the Leader of the Opposition which I shall not repeat. Obviously those remarks by the Leader of the Opposition have gravely hurt the Electoral Office. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition ought to withdraw his remarks. In a system such as ours it is not right for this kind of reflection on the Electoral Office to be allowed to remain. If the electoral officers have done something that is wrong there are legal processes which ought to be instituted to deal with them. If the Electoral Office has been guilty of some omission such as to call for the kind of remark made by the Leader of the Opposition, he should at least charge it with that and some kind of motion ought to be moved in this place to remove any officer who he thinks has been guilty of some misconduct. I do not believe it is right that such remarks should be made by a person holding a responsible position such as he does. If he made the remarks in the heat of debate- we know that sometimes such statements are made in the heat of debate- in fairness to himself and to the Senate he ought to withdraw them. I invite him to choose the opportunity and to withdraw the remarks promptly. It is not consistent with the operation of our system, and it is not fair, that such a matter should be dealt with in this way by the responsible leader of an Australian political party. I invite him to consider the matter and to withdraw the remarks.

page 340

QUESTION

TREATY ON MIGRATORY BIRDS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that the State of New South Wales does not cause Australia to welsh on its obligations under the Treaty on Migratory Birds?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The Treaty on Migratory Birds was negotiated early this year by the Australian and Japanese Governments. The Treaty deals with a matter of environmental importance to both countries. It was signed on 6 February but is not yet in force. Consideration now is being given to its ratification. The honourable senator may be assured that the Government will ensure that the obligations under the Treaty are scrupulously complied with. I am not aware of whether actions attributable to the Government of New South Wales would place Australia in conflict with the provisions of the Treaty. My colleague the Minister for the Environment and Conservation currently is looking into this matter.

Senator Murphy:

– I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

page 340

VISIT OF MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO LATIN AMERICA

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report and a statement by me relating to my recent visit to Latin America.

page 340

INJECTION MOULDING MACHINES

Industries Assistance Commission Report

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report from the Industries Assistance Commission on injection moulding machines (Dumping and Subsidies Act) dated 14 June 1974.

page 340

STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS LIBRARIES) ACT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Pursuant to Section 6 of the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1971, on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Education I present a statement describing the arrangements in accordance with which payments under this Act have been authorised in 1973.

page 340

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN POST OFFICE

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office. I ask for leave to move a motion ‘that the Senate take note of the report’.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-I move:

I am pleased to announce that one of the royal commissioners, Mr J. J. Kennedy, has agreed to act as Chairman of the Interim Board for the Postal Commission and that Mr A. G. (Bill) Gibbs, Chairman of the Victorian Railways Board, has agreed to act as Chairman of the Interim Board for the Telecommunications Commission. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 340

RAILWAY CARRIAGE DESIGN

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report entitled ‘Consumers Preference in Urban Rail Carriage Design- Results of a Survey Conducted in Brisbane in May and June 1973’. It is dated March 1974.

page 340

QUESTION

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

-Is Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 , formal or not formal?

Senator Durack:

– It is formal. I seek leave to move a motion in respect to it.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

page 340

ATOMIC ENERGY ACT

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name be postponed until 10 sitting days after today.

page 340

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS BILL 1974

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Parliamentary Papers Act 1 908- 1 963.

page 340

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BROADCASTING BILL 1974

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1 946- 1 973.

page 341

HOUSE COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland)- by leave- agreed to:

That a House Committee be appointed to consist of the President and Senators Laucke, Keeffe, McLaren, Martin, Melzer and Webster.

page 341

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message, dated 18 July 1974, from the House of Representatives:

Mr President,

The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946-1973. in addition to Mr Speaker, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings:

Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Coates, MrDuthie, Mr England and Mr Sherry.

page 341

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message, dated 1 8 July 1974, from the House of Representatives:

Mr President,

The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1973, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works:

Mr Bonnett, Mr Garrick, Mr L. K. Johnson, Mr Kelly, Mr Keogh, Mr McVeigh.

page 341

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message, dated 18 July 1974, from the House of Representatives:

Mr President,

The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate that in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951-73 the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts:

Mr Collard, Mr Connolly, Mr Graham, Mr Lusher, Mr Martin, Mr Morris, Mr Reynolds.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr President,

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

  1. 1 ) A Joint Committee be appointed to consider and report on-

    1. foreign affairs and defence generally; and
    2. such matters as may be referred to the committee
    1. by the Minister for Foreign Affairs;
    2. by the Minister for Defence; or
    3. by resolution of either House of the Parliament.
  2. That the Committee consist of 8 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, 4 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. 2 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the House of Representatives, 4 senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 senators nominated by the leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate.
  3. That every nomination of a member of the Committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  4. That the members of the Committee hold office as a Joint Committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion oftime.
  5. That the Committee elect as Chairman of the Committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
  6. That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.
  7. That the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 4 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider.
  8. That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament.
  9. That the Committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.
  10. That 7 members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee and 3 members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.
  11. That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.
  12. That the Committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, appointed in the previous Parliament, relating to any matter on which that Committee had not completed its consideration.
  13. That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee.
  14. 1 4) 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.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 1 7 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

page 342

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the fol lowing message from the House of Representatives:

Mr President,

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

1 ) That a Joint Committee be appointed to inquire into and, as appropriate, report upon-

complaints arising from prices charged by private industry and by the public sector;

movements in prices of goods and services in particular fields or sections of private industry and the public sector, for example, as measured by price indices, and

such other matters relating to prices as may be referred to the Committee by resolution of either House of the Parliament.

That the Committee consist of 4 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, 2 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, one member of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the House of Representatives, 2 senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one senator nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate.

That every nomination of a member of the Committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the Committee hold office as a Joint Committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion oftime.

That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.

That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

That the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to examine.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, and to sit during any recess.

That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

12) That 5 members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee and 3 members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee.

That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.

That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That the Committee recognise the need for cooperation between the Commonwealth and consumer protection bodies in the States.

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.

That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on Prices appointed during the Twenty-eighth Parliament.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 1 8 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee to examine and report on certain matters relating to prices.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

page 342

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr President,

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

1 ) That a Joint Committee be appointed-

to examine and report on measures that might be taken in the long and short term to provide the Northern Territory with responsible selfgovernment in relation to local affairs- including appropriate divisions of legislative and executive responsibility at the national and territorial or other level- having regard to:

the Government’s wish to establish a fully elected Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory by 3 1 December 1 974;

the relationship that will need to exist between a local executive and the national Government;

the size, composition and diversity of interest of the population of the Territory including of the Territory including the special difficulty of providing for effective participation by the Aboriginal people in a political system which is alien to their traditional culture:

the extent to which the people of the Northern Territory’ wish to accept greater responsibility for its government;

any other special considerations which the Committee considers relevant to its conclusions;

financial arrangements, and

b) to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the Northern Territory as are referred to it-

by the Minister for the Northern Territory, or

by resolution of cither House of the Parliament.

That the Committee consist of 3 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, one member of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, one member of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the House of Representatives, 2 senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one senator nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate.

That every nomination of a member of the Committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the Committee hold office as a Joint Committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.

6 ) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

That the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to examine.

8 ) That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, and to sit during any recess.

That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory appointed during the Twenty-eighth Parliament.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the Committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members of the Committee have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy on the Committee.

That 5 members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee, and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitutes a quorum of that sub-committee.

14) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.

16) 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.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 1 9 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee to examine and report on certain matters relating to the Northern Territory.
  2. ) That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

page 343

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr President,

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

1 ) That a Joint Committee be appointed to-

examine and report on all proposals for modifications or variations of the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on the nineteenth day of November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for the Capital Territory, and

examine and report on such other matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to the Committee-

by the Minister for the Capital Territory, or

by resolution of either House of the Parliament.

That the Committee consist of 3 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, one member of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, one member of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the House of Representatives, 2 senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and 2 senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

That every nomination of a member of the Committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the Committee hold office as a Joint Committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the Committee elect as Chairman of the Committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister or by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

6 ) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any lime when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

7 ) That the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to move from place to place, and to sit during any recess.

That the Committee or any sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it.

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That 5 members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee, and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitutes a quorum of that sub-committee.

That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.

That the committee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, appointed in previous Parliaments, relating to any matters which are again referred to the committee.

That the committee may proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members of the committee have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy on the committee.

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.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 20 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee to examine and report on certain matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

page 344

EXCISE BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Murphy) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesMinister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

This Bill, and the Customs Bill which I will introduce shortly, make provision for measures designed to limit the opportunity for persons to profit from increases in customs and excise duties which are made from time to time, especially those normally varied in conjunction with the Budget. Honourable senators will be aware of the speculative practices followed by some importers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in the weeks prior to annual Budgets. This speculation takes the form of paying duty prior to the introduction of the Budget on abnormally high quantities of goods such as potable spirits, tobacco products and petrol in the expectation that duties on those commodities will be increased. If duties increase and the excess stocks on which duty was paid at a lower rate are sold at marked-up prices, excessive profits are made. Irrespective of whether it is an importer, wholesaler or retailer who actually takes the profit it is the consumer, the man in the street, who foots the bill.

The incidence of excessive pre-Budget clearances reached an alarming level in 1971 when duties were increased on tobacco products and petrol. Following questions asked by members of my Party in opposition, my predecessor informed members in the other place that excessive clearances on those commodities prior to Budget night that year resulted in some $5.3m duty being avoided. By ‘avoided’ was meant that amount of additional duty would have been paid to the Australian Government had those excess stocks not been cleared from bond ahead of normal demand. In the 1973 Budget this Government increased revenue duties on petrol, tobacco products and potable spirits and again duty was paid on abnormally high quantities of the latter two commodities prior to the introduction of the Budget. On that occasion the duty avoided was estimated to reach about $7m, more than half of it represented by extraordinarily high clearances of potable spirits.

This Bill proposes 2 measures that will enable the Australian Government to severely curtail the practices to which I have just referred. The most important of the 2 measures now proposed empowers the Minister at a time when speculation on tariff changes might be anticipated, to specify by Gazette notice a declared period during which restriction on clearances will apply, a description of goods, or classes of goods which are to be subject to such restriction and a base period which will be used to determine normal levels of clearance.

It is proposed that the Minister will make a quota order setting out the quantity of specified goods which a person or company may clear for home consumption during the declared period at the rates of duty then applicable. The quota order will have regard to normal clearances by the person or company concerned and other relevant factors. Provision has been made under which a person or company may clear goods in excess of their quota. However, if the rate of duty is increased at the end of the quota period the quantity in excess of the quota order will attract duty at the increased rate. It is provided that clearance of any goods in excess of quota will be permitted only subject to lodgement of a cash deposit equal to the existing duty, in addition to the payment of the existing duty. This cash deposit will then be refunded on payment of whatever additional duty may have become payable. The Bill incorporates a provision for review of quota orders by a Review Tribunal when a quota holder appeals against the Minister’s decision.

The second measure contained in this Bill will permit the varying of rates of excise duty by notice published in the Australian Government Gazette when the House of Representatives is not sitting. A similar provision is already contained in the Customs Act to permit variations in rates of customs duties.

These 2 measures will go a long way towards curtailing speculative pre-Budget practices and the subsequent temptation to exploit the consumer. It is only fair, however, to point out that these measures cannot completely limit profit taking at the time of duty increases as there must always be a quantity of revenue goods on which duty has already been paid in the hands of merchants and retailers. This Parliament would have had the power to further reduce the opportunity for post-Budget profit-taking had the Government’s prices and incomes referendum been successful last December. As it now stands only the States can act to completely protect consumers. I might observe that the South Australian Government already does this.

I might add that the Australian Government is not alone in having to introduce measures to curtail speculative pre-Budget practices. For instance, the United Kingdom found it necessary to legislate against such practices with, I understand, very satisfactory results. The Bill also includes formal amendments to bring the principal Act in accord with the new drafting style adopted for contemporary legislation. Mr President, I seek leave to have the notes on the clauses incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The notes read as follows)-

NOTES ON CLAUSES

Introductory notes

The purpose of the Bill is to curb speculation on budgetary excise tariffchanges by regulating clearances during a period immediately preceding a time when such changes might be anticipated.

It is proposed that, during a declared period, clearances of goods such as potable spirits, beer, tobacco products and petroleum products be subject to quota ceilings related to normal levels of clearance.

Provision is made for clearances of quantities in excess of quota in a manner which, in the event of an increase in the rate of duty, applies the increased rate to the excess quantity.

Notes on clauses

The purposes and functions of the clauses of the Bill are:

Clause 1 -Title and citation.

Clause 2- Commencement.

Clause 3- Machinery amendment only.

Clause 4- Provides for: the Minister to specify by Gazette Notice a declared period during which restriction of clearances will apply, goods which will be subject to such restrictions and a base period for purposes of determining quota the Minister to make, before or after entry of goods, quota orders which state that a persons quota is a specified quantity or is nil any increased rate of duty to apply in respect of goods in excess of quota which are entered for home consumption during the declared period delivery for home consumption of goods entered in excess of quota subject to a cash security being lodged in an amount equal to the amount of existing duty revocation or variation by the Minister of a quota order before expiration of the declared period or, if later, the period within which application for review of the order by a Review Tribunal may be made. variations to quota orders, which are increases, to have effect on and from the day the original order came into force variations to quota orders, which are reductions, to have effect on and from the day on which the variation is made copies of orders by the Minister making, revoking or varying quota orders to be served on the persons concerned as soon as practicable the Excise Regulations to make provision for, and in relation to, a tribunal to review quota orders and variations of quota orders

Clause 5- Excludes from a special facility for delivery without entry of goods in any quantity which would result in quota being exceeded.

Clause 6- Specifies the period of time before which no action can be taken against an officer for collecting new or increased duties introduced by notice published in the Gazette.

Clause 7-Provides for the introduction of new or amended rates of Excise duty by notice published in the Gazette when the House of Representatives is not sitting.

Clause 8-Formal drafting amendments.

Senator MURPHY:

-I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) adjourned.

page 346

CUSTOMS BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Murphy) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill is to curb speculation on budgetary customs tariff changes by regulating clearances during a period immediately preceding a time when such changes might be anticipated. It is proposed that, during a declared period, clearances of goods such as potable spirits, beer, tobacco products and petroleum products be subject to quota ceilings related to normal levels of clearance. Provision is made for clearance of quantities in excess of quota in a manner which, in the event of an increase in the rate of duty, applies the increased rate to the excess quantity.

Mr President, I ask that the notes on the clauses be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

The purposes and functions of the clauses of the Bill are:-

Clause 1- Title and citation.

Clause 2- Commencement.

Clause 3- Repeals Section 6 of the Principal Act which is redundant in view of the Administrative Arrangements Order.

Clause 4- Excludes from a special facility for delivery without entry of goods in any quantity which would result in quota being exceeded.

Clause 5- Machinery provision only.

Clause 6 provides for: the Minister to specify by Gazette Notice a declared period during which restriction of clearances will apply, goods which will be subject to such restriction and a base period for purposes of determining quota the Minister to make, before or after entry of goods, quota orders which state that a person’s quota is a specified quantity or is nil any increased rate of duty to apply in respect of goods in excess of quota which are entered for home consumption during the declared period delivery for home consumption of goods entered in excess of quota subject to a cash security being lodged in an amount equal to the amount of existing duty revocation or variation by the Minister of a quota order -before expiration of the declared period or, if later, the period within which application for review of the order by a Review Tribunal may be made variations to quota orders, which are increases, to have effect on and from the day the original order came into force variations to quota orders, which are reductions, to have effect on and from the day on which the variation is made copies of orders by the Minister making, revoking or varying quota orders to be served on the persons concerned as soon as practicable the Customs Regulations to make provision for, and in relation to, a tribunal to review quota orders and variations of quota orders.

Clause 7- Formal drafting amendments.

Senator MURPHY:

-I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) adjourned.

page 346

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is designed to overcome an urgent problem which has emerged following a recent legal interpretation of ‘estimated cost’ in section 18 (8) of the Public Works Committee Act. The problem arises because under this interpretation reference of a project to the Public Works Committee would be required where on receipt of tenders it became evident for the first time that the cost limit of $2m for mandatory referral would be exceeded. Mandatory referral at this late stage would frustrate action to let a contract and the Government considers it would be unworkable.

During the recent interregnum 3 cases occurred where the Department of Housing and Construction was unable to accept tenders because of this interpretation of ‘estimated cost’. The works involved are 3 schools in the Northern Territory for which the estimates of cost at the design development stage were below $2m but on the basis of tenders will each cost more than that figure. Three months have now elapsed since tenders for these works were received. I feel sure that senators will agree that any further delay in proceeding with the works while they are being considered by the Public Works Committee would not only be undesirable but could significantly increase their cost. My colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) therefore has already moved expediency motions so that these works may proceed without reference to the Public Works Committee. However, reliance on this procedure is obviously unsatisfactory particularly as other similar cases are likely to occur during parliamentary recesses. Early amendment of the Act is therefore considered necessary.

Such an amendment has been recommended in the report of the interdepartmental committee on the review of the Public Works Committee Act which I recently tabled. Senators may recall that when the Act was amended last year to increase to $2m the cost limit for referrals to the Public Works Committee, the Government gave an assurance that an interdepartmental committee had already commenced an in-depth examination of the Act. The examination was to cover the full range of public works financed by the Australian Government and produce recommendations for a more rational method of selecting those public works to be referred to the Public Works Committee. The Government has deferred consideration of the report in detail so that it may take into account any comments which the Public Works Committee and other interested persons may wish to make on the Committee’s recommendations. In the meantime, the Government proposes one amendment to overcome the difficult situation outlined above, as well as several minor formal amendments. In the House of Representatives members of the Opposition made the suggestion that the Public Works Committee should, in the future, be informed of any works which are covered by this amendment so that these works can be included in the Committee’s annual report. The Government welcomes this suggestion which it sees as an administrative rather than a legislative matter. I understand that the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be writing to the Minister for Housing and Construction asking him to supply the details of any of these works to the Public Works Committee. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 347

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Bishop) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill is very simple. It is to extend the operation of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1967-1973 for a period of 2 years. The Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act was enacted in 1 967 to give legislative effect to the agreement entered into by the National Stevedoring Industry Conference which was set up by the previous Government under the chairmanship of Mr A. E. Woodward, Q.C., as he then was, with the object of achieving long-term improvement of conditions in the stevedoring industry. The principal features of the National Conference proposals were: A scheme for the permanent employment, on weekly hiring, of waterside workers in major ports; a pension scheme for regular waterside workers; arrangements for coping with anticipated redundancy; new procedures for handling industrial disputes; and disciplinary procedures appropriate to conditions of permanent employment.

These proposals involved significant changes in the role of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, whose functions in relation to permanently employed watersiders were to be largely transferred to the stevedoring companies. The necessary enabling legislation was originally introduced for a trial period expiring on 30 June 1970, by which time it was anticipated that legislation providing for permanent arrangements in the industry could be introduced. This temporary legislation has since been extended on 3 occasions. The reason for these successive extensions of the legislation was that at no time was it feasible, in the face of a continued rapid rate of technological change and because of associated financial and redundancy problems, to evolve permanent legislative arrangements for this industry.

On the last occasion that the legislation was extended I indicated that this Government hoped to be in a position to introduce permanent legislation for the industry prior to 30 June this year. While this was not possible a great deal has been done in the interim to examine possible forms of organisation which might be adopted for the industry, and to obtain the views of the parties concerned. This, in turn, has required an extensive study of the legal and administrative problems which, while at an advanced stage, has not yet been completed. It is therefore proposed that the present temporary legislation be extended for a further period of 2 years. While recommending an extension of the temporary legislation for a further 2 years, it would be my intention to indicate to the Parliament the Government’s proposals for the industry well before the expiry of that period. Extending the life of the Act will not of course preclude the introduction of permanent legislation at an earlier date if this proves feasible. Indeed, an earlier date for permanent legislation is desirable. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 348

GLEBE LANDS (APPROPRIATION) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Cavanagh) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · South Australia · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate $15,750,000 for the purchase of certain lands at Glebe in Sydney, New South Wales.

The land is presently owned by the Glebe Administration Board of the Church of England. It is known as the Bishopthorpe and St Phillip estates in Glebe. It covers approximately 19 hectares, or 47 acres, on which stand more than 700 dwellings. The church itself, the Leichhardt Municipal Council, and resident groups have all asked the Australian Government to ensure that this unique leasehold estate should not be fragmented in ownership but should be retained in single ownership. The opportunity to purchase this land came about in April 1973 when the Church of England suggested in its submissions to the poverty inquiry that it would be willing to sell the property to a public authority. The Department of Urban and Regional Development employed consultants to carry out a feasibility study for purchasing and rehabilitating the property. The Department also carried out an economic evaluation of the proposal. Originally, the land was subdivided and leased for 99 years, mainly for residential purposes. As these leases have recently been reverting to the Church, the houses have been sold. If this process had continued, the inevitable result would have been fragmented ownership of the estates and this would have meant the further loss of low income housing close to the city centre. Public acquisition of the property and rehabilitation of a large number of dwellings presents a viable method of providing housing in the inner city for low income earners and aged people.

The main objectives of the purchase of the Estate are to avoid the sudden displacing of the existing population and to avoid any disruption to existing community networks; to retain the opportunity for low income earners and families and aged people to live close to the city as part of the wider community; to improve environmental conditions and social conditions of residents of the estate and surrounding area; and to preserve the townscape and sympathetically rehabilitate it. The Australian Government has decided to buy these estates as a unit and so prevent private sale which could lead directly to the displacing of low income tenants. The buildings on the estate have substantial economic value and their retention represents an overall conservation of the community’s resources. After a period of detailed evaluations and negotiations with the Glebe Administration Board, contracts were exchanged in May this year. I would like to express my appreciation to the Board for the cooperation it gave to officials of the Australian Government. The total purchase price is $ 1 7.5m, of which $1,750,000 was paid as a deposit in May. This Bill now seeks approval to appropriate the remaining$15,750,000.

As honourable senators would know, the inner suburbs of our cities have long provided a substantial part of the housing stock available to the lower income residents of these cities. During the last 25 years, however, this accommodation has been steadily whittled away. Houses have been torn down to make way for offices and other commercial premises, for freeway routes, and for a variety of public institutions. Low income earners have often been displaced to outlying areas far removed from their places of employment and from their traditional community ties. In addition, low income earners and aged people have in recent years faced increasing competition from middle and upper income groups for the reduced amount of accommodation. The return of more wealthy groups to the inner suburbs of our great cities, particularly the younger professional groups, has been a marked trend in recent years. This trend has had some very good effects. As a result of it, many areas have been extensively rehabilitated; a greater degree of social mix has been introduced to the inner suburbs; and inner suburban communities have been become better organised and more vocal in standing up for their rights against the many forces which threaten their homes. However, a continuation of the present trends will mean that soon very few low income people will be left in the inner suburbs to enjoy the improved conditions.

There have been many efforts to find solutions to these problems in other countries. There has, for example, been the practice of building highrise accommodation close to the city centre. Experience would suggest that this is not the ideal solution and in some cases may be a harmful practice. We should not be too willing, on the one hand, to adopt overseas solutions, nor too reluctant, on the other hand, to develop our own solutions to these problems. The purchase of these estates offers this Government, the State Government and the local Council the opportunity to co-operate in the rehabilitation of a unique area in the inner part of one of our great cities.

This is a pilot project. The Glebe Project is not simply an exercise in the renovation and construction of housing. It is also an exercise in community rehabilitation. It requires knowledge of the Glebe community. Our people must involve themselves at the local level in order to understand the problems of the Glebe Community. It will require the application of a very great number of professional skills- planning, architectural, building trades, social work. These professional skills should blend with the environment of the Glebe both in its landscape and its community. The Government is approaching the exercise in a spirit of exploration. While the Government has formulated certain objectives, which I outlined earlier, we remain open-minded on the ways and means of achieving these objectives. The Urban and Regional Development Ministry will be working together with the Department of Housing and Construction on this project and my colleagues the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) will be jointly responsible for it.

As well as working towards definite objectives another critical aspect of the Glebe is the day to day management of the estate. The Government will become involved almost immediately with problems of the tenants, many of whom need support from various social services. As well as the physical aspects of the project, then, there are also the more human aspects and I can assure honourable senators that the Government will be concerned to look after the individual needs of the residents of this area. The Government intends to establish an information centre on the estates; later it is expected that this will become useful as a community planning centre.

There is no doubt in my mind that this project offers governments the opportunity to develop policies for the inner city which have not previously been explored in Australia. Along with a similar project at Emerald Hill in Melbourne, I am confident that in a co-operative way, we can advance the interest of inner city residents and of these two cities in general.

In conclusion, I would like to correct the misrepresentation of the circumstances surrounding the purchase of this property. In an address given to a gathering of the New South Wales Division of the Urban Development Institute of Australia on 20 June 1974, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) stated that the Australian Government had purchased the Glebe landsand here I quote- ‘without consultation with State Government or Local Government’. This is certainly not the case. In considering the purchase, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development wrote to the New South Wales Minister for Local Government and Highways and to the Mayor of Leichhardt Municipal Council. Officers of the Department of Urban and Regional Development and its consultants discussed the project with officers and aldermen of the Council and officers of the New South Wales Housing Commission. I can assure honourable senators that close liaison and cooperation with State and local government authorities and agencies will continue. It is of prime importance for the success of this project. Not only that, the Glebe exercise will attempt to develop mechanisms of participation so that the people of Glebe and the wider community can have their say in how the project develops.

Mr President, I believe that the lessons that will be learnt from the Glebe project, the detailed understanding of the problems of low income earners living in the inner city, and the solutions which emerge towards providing an effective way for the community to participate in shaping their environment will be of immense benefit to governments, professional people and to all those concerned with improving the quality of life in our cities. We purchased the Glebe to protect the people. We will seek their views on its future. We will enter into dialogue with them. We hope we can draw from each other. The Glebe project marks the commencement of a new spirit of co-operation with people, with people’s organisations, with local government and with State agencies. This is the spirit with which the Australian Government entered into the purchase of the Glebe lands. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 350

PETROLEUM AND MINERALS AUTHORITY BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 July (vide page 327), on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Durack had moved by way of amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert:

1 ) ‘this Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted as a new Bill, because the Senate is of the opinion that it should not have been submitted to the Governor-General by the Prime Minister as a ground for the double dissolution of Parliament on 1 1 April 1974 and should not now be introduced into the Parliament as the possible basis for advice to the Governor-General that he should convene a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, for the following reasons:

On 13 December 1973 the Bill was introduced into the Senate and read a first time.

On the same day, which was known to the Senate at the time to be the last sitting day in 1973, the motion was moved for the second reading of the Bill, the debate was adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.

Later on the same day, during the second reading debate, a non-Government senator, Senator Byrne, for reasons referred to in his speech, successfully moved that the debate on the motion for the second reading be adjourned and that the resumption of the debate be an order of the day for the first sitting day in February 1974- the next anticipated sitting day of the Senate.

Approximately one and a half hours after that event, on the motion of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Senate adjourned to a day and hour to be fixed by the Presidentexpected to be a day and hour in February 1 974.

On 14 February 1974 His Excellency the Governor-General, acting upon the advice of the Government, prorogued the Parliament until 28 February 1974, by which action all Bills on the Senate notice paper lapsed.

The Standing Orders of both Houses provide for Bills which have lapsed as a consequence of prorogation to be proceeded with in the subsequent session, and if a Bill is in the possession of the House in which it did not originate it can be restored to the notice paper at the stage which it had reached at the date of prorogation, provided a message has been received from the House in which it originated requesting that its consideration be resumed.

On 12 March 1974, the fifth sitting day of the new session, a message was received by the Senate from the House of Representatives requesting the Senate to resume its consideration of the Bill.

Upon receipt of the message, the Leader of the Government in the Senate moved that the request be complied with, to which the Senate agreed, without debate or dissent, on 1 3 March.

On 19 March the Senate resumed the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill and, on 2 April, the motion was defeated.

On 8 April 1974-3 sitting days after the defeat of the Bill on 2 April- the Bill was again received by the Senate from the House of Representatives and the Senate deferred the Bill for 6 months on 10 April 1974.

The events in (i) to (x) above reveal that the relevant requirements in section 57 of the Constitutionthat the Senate should reject or fail to pass a proposed law on 2 occasions, separated by a period of 3 months- have not been met in either respect, particularly in view of the Government’s specific request, on 12 March 1974, for the Senate to resume its consideration of the Bill at the state it had reached on 13 December 1973- the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill; and

The terms of this resolution be forwarded by the President to His Excellency the Governor-General forthwith.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– Last Thursday I moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill in the terms which appear on the notice paper. I said that the circumstances set out in our amendment raised questions of the highest constitutional importance. I make that point in respect of the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution as they could conceivably apply to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. Although the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution are probably very well known to most of us by now, I think it is important that I should read this section again for the purposes of establishing my argument. Section 57 states:

If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously.

Of course we know that the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill, the history of which is set out in the second reading speech made by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), was one of the Bills on which the double dissolution of the

Senate and the House of Representatives was granted on 1 1 April. The view that we on this side of the Senate wish to express firmly is that the advice which must have given to the Governor-General by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam) in order to establish that ground of double dissolution did not satisfy, and could not conceivably satisfy, the provision of section 57 of the Constitution.

We are at some disadvantage in presenting this view today because we have not been given the advantage of the advice that was tendered by the Prime Minister or the opinions which we understand were attached to it. Senator Greenwood has asked a number of questions since this session began seeking to obtain the tabling of documents which constituted that advice. But all his efforts have been to no avail, despite the fact that some indications were given that those papers would be tabled last week. But we are now in the third week of this session. The Government still fails, or refuses for reasons best known to itself, to table this advice despite the fact that we are considering matters of grave constitutional importance which are the subject of lively debate not only here but also in the community and in the Press and we have the prospect of a joint sitting taking place in the near future.

It may be that there are views expressed in the advice which we have not taken into account, but we cannot be blamed for that. If the Government chooses to sit on the advice that it has given in this way and not make that advice known we of course are unable to deal with any peculiar arguments which may have been submitted. The facts that were submitted to the Governor-General may not have been in accord with the facts as we have presented them in this motion and as they exist. So we must, as I say, protest about the attitude of the Government- the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) in particularin its failure or refusal to provide this Senate, this Parliament and the public with the version of the facts presented by them to the Governor-General, the advice which it based on those facts, which it presented to him and which was the basis on which he granted a double dissolution.

I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no purpose on the part of the Opposition in moving this amendment to reflect in any way upon the decision of the previous Governor-General. We are confining our criticism and our attack entirely to the advice which was tendered to him and which we fear may be tendered to the present

Governor-General if this Bill is rejected again on this occasion.

Having read section 57 it is perfectly clear that there are only certain very definite and very confined situations in which a double dissolution may be obtained. Those are that the Senate, on 2 occasions, either rejects a proposed law or passes it with amendments with which the House of Representatives does not agree, or if the Senate fails to pass the proposed law. Of course in many cases there is no doubt about the situation. It is perfectly clear whether the Senate rejects or passes a Bill. Usually there is no room for doubt about that. Also if the Senate makes amendments to which the House of Representatives does not agree, although there may be some debate as to when the agreement or disagreement took place and so forth, by and large that too is a fairly clear cut situation.

In this case, however, it appears that the Government has based its advice to the Governor-General on some alleged failure to pass the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. We know that there have already been 2 double dissolutions. The first was in 1914. That was a clear cut case of the Senate rejecting a Bill twice. The second double dissolution was in 1951. The question then was whether the Senate had failed to pass a Bill when, on the second occasion that it came before the Senate, it was referred to a select committee. That situation does not apply in the case of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. There was no move on the part of the Senate to refer that Bill to a select committee.

We know that the matter of the Senate referring a Bill to a select committee raises difficult issues in regard to failure to pass, and I do not need to discuss those issues on this occasion. But let us consider the history of the way in which this Bill was dealt with by the Senate at the end of last year and earlier this year. As I have said, the facts are fully set out in the amendment, but I shall have to make some reference to them. The Bill first came into the Senate on 13 December 1973 which was the last day of the sessional period known as the Budget session. It was known to all that it was the last day of that sessional period. In fact, the Bill had been introduced into the House of Representatives only on 4 December and had been passed by the House of Representatives only on 12 December. As all honourable senators who were here will be aware, we had had a very long and heavy session with a great many important Bills being introduced, discussed and most of them passed. Some had been adjourned, and one or two others had been sent off to committees. The Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill was one of the last of the major Bills to come into the Senate during that sessional period.

Although we in the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party were prepared to go on and debate the Bill that day-in fact, I opened the debate for the Opposition on that day- the Australian Democratic Labor Party which had had no opportunity whatsoever to consider such an important Bill as this and which would certainly, under any circumstances, require close study and attention, moved the adjournment of the debate for a reasonable time for that to be done. Senator Byrne of the DLP who followed me on that day made it perfectly clear that his Party with only 5 honourable senators had been struggling pretty much throughout the session to keep up with the flood of major Bills which had been coming into the Senate. The DLP did not have the advantage of representation in the House of Representatives as we had. Because of that, the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party were in a position to have a view on the Bill. As Senator Byrne said, his Party had been very heavily engaged throughout the session in keeping up with the Bills which had come into the Senate. The DLP had taken a stand on most of the Bills, but it felt that it just could not possibly cope with this Bill on that day. There could not be a more reasonable attitude than that for an honourable senator to adopt. Surely it cannot be suggested that the Bill should have been passed there and then.

Let me go on with the history of this matter. The adjournment of the debate was moved by Senator Byrne. As I have said, it was known that that was the last opportunity to deal with the Bill during that sessional period. The motion was opposed by the Government, a division took place and the motion for the adjournment was carried. In February the Parliament was prorogued with the result that under Standing Orders all business was expunged from the notice paper. But when we resumed sitting after the prorogation and when the Parliament was opened by Her Majesty, the Government sought to restore this Bill and many others to the notice paper. On 12 March 1974 a message was received by the Senate from the House of Representatives requesting the Senate to resume its consideration of this Bill, the debate on which it said had been interrupted-interrupted, mind you-by the prorogation. On receipt of that message the Leader of the Government in this place, Senator Murphy, moved that the request be complied with and that the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill as introduced-that is, the first

Bill- be restored to the notice paper. Debate on that took place within a few days. On 2 April the Bill was defeated.

There is no question that this Bill on 2 April was rejected by the Senate. It certainly could be said that at that stage the first step required under section 57 of the Constitution had been completed in that the House of Representatives had presented a proposed law which the Senate, on 2 April had rejected. But what happened then? Within 3 sitting days after 2 April- that is, on 8 April- the Bill was again received by the Senate. On 10 April the Senate adjourned debate on the Bill for 6 months. It certainly cannot be suggested, and I am sure it is not suggested by the Government, although, as I have said, we do not know, that the rejection on 2 April could possibly be followed on 10 April by a further rejection to satisfy section 57 in any way. A period of 3 months must elapse between the rejection or determination of the proposed law on the first occasion and its presentation on the second occasion. I shall quote a high constitutional authority in relation to this matter with which I am sure the Government will not disagree. I shall read from page 25 of a book by Mr Odgers which is entitled ‘Australian Senate Practice’. It states:

That section stated there should be an interval of at least 3 months between the end of the first dispute between the House of Representatives and the Senate and the beginning of the second dispute on the same issue before a double dissolution could bc sought on the ground that the legislation had been twice rejected or unacceptably amended.

That opinion is of Dr H. V. Evatt, Q.C. and is expressed in an article that he wrote for the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, of 30 October 1950. 1 am sure that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Murphy, and indeed his colleagues here, will accept the opinion of such an authority as Dr Evatt. It is not conceivable that the Government would suggest that the Bill, having been rejected only on 2 April and rejected- or perhaps honourable senators might say ‘failed to pass’- on 10 April, should possibly in any way satisfy the conditions of section 57 of the Constitution.

The only argument remaining seems to be that when the Senate on 13 December adjourned the Debate on the Bill to the next day of sitting it failed to pass. As I have said it was known on 13 December that that was the last day of the sessional period. But it was well known that the Senate would be resuming sittings in February or March of this year. Presumably the Government’s argument is that because the Senate adjourned the debate, knowing that it could not be resumed for 2 or 3 months, the Senate on that occasion must be held to have failed to pass the Bill. I have set out the circumstances as they were on 13 December. If 13 December had been an ordinary day in a sessional period, the adjournment of a debate could not conceivably in any circumstances- apart altogether from the special circumstances I mentioned that the Democratic Labor Party and Senator Condon Byrne found themselves in- be a failure to pass. A failure to pass could lie only in the fact that the Senate intended adjourning for up to 3 months. How serious is that suggestion as far as the powers and position of the Senate are concerned? Will it be suggested that the Senate must, in such circumstances, immediately proceed to the consideration of a Bill- any Bill, even one of great magnitude, of great complexity and of great consequence as is this Bill? Is it suggested that the Senate, if it desires to adjourn the debate on a Bill of this character for a period, must proceed immediately to the consideration of the Bill otherwise the Senate will be deemed as having failed to pass the Bill? Of course that does, not really conclude the situation here because there were subsequent events with which I shall deal in a minute.

I should like to quote another very important opinion, which is set out in Mr Odgers’ ‘Australian Senate Practice’, in relation to the meaning of ‘failure to pass’. This refers to the 1951 double dissolution and we are fortunate to have the documents that were tendered by the Prime Minister to the Governor-General in regard to that double dissolution. One of those documents was an opinion from the then Solicitor-General. I shall read the whole of the opinion because of its great importance. Sir Kenneth Bailey said:

The question whether the Senate has Tailed to pass’ a Bill is a question of fact, to be established in each particular case. What has to be established is, of course, a real disagreement between the 2 Houses constituted by the Senate’s refusal to accept a legislative proposal of the House of Representatives. This disagreement may be shown in formal fashion either by rejection of a Bill or by passing it with amendments. The addition of the words ‘fails to pass’ is intended to bring the section into operation if the Senate, not approving a Bill, adopts procedures designed to avert the taking of either of these definitive decisions on it.

I repeat those last words:

  1. . adopts procedures designed to avert the taking of either of these definitive decisions on it.

In other words, if the Senate adopts procedures which are designed to avoid either rejecting the Bill or amending it. The opinion continues:

The expression ‘fails to pass’ is clearly not the same as the neutral expression ‘does not pass’, which would perhaps imply mere lapse of time. ‘ Failure to pass’ seems to me to involve a suggestion of some breach of duty, some degree of fault, and to import, as a minimum, that the Senate avoids a decision on the Bill.

As I have said in this case we are not concerned with a position where the Senate has referred a Bill to a committee. We know that in 1951, on the second occasion that the Senate had before it the proposed law, the Senate referred the Bill to a committee. On that occasion, it was submitted and accepted that the Senate had failed to pass. The circumstances on that occasion were vastly different, in any event, from this situation. On that occasion the Bill was before the Senate for the second time. On the first occasion the Bill had been before the Senate for many months. On the first occasion the Senate did not seek to refer the Bill to a committee. It was only on the second occasion when the Bill came before the Senate that the Senate sought to refer the Bill to a committee. There is a long history to that Bill. On the first occasion the Bill had been before the Senate from 10 May 1950 until 10 October 1950. Amendments had been passed backwards and forwards and ultimately it was clear that the House of Representatives was not agreeing to accept the Senate’s amendments which had been made from 4 May to 10 October 1950. On the second occasion that the Senate dealt with the Bill, in March 1951, the Senate referred the Bill to a committee.

The facts of 1951 are entirely different from those with which we are concerned now. In 1 95 1 there was an alleged failure to pass because of the Senate’s referring a Bill to a committee. There was no attempt to refer this Bill on this occasion to a committee. In 1951 the Senate was dealing with a Bill a second time after a lengthy period of months. As I have said, the Senate dealt with the Bill on the first occasion. In this case we are dealing with the way in which the Senate treated the Bill on the first occasion it came before the Senate. All that the Senate did on 1 3 December when it first received the Bill was to take the perfectly usual and normal course of adjourning the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill. That is the perfectly usual and normal course taken at the end of a sessional period, even when the Senate is about to adjourn for 3 months. The only possible argument that could be advanced is that there would be that lapse of time before the debate resumed. Can it be said that by doing that the Senate did any more than not pass it on that day? As I quoted from the Solicitor-General’s opinion on the 1951 double dissolution, there is a fundamental distinction between not passing a Bill and failing to pass it, which involves some attempt to avoid a decision on the Bill, or some breach of duty. At the very minimum that is what failing to pass could mean. This is a Bill of vital importance and it demanded study, which the Democratic Labor Party had every right to make. In those circumstances how could it be said that adjourning the debate, even though it was to be for perhaps 3 months, would be a breach of duty on the part of the Senate, or that the Senate was at fault to any degree? It is absurd that that proposition could be advanced seriously, yet it seems to be the only proposition that the Prime Minister could have advanced to the GovernorGeneral.

There is another very important step in the history of this matter. If it is conceded for one moment that on 13 December there was a failure to pass, let us look at what the Government did after that date. As set out in the record, and as I mentioned again today, when the Parliament was prorogued this Bill was expunged from the notice paper. The Government was in control of the House of Representatives and the Prime Minister sent a message to the Senate requesting that the Senate resume the debate. The Senate having received that message, the Leader of that same Government in this place, Senator Murphy, moved that the message be acceded to by the Senate. That course was agreed to and on 12 March the Bill was restored to the notice paper. The Bill then was at the second reading debate stage- the stage it had reached when the debate was adjourned on 13 December. As I said, this was done at the request of the Government and on the motion of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It was said then that that was done because the debate had been interrupted by the prorogation and the Government wanted debate on the Bill resumed.

Mr President, in those circumstances how on earth is it possible to argue that the Senate has been trying to avoid a debate on this Bill? The Government asked the Senate to resume the debate and the Senate promptly complied with the request it received. It proceeded with the debate on 19 April, within a week, probably only 3 or 4 sitting days after the request was received. By convention in the Senate it is in the hands of the Government as to when the Senate resumes debate on a Government Bill. The Government determines when the Senate will deal with Government business. Therefore there could be no criticism that the Senate did not immediately resume debate on a Bill or did not resume the debate on it for a quite lengthy period. In fact the Senate resumed the debate a week later and completed it in a perfectly expeditious manner. It rejected the Bill on 2 April.

I think that that covers the history of this Bill and the arguments which can be advanced in favour of using it as a ground for a double dissolution and, now, for holding a joint sitting. I hope that I have covered adequately the answers that can be given to any conceivable arguments of that character. I want to come back to why we moved our amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill. The question of when section 57 of the Constitution comes into operation, whether for a double dissolution or for a joint sitting, or for both, is of the highest constitutional importance. The Governor-General acts in these matters on advice tendered to him by the Prime Minister of the day. On 1 1 April the Prime Minister chose to tender advice with which we on this side of the Senate fundamentally disagree.

We believe it is perfectly proper that we should express, in the form of a resolution of the Senate, a view which we hold because this matter is of such constitutional importance. It is certainly of fundamental importance to the Senate. Is it going to be the accepted practice that the Senate must deal with a Bill as soon as it is presented? As soon as a Bill is received from the House of Representatives must the Senate then and there deal with it? Is it otherwise to be said, or can it be said- and advice to this effect given by a Prime Minister to the Governor-General of the day- that by not doing so the Senate in some way is failing to pass the Bill? If that is the interpretation of section 57, if that is the constitutional law of this nation, it is inimical to the role of the Senate as a house of review- indeed, to the role of the Senate in any way whatsoever.

How can the Senate or any parliamentary chamber function if it must deal with a Bill as soon as it is received and not adjourn it for consideration and subsequent debate? Is that the way in which Parliament is to be treated? We know that that is the way in which this Government treats the Parliament and would like to treat this Senate. If this is accepted as the permissible interpretation of section 57, if it is accepted as the constitutional law of this country, the Senate can no longer effectively carry out its high responsibilities and duties in any shape or form, and certainly cannot act as a House reviewing legislation.

The fact is that that is exactly what the present Government wants to achieve. We know that it is the policy of the Australian Labor Party to abolish the Senate. What could be a more effective way of abolishing the Senate than to establish the precedent that in circumstances of this character the Senate will be held to have failed to pass a bill and then can be subjected to the pressures and threats of double dissolutions and so on. That precedent would make the Senate the creature of the Prime Minister of the day. The Senate would lose all its character under the Constitution, all its independence, its principle of equal representation of the States and its role as a House of review, apart altogether from its other duties and responsibilities. So we believe that this issue is of the most fundamental importance to the Senate and to the Australian Constitution, and we believe that it is appropriate that we should express this view in debate, have it enshrined in the records of the Senate and have it made known to the Australian public and to the Governor-General. It is for those reasons that we have moved the amendment.

I turn from the amendment to consideration of the Bill once again. It is one of very considerable importance, for the constitutional reasons that I have discussed. It is a Bill of great significance to the mining industry, to the Australian economy and to the States because of its impact on the mining laws and mining administration of the States. It has a great impact on vast numbers of people engaged in the mining industry and on the rights and titles, which they hold, under which they work and under which their businesses can be carried on. The Government’s purpose in submitting this Bill, which endeavours to set up what it will call a Petroleum and Minerals Authority, is apparently two-fold. Firstly, it is to implement the Government’s policy of promoting maximum Australian ownership and control of our natural resources. Secondly, it is to carry out the Government’s policy of expanding the exploration for and development of energy resources, particularly petroleum but also other minerals. The 2 objectives are by no means the same thing and do not necessarily require the same type of authority or the same form of implementation, but the Government seeks to do both these things by this Bill and to use the Petroleum and Minerals Authority for that purpose.

The Bill, which seeks to set up the Authority, clothes it with vast powers in this field. Broadly, they are to explore for, recover and refine petroleum and minerals and to buy, sell and transport petroleum and minerals, whether in Australia or elsewhere. Therefore, the powers of this Authority extend not only to the ordinary Australian continental land mass, which is defined as extending to the outer limits of whatever sovereignty Australia has or may obtain over the continental shelf, but apply to what is in popular parlance both on-shore and off-shore deposits of energy resources and minerals. The Authority can operate over the whole of that area or outside Australia as well, because the Bill gives the Authority the power not only to explore, develop, transport and refine minerals and petroleum but to buy and sell both petroleum and minerals. The Authority has the power not only to explore and develop mines but presumably to build and operate smelters, refineries and so on. The Government seeks to clothe this Authority with the fullest conceivable powers to operate in the mining industry, whether it be for energy resources or minerals generally.

The Authority, having been clothed with all the powers that I have mentioned, may be thought to be adequately furnished for the purposes of operating as a corporation in the mining industry. If its powers stopped there we may not be so concerned about the Bill, although there would still necessarily be very great room for concern about where and how the Authority would operate and so on. But the Bill gives the Authority far wider powers and a role of very much greater importance in the economy than that. Under the provisions of this Bill, the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, in carrying out these powers and functions, may declare any portion of the on-shore or off-shore areas an area for exploration for or for development of petroleum or minerals. Having done that, it may, with the consent of the occupier of that land or of the sea bed, if it be the sea bed, proceed with exploration for and development of petroleum or minerals in the area. It is rather strange that the consent should be limited to the consent of the occupier. Nothing is said about the owner; the Bill refers only to the occupier. If he does not consent, the Authority can get a warrant from a justice of the peace. That is all it needs to override the opposition that any occupier may have to its operating in this way.

The Authority may then proceed to carry out all the powers and functions which it has under this Bill- they are vast- in respect of the particular exploration area declared by it. Having done that, it would be entitled to proceed without regard in any way to the existing State laws covering the mining industry in those States. As we know, the mining laws of this nation have always been in the control of the State parliaments. This Parliament has no direct power to legislate in respect of mining in the States or to set up mining laws for the States. That statement is true as far as the Australian on-shore areas are concerned. There may be certain constitutional arguments regarding off-shore areas. By and large, the laws in regard to mining are the laws of the several State parliaments. This Authority can operate entirely outside those laws, it can override those laws and it is not subject to them in any shape or form. Moreover, the Authority can operate not only without regard to the State mining laws but also without regard to, and without being bound in any way by, the titles to land and the titles to minerals under or on the land which are held by private citizens. I refer to titles which have been obtained under old grants. Of course, freehold titles which people have been granted in this century do not carry, by and large, mineral right, but there are titles obtained under State mining laws, known as mining tenements. Any of these rights or titles which countless individual members or our Australian community have acquired in order to mine for any mineral or to search for petroleum can be overridden by the actions of this authority in the way in which I have described. So it is not just the abrogation of State power that concerns us; it is the abrogation of the rights and titles which countless individual Australians possess.

There is some reference in the Bill to compensation being paid to a person if the Authority goes in and takes over a mining title that that person may hold. But by and large, the rights to the ownership of minerals which people have under mining laws arises only when the mineral has been extracted. The title given under a State law does not give ownership to the mineral in the ground. Ownership arises when the right to mine is exercised and the mineral is extracted. So it would seem that the so-called compensation provisions of this Bill may be quite illusory because the Petroleum and Minerals Authority could go in and take over a mining tenement before any mining had been done, and the owner would be prevented from exercising his rights and acquiring ownership of the particular mineral.

Another aim that this Bill seeks to achieve, as the Minister says, is to maximise Australian ownership and control of our mineral resources. But it is quite clear that the policy of the Government, as exemplified by this Bill, is not to maximise what we, and 1 think most Australians, understand by maximising Australian ownership. By that we understand that individual Australians, syndicates, companies and so on, will be encouraged to obtain an interest in and ownership of our resources. But the policy of this Government, when it talks about maximising ownership, is clearly to maximise ownership of resources by the Australian Government through the instrument of this Petroleum and Minerals Authority. We do not agree that that is a desirable method of maximising Australian ownership.

We believe that an authority of some kind could work in the minerals field in an advisory capacity to Government or perhaps in a regulatory capacity. I think of an authority such as the Australian Industry Development Corporation which can financially assist smaller Australian enterprises. This is one virtue which the Government says this Bill has. An authority operating in this way in the mining industry could be very useful, but that is not the sort of authority which the Government presents to us in this Bill. The Government, through the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, seeks, in the long run, virtually to take over the mining industry.

Before I conclude I should like to refer to the Government’s claim that this Authority will in some way overcome our necessity for expediting exploration for oil and energy resources. The Government says that it will recycle savings which have been made by the withdrawal of taxation concessions of about $50m or $60m a year. What the oil industry needs is a government which will greatly encourage exploration, investment and expenditure by many companies in the future. We need a government which will encourage virtually a crash program of investment an exploration in this area. The sort of money about which the Government speaks- $50m or $60m a year- which will not be expended by any means on oil exploration because many other demands will be made on it- would be only a drop in the ocean as far as this nation’s requirements for oil exploration are concerned.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! The Bill before the Senate is the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. An amendment has been moved by Senator Durack. Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Young:

-I second the amendment.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I support the Bill. I think it is a tragedy that an amendment of this nature should be moved to one of the best structured Bills that has been brought before this chamber. It is significant to note that this is part of the Opposition’s ploy to express a desire to confer. Of course, the next step is to refer. But the Opposition’s ultimate wish is to defer. This is consistent with the attitude which the Opposition has adopted since 2 December 1972. Without going into great detail, I will take Senator Durack back over some of his statements. Those of a legal nature will be dealt with later in the debate by honourable senators from my side of the chamber, who are more qualified in the legal field than I am.

On 24 May 1972 the Minister for bits and pieces, as we used to call him, the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, the Honourable Peter Howson, apparently expressed a certain belief. I will quote only a couple of paragraphs from the statement which the Minister made to indicate that the then Government did not have the same hate of government control as some members of the Opposition appear to have in 1974. The Minister, when referring to recommendations which had been made by the Senate Select Committees on Air and Water Pollution in Australia, said:

Within recent months, the Branch of the Department of National Development which provides the Secretariat for the Australian Water Resources Council, has been enlarged by the creation of five new positions. This will provide additional assistance to the Council in its work on water quality and water resources generally.

The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Fisheries Council and the Australian Agricultural Council are also concerned with aspects of water quality, whilst the recently formed Australian Environment Council, in its wider role, has decided to set up a specialist committee to investigate and, where appropriate, to make recommendations for national emission standards and guides to environmental quality criteria. Liaison with the other Councils will, of course, be essential.

Statements like that obviously implied that there was to be some sort of national control in this field. But we did not see members of the Opposition doing their war dances because a report of this nature had been made obviously with the approval of the the government of the day. The other paragraph in this document which 1 wish to quote contains the Minister’s comment on the recommendation made by the Senate Select Committees on Air and Water Pollution in Australia in relation to public education and encouragement. He said:

The Australian Environment Council at its meeting on 7 April recognised the need for a greater public awareness of matters concerning the environment and agreed that each Minister will take immediately appropriate steps to promote this awareness in his own sphere, lt also instructed its Standing Committee to propose for its consideration at its next meeting ways and means of improving public knowledge of the needs of the environment.

Obviously that organisation set out to do things with the approval of the national government of the day.

The amendment moved by Senator Durack sets out basically a chronological table of events. I wish to refer to the second reading speech delivered in the other place by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). I do not intend to quote the Minister’s speech at length because honourable senators on both sides of the chamber should have had an opportunity to study it by now. The Minister in another place said:

Throughout the world today, the major nations and. above all, the multi-national oil companies, are realising the inter-relationship of crude oil, black and brown coal, natural gas and its hydrocarbon liquids. Major oil companies view their future as being major energy suppliers in all this range of hydrocarbons, and also uranium- both as ‘yellowcake’ and enriched. Accordingly, the top 15 United States oil companies today own 53 per cent of its coal production and, through a maze of subsidiaries, put their actual control of the commercial coal market at closer to 67 per cent.

I interpose there to say that in Queensland some 20 per cent more than that is controlled by the international organisations. The second reading speech continues:

Eighteen of its top 25 petroleum companies have interests in at least one phase of uranium mining and processing. These oil companies account for 40 per cent of the total milling capacity and 45 per cent of all known United States uranium reserves. Gulf and Shell oil companies, as partners, are now the third largest contractors for nuclear reactors in the world. The Getty oil interests already have substantial shareholdings in one successful uranium exploration project in our Northern Territory.

I leave the Minister’s second reading speech to read from a publication of the Petroleum Information Bureau of Australia. The Bureau was one of those organisations that expressed fears on behalf of the Opposition when the new Government was elected. What the Bureau says in its publication is very interesting:

The advent of a Labor government in December 1972 heralded both immediate and long term changes in national oil and gas policies. The Australian Government intends to set up a Fuel and Energy Commission, which is to advise and implement an integrated and co-ordinated national fuel and energy policy.

That, of course, was one of the recommendations in the minority report of the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources. That recommendation is generally accepted by most people in Australia today, except the small number of those on the opposite side of this chamber and their multinational masters who sit behind them, in spirit or in fact, telling them what they must do. The report goes on to say:

In February 1973 the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr R. F. X. Connor, announced Cabinet approval for the creation of a National Pipeline Authority. Legislation was introduced in Federal Parliament on 10 May 1973 to establish the Authority, which would plan, construct, operate and maintain a national gas pipeline grid. The proposed network would begin with the Sydney-Cooper Basin pipeline and then be extended to link in the Palm Valley, North West Shelf and Bass Strait gasfields.

When that legislation was introduced we know the great furore it caused among the people who own the oil wealth of Australia- I will refer also to the table in this report- and the members of the Opposition who did their war dance on behalf of the multinationals. At the time this report was written a number of gas and oil fields were in production. I am referring to 31 March 1973, which is a little more than a year ago. At that time a number of fields were producing in Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia, but just let us look at who owned those fields. The Barracoota field, owned by EssoBHP; Halibut, owned by Esso-BHP; Kingfish, owned by Esso-BHP; Barracoota, the second well that came in, owned by Esso-BHP; Marlin, owned by Esso-BHP; Barrow owned by WAPET; and the second series of wells at Barrow were also owned by WAPET. Then we have the Dongara gas basin which was also owned by WAPET; Moonie and Alton, owned by International Oils Exploration-AOG; the Roma area, owned by the Associated Group; Gidgealpa, owned by Delhi-Santos- Vamgas; and Moomba, owned by the same company. It is significant that very little Australian capital is invested in those areas, with the exception of the investments made by BHP which, in any case, is partly controlled by international capital, although not to the extent of sole control. Then there are a number of other wells, some of which are scheduled to come into operation and some of which have already come into operation. Those wells are located in Victoria, Western Australia, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Queensland. I will not detail the ownership of all of those wells because the report to which I have been referring contains an extensive table which I would seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bonner)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The table reads as follows)-

Senator KEEFFE:

– It will provide interesting reading tomorrow for honourable senators opposite. I am suggesting that these international companies have helped to organise the Opposition to hold up the Government’s legislation. As I mentioned in another debate in this place a few days ago, the Labor Party has been placed in office on 2 occasions by a majority of the people of this country. The Liberal and Country Parties have produced various types of opposition to all of the Government’s legislation, with very few exceptions. I think about the only time that we achieve any agreement with honourable senators opposite is when it is decided that the Senate should rise at 5 p.m. instead of 6 p.m. We seem to be able to obtain unanimous approval from the Opposition in relation to matters of that nature, but when it comes to worthwhile legislation which is to the benefit of the majority of the people of this country who wanted a Labor government, we find this continual frustration, either by way of direct opposition by moving amendments which are unacceptable to the Government, or by moving amendments of this nature which do neither one thing nor the other.

Senator Durack:

– How did you get the Prices Justification Tribunal?

Senator KEEFFE:

-The honourable senator did not willingly support the establishment of the Prices Justification Tribunal. If the honourable senator happened to be in the chamber today when I asked a question during question time he would know that the racketeers in the commercial world are doing better than ever, thank you very much. They have been getting great concessions as a result of tariff reductions- this is in the field of the honourable senator- and they have thieved money from the Australian public. They and they alone have made the greatest contribution to inflation in Australia over the past year. The honourable senator should not sit back and blame the workers for asking for increased wages. Their contribution to inflation is minute. The real inflation is stemming from the people supported by the honourable senator today.

The great so-called oil shortage was one of the biggest commercial rigs that this world has ever seen. It was carried out, as the Minister has pointed out in his second reading speech, by complete co-operation in relation to various types of control in the hydrocarbon industry. One has only to come to my State of Queensland to find out just how deep this control goes. For years we have dug holes in the ground and have handed away the product to the friends of honourable senators opposite by the millions of tons. We were able to get only 5c a ton for our coal. We took this away from the Aborigines. In fact, when some of the Aborigines would not move from their land, the friends of honourable senators opposite went in with guns and forced them out so that they could exploit the wealth of the Aboriginal lands. I am referring now to the Comalco development at Weipa. It is one of the cruellest and rudest deals that has ever been made in this country.

How much do we receive for our bauxite? We receive 5c a ton for it. The companies that mine the bauxite are supposed to restore the areas that are desecrated. But if one flies over the Weipa area, one can see readily that the companies have not only raped the earth but also have done nothing to restore it. They have raped the Australian people. Honourable senators opposite approve of this sort of thing. I suppose that those honourable senators opposite who have extensive holdings in oil companies, exploration companies and other companies are making a fast buck out of them and do not want to see the position change. They do not want to see the Australian Government and the Australian people have a right to exploit some of Australia’s mineral wealth for themselves. The history of the legislation goes back to 1970 when members of the Opposition said that this was the sort of legislation that ought to be implemented. Honourable senators opposite kicked the Prime Minister of the day to his political death because they did not agree with his views and because he happened to be a true Australian. And they did very little to try to analyse what was happening. I have seen with my own eyes the exploitation in these fields around the country from Queensland to Western Australia and from the Papuan Gulf down to Bass Strait. Yet honourable senators opposite can rise in the Senate and defend such exploitation and say that the Australian people have no right to share in the mineral wealth of this country.

I say again that the opposition to this Bill by members of the Liberal Party and the Country Party or National Party- whatever its members call themselves these days- is not on a personal basis. They are opposing this legislation at the behest of those who control them- the people in the board rooms who pull the political and financial strings. The Rae report alone should have woken up honourable senators opposite to some of the things that are happening in Australia. In my opinion, a similar report would be made if an investigation were ever conducted of the big department stores and grocery chains. I ask honourable senators to remember that 3 major companies sell 50 per cent of the grocery items in Australia. We also have the rackets that are conducted in relation to bread. Most of the bread manufacturing industry in Australia today is owned by overseas capital.

Senator Durack:

– Why has your Prices Committee not revealed all this?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The Party of which the honourable senator who interjects is a member also sacked 2 Attorneys-General. It kicked one of them so far upstairs that we never saw him again in the Parliament. That was back in the days when Sir Robert Menzies was the Prime Minister. The Party took that action because he introduced a trade practices Bill that was full of sharp teeth. That did not suit the Liberal Party type of thinking; so you got rid of him. After that, the Liberals got rid of another Attorney-General because he did not water down similar legislation enough.

Senator Jessop:

– What did you do to Vince Gair?

Senator KEEFFE:

-The Irish mist story worries the honourable senator a little. There was a little group of senators who sat opposite and provided the numbers for the Opposition until the honourable senator’s great leader decided that he would tell them one thing and do another thing inside the Party room. Nowadays, Senator Jessop in particular ought to be the last senator to interject. Usually when he opens his mouth, Senator Steele Hall of the Liberal Movement is ready to jump in with both boots first. So I suggest to the honourable senator that he does not make interjections of that nature because they will rebound on him now or at some fairly close future date.

I believe, as I have said right through my contribution to this debate, that the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition is a hoax. The

Opposition is merely being pulled around by the multi-nationals- the people who provide the money for its purse and who look after it outside the Parliament. Therefore, I say that inside the Parliament the Opposition has to stand up for the group that it represents. That is why it has moved this amendment.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– It is my purpose this afternoon not only to support the amendment to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill but also to oppose the Bill itself. I oppose it with some measure of regret because I believe that an authority which is aimed at establishing some form of real control in a regulatory and advisory manner and in a manner which involves the distribution of financial assistance to Australian companies in particular is a good thing. But I oppose the establishment of such an authority basically because rather than do just those things it appears to me at least to be the thin edge of the wedge for some form of real nationalisation of the petroleum and minerals industries. I believe that this legislation tries to confuse the people about what is meant by control and what is meant by Government ownership. If the legislation were dealing with control then, of course, I would support it, for what free society in any country can exist without a proper measure of government control. But government control does not mean, as this Bill would have us believe, government ownership. It is on this ground that I am strongly opposed to the Bill that is before us.

Surely the province of government in this country and in any other free country is to prevent exploitation of individuals, groups of individuals, resources and other areas. This is the real province of government. The sort of control that is needed to prevent exploitation, wherever it occurs, is certainly within the province of the Australian Government through the proper process as through action by way of legislation, through taxation and through 100 other measures well within the legislative powers of the Australian Government. Therefore, I oppose the Bill basically because in its major context I believe that it is unnecessary and that the powers of control are already with us. Of course, as the amendment has suggested, the Government is put in a very doubtful position by using the rejection of this Bill as the basis upon which to hold a double dissolution. It is very doubtful on constitutional grounds because of the time that failed to pass in the circumstances of this measure. There seems little doubt also that the Bill would be open to challenge on many grounds by State legislation.

It has been said often- it was said in the Senate just a moment ago- that the Labor Government has been just recently re-elected to power and has a strong mandate. Of course, it has been re-elected to power and, of course, it has a mandate. But let us remember that, although 49.3 per cent of the people voted for the Government at the last election, some 50 per cent or more of the people did not vote directly for the Australian Labor Party. Whilst I would be the last to suggest that the Labor Government is not the proper government of this country, I would be the first to suggest- I think that most reasonable people would agree- that those of us who are in Opposition have a very strong reason- indeed a duty- to conduct a proper and severe scrutiny of all forms of legislation that come before the Senate. The establishment of this Petroleum and Minerals Authority is the subject of just one such piece of legislation. It is envisaged that the Authority would have 2 basic functions. On the one hand, the legislation envisages the establishment of a vertically integrated company with quite extraordinary and privileged powers. That company will have power over the research, production, transportation, processing and marketing of petroleum amd minerals. This is envisaging total government ownership. On the other hand, it has an area in which it is considered that it must apply itself in an advisory and a regulatory capacity in a measure to the industry in Australia so that it may in some real sense aid it financially where this is necessary.

With this second proposition I have no basic disagreement; but with the first proposition, which is the major proposition of this Bill, I do disagree. I disagree with the establishment of an Authority that has such extensive and unrelenting power, power of take-over, power from a privileged position. It has in fact all the elements of becoming what is virtually an unfettered Authority. I do not believe that that sort of thing, which would lead undoubtedly to a monopolistic structure, is necessary for the proper control of minerals and petroleum energy in this country. The Authority is to have the power of take-over on its own terms and conditions. I do not believe that this is a suitable or necessary power for it to have in order to control suitably the petroleum and minerals industry in this country.

Under clauses 43 to 50, an act of gazettal and ratification by a justice of the peace enables the Authority to explore for and recover petroleum from a declared area. The compensation for that sort of thing is to say the least extremely uneasy to identify- and in fact the Authority as to the compensation is none other than the proposed

Authority itself. It rides roughshod over considerable numbers of State rights and laws. There is a tremendous lack of clarity about the protection afforded by State laws to prospectors and mining leases of property owners in all these areas. I have strong objection to that area which suggests that this Authority should establish its initial capital- and it would be an enormous initial capital if it was to do the job it envisages doing- by appropriation of vast sums- unlimited sums- of taxpayers’ money interest free. I believe that this puts the Authority in a quite unwarranted position relative to the rest of industry. I do not believe that this is a proper measure of control. It is a measure which establishes an authority in a totally privileged position. Not only is the initial capital to be appropriated, but likewise, at the discretion of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) as to the terms and conditions, the working capital is so to be obtained. Should there be losses they are to be reimbursed by the Government, by taxpayers’ money. I suggest that this sort of attitude towards establishing funds for the projected Authority is in strong contrast to the difficulties that are to be observed for some of Australia’s major exporting industries other than the minerals industry. Here I think in particular of the wheat industry and the wool industry. A great difference prevails when they attempt to gain moneys to support marketing organisations and schemes and many other areas of research essential to those industries, which have established themselves as extremely efficient and important exporters and providers of overseas credit. The attitude to finance when they are involved is very different from the attitude that applies to this envisaged Authority. I suggest that the attitude is different purely and simply because the Authority is concerned not with control but with ownership.

I believe that it is not sufficient to take a series of attacks by a government and/or some of its Ministers on the great petroleum and mining companies- Australian and otherwise- as a reason to establish this type of take-over authority within the petroleum and minerals areas. I think that we should look at the situation that is occurring as a result of the developments of the last few years and particularly of the last couple of years in the most important area of petroleum and minerals. In 1969, only 5 years ago, something like 263 wells were drilled around the Australian coastline. This year, 1974, the number was estimated at 90, about one-third of the previous figure, and the latest indications are that it will be well below 90. We are tending through our attitudes- one being the proposed establishment of this all-powerful Authority- to drive from this country the skills, techniques and investment necessary for us to continue towards self-sufficiency in the petroleum and other industries. It is worthy of note that we are extremely proud of the fact that in the years- roughly tenprior to this year we have reached a position in the Austraiian industry where we are 70 per cent self-sufficient in petroleum. That position has been reached because of the strength of exploration and development around our coastline by many great companies.

We should be seeking to increase desperately that development because this sort of research and development is increasing in high measure all around the world. The great companies that were exploring for petroleum and minerals increased their capital involvement in the first 3 months of this year by something like 80 per cent; yet here in Australia, with a 70 per cent petroleum capacity, we are approaching a position where, if the tendencies around us today are to continue, we may well find that within a very few years we shall produce not 70 per cent of our petroleum requirements but perhaps 7 per cent. In this circumstance, the inflationary situation which concerns all of us can only be exaggerated and made to flare more strongly. I believe it is pertinent in this sort of discussion to look at the value of the petroleum and minerals industry to this country, just to look in passing at something of what it means to us. If we realise this we must realise equally how damaging and dangerous it is that we are driving away and lessening our capacity in this most important field under the circumstances that exist today.

The petroleum and mineral industries are very significant contributors to decentralisation and the development of the harsher and more remote parts of this continent. They are more than that: They are the source of very significant employment to Australians. Many thousands of Australians are dependent for employment on the petroleum and mineral industries. And more that that: There is a very large area of involvement in the industries for people with specific skills. We are tending to lose geologists, surveyors, people with skills in the field of chemistry and engineers of varying qualifications at a time when we need them desperately.

The minerals industry is of tremendous importance to this country from the point of view of overseas earnings. The level of our overseas capital earning capacity earned by the minerals industry has on occasions risen to about 40 per cent. Our overseas credit position is becoming of more and more significance in the present circumstance. In the 12 months period to March last year the textile industry imported some 64 million square metres of manufactured yarn. However, in the following 12 months period the importation increased to 108 million square metres, which is almost double the importation for the previous period. This is the sort of increase in the import field that is occurring right across the board. Therefore industries that can so significantly develop our overseas credit capacity are of extreme importance to the Australian scene.

I need hardly stress the value and importance of the petroleum and mineral industries to the defence capacity of this country. A land which is dependent on overseas sources of petroleum and minerals is vulnerable indeed. As a vast land which is situated between 2 massive seas or oceans, Australia is extremely vulnerable without the sort of development which is taking place in the petroleum and mineral fields. The mere fact that we can produce and find these products in our own area is surely a significant way in which we can halt the ever-present and evervexing problem of inflation. If we were in the situation that countries like Japan are in today our inflationary rate would be incredibly higher than it is because of the immensely increased prices that we would be involved in paying for totally imported petroleum products. So, at a time when the sky should be the limit in the area of petroleum and mineral exploration and development we are, through our policies- and part of that policy I believe is the shadow of this potentially huge ownership orientated authority -driving away skilled personnel, driving away investment capital and so, potentially, risking massive amounts of taxpayers’ money on high risk enterprise, the sort of risk that it has not been necessary to take in the past. I do not believe that it is in the interests of this country that we should be taking such a risk now.

I know from time to time there has been too much international involvement. Most Australians would agree with that. But we cannot assume that the answer to our security and to our development as a great Australia is to deny ourselves all form of international involvement. Surely in the 20th century we are in the age of internationalism. Nationalism in its stark form belonged to the 1 9th century. Insofar as there is a controlled measure of international involvement in this country I suggest that, in that measure at least, we have a greater security.

As I said earlier, if the proposed Authority envisaged purely a capacity to be a regulatory and advisory authority with a power to devote funds to Australian enterprises where these enterprises needed such power, funds and encouragement of skills, I believe it would be an excellent authority and that it would have a very real area of control and development to employ. It would like to quote briefly what the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources which reported in December 1971 had to say in this respect. The report of the Committee states:

The Committee believes that some form of federal control of a resource as important to Australia as petroleum, both economically and for defence purposes, is desirable.

The Committee also believes that the utilisation of this resource should be considered not as an individual resource, but as part of Australia’s total fuel and energy resources.

For these reasons the Committee believes that an advisory authority should be established with Commonwealth and State representation which would be empowered to make a comprehensive continuing survey of Australia’s fuel and energy needs and tender advice to Commonwealth and State governments on all matters relevant to the use and production of fuel and energy.

Such a body could also recommend methods of transportation for petroleum.

When necessary it should be capable of arbitrating in disputes over the transmission interstate of petroleum products and could also have other regulatory powers.

The evidence would suggest that regulatory and advisory responsibilities of an authority in the field of interstate trade could include:

To authorise the construction, ownership, operation and location of interstate oil and gas pipelines.

To make orders with respect to all matters relating to traffic, tariffs and prices; and

To study, review and from time to time report to the Parliament on such policies and measures as it considers necessary or advisable in the public interest for the control of transportation of oil and gas.

I am in accord with those views because I believe they are a real and proper suggestion as to the method of controlling the petroleum and mineral industries in Australia. They envisage a proper sort of relationship between the authority and industry and between the government and the States, and they have in them the capacity totally to control and set guidelines for this most important area of our industry. For instance, surely the Authority in its regulation of the pipeline grid in Australia does not need ownership. It has been suggested that a commission could exercise all the necessary powers. In the off-shore areas of the United Kingdom, the United States, in Alaska and off west Africa the relevant authorities grant non-exclusive exploration licences. Companies submit sealed bids in competition for the right to drill and develop in these specific areas. When the companies receive the right to do those things they do so under strict conditions imposed on the area and on the work commitment. In this circumstance there is maximum development of the petroleum and mineral energies involved. That development takes place under strict government control but involving not one whit of taxpayers money or of government ownership. It merely involves the establishment of conditions under which competing organisations shall produce the petroleum and /or the minerals involved. Rather than becoming a financial drain on the particular country or community it is a lucrative source of revenue.

I need hardly draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that the relatively small Australian mineral companies are, in the present economic circumstances, in dire straits. In some 12 months the capitalisation of their stocks has dropped from $600m to $230m. The total mining involvement, excluding the oil group, has dropped from $5,000m to $3,400m. This sort of circumstance makes it extremely difficult to raise the funds which are necessary to provide the equipment, the technique and the people necessary to develop on the immense scale it is imperative that we develop, the mineral and petroleum resources of this country. The Australian operator is virtually disadvantaged, ironically enough, much more than the foreign owned multinational corporation. I ask honourable senators to remember that two-thirds of the mineral industry, in terms of value of output, are owned by Australian interests. The choice is between government participation in an immensely important industry- the petroleum and minerals industry- or government control through legislation, taxation, advice and regulation. It is this type of control which is necessary and efficient. It has been proved efficient many times over in so many parts of the world. It is this type of thing or direct ownership. It is direct ownership as a method of control as is proposed in this Bill to which I find myself to be totally opposed.

The Bill involves what I can only term as conscription of taxpayers funds. It is conscription of those funds in a risk enterprise, an area in which they should not be involved. I believe there is an enormous area for the involvement of taxpayers funds in this country- defence, education, welfare, economic incentive and so forth. There is an enormous area in which vast sums of taxpayers money must be involved by governments, but I believe that one of the areas in which it is not necessary to involve vast sums of taxpayers money is the extremely high risk enterprise area of petroleum and mineral research and development. Only a few weeks ago I read a report in which it was established that the first successful hole had been achieved after some 40 holes had been drilled. That is indicating some of the measure of danger in the oil drilling industry alone. It is a problem which people involved in this area have to face.

As I have said, there is considerable confusion because the Australian Industry Development Corporation legislation could well fulfil some of the major objectives of this sort of authority. There is considerable confusion also because that legislation overlaps the equity functions of this Bill. The pipeline legislation overlaps much of the acquisition and many of the transportation powers which are involved. In this country there is a grave measure of uncertainty in the great petroleum and minerals industry. It is an uncertainty which can do nothing but harm to the capacity of Australia to develop an area of its economy which must be developed on an enormous scale. We need the capital, the special skill, the technology, greater parliamentary scrutiny. We need, on the one hand, co-operation between the Government and industry and, on the other hand, co-operation between the Commonwealth Government and the State governments.

I oppose the proposed authority because I believe its principal objectives- there appear to be two of them- are incompatible. On the one hand there is in this measure the objective to advise, to regulate and to control. I believe that this is a proper and necessary objective. The second objective envisages an authority with huge and unfettered powers acting from a totally privileged position to own the Australian petroleum and minerals industry; to compete from a totally and an absolutely unnecessarily, I believe, privileged position. Unquestionably these 2 functions are incompatible. I shall read very briefly from a report of the Industries Assistance Commission which I believe has some measure of aptness in the case of petroleum and minerals. The report states:

A policy of obtaining control by increasing Australian equity in one or more of the major vehicle manufacturing firms would be a costly undertaking. Government policy can ensure that the firms in the industry adopt policies which conform with broad economic and social objectives of the Government at a lower cost by legislation in areas such as taxation, environmental and safety standards, and restrictive trade practices. Such legislation should, and in some cases already does, set standards with regard to the conduct of not only the multi-national firms but of all firms within the industry.

If for ‘vehicle’ we read ‘petroleum and minerals’ then I believe that this is a very apt situation and an apt piece of advice, coming as it does from the Industries Assistance Commission. I have pleasure in opposing the Bill.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I intimate to the Senate that I support the original proposition moved by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). I oppose the amendment moved by Senator Durack. I say at the outset that I never cease to be amazed by the comments made by honourable senators opposite. Those comments disclose a complete lack of confidence in the initiative, the know-how, the business acumen, the skills and the ability of the Australian peoplethe business people and the work force- to engage in industry whether it be the manufacturing of aircraft, in the field of science or medicine or in the extractive industries. I repeat that I never cease to be amazed at the lack of confidence that the Opposition discloses in our own Australian people. I include also the captains of our industries and those persons who would be employed in the industries to which I have referred.

Although the terminology ‘mandate’ has gone out of fashion since the Labor Government was successful in obtaining office on 2 December 1972, I still believe it has some relevance. A number of articles written by leading authorities disclose that the mandate is an important consideration and one of the cornerstones of our parliamentary system, as we understand it in this country and in like countries where the bicameral system based on the mother country’s houses of parliament operates. It is the only way in which an opinion can be obtained from the people based on a program presented by the respective leaders of the competing parties for support to form a government. Having obtained that support the government, of course, is formed in the lower House. I still believe that that is the way in which politics in this country should be conducted. Evidently, as I said earlier, the word ‘mandate’, its meaning and its application in terms of Australian politics seem to have been struck from the record. I presume that the Oxford, Webster and other dictionaries have likewise deleted the word ‘mandate’ from the English language.

I think it is important, first of all, to establish that in fact the Australian Labor Party obtained the support of the Australian people. I will not use the word ‘mandate’ because, as I say, it is out of fashion. I point out to honourable senators that the Australian Labor Party obtained the expressed support of the Australian people to do the very thing that we have attempted to do on this occasion for the third time-that is, to establish a minerals and energy commission. I refer to my leader’s speech at the Blacktown Civic Centre on 13 November 1972. This speech is in print for everybody to see. On foreign investment he said:

Rural industries no longer hold the dominating position in Australia’s export trade that they once did. But they have been traditionally and overwhelmingly the industries which Australians have controlled, industries from which Australiansall Australians- have derived the benefit and profit, and industries for which Australians- all Australianshave shared the burden in times of hardship and difficulty.

Now, the most profitable and significant of Australia’s industries and resources are under foreign control. Sir John McEwen described this process as selling a bit of the farm year by year to pay our way. Mr McMahon, more than any other Liberal, prevented any effort to limit foreign investment in those years. More than any other Australian, Mr McMahon bears the responsibility for Australia ‘selling the farm’.

My leader continued:

It is the strongest and richest of our own industries and services which have been brought up from overseas. It’s time to stop the great takeover of Australia. But more important, it’s time to start buying Australia back. A Labor Government will enable Australia and ordinary Australians to take pan in the ownership, development and use of Australian industries and resources.

I believe that the following part of the speech is of critical importance:

Australian development- the ownership of Australian resources- must concern us all as Australians. It is not just a matter for businessmen or directors or investors. It is of direct concern for the overwhelming majority of the Australian work-force- that 90 per cent of the work-force who are employees. Unless Australians re-assert a greater measure of control over their own industries and resources, they will find opportunities within their own country closed to them. And salaried executives will be even more adversely affected than industrial workers, because the upper echelons of management and the most attractive and rewarding opportunities in research, development, decision-making, will be closed to them.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, before the suspension of the sitting the Senate was discussing the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973.I understand that my colleague Senator Brown was in the course of making his contribution to that debate. Last Thursday night Senator Durack moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Will you tell us the business that is before the House?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am indicating that, no other business having been called on, the business before us is the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. That was the business which was before us prior to the suspension of the sitting. Mr President, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Opposition senators- No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

- Mr President, Senator Durack ‘s amendment raises the question whether it would be in accordance with proper constitutional practice for the Senate to express its opinion to His Excellency, the Governor-General, as proposed in his amendment. This is an issue of fundamental constitutional importance. Plainly, it would not be constitutionally proper for the Senate to pursue the course of action proposed in the amendment. The course of events with regard to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill is wellknown to all honourable senators. It was one of the Bills on which the Former GovernorGeneral, on 1 1 April last, on the advice of the Government, dissolved the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the constitutional instrument issued for that purpose, His Excellency noted that the conditions upon which he was empowered by section 57 of the Constitution to dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously had been fulfilled in respect of six proposed laws, including the Bill for the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act 1973. As provided for by the second paragraph of section 57, the House of Representatives, on 11 July, again passed the proposed law.

The proposed law was received by the Senate from the House of Representatives on that day. In his second reading speech, my colleague the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), referred to the earlier history of the Bill. The Minister pointed out that the proposal to create the Petroleum and Minerals Authority was given great prominence during the election campaign following the dissolution of the Parliament. He said that no Australian Government had ever had a clearer mandate for its legislation. He observed that, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Houses of the Parliament were again being given an opportunity to enact the Bill. What does Senator Durack ‘s amendment attempt to do? The amendment proposes, firstly, that the Bill should be withdrawn and that it should be -

Senator Webster:

– Another interruption?

Senator Greenwood:

– Is this the way the country is being run?

Senator Webster:

– This is the way that the economy has turned out.

Senator Young:

– Would you like leave to continue your remarks?

Senator MURPHY:

– I sense what honourable senators opposite wish. I think that they would prefer me to finish before hearing the statements on the economy. Those statements will be made, if the Senate wishes, when I finish. May I interpolate here, Mr President, that, whilst the amendment purports to be concerned with the observance of the procedures of section 57 of the Constitution, the underlying complaint of the Opposition with the Bill is to be found in those few words in which the amendment asks that the Bill be ‘re-drafted as a new Bill’. The Opposition apparently does not like the Bill. But, instead of getting on with the debate on the merits of the Bill, the Opposition, by this amendment, seeks to raise an issue that is irrelevant for present purposes and is one with which it is constitutionally inappropriate for the Senate to concern itself.

Having proposed that the Bill be re-drafted, the amendment goes on to say that this should be done because it is the opinion of the Senate that the Bill should not have been submitted to the Governor-General by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) as a ground for the double dissolution of Parliament on 11 April 1974 and should not now be introduced into the Parliament as the possible basis for advice to the GovernorGeneral that he should convene a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Mr President, those who are familiar with constitutional practice and parliamentary procedure will perceive in the amendment moved by Senator Durack a resemblance to happenings in the Senate on at least three previous occasions. In 19 14 the Senate sought to have certain proposals to amend the Constitution put to the people under the deadlock provisions of section 128 of the Constitution. The Senate sent an Address to the Governor-General requesting His Excellency to exercise his constitutional powers to submit the proposed amendments of the Constitution to the electors. The request was refused. The Governor-General replied in these terms:

Mr President,

I have perused the Address which you, on behalf of the Senate, presented to me on the 19 June, in which the Senate requests me to exercise the power vested, under certain conditions, in the Governor-General, by section 128 of the Constitution, to submit to the Electors the six proposed laws for the amendment of the Constitution, which are annexed to the Address.

Following the established usage of responsible government, I have consulted my Ministers, who by the express terms of the Constitution are appointed to advise me in the government of the Commonwealth, and have submitted the Senate ‘s Address and accompanying documents to them.

They, having taken the matter into their consideration, are unable to advise me to comply with the request contained in the Address of the Senate. I accept their advice, and am unable to grant the request of the Senate.

M. FERGUSON

Governor-General

Senator Wright:

– There was no rebuke by or impropriety of senators in this place.

Senator MURPHY:

-Not then. You have not received it yet. Mr President, we have here a concise and correct statement, by the GovernorGeneral of the day, of the constitutional principle raised by the motion now before the Senate. It is not the function of the Senate, under the Constitution, to furnish advice to the GovernorGeneral. More specifically, it is not the function of the Senate to furnish advice to His Excellency for the purposes of section 128 of the Constitution, or, as I shall now illustrate, for the purposes of section 57.

It was in 1914, of course, that a double dissolution of Parliament was granted for the first time. Shortly before the double dissolution the Senate presented an Address to His Excellency in which the Senate stated its opinion on the interpretation of section 57 of the Constitution. The episode is recounted in Mr Odgers’ work Australian Senate Practice’, Fourth Edition, at pages 24 to 26. Mr President, I draw attention particularly to the communication from the Governor-General to the then President of the Senate, which is recorded at pages 25 and 26 of Mr Odgers’ work. Sir Ronald Ferguson again made the constitutional position quite plain in the following passages: 1 am advised further that to accede to the request contained in your Address would imply a recognition of a right in the Senate to make the Ministers of State for the Commonwealth directly responsible to that Chamber for advice tendered to the Governor-General in relation to the exercise of an Executive power vested in him by the terms of the Constitution, and that such a recognition would not be in accordance with the accepted principles of responsible government.

Without, however, conceding the existence of any Constitutional obligation to reply to the request contained in your Address, 1 desire to add for your information, and with the concurrence of my Ministers, that the grounds on which I decided to dissolve both Houses of Parliament simultaneously appear from the communication already made by the Prime Minister, with my permission and by my authority, to the House of Representatives.

It will be seen, Mr President, that the Senate was twice politely, but firmly, rebuffed.

The third episode is not on all fours with those to which I have just referred or with the situation that the Senate presently has under consideration. Nevertheless, the principle is the same. I am indebted to the authors of the work ‘Australian Constitutional Law’, Mr J. I. Fajgenbaum and Mr Peter Hanks of Monash University, for the description of the incident that I now mention to honourable senators. The incident concerned the Transport Workers Act 1928. In 1930, on the initiative of the Scullin Labor Government, regulations were made under the Act. The Senate disallowed the regulations. The Government was, however, determined to keep the regulations in force and advised the GovernorGeneral to re-issue the same regulations as soon as the previous set had been disallowed by the Senate. After this had happened on a number of occasions the Senate debated a motion calling on the Governor-General to refuse to sanction further regulations similar to those disallowed by the Senate. The motion was carried against Government objections. Government senators argued that the motion was an inversion of the functions of the Executive to advise the Crown and that the motion was futile, for the GovernorGeneral could not ‘of his own volition assent to or dissent from any proposal submitted by the Executive. He must act on the advice of his Ministers. If he does not, he cannot listen to the advice of others. He cannot have two sets of advisers’.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What about the High Court? The High Court has a residuary role in this.

Senator MURPHY:

-Senator Sir Magnus Cormack very wisely observed that the High Court may have some residual role. It is not for me to debate what the High Court may or may not say as to its residual role. The wisdom of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s remarks may be judged by this fact: The amendment seeks not to suggest that the High Court may have some residual role but, wrongly, unconstitutionally and with some impropriety, that the Senate should embark upon a function and a role that is not its. If honourable senators opposite, those who advise them or others outside wish to go to the High Court, that is their right and their privilege.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– That is all that I am suggesting.

Senator MURPHY:

-I thank the honourable for the suggestion. Honourable senators opposite are welcome to act upon it. What they may do and what this chamber may properly and constitutionally do are other questions. I return to the subject matter.

The Governor-General at that time, Mr President, was an eminent former learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. He was Sir Isaac Isaacs. He was a most eminent constitutional lawyer. Sir Isaac Isaacs sent a letter to the President of the Senate, which is set out in full on pages 77 to 79 of the work to which I have referred. I do not propose to read the whole of the letter. Sir Isaac Isaacs refused to comply with the request of the Senate. He said, among other things:

As to the constitutional propriety of my approval to such a regulation as is postulated by the address, it cannot be doubted that normally by constitutional practice, confirmed and perhaps strengthened, by the pronouncement of the Imperial Conference of 1926. I am bound to act upon the advice of my Ministers.

My plain duty in such circumstances, as it appears to me, acting, not as the representative of His Majesty the King as a constituent part of the Commonwealth Parliament, but as the designated executant of a statutory power created and conferred by the whole Parliament, is simply to adhere to the normal principles of responsible government by following the advice of the Ministers who are constitutionally assigned to me for the time being as my advisers, and who must take the responsibility of that advice. If, as you request me to do, I should reject their advice, supported as it is by the considered opinion of the House of Representatives, and should act upon the equally considered contrary opinion of the Senate, my conduct would, 1 fear, even on ordinary constitutional grounds, amount to an open personal preference of one House against the other- in other words, an act of partisanship.

The Opposition amendment is quite irrelevant to the merits of the Bill. If the Bill is passed, no question of a joint sitting in respect of that Bill can arise. Clearly, the amendment is a device which is designed to obscure the real issue before the Senate in its consideration of the Bill. That issue is whether the Senate agrees or whether it does not agree with the Bill. The second paragraph of section 57 of the Constitution contemplates that the Senate may fail to pass a Bill or that it may pass it with amendments. It is not for the Senate to reflect upon the former GovernorGeneral or what His Excellency did in granting a double dissolution on 1 1 April 1974. The Senate is not a court of law. The Senate is not the High Court of Australia. If there is a question of law to be determined- there has been some talk of litigation; one may say even some threat of litigation; one may say a warning of litigation; one may say that we were told that there would be litigation- the appropriate body to determine that issue at the appropriate time is the High Court of Australia. It would be a grave misuse of the processes of the Senate to evade the issues to which the Senate should be directing its attention by adopting this amendment which would be both constitutionally improper and constitutionally futile.

Mr President, the debate on this amendment provides a convenient opportunity to deal with requests by the Opposition for the tabling of the legal opinions furnished to the GovernorGeneral in connection with the recent double dissolution. The Government has decided, Mr President, that the legal opinions should not be tabled at this stage. There has been an intimation of legal proceedings against the Government. That in itself is sufficient reason for the Government’s decision. But there is another reason- and that is that the constitutional processes of section 57 of the Constitution have not yet run their course. None of the papers relating to the double dissolutions in 1914and 1951 were tabled before the processes of section 57 were completed. Indeed, as to the 1951 double dissolution, the papers were not tabled until 1956. In both instances, the outcome of the elections following the double dissolution was to make resort to the joint sitting procedure unnecessary. That has not happened on this occasion. In the Government’s view, it would not be constitutionally proper to table the legal opinions before the joint sitting is held. If anything has confirmed that view it is the amendment which has been put before this place.

There has been an attempt to embarrass not only the Government but also the GovernorGeneral himself by suggesting that the previous Governor-General had acted wrongly, or on wrong advice. There has been an attempt to embarrass the Governor-General in considering advice which might be tendered to him covering matters, some of which may have been considered by the previous Governor-General. Nothing could be more discourteous; nothing could be more outside the functions of this Senate. This would be an act of impropriety on the part of the Senate and, as I say, well outside its functions. It would also be well outside what honourable senators, if they were not moved by political considerations, would contemplate.

I can assure honourable senators that they will not have to wait 5 years for all the papers connected with these unique events to be tabled. The papers will be made public just as soon as it is proper for this to be done. I ask the Senate to reject the amendment and to pass the Bill. I inform the Senate that in the Government’s view if this amendment were carried it would be clearly a failure to pass the Bill. In view of the great importance to this nation of the Bill which has been endorsed by the Australian people, I trust that the Senate will reject the amendment and pass the Bill.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

-Mr President, knowing that we all are very anxious to hear from Senator Wriedt, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 368

QUESTION

INFLATION

Ministerial Statement

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Crean).

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

Senator WRIEDT:

-My colleague the Treasurer is delivering an identical speech in the House of Representatives at the present time. Where I use the first person during this speech it should be taken as meaning the Treasurer.

During the period ahead the Government and the Australian community will face critical decisions in the economic field. These decisions must be made in the context of renewed momentum in our inflationary spiral. It is appropriate, therefore, that I should outline tonight the Government’s assessment of the task it faces and indicate the manner in which it will approach that task.

The Government’s hopes that the rate of price increase was slackening have proved illusory. The announcement last Friday that the consumer price index in the June quarter had risen by no less than 4. 1 per cent not merely dispelled those hopes but reflected the influence of new and powerful influences at work in the formation of prices.

I have no illusions about the magnitude, or the intractability, of the task we face. It must be obvious to all of us that, with prices and costs now rising at these rates, and with inflationary expectations now so entrenched, inflation cannot now be beaten without severe costs. It must be equally obvious that we would have preferred to avoid those costs. The plain fact is that we no longer have any real choice.

The Background

When it came to office the Government inherited an economy flooded with funds fed by the inflow of capital from abroad and by an undervalued currency. Too much money was chasing too few goods. Our approach to this situation was simple and logical. Through our exchange rate and tariff policies, we proceeded to increase to the maximum the flow of goods onto the market. Equally forceful was the Government’s attack on the excessive liquidity and too easy access to borrowed money which was feeding the already excessive demand. Restraints were applied to the flow of funds from abroad and a tighter credit policy was gradually made effective.

This first stage in our approach has been a long, slow haul. In the process interest rates have risen to unprecedented heights. Given our abhorrence of high interest rates, that has been a measure of our resolution. Let us, however, be quite clear. We would all like to see interest rates coming down, not going up. But although nominal interest rates are now very high, they are still negative in real terms- that is, when compared with the erosion of capital by inflation. I must therefore warn that, unless we can sharply reduce the rate of inflation over the next 12 months or so, we shall not see interest rates come down- we shall see them rise further. It is because we are determined to bring down interest rates from their present unconscionable levels that inflation must be decisively beaten.

The monetary situation is now very tight. We shall certainly keep it that way as long as necessary. At the same time, we shall maintain a proper flexibility. For a number of reasons monetary policy has had to carry an undue share of the burden during recent months. As fiscal policy takes on a greater role it will be appropriate to amend the policy mix so as to reduce that undue burden.

Stage two of our approach was unveiled at the Premiers’ Conference. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) then announced a policy for 1974-75 of restraint in government spending throughout the nation. He foreshadowed that the Australian Government would be deferring or rephasing much of its own planned spending in 1974-75 and he announced financial provisions to the States which, in totality, were designed to ensure a similar policy of restraint on their part. One of the problems in dealing with inflation is that everyone wants it beaten but everyone also wants their own activities to remain quite unaffected. Everyone favours general restraint but particular expenditure. There is no way- I repeat, no way- in which inflation can be beaten which will not involve discomfort, for a while, for the community as a whole.

That is the background against which, tonight, I am announcing some further developments in our approach. In the normal course the steps I shall announce tonight would have been comprehended in a Budget in mid-August. However, with the Budget timetable now so delayed by the election, we have decided to take certain steps immediately. Some will no doubt question the need for the further measures I shall be announcing tonight. After all, it does seem that in the last month or so the rate of increase in demand has eased. The boom, perhaps, is already on the wane. Further measures now, it will be said, will be ‘too much, too late’. Let me therefore say a little about the economic situation.

The Economy

Throughout 1973-74 the economy was overstretched. There were shortages of labour and of many goods- despite a huge rise in imports. Aided by strongly rising incomes, consumer spending rose very strongly. The rise was particularly marked in the second half of the year although it may have slackened off a little in the last month or two. Spending on private housing construction also rose strongly in 1973-74. New finance for housing has been falling from the exceedingly high levels reached a year ago. Even so, private dwelling commencements in the March quarter, the latest period for which we have figures, were still running, in seasonally adjusted terms, ahead of the industry’s capacity to complete dwellings. At the end of March dwellings under construction were 30 per cent greater in number than their already swollen level of a year earlier. When the figures for the June quarter are published next month we would expect to find that overstrain considerably reduced. Even so, data on new private dwelling approvals for the 3 months to May show an annual rate of over 150,000 being sustained- a high rate by any but the false standards of 1 973.

There is no doubt that the pressures on the industry are now easing, and easing fast. I shall say more about that in a moment. But what some are now complaining about are the prices at which they may have to sell houses as they complete them. For the first time for years speculative developers face some uncertainty about the prices at which they can sell. The Government has been aiming to achieve just that. We set out to break the inflationary expectations which have been creating an artificially high level of demand for land and private housing. We are beginning to succeed. We are certainly not going to throw away that success just as it is coming within our grasp. In this and other respects I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in his statement to the Premiers:

When, as we will, we hear of some such ventures going badly wrong in the period ahead, we will know that the risk element has been re-introduced into such forms of investment.

I know that the lower levels of lending for housing, and the higher interest rates, are hurting would-be home buyers. It is with one aspect of that problem in mind that I will be introducing legislation in the Budget session to allow, subject to certain conditions, housing mortgage interest payments as a concessional deduction for income tax purposes as from 1 July last.

We shall also have regard to the other aspectthe availability of finance for housing. Up to now more money for housing would only have meant a bidding-up of housing prices, not an increased output of houses. However, that situation will change- it is already beginning to do so. As it does, we shall be vigilant to ensure that our policies are geared appropriately to the developing situation. For example, at the Premiers’ Conference one area of spending in which the States were told they were not being restrained was welfare housing. As the Prime Minister said at that time, the Government is determinded to ensure that less privileged families in our society are not denied the chance to live in adequate homes, and that many more low-income families are given the opportunity to buy homes of their own. Yet the number of nouses completed in the public sector in the year to March 1974 was the lowest for 15 years. All the resources were being drained off into the private sector.

We have no intention of bringing the private housing industry to its knees. Our policies will be designed to avoid any such outcome. At the same time we are determined to achieve some easing in that sector along with others. That must occur if the public sector is to be able to build many more houses for the needy, as we wish. Although such data as are available for private fixed investment present a somewhat mixed picture, the figures for the March quarter were well up on a year earlier. Public sector spending rose strongly during 1973-74. Overall, then, the demand situation in 1973-74 was one of excessive strength. That was in part reflected in a great rise in imports. In the 3 months to June imports were no less than 69 per cent greater than a year earlier.

Despite increased supplies and the progressive tightening of credit through 1973-74, manufacturers in June were still seeing the main constraints on their activity as physical. In the ACMA/Bank of New South Wales survey made earlier last month 71 per cent of manufacturers nominated shortages of either labour, materials or plant capacity as the main constraint on their activity. Towards the end of the financial year, however, some signs of an easing in demand pressures did begin to emerge. Although unemployment remained very low- at the end of June persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service represented only 1.34 per cent of the workforce- unfilled vacancies fell sharply in the June quarter, presaging an easing in the demand for labour in the coming months. Meanwhile, the effects of tight credit and of sharply increased import competition have been becoming evident, in a sporadic way, on industry. On all the evidence, then, the pace of demand does appear to be slowing and should ease further in the months ahead. The extreme overstrain from which we have been suffering will thus be dissipated and some slack in demand for resources could develop as 1974-75 goes by.

The Inflationary Outlook

It will be said that this is enough- that more measures taken when the boom is on the wane is overkill’. From the standpoint of dealing with inflation the reality is otherwise. The upward thrust of cost and price pressures will not be turned back by our decisions up to this time. What we have done so far has stopped inflation from accelerating even faster. If that is all we can achieve, however, we shall have merely set the stage for the next round of inflation to take off from this higher base.

I say without exaggeration that the Australian economy now faces a highly dangerous situation. Let me focus on two key elements. First, costs are now rising very fast. In 1973-74 average weekly earnings rose by 16 per cent. They are now rising at over 20 per cent. But such figures have nothing to do with the real purchasing power of those wages. I do not prolong the point. We have a wages explosion which is damaging everyone, and wage-earners not least. The second key element in our situation derives from the rest of the world. In the first half of 1974, output in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries overall appears to have actually fallen. It is plain that, if deflationary policies are resolutely pursued by some of the major countries, those policies are going to have pervasive effects on world economic activity and world trade. Australia will not be immune from those effects.

This is not an occasion to analyse the world economic outlook but for Australia there are certain implications. Australia today has ample international reserves. Not only can we afford a further period of sizable deficit in our balance of payments but we also need such an outcome for a time both in order to keep up the total supply of goods to the economy and from the monetary policy aspect. However, if our inflation goes on unabated or accelerates while key countries overseas are reining in theirs, we will find our position becoming untenable in two or three years time. In those circumstances- and I emphasize that we are not going to allow them to happen- we would have to take external economic policy measures for balance of payments reasons which would make our domestic inflationary problem much harder to deal with. Just as one can have a vicious wage /price spiral, so one can have a vicious inflationary/balance of payments interaction. There are only too many overseas examples to attest to that.

Inflation and Our Society

I have referred to the familiar economic case for curbing inflation. But the case goes far beyond economics. Inflation is utterly inequitable in its effects. Let me illustrate that by way of a mundane example. The new taxes and charges I shall be announcing tonight have an annual revenue yield in the order of $270m. I have no illusions about what the newspaper headlines will say about that tomorrow. Yet in the last 12 months inflation has ripped off well over $ 1,000m from the real value of savings bank deposits- deposits owned for the most part by the little people, the ordinary people of this country. That hidden and insidious tax, which of course falls also on all other savings through financial assets, goes largely unremarked. It is not the stuff of headlines.

We have a choice. We can either let inflation run along or we can act to curb it. The easy course for any Government is to drift along and hope, Micawber-like, for something to turn up. That way spells disaster when inflation is running as fast as it is and when inflationary expectations still remain as firmly entrenched as they are in Australia today. The instruments for the control of the causes of inflation in the form we are now experiencing are difficult to apply in a private enterprise economy. They bear unevenly on different sections of the community and involve relative hardships for some. It is important, therefore, that the Government should, simultaneously with their use, take action to set limits to their impact on the economy, on businesses and on individuals and to ensure that the burdens imposed are borne primarily by those best able to carry them.

The Control of Demand

First let me say that the foundation of any anti-inflationary policy must be in the control of demand. We have pushed supplies to their maximum and little can be added on that side. Furthermore, until employers become to some degree uncertain about their capacity to pass on cost increases, their interest in resisting such increases and in countering their effect by greater efficiency or by accepting lower profit returns is likely to be minimised. Let me say also that, until those on both sides who negotiate about wages become more concerned about the effect of rapidly increasing wage costs on future employment of workers in their own and other industries or occupations, and the long-term effects of such cost increases on the international competitiveness of our industries, they are unlikely to enter wage negotiations in an appropriate frame of mind.

This, then, is the first strand in the Government’s policies- to strengthen the measures it has already taken to contain demand. Given the timing of events, we shall be looking chiefly to our forthcoming Budget for that purpose. We have, however, decided upon a number of budgetary steps which can now be taken immediately. At the Premiers Conference the Prime Minister indicated our firm view that, in general, services provided by Government authorities should be paid for by their users rather than by the general taxpayer. In that connection, and as part of the more general policy of expenditure restraint, he said that the financial allocation for the Post Office in 1974-75 would be held at its 1973-74 level. It follows from those 2 propositions that the Post Office must now raise substantial additional revenue by way of increased charges. Specifically, the Government has decided to increase postal and telecommunications charges from 1 August 1974 by amounts sufficient to yield $ 146m during 1974-75.

The Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral will be announcing details, but the main increases are as follows: the basic letter rate is to rise from 7c to 9c; the telephone connection fee is to rise from $60 to $80; business telephone rentals are to rise by $20 per annum to $75; residential telephone rentals are to rise by $10 per annum to $65; and the local call fee is to rise from 4.75c to 6.0c.

To make some further contribution towards restraining the growth of private demand, the Government now proposes to increase certain customs and excise duties. The consumption of tobacco and spirits involves the community in high social costs and the Government has for some time had increases in the duties on those products under consideration. We now propose an increase in the duties on potable spirits equivalent to 3c a nip, effective immediately, to yield an estimated $39m in 1974-75 and $43m in a full year; and an increase in the duties on cigarettes and other tobacco products, equivalent to 4c on a packet of 20, effective immediately, to yield an estimated $61m in 1974-75 and $67m in a full year. The Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) representing the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy) will be giving details shortly.

Before leaving the taxation area I also foreshadow one tax measure which we shall introduce in the 1974-75 Budget but in respect of which I am not in a position to announce details tonight. I refer to a proposal for a capital gains tax. Work has been proceeding on the many complexities involved for some months now. The tax as finally devised will be a carefully considered and fair one.

Restraint of Expenditure

Apart from tax and other measures to restrain private expenditure, the Government acknowledges that public expenditure must also be restrained. As the Prime Minister said at the Premiers Conference, we are anxious to see that there is continued substantial progress with the programs we have been implementing, especially in such vitally important fields as education and health. At the same time he recognised that it would not be feasible, in the circumstances, to achieve in 1974-75 the rates of progress with all our programs to which earlier planning and expectations have been pitched. I reiterate that tonight- with a number of them we will have to accept a slower rate of implementation than we had been hoping for. Let me be clear. The Government does not deviate from its determination to proceed steadily and soberly with its plans to build an Australia in which life will be richer and opportunity more freely and equitably available. But the Government accepts that its plans must be realised with a timing consistent with the needs of sound economic management. These matters will be examined more fully in the context of the 1974-75 Budget but I now announce decisions which are an earnest of our resolution. The expenditure restraints we have required of the States will be fully matched by our own- including some in areas which we regard as vital to our long-term social objectives.

First, we propose to reduce the immigration program for 1974-75. Subject to existing commitments, we shall be aiming for a total intake of not more than 80,000, of which assisted immigration would be not more than 40,000- that is, approximately 10,000 less than last year. Secondly, in the policy speech last April reference was made to our plans to embark on a major pre-school and child care program at a cost then estimated at $130m in this financial year. This initiative reflected the high priority that we have consistently attached to the meeting of needs in this area. The Social Welfare Commission report on the matter will be tabled in due course and we would expect a good deal of public discussion thereafter. Questions of resources, including staff, for such a program have also been arising. Given these delays, as well as the now extreme need to restrain the further growth of Government spending, the Government has reluctantly decided to postpone until 1975-76 the commencement of the full-scale program. We will, of course, fully honour the commitments that we have already entered into under the interim pre-school and child care schemes, and which alone could call for an outlay of about $34m in this financial year. Investigations currently in train may lead to the provision of further funds during the year.

I come lastly to the question of the means test. When the Government came to office we undertook to abolish the means test on age pensions in the life of the Parliament and we took the first step last year to give effect to this undertaking. We planned to take a further step this spring. As I shall say in a moment, we shall be increasing pension rates in the near future but with the greatest reluctance we have decided that we should not proceed to the second step in the abolition of the means test, for persons aged 70 to 74 years, before the first pay day after 1 April 1975. This temporary deferment will reduce prospective expenditure this financial year by some $45m.

The difficult economic circumstances which we face, however, do not allow us to shed our responsibility as a Government to those with slender resources who inevitably are hardest hit by inflation, namely, the recipients of social service pensions and benefits. Moreover, I am conscious of the fact that the recent elections, which were forced on us by the obstructionary tactics of the Opposition in the Senate, have caused the Budget to be delayed a month. If we pursued the normal course, pensioners would be deprived for that time of the benefit of the increased rates. Accordingly, the Government has decided to increase the levels of pensions and benefits now by $5 a week in the standard or single rate and $6 a week in the combined married rate. These increases bring the standard rate pension to almost 25 per cent of estimated seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings in the June quarter 1974. The increased rates will become payable from the first pension pay day after the legislation receives royal assent. The increases will apply to age, invalid and widows pensions, supporting mothers benefit, sheltered employment and rehabilitation allowances, unemployment and sickness benefits, repatriation service pensions, repatriation war widows pensions, and to recipients of tuberculosis allowances. In accordance with our established policy, we shall again review pension rates and benefits in the autumn of 1975. The cost of these increased benefits will be $340m in 1974-75 and $355m in a full year.

Protection of Employment

The Government is satisfied that the approach it is adopting to the inflationary problem is the only one open to it. It recognises, however, that it is operating with instruments of policy which cannot discriminate finely. It will be necessary to ensure that no unnecessary waste ensures. The fact that the instruments of policy are necessarily somewhat rough and ready means that, for a time, the growth of activity is likely to fall off. In those circumstances I need hardly say that we shall take all possible steps to cushion the effects of the economic forces involved upon those individuals who find themselves directly affected and to alleviate any unavoidable distress that may arise. The major retraining programs now being brought into being by the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) will be one element in that process. The national employment and training system is a broad and flexible scheme that can be geared to meet and integrate the needs of individuals and the conditions of the labour market. The scheme is designed to apply, for example, to persons rendered redundant and to persons whose employment prospects are affected by residence in an area where employment opportunities are limited or declining.

For people who become unemployed as a direct result of specific actions by the Government, designed to bring about significant structural changes that are in the national interest and that it judges will have effects beyond the normal adaptive capacity of the economy, a scheme of income maintenance was also recently announced. Instead of unemployment benefits this scheme provides for payments equal to a person’s average weekly earnings over the previous 6 months (with a limit equal to 1 Vi times average weekly earnings) for up to 6 months or at least until suitable alternative employment is obtained where this is shorter. I also mention that, in relation to such assistance arising from the 25 per cent tariff cuts last year, the normally applicable time of 12 months within which applications are to be lodged has now been extended to 18 months. Within the general context of protection of employment I also indicate that we shall provide funds, as appropriate, in support of local initiatives work programs- such initiatives to be determined by the Minister for Labor and Immigration, the Treasurer, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren), the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) and the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) in consultation.

Prices

The measures I have announced will not, in themselves, have an immediate effect on the current price and cost inflation. Nor can they, or anything else that could be done, now prevent prices from rising sharply in the September and, probably, December quarters. Those price rises are, so to speak, already ‘in the pipeline’. Our Budget to be brought down in Septemberincluding that part of it which, in effect, I have announced tonight- will, however, have an indirect effect on cost and price pressures through its impact on the economic climate in which wage bargaining is conducted. Closely linked with our present problems in the field of wage determination is the upward course of prices. It was for that reason that one of the first steps we took after coming to office in December 1972 was to move towards the establishment of a much greater degree of price surveillanceprincipally, though not solely, through the setting up of the Prices Justification Tribunal. The Bill which is now before the Parliament indicates our desire to move in a number of ways to enhance the role of the Tribunal further.

As the Prime Minister said in his statement to the Premiers, the Prices Justification Tribunal can only do so much. None the less, we now propose to invite the Tribunal to scrutinise with care price claims that are based on wage costs in excess of awards; where profit margins exceed those operating in 1 972; where firms are unwilling to absorb reasonable increases in wages and other costs by improvement in efficiency; where prices are expected to contribute towards further capital expenditure; or where selling costs, including advertising, appear excessive. As a means of bringing some further indirect pressures to bear upon prices, the Government will press ahead with its trade practices legislation. That legislation will outlaw, without scope for exemption, agreements between suppliers providing for the fixing or controlling of prices. Other kinds of agreements and arrangements restricting competition will also be generally prohibited.

Conclusion

I have sought tonight to make clear the Government’s deep concern about current inflationary trends and its determination to act to bring them under control. To do so will require a balanced program designed to have an effective impact but which can readily be adjusted to the changing needs of the emerging situation. In our forthcoming budgetary deliberations we shall be seeking to shape such a program. In doing so, we shall I hope demonstrate the Government’s determination to ensure reasonable protection for those who may be adversely affected by any measures taken while at the same time making it clear that the halting of inflation is the necessary first step to the active resumption of our policies of social and economic advancement. Against that background I commend the measures I have outlined tonight to honourable senators.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I just want to say very briefly that this is an extremely sorry day for the Australian people, who must now deal with the product of economic mess and mismanagement. We will take this matter up a great deal more closely and very thoroughly when we have had adequate time to study the implications of this interim document. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 373

PETROLEUM AND MINERALS AUTHORITY BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 367).

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Before the interposition of the statement delivered on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) we listened to a speech by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy). It was a speech which I would submit to this Senate reveals that this Government is the most discreditable government in the history of this country. On the night when its economic policy is in ruins, having failed in the high expectations which were claimed for it and having reduced this country from the assured prosperity which was before it in 1972 to the highly dangerous situation which the Treasurer’s understatement reveals tonight, a massive disillusionment has hit the people of this country. The Government Leader in the Senate in that background comes forward tonight retreating behind specious technicalities and a cover-up of factual information which was promised last week and which the Government now, for its own reasons, decides to conceal.

Senator Webster:

– Was it promised by the Prime Minister?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It was promised, Mr President-and it was promised in writing. I propose to read the letter and to have it tabled and incorporated in Hansard. This is a government which, as I have said before, secured office in the first place by lies and misrepresentation, which retained office by lies and misrepresentation, and, as indicated tonight, seeks to continue in office by deception and concealment and by a misleading of the Senate in matters of vital significance. Is the occasion for this cover-up an occasion which warrants the action which has been taken by the Leader of the Government? The occasion is the debate on the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill which is before the Senate for the third time. If, as we would anticipate, the Senate for the third time rejects this measure, then it is anticipated that there will be a joint sitting of both Houses. At that joint sitting of both Houses the majority of five which the Government has in the House of Representatives will outweigh the minority of two which the Government has in this chamber. Irrespective of what might be the option in this chamber, the constitutional provisions will enable the weight of numbers of the House of Representatives to ensure that that Bill becomes law.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Well, that is democracy.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It is a situation which is provided for by the Constitution, and I concede that. But it is a situation which arises only when there is a deadlock which has been demonstrably proved, and it has never happened before in the history of this country. In the case of this Bill, surely it is important for us to know and to be satisfied that the situation of deadlock- the constitutional provisions of deadlock- have been reached. This is what we are being misled about.

The Government has decided, after having promised certain documents, that it will now withhold those documents and not place them before the Senate. Naturally the Senate ought to be concerned, particularly when it appears that the joint sitting will enable these measures to become law.

So we in this chamber have introduced an amendment which sets out the chronology, which sets out the events and which demonstrates that the constitutional provisions have not been satisfied. We suggest that when these facts are set out there is one interpretation which stands out, and that is the prima facie interpretation that the constitutional provisions have not been satisfied. In those circumstances we invite the Senate to convey these facts to the GovernorGeneral. There is an importance in this situation which the Government for the time being ought to remember, because the Government for the time being was in opposition for 23 years and its performance over 18 months suggests that it is going back into opposition in due course for a period equal to the period for which it was in opposition before. The Government ought to recognise that the rights which the Constitution confers are rights which all parties, whether they are in government or in opposition, ought to protect because they are in due course the only protections in our constitutional democracy which we can rely upon.

When the Attorney-General comes into this chamber tonight, what does he urge upon the Senate? He suggests that what the Senate is doing is not constitutionally proper. He suggests that it is constitutionally inappropriate for the Senate to concern itself with these matters. He suggests that it is constitutionally futile. Having delivered himself of his prepared notes he left the chamber and, I assume, he is no more concerned about whether the Senate pursues this matter. But he has raised some arguments which ought to be considered in the context in which he put them forward. He said, for example, that on two previous occasions the Senate had sent an address to the Governor-General and had put forward a point of view that the Senate’s rights were not being recognised. He indicated that the Governor-General had replied stating that he, the Governor-General, acted upon the advice of his Ministers and was not concerned to act upon or to give consideration to the advice of the Senate. This situation, as the Governor-General indicated, represented the proprieties of constitutional government- the proprieties of responsible government- and one does not doubt that in a unitary system that is the situation which ought to prevail. But there are qualifications which ought to be imposed upon that situation. The first is that we in Australia have had to evolve over the last 70 years a mixture of responsible government and federalism which does not readily fit into the system of responsible government which we have inherited from Westminster.

There have been various requirements, which the Constitution has imposed, which have qualified responsible government in its purest form, and one of those qualifications is to be found in the operation of section 57 of the Constitution. Section 57 of the Constitution requires that a discretion be exercised by the GovernorGeneral in regard to certain matters. He has a discretion to exercise with respect to whether or not there should be a double dissolution of both Houses. He has a discretion to exercise as to whether or not there should be a joint sitting. In that context it must be a moot question as to whether he, the Governor-General, acts in the traditional forms of responsible government on the advice of his Ministers or whether he has an independent discretion which he himself may exercise.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– But he has an independent discretion.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am interested to hear the viewpoint to which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack holds because it is a view which has excited persons who have held the Presidency of the Senate, as he has; it is an issue which has concerned previous Governors-General; it is an issue of great importance. The previous Governor-General had certainly upheld the view that he had an independent discretion to exercise.

I refer to an address which Sir Paul Hasluck gave as Governor-General on 24 October 1972 in Adelaide. The address which was given as the William Queale Memorial Lecture was entitled: The Office of Governor-General’. Sir Paul Hasluck indicated in the course of that address the way in which he viewed the discretion which he had to exercise. In talking of the dissolution of a Parliament and the powers which the Governor-General had, he stated:

It is open to the Governor-General to obtain advice on the constitutional question from other quarters- perhaps from the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General or eminent counseland then a solemn responsibility rests on him to make a judgment on whether a dissolution is needed to serve the purposes of good Government by giving to the electorate the duty of resolving a situation which Parliament cannot resolve for itself.

That, of course, was in the context not precisely of section 57 of the Constitution but of the timehonoured situation in a responsible government situation of whether a request by a Prime Minister for a dissolution of the lower house must be acceded to in every instance by the GovernorGeneral to whom it is addressed. In that case the Governor-General, Sir Paul Hasluck, indicated that he had an independent discretion which he himself exercised.

On the aspect of acting on advice, Sir Paul Hasluck, said:

The Governor-General acts on advice, whether he is acting in his own name or as Governor-General-in-Council. He has the responsibility to weigh and evaluate the advice and has the opportunity of discussion with his advisers. It would be precipitate and probably out of keeping with the nature of his office for him to reject advice outright but he is under no compulsion to accept it unquestioningly. He has a responsibility for seeing that the system works as required by the law and conventions of the constitution but he does not try to do the work of Ministers.

The position which Sir Paul Hasluck expressed is a position which was adverted to and I would believe accepted by the late Dr Evatt in his work The King and his Dominion Governors’ which, written as it was almost 40 years ago, postulated the proposition that a Governor, or a colonial Governor or a Governor-General was not required to act upon the advice of his Ministers. Whilst that was a concept which raised a lot of questioning at the time it was advanced, it is remarkable how it has achieved an acceptance over the years only to be denied apparently in these days of a Labor Government in the Commonwealth Parliament.

But having stated that there is authority for the general proposition that a Governor-General can act upon his own judgment, no doubt he will regard advice which is tendered to him as adequate for his purposes if, on a weighing of it, he is satisfied, or appears to be satisfied, with the advice which it contains. What should a Governor-General do when he is faced with advice which states that a Senate has twice rejected or twice failed to pass a measure and the material which is placed before him would suggest quite clearly that those statements are substantiated? Doubtless he would act upon it. But if subsequently it should appear that a GovernorGeneral has been misled and the full facts have not been placed before him, what is the situation of those who are prejudiced by the decision which he has made. Are they to be denied a remedy and is this chamber to be denied a remedy? This appears to me to be right at the very heart of what is involved in the debate upon which we are now engaged. This history of this matter is set out in the amendments which have been moved. It appears quite clearly in the statments made by Senator Durack when he moved the amendment.

The events of 1 3 December saw a passage of this Bill through the House of Representatives and its presentation to this Senate in the afternoon of the last day of the Senate sitting last year. A debate of very short duration occurred. There was one speaker on behalf of the Opposition and one speaker on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. A motion by an honourable senator of the Democratic Labor Party that the debate be adjourned to the first sitting day in 1974 was accepted without division by this Senate, notwithstanding that the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) indicated that he was opposed to it. In 1 974 when the Parliament resumed the House of Representatives sent a message to this chamber asking it to place on the notice paper the debate which had been interrupted by the prorogation of the Parliament. The Senate duly complied with the request from the House of Representatives and we debated this matter, first on 12 March, then on 19 March and finally on 2 April the Bill was defeated. Six days later the Bill was reintroduced into the House of Representatives. It was brought to this chamber where the Senate declined to consider it because, only approximately a week before, the Senate had defeated the measure.

Where is the gap of 3 months between the time the Senate first rejected the measure and the second occasion when it came before the Senate? There is no such period of 3 months. There is a period of some 6 days. If one takes a different standard, where is the period of 3 months from the time the Senate failed to pass the Bill until it came forward again on 2 April? If that argument is to be raised, it involves asserting that on 13 December there was a failure to pass by the Senate. Certainly, on that date, the Senate did not pass the Bill which was before it. But is it to be assumed that because the Senate, on a day when a Bill is brought before it, fails to debate that Bill, that represents a culpable act on the part of the Senate, a failure to pass which carries with it the consequences that its wish or will may be overridden ultimately by a joint sitting of both Houses? That is implicit in the assumption which is made.

How valid is the claim that the Senate failed to pass the Bill on 13 December? The facts speak for themselves. There was no failure to pass in the accepted sense. I do not repeat what Senator Durack said earlier, namely, that the advice which was tendered in 1951 by the SolicitorGeneral, Sir Kenneth Bailey, to the then Government in which he indicated that failure to pass involved some act on the part of the Senate indicating that it was desirous of avoiding a decision on the matter. One can return to the papers which were presented to the Parliament in regard to the double dissolution of 1951 and find that there the connotation of ‘failure to pass’ is totally inconsistent with the view put forward by the Government here. On page 4 of the tabled papers, in the foreword prepared by Sir Robert Menzies, apropos the discussion which he had had with the Governor-General, he stated:

In the course of our discussions, I had made it clear to His Excellency that, in my view, he was not bound to follow my advice in respect of the existence of the conditions of fact set out in section 57, but that he had to be himself satisfied that those conditions of fact were established.

His Excellency indicated that he thought section 57 spoke for itself, but that he would naturally want to satisfy his own mind about the performance of the conditions.

This advice was supported by a memorandum in which were set out the details of the passage of the Commonwealth Bank Bill over a period of some 6 months during which it was introduced a second time after the Senate had first rejected it. Subsequently after a period of approximately 10 to 12 days debate the Senate then referred the matter to a select committee. In those circumstances, as Professor Zelman Cowan said in his introduction to the latest edition of Dr H. V. Evatt’s book ‘The King and His Dominion Governors’, it is scarcely arguable that there was no justification for the action which the Governor-General then took in granting a double dissolution. But the failure to pass here is not a failure to pass in the ordinary meaning of those words. For example, I wonder whether the decision of the High Court of Australia on these particular words was presented to the GovernorGeneral or whether any consideration has been given by the Government’s advisers to the words which the High Court used. I take the time of the Senate to refer to a case in which these words were considered. I think a number of honourable senators will remember the case of Clayton v Heffron which is reported in 1960 when action was taken to restrain a projected referendum which would give to the people of New South Wales the opportunity to decide whether they desired to continue with their Legislative Council. It is a matter of history that the application for an injunction failed and that the Legislative Council of New South Wales was retained by a majority vote of the people. But the issue which was before the High Court was whether there had been a rejection or a failure to pass on 2 occasions by the Legislative Council a Bill for the abolition of the Legislative Council, so that on the rejection or failure to pass the right to submit the issue to a referendum arose. The High Court closely examined what had happened. It indicated that in the view of the High Court there had been a rejection by the Legislative Council of that Bill. The judgment states:

The Legislative Assembly passed the Bill in the evening of 2 December 1959 and an hour later adjourned until I March 1960. In the meantime the President of the Council received from the Speaker of the Assembly a message reciting the passing of the Bill and presenting it to the Council for its concurrence. The Preident at once reported to the Council the receipt of the message. Thereupon a motion was moved as a matter of precedence and privilege that the Bill be returned to the Assembly with a message which was set out. The message informed the Speaker that the Legislative Council in accordance with long-established precedent practice and pro.ced:e, and for that reason, declined to take into consideration a Bill affecting those sections of the Constitution Act . . .

In short, the Council refused to take the Bill into consideration unless it originated in the Legislative Council. Later, the judgment states:

The contention is that the resolution raising and insisting upon the rule in the present case does not amount to a rejection of the Bill and does not involve a failure to pass it within the meaning of section 5b ( I ) and (4).

Mr Justice Owen had taken a contrary view in the Supreme Court. He stated:

The word ‘reject’ when used in the Parliamentary sense in which those who drafted section 5B used it, conveys to my mind the idea that a Bill has either been taken into consideration by a legislative body and after deliberation upon its merits has been rejected by an adverse vote or that there has been an unqualified refusal to consider it. Here there was no rejection in either of these senses.

But that view did not prevail. The High Court stated:

It is because the assent of the Council to a bill may be withheld otherwise than by rejection that the alternative fails to pass’ is added and that the provision deals specially with amendment.

The Court concluded by saying that there had, in fact, been a refusal to consider the Bill. I cite these references in order to demonstrate the distinction between the 3 considerations contained in the New South Wales legislation which are the identical provisions contained in section 57 of the Australian Constitution that the right to either a double dissolution or a joint sitting arises when there has been either a rejection, a failure to pass or a passage of the Bill with unacceptable amendments.

I challenge anybody to argue persuasively that on 13 December the events which took place amounted to either a rejection or a failure to pass. At no stage on 13 December did the Leader of the Government or any Minister claim that there had been a failure to pass or that what had occurred would be alleged to be failure to pass. At no time on 7 March when the House of Representatives decided to transmit a message to the Senate asking the Senate to reconsider the matter did the Minister who moved the motion suggest that what the Senate had done constituted a failure to pass. At no time when the measure came before the Senate on 12 March did Senator Murphy suggest that there was a failure to pass or that anything that had happened constituted a failure to pass. At no time either on 1 9 March or on 2 April in this chamber was there any suggestion that what had happened constituted a failure to pass. Indeed, the whole pattern of activity- the whole course of events between the 2 chambers- could only be consistent with the view that the Senate was still giving consideration to the measure and was giving consideration to it at the request of the Government and at the request of the House of Representatives.

Having said all that and recognising the weight of all those considerations, where is the case in which it may be alleged that there was a failure to pass this Bill on 13 December 1973? One notes, for example, what the Prime Minister said in the letter which he sent to the GovernorGeneral requesting a double dissolution. This letter, but not the attachment nor the opinions which are referred to in it- was made available to the Press by the Prime Minister shortly after the Governor-General’s decision granting a double dissolution. It is very revealing to find from this Prime Minister how little he told the Governor-General in his letter of the history of the passing of this Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. The Prime Minister said:

Passed by the House of Representatives on 12 December 1973.

Failed to pass the Senate on 1 3 December 1 973.

Refused a second reading by the Senate on 2 April 1974.

Passed by the House of Representatives for the second time on 8 April 1974.

Refused a second reading by the Senate for the second time on 10 April 1974 by means of an amendment (Attachment ‘B’) which in effect would defer the Bill for a period of 6 months.

There is no reference by the Prime Minister in his letter to the Governor-General of the request by the House of Representatives on 7 March. There is no mention in the letter by the Prime Minister to the Governor-General of the fact that the Senate took the matter under advice on 12 March. These matters are just not mentioned. Was the Governor-General told? In these circumstances the appropriate course would be to ask for the other documents which were given to the Governor-General to be tabled. I asked the

Prime Minister to make the relevant documents available. I wrote to the Prime Minister on 2 July, before the Parliament had resumed, asking him to make available the attachment to which he had referred in his correspondence and also the opinions of the Solicitor-General and of the Attorney-General which had been referred to in that correspondence. I received from the Prime Minister a letter dated 1 1 July. It states:

Dear Senator Greenwood,

I refer to your letter of 2 July 1974 concerning the documents in relation to the simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives by His Excellency the Governor-General on 1 1 April 1974.

The documentation to which you refer is being printed for tabling in both Houses and I expect this will take place next week.

You will note that I am adopting the procedure of Prime Minister Fisher, who tabled the documents relating to the 1914 double dissolution when the new Parliament met, in preference to the procedure of Prime Minister Menzies, who did not table the documents relating to the 195 1 double dissolution until 1956.

I seek leave to table the document.

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

Senator Greenwood:

– I also seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Prime Minister, Canberra 11 July 1974

Dear Senator Greenwood,

I refer to your letter of 2 July 1974 concerning the documents in relation to the simultaneous dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives by His Excellency the Governor-General on 1 1 April 1974.

The documentation to which you refer is being printed for tabling in both Houses and I expect this will take place next week.

You will note that I am adopting the procedure of Prime Minister Fisher, who tabled the documents relating to the 1914 double dissolution when the new Parliament met, in preference to the procedure of Prime Minister Menzies, who did not table the documents relating to the 1951 double dissolution until 1956.

Yours sincerely, E. G. WHITLAM

Senator the Hon. I. J. Greenwood, Q.C., Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra. A.C.T. 2600.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-At about the same time as the request was being made and I received this reply a question was asked in the House of Representatives by Mr Anthony seeking the same information as I had been seeking. The Prime Minister, in the reply which he gave on 10 July, indicated that the material was being printed and would be tabled, he expected, the following week. There was no suggestion whatever that this material could not be placed before the Parliament and exposed to scrutiny. In this chamber on the same day I asked the AttorneyGeneral whether this material could be presented. He said that as far as he was concerned he saw no reason why it could not be tabled but he said that it was a matter for the Prime Minister. Later that same day he conveyed to me what the Prime Minister had said in the House of Representatives. What are we told tonight? We are told that this material is not now to be tabled. What is the reason which we have been given? As far as I can understand the Attorney-General it was that there had been some indication of likely litigation which made it in some way unfair for this material to be exposed to public scrutiny.

Where is the unfairness? What is it the Government is not prepared to have revealed and open to examination by anybody who might be undertaking litigation? Is it only in the last fortnight that there has been a suggestion of litigation which would require this action to be taken? My understanding was that there has been a threat of litigation at least from 2 State Attorneys-General for the last 2 months with respect to this Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill. In those circumstances, the speciousness of the arguments which have been raised tonight stand in stark contrast to the supposed virtue which the Prime Minister refers to in his letter in that he is tabling forthwith the material. This is concealment because the Government does not want to reveal what is in this material. There can be no other explanation. Is the Government ashamed of what is contained in the opinions which it gave to the Governor-General? Does this material reveal that the Governor-General has in fact been misled? I do not know, but I suspect that there is in that material something which the Government desires to conceal and that that is the reason why it is not being revealed now, particularly as it was promised that it would be tabled last week and indeed was being printed for the purpose of being tabled.

I think the Senate would be lacking in a sense of what it ought to be about if we let these matters pass without mention. I think the amendment which has been proposed by Senator Durack cannot be faulted in terms of the chronological sequence which it sets out. I have not heard a suggestion from anybody that the facts are incorrect. The facts relate a story which I think quite clearly indicates that the constitutional requirements have not been complied with. If there is an argument which is to be advanced which has not so far appealed to persons who have examined this matter and which is contained in the opinions of the AttorneyGeneral and the Solicitor-General, let it be revealed. But the Government chooses not to reveal those opinions. If there are further facts or further considerations which would alter what seems to be the prima facie result of what is contained in the resolution, let the Government put forward those considerations. But they are not put forward. All we have is an argument which seeks to rely upon what I would describe as irrelevant, historical technicalities aimed at persuading the Senate not to take a course which asserts the Senate’s rights.

If we have reached a stage where we have a government which is prepared to mislead the people of this country in order to secure office, I am not prepared to put it past this Government to take action to conceal and to misrepresent facts in vastly more significant facets of government activity. This is one reason why this amendment ought to be carried. It ought to be a further reason why we should not let rest the refusal of this Government, after it promised to table certain documents, to table them and so disclose the advice which was given to the GovernorGeneral. I support the amendment.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 379

MINERALS (SUBMERGED LANDS) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Willesee) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I am making this speech on behalf of Senator Wriedt, the Minister for Agriculture, who in this chamber is the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). When I use the first person personal pronoun it is to be taken as referring to the Minister for Agriculture. This Bill provides a mining code being the legal framework for the exploration and exploitation of our offshore minerals resources in exercise of the Australian Government’s sovereignty, proclaimed through the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973. Honourable senators will recall that the former Government clearly foreshadowed introduction of a mining code on 16 April 1970. This code was not introduced. The Seas and Submerged Lands Act Parts I and II are almost identical with the Bill introduced in 1970. The mining code in this Bill follows the text of that to which the then Minister for National Development referred.

The Bill now before the Senate constituted Part III of the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill 1973 when it was first introduced into the Senate on 22 May 1973 after having been carried without amendment in another place. The Senate then adjourned debate by vote on division until after 1 August 1973. However, when the Senate failed to resume debate I introduced the Bill into this chamber the second time on 25 September 1973, after it had again been passed without amendment in the other place. The Senate subsequently passed it with amendment on 27 November 1 973, the amendment being the deletion of Part III of the Bill.

In accepting the amendment deleting the mining code, the Minister for Minerals and Energy said the battle would go on. The Bill now before the Senate covers that part of the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill 1973 which was rejected by the Senate in November 1973. In this respect there will be early proclamation under the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1 973 of baselines in parts of the New South Wales and Tasmanian coasts from which the Australian territorial sea should be measured. Many of the salient features of this Bill and the associated Royalty Bill were outlined in my second reading speech on the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill on 22 May 1973 and I see no point in covering the same ground again. The mining code embodied in the Bill will establish rules governing the exploration and exploitation of our offshore mineral resources and the issue of related titles. Mr President, the passage of this Bill will be a further significant state in the exercise of the Australian Government’s sovereignty in respect of the offshore mining industry. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 380

MINERALS (SUBMERGED LANDS) (ROYALTY) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Willesee) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I am making this speech on behalf of Senator Wriedt, the Minister for Agriculture, who in this chamber is the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). When I use the first person personal pronoun it is to be taken as referring to the Minister for Agriculture.

This Bill which is consequential upon the Minerals (Submerged Lands) Bill 1974 was also introduced into the Senate on 22 May 1973, under the title ‘Seas and Submerged Lands (Royalty on Minerals) Bill 1973’, after it was carried without amendment in another place. The debate was then adjourned. Together with the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill 1973 it was again passed without amendment in the other place and, when reintroduced into the Senate on 25 September 1973, it failed to pass when Part III of the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill, containing the mining code, was deleted from that Bill. I now introduce the Bill again under the title Minerals (Submerged Lands) (Royalty) Bill 1974’ and commend it to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 380

PETROLEUM AND MINERALS AUTHORITY BILL 1973

Debate resumed (vide page 379).

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973, which is one of the 6 Bills which were submitted to His Excellency the Governor-General as the grounds for a double dissolution of the Parliament. At the outset of this debate Senator Durack moved, on behalf of the Opposition, a detailed amendment which the Opposition proposes to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. The essence of that amendment challenges the legality or the constitutionality of the Government’s action in seeking to include this measure as one of the grounds for a double dissolution. In so doing the Opposition seeks to challenge the right of the

Government to submit this Bill validity to a joint sitting of Parliament. This is a very important matter.

In response to the amendment, the AttorneyGeneral, Senator Murphy, made a speech to the Senate during the course of which he raised matters of principle which go far beyond the importance or the significance of this Bill and which go right to the heart of the constitutional monarchy, the concept of the constitutional Head of State and therefore to the democratic institution in this country. These matters should be examined as such because, if Senator Murphy’s statement tonight is to prevail, the concept of the GovernorGeneral as constitutional Head of State will become a much narrower and much more delimited function and a function which, without any offence, would be that of a puppet response to government. A future Governor-General, under a Labor government, would have no right to exercise individual discretion but must always reflect the will of the Ministers on their giving advice to him. I think that this principle is quite fundamental.

If one listened very carefully to the AttorneyGeneral one point became abundantly clear. He was very careful never to say that it was constitutionally illegal for the Senate to proceed in terms of the amendment. On the contrary, double talk was used. We were told that it would be constitutionally improper and constitutionally futile to take such action. It is either within the power of this chamber to send such a communication to the Governor-General or it is not. I submit that quite clearly the Attorney-General tonight by his silence on the question of constitutionality made it clear that Senator Durack ‘s amendment is entirely constitutional. At the very most, Senator Murphy argued that there is a protocol or an ethical judgment in this matter. I repeat that the Attorney-General at no stage suggested that it was not competent for the Senate to submit such a message or to proceed with such an amendment. His arguments, when he quoted precedents, rested on the fact that apparently in several cases in the past His Excellency the Governor-General decided not to take the advice of the Senate.

There is no suggestion in the amendment that we feel that His Excellency must respond to our advice. The Opposition is saying that it has a duty, a responsibility and a clear right to make known to every person in this country- to His Excellency the Governor-General, to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and his Cabinet, to the Government and to the people of Australiawhat the Opposition regards as the constitutional position under this Bill. To conceive the idea that a Governor-General should be so isolated from the community that he should not be able to respond to events in the community and that he should not be capable of perusing and being influenced by the debates in this or any other chamber is to deny the fundamental duty of the constitutional Head of State over the centuries. It is the primary duty of the constitutional Head of State, whether monarch or Governor-General, to brief himself or herself fully on the happenings of the day and the happenings in the life and public affairs of the community, so that when a decision is to be taken the constitutional Head is fully aware of the events and can bring down an independent judgment.

I felt that Senator Murphy’s speech tonight was the socialist Left view of the constitutional Head who must, under a socialist view, simply be there in a puppet fashion to do the will of the Ministers. If this principle is correct, why does the Government go through the pretence, if pretence it is, of allowing a Governor-General to seek or to obtain advice from a Chief Justice, from a Solicitor-General or from any experienced person in the community? Quite clearly, no one denies the competence of the constitutional Head to seek that advice. It is not only a competence, it is an absolute responsibility of the Governor-General that he should brief or equip himself with absolute knowledge on such matters. Section 57 of the Constitution sets out the terms on which a double dissolution can be granted. It deals firstly with the rejection or failure to pass by the Senate twice, with a gap of 3 months, and then states: the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously.

It does not say ‘shall’. It is not mandatory. There is clearly in this section a discretion in the Governor-General.

There is clearly in section 57 a responsibility on His Excellency to acquaint himself with the facts, not only as the Ministers supply them to him but as they can be supplied to him from every source in the community. It would be the essence of nonsense to imagine that His Excellency would not be looking to the publication in the Press of debates in this Parliament and that he does not brief himself as to the consequences of these debates. It would be the essence of nonsense to imagine that the Governor-General would not have recourse to the daily or weekly issues of Hansard and that he would not discuss with Ministers and, I would hope, members of the Opposition and independent members the events of the day in order to inform himself. The constitutional monarchs of England over the centuries regarded this duty as their primary duty.

Tonight the Attorney-General said, in effect, that there is no individual discretion in the constitutional Head of State. Quite apart from its implications in this Bill, I put it to the Senate that that statement would be a grave one in terms of the democratic structure of this country if it should be correct. It would be wrong and it would be grave, because within the powers of the constitutional Head of State the discretions are vital and important. They are safeguards which make democracy work. Therefore, the Senate has not been asked by the Attorney-General to put aside the amendment because it is unconstitutional. On the contrary. No evidence has come forward on that point. It was interesting tonight that there was no opinion, hastily secured, from the Solicitor-General or from the AttorneyGeneral’s Department- no legal opinion about the constitutional rights of the Opposition to move this amendment. That silence, a profound silence, is of great significance. It is quite clear that nobody challenges the right of the Opposition to move the amendment. All that has been said is that it is constitutionally improper and constitutionally futile.

I regret to say that the speech of the AttorneyGeneral was, in fact, one of his very worst because it contained some very serious evidence of double talk. He said that we must not do this because it would reflect on a former GovernorGeneral. This of course is nonsense; there is no reflection on the Governor-General. This is a contradiction of argument. On the one hand it is said that the former Governor-General took the advice of his Ministers, and had to do so, and then it is said that we, in saying that that advice was wrong and that the action taken was wrong, were reflecting on the Governor-General. Clearly this is nonsense; there was no reflection at all upon His Excellency. This demonstrates the tyranny of the kind of left wing socialism that we see here and that seeks to gag the democratic Parliament. In a democracy this chamber must be supreme. To put sanctions on its ability to communicate its messages to whomsoever in this community is to limit seriously the whole of the powers, responsibilities and functions of the Senate, and I personally reject that. I regard this as a grave matter going far beyond this Bill.

Having said that, and having made the point that Senator Durack moved an amendment, that Senator Murphy challenged it and that, as the position stands now, as I understand it, no one has denied the right of this Senate to pass that amendment and communicate it, I look to the substance of the amendment. Senator Greenwood has made clear one important point, that the events and the time-table as set out in Senator Durack ‘s amendment have not been challenged by Senator Murphy or by any other Government speaker. All that has been challenged is the propriety of such an action. That amendment recites a time-table of events starting from the last sitting day of the Senate prior to Christmasindeed from the last hours of the last sitting dayand moving over the months of March and April. It establishes a series of events which, on the facts, cannot constitute a failure to pass or a rejection in terms of section 57 of the Constitution. I will be brief because the facts have been given. What the amendment says is that on 13 December 1973 the Bill was introduced for the first time in the knowledge that it was the last day of the sitting and that the Senate would rise in the late afternoon. It is an important and detailed Bill and one that requires study. The Senate traditionally reserves the right, when a Bill is introduced and the second reading is formally move, to seek an adjournment to allow time for honourable senators of this chamber to contemplate and to study the measure in depth, and for the general public and interested people to secure the measure, to contemplate it and communicate their views, whether through the Press or the other media or through this Parliament. The need for a moderate delay between the initial presentation of a Bill and its final debate is fundamental to this chamber. The whole 3 stages of a Bill are designed to prevent the tyranny of a sudden pressurising of legislation through a chamber. Each of the 3 stages is designed to expose the Bill and to allow time for discussion not only in this chamber but outside it.

Therefore, what could be more normal than that on that day, one and a half hours before the Senate was due to rise for the Christmas recess, Senator Byrne of the Australian Democratic Labor Party should move that the debate be adjourned and consideration of the Bill deferred to the first day of sitting in the February session? This, in fact, was done. So the Government had it within its power at any time in December or November, if it regarded this Bill as imperative or urgent and if it wanted to proceed properly with the forms of this chamber, to bring in the Bill and to debate it here over the period of a week or two. The Government of the day chose to introduce the Bill for the first time on the last day of sitting for the year. It did not do so with any degree of urgency. It introduced the Bill, as it had introduced other Bills, and, in the normal course, allowed a deferral. The Bill was deferred, and in due course the Government, by its own action, intervened to alter the normal procedures which would have allowed this Bill to remain on the notice paper of the Senate and be debated soon after the resumption of the Senate this year. It was contemplated that the Parliament would meet in mid-February of this year, but the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) decided that he would seek a formal opening of the Parliament by Her Majesty the Queen, the constitutional Head of State, and in order to do so it was necessary to prorogue the Parliament.

In the proroguing of Parliament all legislation was removed under the Commonwealth Constitution from the parliamentary lists. This was done by the Government and not by a wilful act of the Opposition. When Parliament resumed it was not for several weeks that the Government sought to restore the measure to the notice paper and to resume debate. This was done, and in due course the measure was debated and rejected, for the first time. So, the normal procedures from the time of the first reading of the Bill to its first rejection were procedures which were quite normal in this chamber and which could not, in any way, be considered to be steps wilfully taken in a vexatious fashion by the Opposition seeking to delay or seeking to fail to pass the Bill. Under no such circumstances could that be. Indeed, the Opposition co-operated willingly with the Government when the legislation was presented. Within some 3 sittings days of the first defeat of the Bill, on 8 April 1974 the Bill was reintroduced into this Parliament and subsequently dealt with.

Quite clearly, this Bill is not a Bill within the meaning of section 57 as one upon which a double dissolution could be sought or one upon which a joint sitting could deliberate. The Attorney-General was at great pains to take note of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s intervention that there was a residual power in the High Court. He used that intervention- a highly pertinent one- to his own purpose, as though to say: Look, nothing that you do now matters. If indeed upon some subsequent occasion you want, as an interested person, to refer it to the High Court, that is that’. He later used the belief, which he then engendered in his mind, that such an action would take place, as an excuse for not tabling certain documents. That is a matter to which I will refer in a moment.

In fact, it is the duty of this Senate and of this Parliament- it is certainly the duty of this Opposition- to say to the Government of the day: ‘In our view, you have offended legally section 57 of the Constitution under this Bill’. There have been governments of the past which, being reminded of the unarguable facts, would have responded to this and said: ‘Yes, we admit that we have made a mistake. Yes, quite clearly, this is not a matter for a joint sitting’. Governments are not so God-given that what they decide in their Cabinet cannot and should not be undone elsewhere. Indeed, I notice that the Labor Caucus tends to share my view on this and that on occasions- no doubt tonight there was much heart searching in relation to this question- a Labor Caucus can persuade a Labor Cabinet that it was wrong in facts, in tactics and in decisions. If it is competent for the internal body of the Labor Party itself- indeed, regarded as its duty by that body- to say to Cabinet: ‘We have looked at your decisions and we find you lacking; we find you wanting, you have reached the wrong conclusion’, how much more importantly is it the duty of the Opposition to say: ‘In our view, you have erred seriously’?

As Senator Greenwood has said, a number of attempts were made some weeks ago both in this chamber and in another place to secure from the Prime Minister the documents which were submitted by the Government of the day to the then Governor-General and upon which a double dissolution of the Parliament was granted. As Senator Greenwood has shown from the contents of a letter which has been incorporated in Hansard, the Prime Minister indicated that he would provide those documents in such a. time that they would have been available by now. His statement indicated that he intended to provide them to this Parliament and to the people of Australia by last week. At that time he made no legalistic caveats, raised no barriers to their tabling. The Prime Minister knew what was in those documents. Who better than he would know what they contained? The Prime Minister knew then what they contained and he gave an undertaking that he would table them.

How important it is that these documents should be tabled. This Parliament contemplates, presumably next week- it remains an official secret, even though the deliberations of Cabinet have not done so despite threats of the Crimes Act-a unique joint sitting. Should not all those members of the Parliament who will participate in that joint sitting have before them all the facts -both legal facts and other information- that are necessary in the joint sitting? Is it good enough for the Attorney-General to say in effect: You do not need this and if you think 1 am wrong, take it to the High Court’? For the senior law officer of this Parliament to make that suggestion makes him recreant to his duty. It is the job of the Attorney-General to see that justice is done at all levels, not to stack up litigation for some contest at some future time in the High Court. It is an extraordinary situation for him to conceive that he should resist the normal processes of justice in this chamber. The whole art and style of Parliament is to seek to lay the facts, as they are, nakedly before the chamber and before the people, and from those facts to derive a conclusion.

Where else should those documents to which I have referred be presented? Are we in the end to make this Parliament a subservient body? ls this Parliament to be overridden by an AttorneyGeneral and a Prime Minister who, at their whim, can restrain us in such a knowledge? So on a number of levels this debate has now assumed very great importance. The Bill itself would have been a significant one in its substance. It has now become doubly so, firstly, because of the timetable and its inclusion in the double dissolution program, and secondly, because of the quite remarkable statement made by the AttorneyGeneral tonight on the Government’s attitude to and interpretation of the restricted duties of the Governor-General.

Let me turn to the Bill itself, because the Bill itself has another great significance. This Bill, of which much has been made, has never been submitted as a mandate to the people of Australia. The 1972 policy speech of the Labor Party was absolutely silent on it. A search of that document from one end to another will reveal no mention of this Bill. In its projection to the people the Government has been singularly silent about the terms and nature of this legislation; wisely so too because the people of the several States of Australia, in the full knowledge of the consequences of this Bill, would have responded vigorously and negatively against it. Does anyone doubt that the people of Western Australia, who today understand what is meant by the conservation, the preservation the development of the mineral treasure house of that State, would respond by selling their State, themselves and their State Government, lock stock and barrel, to the total takeover bid of a central socialist government in Canberra? Of course they would not. Does anyone believe, for example, that the people of South Australia, with their limited but nevertheless significant mineral and petroleum resources, would have said to Mr Whitlam and his Government: ‘Yes, go ahead on this’? Quite clearly they would not. Indeed, those blithe spirits of Queensland who have shown a proper degree of independence of spirit and a proper understanding of Statehood and decentralisation would, in old-fashioned Queensland language, have breached the protocol and told Mr Whitlam and his Government exactly what they thought of this measure. The measure itself has been silent.

Lest I appear to be merely stressing the negatives in relation to this matter, I want to say that the Opposition is second to none in recognising the need in this continent of ours to preserve, to conserve and to develop prudently and effectively the limited but highly valuable resources that we have, particularly the petroleum and mineral products. The Opposition, in government, took great steps to develop for Australia a minerals and petroleum industry to the point where it gave to Australia a great affluence which it could not otherwise have achieved, and a great stability which enabled it to ride out the boom and bust of the agricultural prices fluctuations. It is worth reminding ourselves that it was governments of our faith, the Liberal-Country Party faith, which developed the mineral undertakings of this country and which set up the overseas trade. Through this action, such governments brought to the people of Australia an enormous wealth and sharing and a great stability.

In dealing with this Bill I want to look at a number of the bogies that are raised by the Labor Government. The Labor Government puts forward as a pretext for this Bill the argument that we must protect our mineral resources from exploitation, essentially by foreign ownership, and of course by its great enfant terrible, the multi-nationals. Whenever this Government wishes to find someone to blame, whether it is for record inflation, which it has discovered tonight after having denied that it existed even during question time today, or for any other matter, honourable senators can bet that it will blame the multi-nationals. I should add that this is so with one exception, namely, when the Government takes down the tariff barriers and allows the multi-nationals in foreign countries to provide the employment in the footwear, textile and electronic industries in such other countries, employment which otherwise would be provided for the people of Australia in Australia. So apparently in terms of overseas trade there is no sensitivity about multi-nationals. I raise this point because again the Opposition would be second to none in saying that the resources of this country must be protected from exploitation by anybody, whether it be multi-nationals, Australianowned companies or a combination of both.

I want to remind the Senate that this Labor Government both before the 1972 election and before the recent campaign for the last election made great sound and fury about multinationals and their exploitation and about what it had done and would do. Let me say this: The Whitlam Labor Government has been in government for almost 2 years and in that time has done nothing significant to alter the structure of control over foreign ownership and foreign exploitation in Australia, the framework of which was set up by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. Indeed, the only overt action that it has taken basically is to demand that some onethird of investment flowing into this country should be retained by way of a variable deposit. Significantly, this affected Australian industries more than it did the multi-nationals and significantly the Government is running away from it now. It is backing down because, of course, it knows that this action has had no control whatsoever over foreign companies- over multinationals.

The Senate knows and the Labor Party knows that any government of Australia has complete power over its minerals, over its export trade and over who shall develop and exploit the resources. Under the commerce and export powers the government of the day can and does decide what company shall establish itself in Australia, how much the company shall develop its resources each year, to what stages of refining or processing the company shall take those resources, how much in terms of tonnage shall be exported and what prices shall be received for the material exported. Of course, following upon that the government of the day has complete powers of taxation and charges levied upon the company at all levels. Let me explain this simply. To the Nabalco company at Gove the Australian Government has said: ‘Yes, you, a multinational company with a basic Australian content, may exploit the bauxite deposits. But you must do so on a particular program and with particular price structures. In t he early stages of your establishment you may export crude bauxite in order to recoup some of the enormous establishment charges- perhaps $600m or more- that you have outlayed. But whilst you are doing this you must establish an alumina refining plant at Weipa. You must, according to a timetable, reduce your bauxite in the ordinary process to alumina and you can then export a certain amount of alumina. You must, according to a further timetable, take that alumina and smelt it in Australia and reduce it to the base metal.

Then, you must sell it according to prices that the Australian Government determined.

So the Australian Government, without taking on any further powers at all, has the power to say yes or no to a company that wishes to develop a particular mineral. It can say yes or no to a company that wishes to develop a certain mineral according to a certain program or schedule and it can say yes or no to a certain price. That is a total power. Indeed, within the corporation power under the Concrete Pipes case the power of the Commonwealth Government to tell a company what to do is quite enormous. This tirade of abuse by the Commonwealth Government against the multi-nationals follows the old Sukarno technique. When you are frightened of what is going on in your domestic economy, as he was, when you are frightened and scared of inflation, as he was, and when inflation is getting out of hand, you create a diversion or a confrontation. You take the minds of the people of your country off your domestic woes and direct them on to other things. We have seen a classic example of confrontation in this country against the multi-nationals. I have no brief whatsoever for any company, national or multi-national. What I have is a brief for the Australian people and the powers under our Constitution and existing law to preserve, conserve and develop the precious minerals we have in Australia. Let nobody say that the powers do not exist. They do exist and in an enormous fashion.

I want to refer also to the very nature of this Bill. The Bill has been suggested as being a Bill which will aim to prevent foreign ownership from taking a grip. That is not the nature of this Bill at all. This Bill is designed for a socialist government to take an inflexible grip. This is not a war against foreign ownership. This is a Bill designed to nationalise the mineral industry of Australia. This is not a Bill to enable Australian ownership in terms of Australian equity in shares or debentures. This Bill will reach into such Australianowned companies and enable the Government to take them over. This is not a Bill to develop these things for the welfare of Australia. This is a Bill to take from our State governments all their existing powers over the resources in their States, all their vital need to obtain their finances from royalties, all their responsibilities for developing these things in an orchestration of State development and to give all those powers to a central government in Canberra. So I suggest that the true nature of the Bill needs to be looked at.

I repeat that there is no need for more powers if, indeed, the Commonwealth Government wants to control the exploitation of minerals. There is no need for more powers if the Government wants to establish Australian equity inside the minerals industry. But let us test this by looking at the bona fides of the Whitlam Government. In 2 years of office it has now demonstrated what it has done to get petroleum and minerals. In its first year of office the Whitlam Labor Government achieved a remarkable record. When it came to office the Australian people had been benefiting from an enormous success in terms of the finding of petroleum products and their refining and sale in Australia. Australia which in World War II neither knew that it had any substantial oil underground nor had any capacity for refining had by the end of 1972 discovered in the Bass Strait, on Barrow Island and elsewhere sufficient oil-true, of light fractions- to provide more than sufficient annual supplies for its automotive industries and needed only to bring in the heavier fractions for industrial and heating purposes. This was a remarkable weather-proofing of this continent against the dangers which inevitably were ahead and which were in a short term to emerge in a very serious fashion.

So here was Australia in 1972 with a program regarding oil. It had then 70 per cent of all its requirements, 100 per cent of its automotive or gasoline requirements and a need for heavier crude; but in order that that condition be maintained or improved, it was necessary that by 1980 it should have found at least as much again of the operative oil wells as then existed in the Esso-BHP basin, in the area off the Western Australian coast, and elsewhere. The need is to do that again and again; otherwise by 1980 we shall be supplying only 45 per cent of our needs, and by 1990 only 10 per cent of our needs. All the advisers said to the Australian Government: This is your need. There is a peril to Australia unless we can provide more and more operative oil and gas wells’.

What did the Whitlam Government do? The Whitlam Government had said: ‘Put us in and we will make sure that your minerals and petroleum are developed to the full benefit of the people of Australia’. In its first year of office the Whitlam Government cut out the incentives to the mining industry and to the petroleum industry and as a result only one-half as many wells were drilled as had been drilled the year before, only one-half the footage of wells was drilled. So by its action it cut the drilling program in half. It did better than that. By Christmas last year out of some 22 vital oil drilling rigs that we had in

Australia I think only two or three where in operation. Since then quite a number of them have been exported abroad. So any re-development now would take years. This is the Government that comes forward and says: ‘Put us in, give us these powers and you will get your minerals’.

Does the Government realise that Australia has not yet even felt the fringe of the real effects of the energy crisis? Does the Government realise that it is only a fringe benefit that here in Australia we can supply ourselves with automotive fuel? Does it realise that if Japan or the European Economic Community countries are starved- as well they might be- or priced out in the energy crisis their ability to buy from us and their prices structures will be such that Australia’s living standards will shrink? Does it realise that Australia has a duty not only at home but also as a good neighbour abroad to look at the whole world in terms of its energy consequences and to say: ‘We have certain precious minerals. We will develop them to a program not only for ourselves but for the world ‘?

What does Mr Whitlam say of this? Last year he went to South America, and his string of news writers came up with a wonderful new headline. They said that Mr Whitlam was seeking to negotiate resources diplomacy, that the ‘have’ nations with vital mineral resources should gang together and, presumably, stand up to the rest of the world in terms of price. Does anyone think that the Middle East was not quick to copy? Does anyone now think it was a bright idea? We saw the Middle East nations standing up the ‘have nots’ of the world in terms of supply and price. I know of no more ugly concept than that of resources diplomacy in a world that is resourcestarved. I cannot believe that a government that prattles its concern for mankind and for the under-privileged of this world should come out with a program which threatens and bludgeons and creates a monopoly sale, which creates a seller’s market in this regard. How utterly stupid and shortsighted!

One would have thought that either in connection with this Bill or in parallel with it the government of the day would have tabled a position paper regarding energy not only in Australia but on the world scene, because to contemplate the mechanics of the development of petroleum and minerals it is necessary to know the problem in these matters not only of this continent but throughout the world. Quite clearly what the government of the day should have been doing was to tell us how it sees the oil energy crisis over the next 30 years; how it sees not only its effect on those nations which are geared to fossil fuels for their motivation, but also on the 50 million people of the Middle East who face a very savage shrinking in their living standards if, as is inevitable, their only source of livelihood is drying up.

Have I heard any suggestion from this Government that Australia will be a party to an international movement to help in any thoughtful way in a study of what will happen to those 5, 6 or 7 countries of the Middle East who today, in their reaction and over-reaction because of the shrinking of the only resources they have that they know of, are reaching out and imposing punitive effects on the world? Where is our program in which we say we will come forward and help? Where is our program for examination of our other major fossil fuel, coal? Where can we find a statement in Australia on how the Government proposes to develop coal? As I understand it, in Australia in terms of steaming coal we have in proven quantities more than 400 years of reserves at the present rate and an unmeasurable amount that we have not yet proved. In coking coal we have a somewhat smaller amount. What do we propose to do? Do we propose to increase the export of coal? Ought we to be responding to the coal shortage in the United Kingdom and Western Europe? Ought we to be responding by increased exports? What effect would that have on our stocks? What effect would it have for any petro-chemical industry that we might have in prospect? Is it true, as is likely, that many people feel that in 30 years time coal, as we know it today, will have no relation to steel-making, that there will be a direct electrical process of steelmaking? If this is true, how do we propose to use coal?

Debate interrupted.

page 386

ADJOURNMENT

The 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 affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

page 387

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Tariff Reductions: Assistance Tribunal (Question No. 28)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has a tribunal been established to recommend appropriate assistance to firms and employees affected seriously by the 25 per cent reduction on non-revenue tariffs in July 1973.
  2. Is Mr D. MacBride still the sole member of the tribunal.
  3. What recommendations has the tribunal made.
  4. What action has been taken on such recommendations.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. In a report delivered on 14 March 1974 the tribunal recommended that no assistance be given to Brett ‘s Brisbane Sawmills Pty Ltd.
  4. The recommendation was accepted and no assistance was given to the firm.

Water Resources Management (Question No. 15)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister inform the Senate what, in the terms of his statement of 10 October 1973, entitled, ‘A National Approach to Water Resources Management’, has happened since that date in regard to the decision by the Federal Government to- ‘undertake the wetlands survey proposed by the Australian Fauna Authorities’ Conference with a view to determining key areas for the conservation of wildlife habitat’.
  2. Have conferences been held with the States on this vital issue and, if so, what has been the outcome.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

– The Minister for the Environment and Conservation has provided me with the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. A proposed program to initiate and develop the national wetlands survey is presently under consideration by the Australian Government.
  2. At a meeting in February 1974 the Standing Committee of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers endorsed in principle the program for the national wetlands survey as originally proposed by the Australian Fauna Authorities’ Conference. The Council has yet to consider the matter.

Pensioner Medical Service

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

-On 18 July 1974, Senator Drake-Brockman asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, the following question without notice:

Is it a fact that pensioner ileostomy sufferers are required to spend several dollars a week out of their own pockets on essential medical materials? If so, will the Government consider including this expense in the pensioner medical service cover?

The Minister for Health has now furnished me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There are two aspects to this matter, one involving stoma appliances which, in most cases, these people must wear, and drugs and medicinal preparations.

As a general comment, pensioners who are unable to obtain stoma appliances through the Out-patients’ Department of a hospital would have to meet some expense in obtaining their appliances. This has caused the Minister a great deal of concern and he has already asked the Working Party on Medical and Surgical Aids and Appliances in his Department to report on the provision of stoma appliances to all who need them.

Regarding drugs and medicinal preparations, pensioners who are members of Ileostomy or Colostomy Associations are able to obtain appropriate preparations for use with their appliances free of charge. Those pensioners who are not members of such associations would, of course, obtain their pharmaceutical preparations, on prescription from their doctors, under the normal free pensioner pharmaceutical benefits arrangements.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 July 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19740723_senate_29_s60/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant