Senate
3 June 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2087

PETITIONS

National Compensation Bill

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 63 citizens of Australia:

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

We wish to register our strongest protest against the establishment of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation, and the introduction of the National Compensation Bill, as proposed by the Federal Government.

We believe that the intended legislation represents a grave threat to the concept of a free Australian society, based on a prosperous free-enterprise system, because:

It will divert vast amounts of funds from the private to the public sector- Government control and administration,

It will provide unequal competition, and thereby threaten the existence of the free-enterprise insurance industry which already suffers from high inflation and increased taxation,

It promises a range of over-generous benefits either free’ or at low cost, to be subsidised from consolidated revenue, and will therefore rapidly become an unbearable burden on the Australian taxpayer.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance companies.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cavanagh, Senator Greenwood, Senator Sheil, Senator Davidson, Senator Steele Hall, Senator Drake-Brockman and Senator Walsh.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  2. Compete unfairly with private insurers.
  3. Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Greenwood.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Cause serious disruption of already established career opportunities of employees in the private insurance industry.
  2. Eliminate private insurance thereby denying Australians a freedom of choice.
  3. Nationalise the insurance industry as a step towards nationalising many other industries.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October, 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cotton and Senator DrakeBrockman.

Petitions received.

page 2088

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2088

QUESTION

TELEGRAMS FROM POST OFFICE STAFF

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the PostmasterGeneral aware that large numbers of telegrams from Post Office staff have been sent to Opposition members in the last few days? Can the Postmaster-General determine whether the appropriate payments have been made for the lodgment of these telegrams? If I provide the Minister with all the telegrams I have received, can he, as he has done before, provide the Senate with details of their origin within, say, 24 hours?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Leader of the Opposition asks me a question on a matter about which I know nothing at all. I can only presume that it has something to do with the Superannuation Bill which is to come before the Senate. I suggest that the honourable senator might either put the question on notice or give me details of the information he seeks and I will investigate the matter. As the honourable senator knows, there have been some occasions- and these concerned members of the honourable senator’s own Party- when I have refused to give certain details about the origin of telegrams. But I should like to have details of the information that the honourable senator seeks. I am not aware of the incidents that he is talking about.

page 2088

QUESTION

NEW RADIO STATION IN MELBOURNE

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. Has the Australian Broadcasting Control Board called for applications for a community broadcasting station licence in Melbourne? When were applications called for and how many applications were lodged? Is the Minister aware that concern is being expressed by a number of groups at the delay that is taking place on the part of the Board in hearing the applications? Can he say when the Board is likely to conduct the hearing?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDApplications were called by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for a restricted community licence to be issued in Melbourne; applications were invited by the Board late in December of last year. Notice to this effect was published in the Australian Government Gazette early in February 1975, and prospective applicants were advised that applications should be lodged with the Board not later than 26 or 27 February of this year. The Chairman of the Broadcasting Control Board has advised me that all told 11 applications have been received by the Board for consideration for the granting by the Board of the licence. The Board has announced its intention to hold a public inquiry to make recommendations to me regarding the suitability of applicants for the licence.

I am advised that each applicant was informed of this fact by letter last week, on 28 May, and I am told by the Chairman of the Board that the inquiry into each application will commence on 23 June. This will be the first inquiry into this type of station in Victoria. It is intended for operation by non-profit incorporated bodies to meet the specific needs of the local community, and recently an inquiry of a similar nature was conducted into applications for a licence for Campbelltown, New South Wales.

page 2089

QUESTION

HELP FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. Are small businesses at a disadvantage compared with the larger companies in obtaining government help to survive the present crisis brought about by record inflation, record high interest rates, and across-the-board tariff cuts? What percentage of the Australian work force is employed by small businesses? It is a fact that many of these workers are in danger of losing their jobs unless there is a sudden and dramatic improvement in the economy? Does the Government have a specific plan to prevent further closures and job losses?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I can appreciate the interest of Opposition members in the disadvantages that may face small businessmen. This matter engaged the attention of members of the Opposition when they were in government, and in fact in about 1968 their Government commissioned an inquiry into the plight of small businesses. I understand the report was received a year or two later and that it lay in cold storage until the present Government came to office. This Government, as is well known, took some steps to assist small businesses. It has set up 2 small business bureaus in Perth and Sydney as pilot schemes. Expert advice is available at a nominal charge for those small businesses which are ordinarily disadvantaged as compared with large corporations which are able to afford expensive business consultants’ advice. In other words, where the Opposition twiddled its thumbs, this Government has stepped in to try to redress some of the balance in favour of the small businessman.

It is a fact that at any time a fairly large proportion of small businessmen goes to the wall, primarily because they are under-financed, they do not have enough expertise, and they do not have the benefit of the sort of advice we have provided for them. The percentage of the work force employed in small businesses depends on the criterion: What is a small business? If we take the cut-off point to be 100 employees- I have not the figures to hand at the present time and I stand correction on this- I think about 37 per cent of employees, at least in the manufacturing part of industry, are employed in small businesses. So the general answer to the honourable senator’s question is that this Government is very conscious of the special difficulties of small businesses and that unlike our predecessors we have taken some steps to look after their grievances.

page 2089

QUESTION

ELECTRIC CARS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer the Minister to an item which appeared in the weekend Press in Adelaide relating to the operations of a research team at Flinders University which has successfully completed trials with electric cars. Can the Minister say what action the Australian Government is taking in this field of research?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– Several questions have been asked about this matter. I think there was one question by Senator Jessop and later one by Senator McLaren about the proposal by the South Australian Minister for Transport to put electric buses on South Australian roads. I have seen the reports. I have been authorised by the Minister to say that the Department of Transport is now actively considering ways in which electric vehicle development in Australia may be fostered. In relation to the research at Flinders University, the Minister for Transport knows about the project. He has told me that there has been no formal approach to the Department of Transport for funds and he has asked me to state that the Department did make preliminary inquiries in 1974 about electric cars which might be purchased for evaluation purposes. At this stage no such cars have been purchased but the proposal was considered as a means of obtaining vehicles which might be evaluated for departmental use under typical urban conditions.

The major reason for the proposal was that there was a lack of knowledge in Australia at least about the operational characteristics of electric cars and the proposal to import them was designed to correct the situation. As to purchasing cars from overseas, it was seen as a means of obtaining short term operating experience with the vehicles at a reasonable cost. However, difficulty was experienced in procuring suitable vehicles and the Department of Transport is now actively considering ways in which electric vehicle development in Australia may be fostered.

page 2089

QUESTION

LOAN FROM SAUDI ARABIA

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister representing the Treasurer tell the Senate whether the Government has, or has not arranged a $250m loan with Saudi Arabia? If the Government has done so, can he tell the Senate the terms and interest rates which are applicable?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

– Whilst the Treasurer was in Saudi Arabia some short time ago he did have discussions with the Saudi Arabian monetary authority and those discussions, of course, were confidential. As he has said on many occasions, he will not give details of any loans negotiated overseas until such time as those negotiations have been completed. The same applies in the present situation. I am quite sure he will make a statement on the details of any loan which may be completed with that authority when he sees fit.

Senator COTTON:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of that answer can the Minister tell the Senate why in today’s Press we read about the arrangements in a release from the incumbent Treasurer?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is a different question altogether. If the Minister wishes to answer it he may do so.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I certainly would not comment on a newspaper report of that nature any more than I would about newspaper reports concerning other matters of a like nature over the last few days.

page 2090

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. In view of the artificially engendered heat on the subject of the establishment of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation and the large amount of mail which has been received by honourable senators, will the Minister inform the Senate about the position of the registered union, the Australian Mutual Provident Society Staff Association, on the establishment of this office?

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

– I think I should say that there are 2 industrial organisations which represent the employees of insurance companies. One is the Australian Insurance Staffs Federation and the other is the Australian Mutual Provident Society Staff Association. The former organisation covers the administrative and clerical staff employed by almost all the life and general insurance offices in Australia. The AMP Society Staff Association covers the administrative and clerical staff employed by the AMP Society which, as we know, is not only the biggest life office but the biggest insurance office of any kind in Australia both in the amount of funds it has available and in the size of the staff employed. It is interesting to note, as Senator Button has said, that despite the allegedly spontaneous demonstrations which have been taking place throughout Australia the democratically elected executives of both organisations have at no stage expressed opposition to the establishment of an

Australian Government Insurance Corporation. I received a letter from the General Secretary of the AMP Society Staff Association.

Opposition senators- Oh!

Senator WHEELDON:

– I notice that members of the Opposition are being very derogatory about the AMP Society Staff Association. Apparently they do not regard that Association as representing the employees of the Society. I suggest that if that is their view they take it up with members of the AMP Society Staff Association who, as I understand it, are very well satisfied with the representation which is given to them by the elected officials of their organisation.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– This is a real Dorothy Dix question.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Of course, they would not be saying things which would satisfy Senator Drake-Brockman. The General Secretary of the AMP Society Staff Association, Mr R. G. Butler, wrote to me on 7 May last and asked a number of questions about the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. In that letter he asked also, on behalf of his Association, that there be a public inquiry into the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. Since that time officers of my Department and I have been in touch with Mr Butler, the General Secretary of the AMP Society Staff Association. On 19 May 1975 he issued a bulletin of the AMP Society Staff Association in which he said:

The Association has now received satisfactory replies to all the questions included in that letter.

That refers to the letter which he wrote to me. In the bulletin he continued:

It is the view of the Federal Executive of the Staff Association that the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will compete fairly with the present insurance industry and that, therefore, jobs of our members are not endangered by this particular piece of legislation.

I am grateful for the action that was taken by the AMP Society Staff Association.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– You are, are you?

Senator WHEELDON:

– Yes, I am. Senator Drake-Brockman does not like the members of that association, but I prefer to deal with the workers in that industry, including members of the Australian Insurance Staffs Federation. The action of these 2 organisations has given the lie to the claims that the phoney demonstrations throughout Australia in any way represent the view of workers in the insurance industry.

page 2091

QUESTION

CHILE

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the dinner which the Prime Minister gave, I think it was on 14 May, for the President of the outlawed and unlawful Chilean Radical Party and to the luncheon at Parliament House held by the Australian Labor Party in honour of that President. I refer also to the Prime Minister’s promise personally to support this clandestine organisation and to the statement of the ViceChairman of the Socialist International, Mr Sicco Minholt who was recently in Australia that the Australian Labor Party will give financial support to that Party.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Why not? Your parties take money from insurance companies.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The honourable senator may dislike these points being made, but he must learn to take them sometimes. Will the Minister explain the principles, if any, on which the Whitlam Government considers it proper to intervene in the affairs of another country and support the clandestine activities of subversive movements? Will the Minister state why the Government intervenes to support clandestine activities designed to overthrow a government which Australia recognises? What is the principle upon which the Government detests and apparently supports the overthrow of a Chilean military dictatorship but supports communist military dictatorships?

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

– Luncheons, dinners and that sort of thing are, I think, about the only things that I am not supposed to run in my Department. I am supposed to answer questions about the administration of my Department, and the culinary desires of people just do not come within that category. Probably what Senator Greenwood is referring to is the occasion when the Socialist International met in Adelaide, and I understand that some luncheons were given. I had an appointment to see some of the delegates but I was unable to do so because I was pinned down in the Senate. One of the gentlemen to whom Senator Greenwood referred is a former commissioner of the European Economic Community. He was also Minister for Agriculture in the Dutch Government, so he has a fairly good record. I am afraid that I cannot follow the meanderings of Senator Greenwood in this matter. If he asks me a question about what we, as a government, or I, as a Minister, have done, I will be able to answer it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does the

Minister for Foreign Affairs state that the Australian Government has a standard for the Chilean Government which is different from the standard that it has for other governments, or does he say that it adopts the same standard?

Senator WILLESEE:

-I ask that the question be put on the notice paper.

page 2091

QUESTION

KARATE INSTRUCTORS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration investigate an industrial racket being perpetrated by Richard Bradford who operates a karate institute in Sydney? He brings top Malaysian karate instructors to Australia, pays them starvation wages and provides them with doss-house accommodation. When the individuals concerned, Bung Soon and Peng Wah, sought an increase in their wages they were told that with the connivance of the Department of Immigration they would be deported. Will the Minister send the Commonwealth Police to interview the gentleman in question?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– Before question time the honourable senator indicated the case in point to me and I was able to get some information about it. I might say that Senator Donald Cameron from South Australia recently drew my attention to a case which resembles the one that Senator Mulvihill has raised. It concerns the same sporting profession. We are concerned about these cases. As regards the case raised by Senator Mulvihill, the 2 persons in question were national karate champions in 1971 and 1973 respectively. Both arrived in Australia on 6 September 1974 and were granted temporary residence for 12 months to work for the school. They had both been in Australia previously as visitors when they entered into a contract with the school to work as karate instructors. Their employment was considered by the industrial relations section of the Department of Immigration which had no objection to their taking up employment with the school provided they were paid the New South Wales basic wage which was then approximately $68 per week.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They are getting only $50 a week.

Senator BISHOP:

-Mr Clyde Cameron says that that is the arrangement in regard to which he gave permission to the 2 people concerned and the employer. I have taken up the matter with the Minister for Labor and Immigration and he is presently investigating it urgently. I hope to be able to give the honourable senators some more information during the week.

page 2092

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for the Media say whether the allegations concerning the Australian Film Development Corporation, as reported in yesterday’s ‘Age’- the article referred to attempted loans by a Mr Saffron and to the alleged presentation of scripts by a Mr and Mrs Stacey- are correct? If so, will the Minister make inquiries to ascertain whether any of the senior executives of the Australian Film Development Corporation were aware of Mr Stacey ‘s activities? Following the Minister’s statement yesterday, I ask him on what grounds is he stating that an inquiry will be made? Can he also say what type of inquiry will be held and what areas it will cover?

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

-As the honourable senator would know, the Australian Film Development Corporation operates under an Act of Parliament that was introduced by the Gorton Government. Honourable senators will know that recently this Government introduced legislation for the establishment of an Australian Film Commission and for the disbandment of the Film Development Corporation. Meanwhile, pending the issuing of the proclamation by the Governor-General to disband the Australian Film Development Corporation it remains, under the Act of Parliament under which it was established, a completely independent statutory Corporation. Under section 22 of that Act the Corporation is responsible for the employment of its staff, including the appointment and employment of the executive officer.

When the article in yesterday’s Melbourne Age’ was drawn to my attention I immediately sent a telegram to the chairman of the Australian Film Development Corporation asking him to provide me with a detailed report on the allegations contained in the article. I can tell the honourable senator that I also tried to contact the chairman by telephone but was unable to do so. I tried again this morning to contact the chairman, again without success. At no time have I said that I would be calling for an inquiry. I did say through my Press secretary that I would be asking the Corporation for a report on the matter. I think it is in that context that I have been reported as having said I would be calling for an inquiry. I sent the telegram from my Sydney office.

Meanwhile the chairman of the Corporation had written to me and had addressed his letter to Parliament House. I received that letter when I arrived in Canberra yesterday afternoon. In his letter the chairman of the Corporation stated, amongst other things, that he had satisfied himself that there was absolutely no conflict of interest as far as Mr Stacey was concerned. However, I have been further informed this morning that the Board of the Australian Film Development Corporation discussed the matter at its meeting on Friday last, 30 May. I am advised that the relevant section of the minutes of the meeting of the Corporation reads as follows:

The Board noted correspondence tabled by the Chairman in connection with inquiries being made by Mr Ben Hills of the ‘Age’ newspaper with a view to writing an article reflecting on the integrity of the executive officer and the competence of the Board.

The correspondence included a letter from the executive officer to the Chairman dealing with certain allegations said to have been made and which have been the basis of Mr Hills’ investigation. The Board discussed the matter at considerable length with both the executive officer and the assistant executive officer (Mr Hart), and noted the executive officer’s written statement that he was confident that his personal involvement would stand any investigations. It was agreed that the Board should minute the view that allegations against Mr Stacey were completely lacking in substantiation: That at no time had Mr Stacey been involved in any impropriety in his dealings with the Board or matters in dealing with the Corporation.

That is the latest report that has been made available to me by the Corporation. I think that is all that I am able to say at this stage except that I am also informed that the chief executive officer of the Corporation has placed the matter in the hands of his legal advisers.

page 2092

QUESTION

FILM INDUSTRY

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Media. Before asking the question of the Minister I want to advise him that his Department can expect heavy public demand for copies of the Government’s theme song, ‘Solidarity Forever’. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an article appearing in the Melbourne ‘Age’ today headed Movie makers struggle against foreign control’? Has the Minister seen a statement in that report that 2 years ago the then Tariff Board in a report on the film industry proposed that the 2 major film distributors operating in Australia be forced to get rid of 1 3 cinemas in 5 capital cities and that it should be illegal for a producer or a distributor to control any exhibition outlet? Will the Minister tell the Senate what action, if any, was taken by the Government on this recommendation?

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

– In response to the preface to the honourable senator’s question, may I say that I am told that the choir sang so well this morning that it does not need to attend for further rehearsal until August next. I have seen the report to which the honourable senator refers. Basically it is a fact that the then Tariff Board made such a recommendation. However, when the matter was considered by the Government, at the time our erstwhile colleague, the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, expressed his legal opinion that because the film distribution did not come within the ambit of the Federal Government under the terms of the Constitution that particular recommendation of the then Tariff Board was unconstitutional so far as its implementation by the Australian Government was concerned. 1 note also that the article says that it is not believed that the Australian Film Commission which has recently been established by the Australian Government will be effective in breaking what has been referred to as the key monopoly. As all honourable senators will know, the Australian Film Commission has been given very wide powers under the Act that was passed by the Parliament earlier this year. I firmly believe that the new commissioners will carry out their responsibilities and make recommendations to the Government having regard to the best interests of the Australian film industry. I remind the honourable senator that since the receipt by the Government of the Tariff Board report containing the recommendation that was the subject of the article in the Melbourne ‘Age’ the Trade Practices Act has been passed. I would suggest that the writer of the article in the Melbourne Age’ should also have a look at that legislation before he next puts his pen to paper.

page 2093

QUESTION

TASMANIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES: RESIDENTIAL HALLS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the Government’s plans with regard to the provision of residential halls in Tasmanian technical colleges? Will he obtain an assurance from his colleague that the promise made in March of this year in Burnie that a residential hall would be constructed in that town within 2 years will be honoured? If it is to be honoured when will the construction commence? Will that hall be a part of the existing Burnie Technical College?

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

-My colleague the Minister for Education has provided me with some information on this matter. He has advised me that the Interim Committee on Technical and Further Education, which is commonly referred to as the Kangan Committee, has recommended the provision of $4m for residential halls associated with technical colleges. Of course, the Government has approved that recommendation. The Minister for Education has advised me further that Tasmania has received an allocation for a residential college and that it is to be constructed ar Burnie. So far Tasmania has drawn $40,000 for the planning stage. Mr Beazley does not control the tempo of building in any State. The money is a grant to a State, which thereafter controls the project.

The Australian Minister for Education expressed the hope when he was in Burnie that it would be built in 2 years, but the realisation of that hope is one for the State Government. It is not known what form of association will exist between the Burnie Technical College and the residence except that it must be for Technical College students. The Australian Government does not plan Tasmania’s residential colleges. The Interim Committee has suggested in its second report that there should be one for each State. The Minister for Education, in his statement tabling the report, expressed disappointment at the lack of a specific fund for such colleges. The second report of the Committee has not yet been considered by the Australian Government.

page 2093

QUESTION

EDUCATION OF ABORIGINAL CHILDREN

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I ask: Can the Minister advise the Senate what steps have been taken since December 1 972 to assist children living in distinctive Aboriginal communities to become fully bilingual? Has an experimental program on bilingual education been commenced in the Northern Territory?

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

-Yes. In 1973 the Australia Government set up 5 schools for bilingual education in the Northern Territory. They have been reported on by overseas experts in this field as being a great success. By last year some 12 schools had been developed in the Northern Territory. This year 19 schools are operating, teaching some 12 different Aboriginal dialects and languages. This year we have started schools at Aurukun and Edward River in Queensland and at Warburton in Western Australia. For some years now Pitjantjatjara has been taught in the South Australian schools. We find that by the use of bilingual education in schools Aboriginal children no longer begin their education at a disadvantage to European children by being taught in a foreign language. They are now taught in the elementary classes in the dialect of their own tribes.

page 2094

QUESTION

MEDIA RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for the Media seeks information on the new Media Research Advisory Committee, the details of which are announced or referred to in the Press today. What areas of research are contemplated in the activities of this Committee, which concerns a discipline that claims to be constantly researching ways and means related to its own development? Does the research area include the need to preserve a free Press and a free radio and television segment of the media? Can the Minister define the terms of reference by which the membership of the Advisory Committee to which I have just referred was selected?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDFrankly I have not seen the Press report to which the honourable senator refers but I do not doubt what he says. The planning and research section of my Department recently advised me that it thought that there was a considerable amount of research going on throughout the various universities, colleges of advanced education and other tertiary organisations that might be involving themselves in media affairs. The section felt that there could be some duplication of activity in these general areas and that an attempt should be made to bring about some uniformity of approach. The recommendation made to me was that I establish a Media Research Advisory Committee mainly for that particular purpose and also for the purpose of recommending to me and my Department other areas of research that might not being undertaken to date.

A number of people have been invited to become members of the Media Research Advisory Committee, but at this stage all of the people who have been invited have not yet signified whether they can or cannot become members of the Media Research Advisory Committee. Until such time as they all have responded to me it is not my intention to make a ministerial announcement, even though apparently there has been some report of the type referred to. All I can say is that a wide cross-section of people from the academic and from the media sections of the community, including proprietors, executives and members of trade unions, have been invited to become members of the Media Research Advisory Committee. I would expect that that organisation would be making recommendations to me and my Department as to the type of research that should be conducted in the future.

page 2094

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TRADE POLICIES

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs refers to the recent reported criticism by the leaders of some developing nations, notably Singapore and the Philippines, of the restrictive trade policies being followed by Australia, particularly in relation to imports of textiles which are vital industries in those countries. Is the Minister aware that trade restrictions on imports from developing countries are harmful to our relations with those countries? Is the Minister aware of these complaints? If so, what is the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs doing to influence the Government to adopt policies which preserve our international relations by encouraging the economic development of developing nations? Does the Minister agree that the development of trade is the best solution to many of the problems of developing nations? Should not Australia encourage and assist developing nations to improve their trade position, even if only in our own self interest?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Largely the question that Senator Sim has put to me relates to trade and therefore I hesitate to go too deeply into it. I recall that our trade policy is to give to certain developing countries- whether the 2 countries referred to are involved I am not too sure- an advantage by way of tariff concessions. Not only did we cut the tariff but we cut it further for certain developing countries. Additionally we set up in the Department of Overseas Trade a section which would help those countries to penetrate our markets. I suppose one might term it a trade commissioner in reverse; instead of selling our goods an opportunity is being given for those countries to sell in our markets. The Government does take this matter quite seriously. When the honourable senator first started talking about complaints, I thought he was going to refer to the textile organisations in Australia from which we get some complaints. So, we are getting complaints both ways. The general thrust of Senator Sim’s question is right. The matter is tremendously important. In the final analysis aid is not merely a process of trying to give people food and trying to get them to grow their own food in certain cases, but of giving them a chance to trade in the general markets of the world.

page 2094

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Did the Minister for the Media have any knowledge of matters raised by Senator Young in his question today prior to the publication of the article in the ‘Age’ newspaper yesterday? If he did have prior knowledge, when did he first hear of these facts and how did he learn of them? Can the Minister confirm or deny the allegation that Mr Stacey has been promoting Mr Saffron as an investor in films, and that Mr Saffron was named in a Commonwealth Police report as a prominent criminal whose operations are allegedly connected with vice and gambling? Is it true that Mr Saffron’s offer to invest $25,000 was rejected by the Australian Film Development Corporation over a year ago? If so, on what basis was the offer to invest rejected?

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

– I am advised that the article written in the Melbourne Age’ concerning Mr Stacey admits that Mr Saffron eventually did not invest money in any of the films that had been referred to. Indeed one of the films dated back as far as January 1972. 1 was told also that there was an allegation that someone had written to me to mention these matters to me. I asked my Press secretary to mention to the ‘Age’ yesterday that, frankly, if anyone did write to me I did not recollect the letter, but in any event the matter having related to an independent statutory body, I certainly would have referred the matter to the independent statutory body, the Film Development Corporation, for report. I since have not been able to find any letter of that nature. If any letter has been written by anyone to me I would appreciate receiving it.

page 2095

QUESTION

EDUCATION OF ABORIGINAL CHILDREN

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. During the past 2 years have any experimental projects involving Aboriginal children and young people commenced? Does the Swinbourne Technical College in Melbourne conduct a course of this type? If so, how many Aboriginal’ students are involved?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– Yes, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is funding various organisations in regard to the involvement of children in cultural community relationships. For some time a class- a task force- has been operating in the Torrens Technical College in South Australia. At present 40 Aborigines are enrolled there. The scheme was such a success that we have guaranteed the funding of it until 1978, a triennium. We believe that the scheme would be more appropriately funded by the Department of Education. However, to keep the scheme going we have agreed to the funding until 1978. When I visited the Swinbourne Technical College in Melbourne within the last month, some 19 students were working on bicultural relationships. They were undertaking studies of a peculiar nature in so far as the students were spending a day in business activities in the community for the purpose of fitting them to take their place in business society. There was one attending a legal office one day a week, another one was attending the stock exchange one day a week, and surprisingly there was one who on one day a week was working with the Australian Workers Union in Melbourne to get training in union advocacy.

page 2095

QUESTION

SACRED HEART COLLEGE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Does the Minister representing the Minister for Education recall that earlier this month I asked him about the outstanding balance of the grant promised by the Liberal-Country Party Government to the Sacred Heart College in South Australia, pointing out that $49,000, the balance of the grant, had been borrowed by the school for the construction of a library on the assumption that the remainder of the grant, which I think originally was $74,500, would be forthcoming? Does the Minister also recall that this school has been unable to accept a further grant of $ 12,000 from the Schools Commission for an urgently needed lecture theatre because of the present indebtedness? I pointed out that a number of South Australian Catholic schools are in the same category. Is the Minister aware that I wrote to the Minister for Education on 14 April, and subsequently on 12 May, asking him for sympathetic consideration and requesting payment of this money, and that as yet I have had no substantive reply? Senator Davidson shares my concern in this matter. Does the Minister remember admitting that the Government had a moral obligation in this matter? Will the Minister make further representations to his colleague on behalf of Senator Davidson and myself pointing out again the plight of the college and requesting a reply before the Senate rises this week?

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

– I speak purely from recollection but I am distinctly of the opinion that I gave a reply in the Senate. I have just sent one of my officers out to check on this matter and I will advise the honourable senator further. If the reply has not been given I will take the matter up but I am certain in my mind that it was given.

Senator Jessop:

– You have replied.

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

-No, I am certain a reply was provided to me by the Minister for Education and that I in turn presented it to the Senate.

page 2096

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE BOUNTY

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Has the Government received the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on the question of superphosphate bounty assistance for new land farmers in Western Australia which was due to be completed by the end of May? If not, will the Minister ascertain whether there has been a delay and the reason for it? Will he request that the report be expedited so that it can be presented before Parliament rises?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Yes, 1 will find out from the Special Minister of State.

page 2096

QUESTION

SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to current newspaper reports which allege the shooting by Southern Rhodesian police of 1 1 Africans in Salisbury on 1 June? Will the Minister say what the Government’s attitude is to events of this nature in Southern Rhodesia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The Australian Government was dismayed, as I think anybody would have been, at the reported shooting of 1 1 Africans in Salisbury on 1 June by Southern Rhodesian police. Although the disturbances that resulted in the shooting apparently were touched off by disagreement between rival nationalist groups, the illegal Smith regime by its intransigence and attitudes towards constitutional negotiations which should lead to majority rule must bear a primary responsibility for creating the situation underlying the tragedy. The Government hopes that the violence will not jeopardise efforts to achieve a settlement by peaceful means and that such efforts will continue.

page 2096

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I remind the Minister that many medical services are rendered by doctors employed on salaries by welfare agencies, many of which are in financial difficulties. These agencies include the Spastic Centre, the Family Planning Associations and the Red Cross blood banks. Will Medibank refunds of 85 per cent of scheduled fees be available to these organisations in respect of services rendered by such salaried doctors or will it be necessary to dismiss the doctors and then allow them to resume practise on a fee for service basis in order to generate health insurance benefit payments?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I appreciate the problem that is raised by Senator Baume ‘s question but 1 am afraid that, as the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, I do not have the answer readily available. I will refer the question to the Minister for Social Security in the hope that a reply will be obtained as soon as possible.

page 2096

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a former colleague, the Honourable John Armstrong. We are pleased indeed to see the honourable gentleman visiting us and we wish him well.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 2096

QUESTION

PORTRAIT OF PRIME MINISTER

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Services and Property aware that the Secretary of the Department of Services and Property has issued a directive that a large portrait or photograph of the Prime Minister be hung in a prominent place in all Australian Government centres? If the Minister is aware of this fact, can he inform the Senate as to the purpose of this direction and when it was issued?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-No, Mr President. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Services and Property and obtain a reply for the honourable senator.

page 2096

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator CARRICK:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. By way of preface, I draw to the Minister’s attention a considerable number of public statements made in recent weeks by responsible persons to the effect that the Prices Justification Tribunal is a major factor which has led to the severe decline in capital expenditure in investment in this country. I ask the Minister whether he agrees that this decline in capital investment is a primary reason for the serious unemployment in manufacturing and in the building industry in Australia. Is he concerned to ensure the maximum speedy reemployment of people in manufacturing? If so, will he recommend to the Government the urgent preparation of new guidelines to be imposed on the Prices Justification Tribunal so that its decisions in the future will encourage moderate profitability and adequate capital expenditure rather than repress these vital factors as at present?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Government has made it quite clear that the profitability of the private sector is a very important ingredient in the general prosperity of the country. As to guidelines for the Prices Justification Tribunal, the Prime Minister in either November or December 1974 wrote to the Chairman of the Prices Justification Tribunal in effect giving that Tribunal new guidelines to include the question of profitability in the considerations that it took into account in dealing with applications for price increases. Of course, it is well known that in the submission which the Government put to the Prices Justification Tribunal in respect of the application by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited for an increase in its prices based on the need for profitability, the Government set out guidelines or, in effect, its view of the considerations that the Tribunal should take into account in dealing with such applications. With due respect to the honourable senator, I do not think that the Prices Justification Tribunal could seriously claim that it is in any doubt about the Government’s attitude towards the question of profitability.

Senator Carrick:

– And capital investment?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-And capital investment. I am not sure whether I have supplied the honourable senator with a copy of that submission but, if I did not, I will let him have one. It is clear in that submission that the Government understands fully that we will not be able to claim that we have turned the corner in the present difficult economic circumstances until businessmen generally indicate that they are once again able and willing to reinvest in bringing their plants up to date. That is a matter which is at the very centre of the Government’s thinking at the present time.

page 2097

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct to the Minister for the Media a question which follows on the answer given to Senator Chaney with regard to the Australian Film Development Corporation. The Minister referred to allegations which had been made with regard to the existence of a letter related to matters under discussion. Would the Minister advise who made the allegations with regard to the letter and what are the alleged contents of the letter? Who advised the Minister of the allegations and what action has he taken to check the allegations?

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

-The first I knew about any allegation was when my Press secretary mentioned to me yesterday that he had received an inquiry from Mr Hills of the Melbourne ‘Age’ as to whether I had received a letter making the allegations that were the subject of the allegations contained in his article. I replied to my Press secretary that I knew nothing of having received a letter but that had I done so I would have sent it on to the Corporation. I have had a check made in my office and cannot find any record of any letter of that nature having been received so far. But I am still having the matter checked and if I do find anything of that nature I will let the honourable senator know.

page 2097

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media and is on the same subject as the previous question. Does the Minister recall that in the report in yesterday’s Melbourne ‘Age’ Mr Stacey, executive officer of the Australian Film Development Corporation, was quoted as saying that the film ‘Adventures of Barry McKenzie’ was financed originally by a syndicate of three, including a Mr Saffron? Can the Minister say who were the other two members of this syndicate, and will he undertake to find out through the channels available to him what other films Mr Saffron was involved in financing, either directly or indirectly?

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

-As I mentioned in my reply to Senator Young, the Film Development Corporation is a completely independent statutory corporation. As a general rule, apart from the annual report that the Corporation tenders to the Parliament through me, it does not advise me of films that it has invested in, let alone films that others may have invested in. I would not know, first of all, whether Mr Saffron has invested in any films and secondly, if he has, who has invested with him in any films. However, I will make inquiries of the Film Development Corporation and let the honourable senator know the results.

page 2097

QUESTION

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration and relates to the Regional Employment Development scheme. What money has been spent on the RED scheme since it was introduced in mid-September 1974? What number of people are employed by this scheme, both male and female? What moneys have been allocated to the north-west coast of Tasmania from Deloraine to Circular Head including the west coast south to Queenstown?

What is the anticipated overall cost of the scheme until the end of this financial year?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The honourable senator seeks a lot of information, some of which I do not have at my disposal presently, but I will get it. Last week I answered a question asked, from memory, by Senator Donald Cameron and I gave him the total figures and also the total expenditure to date. But I will get an up to date statement and also details of the Tasmanian figures for the honourable senator.

page 2098

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware of the widespread confusion amongst the Austraiian public regarding the benefits available under the Medibank scheme? Is he aware that chemists and others having constant dealings with the public are expressing grave concern at the lack of sensible, accurate material and advice? In particular, is he aware of the common belief of many Australians that Medibank will cover the cost of treatment in intensive care wards and will enable patients in public wards to consult the doctor of their choice at no extra cost? What is the Minister doing to remove these misconceptions?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I was not aware that there was all this confusion. I am afraid none of my chemist acquaintances has expressed any confusion to me and I am distressed to learn that there is this confusion. What we are doing is inserting newspaper advertisements and advertisements on television explaining Medibank. I understood we were upsetting members of the Opposition by doing so. I should like the Opposition to let us know- if they can make up their minds- whether they want us to publicise the Medibank benefits that are available and say how they can be obtained or whether they want us not to advertise Medibank at all, because both propositions are put to me from time to time by the Opposition. As far as possible, we are trying, within the resources of our budget, to make people aware of the benefits of Medibank. I do not know that we can do anything other than that.

page 2098

AUSTRALIAN TOBACCO BOARD

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965-1973, 1 present the ninth annual report and financial statements of the Australian Tobacco Board for the year ended 3 1 December 1 974, together with the report of the Auditor-General thereon.

page 2098

TERRITORY OF NORFOLK ISLAND

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report for the Territory of Norfolk Island for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 2098

CUSTOMS BY-LAW POLICY

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a discussion paper entitled: ‘Review of Customs By-Law Policy’ dated May 1975.

page 2098

QUESTION

TREATIES

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I lay on the table the text of the undermentioned treaties which have entered into force and to which Australia has become a party by signature. I ask for leave to incorporate the rest of the statement in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

  1. Trade Agreement between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, signed at Canberra on 26 November 1974.
  2. Trade Agreement between Australia and the People’s Republic of Bulgaria, signed at Sofia on S December 1974.
  3. Cultural Agreement between Australia and Thailand, signed at Bangkok on 16 December 1974.
  4. Agreement concerning the Continuing Relationship between Australia, and the European Organisation for the Development and Construction of Space Vehicle Launchers, signed at Paris on 30 December 1 974.
  5. Agreement between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Cultural Co-operation, signed at Moscow on 15 January 1975.
  6. Agreement between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Scientific-Technical Co-operation, signed at Moscow on 1 5 January 1 975.
  7. Exchange of Notes between Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany constituting an Agreement concerning the Launching of a Skylark-Vehicle and Pay Load at Woomera for Scientific Purposes, signed at Canberra on 19 December 1974 and 1 1 February 1975.
  8. Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United Kingdom amending the Agreement for Air Services between and beyond their respective Territories, of 7 February 1958, signed at London on 13and 14February 1975.
  9. Exchange of Letters between Australia and Malaysia constituting an Agreement concerning the future operation of the Trade Agreement of 26 August 1958, signed at Canberra on 21 February 1975.
  10. Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United States of America constituting an Agreement concerning the Discontinuation of facilities Measuring the Physical Effects of Disturbances in the Atmosphere or in space and the Transference of these facilities to the Australian National

University, signed at Canberra on 31 January and 26 February 1975.

  1. Agreement between Australia and India on Cooperation in the Field of Science and Technology, signed at New Delhi on 26 February 1 975.
  2. Exchange of Notes between Australia and United Kingdom concerning amendments to the Agreement on Social Security of 29 November 1958, signed at Canberra on 6 March 1975.
  3. Exchange of Letters between Australia and New Zealand constituting an Agreement further extending the Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Preferences of 7 May 1 973, signed at Wellington and Canberra on 27 March 1975.
  4. Exchange of Letters between Australia and New Zealand constituting an Agreement on Rules of Origin covering Preferential Trade between Australia and New Zealand to enter into force on 1 October 1975, signed at Canberra and Wellington on 1 1 April 1975.

I lay on the table the texts of the undermentioned treaties which Australia has signed and which will enter into force by an Exchange of Notes:

  1. Cultural Agreement between Australia and Italy, signed at Rome on 8 January 1975.
  2. Agreement between Australia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia relating to Air Services signed at Belgrade on 3 April 1975.

I lay on the table the text of a Treaty which has entered into force and to which Australia has become a party by accession:

  1. Convention on International Liability for Damage caused by Space Objects, opened for signature on 29 March 1 972 and acceded to by Australia on 20 January 1 975. 1 lay on the table the text of a treaty which has not yet entered into force and to which Australia has become a contracting state by acceptance:
  2. Amendments to Articles 34 and 55 of the Constitution of the World Health Organisation, adopted by the twentysixth World Health Assembly on 22 May 1973 and accepted for Australia on 1 1 March 1975.

I lay on the table the text of treaties to which Australia is considering becoming a party by ratification:

  1. Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the United States of America, signed at Washington on 14 May 1974.
  2. Protocols for the Further Extension of the Wheat Trade Convention 1971 and the Food Aid Convention 1971, Constituting the International Wheat Agreement 1971, opened for signature at Washington on 25 March 1975 and signed for Australia on 1 1 April 1975.
  3. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly on 14 December 1973 and signed for Australia on 30 December 1974.
  4. International Telecommunications Convention and Optional Additional Protocol to the Convention, signed at Malaga-Torremlinos on 25 October 1 973.

I lay on the table the texts of Instruments withdrawing reservations to the Undermentioned Treaties:

  1. On 17 March 1975 Australia deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations an Instrument withdrawing its declaration of 6 February 1954 and substituting a new declaration under paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
  2. On 17 March 1975 Australia deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations an Instrument abandoning all but one of its conditions of acceptance made at the time of accession on 21 May 1931 to the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes drawn up at Geneva on 26 September 1928.

page 2099

SCHOOLS COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 14(2) of the Schools Commission Act 1973 I present the report of the Schools Commission for the triennium 1976-1978, together with a statement by the Minister for Education on that report.

page 2099

WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

-For the information of honourable senators I present the minutes of the sixteenth meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council held in Melbourne on 30 August 1 974. Due to the limited numbers available, reference copies have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2099

BUILDING INDUSTRY AND STEVEDORING INDUSTRY

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the interim report of an inquiry into employment in the building industry by Elizabeth Evatt and a report on some aspects of the stevedoring industry in Australia by Mr N. K. Foster. Due to the limited numbers available at this time reference copies of these 2 documents have been placed in the Parliamentary Library. Copies will be distributed to all members when they become available which is expected to be later this week.

page 2099

HOUSING INTEREST RATES

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report of the Housing Interest Rates Committee in Western Australia.

page 2099

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-In an article in the ‘Age’ yesterday, headed ‘Media’s fate hangs on a door in the Deep North ‘ I have been gravely misrepresented, and the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, of which I am Chairman, has been similarly treated. The report states, among other things:

A new kind of vested interest has moved into a position of influence on a Senate Standing Committee that seeks to shape the very heart and soul of the country.

Queensland ‘s Senator Georges has become Chairman of the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts. Along with Senator Milliner, another member of the committee. Senator Georges has close connections with a Labor Party machine that operates a commercial radio station in Brisbane.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Who wrote the article?

Senator GEORGES:

-The article is written by a Mr Colin Bednall and the by-line is ‘The Media’. The article further states:

Sheer coincidence being an improbability in big time politics, it should be noted that Senator Georges took over the chairmanship at the time the Queensland machine was negotiating to purchase a television station, also in Brisbane.

The first important act of the committee under Senator Georges was drastically to redraft its third progress report on television and broadcasting which had been prepared under the previous chairman, Senator James McClelland.

The report quotes fairly accurately and substantially from a draft report that was placed before and subsequently amended by the Committee on Education, Science and Arts. The amended report became the third progress report of that Committee and was tabled in the Senate. It is fairly obvious that Mr Bednall had access to the draft report and that he compared that draft report with the third progress report and used it to make certain allegations against me as well as against other members of the Committee. I intend to refer the matter to the Committee in order that it may make some recommendation, if it so desires, to the Senate, but for my own part I wish to refute the allegations that this writer has made, that is that on this Committee I would be an advocate for certain interests in Queensland no matter what those interests may be. I further deny that I would support those commercial interests, as it states in the article, that support tobacco advertising and the promotion of tobacco advertising and that I would do anything on that Committee to convince my fellow members that they should pull away from a recommendation, because the profitability of certain stations might be affected.

I would like to attract the writer’s attention to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse which was tabled in this place some 5 years ago. In a minority report I clearly stated my view on the promotion of drugs of dependence including alcohol and cigarettes. That minority report clearly states that I am strongly against the promotion and the advertising of all kinds of drugs of dependence on television and radio and by other means. It follows that Mr Collin Bednall not only was highly inaccurate in reporting the affairs of the Committee but also he was highly inaccurate in understanding the position of members of the Committee, particularly myself. The article is gravely distorted, deliberately distorted, not only against the whole Committee but also the members of the Committee and in particular myself.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

-I seek leave to make a statement on this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

– I have been a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts throughout the whole of the hearings on television and broadcasting, and have been present at each of the deliberations of the Committee on this reference which relates to the third progress report. I join with Senator Georges in giving the lie absolutely to every insinuation in the article referred to by him. The article is totally wrong, invented and mischievous. The third progress report came to this Senate as a unanimous recommendation of the Committee. On the Committee are 3 members of the Opposition. Looking at the situation, it is highly unlikely that we would be sufficiently gullible to put our names to recommendations which would aid some vested interests of the Australian Labor Party in television or radio in Queensland. That in itself ought to show the fallacy of the situation. The article itself is wrong on all its bases. In truth there is no doubt that Mr Bednall, by some devious means, came upon a draft document. That document was not a draft report.

To put the matter in perspective, a former officer of the Committee was given some headings on which to prepare some information, and he did so. When that document came before the Committee, the Committee adjudged that it was far too big, that it far exceeded the points that had been laid down and that it had ventured into areas which the Committee itself had never before explored. So that document itself was not a creature of the Committee in the sense of recommendation. To the extent that Mr Bednall wanders around items, they were never recommendations of the Committee, either in a tentative or in a final form. The fact that matters which were in the former document were not in the progress report has no significance. The Committee considered that there were some urgent matters- the Minister for the Media will understand the choice- such as community broadcasting, community access to radio, the use of the spectrum, and so on, which ought to be the basis of a progress report immediately. The Committee directed its attention to that aspect. The suggestion about some vested interest seems to be wrong. As I understand from the Minister, and as I was delighted to learn recently, the main substance of the progress report will be a recommendation of his to Cabinet. This article is utterly wrong. I join with Senator Georges in condemning it and I make public my views on it.

page 2101

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

-In the absence of the Chairman of the Publications Committee, Senator Milliner, I bring up the eighth report from the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 2101

MEDIA RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

– I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND During question time I was asked by Senator Davidson wheth er the Department of the Media has formed a new media research advisory committee. I said at that time that I had not seen the Press report to which the honourable senator referred. My attention has since been drawn to the Press report which I now have. I acknowledge that certain names appear in that report. I acknowledge that all of the people named in the Press report have been invited to become members of the committee.

page 2101

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Darwin Cyclone Damage Compensation Bill 1975. Loans (Australian Shipping Commission) Bill 1975.

page 2101

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Cotton:

– I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

-In response to the request of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), I would observe to him that the Opposition feels that this Bill and the 2 Bills which succeed it, the Superannuation Act Amendment Bill and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Bill, are of great importance and we are justified in expecting the Minister to read his second reading speech on each Bill.

Senator WRIEDT:

-The purpose of this Bill and the accompanying Superannuation Act Amendment Bill 1975 and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Bill 1975, which I will introduce shortly, is to give effect to the Government’s decision, announced on 4 December last year, to provide a new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees. The new scheme will replace the pension scheme and the Lump Sum Provident Account under the Superannuation Act 1922-1974 and is to come into operation on 1 July 1975.

The Present Scheme

Superannuation has always been an important condition of service for Australian Government employees. When the present scheme was introduced in 1922 it was seen as a major advance in the superannuation field and the scheme has generally led developments ever since. There is no reason why it should not; indeed the national Government should lead. From the outset the scheme provided such benefits as full pension on invalidity retirement during service, pensions for widows and children on the death of the member and the opportunity to purchase full pension on normal retirement after reaching age 60.

The scheme has undergone many changes since then. The Provident Account was introduced in 1937 and membership has been progressively widened to enable statutory officials, employees of Australian Government statutory authorities and longer serving temporary employees to contribute under the Act. Benefits have been gradually improved and in recent years provision has been made for the preservation of superannuation rights on entry into or exit from the scheme and noncontributory units have been introduced to give some relief to members faced with very high contributions in their later years of service. Provision has also been made for the annual updating of pensions.

The contribution structure of the present units of pension scheme has proved to be its fundamental weakness. Early in a career, contributions may represent only 2 per cent or less of a member’s salary but, in later years, contributions may take 25 per cent and even more of salary if the member seeks to maintain his full contributory entitlement. The contributions system is complex; it complicates administration and requires contributors, particularly those over 40, to make frequent and some times difficult decisions involving, on their part, judgments on future trends and events. There is a growing contributor population now exceeding 220 000 and there are frequent changes in salaries with consequential adjustments of superannuation contributions. The result of all this is extreme fluctuations in work loads and, under the complicated arrangements that are inherent in the present scheme, these are producing crisis situations in the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office and organisations employing large numbers of staff such as the Post Office.

For many years the pension scheme has provided for most members- so long as they are able to meet the necessary contributions- a pension of about 70 per cent of final salary on retirement at age 60 or later after 20 or more years of contributory service. Of this pension, the Government-financed element is around 50 per cent of final salary and the contributor-financed element is 20 per cent. Should the member qualify for and avail himself of non-contributory units, providing he makes the necessary lump sum payment at retirement he is still able to obtain the Government-financed element of pension of 50 per cent of final salary at age 60 but the contributor-financed element may be reduced to around 10 per cent of final salary if he has utilised non-contributory units to the fullest extent.

Since July 1973, the Government-financed element of pensions in payment but not the contributorfinanced element has been automatically updated annually, in accordance with the formula, 1.4 times the increase in the consumer price index or, if it is less, the change in average weekly earnings. That was recommended to the Government by the Actuary, Professor A. H. Pollard of Macquarie University. This provision replaced the ad hoc arrangements under which fairly regular increases in pensions had been granted from 1961 onwards.

Development of the New Scheme

On 8 May 1973 a report by a departmental committee on the present scheme was tabled in the Senate. The report canvassed in considerable detail the problems being experienced with the scheme and, after examining various possibilities, recommended the introduction of a new scheme. Interested parties were invited to comment. As a result, the then Treasurer made certain changes to the recommended scheme and an outline of the Treasurer’s proposals for a new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees was tabled in the Senate on 14 March 1 974. The Government appointed Mr G. L. Melville, a Sydney actuary, and Professor Pollard to report on these proposals. Their report, which I tabled on 10 July 1974, resulted in changes that significantly reduced the cost of the scheme finally approved by the Government and announced on 4 December 1974.

The New Scheme- Contributions

The overall benefit levels of the new scheme do not vary greatly from those already available under the present pension scheme and perhaps the most important change in the new scheme is in the approach to contributions. A member’s contributions will no longer be designed to purchase a specific annual amount of pension at retirement or a pension element that is a specific percentage of final salary. A new contributor after commencement of the scheme will be required to make a basic contribution of 5 per cent of salary and will, if he so desires, be able to contribute up to a further 5 per cent in supplementary contributions on a voluntary basis. His accumulated contributions, basic and supplementary, will determine the pension, additional to the Government-financed pension, that will be available to him at retirement.

The change in the contribution basis will mean an immediate increase in the contributions presently being paid by more than half the contributors to the present pension scheme although for younger contributors the move to 5 per cent will be in stages. The change will have considerable advantages for younger contributors in the longer term by avoiding the very high contribution levels at later ages that are characteristic of the present scheme. As well, once the introductory stage of the new scheme has passed, the administrative advantages in departments of the simpler contribution arrangements are expected to be significant.

Benefits

The benefit levels have been developed around those of the present scheme but there are significant changes. Whereas a Governmentfinanced element of pension equal to 50 per cent of final salary is. subject to the payment of the necessary contributions, available to most members under the present scheme on retirement at age 60 or later on completion of 20 years contributory service, a new contributor entering the new scheme will need to complete 30 years contributory service for that pension. But the availability of that pension, if a contributor chooses to retire on reaching age 60, rather than to serve on beyond that age, will not be conditional upon his paying higher contributions or a lump sum at retirement. As well, should contributory service to age 60 only exceed 30 years, the Governmentfinanced pension will be increased to a maximum of 55 per cent of final salary by one-half per cent of salary for each year of contributory service in excess of 30.

At retirement, the accumulated basic and supplementary contributions of a member will be converted into additional pension not exceeding 20 per cent of salary, any excess contributions being paid in cash, together with a reversionary pension benefit for a spouse. The member will, if he wishes, be able to increase the additional pension by reducing the reversionary pension benefit for his spouse or vice versa. The additional pension and reversionary benefit may also be converted in whole or in part to a lump sum. These flexible arrangements will provide each member at retirement with an opportunity to select benefits that suit his own situation. This is a facility not provided by the present scheme.

The scheme provides comprehensive cover for the death or invalidity retirement of a contributor before age 60 but, unlike the present scheme, death or invalidity retirement of a contributor after age 60 will attract benefits on an age retirement basis only. Provision is made for a partial invalidity pension to be paid when an invalidity pensioner is re-employed on a lower salary and when a contributor’s status and salary is reduced on medical grounds. Spouses’ benefits will be available to a wider range of persons including, under certain conditions, de facto spouses and the spouse of a marriage after retirement. The scheme, however, places greater emphasis on dependency than does the present scheme. The standard benefit for a spouse will be 67 per cent of the member’s pension compared to the present 62.5 per cent. This improvement will extend to present scheme pensions as will an improvement in children’s pensions.

Persons of lower medical standard on entry who, under the present arrangements, would be required to join the Provident Account, will come under the new scheme as will those members at present contributing to the Provident Account. Benefits from the scheme may be reduced on medical grounds in the event of their death or invalidity retirement before completing 20 years of contributory service.

Updating of Pensions

Subject to the improvement in spouses’ and children’s pensions, pensions already in existence at 30 June 1975 will continue to be paid at the levels provided by the present Act and be updated annually in accordance with the 1.4 times formula 1 have previously explained. Pensions under the new scheme will be increased annually in accordance with one times the change in the consumer price index but the contributorfinanced element of a pension will not be increased unless the contributor at retirement used his accumulated basic contributions to the fullest extent possible to purchase pension.

Administration

Administration of the new scheme, other than investment and management of the Superannuation Fund, will be the responsibility of a Commissioner for Superannuation to be appointed by the Governor-General. Investment and management of the Fund will be the responsibility of an Investment Trust comprised of a full time chairman and 2 part time members, all of whom will have appropriate experience in investment or finance. One of the part time members will be a contributor or pensioner selected after consultation with contributor and pensioner organisations. The investment powers relating to the Fund are being widened to include investments such as shares and real property. Provision is also made for a tribunal to be constituted under regulations to review decisions of the Commissioner.

National Schemes- Offsetting

The Bill makes no provision for offsetting benefits that might become available to pensioners in the future from the prospective national superannuation and national compensation schemes. The question of offsetting and the manner in which it might be done in relation to this and the Government’s other superannuation schemes is something to be dealt with when the details of one or both of the national schemes are finally settled.

Introduction of the New Scheme

Introduction of the new scheme will require a division of the assets of the Superannuation Fund as at 30 June 1 975 between pensioners and contributors. The determination of the amount that should be transferred from the Fund to the Government in respect of existing pensionersthe full liability for whose pensions after 1 July will be accepted by the Government- the basic contributions that should be credited to contributors at the commencement of the new scheme and the surplus amounts if any that might be available as supplementary contributions for contributors or for disbursement to pensioners are matters that are covered in general terms only in the Bill and will be dealt with in more detail in regulations. The regulations will also include special provisions in respect of existing contributors.

I mentioned earlier the administrative problems caused by the complex nature of the present superannuation arrangements. Because of these problems the records of the Superannuation Board are substantially in arrears and it will be a considerable time before the division and allocation of the fund as at 30 June 1975 can be completed. Suitable provision will be made in the regulations for interim arrangements that will apply to persons retiring during the period of transition.

Costs

Turning now to costs, on the basis of contributor and pensioner data as at 30 June 1972 and using the assumptions adopted by Mr Melville and Professor Pollard in their report to the Government last year, a comparison of capital values of benefits under the present scheme with capital values of benefits under the new scheme shows an overall increase of 13.7 per cent. A significant part of this increase reflects the marked improvement under the new scheme in the position of those existing contributors who, for medical reasons, have been required to be members of the Provident Account. On the other hand, the improvement in benefits overall for existing pension scheme contributors is shown to be 4.8 per cent and for existing pensioners 3.6 per cent. The comparatively small overall increase for existing contributors to the pension scheme illustrates the extent to which improved benefits are offset by the change in the updating formula that will apply to them. Further information is provided in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable senators. I should mention that the estimated capital values of the liabilities shown in the explanatory memorandum relate to the period covered by the life time of contributors and pensioners as at 30 June 1972 and their dependants, a period that could extend for perhaps 80 years or more.

Notwithstanding the overall increase in benefit levels it is estimated that net expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1975-76 on account of the new scheme will be about $5m less than would be the case if the present scheme were to continue. This reduction reflects the initial impact of the lump sum payments of accumulated contributions into Consolidated Revenue to purchase additional pension.

Other Bills

The Superannuation Act Amendment Bill 1975 amends the Superannuation Act 1922-1974, which will be kept in force in part to provide continuing authority for the payment of existing pensions. It applies to spouses’ and children’s pensions that are payable or may become payable in the future under that Act the levels of benefits provided in the new scheme and applies also the wider eligibility provisions of that scheme. The amendment Bill also provides special superannuation arrangements for persons who have transferred or will transfer before 1 July 1975 from State and private employment as a result of the Australian Government’s assuming additional responsibilities.

The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Bill 1975 makes a number of essential machinery amendments to the principal Act to take account of changes being effected by the Superannuation Bill and to ensure that arrangements already in existence continue in force. They deal with persons whose contributions to the superannuation scheme have been deferred on their becoming eligible members of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme, the preservation of rights provisions as they relate to persons transferring from one scheme to the other and, in accordance with past practice, the ex-officio appointment of the Commissioner for Superannuation, in lieu of the President of the Superannuation Board, as Chairman of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority and of the Defence Force Retirement Benefits Board. The opportunity has been taken also to include in the Bill some formal and miscellaneous amendments, including those arising from the enactment of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1 973-74.

Conclusion

In conclusion there are some brief general comments that I want to make. The Government is putting forward this new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees in its role as a responsible employer, concerned for the well-being of its employees not only during their working lives but also in their years of retirement. The scheme is not ungenerous, neither is the present scheme; the new scheme will take its place amongst the leading superannuation schemes in Australia, but it will still not lead the field. There is, for reasons that have been well documented, an urgent need to replace the present scheme. The outside experts, Mr Melville and Professor Pollard, from whom the Government obtained independent advice, agreed that it should be replaced. They commended the design of the new scheme and supported the basic approach as an answer to the complex problem of superannuation for Australian Government employees. The Government considers superannuation to be a right of all employees. The level of superannuation on a person’s retirement should be related to the kind of standard he or she has been able to establish during his or her working life. The scheme provided by this Bill should achieve that objective. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2105

SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

As foreshadowed in my second reading speech on the Superannuation Bill 1975, I now introduce the Superannuation Act Amendment Bill 1975 that makes certain necessary changes to the Superannuation Act 1922-1974 consequent upon the introduction of the new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees and certain other changes. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2105

DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT (Tasmania-Minister for

Agriculture) (4.5)- I move:

As foreshadowed in my second reading speech on the Superannuation Bill 1975, I now introduce the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Bill 1975 that makes certain necessary changes to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973-1974 consequent upon the introduction of the new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees and certain other changes. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2105

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SIMULTANEOUS ELECTIONS) BILL 1975 [No. 2]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is identical with that introduced into the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 1 1 February 1975 and passed by an absolute majority by that House on 18 February. The Senate received that Bill on 19 February andr efused it a second reading on 25 February. Itwas re-introduced in the House on 27 May 1975 and passed by an absolute majority on 2 June 1975.I shall not take the time of the Senate to put forward again the reasons that have led the Government to resubmit this legislation. They are sound and reasoned. They were spelt out by me in my second reading speech in the Senate and honourable senators have them recorded in Hansard.

Senator Wood and Senator Scott, who spoke for the opposition on the Bill earlier this year, claimed that they opposed it because simultaneous elections would damage the independence of the Senate and alter its role. This, of course, is not so. The independence of the Senate was not founded on elections being held for the 2 Houses at different times. It is clear that the framers of our Constitution did not regard separate elections in this sense as basic to the Senate’s role as an independent House. Indeed, before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Review recommended this particular reform in 1958 and again in 1959- with only one member dissenting- there had been only 3 occasions on which an election had been held to elect members of one House only- those for the House of Representatives in 1929 and 1954 and that for the Senate in 1 953. Since 1 959, however, there have been no fewer than 9 national elections, four of them for the House of Representatives alone, and three of them for the Senate alone.

I point out also that the Joint Committee concluded that the original concept of the Senate’s role as a State s House had not been realised; nor had its intended role as a House of review- the weapon of rejection had always been in Party hands. It was the Joint Committee’s view that simultaneous elections would benefit responsible government in many ways. Apart from the obvious convenience, simultaneous elections would promote government in accordance with the most recent expression of the will of the people and discourage capricious rejection of legislation passed by the House of Representatives. In short, the rights and independence of the Senate will in no way be abrogated by this Bill. But the Bill will enable the electors to reconsider whether they wish to continue to have frequent and costly separate elections for the 2 Houses as is the position now or whether they wish simultaneous elections to be held for the House of Representatives and one half of the. Senate. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2106

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is designed to implement the electoral divisions in South Australia having the names and boundaries approved in respect of that State by the House of Representatives on 21 May 1975. As honourable senators are aware, the report by the Distribution Commissioners for the State of South Australia was laid before both Houses of the Parliament on 15 April 1975, pursuant to section 23a of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, together with suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners in pursuance of sections 1 8a and 2 1 of that Act. The motion for the approval of the re-distribution proposed in that report was passed by the House of Representatives on 21 May 1975 but was negated by the Senate on the following day.

The Government has decided to introduce 5 separate Bills to implement the Distribution Commissioners’ proposed electoral divisions for South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. This action has been taken because of the uncompromising attitude adopted by the Opposition parties in this chamber towards the re-distribution proposals for each of the 5 States concerned. In rejecting all the redistribution proposals, both Opposition parties have been motivated by their objection to the basic redistribution ground rules as set out in section 19 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which must be observed by the Distribution Commissioners. Accordingly, it is quite clear that there would be no point in the Minister directing the Distribution Commissioners to propose a fresh distribution in the States concerned, as allowed under section 24(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

The Government does not overlook the possibility that the Opposition may even choose to reject this Bill itself in this chamber, but nevertheless we believe that redistributions have become a matter of urgent necessity in order to pro- . vide equality of representation for every elector. The Government is not prepared to wait until 1977 or 1978 for a redistribution, even supposing that future Distribution Commissioners could produce proposals which would please the National Country Party and the Liberal Party.

The Opposition may be quite happy to postpone this overdue redistribution indefinitely, but the Government has no intention of waiting until the inequalities in electoral representation become as outrageous as they did prior to the 1968 redistribution, with a disparity of some 100 000 in enrolments between some divisions. The incorporation of these redistribution proposals in legislative form will enable, if necessary, these proposals to be submitted to the judgment of the electorate, together with other items of proposed legislation already obstructed by the Opposition parties in the Senate. Accordingly, the Government has no hesitation, within the terms of the Constitution, in taking whatever action is needed to ensure that the proposals of the Distribution Commissioners, for each of the 5 States concerned, are given legislative effect at the earliest possible date. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by . Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2107

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (TASMANIA) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is designed to implement the electoral divisions in Tasmania having the names and boundaries approved in respect of that State by the House of Representatives on 21 May 1975. As honourable senators are aware, the report by the Distribution Commissioners for the State of Tasmania was laid before both Houses on 17 April 1975 pursuant to section 23a of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, together with suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners in accordance with sections 1 8A and 2 1 of that Act.

A motion for the approval of the redistribution proposed in that report was passed by the House of Representatives on 21 May 1975 but was negated by the Senate on the following day. I have already indicated, in the course of my remarks on the first of the 5 electoral redistribution Bills, the purpose of these Bills and there is no need to reiterate those remarks in dealing with this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2107

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (QUEENSLAND) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is designed to implement the electoral divisions in Queensland having the names and boundaries approved in respect of that State by the House of Representatives on 22 May 1975. As honourable senators are aware, the report by the Distribution Commissioners for the State of Queensland was laid before both Houses on 1 7 April 1975 pursuant to section 23a of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, together with suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners in accordance with sections 1 8a and 2 1 of that Act.

A motion for the approval of the redistribution proposed in that report was passed by the House of Representatives on 22 May 1975 but was negated by the Senate on 27 May 1975. I have already indicated, in the course of my remarks on the first of the 5 electoral redistribution Bills, the purpose of these Bills and there is no need to reiterate those remarks in dealing with this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2107

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (VICTORIA) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is designed to implement the electoral divisions in Victoria having the names and boundaries approved in respect of that State by the House of Representatives on 22 May 1975. As honourable senators are aware, the report by the Distribution Commissioners for the State of Victoria was laid before the House of Representatives on 13 May 1975 and before the Senate on the following day pursuant to section 23A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, together with suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners pursuant to sections 18A and 21 of that Act.

A motion for the approval of the redistribution proposed in that report was passed by the House of Representatives on 22 May 1975 but was negated by the Senate on 27 May 1975. 1 have already indicated, in the course of my remarks dealing with the first of these 5 related electoral redistribution Bills, the purpose of these Bills. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2108

ELECTORAL RE-DISTRIBUTION (NEW SOUTH WALES) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is designed to implement the electoral divisions in New South Wales having the names and boundaries approved in respect of that State by the House of Representatives on 22 May 1975. As honourable senators are aware, the report by the Distribution Commissioners for the State of New South Wales was laid before the House of Representatives on 13 May 1975 and before the Senate on the following day, pursuant to section 23 A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, together with suggestions, comments and objections lodged with the Distribution Commissioners pursuant to sections 1 8a and 21 of that Act.

A motion for the approval of the redistribution proposed in that report was passed by the House of Representatives on 22 May 1975, but was negated by the Senate on 27 May 1975. I have already indicated, in the course of my remarks dealing with the first of these five related electoral redistribution Bills, the purpose of these Bills. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2108

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

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

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide supplementary grants for increases in costs which were not allowed for when the 1973-75 triennial capital and recurrent programs of colleges of advanced education and non-government teachers colleges were adopted. The supplementary grants are provided in accordance with established Government policy and comprise $33,952,600 to meet 1974 academic salaries increases, $2 1,205,400 to cover cost escalation in respect of other segments of the recurrent programs and $23,605,200 provision for cost increases relating to college building projects. In addition, the Government has approved a supplementary recurrent grant of $3,716,000 for the State College of Victoria’s constituent colleges and central office and colleges of advanced education affiliated with the Victoria Institute of Colleges. Provision is made for this grant in the Bill. Certain new commitments approved by the Government are also provided for in the Bill. An amount of $185,000 is included for the establishment, development and conduct of an associate diploma course in welfare studies at North Brisbane College of Advanced Education, Caulfield Institute of Technology and the South Australian Institute of Technology. Also, a grant of $140,000 for recurrent expenditure and $265,000 for capital expenditure is included to provide for the accelerated development of the Albury-Wodonga Study Centre of the Riverina College of Advanced Education in 1 975.

As the foregoing amendments affect the programs detailed in the Schedules of the Act, the opportunity has been taken to include in the revised schedules the changed names of some colleges and a number of intra and inter program transfers of funds which have been approved in terms of the Act. In summary, this Bill provides for an additional $83m to be made available in respect of the 1973-75 triennium to colleges of advanced education and approved nongovernment teachers colleges. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2109

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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:

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

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

The primary purpose of this Bill is to make adjustments to the approved triennial programs of universities to take account of cost variations. When the Australian Government assumed full responsibility for the funding of universities and abolished tuition fees, it entered into an arrangement with the universities providing that their forward triennial programs would be adjusted to take account of cost variations. Honourable senators will recall that legislation for this purpose was enacted in the Budget sitting of the Parliament last year. This new Bill continues to preserve the original triennial programs of the universities and ensures that they are not prevented from completing these approved programs as a result of variations in costs. The actual variations incorporated in the Bill are based on movements in approved indexes prepared by the Universities Commission relating to variations in non-academic salaries and wages, non-salary costs, equipment and building costs. These cost variations are applied to the various components of the triennial program, namely, grants for general recurrent expenditure, special research, equipment, university buildings, student residences and teaching hospitals. The Government announced earlier its acceptance of the December 1974 report of the Academic Salaries Tribunal which recommended increases in salaries of academic staff at universities. The Bill makes provision for the payment of the necessary funds to universities to enable them to meet these new rates.

During 1974 the Australian and Victorian Governments agreed that a new university should be established at Geelong, to incorporate the 2 existing colleges of advanced education in that city in the manner proposed by the Universities Commission in its ‘ Report on the Proposal of the Government of Victoria for a Fourth University in Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo’. In December 1974 the Victorian Parliament passed an Act establishing the Deakin University at Geelong and an Interim Council for the university was established on 1 January 1975. Deakin University will commence teaching in 1979. The authorities of the new University will be involved over the next few years in the planning and development of the university campus and preparation for the introduction of university programs. The Universities Commission will soon be reporting on the provision to be made for the Deakin University during the 1976-78 triennium. This Bill provides an initial recurrent grant for 1975 for Deakin University to enable it to commence its planning task; it also transfers to the University, for an Arts building, an amount of $720,000 which was previously provided for the State College of Victoria Geelong.

This measure is one of a regular series of measures which will need to be introduced to take account of variations in the cost of university and college programs. With the assumption of full financial responsibility by the Australian Government, the Bill constitutes the equivalent of a supply measure for the universities to enable them to sustain their operations. In summary, this Bill provides for an additional $104m to be made available in respect to the 1973-75 triennium to universities and affiliated residential colleges. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2110

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legislative authority for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. The name has been changed at the suggestion of the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Lewis, and the amendment was accepted by the House of Representatives. The proposal is entirely consistent with the Government’s determination to assist at all levels the day-to-day activities of all Australians. Insurance is, or should be, an essential concern for every citizen. Disasters in Brisbane and Darwin have demonstrated this in tragic and costly ways. The victims, and the insurers, are now aware of this. The AGIC will be a factor in helping to provide protection against similar situations in the future. The AGIC in the field of commercial insurance will encourage fair- and I stress fair- competition. As a matter of first priority it will develop a superior service to the ordinary householder and home owner in Australia. The AGIC will provide the widest possible range of insurance at the lowest possible premiums. The beneficiaries will be the Australian people. It will be a similar Government business and undertaking to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. It is a long time since the principle of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has been questioned or challenged by any member of any party in either chamber of the Australian Parliament.

Apart from activity in the normal fields covered by insurance companies now operating in Australia, the AGIC will be the agent for and adviser to the Australian Government on the provision of non-commercial insurance which is now not covered by any insurance office in Australia. In this role the AGIC will facilitate the provision of natural disasters coverage for all Australians.

In its general and life insurance business, the AGIC will be structured and will operate on competitive and commercial lines. Any claim that it will be given an unfair advantage over its competitors is wrong. As with private companies, it will be subject to all Australian and State taxes. Similarly, if it is to receive concessional taxation treatment on its earnings, the AGIC will be required to observe the 30-20 rule regarding investment in securities. The AGIC should not only compete on equal terms, but it should also be seen to be competing on equal terms. It was for this reason that the AGIC was made subject to the Insurance Act, and the Life Insurance Act. In other words, the Government’s objective is to place the Australian Government Insurance Corporation in activities other than national interest insurance on the same footing as commercial insurance companies transacting business both nationally and internationally. Honourable senators will note that because of our insistence on fair competition, the AGIC will be required to operate under much less favourable conditions than those applying to State Government insurance offices.

The AGIC will provide to the people of Australia the same services at competitive rates as existing companies and in some instances services additional to those already available. There are some- and they belong to the industry rather than the millions whom the industry serviceswho claim that this proposal for the establishment of the AGIC is an intrusion into the private sector. Those critics, and many of the members of the Opposition who seem to have been convinced by them, should be reminded that the Australian Government over many years, not just under the Labor Party, has been heavily involved in the insurance field. Private insurers already depend on Australian Government legislation for the continuing profitability and stability of their businesses. One example only is the favourable taxation treatment afforded to the life insurance offices as compared with other financial institutions at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. They know that up to $ 1 ,200 of income tax is not taxable if paid into life insurance or superannuation. They have been to the doors of Ministers of this Government to ensure that this preference remains. This taxation inducement, worth an estimated $180m annually, has been one of the most significant factors responsible for the large increase in the numbers of policy holders in recent years. It is from these profits that some companies are apparently financing the ineffective and expensive campaign which has so misfired and reacted against them. Because of this they have directed a new campaign at the senators opposite which may also have the same reverse effects, particularly in the eyes of the Australian people.

There has been much said recently by members of the industry that an AGIC will not follow sound investment policies. A study of the investment policies of some companies would reveal that if they had made more funds available to the private sector of manufacturing, instead of concentration in real estate, then the economy would have been better served. I believe the Board of the AGIC will follow a wise investment program which will benefit the policy holders, the private sector, and the Australian people far more than some existing insurance offices.

Insurance offices have long held to old myths and have been reluctant to face new realities in a changing world which so desperately requires up to date thinking and planning. This view has recently been expressed by a visiting British insurance expert in an article published in the Insurance and Banking Record’. It is also clear that insurance offices have diverted their funds away from their policy holders, away from the provision of housing loans; this is revealed in the annual reports of the Life Insurance Commissioner. These reports show that investment of statutory funds of life offices in property rose from 8 per cent in 1963 to 18 per cent in 1973; whereas housing loans fell from 12 per cent in. 1963 to 6 per cent in 1973. In fact, the incentives and protections provided by the Australian Government have built the insurers into a colossus, propped up and dependent on the Australian Government. The life offices seem not to appreciate, or perhaps appreciate all too well, their dependence on the Australian Government. As soon as the winds of change begin to blow, this colossus immediately complains of its alleged ill-treatment.

Clearly, closer interaction between the insurance industry and Government is required. On 4 April the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) announced the establishment of 2 insurance consultative committees, one each for the general and life insurance industries. Leading members of the general and life insurance industries together with representatives of the Australian Insurance Staffs’ Federation are represented on the committees. On 7 May Dr Cairns chaired an initial joint meeting of the consultative committees which discussed the implications of the AGIC for the industry. I chaired a further meeting on Sunday, 1 1 May, at which I undertook that as a result of representations from the Federation and the general insurance industry I would be prepared to propose to the Government amendments to the Bill making AGIC specifically subject to the Insurance Acts 1973 and the Life Insurance Act 1945-1973. Subsequently, the Government sponsored amendments to this effect in the House of Representatives. The Government has been quite forthcoming in its attempts to understand and appreciate the problems which need to be faced in relation to insurance in Australia. I hope these committees will continue to play a constructive role after the AGIC has been established and I say this despite the alarmist and extreme reaction of sections of the insurance industry. Again I would emphasise that the insurance industry is vast and complex and the AGIC will contribute considerably toward meeting problems some industry members may face either by providing reinsurance facilities, participating in high risk insurance pools, or by retrocession of incoming re-insurance business. In addition, I see no reason why the skilled officers of the AGIC might not also contribute expertise to their industry colleagues.

Government involvement in insurance is not new. Might I remind honourable senators opposite that State government insurance offices have long been involved- profitably and effectivelyin the field of insurance. Policy holders have benefited and private insurers have been given salutary competition and have not suffered from this involvement. This is despite earlier claims, hysterical claims, that the establishment of State government offices would lead to a monopoly forcing private insurers out of business. I need not add that these predictions sound empty in retrospect, particularly when the premium charges of State offices are compared with those of private insurers. Two most successful Government insurance offices, both providing general insurance and life assurance, are operating in Queensland and New South Wales- non-Labor States for many years. What most State-operated offices have achieved has been the discouragement of management practices among private insurers which are to the financial detriment of their policy holders. I refer to the expensive practice of placing reliance on competitive salesmanship rather than competitive premiums.

The next point to ask is whether State government insurance offices provide an adequate system of insurance for all Australians. The answer varies from State to State. In New South Wales and Queensland all types of insurance, including life, are available. However, in the remaining States only general insurance is provided. In Victoria not even homeowners and householders insurance is available. To the extent therefore that State government insurance offices engender a more competitive climate as regards premiums in their respective States, people may still be prejudiced because of their residence in a particular State where State insurance office activities are not as comprehensive as elsewhere.

I believe it is essential that this legislation be approved now because of the amount of preparation necessary before the AGIC will be able to offer policies to the Australian people. The Prime Minister’s undertaking to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office was endorsed by the electorate over a year ago. A committee of experts drawn from 10 Australian Government departments, including the Treasury, with advice from the Life Insurance Commissioner and the Insurance Commissioner, who are the officers appointed by Parliament to supervise the industry, recommended favourably to the Government on the establishment of an insurance office. No reservation was placed as to timing. It will take several months for a Board to be appointed and supporting staff to be recruited. Only at that point will the Board be able to undertake all the actuarial and economic studies which are vital for it to be in a position to enter specific lines of insurance business. Normal procedures require a considerable amount of time. If to this the Opposition adds further forced delays, thus preventing the Government from implementing this electoral promise, they will be responsible for rejecting the expressed will of the people.

On the other hand, no compelling reasons have been given as to why the legislation should be delayed. It is quite a simple proposal involving a minimum of funds. Its establishment does not mean that private or State offices will disappear, or even decline. The situation is analogous to the foundation of the Commonwealth Bank in 1912. State banks have continued to grow and prosper in all States except Queensland. Private banks have also grown strongly and diversified their activities. The situation should be no different with the Government’s insurance activities. The Australian Government Insurance Corporation can go further than this. It can become a leader in its field in Australia- on behalf of the Australian people. While our present insurance system in some instances leads to the channelling of Australian money to foreign countries through overseas firms now dominant here, a vigorous Australian Government enterprise, through reciprocal activities in the re-insurance field, will attract foreign insurance business to Australia’s advantage. As many honourable senators are aware, a great deal of Australia’s re-insurance business is placed with large overseas companiesin Britain, Switzerland and Germany. It is true that in recent times some of these professional re-insurers overseas have deigned to establish locally incorporated companies. However, the foreign giants which dominate this specialised and highly active field of insurance in Australia have little interest in returning, through reciprocal business to Australia, funds generated by their overseas parent companies.

The Australian Government will increase the re-insurance facilities within our own country. This will enable the AGIC to play a role at home- and overseas- similar to that of the European countries in the insurance field. It will help reduce the flow of funds out of Australia, while at the same time providing the potential to increase the flow of funds into Australia. In the longer term, an AGIC operating in this way could well assist Australia’s balance of payments. The Australian owned insurance companies will surely welcome the entry of the AGIC into the important re-insurance field. Australian people most certainly will. As income to the AGIC from these areas of activity is generated more quickly and in larger proportions than from some other classes of insurance, the flow of such income into the Australian economy will benefit all Australians. Less than 2 years ago the level of foreign ownership of general insurance business conducted in Australia was nearly 46 per cent. The Australian share was bolstered by the activities of Government insurance enterprise which represented some 20 per cent of the general insurance business. Again, Australian owned insurance companies must surely welcome a thriving AGIC. Why indeed should the entry of the AGIC be at their cost at all? Why should Australian owned companies be vociferous about potential competition from the AGIC when they have been silent about growing competition from foreign companies? The AGIC will bolster Australian ownership and by its status as a national corporation be able to provide services presently only available on foreign insurance markets. This would lessen the potential for further foreign dominance in the local insurance industry.

The Bill provides that the AGIC will be constituted as a statutory corporation managed by a Board of seven; five of these will be part-time members, one of whom will be Chairman. The other members, the General Manager and Deputy General Manager, will be full-time members. In this regard, the Government will be looking to the existing industry to recruit the most highly qualified staff available. On 15 April 1974 I gave an assurance to the Senate. I have since repeated that assurance and I repeat it again. The Government will do all that is possible to allow the Australian Insurance Staffs’ Federation to cover comparable staff in the AGIC, and to give employment preference in it to the people employed in the insurance industry without prejudice to the rights of employees in existing Australian Government insurance undertakings.

The AGIC will be an approved authority for the purpose of the Superannuation Act. The Officers’ Rights Declaration Act will apply to those members of the staff of the office who formerly held office, under other statutes or within the Public Service. Staff will be appointed by the Board of the AGIC. The terms and conditions will also be determined by that Board, subject to approval by the Public Service Board. The AGIC Board will do all things possible to foster the latest management techniques, consistent with humane principles, to achieve the greatest possible satisfaction for its staff, and for the policy holders which it serves. The AGIC will be a commercial undertaking which will require and will get imaginative, dynamic management by people of initiative and vision.

I am already on record as having said that there will be no discriminatory practices in relation to recruiting female staff to all levels of the AGIC. Women will have equal employment rights and opportunities as men. I strongly supported the Prime Minister when he said that the Government will encourage the AGIC to extend to women the same opportunity to take out policies as men now enjoy. I again reaffirm that statement. Discrimination must stop. How better than to begin with an AGIC which would certainly not engage in discriminatory practices?

The Bill specifies that the finance of the AGIC will be provided with an initial capital of $800,000 and it will be entitled to an advance of $lm. The AGIC will be required to pay dividends on its capital and interest on the $lm loan. Compared with many of its competitors the AGIC will be very small but, in setting the finance available to it, the Government has acted in what it feels is in its best interest of financial prudence. Accounts of the AGIC are to be maintained as for any commercial entity and are to be subject to audit by the Auditor-General and placed as a charge against the Corporation. The liabilities of the AGIC will be guaranteed by the Australian Government in the same way as the respective State Governments guarantee State Government insurance activities. This guarantee will be in addition to the strict solvency requirements of the Insurance Acts and the life Insurance Act and policy holders can be assured of real security.

The AGIC will be authorised to undertake all forms of insurance, both general and life, including superannuation business and re-insurance. It will be required to invest its reserves in the interests of its policy holders and will not be subject to any Government direction in this regard. The Australian Government will not exercise controls over the AGIC’s investments. All investments will be made to ensure the best returns in the interests of policy holders. This is the major criterion which will be observed by the AGIC in deciding its investment policy.

It will be empowered to own property. It will be able to lend, but borrowing will require the approval of the Treasurer. In other words, the investment policy of the AGIC will be determined independently of governmental or ministerial instruction. But I stress that from its insurance and re-insurance underwriting activities I expect that funds available for investment will greatly benefit the economy progressively.

In its commercial operations, I stress that the Corporation will be required to follow sound commercial principles. This is stated quite explicitly in clause 34. It will be free to determine the terms and conditions of its contracts, set premium rates and make such other commercial decisions as it deems necessary. In doing this it will operate as its competitors do. It will be free from ministerial control in its commercial operations, but it will be required to keep the Minister informed on matters of policy. The AGIC will have power to enter into agency agreements, whether as principal or agent, and to conduct business outside of Australia.

The Corporation, similarly to existing insurance offices, will have authority to acquire the whole or a part of other insurance undertakings subject, of course, to the provisions of any other applicable legislation. If, after inquiry, the Board of the AGIC reports to the Minister that a class of risk cannot be made available on a commercial basis regulations may prescribe that it is in the national interest that such insurance should be available.

In respect of business undertaken under the national interest provisions, the Bill provides that such business should be treated on a noncommercial basis and, in respect of such businsess the AGIC will not be liable to taxation. The Government proposes that the establishment of a special national interest division be examined immediately by the AGIC. This division will be authorised to undertake specific national interest insurance business of a non-commercial nature in specific fields such as crop and livestock insurance or in other fields which may develop during the progression of time which the industry might determine as non-commercial and seek Government assistance in solving the problem at that time. Such operations would be entirely separate from the AGIC’s other activities. It would be quite unreasonable if the AGIC were to be limited to the non-commercial, national interest fields of insurance. The Australian Government could not tolerate a situation in which the profitable areas of insurance remain the exclusive domain of the private insurance sector, leaving the AGIC restricted to the national interest field.

The establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Corporation is in line with developments overseas. The Governments of New Zealand, India, Israel and the United States of America, to name but a few, are already involved to varying degrees in providing insurance to their citizens, and some, but not all, include natural disaster insurance. The United Kingdom, Sweden, France, Japan, Sri Lanka and Canada provide some form of crop and livestock insurance. The New Zealand experience is highly relevant. The New Zealand Government Life Insurance Office was set up in 1869. The State Insurance Office carrying out general insurance business commenced in 1905. In 1944 a Commission was established to provide earthquake and war damage insurance.

One of the objectives of the Government in setting up the Corporation will be to seek a rationalisation of insurance business conducted by the Australian Government and Australian Government instrumentalities. At present, Australian Government insurance activities include insurance in respect of defence service homes provided within the Defence Service Homes Act; mortgage loans insurance in respect of low cost housing provided by the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation under the Housing Loans Insurance Act; insurance provided by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation in respect of a highly specialised field covering Australian exports; and insurance provided by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation as a service for clients who are financing the purchase of their homes or other property through their bank.

The Government is of the view that insurance presently provided under the Defence Service Homes Act would be brought under the AGIC. The Bill as presented to the Parliament, however, does not specifically include this aspect at present, for as honourable senators are aware, the defence service homes scheme is being transferred to the Australian Housing Corporation and substantial changes are occurring. The Government wishes to retain the housing loans insurance scheme in its present form but administered by the AGIC. As honourable senators are aware, this is a scheme whereby the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation provides insurance cover to lending institutions, including banks, building societies, credit unions, and other organisations. This insures lending institutions against the risks of loss of the value of the loans made available by them.

The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation assists people to obtain low deposit loans to acquire houses by insuring the repayment of housing loans of up to 95 per cent of the valuation of the property. This means that lenders can make low deposit loans with exactly the same degree of safety as loans where borrowers provide substantial equities. I am sure that honourable senators are aware of the degree of success of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. It is an eminently successful organisation and I can assure them that it is the Government’s wish that it should continue. Therefore its administration will be taken over by the AGIC in its present form. Legislation to this effect has been introduced separately. Since its establishment in 1965, it has been exempt from income tax and stamp duty, but has paid payroll tax and other levies in respect of its operations. This arrangement is to remain undisturbed. The amendment of the Housing Loans Insurance Act leaves intact those provisions which control the size and type of loan that may be issued. This will ensure that the special treatment accorded these housing loans will remain.

The Government is of the view that the insurance service provided by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation is a specialised service in a particular field and is integral to the Government’s export policies. It should therefore be undertaken as at present under the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act. Similarly, the service provided by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to its clients is to be left in the hands of the Bank and conducted in its present form.

The Bill provides that it will take effect on a date to be proclaimed. There remains a great deal of further planning before the Australian Government Insurance Corporation can open its doors. Apart from appointments to the Board and staff there will be the general planning of operations strategies for the organisation and the further development of those special areas related to Defence Service Homes and to the Housing Loans Insurance Scheme. The enactment of this legislation will enable this further planning to proceed with a view to the provision of additional services in both commercial and non-commercial fields to the benefit of Australia. Assurances given by the Government together with the safeguards contained in the Bill should convince the insurance industry that there is nothing to fear. In fact, progressive benefit to the industry as a whole could well be obtained from the establishment of an AGIC.

As I have outlined earlier, the Corporation will provide badly needed additional areas of insurance protection which are not presently available from the Australian insurance industry. It will create job opportunities for members of the industry. It will provide re-insurance facilities for the industry. It will contribute to the Australian economy. It will attract overseas revenue which by the very nature of re-insurance and retrocession may well be passed to members of the local industry. It will contribute to the breaking of any monopolistic practices that presently exist. There has never been a better time for an AGIC than now. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Wheeldon) proposed:

Thai the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I move an amendment to the motion of the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) as follows:

Leave out the words ‘next day of sitting’ and insert ‘first sitting day after 1 August 1975’.

I suggest it would be appropriate to have a general debate on this BUI and the Housing Loans Insurance Bill.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Yes.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Is there any objection? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator COTTON:

-Although the second reading speech is very glowing and sounds rather like a proposal of marriage from someone who has no money to a wealthy heiress, it needs a little more conviction in it than that, as well as some examination. It states that people are getting less disturbed about this and should understand the goodwill of the Government and what the Government intends. Despite that, however, petitions are still rolling in from Australian citizens asking that the Bill be either deferred, set aside, or defeated. As at last Thursday, in the Senate we had had various petitions presented from a total of 46 388 people who had asked that this legislation be set aside.

Senator Poyser:

– Almost one electorate.

Senator COTTON:

– Almost enough to return a senator to the Senate in some States. Today we had petitions from a further 2267 people, getting very close to a total of 50 000 people in Australia who have indicated in petitions to the Senate that they would like this matter further examined or set aside. There is clearly a great area of public unease and public disturbance which 50 000 people feel to be warranted. There has been a substantial- and I think regrettable- public conflict between the Government and the industry which did nothing to increase the light and increased the heat rather dramatically.

When I think about those 50 000 people, although I am rather impressed by the earnestness of Senator Wheeldon, his voice at the moment is rather a small one against the numbers of those people. We have, stating it fairly, considerable unease in the Australian community, and I do not intend to debate the general propositions laid down in the second reading speech because I am really seeking to persuade the Senate that this is a case where deferment and time to study might be of great benefit to the people of Australia, to the Senate, and to the Government itself. There is need for delay and there is substantial evidence, in my view, of the need for time for everyone to think, including the Government. There is need for people to be able to put up new ideas on potential changes to this proposed legislation to the Opposition and to the Government.

The Government has managed to talk to people lately and, out of these discussions, has managed to derive some amendments of its own which it has incorporated in the legislation. That, I think, one would commend. Last week we were offered by Senator Wheeldon one week of time to think. If I may say so to him, I thought that was putting it at a very low level, that it was a pretty rough way to behave, and one might have said some more rude things about it.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Do you mean I overestimated your capacity to work?

Senator COTTON:

-Not really. I was just contemplating the pressure of work on both the Minister and myself. I was thinking that the Minister might need time to think, as his Government might need time, and as we might, as well as

SO 000 other Australians. The Australian Parliament must grow up legislatively, and there is a sensible case for separation and time for review. We are getting in this Australian Parliament a tendency for legislation to be moving on at a headlong rate and for it having to be deferred and, on deferment, to be adjusted and changed. This is because the Government considers that it wants to do certain things and that it has in its own mind a perfectly justifiable social purpose based on its ideologies and principles. It thinks, therefore, that such legislation should go through the House of Representatives and that we in the Senate should agree immediately that it is a good idea because the Government thought about it.

I do not think that is wise in the Australian Parliament as it ought to be developing, and I regard this as an opportunity to say one or two things which I think have needed saying for some time about the behaviour of the Australian Parliament as between the 2 Houses. I had some notes taken out on the behaviour on Government Bills in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America. I shall refer first to the general comment derived from a book by Bradshaw and Pring and I hasten to add that I do not think that it has any relation to one of our learned clerks at the table. It is devoted to the legislative process dealing with the notion that government legislation must be, and usually is, subject to most detailed examination by both Houses. This seems to be something that is resented by the Australian Government in relation to detailed examination of its legislation by the Senate.

The authors describe in that book certain procedures which may be used to expedite the passage of Bills in both legislative systems, but point out that such procedures are usually used in relation to uncontroversial measures. The Bill about which I am speaking would have to be seen as a controversial measure. The authors regard an unduly speedy passage through the House of Commons of two contentious measures in the following terms:

The power of the Government to achieve its legislative purposes within the necessary compass of time can hardly be better illustrated than by the Prices and Incomes Bill 1966 and 1967. These were among the most controversial measures proposed by the second Wilson administration. Yet though introduced as late in a session as 4 July 1966 and 5 June 1967, these measures had passed through ali their stages in the Commons by 10 August 1966 and 12 July 1967, passing the Lords and obtaining the royal assent shortly afterwards.

I have some observations about the pattern in the United States of America which I shall try to truncate as much as possible. It refers to a fascinating piece of legislation known as the Omnibus

Safe Streets and Crime Control Bill 1967-68. In February 1967 the President sent a message to the House of Representatives, or the Congress, seeking such a measure. The Congress dealt with the matter on 8 February and it was transmitted to the Senate on 17 July 1967. The Senate dealt with it progressively, and it was not until 20 June 1968 that the President was finally able to assent to the measure.

I am giving this example to illustrate that the time has come in the Australian Parliament, in many of these cases that are controversial, for the Senate to draw itself apart to some extent from the House of Representatives and to make quite sure that where matters are not controversial they go through as quickly as possible, but where they are controversial delay is allowed, time is taken to think, the community which has expressed great alarm can get involved and study the matter to see whether or not its alarm is justified it is not always justified; sometimes the community is unduly and wrongly alarmed, but time must be allowed for people to determine whether what they have believed is perhaps unwarranted.

On those bases, I think this is one matter where a sensible case can be made for an interval of time. Between the present time, if the Senate agrees, and some time in August, one would hope that the Government and the industry, as well as the Opposition and the industry, and all the people affected would have the chance to see what it is that people are upset about, what concerns them, what the reality is, and whether the legislation is due for passing or due for change after mature and substantial thought. When Senator Wheeldon offered us a week of time, he admitted in principle that there was at least some need for time to think, but I thought it rather ungenerous of him to offer a week to the industry and to the Opposition. The Government has referred to certain of its own amendments that it has brought into the legislation. I rather thought, when the Minister was speaking earlier last week, that the Government had other amendments in mind, although the Minister did not refer to them in his second reading speech.

It would appear to me that one needs to look at 3 areas in relation to this legislation to see whether they should be joined together or separated in any way. The second reading speech refers to equality of responsibility equalling equality of opportunity. That is a proposition with which I agree, but I want to see the matter tested, to see whether it is true that the equality of responsibility in this legislation is as accurately to be stated as the second reading speech indicates. People may have certain views about it. It has been stated that this is not the case, although the second reading speech says that it is. This aspect needs some examination. Then there is the second matter of the national disaster area, whether there may be some insurance obligation non-profitable to be taken up for a national interest case. Some examination should be carried out to see whether this should stand by itself and be available for anyone to take up if it is to be funded by the Government on a subsidy or loss basis.

There is a third area about which I cannot get any illumination at the moment, and the second reading speech is quite slender in its reference to the amount of money involved. That is the question of whether or not there is to be any kind of compulsory direction of the savings area of Australia for this purpose. The second reading speech does not indicate that there is, but some observations about the life insurance industry and the fact that it depends on the Australian Government would, I think, cause people to wish to have a clearer examination of this matter.

I just observe from my memory of that part of the second reading speech that the life insurance industry in Australia is one of the great exercises in mutual help and mutual work and it is traditional of Australia’s activities from the beginning of its time as a nation. When one looks at that one sees that the real purpose of income tax concessions granted to the life insurance industry, as I understood it at the time, was to induce the Australian people to become as strong as they could in their personal savings habits. Indeed, Australia ranks second in the world after Japan as having the highest rate of savings. It is those accumulated savings that have made it possible for Australia to finance about 90 per cent of its own development. I would be very upset if I saw any attempt to water down the savings of the Australian people and their savings habits.

I believe that those 3 areas do need a more careful check. I think the period of time sought by this amendment would allow us to do that, would allow the industry and the Government to do that and would allow those 50 000 people, which number I am sure will increase as the days pass, to put their minds and thoughts to this legislation too. That is why I have moved the amendment which seeks to leave out the words next day of sitting’ and insert the words ‘the first sitting day after 1 August 1975’.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I do not support the move to defer this legislation. I believe it is a sign of weakness on the part of the Opposition that it should require a deferment. It seems to me to be a pretty peculiar appreciation of Liberal principles to say that the Opposition needs 3 more months to decide whether or not it should support the establishment of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. I find that a phenomenal proposition. I should have thought that by examining the platform and principles of the Liberal Party one could find, the principle as soon as one turned a leaf of the relevant document. Why on earth we need to go into this extended area of risk, because that is what is it, I do not know other than to say that apparently the Liberal Party sees this move as a closer step towards a possible election and there may be some possible use of the insurance industry as an ally in such an election. I can see no other reason, because ideologically it should be as plain as the paper on which the Bill is printed.

I cannot support a deferment of this legislation. I would like to see the debate proceed and I would like to see the Bill voted out of this place, at the earliest opportunity. I must say that I have not yet seen, in the very few statements of any coherence, that the Opposition has made on this publicly any justification for the Opposition’s wanting to defer this debate- none. Senator Cotton gave none except to admit that perhaps he might want an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. Why else would he want to defer the Bill if he does not want such a corporation? Good heavens, if he knows he does not want it he could say so here this week. One can only assume that he might want a Government insurance corporation. There is no other construction that one can put on his remarks. He needs a long time to look at this to decide whether or not we need one further experiment by this Government. All I can say is that I must be a much more simple Liberal; I do not need to assess the situation.

I have taken note of the 50 000 electors to whom Senator Cotton has referred and who signed petitions on this subject. I have taken note of the general attitude of the insurance industry in South Australia, which was the last State to establish a State government insurance office, and quite frankly I can see no benefit in such a step. In fact, when a State government insurance office was set up in my own State that State had some of the lowest insurance rates in Australia. As I said, it was the last State to establish such an office and its establishment was a contradiction.

I do not think we need argue in any detail about this matter. It is quite a simple matter. The Government is following its principles which are written out quite clearly, and I have often complimented the Labor Party upon its honesty in this respect. We can expect, if this Government should stay in office for any length of time, to find a considerable number of parallel Bills making further incursions into the private industrial and commercial sector of Australia. It is a common factor. The setting up of the Australian Wool Corporation included new moves which allowed new ventures of a semi-socialistic nature into wool processing and manufacture. In every piece of legislation we are to deal with under the Australian Labor Government it will quite honestly and openly move into fields which in the past our side has traditionally been able to reject quite easily because of its basic ideology; but apparently our ideology is failing us and we cannot see clearly that the Australian Government Insurance Corporation is not needed.

The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) has praised the operations of State government insurance offices. If we have State government insurance offices why do we need a Commonwealth office to compete with them? Why should we need a seventh office in Australia if there are already six and in some States- I think the Minister said- 2 offices offering a full range of services? We do not need another to compete with existing State government offices. The Minister has referred to crop insurance as though that is some new find in some far-flung country. He would know that that is a normal item in insurance, but he seems to dwell on disaster insurance, on insurance of an uneconomic nature. If there is going to be insurance of an uneconomic nature there is no need for him to say that he must have the profits of legitimate insurance. Surely he does not contend that the Government or any other government does not take the major share of any company profits in Australia. He knows full well, as the South Australian Premier said some years ago, there was no need to go into the business of nationalisation any further because the government of the day was already the largest shareholder in respect of the profit of any company in Australia.

The Minister speaks quite openly about this matter but does not openly say that it is the Government’s intention to add to its power to direct the investment funds which are at present accumulated privately in this country. It is all very well for him to point to a $ 1 m capitalisation and a small-scale competitive operation. That may be his attitude. If it is, I compliment him; but the fact is that we are referring to and considering legislation which will confer power which can be used by a Minister other than the present one and by a government other than the present one. The ability to adjust simply in one field the taxation rates and concessions, which the Minister referred to in a semi-critical fashion when he spoke of the great advantages that he says insurance companies enjoy in relation to taxation concessions for life assurance, would allow a government of the future to sway and to force assurance towards the Government Insurance Corporation. There would be no end to the ability of a government with different intentions to direct and to coerce private assurance and insurance towards its office at some future date.

There has been a pretty direct attack on mutual organisations by this Government and by the Minister. Some pretty scathing remarks have been made about funds and organisations which are totally mutual, which I thought was something to be commended but perhaps is to be derided by this present Minister who states that they have grown on the taxation concessions provided by governments. I should have thought that as they are mutual the benefit was the individual policy holder’s benefit and it was not to be taken to be the benefit of some large monopolistic commercial enterprise. If the Minister were to bring out the figures I think he would find that the overwhelming part of that benefit has been absorbed either in individual benefits to the taxpayers and the policy holders or to the people employed in the mutual funds in conducting that enterprise as a proper and legitimate employment opportunity which will be no different in a sense from any government insurance corporation activity. I have not done a great deal of research into the Minister’s speech.

Senator Wheeldon:

– That is obvious.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I do not have to because the Minister has not justified, in all the answers he has given in the Senate, the establishment of this office- the seventh ‘ government insurance office in Australia. The Opposition has given no reason for deferring this Bill and not defeating it this week. For that reason I do not intend to vote for a deferment.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– It seems to me that Senator Hall is undertaking a sort of pincer operation against the Liberal Party of Australia. Sometimes he is outflanking its members from the left. Today he is outflanking them from the right. Senator Cotton is sitting here like a chestnut surrounded by a pair of tongs wielded by Senator Hall, the simultaneous left wing Liberal and right wing conservative. Senator Hall has raised a couple of points which ought to be commented upon. He said that I have been critical of the use of funds by mutual societies. I have been, but not because they are mutual societies. My criticism was based solely on the use of funds by mutual societies for political purposes in supporting a particular political party. I have not criticised them because they were mutual societies. The other point which he has made is that the Government can, under the taxation law, do various things to the life offices. That is the case already. Whether there is an Australian Government Insurance Corporation or not, a suitable amendment to the various taxation Acts would enable us to do that. Interesting though this point that Senator Hall has discovered may be, it is quite irrelevant to the Bill.

I am pleased that even Senator Hall, in the new military uniform which he is wearing today and which he apparently prefers to his populist farmer’s suit which he wears on other occasions, has not talked about nationalisation. He did not say that somehow or other the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Corporation is part of our plans for nationalisation. I do not run away from the Australian Labor Party’s policy, but 1 would ask anybody who raises this question- I am pleased that even Senator Hall would not do that- how it would be in any way easier to nationalise private insurance companies, if that was one’s intention, whether there was an Australian Government Insurance Corporation or not. If one decided to nationalise the private companies and one had the numbers in both Houses of Parliament, one could do it without having an Australian Government Insurance Corporation.

Senator Wright:

– You might be subject to some doubt.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I might be subject to some doubt, and that is an affliction that has never befallen Senator Wright. Senator Hall asked why one needs an additional government insurance office if the State government insurance offices are providing a full range of services. The answer is that only 2 government insurance offices are providing anything like a full range of services. They are in the States of Mr Lewis and Mr Bjelke-Petersen; they are in no other States. Neither of those gentlemen has at any stage suggested that he intends to close the life or general insurance offices in his State- the States of New South Wales or Queensland.

Senator Cotton has asked whether there could be a direction of funds. He said that the second reading speech has not dealt with a direction of funds. The second reading speech has not dealt with it because the Bill gives no authority for a direction of funds. We have no more ability under this Bill to direct the funds of other insurance offices than we have already. There is absolutely no provision in this Bill relating to a direction of funds.

Senator Cotton:

– The situation could arise if a tax Act is amended in future.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Senator Cotton is talking about hypothetical legislation which may be introduced, but that would already be the case in any event. I say with respect to Senator Cotton, for whom I have great respect, that some subsequent tax Act amendment which would provide for a direction of funds has nothing to do with this Bill. Interesting though that possibility is, it is quite irrelevant to this Bill. We will in no way be more able or less able by tax Act amendments to direct funds if there is an Australian Government Insurance Corporation or not.

The last point which I come to, and which is the point which has agitated Senator Cotton’s mind greatly, is the presence of the 50 000 signatures on the petitions. On the figures with which I have been provided, less than half the members of the Liberal Party have signed the petitions, if its boasts of membership are correct. I think it amounts to one Australian in every 26 000 having placed his John Hancock, as the expression goes, on these interesting pieces of paper which have been presented to them. It does not seem to be awfully many, 50 000 people, when we consider the millions of Australian electors who voted for the Australian Labor Party on a policy of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. When I heard all these petitions read out I thought there were more, but I find that only 50 000 people have signed these petitions. With all the time that has been taken in this chamber listening to the petitions being read, it reminds one of that old saying that it was an unconscionable amount of water for such a small amount of me ‘. The Government does not believe that further study of this measure is needed.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Hear, hear!

Senator WHEELDON:

-I agree completely with Senator Hall on this point. I think he is right. He understands the position completely, without having read the second reading speech. If

Senator Hall can understand the position without having read the second reading speech, surely Senator Cotton can understand it as he has read the second reading speech. I agree completely with Senator Hall on this matter. The Government does not accept any deferment of this Bill. We will regard the carrying of this motion as a failure to pass the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Cotton’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Cotton’s amendment) be inserted.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

page 2120

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the affairs of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to be administered by the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. The Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, or HLIC as it is commonly called, was established by the previous Government in 1965 to assist people to obtain homes at reasonable rates of interest and on low deposit. It does this by insuring lenders against the risk of loss on housing loans of up to 95 per cent of the value of the dwelling. With this insurance, lenders can make low deposit housing loans with the same confidence as loans made to borrowers providing substantial equities.

Since its establishment, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation has assisted 168 000 families obtain homes by insuring loans totalling $2,040m. In 1973-74 some 47 per cent of the loans it insured were made to people whose incomes were equivalent to or less than average weekly male earnings. In June 1974, the Corporation’s assets totalled $ 15.5m, mainly representing a general reserve for future and contingent liabilities of $7m, and premium income applicable to future years of $8m. Its staff of 37 serves clients through offices in each State capital and in Launceston.

The effect of this Bill is to preserve the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation as a separate corporate entity within the structure of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. It has operated on a non-profit basis since its inception. This will be to the continuing benefit of persons seeking to secure finance for homes in adequate amounts and at reasonable rates of interest. Since its establishment, the Corporation has reduced the general body of its premium rates 3 times. They now stand among the lowest in the world within the field of mortgage loan insurance.

I now turn to the main concepts to which the Bill gives effect. The provisions of the principal Act relating to the constitution of the managing Board are repealed and the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Board will be charged with the management of the business of the Corporation. Provision is made for the existing staff of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation to be employed by the Australian Government Insurance Corporation on terms and conditions of employment not less favourable than those which they presently enjoy. As a consequence, the Bill repeals the specific provision for the engagement of staff under the principal Act. The Bill requires the Board of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation to keep separate books of account and records of the activities of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. These will be subject to audit by the Auditor-General. The existing financial provisions in the Principal Act are therefore repealed.

The ultimate effect of the Bill will be that, while the Board of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation will disappear and while it will not have its own separate staff, the separate corporate personality of the Corporation will be retained, even though it will be integrated for administrative and economic convenience into the structure of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation for day to day management.

The special provisions of the principal Act which have made the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation an effective instrument in our national housing policy will be retained.

I feel it would be inappropriate to allow this occasion to pass without placing on record the Government’s deep appreciation of the service which has been rendered to the community by those persons who have served on the Board of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and are serving on the Board at present, and I trust that similar opportunities for them to serve Australia will be found in the future. To this we should add the recognition of the contribution of the staff of the corporation whose rights, as I have pointed out, will be protected under this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Wheeldon) proposed:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– The earlier series of fascinating and interesting speeches with regard to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill was in a cognate debate. Both these Bills march together. I have no more illuminating remarks to make. I move:

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– in reply- I feel that I have answered all the questions that have already been asked. There is no need for me to say anything except that the Government would regard the carriage of this outrageous amendment that has been moved by Senator Cotton as a failure to pass the Bill.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Cotton’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne)

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Cotton’s amendment) be inserted.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

page 2122

RAILWAYS (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill, together with the Railways (Tasmania) Bill 1975 which I shall present shortly, represents the first major step towards the creation of a truly national railway system. The present Australian Government is not claiming originality for this program. Quite clearly, the need for a unified railway was in the minds of Australia’s founding fathers in 1897 when they incorporated into the Australian Constitution section 51 (xxxiii), which gave to the Australian Parliament power with respect to: acquisition- acquisition with the consent of a State- of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State.

By the turn of the century, the statesmen of the then colonial governments were only too aware of the problems that had come about because of the separate development of the railway systems, for by 1897 railways in eastern Australia had reached colonial borders and the effects of probably the greatest tragedy in Australia ‘s transport history were being felt- the lack of a uniform rail gauge.

The transfer of the State railways to the Australian Government has been portrayed by the Opposition as a centralist and socialist measure. I doubt if men of the political character of Barton, Griffith, Kingston and Deakin could be described as socialist or centralist as they gave to Australia a federal Constitution. Yet they were practical men who saw the need for the coordinated development of Australia’s transport system and incorporated in the Constitution provisions which would enable the establishment of the Inter-state Commission and a national railway system. Regrettably Australia has had to wait for a government with a truly national approach to transport problems before the vision of the framers of the Constitution could commence to be realised.

The division of responsibility for Australia’s railways among 6 States and the Australian Government has led to dis-economies such as duplication of facilities and administration; inefficient operating procedures; poor utilisation of available resources; limited standardisation of equipment; and the lack of a uniform approach to railway policy. In recent decades, the increasing need for new capital investment in railways and the inability or reluctance of the State governments to meet this need has magnified the difficulties resulting from this diversity of interests and approaches.

The fruits of the haphazard development of our railways are now all too apparent. Each system has its own design staff, with highly skilled personnel carrying out unnecessarily duplicated functions. On standard gauge lines alone there are more than 9 different designs of car-carrying wagons. If one extends this to the other classes of wagons one begins to understand why rolling stock manufacturers have headaches in trying to rationalise their construction programs. Changing train crews and remarshalling trains at State borders wastes both time and resources. Signalling systems differ from State to State. Even simple but vital safety devices such as handbrakes are located in different places on freight wagons in different systems, and shunter’s steps on wagons from different systems vary in height, design and situation on the vehicle. To the layman looking at the 2 consists of the Southern Aurora, which are jointly owned by New South Wales and Victoria, they seem to be identical trains. Little does he know that each consist has differently designed bogies, one design acceptable to New South Wales and the other acceptable to Victoria. There is even a case of where two adjoining State railway systems of the same gauge have the automatic staff exchangers on their engines on different sides, thus effectively precluding the through operation of these engines on express passenger and freight trains on either side of their common border.

It is no wonder then that the railways were basically incapable of coping with increased capital costs and the spirited- and mainly united and co-ordinated- competition provided by the road hauliers and freight forwarders. As a result freight has been diverted to inadequate highways with consequent economic and social costs to the community as a whole in the form of higher road maintenance costs and the human misery and personal financial burden road accidents bring. But the road hauliers could not be blamed for seizing a commercial opportunity. The freight had to be moved and the railways could not do the job because they did not have the wagon capacity. This Government was quick to react to this problem and has introduced a scheme under which Commonwealth Railways will purchase over 1300 wagons for inter-system use, which will be available for lease to the States. Additional purchases of wagons will be decided in the light of future needs.

The Government is committed to the upgrading of Australia ‘s railways. It has commenced the building of the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railwaya line only 70 kilometres shorter than the present line between Melbourne and Sydney. It has passed the necessary legislation to build a standard gauge railway between Adelaide and Crystal Brook which, when completed, will mean that all mainland capital cities will have a standard gauge connection. In addition, through the urban transport program the Government has contributed substantially to the modernisation of State urban railways in such fields as track duplication, improved signalling and passenger rolling stock.

The State railways are becoming an increasingly heavy burden to the State treat.suries. In fact, in 1973-74 the State railway systems collectively lost an estimated $306m and, in general, the State railway deficits are increasing faster than the increase in State revenue. It is therefore not surprising that Sir Henry Bolte and Sir Robert Askin offered their States’ railways to the then Australian Prime Minister, Mr Gorton. But it was left to the present Government to recognise the need for radical changes in Australia’s transport policy- in particular a national approach to the role of the railwaysand to do something about it. Accordingly, the

Prime Minister’s 1972 election policy speech included the following promise:

We will accept the offers of the New South Wales and Victorian Premiers for a transfer of their State railways systems and accept such an offer from any other State. In no other federal system in the world are railways conducted by State Governments or within State compartments.

This offer was confirmed in writing to all State Premiers in February 1973, and was reiterated at the Premiers Conference in June 1974. Regrettably, the responses of the non-Labor States have not matched the spirit of the offer. Victoria and Queensland have steadfastly refused to entertain the possibility that there might be some benefit in discussing the proposal, while the Court and Lewis governments have decided, in their wisdom, to break off the discussions commenced under their predecessors. However, I am hopeful that the experience of South Australia and Tasmania after transfer will cause the other States to rethink their position.

One may ask why the Government does not just provide the States with sufficient funds to bring their railways up to an acceptable standard. I must admit this solution has an elementary plausibility in that it would appease the States. But it would be a denial of our responsibility to the railways and the people of Australiathat awesome responsibility that accompanies the spending of public money. We cannot, and will not, divorce the responsibility for raising funds from the spending of them, because this has in the past given rise to exaggerated claims by the States on the one hand and an escapist attitude on the part of the Federal Government on the other. I am convinced that merely pouring additional funds into an outmoded and an inefficient system would have the effect of perpetuating, perhaps even increasing, its problems and that a new and co-ordinated approach is required for the nation as a whole to benefit. Already major transport projects undertaken by the Australian Government are subjected to rigorous cost-benefit analysis by the Bureau of Transport Economics to determine if they are economically justified and give them some order of priority. It is intended to apply the same strict standards to major railway investments.

Railways not only represent a physical investment but also represent a human investment. Many men and women devote their working lives to the railways and they have collectively formed some of the finest traditions in any government service. Only recently in a flood railwaymen repaired a major washaway on the Trans-Australian Railway, and in a third of the time it was expected to take. At the Finke River

Crossing on the Central Australia line men have often worked up to their waists in water and at personal risk to themselves to get trains through. There are many other examples I could cite. These traditions should be maintained as they are important to the morale and the overall efficiency of the railways. In an organisation as large as the Australian National Railways will become- with over an estimated 14 000 employees- individuals can feel lost. Also during a time of change, as the amalgamation of the South Australian, Tasmanian and Commonwealth railways will be, there is often a feeling of insecurity. For this reason, the ‘Principles to Govern the Transfer’ of the railways which were tabled in Parliament contained specific provisions to guarantee the jobs of present employees and that the terms and conditions of employment would be no less favourable than those that presently applied. Also the Bill before the Senate makes provision to ensure that employees’ superannuation, long service, sick leave and other entitlements are maintained.

The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) is also arranging for detailed discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and officers of the railway unions to establish methods of consultation and liaison which will ensure all railwaymen and women are fully informed on the progress of the transfer. Already trade union officials have been involved in the official discussions which led to the agreement to transfer the South Australian Railways and Tasmanian Government Railways. These trade union officials made a significant contribution to the transfer discussions through their detailed knowledge of industrial matters.

The South Australian Railways at present operate extensive urban rail services in the Adelaide metropolitan area. These railways have in the past been integrated into the total operations of the South Australian Railways and in many cases metropolitan lines provided the means for country and freight trains to enter the urban area. The staff that man these lines are SAR employees. The South Australian Government has decided to retain the SAR metropolitan railways because it sees a need to co-ordinate all urban passenger transport under one authority. The metropolitan lines South Australia will retain are described in Schedule One to the Agreement. Obviously, as a result of the South Australian decision arrangements will have to be made for ANR trains to work in and out of the metropolitan area, and specific arrangements are made in the Agreement to cover such operational areas as running and servicing. However, the staff to man the metropolitan system will be ANR employees who will work under the general direction of the State Transport Authority. This means that all SAR employees will be transferred to the ANR. This arrangement offers advantages for both the Australian National Railways and the State Transport Authority as it prevents the duplication of manpower resources, personnel and training facilities. It also enables the employees of the ANR to continue to enjoy the social advantages of living in a large city as well as leaving the present career patterns of many railway employees unchanged. The unions concerned were involved in the discussion on this matter and have agreed with the proposal. 1 now turn to the more important provisions of the Bill. To assist senators in considering the Bill, I am having circulated explanatory notes which briefly discuss the purpose of each of its clauses and the clauses of the Agreement which accompany it. The Bill provides the legislation necessary for the Agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of South Australia to come into operation on the basis of the ‘Principles to Govern the Transfer of the nonmetropolitan South Australian Railway system to the Australian Government’ which were tabled in Parliament on 9 April 1975. The Agreement itself is contained in the Schedule to the Bill.

At present the South Australian Railways staff is over 8300 strong. Obviously it will take time to transfer these employees to Australian Government employment. Consequently it is planned to have an interim period of about one year commencing on 1 July 1975 when all assets- land, property, rights and interests- and liabilities of the non-metropolitan railways will be vested in the Australian National Railways Commission, as provided for in clause 5. During this interim period the State authorities- that is, the State Transport Authority and the SAR Commissioner -will operate the railways subject to the direction of the Australian National Railways. This arrangement is provided for in clause 6 of the Agreement.

It was recognised at a very early stage of the negotiations on the transfer that because of the important role the railways play in the State’s economy there would need to be provision in any agreement for the State to have some influence over the future operations of the railways. This need is met directly by clause 9, which requires the agreement of the State Minister to any proposed closure of lines or reduction in services. A similar arrangement has been made in relation to workshops where the State Minister for

Transport’s approval is required of any reduction in the general level of staff by reason of redundancy. Indirectly, the State is provided with a means of having its voice heard in operations of the ANR, as South Australia has the right to nominate a part time Commissioner to the ANR Commission for two 5-year terms. The appointment will be subject to the approval of the Minister for Transport and is provided for in clause 10 of the Agreement.

Obviously, even with the best will in the world, differences of opinion may arise relating to the operation of the railways. Clause 23 of the Agreement provides for arbitration in relation to specific areas of railway operations. This provision recognises the unique social role railways play in not only the lives of people but also those of communities, for in his deliberations the arbitrator can take into account the social and community as well as the economic factors affecting a particular disagreement.

The States have always looked upon their railways as a means of influencing State development, the main tool used being concessional railway rates. It would be irresponsible on the part of both the Australian and South Australian governments if we were to reach an agreement which failed to take into account the position of railway users who had made commercial investments and business decisions based on existing freight rates. To meet this situation clause 8(1) provides that ‘where, in general, fares, freight rates and other charges at the commencement date have established a relative advantage to the users, that advantage shall not be diminished ‘.

Honourable senators will remember that in the debate on the Australian National Railways Bill in the House of Representatives the Minister for Transport (Mr Jones) accepted an amendment proposed by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) relating to the ancillary services that the Commission can engage in. The definition of ‘services’ contained in clause 1 of the Agreement has been drawn with the honourable member’s amendment in mind for it defines services’ as ‘services including passenger and freight road services that are incidental or supplementary to, or are operated in association with the non-metropolitan railways’. I draw this to the attention of honourable senators particularly when they come to consider clause 1 3 of the Agreement which covers services associated with non-metropolitan railways.

The financial aspects of the Agreement are dealt with in Part IV of the Agreement, in clauses 18, 19, 20 and 21. Clause 18 provides for a payment to South Australia of $10m prior to the commencement date of the Agreement. Clause 19 provides for the taking over by the Australian Government of an agreed portion of the State’s debt. Clause 20 arises out of the interim period when the State authorities will operate the nonmetropolitan railways on behalf of the Australian Government. In effect the clause provides that any losses on operations will be funded by the Australian Government and similarly any profits will be paid to the Australian Government. Clause 21 sets out the principles to be observed in respect of the transfer of investments from the State to the Australian Superannuation Fund. Finally, I would like to stress the importance of co-operation to the success of the transfer program on the part of governments, unions and railway management. Problems will arise, and they are to be expected in a program as large as this, but they can be resolved if a spirit of understanding prevails. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Jessop) adjourned.

page 2126

RAILWAYS (TASMANIA) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

I present the Railways (Tasmania) Bill 1975, which is to approve the Agreement for the transfer of the Tasmanian Government Railways to the Australian Government. The Agreement is based on the ‘Principles to Govern the Transfer of the Tasmanian Government Railway System to the Australian Government’ which were tabled in the Australian Parliament on 23 April 1975 and in the Tasmanian Parliament on 1 May 1975. I have already outlined in my speech on the Railways (South Australia) Bill the reasons behind the Government’s rail transfer program, and the Agreement contained in the present Bill is basically along similar lines to the South Australian Agreement. I am having circulated to honourable senators explanatory notes to assist them in consideration of this Bill.

The Agreement which is embodied in the schedule to the Bill provides for an interim period commencing on 1 July when the Australian Government accepts financial responsibility for the Tasmanian Railways and has the assets of the railways vested in it. The interim period will terminate with the transfer of the railway staff to the Australian National Railways Commission. During this period the Tasmanian Transport Commission will administer the railway on behalf of the Australian National Railways, but subject to the direction and control of the ANR. The Agreement also provides for the Australian National Railways to operate ancillary services in Tasmania and extend its railways where necessary. Provision is also made for the continuation of the concessions presently available on the railways if the State so requests, provided the State meets the same proportion of their cost as it provided before the transfer. In the case of a dispute arising between the Australian and Tasmanian governments on payments for concessions and cessation of services on the railway, provision has been made for settlement by arbitration.

However, there are a number of provisions in the Bill which are directly related to Tasmania’s circumstances. Because of the importance of sea trade to Tasmania and the Government’s declared intention to see greater co-ordination between the ANR and the Australian National Line provision has been made for Tasmanian nominees to join both the Australian Shipping Commission and the Australian National Railways Commission. Both these appointments will be subject to the approval of the Minister for Transport and are provided for in clause 9 of the Agreement. At present the Tasmanian Transport Commission operates the Precision Tool Annexe at Launceston. Although its buildings are situated on railway land the Annexe is not part of the railway’s operations. Consequently, it has been decided that the Annexe will remain with the Tasmanian Government. Clause 1 9 provides for this and for the eventual removal of the Annexe from railway land, possibly within 10 years.

Obviously the financial aspects of the transfer Agreement with Tasmania differ from those agreed to with South Australia, as the Tasmanian railways are much smaller. The number of railways employees to be transferred to ANR employment is correspondingly fewer. South Australia as distinct from Tasmania is a ‘claimant State’ and the debt structures of the 2 railways differ considerably. The financial aspects of the Tasmanian Agreement are dealt with in clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17. Clause 14 provides for a payment to Tasmania of $5m in consideration for land, minerals and other assets when both the Australian and Tasmanian parliaments ratify the necessary legislation to approve the Agreement. Clause 15 provides for the taking over by the Australian Government of a specified portion of the railways debt. Clause 16 refers to the interim period during which any losses on the railways will be borne by the Australian Commission and any profits will be paid to the Australian Commission. Clause 17 is intended to ensure continuity of superannuation to any transferred employees. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 2127

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Motion (by Senator Bishop) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise on the motion for the first reading of a Bill which the Senate cannot amend in order to take advantage of the provisions of the Standing Orders and to speak to matters not relevant to the purposes of the Bill. I wish to speak on 3 specific matters. On 2 1 April this year I similarly spoke on the first reading of a Bill which the Senate could not amend. I drew attention to 2 specific matters. The first matter had come to my attention in May 1974 and, notwithstanding repeated requests to the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron), I had not been given an answer to the substantive inquiry. The other matter had originally arisen in July 1974 and, notwithstanding repeated requests again to the Minister for Labor and Immigration, no reply had been received.

The first matter concerned what I alleged to be and what on the material available was a fairly clear case of political discrimination by this Government, notwithstanding publicised boasts by the previous Minister for Immigration that no such discrimination had ever existed under the Whitlam Government. I instanced the case of Mr John Dvorseck who was Croatian by birth and who had applied for citizenship. Notwithstanding some 1 5 years residence in this country that citizenship had been denied and there was no indication from the Minister as to the circumstances or the reasons why that application was denied. The Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop), who represents the Minister for Labor and Immigration in this chamber, stated that he would take up the matter with the Minister for Labor and Immigration, have it checked and later report the circumstances to the Senate. I ask Senator Bishop who is now in the chamber to recall what he then said.

The second matter I raised on that occasion concerned a Mr Ivan Palovic who was also the subject of apparent discrimination on the same grounds. He had been denied a passport and the requests he had made for visits to Australia by his mother and father who are overseas had been subjected to a form of harassment and, in the result, neither of them came to Australia. The Postmaster-General did not then specifically say he would refer that matter to the Minister, as I have checked by reading the Hansard record, but I would have thought implicit in his response would have been the intention to refer this matter along with the other. I do not know what the situation has been since 21 April when these matters were raised, but I draw the Minister’s attention to them. I suggest that it is a totally unsatisfactory position when a matter, having a background of non-responsive letters and comments from the Minister, is raised in this chamber and, after a lapse of some 6 weeks, is still not rectified. I again ask the Minister for his response.

The second matter I wish to raise is again a matter I raised in this chamber with a desire that information should be obtained. It was a matter which I raised last Thursday with the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) who represents the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) in this chamber. It concerned the newspaper reports that officers of the Trade Practices Commission, accompanied by Federal police, had raided the home and business premises of a Sydney businessman on the previous Sunday. The Press report which appeared in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on Thursday, 29 May, went on to state that a number of documents were seized. It was also stated that this was the first time that action had been taken by the Trade Practices Commission. It was also indicated that no charges had yet been laid as a result of the raid but that investigations were continuing. The Minister assured me that he would speak to the Attorney-General- I do not doubt that he has done so- in pursuit of the inquiry which I made. I suggest to the Minister that this is a matter which requires urgent consideration. It is a matter which ought to be able to be raised in this chamber with a view to having a response at least within the next day of sitting.

The provisions of section 155 of the Trade Practices Act are quite explicit. There is no power given to the Federal police and there is no power given to seize documents. If the newspaper report is correct, then this is a matter which ought to concern the Senate. At the time when the Trade Practices Act was legislated in this chamber the Opposition, of course, drew attention to the width of the powers contained in that section and expressed concern as to how they might be used. We were unsuccessful in having the clause amended as we would have desired it to be amended, and it is now part of the legislation. In the circumstances I think it is only proper and prudent that whenever a case is publicised of the powers of that section being used and, on the reports which are evident, the powers being abused, there should be as speedy a revelation of the actual circumstances as it is within the Minister’s competence to provide. I mention this only because it ought to be clarified, I hope, by the next sitting day but certainly it should be clarified before the Senate rises this week.

The third matter arises from a question which was asked this morning and from what I would describe as the completely cavalier and disinterested response given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). It will be recalled that I asked a question concerning the entertainment by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and by the Australian Labor Party of the president of a body which has been outlawed in Chile and concerning the statements made by the President of Socialist International that the Australian Labor Party was prepared to give financial support to promote the clandestine activities of this outlawed body. I based my question upon a Press report, which appeared in the Australian ‘ on 1 7 May and which on my reading has not been denied, concerning the entertainment which was given. The article which was written by a journalist named Bruce Stannard was headed ‘Labor to help finance left in Chile’. It reads:

The Labor Party will help finance a return to socialist power in Chile.

The ALP national executive is expected to vote at its next meeting in Canberra in July to give several thousand dollars as part of a continuing aid program.

Money contributed by the ALP and 55 other members of Socialist International organisation will be used to help rebuild the clandestine Chilean Radical Party which was outlawed by Chile’s ruling Junta following the overthrow of the Allende Government.

The pledge of substantial financial support for the Chilean socialists will help take the ALP into the mainstream of international socialism. It was largely engineered by the ALP national secretary, Mr D. Combe, with the support of the party’s president, Mr R. J. Hawke, and the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam.

Mr Sicco Mansholt, vice chairman of Socialist International and former president of the European Economic Community, confirmed the Australian support in Sydney yesterday.

Although the ALP has stopped short of a direct public statement of support for the Chilean socialists, Mr Whitlam emphasised his personal support for the outlawed Chilean Radical Party when he hosted a dinner at The Lodge in Canberra on Wednesday for its president, the exiled senator, Anselmo Sule

Senator Sule was also the guest of honour at an ALP luncheon given at Parliament House the same day.

I am not saying what is to be financed in Chile’, Mr Mansholt said.

But 1 don’t think arms are the most important part of our struggle at the moment. We have to build up the party structure with the support of the people and this has to be done in a clandestine way’.

The significance of the situation is that the Australian Government recognises the Government of Chile. If there is truth in the allegations then what the Australian Government is doing is seeking to support and promote the underground activities of a body which is seeking to overthrow the government which we recognise. The implications of such a proposals are, of course, of immense significance. They involve more than simply niceties of diplomatic conduct, because we have seen a pattern developed by this Government since it has been in power in which it has promoted and assisted the cause of those who by terrorist and other methods seek to overthrow the established governments in these countries.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Before the suspension of the sitting I had drawn attention to what I thought were the implicit problems which the Government was creating by its activities on behalf of this clandestine group in Chile. It is a fact- I think it has been well established- that the Australian Prime Minister has pledged his support and that of his Party for subversive actions in various parts of the world. What he is doing with regard to Chile is indicating that his Government- the Australian Labor Party Government- is committing support for subversive actions and open intervention in the internal affairs of another country. This must be a cause for serious reflection. This must be a cause for great concern. The Australian Government has expressed hostility towards Chile on many occasions. I accept that the Australian Government has a mandate to govern in this country, but it has no mandate to govern in Chile.

I have raised these matters because I think the fact that they pose questions of great principle for Australia brooks no real questioning. What I feel is a matter of equal concern is the way in which the Foreign Minister treats any question in regard to the alleged double standards which Australia exhibits. I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question today as to how the Government justified its intervention in the affairs of Chile when we recognise the Government of that country. I think it is fair comment to say that the Foreign Minister treated that question with disdain. He was not interested in answering it. He engaged in a few off-the-cuff remarks about not being concerned with the culinary arts of dinners or luncheons which the Prime Minister or the Australian Labor Party gives, and ignored the substance of the question which was asked. When I asked a supplementary question, for which leave was granted by you, Mr President, as to whether double standards were operating, I was met with the response that the question might go on notice. The Foreign Minister either knew of this dinner and knew of what the Prime Minister had said or he did not. If he did not know, it is a sorry reflection upon the way in which the affairs of this Government are conductedthat commitments of the character which the Prime Minister has expressed may be entered into without the Foreign Minister being aware of them. If the Foreign Minister had been appraised of what was said by the Prime Ministerfor all I know he may have been present at both functions; one supposes that he should have been present at both functions- he ought to have been able to answer the question and he ought to have been able to indicate whether the Government was exhibiting double standards or whether it was following the one principle in the conduct which it was adopting.

To what extent should Australia be prepared to seek to overthrow another government? We in the Opposition, during the years that we were in government, sought to uphold the established Government of South Vietnam. The Government of South Vietnam had applied to be a member of the United Nations and had been refused, but it was an entity which in accordance with the accepted canons which academic international law recognises was in control of the territory over which it exercised paramountcy. Yet that Government was sought to be overthrown by insurgency from within, aided by aggression from North Vietnam and a continual supply of arms, munitions and the weapons of war by the major powers which supported the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong cause. The Australian Government and the American Government sought to maintain the established Government of South Vietnam.

Senator McLaren:

– You were both proved wrong.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Whether the Australian and American governments were proved wrong is not the core of the argument which I am putting forward. The fact is that the Government of South Vietnam was the established government. It was overthrown by an insurgency aided throughout the period of insurgency by the Government of North Vietnam and finally, in the result, by open aggression- undisputed aggression. Yet the Australian Government was not prepared to assert the rights of the established Government of South Vietnam, a government, may I say, elected in accordance with democratic processes, which could not be said of the Government of North Vietnam which was seeking to overthrow it. But that is now part of history. What is a matter of current concern is the fact that the Government in Chile, albeit a government which has come into power by overthrowing the constitutionally elected government, has been recognised by the Australian Government as the valid Government of Chile. We are seeing, I believe, an example of double standards.

The Australian Government is prepared to support clandestine organisations engaged in subversion against the Chilean Government. Indeed, we have seen the Government yield abjectly to the pressure of the militant trade unions which will not allow us to engage in a wheat trade with Chile. It is part and parcel of the same pattern of yielding to the militant, left wing, communist influences in Australia and out of Australia which seek to denigrate the present Government of Chile. I sought to ascertain from the Minister for Foreign Affairs some information on this question. I understand he was informed that I was proposing to raise this matter at this time. He chooses not to come into the chamber. That is the way in which I suppose, in the dying days of this Government, the foreign affairs of this country are to be conducted.

All I say is that on the occasion when the junta in Chile took over and at the occasion of the swearing-in ceremony of the new government, the military leaders pledged to return the country to constitutional rule as soon as circumstances permitted. That is what they said, and they have not been able to do that at the moment. I believe that the ultimate return to constitutional rule will be delayed if clandestine, subversive movements are seeking to overthrow the existing government. After all it was that sort of situation, promoted by the government of President Allende, which led to the reaction which ultimately resulted in the coup. If the Government of President Allende backs military and guerrilla groups and arms them with a view to establishing the authority of a government which is acting unconstitutionally, there is bound to be a reaction. What we are seeing at present -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Why did the Christian Democrats disown them?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I did not understand that the Christian Democrats have disowned them. The Christian Democrats, as I think Senator Gietzelt well knows, were people who initially supported President Allende into power and they were the people who, when they learned of the excesses in which President Allende was engaging, revised the initial views they held. I cannot speak of what the Christian Democrats have done in recent years but I do know that this particular Chilean Radical Party which the Labor Party is sponsoring is a party which has been outlawed and banned and that it has engaged in activities designed to overthrow the Government which this present Australian Government recognises. If Senator Gietzelt is prepared to explain I will be interested to hear how he justifies the support his Party is giving to an organisation which is seeking to overthrow a government in Chile which his own Government in Australia recognises. It is the unwillingness of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to answer these questions which I think ought to concern the Senate. I make these points only to emphasise what I think is worth emphasising and that is that this Government could not care less about the rights of senators to get answers to questions, about the rights or opportunities of persons who are not of the same mould, persuasion or political thinking as the Australian Labor Party. The sooner this can be brought home to the Australian people the better and I raised these instances for that purpose.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was fascinated throughout Senator Greenwood’s speech to hear the constant reiteration of the word ‘clandestine’. Let us look at the situation with which we are dealing. What the honourable senator is objecting to, insofar as I could detect a coherent theme in his remarks, is that a social democratic party, namely the Australian Labor Party, should maintain fraternal relations with a social democratic party which has been overthrown by force of arms in another country. I would seriously ask Senator Greenwood to give me further and better particulars of his complaints about our conduct. As I understand the recent history in Chile, a legally elected government that was seeking to produce some reform and improvements in the social relationships in that country was overthrown by a combination of military forces -

Senator Poyser:

– And the CIA.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As Senator Poyser interjected, I think with some point, that Government was overthrown- I think there is some evidence of this- with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Senator Greenwood:

– I do not think you can identify the evidence, can you?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think 1 can.

Senator Greenwood:

– I would be interested if you could because you would be producing evidence of world interest.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Given enough time I can produce authority to indicate that the subversion- ‘subversion’ is a word that Senator Greenwood is very fond of- of the legally elected government of Chile was assisted and advanced by the CIA and by some rather sinister forces in American society.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You know perfectly well that under the Constitution of Chile the armed forces are responsible for the preservation of the Constitution.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has reduced his contributions to these debates to interjections which are rather declamatory and unsupported by evidence. I suggest that if he feels so powerfully about this argument he should stand up in his place.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I shall.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am glad to hear that statement. I would welcome it if the level of this debate were to be raised somewhat above the post-prandial enthusiasm that we are accustomed to in this place.

Senator Greenwood:

– It was started before dinner.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was much more rational before dinner. It has become more euphoric and, if I may be excused a term that the honourable senator might find embarrassing, a note of ratbaggery has entered the debate since dinner. I would like to remind Senator, Greenwood of appearances that he has made at gatherings that are called the captive nations gatherings. His theme, insofar as I can detect a theme, is that it is improper for the Australian Government to be interested in the fate of dispossessed governments. I would like Senator Greenwood to follow that chain of logic that I am attempting to develop.

Senator Wright:

– Difficult though it is.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would like Senator Wright to attempt to do so also. I would like this splenetic old fossil, Senator Wright, to attempt also to follow the chain of logic I am attempting to develop. I understand that Senator Greenwood and his blood brother Mr Wentworth constantly attend yearly gatherings that are called the captive nations gatherings. At each of those gatherings they incite discredited, decrepit old representatives -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Ex Nazis.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Ex Nazis of banished regimes -

Senator Wright:

– Humbug.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I do not need any protection but I would suggest that the neanderthal grunts of Senator Wright should be restrained in the interests of having the people on his side of the House also hear what I have to say.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I would like to hear Senator James McClelland.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In any event, every year it has been the custom for discredited, dispossessed Nazi and ex-fascist regimes from Hungary, Rumania, Latvia, and so on, to gather to lament the disappearance of regimes which belong in the scrapbin of history. At each of those gatherings it has been customary for people like Senator Greenwood, Mr Wentworth, and a certain man named Darby from New South Wales to turn up and to promise in the name of the Australian people that we would be dedicated to the restoration of the regimes that had been thrown out by their countrymen. Now we have Senator Greenwood appearing before us today and reproaching us because we have some sympathy with a legitimate regime, the regime which won the majority of the votes in the Republic of Chile; that we sympathise with these people who were overthrown by a military dictatorship. I think, as they say in the law, cadit quaestio If Senator Greenwood would take pause to examine the merits of this debate he would realise that his taking part in this debate was counter-productive; that he has no case to defend; that he has no leg to stand on. We, in seeking to establish solidarity with a legitimate democratic regime which was overthrown by a coup d’etat in Chile, have nothing to apologise for and have everything to be proud of.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (8. 1 9)- I intervene to protect my colleague Senator Greenwood who, under the forms of this Senate, was entitled to speak to the motion for the first reading of the Bill which is now before the Senate. He has an absolute entitlement to do so. In this debate he properly, I suggest, drew the attention of honourable senators to what is becoming perfectly clear- clear to anyone who can hear, read and think- and that is the double standards in the contexts of our foreign policy. That was the argument he advanced, and he is entitled not only to claim that there are double standards but also to indicate how the double standards exist and how they are maintained. The subject matter was the problem in the Republic of Chile. What has been carefully overlooked, with the lawyer’s skill of Senator James McClelland, is that there is a constitutional provision- by word, by clause, by specification- in the Republic of Chile making the armed forces responsible for the preservation of the Chilean Constitution. That is the first thing to be clearly understood. The second thing that has to be clearly understood is that the dead President of Chile was elected by about 34 per cent to 36 per cent of the popular vote.

Senator McLaren:

– That is more than BjelkePetersen got in Queensland.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I do not know how many cockerels and how many hens you have on your farm, Senator, but it is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Honourable senators, I am calling for order. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack must be heard in silence.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-Thank you, Mr President. I am quite prepared to listen to the babble.

The PRESIDENT:

– Do not be provocative, Senator.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I am not being provocative.

Senator McLaren:

– Not much.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I am not being provocative. The next chapter in this story is that the armed forces- whether rightly or wrongly I am not going to argue; I am just putting the plain historical, constitutional and legal facts before honourable senators- and President Allende, as the leader of his particular Party, then had to go to the parliament or the congress or whatever it is called in Chile. There was then a temporary combination for various partisan reasons that we on this side of the Senate can well understand, having witnessed the events of the last 36 hours, and Mr Allende or Senor Allende, or however he was described, was elected as the President of Chile. Then, having got hold of the levers of power, he began to carry out some unconstitutional acts which finally drove that element of the Constitution of Chile into, assuming the role which the Constitution provided for it. They decided that President Allende had to go. It was a case of force majeure.

Senator McLaren:

– The Darbys and the Greenwoods of Chile decided that.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-The armed forces of Chile, protected by their constitutional role to preserve the Constitution of Chile, decided that.

Senator Gietzelt:

– What nonsense.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-You tell me differently, Senator Gietzelt. You have been reading the ‘Tribune’ for so long that you believe it is holy gospel.

Senator Gietzelt:

– And you have been reading Mein Kampf for too long too.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

Whatever it is, whatever it was, the facts are that an arsenal existed in the presidential palace and finally the regime of President Allende was overthrown. I am not going to argue about this one way or the other. The facts are that a military dictatorship, not uncommon in Latin South American Republics, ensued. Now, the argument is this, and this is what Senator Greenwood was arguing: Is there existing in any Australian Government a right to support a contrary force in Chile? That is what has been happening, not only in Chile but in other areas, as Senator Greenwood has explained.

Then we got down to that miserable riposte by Senator James McClelland. His argument contained not one shred of truth. It was not based on any understanding. He displayed a gross ignorance of the events in Chile. He claims to be a lawyer, but he did not understand even the constitutional provisions of that Republic. Then he went into sneering remarks about postprandial debates and so forth. I resent that. I have never involved myself in that in my life, and I have sat in the Senate for a great number of years. I resent the intrusion of a glib lawyer from Sydney attempting to do what Senator James McClelland has done here tonight. I have risen only to protect my colleague, who was asserting the rights that are embodied in this Senate, and for him to be attacked by another member of his profession who is supposed to be obedient at least to the ethics and qualities that should descend upon all lawyers is a most distasteful experience for me to sit and listen to. I hope that this is the end of the argument.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I have been blissfully spared most of this debate, but there are some comments that I feel constrained to make on the subject. The first is that what has been said about the Chilean Constitution is a total misrepresentation of that Constitution. In fact, even if the point were to be made that the armed forces did have the right which by some curious source of misinformation Senator Sir Magnus Cormack relies upon, even if the armed forces had that authority, I should have thought that the honourable senator would have been well aware of the fact that the Chief of the Chilean General Staff, General Gonzalez Prats, opposed the coup which took place against the democratically elected government and fled the country and was subsequently murdered. To say that the armed forces of Chile have a right, when the Chief of that country’s General Staff opposed this -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– He died in the Argentine; you know that.

Senator WHEELDON:

-He was murdered in the Argentine.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You say he was murdered. He died there.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Not only do I say that, but if we are talking about the facts, it was the verdict of the Buenos Aires coroner’s court that he had been murdered. In any event, whatever the cause of his decease may have been, he had fled Chile, in which country he had been the Chief of the General Staff. In fact, the Chief of Staff of the Chilean Air Force also was subsequently arrested. I find it curious that people who argue for the virtues of the parliamentary system justify the seizure of armed power in Chile, a country which has a long democratic tradition. I do not want to labour that point; I believe that it has been dealt with. I believe the facts speak for themselves. But Senator Greenwood and Senator Sir Magnus Cormack believe that it is appropriate that if you do not like a government the armed forces are entitled to use force to remove that government. That is what those honourable senators have said, and in order to justify that point of view they felt entitled completely to misstate the history of the country. In fairness to them, probably they do not know the history of the country, but I think that their crass errors ought to be pointed out. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack told the Senate that Dr Allende was elected with 34 per cent of the votes. He obtained 34 per cent of the primary vote. There was then a run-off election and the Christian Democrats voted for him. When he was elected ultimately he was elected with over 60 per cent of the votes because the Christian Democratic Party supported him in the run-off election. So an overwhelming majority was received by Dr Allende. It is interesting to note that not only the radical party but the other parties which were in popular unity are now being persecuted in Chile by the Facist regime- and I use the term quite deliberately and not in any loose sense- which includes the Christian Democratic Party of Chile, which is associated with the Italian, French and West German Christian Democrats, who have engaged in similar solidarity with the Chilean Christian Democrats as we have engaged with the Radical Party.

Senator Greenwood believes that there is something wrong about the Socialist International meeting in Australia, that somehow it is a subversive body and that we should not entertain to lunch or dinner a representative of the Radical Party an affiliated party of the Socialist International. The Radical Party had 120 consecutive years of legal existence in Chile. It was one of the oldest continuously existing political parties in the world. It was legal during all of that period and has only been illegal for a little over 2 years as a result of illegal military action taken by the Chilean military junta.

Senator Greenwood:

– It is recognised by this Government.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes, that is right. We recognise that and we recognise a number of others. We recognise the Government of South Africa and I believe we should recognise the South African Government. But I have been pleased and honoured to have been associated with members of the African National Congress which is illegal in that country. I believe there is nothing inconsistent whatsoever in doing those things. But let us come to the Socialist International, the body about which Senator Greenwood is speaking with all the confidence of total ignorance and is able to slander here tonight.

Who were the people who were also at the dinner with former Senator Sule, the man who legally still should be a senator in the Chilean Parliament? Mr Sicco Mansholt was there, for many years Minister for Agriculture in the Netherlands Government, and the former Chairman of the Commission of the European Economic Community. This is one of the subversives who has been uncovered by Senator Greenwood.

I know the Press will ignore the outpourings that have been going on here tonight, but it is a pity. I think the greatest service that the Press of Australia could do for the Australian Labor Party would be to report verbatim every speech made by Senator Greenwood. If only it could be revealed that Senator Greenwood gets up in the Senate and exposes the former Chairman of the Commission of the European Economic Community as a dangerous conservative, even the most addle-Dated recipient of League of Rights literature in the electorate of Maranoa would have doubts about casting a vote for the Opposition at any time in the future.

What other parties were represented at this meeting of the Socialist International? Apart from the Australian Labor Party, those who were represented included the British Labor Party, the New Zealand Labor Party and the West German Social Democratic Party. Is Senator Greenwood going to tell us that Helmut Schmidt and Willie Brandt are subversives, plotting against the legal government? Others represented were the French Socialist Party, the Norwegian Labor Party, the Danish Social Democratic Party- the Government of Denmarkthe Social Democratic Party of the Netherlands represented by Mr Sicco Mansholt himself, and the Israeli Labor Party.

When the occasion suits Senator Greenwood he says that he is a champion of Israel. But how does he refer to the democratically elected representatives of the Israeli people? Which is the principal party in the coalition government in Israel? It is the Israeli Labor Party and their representative was present at the meeting of the Socialist International which was held in Adelaide and at the luncheon which was held in Canberra. I personally felt it was an honour to be associated with civilised people who brought some rationality. Senator Greenwood and Senator Wright, whose understanding of international politics is equivalent to the understanding I would have of astrophysics, tell us that the Socialist International is a subversive organisation. The people of all these parties have stood four-square for democracy throughout Western Europe and Asia: The party of Helmut Schmidt, the party of Sicco Mansholt, the party of Harold Wilson, the party of General Rabin, the Prime Minister of Israel. I think it ought to be noted that shortly after the Chilean coup took place the exiled secretary of the Chilean Radical Party was the guest of the Government of Israel, which at that time was in a beleaguered position surrounded by hostile Arab countries. All the parties 1 mentioned have stood four-square for democracy and have been the principal bulwarks against barbarism, whether they have come from countries which erroneously describe themselves as socialist, or which dishonestly describe themselves as democratic, like Senator Greenwood and Senator Wright.

I do not think anything more need to be said about this subject except to say that, if all one wanted was a display of crass ignorance- I do not just talk about attitudes but crass, abject ignorance- it was embodied in the fatuous gestures of Senator Wright. If only we had a television camera and if every word of Senator Greenwood could be heard and every gesture and grimace of Senator Wright could be seen we would not need to spend a penny on any election campaign; we would win with an undisputed majority, the same sort of majority as that which was gained by Dr Allende when he was elected President of Chile in the last democratic elections that took place in that country.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Gietzelt.

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr President, I seek to be heard under the terms of standing order 410.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator Greenwood:

– Yes, Mr President, in what Senator Wheeldon said.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are sorry you got into this, aren’t you, Senator? You have been mauled.

Senator Greenwood:

– I am seeking to correct the record.

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges wishes to take a point of order. What is the point of order?

Senator Georges:

– My point of order is this: The debate is not concluded because Senator Gietzelt rose to his feet. If Senator Greenwood states he has been misrepresented by previous speakers, we may find that Senator Greenwood will get up again after Senator Gietzelt has spoken. Surely the right place for a personal explanation is at the end of a debate rather than during the debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! No. The standing order provides that a senator who claims to have been misrepresented can rise to his feet after the speaker has concluded his speech. The speaker, Senator Wheeldon, has concluded his speech and Senator Greenwood was called to make his personal representation. He is proceeding now to show the Senate where he was misrepresented. I call Senator Greenwood.

Senator Greenwood:

- Senator Wheeldon said that I had said that I gave support to the right of armed forces to use armed force to overthrow a government of which they disapproved, or words to that effect.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Yes, that is right.

Senator Greenwood:

– I have never said that. I do not assert that principle. There are circumstances in this whole Chilean exercise which have never been explained. But I did not say and I do not argue that and, to the extent that it is said that I did so argue, there is a misrepresentation.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I accept your apology.

Senator Greenwood:

– I am happy to have the apology.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I accept your apology.

Senator Greenwood:

– The fact is that I never said it. The second point is that I said nothing whatsoever about the propriety of the Socialist International coming to Australia. It was said by Senator Wheeldon that I had urged that it was a wrong thing for the Socialist International to meet in Australia. I never did. Therefore, the argument which is built up on that point lacks of proper foundation. It was said that I had in some way criticised the man who, I think, is the VicePresident of the Socialist International, Sicco Mansholt, and that I was in some way at fault for criticising a distinguished man who had held eminent positions overseas.

Senator Wheeldon:

– That is right.

Senator Greenwood:

– The fact is that I did not criticise him and nothing I said- the record will bear this out- would justify any accusation that I did. In fact, I relied upon him and his standing to prove the point I was making. It was this man who had said- who confirmed the newspaper reports- that financial support was coming from the Australian Labor Party for this subversive, clandestine organisation in Chile. It was in reliance upon what Sicco Mansholt said that his name was used, and not in any way to criticise him.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Is the honourable senator making a speech or correcting a misrepresentation?

Senator Greenwood:

– I am correcting a misrepresentation.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You are making another speech, Senator.

Senator Greenwood:

– I did not say, Mr President, as was alleged-

Senator Poyser:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I call Senator Poyser.

Senator Poyser:

– Under the guise of making a personal explanation, Senator Greenwood is, in fact, replying to the debate. He has no right so to do. He is making a second speech on the matter. I ask that he be prevented from doing so.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Greenwood claimed to have been misrepresented and I believe that he has been misunderstood. The next speaker was Senator Gietzelt.

Senator Greenwood:

– I should like to respond further to the misrepresentation, if I may, Mr President.

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! What is the point of order?

Senator Georges:

– My point of order rests on standing order 410, the standing order which Senator Greenwood cited. Having listened to Senator Greenwood now for quite some time, surely, Mr President, we ought not to allow this Senate to drift into a misuse of standing order 410. This is exactly what Senator Greenwood is doing. If he is permitted to continue we will introduce into the Senate a device that will be misused and upon which you will find some considerable difficulty in ruling, Mr President. For that reason, I ask you to reconsider the point of order raised under standing order 410 and at least rule that Senator Greenwood should limit his correction to one of extreme brevity, not enter into an explanation and reply to the previous speaker. That is exactly what he is doing. I am afraid that, if he is permitted to get away with this tonight, to use the vernacular, senators on both sides of the chamber will be rising and taking advantage of the standing order in a similar way and the whole of the proceedings of the Senate could be disrupted. The future of proceedings now rests very much, Sir, upon a decision on how standing order 410 should operate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall have to rely on Senator Greenwood to show the requisite brevity in exercising his right under standing order 410, which provides that he is entitled to:

  1. . explain himself in regard to some material part of his speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood, but shall not introduce any new matter . . .

I call Senator Greenwood.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-There was one further point of misrepresentation. It was stated by Senator Wheeldon that I had said that Socialist International was a subversive organisation. 1 said nothing whatsoever of that character. The point I had made was that it was up to the Government to explain why it was giving financial support, as Sicco Mansholt had said, to a subversive clandestine organisation in Chile. That was the point I made, and I am still awaiting an answer.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– It would appear that, as far as Senator Greenwood is concerned, he is involved in a retreat from Moscow. He continues to live in the cold war period, and it is obvious that he and his colleagues who have spoken in this debate have no understanding of the role of the Australian Government or of the Australian Labor Party in its affiliation with Socialist International. I should like to remind honourable senators, if it is possible to get under the veneer of their sterile anti-communism, that the Socialist International is an organisation of social democratic parties whose objective is to bring about social change through constitutional means. The interesting fact in relation to Chile was that an attempt was being made to eradicate the evils of poverty and discrimination that existed in that country, and it is obvious that neither Senator Greenwood nor Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has any understanding of the evolutionary development in that country.

It is worth noting that, when Senator Wheeldon who must be acknowledged, I think, as a person with some understanding of international events- endeavoured to answer the tirade of abuse to which we were subjected by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack saw fit to leave the chamber. This indicates the closed mind concept of the members of the Liberal Party, and demonstrates the inevitability of the criticism Senator Steele Hall has levelled at the members of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party over the year or so he has been here, that it is futile to hope that they can accustom themselves and condition their thinking to the changed world situation.

President Allende was a legally elected president of a republic of southern America. He enjoyed the support of a wide variety of parties considered to be on the Left, including those slightly left of centre, of which the Radical Party was one. Senator Greenwood has no understanding of the role of the Radical Party in Chile, and that is an indication of his own sterility in international affairs. Of course, he has indicated over a whole period of time that he has no understanding of the events taking place anywhere in the world. I do not want to traverse the ground covered by Senator Wheeldon, but it is worth drawing to the attention of the Senate that Mr Sule the Leader of the Radical Party, who came to this country, was able to convince all the members of Socialist International, which is representative of the broad stratum of social democracy on the international scene, of the terrorism that exists in Chile and of the unconstitutionality of the military group currently running affairs in that country. Of course, the Australian Government has recognised the reality that that group is in control of Chile.

That does not mean, however, that we condone their seizure of power, nor does it mean that we will not be related to those elements that seek to have a constitutional rearrangement in Chile in order that that country can proceed along the path of emancipation for its people. One person in three in Chile lives on or below the poverty line. Despite the country’s great wealth, the vast majority of people live, if not on the poverty line, then very close to it. It should be within the knowledge of Senator Greenwood, although I seriously doubt his ability to understand, that the Chilean Parliament unanimously agreed to a proposition presented to it by the late President Allende that the copper mines of Chile should be nationalised. One could understand that this decision could have been taken by the Chilean Government if one understood the degree of poverty, deprivation and discrimination existing in that country. It is no accident that the Christian Democratic Party, which one could generally describe as being of a conservative nature, having its counterparts in the governments of Italy and many other parts of Europe, has now officially dissociated itself from the military junta and has called for the return of constitutional government in Chile.

It is no accident that, similarly, the Catholic Bishops of Chile have condemned the terrorism and the violence of the present military group existing in that country and exercising political power. I have had an opportunity which, of course, is not denied to members of the Opposition, to learn something of the situation in Chile. The opportunity is denied to them only because of their subjective attitude and their inability to talk to people who come to this country trying to tell us what has happened in Chile. As an example, I can mention Mrs Bachelet whose husband was a general in the Chilean air force, who was regarded in Chile as being a constitutionalist, and who pledged himself to constitutional change in that country. In 1 974 he died in the prisons of Chile as a result of the tortures and violence perpetrated on him by the Chilean authorities. His wife until then had been nonpolitical, but she sought to come to this country to try to acquaint us of the developments taking place in that unhappy land. He was in charge of food supplies and as a result of his adherence to the constitutional practices of the Chilean Government, led by the late President Allende, he was put in gaol and suffered violence, torture and subsequently death.

I make no apologies for Socialist International having held its conference in Adelaide. The representatives were subsequently given a dinner here in Parliament House, and I was one of the prime organisers of it. A dinner was also tendered at the Lodge by the Australian Prime Minister. Mr Sule was able to tell us of the tragedy that had taken place in his country. Let Senator Greenwood make no bones about it: Those who are at the moment exercising military and political power in Chile will not be holding political, economic and military power much longer. It is to the disadvantage of those of us who want to see social change brought about by constitutional means that people like Senator Greenwood try to suggest that the forces for social change by constitutional and democratic means are acting against the best interests of the people. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack talked about the fact that there were arms in the Presidential Palace. What is wrong with that? Is it wrong for the President who holds the political and constitutional power to have arms within the Presidential Palace when it was common knowledge within the country that there were members of the armed forces who were seeking to overthrow the constitutional government? Of course Senator Greenwood would find it hard to understand this because when he was Attorney-General he nurtured Croatian terrorists in Australia. He was the one who took very little action to try to curb Croatian terrorism and the bombings and violence which were commonplace in this country when he was Attorney-General.

Senator Greenwood:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. To say of anybody that he nurtured terrorists is offensive.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Greenwood has complained that the words ‘nurtured terrorists’ used by Senator Gietzelt are offensive.

Senator GIETZELT:

– If the truth hurts, Mr President, I suppose I will have to be prepared, in the interests of continuing the debate, to withdraw any inference that might have hurt Senator Greenwood. The facts are, of course, that since the Labor Party came to office there has been no violence or bombings involving Croatian terrorists.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– It seems to me to be somewhat of a tragedy that tonight on the motion for the first reading of a Bill which seeks to increase stevedoring charges we have embarked on a debate on international affairs without any warning from the Opposition.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And nobody is listening to it.

Senator BISHOP:

-That is right. The proceedings are not being broadcast and, as my colleagues have said, the details of the debate will not be printed in the Press. This matter is not a question of great moment except in the eye of the people who raised it. Senator Greenwood started somewhat logically by saying that the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, had not answered some questions about 2 persons whom he had been talking about for some months. I accept that. But then he went off on a tirade covering Allende, South Vietnam and the world. I think that most of the points he has put up have been properly answered. All I want to say about the first point he raised is that my colleague, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, has said that he is reluctant to give in the Parliament answers to Senator Greenwood’s questions because the 2 persons referred to have been the subject of inquiry by officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation who were appointed by Senator Greenwood in his capacity as Attorney-General but that he, the Minister, is prepared to show the files to Senator Greenwood and then if the honourable senator wants the matters answered in the Parliament he would be quite willing to do that. That part of the argument is all right.

Senator Greenwood then made an attack on a parliamentary government. Then our old colleague, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, a former President of this Senate, a man who is somewhat out of date, entered the debate in defence of an attack by the military junta upon an elected parliament, and this seems to me to be quite improper in this debate. If Senator Greenwood or the Opposition wants to discuss those issues surely they should ask the Senate to set aside the time for that. I do not wish to add anything to this debate. People who believe in the parliamentary system, whether they be Liberals, members of the Democratic Labor Party, members pf the National Country Party or members of the Labor Party- social democrats- argue, as we have always done, that changes can be made through the parliamentary system. As has been argued by my colleagues, the Socialist International is a group of people who have pledged themselves to reform, to establish a system of social democracy by parliamentary action. If that is the case, we are entitled to have our voice heard in any country and in this Parliament. It seems to me to be extraordinary when people in this Parliament say that they believe in parliamentary democracy and then start to defend the takeover of a parliamentary system by a military junta.

Senator Greenwood:

– I never said that and you did not hear me say it.

Senator BISHOP:

-Senator, you said that tonight and you heard what Senator Sir Magnus Cormack said. If you want to expand on this question surely there must be a time when you can engage in this controversy. You can have time when the proceedings are broadcast if you want to but you should let the Government know. I knew nothing about the questions you were going to raise, and as far as I am aware Senator James McClelland knew nothing about them either.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Caught with my pants down.

Senator BISHOP:

-Exactly. Whether Senator Willesee knew something about the other matters I do not know, but I put to the Senate that if Senator Greenwood wants to canvass questions of this sort he should give us notice so that we will be in a position to examine them and to provide answers. In a debate on a Bill covering the mundane question of increasing stevedoring charges, surely we should not have to continue with this expidition which started at 5.30 tonight. It is now almost 9 o’clock. The debate is worthless, because as one of my colleagues has said, nobody is reporting it and we are not on the air. I hope that the Senate will return to discussing the subject of the Bill before the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Senator Greenwood:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President, under standing order 410, and I rise because I claim to have been misrepresented. I will not have it said while I am here listening that I said things I did not say. I did not at any stage in the course of what I was saying defend the Government of Chile. What I said was: Would the Government explain why it was giving support to a clandestine organisation?’ Whilst it might be good politics to make the allegations that Senator Bishop and others made, they were not based on fact.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I ask for leave to make a statement on this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WILLESEE:

-Senator Greenwood asked me a question this morning. I have been listening to this debate and I have been trying to find out some information about the question because as I said this morning, he was referring to a dinner and a luncheon of which I had virtually no knowledge. I pointed that out. I have been trying to find out something about it. I have just heard Senator Greenwood denying that he said Socialist International was a clandestine organisation and so on which Senator Wheeldon -

Senator Greenwood:

– I did not say that. I said that the Government is supporting a clandestine organisation.

Senator WILLESEE:

-Senator Wheeldon said that you claimed it to be a clandestine organisation. I will quote Senator Greenwood ‘s question to me, and if he denies it we will have to take it up with Hansard and finally with you, Mr President, if Hansard has wilfully done terrible things to him. The following appears in Hansard:

My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the dinner which the Prime Minister gave, I think it was on 1 4 May, for the President of the outlawed and unlawful Chilean Radical Party -

Take note of the word ‘for’- and to the luncheon at Parliament House held by the Australian Labor Party in honour of that President. I refer also to the Prime Minister’s promise personally to support this clandestine organisation and to the statement of the ViceChairman of the Socialist International who was recently in Australia, MrSicco Minholt, that the ALP will give financial support to that Party.

SenatorGietzelt- . . . Your parties take money from insurance companies-

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The honourable senator may dislike these points being made, but he must learn to take them sometimes. Will the Minister explain the principles, if any, on which the Whitlam Government considers it proper to intervene -

I repeat the words ‘ to intervene ‘- in the affairs of another country and support the clandestine activities of subversive movements?

It seems to me that Senator Wheeldon was not far off the mark when he used the words ‘subversive’ and ‘clandestine’. The words which Senator Greenwood used were ‘and support the clandestine activities of subversive movements’. Senator Greenwood asked:

Will the Minister state why the Government intervenes to support clandestine activities designed to overthrow a government which Australia recognises? What is the principle upon which the Government detests and apparently supports the overthrow of a Chilean military dictatorship but supports communist military dictatorships?

The first thing which I want to put as factually as I can, without misquoting Senator Greenwood, is that he said that the dinner was held for the President of the outlawed and unlawful Chilean Radical Party. The facts which I have been able to get are that both the lunch and the dinner were held for the delegates of the Socialist International which was meeting in Australia. The Australian Labor Party is a member of the Socialist International. I do not see anything wrong with giving lunch, dinner or drinks to, or having a conversation with, these people. As I explained this morning, I was due to meet these people. An appointment had been made to see them. Unfortunately- I regret it very much- I was unable to see these very distinguished people.

I understand that Senator Greenwood said that I took a cavalier attitude to the question. I think I probably hold the heavyweight title in this connection. Every now and again honourable senators opposite say that I treat questions in a cavalier fashion or that I do not treat them as seriously as I should. I put it to them that the questions are put to me in a very cavalier manner. They are not questions seeking information. Anybody with any fairness in his mind would agree that in the 2½ years that I have been answering questions on foreign affairs, when somebody asks seriously for information, I give it if I have the knowledge. I undertake to find out if I have not the knowledge. When there is a spate of propaganda and a spate of abuse- generally of the Prime Minister, sometimes of myself to a lesser degree, and of other Ministers- I could hardly be expected to treat these questions seriously. I digress for a moment. My good friend Senator Sim from my State of Western Australia asked a question recently about a Mr Tran Van Lam, who is known to a lot of us. He was ambassador to this country for South Vietnam. He later became the Foreign Minister of South Vietnam, then the President of the Senate of that country. As I understand it, he ought to have been the man who made the arrangements for the handing over of South Vietnam on the fall of that country. There was a long line of abuse about him by Senator Sim. I think Senator Sim asked why the Government was giving him the runaround and why Mr Whitlam did certain things. My answer was that we had already agreed that Mr Tran Van Lam should come to Australia. If Senator Sim had asked a simple question, seeking information, whether the application of Tran Van Lam to come to Australia had been approved, the answer would have been yes, which is what the answer was. Why do honourable senators opposite go on with this propaganda and with this senseless and untrue abuse of the Prime Minister when we had done exactly what I assume Senator Sim and the Liberal Party wanted us to do, namely, to bring to Australia a man who had some connections with Australia? Under the criteria that we used, we invited that gentleman to Australia.

I digressed for a moment to point out that this matter is really a little silly and a little vicious. Obviously it is senseless abuse when it is not warranted. One could hardly be blamed for adopting a cavalier attitude, which is the term used by Senator Greenwood, when questions are put in a cavalier manner. I go out of my way to supply information because one thing that I would like to do is to try to convey not only to this Parliament but also to the people of Australia a better understanding of foreign affairs. I can hardly be expected to do so when the questions asked of me are so difficult to deal with.

Senator Greenwood:

– They put you on a spot when you have to answer them. That is what you are really complaining about.

Senator WILLESEE:

-That is quite a stupid statement, but no more stupid than those which the honourable senator generally makes. If the Opposition asks for information, if it genuinely wants to know anything in the field of foreign affairs, believe me, I would like to convey the information sought. I would like to see in Australia a healthy debate on foreign affairs, but I have almost despaired of getting an honest and decent approach on the important matter of foreign affairs.

Senator Greenwood:

asked why the Whitlam Government considers it proper to intervene. The Whitlam Government has not considered it proper to intervene. The fact is that an appeal has been made by the Radical Party of Chile to its brothers- members of Socialist International throughout the world- for funds in its cause. A decision on the matter has not been reached by the Australian Labor Party. It has not been considered by the Australian Labor Party. It has not been on the agenda of the Federal Executive that it examine this matter. When it is examined it may well be that we will give financial support. It may well be that we will not. I have long ago given up trying to look into the crystal ball in the Parliament or in the Australian Labor Party. If the Australian Labor Party decides to give support, it will not be the Government which is giving the support. Senator Greenwood claims to be a lawyer. He was once Attorney-General. One would think that as a lawyer he would be a little more careful in his choice of words.

The Australian Government has not said anything about this matter. It will be a matter for the Party, which is a member of the Socialist International, to decide whether an appeal by its brothers in Socialist International should be supported or rejected. The Federal Executive often had similar questions, I can remember, over the years on the question of Socialist International. One of the people whom the Opposition is abusing is Mr Sule. I just happened to come across this information in my inquiries. He was a member of the Government when the junta took over. He was gaoled for 60 days in solitary confinement. Special reference was made to this man.

Senator Sim:

– What about the noncommunists that the communists have put in gaol for more than 60 days?

Senator WILLESEE:

-The great difference between the Labor and Liberal parties- I can go back to 195 1 when the Communist Party Dissolution Bill was debated- is that we stood for a principle that a crime is a crime. If it is committed by a communist it is a crime. If it is committed by a bishop of a church it is a crime. One must examine the act itself. By way of interjection Senator Sim said that some non-communists could be gaoled. I do not know whether Mr Suk is a communist. I know he is an individual. He is a human being. He was gaoled without reason for 60 days in solitary confinement. I abhor that. I believe it is wrong if a non-communist, somebody of religion or anybody else is gaoled.

Over all those years the difference between the Labor Party and the non-Labor parties has been that if the non-Labor parties think a man is a communist nothing is too bad for him; if they think he is a non-communist, even if he is a murderer, they hold that he should not have anything done to him. We say that the act itself should be punishable, not a person’s belief, his religion or his colour. I know that these questions upset people in the Liberal Party badly. Mr Sule went to Dawson Island at the South Pole for 8 months. He was forced to build concentration camps there. He spent the next 17 months in 10 different concentration camps going through all that this new junta did to him. I believe that is wrong. I do not know whether the man is a communist. I am not interested. If a man is treated like that it is bad, not only for Chile but for the whole international community. I want to point out that the inferences and direct statements in Senator Greenwood’s question this morning were wrong. The Australian Government has not made any financial promises to these people. It will be a matter for our Party, which is part of Socialist International.

The other thing that Senator Greenwood said was that the dinner was for the President of the outlawed and unlawful Chilean Radical Party. I heard Senator Wheeldon say today that many organisations have been unlawful and have been outlawed by parties. Today some of those organisations form the governments in the countries concerned, particularly in the African countries. The fact is that the luncheon and the dinner were given for the members of the Socialist International, of which the Australian Labor Party is a member. What is more natural than to show some hospitality to the people from that organisation when they are in this country? The luncheon and the dinner had nothing to do with the Government. Nine governments were represented at the conference. They were the governments of Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, Great Britain, West Germany

Senator Wheeldon:

– Israel.

Senator WILLESEE:

– And Israel. I did not jot them all down. I have referred to seven of the governments which were represented. I have missed one other. How can Senator Greenwood or anybody else say that we were looking after a bunch of murderers or whatever they imply that these people are? As I said, they were members of the Socialist International, of which the Australian Labor Party is a member, and what is more natural than that we would be talking to them? All this has been blown up out as a great figment of Senator Greenwood ‘s imagination.

Senator Greenwood:

– No. I had a Press report which, if you had been here before dinner, you would have known that I read into the record.

Senator WILLESEE:

-I heard every word that Senator Greenwood said. Here is Senator Greenwood, a lawyer- so I believe- and an exAttorneyGeneral saying: ‘I have a Press report.

That is the Bible; that is correct’. Who is he trying to kid?

Senator Greenwood:

– Do you say it is true, and did you try to correct it? After all, it is 3 weeks old.

Senator WILLESEE:

– If I and every member of the Government were to chase around and answer all the Press reports that relate to us we would be doing nothing else but answering Press reports. The fact is that Press reports sometimes are based on sheer imagination and sometimes on deliberate leaks which come from people who have a vested interest in a matter. I am stating to Senator Greenwood the facts of the matter. I do not chase around answering Press reports. Very rarely do I do that. Only if Press reports attack members of my family, or something like that, do I ever worry about Press reports. If I were to worry about every Press report, the Press would have me in such a situation that I would be doing nothing else but answering Press reports. That has been the experience of every senior member of any government- whether it be a Liberal government or a Labor government- although I think that we cop it a little bit worse.

I have pointed out that the whole of Senator Greenwood ‘s question was based- I say this with great respect to him- on very deliberate misrepresentations. Senator Greenwood asked whether the dinner was for the President. It was not. It was a normal dinner. Then he asked whether it is proper to intervene in the affairs of another country. The Government is not interfering in the affairs of another government. We have made no secret of the fact that a democratically elected government in Chile was overthrown. We did not like it, but we have kept our representation in Chile. We still have an Embassy operating in Chile today- as much as we may regret the way in which the Government in Chile came to power. We may regret the way in which many governments have come to power. The main question is: Where does Australia stand in all these things? We have had criticisms about what has been done in several countries, but as the Foreign Minister I believe that we ought to be able to have as many contacts as we can throughout the world. As much as we regret the Chilean situation, the way in which governments in other countries have come to power, and the fact that some sections of the people in those countries have been brought under the power of those governments, nevertheless we believe that the best thing for Australia to do is to recognise those governments. We do it in Chile.

I have pointed out that Senator Greenwood started today by asking a question that was based on complete untruths. He could very easily have checked the matter. He did not have to throw in this propaganda without checking it. He could easily have ascertained what the situation was. We are dealing with people. I have just referred to the record of one of those people. If that man had been a Liberal or a member of the National Country Party of Australia, how would Senator Greenwood be feeling about him? That man spent a couple of years in gaol, in solitary confinement and in concentration camps at the South Pole. I find it hard to get very serious about this furore when Senator Greenwood talks about these sorts of things.

Senator Marriott:

– You have taken a long time to do it.

Senator WILLESEE:

-I do not know what Senator Marriott means when he says that I have taken a long time to do it. I had no knowledge of the situation. I and my staff have been working, trying to get for Senator Greenwood some information about this situation. Senator Greenwood said that I treated his question in a cavalier manner. I repeat- I say this without any doubt at ailthat if somebody asks me a serious question I will answer it. If I cannot answer it, I will certainly go to extreme lengths to find out all I can about it. But when Senator Greenwood stands in the Senate, puts on a propaganda act, talks about things of which I cannot possibly have any knowledge, makes a lot of mis-statements, and says a lot of things based on lies, I do not think that he can expect to get a very serious answer. The fact is that Senator Greenwood is trying to blow up this situation because, as I have said on many occasions, if one belongs to a communist party or to a socialist party or even to a little left wing party, one is evil or bad and has no right to exist. But if one believes in another philosophy, of course one is on the side of the angels.

Quite frankly, although Senator Greenwood holds the position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I find it very difficult to take him seriously. He runs a propaganda line. When he takes a quite incomprehensible, hysterical and vicious line it is very difficult to take him seriously. The situation is that the luncheon and the dinner were not held for any one person. They were held by the Australian Labor Party for people who were associated with us at the Socialist International. They had nothing to do with the Government. The Government has not promised financial aid. The Government has never suggested that it should intervene in the affairs of the Chilean or any other government.

After all, there are other countries- Korea comes readily to mind- where we recognise a communist government and a government that is very much anti-communist. We treat those governments on a proper basis, in the best interests of Australia.

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The Bill proposes increases in the statutory maximum rate of charge that may be prescribed in respect of three classes of waterside workers as denned in the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act. The actual rates are fixed by regulation within the limits of the maximum rates established in the Act and are based on the hours worked by a waterside worker. The Act provides that different rates are payable in respect of the three separate classes of waterside workers. Class A waterside workers are registered regular waterside workers employed at weekly hire at permanent or continuous ports. Class B waterside workers are employed at continuous non-permanent ports. Class C waterside workers are irregular waterside workers who, because of age or some special reason, are not obliged to attend regularly or make themselves available for employment.

Moneys collected by means of the stevedoring industry charge are paid to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to enable it to discharge its responsibilities under the various Stevedoring Industry Acts. It should be appreciated that the charge comprises only one element in the total cost of employing a waterside worker, which also includes such factors as award rates of pay, private levies and other private employer costs. The present maximum rates provided for by the Act are $1.50, $1.75 and $1.20 per man hour for A, B and C classes of waterside workers respectively. The respective actual charges of $ 1 .40, $ 1 .75 and $ 1 . 1 5, currently levied, are at or near the statutory maximum permitted under the stevedoring industry charge, and cannot be increased sufficiently to meet any significant future increases in industry costs.

It is anticipated that movements in wages combined with a low level of stevedoring activity will adversely affect the financial position of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority during the latter part of 1975 and that it will be unable to meet its financial commitments from the revenue currently derived from the charge. The Bill proposes that the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1973 be amended to provide for the maximum rates of charge of $2.50, $3.50 and $2.50 for Classes A, B and C waterside workers respectively. The proposed amendment will not in itself vary the current rate of charge. The actual rate of charge is fixed by regulation after consideration of detailed recommendations by the Stevedoring Industry Authority and in consultation with other Ministers. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 2142

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Mr President, I present to the Senate the Australian Heritage Commission Bill. The Bill gives legislative substance to the National Estate, a noble concept which has been identified by the Australian Government and enshrined in a notable report. I want to look more closely at the philosophy of the National Estate later in my speech. In these preliminary remarks I want to stress that the Department of Urban and Regional Development and the Department of Environment will jointly administer the great task of preserving and enhancing the National Estate. The Australian Heritage Commission will be the principal tool to achieve this fine aim.

In broad terms the aims of this Bill are these: To set up an Australian Heritage Commission on a broad and representative basis to advise the Government and the Parliament on the condition of the National Estate and how it should be protected; to establish and maintain a register of the things that make up the National Estate; to require that the Australian Government, its departments and agencies, and those acting on its behalf respect the National Estate and do all that they can to preserve it. Against this broad statement of the aims of the Bill, I want to set out briefly its history. In April 1973, the Australian Government set up a Committee of Inquiry under Mr Justice Hope. It was given the task of investigating and reporting to the Government on the nature and condition of the National Estate, and the ways in which all bodies in Australiaboth Government and non-government, could work together to preserve and enhance it. The other members of the Committee were Reginald Walker, Milo Dunphy, Judith WrightMcKinney, Len Webb, David Yencken, Keith Vallance and Judith Mary Brine.

The Committee began its work at the end of May 1973. It was asked to view the National Estate as made up of such things as national parks, nature reserves, historic buildings and structures, buildings and structures of architectural merit, areas of special scientific interest, the coastline and inland waters, and urban parks. The Government sought from the Committee for the first time in Australian history an inventory of our natural and man-made heritage. In accounting terms, we set out to list the great assets of our heritage and balance them against the liabilities that had debased their value. As well as this inventory we wanted a report on the present condition of the items listed and recommendations on how they might be protected and enhanced. While this Committee was being formed and while it was conducting its inquiries, the Government has embarked on a series of new policies which had an important impact on the National Estate. These included the development of growth centres such as Albury/Wodonga, Geelong, and Bathurst/Orange, the setting up of land commissions, sewerage programs, area improvement programs, and a number of other closely inter-connected programs. It also included programs to ensure that environment protection was the key part of the decisions of the Government, and it started a wide range of programs for the rational management of Australian land, air, water, and biological resources.

All of these programs involved land-use strategies and all had crucial bearing on the National Estate. For this reason the Government accepted that it had to give an early token of its firmness and determination to protect our heritage. Before the Hope Committee had completed its work we had approved grants of more than $2m to organisations including State and local governments to meet urgent needs for the National Estate. In 1973-74 grants were given for urgent work including the acquisition of land for urban parks, restoring historic buildings, and studies of land use patterns and land ownership in areas under pressure from urban and industrial development. Other grants initiated programs to acquire land for nature conservation purposes, to begin a basic set of studies including an ecological survey of Australia, a study of soil resources, a study of water quality and a project to set up a national air quality program.

The experience we gained reaffirmed our belief that it was urgent for the Australian Government to work with the States, local government and voluntary groups to guard our heritage. In April 1974 the Hope Committee presented its draft report after considering more than 650 submissions and travelling widely throughout Australia to see and assess the National Estate. The findings and recommendations of the draft report were announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in April last year, and the final report was tabled on 1 9 September last year. I do not want to go into the content of the report in any detail. Its central theme is well set out in this brief extract:

The Australian Government has inherited a National Estate which has been downgraded, disregarded and neglected. All previous priorities accepted at various levels of Goverment and authority have been directed by a concept that uncontrolled development, economic growth, and progress’, and the encouragement of private as against public interest in land use, use of waters, and indeed in every part of the National Estate, was paramount.

The report confirmed that this Government was the first to make a commitment to charting the National Estate and conserving it for the Australians of the future. Immediately the draft recommendations were known, the Minister for Environment (Dr Cass) and the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) set out to give life to the Government’s plans to protect and enhance the National Estate. An Interim Committee on the National Estate was appointed to help with financial assistance programs and to advise on matters arising from the Hope report. These included the setting up of a permanent body. The Interim Committee was made up of 1 7 members, including scientists, architects, and senior public servants. This Interim Committee met for the first time on 18 September 1974. Its work has ensured that the Hope report was not left to gather dust on the shelf. It has worked with enthusiasm to implement the many far-reaching recommendations of the Hope report. The Interim Committee was asked to supply the Parliament with a report of its work. Its report was tabled on 14 May 1975.

The main achievement of the Interim Committee has been the setting up of the framework within which the new Heritage Commission will work. I want to acknowledge its assistance in setting down the principles, and administrative arrangements that are included in this Bill. The Committee has also done fine work on the development of a financial assistance program for 1974-75. This gave the Government the encouragement to press on with setting up a permanent body that would ensure a regular flow of assistance from the Australian Government for National Estate projects. Earlier this year a program of grants to all States of approximately $6m was announced. These were based on recommendations of the Interim Committee.

The Committee has also advised the Minister for Environment on the implementation of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act under which $9m was allocated this financial year. Grants made under the National Estate program must be seen as a supplement to the resources of the States, State bodies such as the National Trust, local government bodies and voluntary organisations. We do not want to supplant private effort or the work of other levels of government; we want to supplement them.

Grants made on the recommendations of the Interim Committee have been used to acquire land and buildings, to restore historic property and to provide programs of public education. Grants have also been made for a number of individual projects of great merit which come under no broad heading. An example is the recovery of artifacts from the historic ‘Batavia’ shipwreck on the coast of Western Australia. The National Estate program must be seen in the whole context of Government policies for the environment and urban and regional development. Last year Parliament approved the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act which sets out the broad framework into which many of the Government’s programs fit. Under the authority of that Act, the Department of Urban and Regional Development has worked to set up programs in the States, as a fully co-ordinated exercise in urban development within a land use strategy. This strategy recognises the contribution that each of the individual programs makes to better urban amenity and community standards.

The Bill before the House sets out the arrangements proposed by the Government for the permanent organisation to preserve and enhance the National Estate. It also supplements several other Acts of Parliament including the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act and proposed legislation to create a Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It would include the permanent heads of up to six Australian Government departments. The aim in setting up a commission of this sort would be to ensure that all interests were represented and given the chance to advise the Government. In making appointments to the Commission, regard will be paid to the role of other governments and the work of voluntary conservation groups. The Commission will advise the Government on all matters relating to the National Estate, including the financial grants which I referred to earlier. It will make reports to the Government and these will be tabled in Parliament. The views of the community on National Estate issues will be channelled to the Government through this Commission which, I cannot stress too often, will work closely with other levels of Government and voluntary bodies.

When the National Estate Report was tabled my colleague the Minister for Urban and Regional Development noted that it suggested a number of new roles for the Australian Government. These included land use planning, conservation and reservation techniques, the impact of mining, forestry and coastal development. The report recommended the setting up of a national register of sites of historic and scientific interest. The Bill places with the Commission the compilation of national registers for the National Estate. The registers will identify items of National Estate quality so the planning of future public works programs can be assessed in terms of impact on the National Estate. The Bill requires that Ministers and Australian Government agencies should look at the impact of their activities on the National Estate, and give the Heritage Commission the chance to comment. It provides for Ministers and agencies to go ahead only after looking at alternatives, and planning to remove or to minimise any possible harm to a part of the National Estate. The inclusion of items in the National Register is a significant action in terms of future planning of public works programs. The Act will provide for notification of intention to include items in the National Register and for the Commission to consider comments and objections to this intention.

The other provisions of the Bill relate to the machinery aspects of the Commission ‘s work. I draw particular attention to the authority proposed for the Commission to accept gifts or bequests. Private individuals and organisations may wish to give property or other items of National Estate quality to the Commission, and the Bill provides for this. It is important to note that the Australian Government cannot work effectively in isolation to protect and enhance the National Estate. We need the generous cooperation of State and local governments in pressing on with our National Estate policies. We would hope that the State governments will enact legislation that will supplement our national initiative. This would provide a complete set of laws that would guard against the wilful and mindless pillaging of our National Estate.

The Prime Minister’s policy speech on behalf of the Labor Party in December 1 972 promised that a Labor Government would enhance and preserve the National Estate. As a Government we have acted swiftly to discharge the mandate given us to identify, conserve and preserve the National Estate. We set up the Hope Committee, we acted on its recommendations, we started programs of financial assistance for the National Estate, and now we are setting up this Commission. A key part of our attitudes to the National Estate is the rejection of the widelyheld notion that this is a ‘middle-class’ issue, that it has no relevance to most of the people. The forces which threaten the National Estate often bear most heavily on the less affluent groups. Poorer people suffer most intensely from the loss of National Estate features such as the parkland, familiar town and country scapes, even dwellings. They feel in much stronger measure the withering away of the physical environment into ugly and barren patterns. Deprived community groups have not the same access as the wealthy to other sources of personal enjoyment and fulfilment. This is why it is often the less affluent who are most active in working to protect the best features of our heritage. The pillage and neglect of the National Estate diminishes us all in equal measure.

I also want to stress that we will seek the support of people of goodwill whatever their background to protect the National Estate and beat the bulldozer mentality that had disfigured our environment. We will work with all who want to protect those parts of our heritage that have been created by man or nature and are unique or are things of beauty. For this reason the Government has been gratified by the support the Opposition has given to the concept of the National Estate and the programs we have begun to preserve and enhance it. I am sure we can work together to preserve things and places of great beauty for all Australians and for the Australians that follow us. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 2145

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Mr President, this Bill enables the Australian Government to provide financial assistance to a State for flood mitigation and adjust the terms of loans made under financial agreements with the States. All senators are aware of the loss of 1 1 lives, and the property damage caused by the Brisbane floods late last year. The Australian Government gave generous help to the victims of this flood, but we want to ensure that such floods do not happen again. The Premier of Queensland asked for our help and in the spirit of co-operative federalism which has been the mark of my colleague’s ministry, Cabinet approval was sought to amend the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974, so that help could be provided. The Bill makes provision for $450,000 to be spent on flood mitigation works in Brisbane this financial year. Subject to parliamentary approval, further funds will be made available as work proceeds in future years.

I might mention that this is the first major Australian Government contribution to flood mitigation in urban areas. In the main, previous assistance has been limited to rural areas. I have just mentioned co-operative federalism and in this respect I refer the House to clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. In clause 12 (4) of the Albury-Wodonga Area Development Agreement made between Australia, New South Wales and Victoria in 1973, the Australian Government undertook to defer repayment of loans made to those States, when the growth centre programs had not generated sufficient income to cover the States’ commitments on loans to the growth centre. Clause 3 of the Bill enables this provision to be deemed a condition of loans made for AlburyWodonga. The situation has not arisen but if it does in the future the undertaking will be met. Clause 4 of the Bill will permit the Australian Government to enter into similar arrangements in respect of land commission and other growth centre programs. These provisions will begin operation on the date of the principal Act. Although section 5 (3) of the Act does enable the review and subsequent amendment of the terms of a financial agreement, the amendment set out in clause 4 of the Bill will enable direct provision for such circumstances to be included in a financial agreement with a State. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 2145

CHILDREN’S COMMISSION BILL 1975

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it has disagreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to:

That consideration of House of Representatives message number 292 in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 2145

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT

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

page 2145

TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY BILL 1975

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

page 2145

PIG MEAT PROMOTION BILL 1975

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

page 2145

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1974 [No. 2] (1975)

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

That the second reading of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1 974 be restored to the notice paper and made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Without taking up a lot of time, because we have canvassed this issue on 3 occasions previously, 1 want to say that it is the opinion of the Government that this Bill ought to be considered by the Senate. As honourable senators will know, the subject matter of the Bill, which is amalgamations by organisations under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, was first raised by the Government in a Bill in May 1973. That Bill included matters other than amalgamations and the motion for the second reading was negatived by the Senate on 2 June 1973. Another Bill was introduced towards the end of 1973. That Bill sought to make many amendments to the Act including amendments relating to amalgamations, agreements, the question of Moore v. Doyle, torts and an attitude to penal clauses. That Bill was amended. Because the question of amalgamations was not solved in accordance with the policy we had put forward during the election campaign we introduced into the Senate in August 1974 another Bill to provide for amalgamations. The motion for the second reading of that Bill was negatived during September. After 3 months an identical Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and was passed by that House but the motion for the second reading was negatived by the Senate on 4 March of this year.

The issues are fairly basic. We have referred to them often in this chamber and elsewhere. We have pointed out that in Australia there are nearly 400 unions and that almost half of that number- 226- have fewer than 5000 members. For instance, in my own area of responsibility, the Post Office, there are 27 unions. The Vernon Commission made suggestions regarding the multiplicity of unions and the advantages that there might be to management and to the unions if there were fewer unions. The Government tried to provide what might be called an easy method of amalgamation of unions. I should mention that in West Germany, which as most people know has a good record of industrial relations with the least number of disputes of any country, there are only 16 unions. In Sweden there are 52 unions; in the Netherlands there are 53 unions; in Belgium there are 360 unions; in Norway there are 40 unions; and in Australia there are nearly 400 unions. The Government considers that this is an important Bill. It believes that the Senate ought to face up to discussing the Bill. It also considers that what has been done by the Opposition is purely a frustration of the Government’s intention, which is well recognised.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition opposes this motion for 2 reasons. The first is the long established and frequently expressed opposition by the Opposition Parties to this Bill. The second ground of objection is that the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) has given no reason why the Bill should be restored to the notice paper. Let me deal with the second reason first. As the Postmaster-General has indicated, there is no doubt as to the viewpoint of the Parliament about this measure. The Parliament will not give it a second reading. In 1973 the Opposition in the Senate said: ‘We stand for the rights of the members of organisations- of trade unions- to have a say in whether their organisations can amalgamate’. The Government said: ‘No, we want this Bill, with all its inbuilt deficiencies, to prevail ‘. In late 1973 the Opposition in the Senate reiterated its attitude. The Government ought to be in no doubt. This Bill has twice been defeated by the Senate. It is a Bill which, if the Government were ever game enough to have a double dissolution, would be a double dissolution issue.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Of what union amalgamation are you frightened? What are your fears on this Bill? Has somebody told you that if a particular amalgamation takes place it is going to be the end of the industrial world in which we live?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am not aware of any specific amalgamation that this Bill is directed towards facilitating, or any specific amalgamation that our opposition is designed to frustrate. Frankly I am not aware of what might be the attitudes of possible amalgamating unions.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I thought that Mr Meagher might have had something to say about it in Melbourne.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not think so but I certainly do not know. Indeed I am surprised that unions have not tried to get the requisite majorities under the existing provisions in order to amalgamate if they believed that an amalgamation was warranted. Senator Mulvihill is closer to the industrial scene than I am. He would be in a better position to know whether any prospective amalgamations are being frustrated. I would be interested to know the instances of that because I am not aware of any attempts having been made.

I wonder why it is that, in the light of the frequently expressed opposition to this Bill, the Government is now seeking to have it restored to the notice paper. Does the Government believe that it is going to get a different result? If that were the case, I would find the Government’s belief to be incredible because it knows, as well as anybody on this side of the House, the numbers situation in the Senate. The Postmaster-General knows as well as I do that no approach has been made to the Opposition to change its attitude. This motion was restored to the notice paper without a word of warning being given to the Opposition except for the conventional warning that was given by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) on the very morning that it was introduced.

I think that the Postmaster-General owes it to the Senate to explain what the Government is trying to achieve. Why is it sought to have this Bill restored to the notice paper? What would be achieved by doing so? Is it simply that the Government wants to have restored to the Senate notice paper a number of Bills that have been defeated three or four times and have the Opposition express its opposition to them once more so that when it comes to adding up the grand total- the time when some double dissolution election is to take place in the future- there is a mighty score that runs into three figures? Is that the simple political reason for wanting this Bill restored to the notice paper? I do not know. I only wish that the Postmaster-General would come clean and tell the Parliament what it is that the Government is trying to achieve by bringing forward this Bill for rejection on, I think, the fifth occasion.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You know the story of King Bruce and the spider, do you not?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– But he only tried three times. I do not know what the Government expects to achieve by again bringing forward this Bill. It has achieved the most it can achieve with this Bill in this Parliament. The Bill has been rejected twice with the space of 3 months in between. Therefore it would be a double dissolution issue if the Government were game to face the people. This further bringing forward of it lacks explanation or any reason. I suspect from the way in which the Postmaster-General is smiling to himself that he knows the reason.

Senator Bishop:

– No, I do not.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am interested to hear him say that he does not know. It is possible that he might be able to get an answer for us at some stage. I restate briefly for the sake of the record the Opposition’s objections to this Bill. We believe in union amalgamations if the members of the unions desire to have the amalgamations. There has been a lot of talk of the desirability of having amalgamations to reduce the number of unions and, in particular, the number of small unions. But the union amalgamations that took place throughout the 1960s under the old rules were amalgamations not of large unions with small unions but between quite large unions. The most recent amalgamation of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union was an amalgamation of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the boilermakers union and the sheet metal workers organisation, each of which was in its own right a very substantial union. If there is to be an amalgamation, we believe that by all means it should be encouraged, but it should be an amalgamation for which the membership votes in favour. It should not be an imposed amalgamation.

It has been said that this Bill is designed to facilitate easier amalgamation. In doing so it ignores the rights and responsibilities it ought to recognise that the individual members of the trade union movement possess. The Bill provides for the conduct of ballots in accordance with the rules of a union. That differs from the provisions in the current Act which we wish to maintain. The present Act maintains that voting for amalgamations shall be by secret ballot conducted by post. We believe that is a far more preferable procedure than a procedure which would enable ballots to be conducted in accordance with whatever rules a union might decide to enforce.

This Bill seeks to reduce the grounds upon which objection to an amalgamation may be lodged by an individual unionist. We do not believe that that is a fair or proper recognition of the rights of individual members of unions. Furthermore, the amalgamation can change union rules and therefore affect the eligibility of individual union members to remain members of a union or organisation. If objection is taken by those individuals to that eventuality occurring, they should be able to ground their objections by being able to take them to a court. The Bill provides that rank and file members of any organisation that has the collegiate style of election may not vote for a period of 3 years after the amalgamation. That is a restriction upon the rights of members. Further the Bill seeks to abolish the requirement for a minimum number of members to vote in an amalgamation ballot. We say that there ought to be a minimum requirement of 50 per cent of the union membership voting in an amalgamation ballot before the point is reached of considering the actual decision of those who vote.

This Bill would permit an amalgamation to take place if 20 per cent, 10 per cent or even 3 members, and 3 members only, of a union voted on the issue. We do not think that is a fair thing.

If one wants to amalgamate voluntary organisations, at common law one has to have the organisations going out of existence and the establishment of a new organisation. One cannot have an amalgamation taking place in the free and easy way that the Government proposes under this Bill. Another point is that the Bill seeks to remove the right of a court to investigate allegations of improprieties in officially conducted ballots. Why should the right of a court be removed? That is what this Bill involves. That is a further reason for rejecting it.

The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) has said that the amalgamations of organisations will make for more efficient and more responsible unions. I suppose that is a subjective evaluation. The Opposition has its doubt as to whether that objective will be achieved. After all, the most recent of the amalgamations affecting the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union has demonstrated that it has contributed more to industrial unrest in recent years than any other union. We ought to recognise that industrial unrest is currently running at the highest rate in the records that have been kept of industrial dislocation in this country. The Bill provides further for unions with a membership of less than 2000 not to be permitted registration under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That will lead to a domination of the smaller unions by the larger unions. Committees of management are given powers which deny the rank and file members their rights if a committee of management decides that it wants to facilitate an amalgamation ballot.

I have not comprehensively covered all of the conditions and the provisions which are contained in this legislation. I have mentioned merely some, but they represent to the Opposition good and substantial reason why we should continue to maintain the existing amalgamation provision in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and not to accede to a government measure which will create opportunities for abuse and which will deny the rights of individual members. We have made our stand on those particular issues on each of the occasions when this Bill has come before the Senate and we shall continue to maintain that stand. We believe that, inarticulate as they may be, there are hosts of union members in this country who rely upon a Senate constituted as this Senate is and prepared to protect the rights of individual members of unions, to continue to protect the individual rights of those union members. When the Government accepts that it is a fair thing that at least 50 per cent of the union members should vote in a ballot and that at least 50 per cent of those voting in favour of the amalgamation is required, I am sure that we will reach a point at which we can get some common agreement. But at the present time I think the Government is just succumbing to the blandishments of a few militants who want this measure put through. I appeal once again to the Minister: Why does he want it to come up for the fifth time?

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I would not have thought that Senator Greenwood would be proud of the number of times that his Party has rejected the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, because he has obviously demonstrated that the Opposition has stopped evolving and forming industrial policy. He said: We shall continue to stand’. The Opposition stands at a particular point and there shall be no further evolvement of useful industrial policy on the very matters that he has outlined as being faulty in this Bill. Senator Greenwood knows full well that the answer to the great power blocs in this community and the power wielded by the unions, who are responsible at the moment to no one but an elite few, will be provided not by the Labor Party but by the Liberal Party. It is about time that the Liberal Party did something about it, especially when it is confronted with a Bill which is subject to amendments which the Liberal Party may propose in this House.

This is the third time in my short year in this place that I have been confronted with the provisions of this Bill. I questioned the Opposition about this matter when the Bill first came before the Senate. The Minister has indicated when that was; I think it was last November. When I questioned the Opposition at that time its answer to the question of amending the Bill and making it a most useful form of evolving industrial policy was that it was not ready, that it needed four or five months, and now it is June.

Senator Greenwood:

– Who told you that?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am not going to -

Senator Greenwood:

– I am a little surprised you are not prepared to identify who told you that.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am not willing to divulge confidences. If the honourable senator wants me to tell him, I will do so. It was his Leader. The Leader of the Opposition told me today. Does the honourable senator want me to go further? I can name others. If I am forced into the position of giving names, I will do so. So

Senator Greenwood has forced me to name his Leader and his Leader is now guilty of not evolving policy. What I am saying is that the Opposition is at a standstill in regard to the most important question which faces the community, and that is how to contain the power blocs who are a law unto themselves at this moment. The Senate has before it a Bill which would enable the Opposition to enshrine at least in one direction in industrial matters the principle of democracy in union management. The Opposition refuses to take, for the third time in about 8 months, the opportunity which stands before it.

I am not disagreeing with the faults in this Bill which Senator Greenwood has listed. I have not studied every detail that he has mentioned. What he says may be correct. Let us give it to him; let us say he is right. But surely he will recognise the fact that the Labor Party will not apply the strength, discipline and opportunities needed in relation to this question. Surely he will admit that that has come from the Liberal Party. Why has there been the failure on the part of the Liberal Party to produce? Why has there been stagnation in Liberal policy on this issue? I had hoped, forlornly and I know foolishly, in the first instance when this Bill came before the Senate that the amendments which I had drawn would at least be considered during the Committee stage and that we might consider putting into this Bill the provision for compulsory secret postal ballots for union decisions of this nature and giving a lead in relation to other types of decisions which are taken in other fields of union management.

A very prominent New South Wales trade union leader told me privately that he definitely approved of that proposal and would publicly put his name to it if it was proposed in this place. Other people have since supported the proposal. I think that Mr Laurie Short has quite openly and publicly acclaimed the principle of secret postal ballots in union affairs. Here is one of the greatest opportunities in this legislative session for the Opposition to do something constructive, to take a Bill and to mould it according to democratic principles which the union movement so badly need. What do we find? Senator Greenwood gets up and takes pride, it would seem, in saying for the third time this session that the Opposition will not even allow the Bill to reach the Committee stage. All I can say is that there will never be any improvement in the disciplines which are required if honourable senators on the Opposition side of the chamber refuse to implement it, because it will not come from the Government side of the chamber. I am greatly disappointed that the Opposition will not use the opportunities which are presented to it on a plate by the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) tonight.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– in reply- It seems to me that most of the issues involved with the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill have been debated more than once. Most of us are familiar with them. It is not true, as Senator Greenwood has said, that the Parliament will not give this Bill a second reading. The fact is that the other place has approved of the Bill on more than one occasion but that the Senate has decided that it should not consider at all the arguments which are incorporated in the Bill. I do not agree with the things which Senator Hall might try to do with the Bill but, as he properly puts it the fact is that the Senate ought to debate those matters. Surely it must be clear to everybody that there are too many unions in Australia. There are too many unions of employees; there are too many unions of employers. As a matter of fact, we have been grateful to the employers who in recent years have amalgamated their unions. In my own State the 3 organisations which formerly were representative of the employers have now amalgamated. There is only one employer organisation, and to me that is a good thing.

It would seem to me that the same principle applies in the general context of industry. We have got nearly 300 unions. Everybody can understand how difficult it must be not only for the courts but also for employers to talk to more than one union in an enterprise. I have told honourable senators previously of my own experiences in which I have found that one employer can talk to one union and, despite the political ideology of the union, when they trust each other they can short-circuit many disputes. In the case of the Post Office I can do no better than read what was contained in the Vernon Commission report. It was not a Labor commission. In referring to the Post Office unions, the Vernon Commission report stated:

It can readily be understood that a large number of staff organisations exercising their legitimate interests in the welfare and employment conditions of their members would pose difficulties of communication and co-ordination for both management and the staff organisations. It would seem sensible that action be taken at some stage to rationalise staff organisations representation but this seems a matter principally for organisations and their members to decide.

We are trying to change the law so that it is easier for unions to amalgamate. Let me refer very quickly to a matter which concerns my own portfolio and the Post Office. Fortunately the unions involved have joined together to consider what the proposals should be in regard to the new commissions and they have acted as a sort of amalgamated body. As everybody knows, members of the previous Government agreed with the principle of amalgamation. It is on record that Mr Lynch suggested in the last amendment which was proposed to this Act by his Government that its provisions should be reformed in order to make amalgamation easier. In the last stages he rather declined to put that prescription into effect. On record is the statement of Mr Macphee in the other place whom I accept as an authority with great experience in the industrial movement. He has pointed out a matter in contradistinction to what Senator Greenwood said. He said that if an organisation gets a vote of 30 per cent of its members it is doing very well, yet Senator Greenwood insists that the figure should be 50 per cent. The matters raised by Senator Greenwood obviously should be debated in this place. It is no good the honourable senator saying, when legislation is brought in, that he will stop the debate and then reply in an ad hoc way while talking to this sort of notice of motion. This is no way to proceed with legislation like this. We think our argument is sound. We are prepared to test it in the Senate, and that is the reason why the motion was moved.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Bishop’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne)

AYES: 27

NOES: 27

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2150

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 May on motion by Senator James McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Greenwood.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

- Mr President -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator James McClelland, are you raising a point of order?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No, Mr President. At this stage I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Copious amendments have been circulated by the Government which have the effect of bringing before the Senate legislation much more extensive in scope than that covered by my second reading speech. I think it would assist those taking part in the debate if I were to set out briefly the general purport and the effect of the amendments which have been circulated by the Government without, of course, canvassing those amendments in detail.

The Government has circulated 2 sets of amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill 1975. One proposes the establishment of an Administrative Review Council and the other provides for certain jurisdiction to be conferred on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) has given an undertaking that the Government will propose amendments to the Bill in the Senate to establish the Administrative Review Council and will endeavour to propose amendments conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal. The proposed Administrative Review Council would be constituted by the President of the Tribunal, the Australian Ombudsman- who is to be appointed under a Bill now before the House of Representativesthe Chairman of the Law Reform Commission and not less than three or more than seven other members. In its membership, the

Council differs from what was proposed by the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committeethe Kerr Committee- and in the amendments moved by the Opposition in the other place. The principal difference is that it is intended that the membership of the Council will be rather more widely based, to enable it to draw on a greater area of practical and academic expertise in public administration.

The Council will be an advisory body. It will advise on the need for appeals from administrative discretions, the working of appeal tribunals and the desirability of providing for appeals against administrative decisions and of the jurisdiction in respect of those appeals being vested in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It will also advise on what changes are desirable in the procedures for administrative decision making in the exercise of statutory discretions. The amendments would insert a schedule in the Bill conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal in respect of the matters specified in the schedule. The schedule covers a substantial part of the recommendations of the Bland Committee. That it does not go further does not mean that the Government has decided against appeals to the Tribunal in other matters recommended by the Bland Committee or under legislation enacted since the Bland Committee made its report. The content of the Schedule has been dictated by 2 considerations. The first was what could physically be done in the time available. The second is the fact that the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security has been asked to report on what procedures should be available for appeals by those who are adversely affected by security reports. The first factor prevented detailed consideration being given to a number of Acts and to the recommendations of the Bland Committee concerning appeals in compensation and in medical matters. The second factor has resulted in a decision to defer, until the Royal Commission has reported, the question of appeals under the Australian Citizenship Act, the Passports Act and section 14 of the Migration Act.

The Schedule does, however, provide for appeals under the Customs and Excise legislation, an important area where there has not previously been a ready avenue of appeal against departmental or ministerial discretion except in those cases in which there have been provisions for action to challenge in a court the liability for duty.

The Government proposes that the Bill should confer power to vary the Schedule by regulations. A study of the existing statutory discretions not covered by the Schedule is proceeding, and the power to vary the Schedule by regulation will enable additional jurisdiction to be conferred on the Tribunal without the delays that would be caused if Bills for this purpose had to be fitted into a crowded legislative program. By its power of disallowance, the Parliament would exercise a control over the matters to be dealt with by regulation. It is expected that a great deal of additional jurisdiction will be conferred in this way by the time the Tribunal is ready to commence operations. It has been considered more appropriate that jurisdiction to hear appeals under the Austraiian Capital Territory ordinances should be conferred by ordinance. The preparation of an ordinance for this purpose is being put in hand.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition welcomes the action of the Government in introducing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill. It will support the motion for the second reading of the Bill and in Committee will propose a number of amendments. I think examination will show that they are constructive amendments designed to improve the working of the Bill and to achieve the objectives which the Government and the Opposition have in common in this instance. The amendments which the Opposition will propose will give the Tribunal an opportunity to inquire into specific matters which the Bill in its original form lacked.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not want to interrupt the honourable senator but I had not understood that the Opposition proposed to move amendments. Have they been circulated?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am sorry that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) was not aware of the amendments and I think probably an apology is due to him. They were circulated in the House of Representatives and it was intended to move them in the Senate. The ordinary courtesies by which the Senate amendments are distributed were overlooked on this occasion and I am sorry that the Minister did not have a copy. It seems, however, that we will not reach the Committee stage this evening and I hope he will not be greatly inconvenienced by the fact that he did not receive them before now. It is believed that the Opposition’s amendments will give flesh to the bare bones and make this Bill legislation which will be of value to the citizen who is aggrieved and who desires a remedy.

What does the Bill do? Looked at as the Opposition sees it, this is a Bill which will enable the decisions of Ministers and the decisions of some officials to be appealed from and reviewed by an

Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I think we all are affected at various stages, directly or indirectly, by decisions made by Ministers in the course of administration or decisions made by senior officials. Sometimes unwittingly we are affected by those decisions. There are occasions when an aggrieved person thinks that he has been dealt with unfairly and desires to have redress. In earlier times the courts of law provided the means by which most people could achieve some remedy but experience has demonstrated that not all administrative decisions are reviewable by the courts. With the growing complexity of administration and the greater reach of governmental legislation, the ability to have decisions questioned and changed has been lessened, and with the lessening of that ability there has been greater frustration.

This is not a new phenomenon. It has grown up over the years in all the democracies. I suppose that we in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia are late in introducing rules and procedures which will enable the reviews to take place. All I can say- I think the Government would accept this proposition- is that the legislation now introduced has been preceded by as intensive an examination and investigation of the various alternatives which are open as has preceded any legislation of comparable character in the democratic countries.

As I said, this is a Bill which will enable a review to take place of the decisions of Ministers and the decisions of some officials. It ought to be looked at as a companion Bill to the Ombudsman Bill which was introduced into the other place but which is being linked, for the purposes of debate, with the Defence Force Ombudsman Bill and not this measure. The Ombudsman Bill ought to be regarded as the companion to this legislation. The Ombudsman Bill provides for a somewhat informal and ad hoc review of a number of decisions of departments of government and of government instrumentalities. The Ombudsman will not be entitled to investigate or review the decisions of Ministers but when the Ombudsman has investigated a decision he is entitled to report to the responsible Minister of the Crown and he also is to have the power to report to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Senate or to the Speaker of the House of Representatives so that the Parliament may be informed of any failure, as the Ombudsman sees it, on the part of the relevant Minister to afford redress or remedy.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is to operate on a more formal basis. It may review, as I said, certain types of decisions. There is laid down a procedure under which the review is instituted by an application. There are certain rules which must be followed with respect to hearings and certain rights must be acknowledged on the part of persons interested in the Tribunal’s proceedings. Ultimately the Tribunal, if it thinks that there should be a review of the decision appealed from and which is sought to be reviewed, may substitute its decision for the decision of the Minister or of the official. One ought to acknowledge that practice may indicate that some overlapping occurs between the functions of the Ombudsman and the function of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Ombudsman Bill as distinct from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill seeks to avoid that overlapping by casting a discretion on the Ombudsman as to the circumstances in which he is to desist from proceeding further if he finds that the matter is one which is being canvassed by the Tribunal.

This Bill also establishes the composition of the Tribunal. It is to consist of a legally qualified presidential full-time member and nonpresidential members who may be either fulltime or part-time. The number of members is unlimited. The difficulty which confronted the Opposition when it first saw this legislation was that it was not possible to quantify the ambit of its operation. There was a clause which stated that future enactments could give a right of appeal- a right of review- to this Tribunal, but it would depend upon the nature of those enactments to ascertain what was the substantive jurisdiction which the tribunal was to have. It was very difficult in those circumstances to assess whether the provision for an unlimited number of members of the tribunal was warranted and whether it was therefore necessary to have the comprehensive set of registries which the Act contemplates.

There is another provision in the Bill which also concerns the Opposition. It is a provision which, in effect, enables the Tribunal to be a review tribunal notwithstanding the existence of inconsistent provisions in other enactments which would have to be overriden by the grant of an appeal to the review Tribunal. It may be quite desirable that the Tribunal should be a place of recourse for those who desire to have certain decisions reviewed, but the procedure of enabling Acts of Parliament to be overridden by regulations is not a procedure which commends itself to the Opposition. These are matters which are sought to be overcome by regulations which have been advanced and the Opposition welcomes the co-operative spirit in which the Government has responded to the Opposition’s amendments. It is an area in which there is a general bipartisan approach which suggests that the legislation that ultimately passes the Parliament will be legislation which is as well fitted as the combined wisdom of a Parliament can make it to achieve the objective of giving a review to the citizen against decisions to which he objects and which he desires to have changed.

So the Opposition gives its support to this measure. It gives its support for the further reason that this represents the culmination of a series of events- of a course of action- which was initiated by the Opposition when it was in government. It was in 1968, 1 think in October, that the honourable Nigel Bowen, as he then was, announced the appointment of the Administrative Review Committee. It was a committee presided over by Mr Justice Kerr, who is now the Governor-General, and had as its members Mr Justice Mason, now of the High Court and then the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, and Professor Whitmore of the Australian National University. When Mr Justice Mason ceased to be Solicitor-General he was replaced on this Committee by Mr Ellicott, who was then the SolicitorGeneral, now the honourable member for Wentworth in the House of Representatives. That Committee presented its report in the middle of 1971, and Mr McMahon, as Prime Minister, tabled the report almost 3 years after the announcement in 1968 of the appointment of the Committee.

It was apparent at the time when the then Government considered the Kerr Committee report that the procedures which it had recommended would have justification only if there were a sufficient volume of work to occupy the time of these bodies which were established. As I recall it, the Kerr Committee had recommended the establishment of an administrative review council which would have a general supervisory overseeing function with regard to the other procedures that were established, a general council for grievances that might be likened, though not too accurately, to an ombudsman, which would work with and assist the administrative review council, and a Commonwealth administrative court which would be the forum to which the appeals would go.

The McMahon Government therefore took 2 steps in 1 97 1 . It appointed the Bland Committee, which was a committee presided over by Sir Henry Bland.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand he prefers to be called Sir Harry.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I accept that he is well recognised.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And well esteemed.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-And esteemed in all these areas. He presided over this committee. I think that Mr Bailey of the Prime Minister’s Department was another member, and Professor Whitmore of the original Kerr Committee was the third member of the committee. The function of the Bland Committee was to investigate, determine and assess the areas in which discretions existed under Commonwealth legislation and to recommend appropriate means of review of those various administrative discretions that existed. It was a volume of work designed to assist government in determining whether the procedures recommended by the Kerr Committee were viable. The Bland Committee presented 2 reports, one shortly after the change of Government in which it was to some extent directed, though not wholly, in the type of report it should bring in because an early reference by the incoming government indicated that it was the Government’s intention to legislate for an ombudsman and that the Bland Committee should present a report in the light of that intention.

The first report of the Bland Committee was presented to the Parliament in May 1973. The final report was presented towards the end of the year. An examination of both the Bland Committee reports- the interim report and the final report- indicates the quantum of review work which might be vested in an administrative body and, in the light of what the Government had indicated was its intentions, an ombudsman. It is against that background that the Government has now, in 1975, produced this legislation. There has obviously been a lot of work which has preceded the emergence of this legislation. I repeat that the Opposition takes some satisfaction in the fact that what it initiated is now coming to fruition, and its amendments are designed to ensure as far as possible that the work of the committees is recognised in the form that the legislation takes.

Having regard to what the Minister said before the debate continued this evening, the Government is prepared also to move considerably along the line of establishing a jurisdiction, and this is something the Opposition welcomes.

The major debate will take place in the Committee stage and, as I have indicated, it is unlikely that the debate will move into the Committee stage this evening. But I should be grateful if in the intervening period before the Committee debate occurs the Minister might give some consideration to explaining why particular legislative provisions, in respect of which the Bland Committee had suggested that there might be an appeal or a review, have been excluded from the amendment the Government has suggested. It is quite apparent that the Government’s amendment setting up appeal provisions- review provisions- is a much tidier piece of work than the amendment which the Opposition had proposed, but provisions such as the appeals under the Agricultural Tractors Bounty Act, the Book Bounty Act, the Wireless Telegraphy regulations and the Navigation Act, to mention a few, are excluded, as also are excluded appeals under the provisions of the Passports Act and the Migration Act, to which the Minister expressly adverted in his statement. But I am sure that in the spirit which has so far governed the passage of this legislation we can arrive at some satisfactory understanding with regard to this measure. As I said, it is a wholly commendable exercise in which the Opposition is happy to join with the Government.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill now before the Senate represents, in my submission, a milestone in the evolution of the Australian legal system. I say that because this is the first time an attempt has been made to establish the legislative framework for an administrative appeals system on a national and a co-ordinated basis. The Bill, when analysed, is seen to create a new stream of rights for the benefit of the public, and I suggest that that stream will undoubtedly grow in the future both in its breadth and in the nature of the rights it contains. For those reasons I suggest that this Bill is an historic one, and it behoves the Senate to appreciate the true importance and significance of the legislation. I join with Senator Greenwood in paying tribute to the work of the 2 committees whose labours have led to this legislation- the Kerr Committee and the Bland Committee.

Because I believe that this is an historic Bill, I think it is necessary to go back a little in history and look at the development of administrative law, as it is sometimes called, in the English speaking system. We had reached a position in England about a century ago when Maitland, the famous legal and constitutional historian, was able to write in 1888:

If you take up a modern volume of the reports of the Queen’s Bench Division, you will find that about half the cases reported have to do with rules of administrative law; I mean with such matters as local rating, the powers of local boards, the granting of licences for various trades and professions, the Public Health Acts, the Education Acts, and so forth.

It will be noted that that was written a century ago and the position, as I will indicate shortly, has altered considerably since then so that the intrusion of the state, under whatever form of party political rule, into the personal and business affairs of individuals has reached a stage at which unless there is a barrier in the shape of an appropriate appellate system against the exercise of this discretion, the individual, the company, the firm, is liable to be trampled upon.

I think it is also appropriate to record that the system of review, the framework for which is embodied in this Bill, has not always found favour in English law. Students of the law will recall that great legal minds such as that of Dicey were considerably against the development of any such stream of law. The reason for that, as was given over many decades, was that such a system as is embraced within this Bill ran counter to the concept of the rule of law, and the argument went that the rule of law implied the absence of wide discretionary powers in the Government affecting the personal liberty, the private property rights and the freedom of contract of individuals. The argument went further, saying that the courts were the appropriate places in which any excesses of power, any wrong exercise of jurisdiction- but not on the merits- should be tested.

So it was that, going back into last century, the traditional approach was to deny that English law had any appropriate place for what was termed the droit administratif of France. That system was not a popular concept under English law, and one expression applied to it was that it was ‘an unEnglish interloper’. But a change has taken place in recent decades, a change which I suggest has been dictated by political considerations and by a realisation by governments that it is essential to protect the rights of individuals, especially in view of the increasing intrusion of the state into other affairs; that the extremely wide powers often of necessity put on a discretionary basis, and exercised by Ministers and officials, should be subject to proper checks and balances. So it is that in this decade one can say with confidence that the concept of the system embraced within this Bill, the concept of the development of a body of administrative law as a consequence of it, is completely accepted within the jurisprudence of English speaking countries. I quote one sentence from a recent judgment of Lord Denning in a case in 1971 in which he said:

It may truly now be said that we have a developed system of administrative law.

Moving to Australia, at a national level the move to develop an administrative legal system has been extremely slow. It has been ad hoc and motivated essentially by political considerations, but there is now a realisation in Government- I believe this applies to both sides of the Housethat where wide discretions are conferred by statute on Ministers and officials there will almost automatically be an accompanying conferring of jurisdiction on an appropriate tribunal.

As I have said, however, to date the development has been ad hoc. I shall cite just 3 recent examples. In February this year, even though there was no statutory basis for it, the Australian Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) established a system on an administrative basis of reviewing decisions within his sphere of ministerial jurisdiction, in particular in relation to the Social Services Act. As I have said, that had no statutory basis, but appeal tribunals were set up in February this year. They are operating nationally and their purpose was precisely the purpose that is sought to be effectuated by this Bill.

A second recent example is the National Compensation Bill introduced into this Senate, and which is the subject of an inquiry by a committee of the Senate. That Bill is riddled with instances of the conferring of jurisdiction on, in that case, officials. I do not doubt that when the report of the committee finally reaches this chamber it will contain some detailed references to that. But that Bill recognised the necessity in the public interest to provide an appellate system in order to review the exercise of that discretion. Honourable senators will recall that in that Bill there is provision- it remains to be determined whether it is adequate- whereby all those discretions can be reviewed.

The third and most recent example was contained in a measure introduced in this chamber this afternoon whereby in the Superannuation Bill it is provided, I think in clause 158, that regulations may be made providing for a review of the exercise of the discretion of the Superannuation Commissioner under that Bill. So the need for review of administrative decisions is completely recognised by this Government and this Parliament. The point I should like to make is that this Bill, in one giant stride, sweeps away the past efforts to give true justice in the field of administrative law and replaces them with one tribunal, admittedly operating of necessity in divisions, and exercising whatever jurisdiction Parliament confers on it.

In the debate in the House of Representatives the main thrust of the arguments was that the Bill provided a check on the exercise of discretion by Ministers and public servants in areas in which increasingly the Executive steps into the personal activities of individuals and business enterprise. I simply quote from a well known writer in the field of administrative law. Professor Wade in simple words illustrates the breadth of the problem with which this type of legislation is designed to deal. He writes in the second edition of his work ‘Administrative Law’:

During the last hundred years the conception of the true sphere of governmental activity has been transformed. Instead of confining itself to defence, public order, the criminal law, and a few other general matters, the modern state also provides elaborate social services and undertakes the regulation of much of the daily business of mankind. The state has seized the initiative, and has put upon itself all kinds of new duties. Hand in hand with these new duties must go new powers. In order to carry out so many schemes of social service and control, powerful engines of authority have to be set in motion. To prevent them running amok there must be constant control, both political and legal.

This Bill provides the means of establishing control in the second aspect to which Professor Wade referred. Although that was the thrust of the debate in the House of Representatives the main point which the Senate ought to appreciate fully and which the public must never be allowed to forget is that the scheme proposed by this Bill will permit reviews of decisions on their merits. I believe it was Senator Greenwood who referred to the jurisdiction of tribunals to substitute decisions of their own on matters of discretion for the decisions that were being appealed against. I invite the attention of the Senate to clause 26 of the Bill which is the main provision in relation to jurisdiction. The words used are that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction to review:

  1. … decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment; or
  2. … decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred, or that may be conferred, by another enactment having effect under that enactment.

I appreciate that it may well be that some amendment of those formal words may be made during the Committee stage, but the point is that the whole concept of the Bill is to provide for review of decisions on their merits and that being the case the public is able to have confidence that arbitrary decisions will not be made, that decisions that are unreasoned, contrary to fact, unreasonable or otherwise such as from any sense of justice should not be made.

One would ask in the light of the extremely wide jurisdiction conferred by this Bill: What does it mean to the citizen, to the firm, to the company? Until the development of a system of reviewing decisions at the administrative level the rights of persons flowed from 2 main sources. Firstly, the rights that were conferred on them by statutes- specific rights enforceable in the courts- and secondly, the rights which they were entitled to enjoy by virtue of the common law. We all know as a matter of history that long ago it was realised in English law that the common law had many inadequacies and was in many respects too rigid. So we had the development of a new stream of legal jurisdiction, namely, equity. It is interesting to recall that it is exactly 100 years ago that common law and equity, which had developed because of the rigours of the common law, were fused under one system in England under the provisions of the Judicature Act 1 875. So they were the 2 streams until this recent trend towards the conferring of power to review administrative decisions. This Bill takes the matter considerably farther and extends the scope. So it is that we now have a third stream of rights and they are those that I have already referred to in clause 26.

I think that one or two significant matters ought to be referred to so far as the detail of the Bill is concerned. It will be noted as far as the composition of the Tribunal is concerned that essentially the membership is to be judicial in character. One notices the lengths to which the Government has gone to ensure that the Tribunal will comprise persons who are properly qualified to act and generally I suggest will be of high calibre. One thing one notes in that context is that- I am very pleased indeed to see this - there has been no overt attempt in the Bill to introduce into the appellate structure a representative or a member of the government department which is affected by the decision that is under appeal, but I am not certain myself that that necessarily follows as a matter of construction. I refer the Senate to clause 7 of the Bill. Clause 6 (3) provides that a non-presidential member shall be appointed either as a full-time member or as a part-time member. When one reads that in conjunction with clause 7 (2) relating to part-time members it does seem to me that it would be possible under clause 7 (2) for representatives of departments to be appointed on a part-time basis. I suggest that even though that is possible it would be an undesirable step. There should be no involvement of departments, I suggest. The appeal system should flow purely and simply to a completely independent body.

As Senator Greenwood remarked, both sides of politics have played a part in the emergence of this legislation. I therefore suggest that both sides of politics can be proud to see legislation before the Senate which crystallises- that is the point; it crystallises- the granting to the public at large of coherent rights in relation to matters which impinge on their private and their business rights. This I suggest is the more so because the intrusion of the state is increasing and the scope of discretions become wider. I think they reached a height, as I have already indicated, in the National Compensation Bill. There does seem to have been a spirit of co-operation abroad, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, in relation to the detail of this Bill.

I acknowledge that the amendment in relation to the Administrative Review Council was suggested, as I understand it, initially by the Opposition in the House of Representatives and the Government has embraced that suggestion. One warning that I would wish to issue is that the public should not have the impression that the passing of this legislation provides an immediate panacea for all their ills in relation to the exercise of administrative discretions. A large area of governmental activity will still be beyond the power of this Parliament to influence- that is, the discretions which arise under the State legislation. I hope that this legislation, if it is passed, will be adopted and adapted by all States. Only if it is could it be said that there will be virtually complete protection, so far as can be granted in practical terms, throughout the nation. It remains for this Parliament to determine the scope of the jurisdiction of the tribunals.

There seem to be competing amendments. It would seem to me to be a pity if they could not be treated as 2 packs of cards, shuffled together and the best produced out of them. I have not had time tonight to have a look at the Opposition’s proposed amendment to the schedule so far as jurisdiction is concerned but I understand from Senator Greenwood that it follows precisely the amendment which was foreshadowed, if not actually moved, in the House of Representatives. I do not believe that any difficulty is caused by the fact that it will be, I imagine, at least some months before the full breadth of the jurisdiction of the tribunals is crystalised by the action of the Parliament. I do not believe that that is necessarily bad. I would prefer that a substantial body of jurisdiction be conferred initially on the tribunals, and that must be the result whether the proposed amendments of one side or the other are finally accepted. Nevertheless, care should be taken to ensure that when the amending legislation, which I imagine will be necessary, is introduced into this Parliament it is as complete as possible and follows substantially the recommendations in the Bland Committee report.

With the realisation that each time this Parliament passes new legislation it confers discretions upon Ministers and public officers, the Parliament must apply its mind specifically to the conferring of jurisdiction on the tribunals constituted by this Bill. The Parliament will become accustomed to doing it, and I hope that within a comparatively short period this third stream of legal rights which are now being injected into the armoury of the citizen will be regarded as something which is completely automatic. I suggest that if we reach that situation within 3 years our legal system will be as pure as perhaps it has been suggested the British legal system can be. I reserve my right to speak on the other matters which will be discussed at the Committee stage. For those reasons I indicate my support for the Bill.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I have much pleasure in joining with the other speakers in support of the motion for the second reading of this Bill. I trust that with the addition of proposed amendments to the Bill, which remain at this stage a little obscure but which I am sure are intended on all sides to strengthen the Bill, it will achieve a great deal in bringing into some sort of order administrative law in this community. I do not propose to go over ground which has already been covered by other speakers, but it is clear to all of us that the work which has been done by committees such as the Kerr Committee and the Bland Committee, which produced 2 reports, and what has been advocated by people on both sides of politics for a number of years, sometimes against an inertia and objection which were not always well founded, has meant at last some achievement. We recognise that we have reached a stage in this community at which there are, as Senator Everett pointed out, a great number of extra discretions that are given to Ministers and officials and that government has moved into many fields of activity in which hitherto it did not have any interest. Because of this fact alone we have a need for an administrative law which is not just ramshackle, as I think we could properly describe the present state of the law in this country, but one which is logical and consistent and, above all, is known by the people in this community.

I wish to make one point in this general area which has already been canvassed by other speakers. There is a great deal of value in the one system of appeals provided for individuals, no matter what the discretion may be. At present in Australia there are some discretions against which there is no appeal. Against some discretions there is an appeal to a Minister or to some other person. Against other discretions there is an appeal to a committee or to a court. Therefore it is desirable that individuals should have some easy way of knowing that they have rights and are not lost in the obscurity of these varying provisions. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Country Party of Australia have for some years advocated and have taken, as has been pointed out by speakers, some practical part in the development of this administrative law. In our document ‘The Way Ahead ‘we state:

A Liberal-Country Party Government will establish an ombudsman.

Additionally it will take all necessary steps to provide an effective means of appeal and redress from administrative decisions of officials and tribunals to ensure that citizens have direct and effective protection against bureaucraticdecisions.

Naturally we welcome the Bill and the Ombudsman Bill which has really to be dovetailed with this Bill. This Bill will provide in a formal sense, and the Ombudsman Bill in a more informal sense, the ability to control and redirect administrative decisions that go wrong.

I draw the attention of the Senate to one area of investigation some years ago. In Victoria the Statute Law Revision Committee investigated thoroughly the position with regard to appeals from administrative decisions. I think that in this matter the situation in Victoria is typical of the situation in the other States and in the Commonwealth. That Committee found a whole mass of areas in which all kinds of different procedures took place and in which all kinds of committees operated. Ultimately it recommended an administrative body that would bring these things into co-ordination, and recommended also the appointment of an ombudsman. I have some interest in that matter because I gave some evidence before the Committee. I wish to read out one of its recommendations which I think highlights the inadequacies of existing law so far as administrative appeals are concerned. At page 7 of the report of that Committee the following statement appears:

In terms of the individual seeking a just solution to his problem, the ramifications of judicial review by these methods are at best frustrating. The salient feature of interest to him in these proceedings- the legality of the administrative act or decision at issue- appears to be subordinate to seemingly endless legal argument as to the propriety of the method of review employed. Such exchanges will involve him in substantial costs and may not succeed in supplying him with a firm solution to his problem. In any case, a judicial consideration of the lawfulness of an administrative act or decision may not always satisfy his real need- a means of reviewing the fairness, adequacy, or impartiality of such an act or decision. Challenges by way of the Prerogative Writs often fall short of a satisfactory appeal because they are of limited application. A judicial review by this means cannot result in findings of fact being upset so long as there has been no misconduct, bias or wrongful application of law by the tribunal whose decision it is sought to impugn.

That statement further strengthens the point made by Senator Everett- that is, that appeals should be on the merits of the case, not on whether the tribunal went beyond its strict law or went beyond its proper procedure. The appeals should be on the merits. That is what people want from a tribunal. That is what they will expect from the type of tribunal which we are setting up in this Bill.

Some amendments to the Bill which is before us have been mentioned. There is some obscurity here, but I think it can be said that the amendments seek to do 3 things. The first is to supply a jurisdiction to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill as it stands, good as it is, does not give that initial jurisdiction. There is no way of indicating to the public whether it is to be a small or a large body or whether it will have a lot of work to do or not. But we have the valuable help of the report of the Bland Committee which set out in the schedules at the back of its report case after case where there were discretions that needed a proper form of appeal. In its report the Committee set out what was an appropriate form of appeal and whether it should go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or not. What the Opposition has done in its amendments in this area is to adopt those schedules and to say that, prima facie, these, being the ones that have been considered by the Bland Committee, ought to be adopted. On a quick perusal, the Government’s amendments appear to have fallen short, very substantially, of those schedules.

It may be, as was suggested in the House of Representatives, that there are some areas in which the Bland Committee’s recommendations are no longer applicable because the law has been changed or the Act has been repealed. In those circumstances one can understand why those recommendations should be deleted. But before this debate is concluded and before the amendments are considered, I think that we will want to know whether or not there is a number of other areas, in addition to those covered by the Government’s proposals, in which initial jurisdiction can be given to this Administrative Appeals Tribunal so that we will know how substantial will be the work of the Tribunal and so that people can start to realise that these are areas within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. After all, we must bear in mind that the Kerr and Bland reports took nearly 5 years to come to fruition. I believe that the effort should be made- it should be possible to do it now- to determine which of the existing laws should provide for an appeal to this Tribunal. One would hope that when this Bill is passed a fairly substantial jurisdiction will be given to this Tribunal.

There is a second series of amendments. There will be amendments from the Government and from the Opposition, and at this stage I desire to refer to them in a general sense. The amendments vary in detail, but it is clear that in both cases the proposal is to create a new body, the Administrative Review Council, to do a very desirable and continuing job, namely, to watch and see how this Act operates, how the Ombudsman Act operates, what areas are covered and what areas are not sufficiently covered, and to consider the procedures that are adopted by the new tribunals acting under the Act. The membership of the Administrative Review Council will include a president, the Australian Ombudsman and the chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission. I think that they will be excellent people to judge the operation of this new Act over a period of years. So whatever form the amendment takes, I think that this will be a substantial improvement to the Bill.

The third matter to which I desire to refer and which concerns me somewhat- it may not be covered by the amendments- relates to the question of confidentiality under this Bill. Under the clauses of the Bill there are substantial matters that will not be investigated by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I refer to clauses 28 and 36 of the Bill. Under clause 28 we are saying to people: ‘You are entitled to know the reasons why a discretion was exercised unfavourable to you. You have an entitlement to the reasons ‘. But an exception is written into that clause.

The exception is that the Minister may certify that it is contrary to the public interest to disclose the contents of a statement, and 3 reasons are given. The first is that such disclosure might prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia. I can understand and appreciate that. The second reason is that it might involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a Committee of the Cabinet. I can understand that, although I think sometimes that casts the net so wide that it might restrict, to some extent, the ability of the Tribunal to operate effectively. The third reason refers to any other reason specified in the certificate. That provision is to be attacked in one of the Opposition’s amendments. I hope that the provision will be deleted because it gives to a Minister a great power to specify reasons which he thinks make it contrary to the public interest to disclose the contents of a document, but it may be very much in the public interest to disclose the contents of a document.

A similar situation arises in clause 36. Clause 36 deals with the material which, in the appeal to the Tribunal, must be produced by the Minister. The same catalogue of exceptions is available. The difference is that in this Bill, when one comes to the question of ‘any other reason specified in the certificate’, one finds that sub-clause (3) of clause 36, in part, states: . . the Tribunal shall consider whether the information or the contents of the document should be disclosed to the parties to the proceeding and, if it considers that the information or the contents of the document should be so disclosed, it shall make the information available to the parties or permit the parties to inspect the document, as the case may be.

I am not satisfied that these provisions go far enough.

When one considers the report of the Bland Committee one realises that when it was reporting it was very concerned about the question of whether there would be sufficient disclosure. On page 32 of the report, which I will not read, the Bland Committee sets out its concern about the amount of confidentiality that is allowed to the Minister. I do not believe that in his second reading speech the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) adverted sufficiently to this problem. When referring to the question of confidential material he said:

In such a case, the statement of reasons is required to be lodged with the Tribunal itself. The Attorney-General is examining the recommendations of the Bland Committee that there should be a general requirement for reasons to be given for decisions made under powers conferred by statute.

I do not believe that sufficient understanding and appreciation have been given to the rather sweeping rights which are allowed to a Minister.

I conclude this observation by referring to a very thoughtful speech that was made by Dr Jenkins, a Government supporter, in the other place. He is reported at page 2284 of Hansard of 14 May 1975 as saying:

Another problem is that, although the Bill tries to give an applicant access to as much information as possible, a Minister may, by certifying that the disclosure of the contents of a statement of reasons for decisions would be contrary to the public interest, effectively block access by the applicant to the reasons for that decision. This has always been a grey area not only in the legal field but also in the parliamentary field. I will not examine the proposition in depth but will merely express my uneasy feelings and concern about it. I do however recognise that the Bill is quite helpful to the Tribunal itself in the case of such documents as dealt with in clause 36. It seems to me that there is an evenhanded approach here.

He referred to a number of cases which are of a different nature, going beyond this provision. Together with Dr Jenkins, I express the concern that too much scope is given to a Minister to enable him to avoid making material available. In my opinion, this Bill is in no way a slur on the Public Service of this community. It is in no way a derogation. It is something which will open up for consideration the opportunities which an individual in this community ought to have. When the legislation dealing with the Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is passed, an individual will be given ready access to appeal. He will not be bound by mere matters of law; justice will prevail. I believe that with some amendments this Bill will serve very mightily to improve the administrative law of Australia.

Debate interrupted.

page 2159

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Order! In accordance 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 11 p.m.

page 2160

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Recreation Projects (Question No. 360)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Are State Governments required to submit to the Federal Minister for Tourism and Recreation, for his approval, their recreation projects where they seek Commonwealth Government contributions.
  2. Has no decision yet been made on the Victorian projects for 1 974-75, notwithstanding that 4½ months of the year has now passed.
  3. Is the delay likely to cause some of the projects to be scrapped.
  4. Will the Minister expedite a decision before inflation makes them beyond the means of the State.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Where Australian Government funds are to be provided for recreation projects it is necessary for me to examine and approve this expenditure. The procedure developed is for applications to be made to the State Department in the first instance. They are then forwarded to me in State priority order.
  2. I made an initial announcement on 17 November 1974 concerning grants to recreation projects in Victoria. Further grants were announced on 26 January 1975. The final grants to recreation projects in Victoria, for 1974-75, were announced on 23 March 1 975.
  3. Where limited Australian Government funds are available some projects do not receive immediate support. It is possible, however, for any body or group which did not receive Australian Government support for a project to reapply for assistance in the next financial year.
  4. See 2.

Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd (Question No. 387)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Australian Government underwrite a recent share issue by Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd.
  2. Does the Government, as underwriters, take any responsibility for the preparation of the prospectus which accompanied the offer of shares.
  3. Did the prospectus materially understate the potential profitability of company contracts, especially in view of an announcement on 3 December 1974 of an 80 per cent price increase on all existing contracts.
  4. Will the Government make an early statement on its part in the preparation of a prospectus which may have reduced the equity of individual Australians in Mary

Kathleen Uranium Ltd, since trading in shares of that Company was suspended on the morning of 3 December 1 974 on the Melbourne Stock Exchange.

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. to (4) In the House of Representatives on 26 September 1974 I replied to a question without notice by the honourable member for Evans (Mr. A. W. Mulder) regarding the fulfilment of Australian contractual commitments for the export of uranium. In the House of Representatives on 3 December 1974I also replied to a question without notice by the honourable member for Flinders the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. P. R. Lynch) on Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd. There is nothing I would wish to add to those replies.

Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd (Question No. 389)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. Did the Minister state in answer to Question (vide House of Representatives’ Hansard, 2 December 1974 p. 4330) relating to the re-opening of the Mary Kathleen uranium mine that ‘we have been able to renegotiate the original contracts . . . ‘
  2. With whom were the contracts renegotiated and at what price.
  3. Did the Minister also state that Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd’s mine is to be reopened and that the Company would receive $100m from sales of about 5500 tons under old contracts.
  4. Did the Minister further say that from the residue of a further 2500 short tons of uranium, a yield of a further $50m would result.
  5. Has the Minister already approved further export contracts for the 2500 additional tons; if so, what is the average price per ton.
  6. How does this enable the assessment of $50m gross.
  7. How does the price for this uranium compare with the contract price for the original 5500 tons.
  8. When were such additional contracts approved.
  9. When were any shareholders told of such contracts.
  10. 10) If no contracts have been negotiated for the sale of residue of the uranium referred to in the Minister’s answer, how did the Minister arrive at the figure of $50m.
  11. 1 1 ) Is the Minister prepared to approve any contracts if they are negotiated.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 1 1 ) See answer to Question No. 387.

Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd (Question No. 406)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister state in the House of Representatives on 2 December 1974 that Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd would be an ‘extremely profitable’ exercise for the original shareholders and for the Government; if so, on what evidence did he base that statement.
  2. On the best estimate, will there be no return in the form of a dividend for four years, then two cents per 25c share in 1 979, and then an average of four or five cents per share in 1980-84.
  3. 3 ) Does this average 2½ cents per share per year.
  4. Is the worst estimate for a return2½ cents per share for two years only.
  5. Does the Minister possess estimates of profitability not contained in the recent letter of offer from Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd to shareholders.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) See answer to Question No. 387.

Mr David Ditchburn (Question No. 415)

Senator Baume:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Did a Mr David Ditchburn, a recent appointee to the Films Board of Review, incur debts in excess of $ 1,000 under two account names with the Postmaster-General’s Department; if so, was this matter investigated by the PostmasterGeneral ‘s Department and subsequently referred to the Commonwealth Police Force for further action.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

The Government takes the view that the existence or balance of any account raised by the Australian Post Office in connection with the provision of postal or telecommunications services is a matter of commercial confidence and that details of an account should not be published by the Post Office except to the extent that publication is made necessary by the institution of legal proceedings to recover an overdue account.

Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (Question No. 429)

Senator Jessop:

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

  1. Did a Commonwealth arbitration inspector, who was a former endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate for the South Australian Legislative Council, attend a meeting of members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association held in the Adelaide Town Hall during 1974 after the rejection of an ACOA pay claim.
  2. Did the inspector advocate strike action, and suggest that workers in transport and communications be urged to strike, and that a general fund be set up by ACOA members to finance strikers who were called out.
  3. Is this action compatible with the officer’s position as a Commonwealth arbitration inspector.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1) to (3) I reject completely any inference in the honourable senator’s question that I, as Minister for Labor and Immigration, should exercise surveillance over the proceedings of meetings of the ACOA or any other trade union- or for that matter any employer organisation. It is the policy of the Government to encourage the fullest participation of workers and employers in the affairs of their organisations. This is, for example, demonstrated by its ratification in 1973 of ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 1948 (No. 87) and ILO Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention 1 949 (No. 98 ).

Tourism (Question No. 470)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation the following question upon notice:

How does the Minister reconcile the Government’s policy objective ‘ to boost travel to and in Australia by progressive aviation policies and improvements in major transport routes and services’ with the Australian Labor Party’s recent decision to increase airport rent charges by up to 2000 per cent.

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

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

The recent decision to increase the proportion of costs of airport terminal facilities to be recovered from the user airlines is in accordance with the Government’s general policy that the users of facilities should contribute, as far as practicable, to the costs associated with the provision of the facilities.

I recognise the impact this may have on air travel to and within Australia and discussions are continuing between the Minister for Transport and myself on this matter.

Rock Music Festivals (Question No. 473)

Senator Chaney:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

Has the Government been requested to provide funds to subsidise rock music festivals; if so, what decision has been made by the Government.

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

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

No request has been received by my Department to subsidise rock music festivals.

Cannibis (Question No. 497)

Senator Baume:

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

For how many years and on whose instructions has it been the practice in the Australian Capital Territory not to prosecute people for possession and use of cannabis derivatives.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

See the answer to House of Representatives Question No. 926 (Hansard, 8 April 1975, page 1312). The period mentioned therein is not less than two years.

Medibank (Question No. 521)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Did the Minister, in a press release dated 16 April 1975, state that in States which entered the Medibank Hospital Plan, people would be automatically covered for the cost of standard ward care; if so, will this promise of cover for costs of standard ward care extend to patients in standard ward beds in public hospitals run under the State health systems.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

Yes, in a press release dated 16 April 1975,I stated that in States which entered the Medibank hospital arrangements, people would be automatically covered for the cost of standard ward care.

Under the Medibank hospital agreement, the State is to undertake to provide free standard ward accommodation and treatment without means test in recognised hospitals to all persons seeking such treatment. Recognised hospitals will generally be those public hospitals currently approved for the purposes of payment of Australian Government hospital benefits under the National Health Act. A list of recognised hospitals in the State is to be included in the agreement document concluded with each State.

Tourism (Question No. 535)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. Did the following appear in the Minister’s Department’s Advisory Service Newsletter of March 1975: . . the Government is pledged to make grants, loans, tax concessions and inducements to ensure that Australian cities are provided with accommodation and amenities of international standard’; if so, for what organisations and purposes do tax concessions in this context now apply.
  2. Of these, which have been implemented by the Minister’s Government.
  3. What form do the tax concessions take.
  4. What tax concessions has the Government announced that will be implemented in the future and to what organisations are they to apply.
  5. When is it expected the tax concessions in (4) will be introduced.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (l)Yes.

  1. Grants, loans from the Commonwealth Development Bank, loan guarantees from the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. The general question of forms of assistance to the accommodation industry is the subject of a Departmental submission to the Industries Assistance Commission.
  2. It has not been possible to implement all our proposals. No tax concessions have been given.
  3. None.
  4. See (4) above.

Prime Minister’s Overseas Missions (Question No. 536)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When the Prime Minister left Australia for Peru did he and his party travel on normal commercial flights, if not, why not.
  2. On her recent visit did Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips travel to Australia on normal commercial flights.
  3. Will the Prime Minister in future follow the example of the economy saving, employed by the Royal Family in using normal commercial flights or does he intend to force the taxpayers to foot the bill for his luxury VIP travel.
  4. If it is good enough for the Royal Family to use commercial flights why cannot the Prime Minister do the same.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)I travelled to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Jamaica by chartered Qantas aircraft. I did so on security advice (House of Representatives Hansard, 28 November 1974, page 4225 and 2 December 1974, page 4331).

  1. The government paid for 13 seats on a Qantas commercial flight to Australia for the use of the Princess Anne, Captain Phillips and those accompanying them.
  2. For the last 10 years all other members of the Royal Family have arrived in Australia by RAAF, RAF or chartered Qantas aircraft.
  3. I have three times crossed the Tasman by Qantas commercial flights. After the Darwin cyclone I flew home from Europe and back by Qantas commercial flights at short notice and with a single stop on the way. In these cases the security risks were adjudged to be minimal.

National Sports Institute (Question No. 537)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Study Group on the feasibility of a National Sporting Institute.
  2. What were the terms of reference for the Study Group.
  3. What were the principal recommendations of the Study Group.
  4. When was the Group’s report handed to the Minister.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1) Dr A. Coles, Dr K. Fitch, Mr J. Clarke, Mr R. Rasic, Miss E. Murphy, Mr A. Dettre, Mr H. Graham, Mr G. Strang.

  2. (a) The study group shall examine the existing provision in Australia for the adequate preparation and training of sportsmen, sportswomen, coaches and sports medicine personnel and make recommendations as to the need for a National Sports Institute to improve the present situation.

    1. Should a need be established, the study group should investigate how other countries cope with this problem to provide for sport and physical recreation from the very basic to the most advanced levels of performance with a view to recommending on the best approaches to be taken in the Australian situation.
    2. In relating its findings to the Australian environment, the study group should focus particular attention and make recommendations on the functions and location of any institute and how it would relate to a national system of coaching and training; the types of courses and programs to be offered at such an institute and the facilities and staffing required to implement them; the development priorities and funding of any institute.
    3. The study group should also report on any other aspects of sports and physical recreation development in Australia which may reasonably be related to a national sports institute.
  3. and (4) The study group has yet to complete its report. It is anticipated that the report will be handed to the Minister early in July of this year.

Computer Network Systems (Question No. 542)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many individual computer network systems does the Government now have between two or more capital, or other Australian cities, or centres.
  2. What is the nature and purpose of the information stored in each computer network system.
  3. By which Department is each computer network system funded and maintained.
  4. What guarantees do citizens have that the information concerning their personal lives and stored in these systems is accurate.
  5. What avenues are available to citizens to contest the accuracy of the information stored when they believe such information to be inaccurate.
  6. When, and in what circumstances, can citizens examine the information kept.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (6) The detailed information sought by the honourable senator is being obtained and will be provided as soon as possible.

Health Insurance (Question No. 553)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. How is it intended to register, for purposes of the Health Insurance Act, those Australian adults who are not on the Electoral Roll or who do not receive Child Endowment.

    1. How many such Australians are there.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Press publicity during June will invite registration by persons who do not receive Health Insurance Cards. In addition to a coupon incorporated into the press advertisements, forms to apply for cards will be available at all Post Offices, offices of the Department of Social Security and Medibank offices. Registration can also be effected when claiming medical benefits under Medibank.
  2. It is estimated that approximately 1 million persons do not come within the categories of enrolled voters or endowed children.

Medibank (Question No. 558)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Does the booklet ‘Medibank and you’ state at page 9, Whoever you are, wherever you live, you will be free to go to any medical practitioner and you will receive Medibank benefit payments for the services the doctor provides’; if so, is the statement accurate in its claim of universal entitlement.
  2. Does this apply unreservedly to those persons with entitlements to benefits under the Repatriation Act; if not, is the statement misleading to the extent that Repatriation patients may not have freedom to attend any medical practitioner and to receive Medibank benefits for the services provided.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Repatriation patients will retain their current entitlements and the current arrangements for treatment of Repatriation patients, including general practitioner services by the Local Medical officer nominated by them, will continue. In addition Repatriation patients will be eligible for the same Medibank benefits as any other member of the community, and may choose to use these entitlements rather than their Repatriation entitlements if they wish. The only services specifically excluded from benefits under the Health Insurance Act are medical examinations for the purposes of life insurance or admission to membership of a friendly society. Reference to these exclusions are contained in the Medibank claim form which accompanied the booklet. The statement in ‘ Medibank and You ‘ is considered to accurately reflect the fact of universal entitlement.

Medibank (Question No. 559)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Does the booklet ‘Medibank and you’ state on page 1 0, ‘ Everyone in Australia, whether a new arrival, a visitor or a resident, will be eligible for Medibank medical benefits ‘.
  2. Are those persons in receipt of Repatriation medical entitlements eligible for Medibank medical benefits, or are they compelled to use existing Repatriation arrangements.
  3. If there is such a limitation of entitlement, is the booklet misleading to that extent.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Repatriation patients will retain their current entitlements and the current arrangements for treatment of Repatriation patients, including general practitioner services by the Local Medical Officer nominated by them, will continue. In addition Repatriation patients will be eligible for the same Medibank benefits as any other member of the community, and may choose to use these entitlements rather than their Repatriation entitlement if they wish.
  3. The statement quoted is therefore accurate and in no way misleading.

National Employment and Training Scheme (Question No. 581)

Senator Jessop:

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

How many people are receiving benefits under the National Employment and Training Scheme in the following age groups: (a) between 55 and 60 years of age and (b) between 60 and 65 years of age.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

The precise information sought by the honourable senator is not available without a considerable amount of research. However, I am able to provide the following information about the ages of persons approved under the National Employment and Training System in the period 1.10.74 to 31.3.75:

Australian National Gallery: Purchasing Commissions (Question No. 600)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What agents or other persons have been paid commissions for the purchase of works on behalf of the Australian National Gallery since 2 December 1972.
  2. For what purchases was each agent used.
  3. What percentage commission was paid in each case.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. I ) to (3) I refer the honourable senator to my answer to the Leader of the Opposition on 10 April 1975 (House of Representatives Hansard, page 1563).

The same principles and practices govern acquisitions whether in Australia or abroad.

Vietnamese Refugees: Offer of Assistance by World Christian Action

Senator Willesee:
ALP

– On 13 May 1975 Senator Davidson asked the following question, without notice:

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and is in relation to the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees. I ask: Is the Minister aware that the voluntary agency known as World Christian Action has indicated to the Government that it is prepared to render the maximum co-operation and assistance to the Government in resettlement of the Vietnamese refugees? ls the Minister aware that this agency has expertise, personnel and international connections as well as long years of experience in refugee resettlement in many parts of the world? Will he respond to its offer of assistance by conferring with it and widening the criteria for the admission of Vietnamese refugees?

The following answer was given to the honourable senator’s question at the time:

What has happened regarding the whole question of refugees is that we have made an approach through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He has cabled us in connection with this matter and it is under study at this very moment. We have, of course, sent people to Guam to pick up those people who have escaped from Vietnam and who come within our categories so that they can be processed and brought here. As to the special organisation mentioned by the honourable senator, I will do a check on that matter and give him some more information on it.

In relation to the further information to be provided to the honourable senator, the following situation pertains:

Checks which I have made have not revealed any record of an approach or offer to the Government by an organisation known as World Christian Action.

Geneva Conference on the Middle East

Senator Willesee:
ALP

-On 20 May 1975, Senator Wright asked the following questions, without notice:

What is the present status of the proposed United Nations conference in Geneva having reference to the question of Palestine? Have both Co-Chairmen agreed to hold the conference? What date has been fixed and what is the agenda? Are the parties committed to that conference?

The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. Following the suspension on 22 March of efforts by Dr Kissinger, the United States Secretary of State, to bring about a second-stage agreement between Egypt and Israel, the Egyptian Government has formally requested the two Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference on the Middle East, the United States and the Soviet Union, to re-convene the Conference as soon as possible. The Conference would bc expected to deal with all aspects of the Middle East situation, including the Palestine question.
  2. As far as we are aware, the Co-Chairmen, while agreeing on the desirability of re-convening the Geneva Conference at an appropriate time, have not yet agreed on a date nor on a precise agenda for a Conference. The United States, it is understood, nas not excluded the possibility of further steps towards a Middle East settlement in advance of or separate from any such Conference.
  3. The attitudes of all the potential parties to the Conference have not been fully clarified. As well as Egypt itself, Israel and Syria appear to be willing in principle to attend the Conference. It is not yet clear whether Jordan will take part or how the Palestinians will be represented.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 June 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750603_senate_29_s64/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant