Senate
22 July 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 2833

PETITIONS

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 offices.
  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. 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 $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 Bonner and Senator Sheil.

Petitions received.

page 2833

URGENT ENERGY ITEMS

Notice of Motion

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That there be laid on the table of the Senate the full list and cost of urgent energy items which were referred to by the Minister for Minerals and Energy, the Hon. R. F. X. Connor, M.P., during debate in the House of Representatives on 9

July 1975 and recorded on page 3611 of Hansard of that date.

page 2833

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Report

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the resolution of the Senate of 23 April 1975 I lay upon the table the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the clauses of the National Compensation Bill 1974.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2833

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN NEGOTIATIONS

Examination of Person Called to the Bar of the Senate

Debate resumed from 17 July on motion by Senator Steele Hall:

That, pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975, Mr Gerasimos Karidis of 15 Robe Terrace, Medindie, South Australia, be called to the Bar of the Senate, by summons under the hand of the Clerk of the Senate, on Tuesday. 22 July 1 975, at half-past two p.m., and to attend from day to day until the Senate otherwise orders, to answer questions and produce all documents, files or papers in his possession, custody and control relevant to the matters relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities referred to in the Senate’s Resolution of 9 July 1975.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move the following motion:

The Senate, acknowledging the well established practice of the Senate in its Committees that counsel may be present during the taking of evidence and that, with the permission of the Chairman, a witness may from time to time consult counsel as to his legal rights, resolves:

That the Senate agrees to the request of Mr Gerasimos Karidis, to be accompanied by legal counsel when attending as a witness before the Senate: and

That if Mr Karidis, as a witness before the Senate, wishes to consult his counsel as to his legal rights on any question asked of him, the witness shall apply to the President for permission so to do.

The motion that I have moved is in line with the practice which has been adopted by Senate committees in the past when people have sought to be represented by legal counsel. In moving the motion I emphasise that the Government does not acknowledge that the calling of citizens to the Bar of the Senate is a proper procedure in matters of this nature. As Senator Wriedt said last week, the decision to bring Mr Karidis before the Bar of the Senate is the responsibility, and must remain the responsibility, of Senator Hall and the Opposition. The Government does not believe that this place is a court of law, but because the witness has been brought here by the combined Opposition we want to ensure that he is given maximum protection as an Australian citizen. It is for that reason that I have moved the motion.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition will not oppose the motion. I am somewhat surprised that in moving a simple formal motion like the one before us the Special Minister of State (Senator Douglas McClelland) should indulge in political activity. The fact that the motion has been moved in these terms arises out of the fact that the witness sent a telegram to the Senate last week. I thought as a result of what Senator Wriedt said and what I said on that occasion it was resolved, without any sort of fuss and bother, without anybody trying to score political points, that the witness ought to be allowed to have counsel to advise him. I thought there was never any doubt as to how we would regard that matter. For the Minister now to indulge in the exercise in which he has indulged, I think, does nothing to further the protection of witnesses.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I wish to express a word of caution. My experience in working on committees- this has been explained by Senator Douglas McClelland- has been that the witness has the right to bring counsel and the witness has the right to refer to counsel but that the judgment is still left with the witness. I trust that you, Mr President, will permit the counsel to caution the witness if counsel feels that the witness is entering into an area which may prejudice him.

The PRESIDENT:

– The terms of the motion cover that matter. I will be watching very closely to see that there is no departure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Gerasimos Karidis, announced by the Usher of the Black Rod and accompanied by counsel, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The oath having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Karidis, will you please give your full name and occupation.

Mr Karidis; I am Mr Gerasimos Karidis from 100a Henley Beach Road, Mile End, company director.

The PRESIDENT:

-Will you also give the name of your counsel?

Mr Karidis; Mr Tim Anderson

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Karidis, you have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give to the Leader of the Government in the Senate the first call to ask questions, followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, but they may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate, if you wish to consult counsel as to your legal rights or any question asked of you, you shall apply to the President for permission to do so. Mr Karidis, I understand that before questions are asked of you you wish to seek leave to make an opening statement. Is that the position?

Mr Karidis; Mr President, could I have leave of the Senate to make a short statement prior to the commencement of questions? I have copies of the statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Mr Karidis, you wish to make a statement?

Mr Karidis; Yes

The PRESIDENT:

– And you have asked for leave to make a statement. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr Karidis; I have copies of the statement herewith. They could be distributed to all honourable senators if it is the wish of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it the wish of the Senate that the document be circulated? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Copies of the document having been circulated to honourable senators,

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Karidis, will you now proceed with your opening statement.

Mr Karidis;Thank you, Mr President. I will now read my statement.

I know Mr Khemlani and have acted as an agent for him in his efforts to raise a loan for the Australian Government. I have been in touch with him many times by telephone, by telex and personally both in Australia and overseas.

I was first introduced to Mr Khemlani some time either in late October or early November last year. I then introduced him to Mr Connor through Mr Clyde Cameron.

Mr Cameron has been a friend of mine for many years and I had told him in September last year that I had heard that large amounts of funds were available overseas at low interest rates. He told me that Mr Connor could be interested, and then he introduced me to Mr Connor.

Since I first met Mr Khemlani I have been in touch with him on many occasions in relation to this matter and also for many other business deals. We are still doing business together.

I have never had any contact with the lenders of the money. This has been handled only by Mr Khemlani.

I have never asked for or been offered any payment or commission by Mr Connor or any of his officers. In fact I have been told specifically by Mr Connor on more than one occasion that any payment of fees must be from the lender’s side and not from the Government side.

I expected to receive some payment for my efforts and trusted Mr Khemlani to arrange this. I do not know how much I would have received if the deal had been finalised.

I am the ‘Adelaide connection’ referred to in some of the documents passed between Mr Connor and Mr Khemlani I have visited Mr Connor on many occasions and telephoned him either to pass on messages from Mr Khemlani or to advise progress or obtain further information, and he has given me copies of some telexes.

Mr Khemlani produced draft documents to a meeting of Government officers from various departments early in December last year. This was in Sydney and I was at the meeting. I think I have all these drafts but I am not sure. The drafts were not acceptable to Mr Connor and after this it was clear that any payments for commission and other charges had to be taken out at the lender’s end. I understand that Mr Khemlani had a lot of trouble finalising or attempting to finalise the arrangements for commission. I believe it was never finalised.

I was never given a copy of the Executive Council minute which I have now seen in Hansard. I think a copy was given to Mr Khemlani.

I have copies of some of the documents which have been tabled by Mr Connor, but not all of them. I received lots of messages from Mr Khemlani on my telex machine, but most of these were not kept. I do have some, however, and these are available. Most are progress reports. I have copies of some messages sent by Mr Khemlani to Mr Connor which were sent to me on my telex. I discussed with Mr Khemlani other matters which are not relevant.

I always hoped to receive some form of payment for my services.

Pursuant to the summons issued to me on 17 July I produce all relevant documents in my possession.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIGHT:

– May we receive the documents first?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-Mr President, in view of the uncertainty of the amount of material there, I think that it would be advisable if the Leader of the Opposition were given an opportunity to see how much material is involved.

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Police and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Are the documents tabled?

The PRESIDENT:

– Not formally tabled.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Under rule 1 1 they are deemed to be tabled.

The PRESIDENT:

– Under the rules of this Senate meeting the papers are deemed to have been tabled.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr President, there appears to be a large number of telexes, telegrams, etc., in that file. On a quick look, some appear to have been tabled and some do not appear to have been tabled. We on this side of the chamber would like time to consider the file. I am quite certain that Senator Hall would like to look at it, as this is his witness. I suggest that the Leader of the Government suspend the sitting of the Senate until at least 4 o ‘clock or thereabouts.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, consistent with our practice of last week, I think it is only reasonable that the Opposition and Senator Hall have time to peruse the material which has been tabled. Therefore, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 2.50 to 4.30 p.m.

The PRESIDENT:

– Black Rod, recall Mr Karidis.

Mr Gerasimos Karidis having been recalled

The PRESIDENT:

– I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, I have no questions to ask at this stage. I reserve my right to ask questions at a later stage if I so desire.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator WITHERS:

– I reserve my questions to a later stage, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Steele Hall. As Senator Steele Hall is the first nonGovernment senator to ask questions, I ask: Does the Senate consider that he should not be limited to 15 minutes in the asking of questions? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Mr President, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for allowing me to proceed first. It is true that it was on my initiative that Mr Karidis was called here today. I am pleased to see Mr Karidis here, Mr President, because he is a South Australian success story. I hope he will be able to provide some of the information on the loans question which has been denied to us by the Government. Mr Karidis, could I ask you how you first became aware that funds of a substantial nature were available overseas, possibly for the Australian Government to borrow?

Mr Karidis By a connection I had in Hong Kong.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, 3 references have been made in the documents tabled previously by the Leader of the Government in the Senate to ‘Adelaide associates’. I think that is a general term that one could use. I would like to ask Mr Karidis who are his partners in this venture. As he freely claims that he is the ‘Adelaide associate ‘ and as I understand that he has partners, I would like him to tell the Senate who are his partners in this venture in Adelaide.

Mr Karidis Mr President, I disclose I am the only connection on this deal. I have been introduced from some other business people from Adelaide to Mr Khemlani- before that to Hong Kong and then to Mr Khemlani.

Senator STEELE HALL:

- Mr President, Mr Karidis said in his address to the Senate prior to the questioning beginning that he expected and hoped to obtain some commission from this loan arrangement. Could I ask Mr Karidis whether he had promised other persons or another person in Adelaide a share of his part of the commission for part of the work which was done in ascertaining the source of the loans?

Mr Karidis Mr President, if I was getting any commission, of course I promise because the people introduce me.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, could I ask Mr Karidis who those people were in Adelaide whom he promised a part commission?

Mr Karidis Mr President, is it necessary to answer that question?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes. I would say that that is a fair question.

Mr Karidis Mr Tibor Shelley. He is the one who introduced me to Mr Thomas Yu at Hong Kong, and from there I have been introduced to Mr Khemlani.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you. Mr President, Mr Karidis stated in his earlier address that he had continuing business relationships with Mr Khemlani. Without of course prying into the personal aspects of detail of that, could Mr Karidis tell the Senate what is the nature of his continuing personal relationships with Mr Khemlani in Adelaide?

Mr Karidis Mr President

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

– I rise to take a point of order. The matters on which Mr Karidis has been summoned to come before the Senate today relate quite specifically to the terms of reference. To ask him about other relationships which he may have with Mr Khemlani or anybody else which are not related to those terms of reference is, I submit, completely improper and should not be allowed.

Senator WITHERS:

-On the point of order, Mr President, I understand that this question arises out of Mr Karidis ‘s own statement to the Senate. As Senator Hall’s question arose out of that statement, made earlier, I think it is Mr Karidis himself who has opened it up and Senator Hall is entitled to pursue it. If a man makes a statement he is entitled to be examined upon it.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President - (Government senators interjecting)-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Steele Hall, you are aware of the terms of reference. I ask you to keep as close as you possibly can to them.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I appreciate that. I was about to speak to the point of order raised by the honourable senator. It was not without thought that I asked that question, as Mr Karidis ‘s continuing business relationships with Mr Khemlani may have some bearing on the major aspect of loan negotiations. I do not want, for any personal or prying reasons, to know of Mr Karidis ‘s future ventures in that regard. But 1 do think it would be useful to have the information which was half ventured by Mr Karidis himself in the incomplete form in his statement which all honourable senators have. Mr President, I address you on the point of order on that basis.

The PRESIDENT:

– As far as the questioning has gone I feel that you, Senator Hall, are within the terms of reference. If you continue along these lines, it is in order as far as I am concerned.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Thank you, Mr President. Could I address a question to Mr Karidis? What is the nature of his continuing business relationships with Mr Khemlani?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I submit that I should not have to answer any questions about my private business affairs on the grounds that they are not relevant.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, I address a further question, through you, to Mr Karidis. Could I ask you, sir, how many times you met with several Ministers, other than when just one was present, at a meeting? How many times did you meet with Ministers gathered together prior to the end of 1 974?

Mr Karidis, I cannot remember; a few times.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Thank you. Mr Karidis, did you meet with Ministers on 11 November and on 12 November?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I cannot remember either; could be.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, could Mr Karidis remember which Ministers were present at the meetings which obviously he would have some general memory of?

Mr Karidis, Mostly with Mr Connor.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Could I ask, Mr President: On those occasions which were not only with Mr Connor, which other Ministers were present?

Mr Karidis, Mr Cameron.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you. Mr President, I wish to ask Mr Karidis what documents, if any, were given to him to confer on him some accreditation in his negotiations with Mr Khemlani and others. Did you have any documents to give you an accreditation from the Australian Government or a Minister?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I will ask your permission to refer to my counsel before I answer that question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, you may refer to your counsel.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Before the answer is given, I think that some regard must be had to the obvious difficulty that this witness would have with terms such as ‘accreditation’. I suggest that Senator Steele Hall explain perhaps to Mr Karidis ‘s counsel precisely what he means by that term. It is not fair that the witness should give some answer without knowing the exact meaning of the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I understand that Mr Karidis is well known to his counsel who would understand Mr Karidis ‘s limitations and who would take the initiative in making these explanations to him. If at any time, Mr Karidis, you feel that you need a wider explanation of any term, ask the Chair and we will give you an answer. I ask Senator Steele Hall to continue.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, I agree with the point of order raised by Senator James McClelland. I was really asking this: What document or paper, if any, was given to Mr Karidis by a Minister appointing him as a negotiator or an agent?

Mr Karidis, Nothing, Mr President.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you. Could I ask Mr Karidis whether he was provided with any government services of any nature at all?

Senator GEORGES:

– Explain that.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Was any help given by the Government in any way to- Mr Karidis to assist him in his search, here or overseas, for loan funds?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, it was only a few motor cars that picked me from the aeroplane to take me to my hotel or to the ministry.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you. I now wish to ask some questions about the commission. Could I ask the witness why the commission was to be arrrived at by deducting it from the source of the funds rather than being paid by the Government? I ask this because Mr Cameron -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Obviously this matter could not be one within the knowledge of the witness. How could he be expected to answer this question?

The PRESIDENT:

– I think the witness understands the nature of the question. If he objects to answering it we could listen to further argument, but I would wait until the witness objected to the question before I would give a decision on it.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I repeat the question. Why was the decision made by the Minister to deduct the commission from the sum of the loan at the lender’s side of the operation rather than paying it from the Government?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I reiterate my objection. That is a question which clearly cannot be within the knowledge of the witnesswhy the Minister reached a certain decision. Is the witness called here to explain why the Minister reached decisions? It is clearly an inadmissible question.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Speaking to that point of order, Mr President, there is a passage either in the tabled documents or in a speech, I think by Mr Clyde Cameron, which clearly states that the commission was discussed in round terms at a meeting of Ministers when Mr Karidis was present.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Ask the question: Was it discussed in his presence and if so, what was said?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-That is the way to ask a question.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is right. That is the appropriate question.

Senator WITHERS:

-The witness is not on trial.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Is he not?

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– So we are on trial?

Senator WITHERS:

-Of course you are.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, I shall ask another question.

The PRESIDENT:

– You are speaking to the point of order?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I should like to ask another question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Continue with your questioning, Senator Steele Hall.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-On page 3655 of Hansard of 9 July this year Mr Clyde Cameron is recorded as saying in the House of Representatives:

I was present at the meeting which was arranged. At this meeting there was a general but inconclusive discussion in which questions were raised relating to the proposed rates of interest, the terms of the loan and the proposed commission.

That was a meeting which was attended by Mr Clyde Cameron, Mr Karidis, Mr Connor, Dr J. F. Cairns, Sir Lenox Hewitt, and I think, Mr Anderson.

Senator WRIGHT:

– What page?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-That is at page 3655 of Hansard. I therefore believe the question is relevant and I put to Mr Karidis: Why was this form of payment of commission devised?

Mr Karidis, I do not know why but one thing I know: We could not get commission off this side.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-My question of course is as to why it was difficult to get it on this side, and I submit that question to Mr Karidis.

Mr Karidis, I was told very clearly that we could not get any commission on this side.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Is this the best you can do? Come on; get into it.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I suggest that if the Ministers opposite can contain themselves they might hear something.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am waiting for all the disclosures. I cannot contain myself.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am sure the Minister cannot contain himself. He never can.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Senate will come to order. Senator Hall will continue his questioning.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Is Mr Karidis aware that Mr Connor claimed in a statement recorded at page 3624 of Hansard that in no way whatever was the Australian Government to be committed to the payment of any costs, fees or other liabilities and that necessary funds for such purposes were to be obtained from the lenders? Is he also aware of the draft of acceptance provided to Mr Khemlani by Mr Connor which expressly states that the rate of emission for the loan shall be 98 per cent less 2Vi per cent charges for the work that Mr Khemlani had done? Is Mr Karidis aware of that?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I think we better go on one question at a time please.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Perhaps I can go on from that question and ask Mr Karidis: Was he aware that the total cost to the Australian populous was 4lA per cent, made up of 2 per cent related to the 98 per cent emission and 2Vi per cent commission to Mr Khemlani?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, that was Mr Khemlani ‘s idea at the beginning. He was refused that at a meeting we had at Sydney and that is why we had to look at getting it off the lender’s side.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Perhaps I could ask now, Mr President, of Mr Karidis: How was the commission to be divided?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, we did not know how much we was getting, what we was getting and when we get it and when the deal we will finish, but it has never been finalising yet. It is too early for all these things to discuss.

Senator STEELE HALL:

- Mr President, I put this to Mr Karidis: If it was too early to finalise those matters, what was it that at very short notice in December prevented the culmination of the loan? If I could remind Mr Karidis, communications from Mr Khemlani in December indicated that it was within several days of being finalised. What were the issues at that time? What factors prevented the loan from being finished then?

Mr Karidis, Only he has promised me this, Mr President. If the deal goes through we get something.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, I had in mind some of the -

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I rise on a point of order. What are the rules about counsel and the witness Mr President?

The PRESIDENT:

-Is this a point of order?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

– A point of order. My understanding is that the witness may consult his counsel with the permission of the Presiding Officer. But does that mean that counsel may assist the witness in preparation of answering a question without being asked?

Senator GEORGES:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Presid-nt. This is the exact point that I raised at the beginning, and you ruled that )ou would protect the rights of the witness and would not proceed according to the method that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is putting to you.

The PRESIDENT:

– I could clarify the situation by repeating the resolution of the Senate. It states:

The Senate, acknowledging the well-established practice that counsel may be present during the taking of evidence by Committees of the Senate and that, with the permission of the Chairman, a witness may from time to time consult counsel as to his legal rights, resolves-

1 ) that the Senate agrees to the request of Mr Gerasimos Karidis, to be accompanied by legal counsel when attending as a witness before the Senate; and

that, if Mr Karidis, as a witness before the Senate, wishes to consult his adviser as to his legal rights on any question asked of him, the witness snail apply to the President for permission so to do.

I have given some latitude so far, and I take it that the Senate would agree that, rather than asking for the President’s permission on each occasion, that much latitude should be granted. I intend to follow that course.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I should like to persist for a short while, if I could, with the reason why the loan did not proceed in mid December. If I could help Mr Karidis in his basis for answering, I refer him to a statement in Hansard by Mr Connor which confirms in short message what he had done in 2 messages, that is, on one day send an enthusiastic message to Mr Khemlani about the loan, and on the following day send a message saying that the Government would not proceed.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-What page is that?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It is contained in the general statement on page 3617 and it is expanded in two of the documents.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is Mr Connor’s statement, not Mr Karidis ‘s statement.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It is Mr Connor’s statement. I am sorry if I have misnamed it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-How could Mr Karidis be expected to know -

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I would suggest, Mr President, that if honourable senators opposite want to be helpful they will not disrupt in that way. At this time of the year- at the end of 1974- Mr Karidis was in constant contact with the Ministers and attended several meetings with them at around about that time. I think it is relevant to ask: What were the factors that prevented the loan from going ahead.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I will ask your permission to refer to my counsel before answering that question, please.

The PRESIDENT:

– Go ahead, Mr Karidis.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I do not know anything about that question. I could not answer.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, I am disappointed that Mr Karidis does not know. I am sure, that the Ministers opposite would be very pleased that this side of the House could be kept in the dark further by Mr Karidis’s inability to answer because they have done everything they can do to suppress information in this place and they have put an ironclad prohibition -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I rise to a point of order. I suggest that Senator Steele Hall be asked not to make reflections on the probity of the witness, as he has just done.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I do not accept that I have made any reflection on the probity of the witness. If honourable senators will examine my words they will find it as I say it is. I have not questioned Mr Karidis’s ability to answer or not.

I have said I am disappointed in bis not being able to answer. Ministers opposite are jubilant that he is unable to answer. Perhaps they might answer for him.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator has been granted the right, or has been directed by the Senate, to address and question the witness. He is not here to be questioned by Senator James McClelland or Senator Wheeldon or any other Senator sitting on your right hand.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator James McClelland and Senator Wheeldon will have an opportunity later on to examine the witness, but I want the examination to proceed along the lines whereby the witness has all his rights protected and whereby he is asked straightforward questions so that he can answer them within his capacity or with the assistance of his counsel.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, I now ask Mr Karidis: Why was it that the Minister for Minerals and Energy conducted the loan negotiations for the Government and not the Treasurer, and were the meetings -

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. This is about the fifth question of this kind. The witness cannot answer a question as to the state of mind - (Honourable senators interjecting)

Senator BUTTON:

– If Opposition senators are concerned about this they can direct questions through their members in the House of Representatives to the Minister concerned. But this witness cannot be expected to answer a question about the state of mind of the Cabinet. It is not a proper question in my submission.

The PRESIDENT:

– I believe that up to the present time the witness has had the option of refusing to answer a question and, if he wishes to exercise that option, he may. But he has not taken any objection so far. If he wishes to do so now I should like to hear it.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, how you expect me to know?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, in view of the conversations which Mr Karidis has had with Government Ministers and the very frequent communications which he says he has had with them, I ask him: Does he know of any activity or action by the Prime Minister involved with this loan question?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, no.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you. I should like to ask, Mr President, whether Mr Karidis knew of the significance of the Loan Council in relation to the proposed borrowings or whether it was brought to his attention at any time that the Loan Council would be an instrument which would have to be considered in these borrowings.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I will ask your permission to refer to my counsel, please.

The PRESIDENT:

– Go ahead, Mr Karidis.

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-While that is going on, I raise a point of order. To the last 2 questions, answers have been proffered by honourable senators opposite. I regard that as totally out of order and I think, Mr President, that you should uphold the dignity of these proceedings and prevent Government senators from providing answers and generally trying to turn this into a farce.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not consider that is a point of order. Senator Chaney has directed attention to a situation which is without precedent- an examination such as this. It is a matter of the rules being made almost as we go along. I am trying to maintain the dignity of the Senate and I expect the co-operation of everyone here to help me to do that. At the same time I want the inquiry to proceed as rapidly as possible and I expect Senator Hall to confine his questioning within the terms of reference and Mr Karidis to answer if he can answer and, if not, to appeal to the Chair if he feels that the questions are unfair. I think they are the only rules that I can work on and I intend to follow those rules.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, the answer is no.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Karidis: How often did you travel abroad on these loan negotiations?

Mr Karidis, A few times.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-How many times, could I take it, ‘a few times is”? Is it several, half a dozen, a dozen?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I did not keep a count. A few times- two or three. I cannot remember.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, could Mr Karidis tell us the source of the loans? Where was the money coming from? To give him time to think about that, I base this question on a statement in the reference given concerning Mr Khemlani and his company that Dalamal was a middleman and did not provide the source of funds itself. Could Mr Karidis tell us where the source of funds was located?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I think I stated in my statement previously that only Mr Khemlani knows the source.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you. I ask now, Mr President: Does Mr Karidis know whether the cancellation by Dr Cairns in Executive Council of the approval to borrow was done with the knowledge and approval of the Prime Minister, who was in Britain at that time?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I hardly think that that is a question which Mr Karidis could answer, Senator, because it is a matter completely outside his field of knowledge. I ask you to reframe that question so that it will fall within the general terms of reference.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– In speaking to that, Mr President, I suggest that Mr Karidis is a notable Adelaide businessman, with constant international contacts, who has involved himself in negotiating a loan of $4 billion on the international money market. I would suggest that it is credible to think that he would know all of the various effects, both private and Government, which he could get to know which would affect the future of these negotiations which he was managing in his quarter in Adelaide. I would suggest that it is not unreasonable at least to ask him and to allow him to reply if he does not know.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I will ask your permission to refer to my counsel.

The PRESIDENT:

– Go ahead, Mr Karidis.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I do not know about that at all. I cannot answer questions like this because that is not my business.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Does Mr Karidis remember that he was aware that at about this time friends of Dr Cairns began involving themselves and their Minister in a separate quest for loans?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, no.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr Cameron still believes, by statement recently made, that Mr Khemlani may still obtain a loan. Is this a possibility?

Mr Karidis, Yes, it is.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I ask now, Mr President: Did Mr Karidis continue to have any contact with Mr Connor and his officers after the end of February?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, could this question be repeated, please?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Did Mr Karidis have further contact with Mr Connor after the end of February?

Mr Karidis, Yes.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Did Mr Karidis believe, Mr President, that his group, including his partners if any- and certainly Mr Khemlani and himself- were competing on the international money market with the Harris group?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I would like that question repeated please.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, does Mr Karidis believe that his search for funds with Mr Khemlani was in competition with Mr Harris who was acting with Mr Cairns in searching for funds?

Mr Karidis, We worried about competition. But we did not know it was Mr Harris or anybody else. But we very well knew about it. We had been disturbed many times.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I take it then, Mr Karidis, you did know of contacts being made as a basis for your being worried but you did not know who was making the contacts?

Mr Karidis, No.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Did you at any time involve yourself with the Harris group or contact the Harris group? Before Mr Karidis answers that question, Mr President, I would just like to refer to a communication from the Australian High Commission in London to Australia, in which it was said that Morgan Grenfells had received a call from a Mr Harris, who was accompanied by a Mr Nagy and, in a simple description, ‘a Greek’. This is mentioned at page 3564 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 9 July. Did you have any contact with the Harris group and could that by any chance have been you?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I do not know who Mr Harris is. I only saw his face in the paper. I do not know him and I have never met him at all.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– You were not present at that meeting?

Mr Karidis, Never.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I ask now, Mr President: Did Mr Karidis or Mr Khemlani at any time press the Government for funds or expenses?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, never, because it was very clear from Mr Connor’s office that there was nothing to get on this side. We had to get it on the other end if we come up with the goods.

Senator STEELE HALL:

- Mr President, you may be pleased to know that I am coming to the end of my questions. I ask Mr Karidis: was he aware of any conditions attached to the loans which were proffered or considered? Were there any conditions concerning international trade by Australia or any diplomatic relationships by Australia?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I would ask your permission to refer to my counsel before I answer that question.

The PRESIDENT:

-Certainly, Mr Karidis.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, the answer is no.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I ask, Mr President Were any promises made by Ministers in any form at all to foreign governments concerning these loans?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, no.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I do not suppose you would allow me to proffer, Mr President, that Mr Karidis knew that fact very confidently and I do not know whether you would allow me again to question directly about what prevented the loans from proceeding in mid-December, which I would have imagined Mr Karidis would have known just as confidently

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I wonder if I could raise a point of order here. I do not want to stop Senator Hall’s line of questioning but the way that he put the question to the witness did not indicate that Mr Karidis was to have answered that question from his own knowledge. He asked the question in a general way and received a general answer. People hearing that answer could be pardoned for believing that the answer was given in a general sense rather than within the knowledge of the witness. The question that Senator Hall is now proposing to pose to the witness flows from that general concept of a general answer rather than an answer given within the knowledge of the witness himself.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Further on the point of order raised by Senator Devitt, what Senator Hall has just put to you, Mr President, underlines the absurdity and the unfairness of this type of procedure. If counsel in a court of law were to cross-examine a witness and having been met with a denial were then to turn to the judge and say ‘There you are Your Honour, we know that is untrue’ he would be sat down very abruptly. I suggest that when Senator Hall gets an answer that does not suit him he should not dien be allowed to suggest to the Senate at large that the witness is obviously lying. This is a breach of this man’s legal rights and privileges and Senator Hall should not be allowed to pursue this matter further merely because he has not got the answers that he wanted.

The PRESIDENT:

– The answer that was given by Mr Karidis was definite. He replied to Senator Hall in the way that he desired and that is the end of that question as far as I am concerned.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Thank you, Mr President I now ask: Do you know, Mr Karidis, of any involvement directly by Ministers in negotiations with the sources of the loans- with the lenders? I base that question on a reply tabled of a telephone conversation of Dr Cairns from Paris at the end of May when he indicated that he would possibly be looking at lending sources in Europe. Does Mr Karidis know of direct negotiations by Ministers with lenders in Europe or overseas?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, how do you expect me to know what Dr Cairns was doing in Pans?

Senator STEELE HALL:

- Mr President, perhaps that will suffice for us all on that question. You have seen, Mr Karidis, the documents which have been tabled and you would have some assessment of those that are untabled, that are unpublished, from you constant surveillance of the messages that have gone, apparently, mainly through you. Would you say that there are many documents as yet unpublished?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I ask for your permission to refer to my counsel.

The PRESIDENT:

-Go ahead Mr Karidis.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, the documents I presented here before are mine. What are the Government documents, I do not know.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I ask this question although I think I know the answer. Would Mr Karidis have any knowledge of how the published documents were selected and who made the selection?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I do not know all of these things. How do you expect me to know all this?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Does Mr

Khemlani, Mr President, have any documents in his possession which make him an agent of the Commonwealth? I base that question, if I could -

Senator DEVITT:

- Mr Khemlani or Mr Karidis?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am sorry. Does Mr Karidis know whether Mr Khemlani has any documents in his possession which make him an agent of the Commonwealth? Before Mr Karidis should answer, I refer to page 3577 of House of Representatives Hansard of 9 July 1975 where Mr Harders, in quite direct contradiction of the Prime Minister, states that both Mr Harris and Mr Khemlani would in fact be limited agents.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I rise to take a point of order. Insofar as this question presumes to ask Mr Karidis to give a legal opinion as to the status of any documents in the possession of Mr Khemlani, I submit that it should be disallowed.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, I rise to speak to that point of order. I am assuming that Mr Karidis is very familiar indeed with the business with which he is so deeply involved. I could not imagine a person setting out to arrange the borrowing of $4 billion and being innocent of all the factors that the Government claims he ought to be innocent of. 1 suggest that it is a proper question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, the very fact that this question had to be submitted to the permanent head of the Attorney-General’s Department for an opinion surely disqualifies Mr Karidis from being capable of answering it.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would say that the question that Senator Hall is posing to Mr Karidis is obviously beyond his knowledge. But I still say that Mr Karidis could answer it and give that same information.

Mr Karidis, I do not know. Mr President, I do not know.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr President, thank you. I would like to thank Mr Karidis for his answers and for his patience. I trust that he will be able to enlighten other members of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are there any further questions? If there are no further questions -

Senator GEORGES:

– I have 2 questions. Mr Karidis, are you a taxpayer?

Mr Karidis, I am a very heavy one.

Senator GEORGES:

– If I were to tell you that this exercise today cost $20,000, would you consider that to be a monstrous misuse of taxpayers’ money?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I call Senator Greenwood.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-Mr Karidis, was the statement which you read to the Senate today prepared by your lawyer?

Mr Karidis, I told him to prepare and I explained to him how I want it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-What you read had been prepared for you by your lawyer, had it?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, no. That is not right. It is prepared by my mind and I told him how to write it down for me.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not follow what you are saying. Are the words your words or the words of your lawyer?

Mr Karidis, My words.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– All right. Do you recall being asked to bring with you today all the documents you had in your possession, custody or control?

Mr Karidis, You have got them all.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Do you recall reading in the statement which you were given by the Usher of the Black Rod that you were to bring to the Senate all the documents in your possession, custody or control?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I will ask your permission to refer to my counsel, please.

The PRESIDENT:

– Go ahead, Mr Karidis.

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

- Mr President, on a point of order, I have observed since the examination has been proceeding of Mr Karidis that, before he has asked to refer to his counsel, on every occasion his counsel has pointed to the writing on the paper in front of him. My point of order is that he is here to answer questions. When he wants to refer to his counsel he is entitled to do so. What I am submitting is that what he is doing now in relation to Senator Greenwood’s questions and what happened repeatedly during Senator Hall’s questions is that his counsel has pointed to matters written on that paper. Mr President, I do not know but I think you should see it. Then Mr Karidis has asked to refer to his counsel. I submit that he should not do that.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I wish to speak to the point of order. A question on this very subject was asked by Senator Georges at the opening of the proceedings. He asked whether the practice would be followed, which was followed in Senate committees, of counsel or legal advisers referring to the witness and making approaches to them when questions of some difficulty were asked. This was a practice which was followed in most sensitive inquiries conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. Mr President, I submit to you that if on issues as sensitive as that this practice was followed by the

Senate, the Mccarthyite techniques which Senator Missen wants to introduce on this occasion should be avoided by the Parliament.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACKSpeaking to the point of order, I point out that Senator Wheeldon has made the assertion that the practice followed by the Securities and Exchange Committee was that a witness could consult his lawyer. That is perfectly true. But he could consult his lawyer only when given permission by the Chairman. The witness would address himself to the Chairman and say, ‘I would like to consult my lawyer’. If permission was granted he then consulted his lawyer. But that is not the case here. The practice has been, on all committees on which I have had any experience as a member or chairman, that a witness before the committee is entitled to ask a chairman whether he might consult his counsel. In this instance, with the Senate sitting as a whole at the present moment, it is the witness’s duty when in doubt as to how he should answer and whether he could be put in prejudice to address himself to you, Mr President, and then you can give him permission to consult his counsel.

Senator GEORGES:

– I sounded a word of caution -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, is this a point of order?

Senator GEORGES:

-Yes, it is a point of order. I sounded a word of caution when Senator Douglas McClelland proposed the rules about legal counsel. My experience on the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange is as long as that of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. I recall numerous instances where legal counsel was aware that his client was not able to answer the question in a manner which would not be of prejudice to him. The Chairman on all occasions, and members of that Committee, used the discretion in favour of the witness. At all times the Committee endeavoured to protect the rights of the witness and, in some way, to ignore the interpretation which honourable senators opposite are now trying to place upon the proceedings of committees. It was for that reason that I raised the point of order. Mr President, I believe that you have ruled in the interests of this witness and of the counsel who represents him here today. I think it would be a gross injustice to this witness, particularly since he has some difficulty in understanding- although his answers have been prompt and clear- if counsel were not able to indicate to the witness that he ought to exercise some caution, especially since the questioning is becoming most legalistic.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDSenator Greenwood:

asked the witness whether he was aware that he had been asked in the summons to produce all documents in his custody, care or control. When the witness was asked that question Mr Karidis responded with the answer: Mr President, may I consult my counsel?’. At that stage Senator Missen took a point of order on whether Mr Karidis ‘s counsel was making some sign language, as it were, to Mr Karidis. Mr President, I suggest that Senator Missen ‘s point of order is not taken against Mr Karidis ‘s answer whereby Mr Karidis asked you whether he should be allowed to consult his counsel. Senator Missen is not questioning Mr Karidis but, indeed, querying the integrity of a person who is of the same profession as Senator Missen. I suggest that Senator Missen ‘s remarks were completely disallowable, and I suggest that Mr Karidis should be allowed to proceed to consult his counsel.

Senator WITHERS:

-I rise on the point of order, Mr President. Could it be easily solved by your having a look at that piece of paper?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is privileged.

Senator WITHERS:

– Why is it privileged?

Senator WHEELDON:

-Have you ever heard of privilege between solicitor and client?

Senator WITHERS:

-Wait a minute. If the allegation is that counsel is giving instructions to the witness and that at times the witness ought to ask the President for permission to consult his counsel and at other times he should do something else -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-He is giving him advice.

Senator WITHERS:

-I suggest that the President himself ought to have a look at that piece of paper and satisfy himself.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is a most disgraceful suggestion coming from a member of the legal profession. Senator Withers must be perfectly aware that the document which is on that table is a privileged document as between solicitor and client, and it would be an outrageous invasion of the rights of Mr Karidis if you were to give any such order, Mr President.

Senator DEVITT:

– Very briefly, as an ordinary layman not recognising the refinements of legal procedures, I suggest that the very purpose that the Senate gave its permission for Mr Karidis to be accompanied by legal counsel was so that counsel could help him in the manner in which he is now being assisted. We gave him that authority to have legal help. If he has got a legal adviser sitting beside him who recognises that there could be some difficulties, traps or pitfalls, then it is the obligation and the responsibility of his legal adviser to tell him of those things, and that is the authority which we gave, I suggest. Senator Georges quite properly raised this matter right at the outset. I had it in my mind to do the same thing. I thought that right at the outset we cleared up the whole point that if, in fact, it became apparent to Mr Karidis’s legal adviser that there could be some trap or some pitfall in the question then the legal adviser should draw that to the attention of the person who may be regarded as his client. That is what we are about, surely. If he cannot give legal advice, then we have fooled Mr Karidis right from the beginning of this inquisition.

Senator MISSEN:

– In reply on this point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Missen.

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-On the point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Missen is speaking on the point of order.

Senator POYSER:

– He has already spoken to this point of order and I suggest that he cannot speak a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– On the point of order, when my attention was drawn to the method of consultation between Mr Karidis and his counsel I read out the instructions that the Senate had drawn up. They state that if a witness wishes to consult his counsel as to his legal rights on any question asked of him he shall apply to the President for permission to do so. Senator Missen said that the counsel of Mr Karidis was pointing to a document. No qualification was made as to the method of consultation. My interpretation of consultation would be discussion, seeking advice, seeking guidance, exchanging views, or interpretation. I have applied a wide interpretation to the method of consultation in order to assist Mr Karidis not only because of possible language difficulties but also because of the ra ther overawing situation in which he finds himself in the Senate. I think that his seeking advice fr om his counsel is quite in order. If there are no further questions to be asked -

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Greenwood.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Karidis, to approach the same point a different way, and possibly without your having to ask the assistance of your counsel to answer the question, do you have in front of you the summons which you received?

Mr Karidis, Yes, please, we got it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Would you read out that part which asks you to produce documents?

Mr Karidis, It reads:

Pursuant to these resolutions and in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Senate, you are hereby summoned to attend at the Bar of the Senate, at Parliament House, Canberra, on Tuesday, the twenty-second day of July 1975, at half past two p.m., and from day to day until the Senate otherwise orders, to answer questions and produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to the matters relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities referred to in the Senate resolution of 9 July 1975.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Now, Mr Karidis, would you look at the statement which you read to the Senate this afternoon, and would you read the last sentence?

Mr Karidis, ‘Pursuant to the summons issued to me on 17 July I produce all relevant documents in my possession’.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Karidis, why did you leave out the words ‘custody or control ‘?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I left college 22 years ago, and only 5 years I went to the college.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Is that the reason why you left it out, Mr Karidis?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I will ask your permission to refer to my counsel before I answer that question, please.

The PRESIDENT:

– Go ahead, Mr Karidis.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, why I decide to make a copy beforehand and present it to you all was the Black Rod was a decision to put it on the bottom.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Karidis, to a lawyer, there is an immense and very significant difference between saying that you have documents in your possession, custody and control and simply saying that you have documents in your possession, and every lawyer knows that significant difference. I am asking you, because you have sworn in your answer that they were your words and not your lawyer’s words, why you chose only to say that you produced the documents in your possession. Would you ask your counsel as to what your answer is to be to that question?

Senator WHEELDON:

-Mr President, on a point of order, the witness has answered that question. He said he put it there at the suggestion of the Usher of the Black Rod. I do not see why he should have the same question put to him twice.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, I uphold that point of order.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I did not ask my legal counsel at that time. I asked the Black Rod, who was asking for copies of the statements. If their excellencies wanted to amend those things, then I can give this to my adviser next door and he can do it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Do you say that it was the Usher of the Black Rod who suggested you use those words?

Mr Karidis, To help me and to help you, because it is the first time I have been here.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Could I ask you this question: Does your solicitor have any documents relating to this matter which you have not produced?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, he only has got copies of the ones we already produced.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-And no different ones?

Mr Karidis, Of course no different; only photostat copies.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Does anyone else have documents which, if you ask those people to produce, they would produce relating to this matter?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, how you expect me to know? This is the one what I got and I gave this to you.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Does you bank or your accountant have any documents relating to this matter which, if you ask them to give to you, they would?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, what about His Excellency going to my bank account to find out?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am asking you, Mr Karidis.

Mr Karidis, Because they have not got it. This is my private property. It is in my hand, Sir, and I gave this to you.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Karidis, I am simply asking you, with regard to the transactions which you are here to answer questions about, whether there are any documents which your bank, your accountant, your solicitor or anyone else may have which, if you asked them to produce them, they would. Are there any such documents?

Mr Karidis, There are not.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Thank you. Mr Karidis, did you have any discussions with any Ministers?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Before you continue with this question I must draw your attention to the fact that your time for inquiry has expired.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr President, I am attempting to discover how much time was lost in all those points of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– No provision is made for that.

Senator WITHERS:

-I can move: That the honourable senator’s time be extended. I will so move. It is one of the oldest tricks in the Senate that, on days when the proceedings are being broadcast, if somebody is making a speech that is annoying someone he takes points of order and takes them out of the speaker’s time.

Senator GEORGES:

-That is an offensive remark.

Senator WITHERS:

-Oh, no. It is as old as the hills. All I am saying is that, if an honourable senator has 15 minutes in which to ask questions and if half of that time disappears in points of order, in simple justice he ought to have seven or eight minutes tacked on to his question time, lt ought not to be wasted by points of order. I will move: That the time lost through points of order be added to Senator Greenwood’s question time.

The PRESIDENT:

– It will be sufficient to move that the honourable senator’s time for questioning be extended. But I would like to remind the Senate that these are the rules I have to interpret here: Rule 8 provides that the first Government senator and the first Opposition senator to ask questions of a witness shall not be limited in time; other senators may question a witness for not more than 15 minutes, unless otherwise ordered. Rule 9 provides that no senator, having questioned a witness in accordance with these rules, shall question a witness a second time, unless by leave of the Senate. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to move for an extension of the time of the honourable senator he is quite at liberty to do so.

Motion ( by Senator Withers) proposed:

That Senator Greenwood be given a further 1 5 minutes in which to ask questions.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

- Mr President, I daresay that it was inevitable that this situation would arise. When the rules were originally brought down- the Opposition’s rules- I indicated that the Government would have no part in the draw ing up of any rules because we opposed the whole exercise in which the Senate is now involved. It was clearly intended in those rules that the first speaker on either side would have unlimited time. In this particular circumstance, quite properly the first speaker was Senator Steele Hall. It was as a result of his motion that the witness was called here. He, occupying the position of first speaker on the Opposition side, was given unlimited time. Strictly speaking, the rules should have referred to non-Government senators. However, the intention was quite clear. The rest of the rules provide that any subsequent speaker must obtain leave of the Senate for an extension of time. Again this was clearly the intention of the rules. Mr President, either we observe the rules strictly and you rule that leave must be obtained or, as you have indicated, there is only one other course open to the Leader of the Opposition, and he should move accordingly.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is a motion before the Chair, namely, that the honourable senator’s time be extended. I will have to accept that motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr President, having regard to the limitation of time, I will move on to one or two other matters. I must say that I had assumed that I was the first Opposition senator asking questions. But I proceed. Mr Karidis, would you have a look at the documents which you have produced? I ask the Clerk to hand them to you. Would you look at the document to which you refer in your statement as the draft acceptances which you saw at a meeting early in December? I think you referred to them in your statement as ‘drafts’, but there is a reference in the documents tabled in the House of Representatives to ‘draft acceptances’ and one of the documents you have produced is headed ‘Draft Acceptance ‘. Do you see that document?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, yes.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– You will see that there is a reference in that document to the fact that the promissory note which is to be given by the Government is to be computed on the basis of compound interest at 7.7 per cent with an emission of 98 per cent, that the printed words then used are ‘less a finders commission of 2Vi per cent of the said amount of four billion United States dollars’ and that the words ‘a finders commission’ have been crossed out and the words fees and charges’ appear. Whose writing is that, do you know?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I do not know.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Up to the time when that draft acceptance was under consideration did you believe that you would be sharing in a commission in due course?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, we was hoping.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-You knew that if the money was obtained you would be sharing, did you not?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, the commission, I repeat, was to come off the other end. This documents is what Mr Khemlani brought and was refused by the Government, by the Australian Government- the Minister, Mr Connor.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Do you say that this document of draft acceptance was in fact prepared by Mr Khemlani?

Mr Karidis, I did not know from who it is being prepared. Maybe it has been prepared here and Khemlani has bring his own documents and has been copied here and present it to the Minister for his refusal.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Were you at any meeting when Mr Connor produced a draft acceptance which provided that Australia would receive only $95 for every $ 100 it had to repay?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I was at many meetings but I couldn’t remember about this. It is too long.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Karidis, I understand that you are successful businessman. If a borrower receives only $95 Vi for every $100 he has to repay who do you say is bearing the cost of borrowing that money?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I will ask for your permission to refer to my counsel, please.

The PRESIDENT:

-Permission is granted.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, the reason I am asking permission of my counsel is because the language is a bit complicated, as I repeated before, and is no good to laugh in here. The main thing is this- I repeat it again- the commission was to be paid from the other end.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Although the commission was to be paid from the other end it was still the borrower who would ultimately have to take account of that when he repaid the moneys. Is that not right?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I do not know how you can explain that because as we agree money wasn’t to be paid this side- the lenders was promise to us to pay on the other side.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Have you read the draft acceptances?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, which ones?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The one which you have in front of you- that one.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I have not time so much to look at all these things. The only main thing was we offered to the Australian Government to give them money, to sell them the money, if you want to take it that way. They told us they cannot pay to us any commission. If I want to make any drafts that is why I got my counsel with me and I carry with him sometimes overseas.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Do you know whether the promissory note which Mr Connor was entitled to sign to acknowledge that Australia had to repay the money it had borrowed, 20 years afterwards, would include the cost of raising the money, including the commission?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, no.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Had you not considered that aspect?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, what do you mean: Had not consider it?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Was that not a matter of any concern to you?

Senator GEORGES:

– You are only using the witness to state your case again, Senator. That is most unfair.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I am here to answer the questions and I want to answer those 2 questions, but I don’t want them to be complicated and put in such a way to me- questions where it is not relevant with me. I am here for myself to answer the questions; I must answer.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Very well. Mr Karidis, when you found in the middle of December 1974 that Mr Connor in a short note had put an end to all the negotiations which had been going on for the past 2 months did you inquire from Mr Connor, Mr Clyde Cameron or Mr Khemlani as to what had happened?

Mr Karidis, Could you repeat please that question slowly?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-When you found in the middle of December that Mr Connor by a letter had said that all the arrangements for borrowing money had come to an end, and you therefore were losing all prospects of a commission, did you speak to Mr Connor, to Mr Clyde Cameron or to Mr Khemlani to find out why all the negotiations had been terminated?

Mr Karidis, I cannot remember, but, I suppose, yes, to someone; could be to Mr Connor; could be to Mr Khemlani.

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-You do not remember which person; is that the position?

Mr Karidis, Of course I do not remember which person. It is too long ago. I remember what happened yesterday and the day before.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-What was the reason that you were given?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I could not remember.

Senator GREEN WOOD:

-You say you do not remember the reason why the negotiations were cut off in the middle of December and you were thwarted in what was the prospect of gaining $ 100m commission; is that the position?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That should be stricken out. This is an old ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ question. Mr Karidis has never said he was standing to get $100m or $ 100,000m. Senator Greenwood should put that to Mr Karidis first. This is a disgraceful performance for a barrister.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I rise to speak to the point of order, Mr President. If Senator James McClelland will cease grandstanding in pursuing the cover up exercises he has been engaged on he will know that the documents which have been tabled expressly exclude in parenthesis an amount of $ 100m which represented the expenses. That can be seen in the record, and I suspect Senator James McClelland knows that. On that basis I have asked the witness -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-You are questioning him on his -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I notice again that Senator James McClelland tries to shout everyone down. I have asked the witness: Does he not remember why he was cut out of the prospect of $ 100m commission or, if that is the objectionable phrase, a huge amount of commission which he was expecting. That is the question I am asking.

Senator GEORGES:

– I should like to speak to the point of order. The point of order is based on an interjection that I made that Senator Greenwood is misusing the witness before the Senate in order to re-state the case of the Opposition. In doing so he is badgering the witnessthat is the only term that can be used- and he should not be allowed to proceed. Senator Greenwood is trying the patience of the Senate, he is also misusing the Senate, he ought not to be permitted to continue in this way.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is my view that the witness in answering the questions has not shown any discomfort or inability to answer them. I am prepared to allow the questions to go on until such time as I feel that the terms of reference have been transgressed.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Karidis, do you recall the question or would you like me to repeat it?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I will ask your permission to refer to my counsel.

The PRESIDENT:

– Go ahead.

Mr Anderson:

– Would you repeat it for me, please?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The question is: Do you not recall the reason you were given as to why all these negotiations suddenly came to an end, thereby denying to you this immense amount of commission which you were anticipating?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I believe; and I can place my memory a little bit now, what has been explained to my counsellor- Mr Khemlani, as I repeated on my statement, he has had a bother to arrange the loan on the other side because the commission had to be paid from the other end, and I repeat again that’s the reason we couldn ‘t finalise yet.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Did not Mr Khemlani tell you that the documents which he was being asked to sign were given to him by Mr Connor, as Mr Connor’s speech in the Parliament discloses? Were you not told that by Mr Khemlani?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, repeat the question. I am trying please to tell you: Make it a bit more plain. We don’t have to waste too much time for you.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-You have simply said that the reason you recall you were given why the negotiations came to an end was because there were problems about the commission; you had to get the commission from the lender. I am asking you: Did not Mr Khemlani tell you that the documents which he had been given had been prepared by Mr Connor because Mr Connor had given them to Mr Khemlani?

Mr Karidis, He didn’t told me that, Mr President, no.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Do you know that to be the position?

Mr Karidis, No. One thing I do know, the commission had to be paid from the other end, which make it very clear from Mr Connor to me, plain to Mr Khemlani also at the meeting we had with Mr Connor, Mr Khemlani and me.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-When did Mr Connor tell you that?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I couldn’t remember the time and the date because it is 8 months approximately, or 6 months, what it is, this deal was gone on.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-But it was last year, was it?

Mr Karidis, Yes, please.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-How did you first come to meet Mr Connor? Who was with you? Where did you meet him?

Mr Karidis, As I say on my statement, I been introduced- I am sorry, Mr President- I had been introduced by Mr Cameron, a friend of mine, a very good friend. He has introduced me to Mr Connor some time, as I stated in my statement. Now, we went to his office and we discussed it, and that’s all.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-When you say ‘we went to his office’, who went?

Mr Karidis, Me, Mr Connor, Mr Cameron, my solicitor next door who is here now, and I could not remember if there was anybody else.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-At that stage when you first met Mr Connor -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Debate interrupted.

page 2849

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party in the Senate:

Dear Mr President,

At the request of Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman, D.F.C., Leader of the National Country Party of Australia in the Senate, I ask that he be discharged from attendance upon the Committee of Privileges.

Yours sincerely,

J.J. WEBSTER

Deputy Leader of the National Country Party of Australia in the Senate

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr President, I ask for leave to move a motion for the discharge of Senator Drake-Brockman from attendance on the Committee of Privileges and to appoint Senator Webster in his place.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2850

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN NEGOTIATIONS

Examination of Person Called to the Bar of the Senate

Debate resumed.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Mr Karidis, Mr Connor has said that Mr Khemlani was introduced to him on 1 1 November. Is it in accordance with your memory that it was about that date? It is recorded on page 36 12 of Hansard.

Mr Karidis, Yes, please. That is about right.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Did you accompany Mr Khemlani on that occasion?

Mr Karidis, Repeat the question please.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Were you with Mr Khemlani on that occasion when he was introduced to Mr Connor?

Mr Karidis, Yes, Mr President.

Senator WRIGHT:

– What other persons were present?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I ask your permission to refer to my counsel, please.

The PRESIDENT:

– Go ahead, Mr Karidis.

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I gave the answer before to the other senator. As I said, there was Mr Connor, my solicitor and, I believe, there could have been Mr Cameron. As I said before, I cannot remember any others. There could have been others but I cannot remember them.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Your solicitor was Mr Anderson?

Mr Karidis, Yes.

Senator WRIGHT:

-If you refer to page 3613 of Hansard you will see that Mr Connor said that he gave a letter to Mr Khemlani on 12 November, the following day. Do you see that?

Mr Karidis, Yes.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Were you with Mr Khemlani when he got that letter?

Mr Karidis, I cannot remember. Could be I was.

Senator WRIGHT:

-On the date of the first interview what proposition was put up?

Mr Karidis, The proposition was that we could arrange to find some money from overseas.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Was $4, 000m mentioned?

Mr Karidis, I cannot remember. Could be it was two or three or one or four; but it was a big amount.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Was the purpose for which Mr Connor was seeking the money mentioned? If you look at page 36 1 1 you will see that he stated certain purposes. I state that to remind you. It reads: ‘Apart from such things as the completion of the natural gas pipleline from Cooper Basin- Palm Valley- Dampier- Perth ‘.

Mr Karidis, He did not discuss it with me. It is not my business; that is Mr Connor’s business.

Senator WRIGHT:

-What I want to know is: Did Mr Connor, during the interview with you and Mr Khemlani, say that he wanted the money for the purpose of development of that sort?

Mr Karidis, I repeat again, we did not discuss that and I cannot even remember what was discussed at that meeting too much. How do you expect Mr Connor to tell me all these things? We went only to offer the money and if he wanted he could take it.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Did you have no general understanding of the purpose for which the money was being borrowed?

Mr Karidis, Mr President, I will ask your permission to refer to my counsel, please.

The PRESIDENT:

-Go ahead, Mr Karidis.

Mr Karidis, The only thing I knew was that it was something to do with his Department. I did not know anything else.

Senator WRIGHT:

-That is to say, the Department of Minerals and Energy?

Mr Karidis, Yes.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Would you look to that letter to which I referred you at page 36 1 3? In the lefthand column -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 6 o’clock, I ask Mr Karidis and his counsel to withdraw for the Senate to discuss other business.

Mr Karidis and counsel withdrew

page 2850

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

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

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

page 2851

ADJOURNMENT

Photocopying Facilities: Australian Government Centre, Sydney- Medibank

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

- Mr President, I do not wish to delay the members of the Senate for any length of time. This is the first and only time that I have ever spoken on the adjournment, and I do so to rectify what I regard as a serious injustice, having given an opportunity for that injustice to be rectified by one of the honourable senators opposite. My attention was drawn to the adjournment debate, as reported in the Senate Hansard of last Wednesday, 16 July, when Senator Mulvihill spoke about a matter which affected my staff. He raised the matter without extending the traditional courtesy of letting me know that he would do so, and I think that everybody will regret that. I do not wish to pitch this in high key. The substance of Senator Mulvihill ‘s speech was a complaint that his staff had been obstructed by my secretary in an over-assertive and authoritative way, using my supposed rank as a shadow Minister to obtain privileges for herself and thereby interrupting the course of some work. Senator Mulvihill then incorporated in Hansard a letter which he had written in extravagant and indeed hysterical terms to the relevant Minister, Mr Daly. I myself think that a matter concerning a person who is not a member of this Senate and who cannot defend herself ought not to have been ventilated in that way without in the first place referring it to me- without in the first place making inquiries.

Having said that, I indicate that the circumstances are that every person who was present, including the 2 Commonwealth employees and the person who was operating the photostat machine, have made statements- and unqualified statements- saying that the statement of Senator Mulvihill is totally false, totally untrue, in fact could not be more so. I rise to say this: I gave Senator Mulvihill the opportunity to avoid the necessity of my getting to my feet It is fair to say to the Senate that I communicated with him. I now ask leave of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard my own correspondence to Mr Daly and to Senator Mulvihill. Leave was given to Senator Mulvihill in incorporate a document in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)- 18 July, 1975.

Hon. F. M. Daly, MP.,

Minister for Services and Property, 41st Level,

Australia Square,

George Street,

Sydney, N.S.W.2000

Dear Minister,

Re: Senate Adjournment Debate; 16 July, 1975: Correspondence from Senator J. A. Mulvihill: Photocopying Facilities

Sentor Mulvihill wrote to you on 16 July concerning an alleged incident in the photocopying room in the building. He incorporated the letter in Hansard in the adjournment debate in the Senate on that day.

The intemperance and near-hysteria of the letter are matters for you and your colleagues to deal with as you think fit.

The allegations, however, are another matter particularly as they have been made to you as Minister. They are groundless and demonstrably so. I attach a copy of my letter to Senator Mulvihill.

In fairness to the person concerned, and since the facts can be readily established, I ask for your unqualified rejection of Senator Mulvihill ‘s claims.

Yours sincerely,

  1. L. CARRICK

Senator for New South Wales

Encl.

FOR URGENT

ATTENTION

PLEASE 18 July, 1975.

Senator J. A. Mulvihill,

Australian Parliament Offices,

Australian Government Centre,

Chifley Square,

Sydney, N.S.W.2000

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

Senate Adjournment Debate: 16 July 1975

My attention has been drawn to the Hansard report of your contribution to the adjournment debate in the Senate on 16 July 1975.

You did not see fit, in spite of a long-standing parliamentary convention, to notify me of your intention to make such allegations.

These allegations are wholly untrue. I have established that fact by exhaustive inquiries not only of my secretary but also of the two Commonwealth employees who were present.

My secretary sought no preferment either on that or any other occasion. She entered the copying room, saw that it was occupied, said ‘Excuse me, I didn’t know there was anyone here. I will wait ‘till you’ve finished’ and took a seat outside, without any further attempt to intervene.

A Commonwealth employee, Mr Bill Ingliss, confirms this and says that, entirely on his own volition, he entered the copying room and suggested to the man there (Mr O’Brien) that he might agree to allow a brief job to be done. Mr Ingliss informs me that this was his normal procedure and that Mr O’Brien agreed readily saying: ‘Seeing its you, Bill, yes ‘.

My secretary then ran off some six copies of a letter involving two or three minutes of elapsed time.

This sequence of events is also confirmed by another employee, Mrs C. Molineaux, who was present throughout the incident.

NeitherI nor my secretary has ever asserted any right on my part to preferential treatment for any reason including status as a Shadow Minister. I have always recognised and defended the equal rights of all my colleagues.

Since you chose to use the public forum of the Senate to make allegations which are now revealed as unwarranted, no doubt you will be prepared to use the same forum at the earliest opportunity (i.e. next Tuesday 22 July) to indicate that you were wrong and that you had done harm to a person who has no similar avenue to defend herself.

If you do not propose to do so, will you please let me know on Tuesday morning.

Yours sincerely,

  1. L. CARRICK

Senator for New South Wales

Senator CARRICK:

-I thank the Senate. I wish to say that, upon the absolute statement of the 2 Commonwealth employees and the Mr O’Brien who was alleged to have been obstructed, my secretary never at any time sought to assert priority in undertaking her work. The contrary is the case. The employees concerned said that they heard her say: ‘I am sorry, I did not know you were there. I will withdraw and wait my turn’. That, in fact, is said by all. The Mr O’Brien who was interrupted sought me out yesterday in the presence of five of my colleagues to tell me how ashamed he was that such an attack should have been made. What I should like is for the opportunity to be given to Senator Mulvihill to rectify this matter in relation to the girl concerned. The remarks which Senator Mulvihill made regarding myself happen to be totally untrue but I am fair game; he can attack me any time he likes.

I wish that this had never happened. Senator Mulvihill and I have had some pretty good relationships over the years. He had a first class opportunity as an honourable senator to rectify this matter without the necessity for me to make a speech at all. He did not do so. If he feels frustrated that something has happened to him incidental to his getting some work done, that is a matter for him to take up with the Commonwealth employees concerned. He should not pick on innocent people. I say to honourable senators without qualification that the incident as stated in Hansard is totally invented. It is totally despicable that this should be done. Having said this, Mr President, I do hope that Senator Mulvihill will withdraw his allegations.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

- Mr President, I do not enter this discussion in a spirit of Warren Hastings in the House of Commons. On the contrary, my basic responsibility is loyalty to my staff to ensure that they are not exploited and treated as second class citizens. Senator Carrick referred to the matter of incorporation of correspondence in Hansard. We did exchange letters on the subject. My concluding letter to Senator Carrick today on this matterI think this sums up the situation as seen through the eyes of myself and my staff eyesread as follows:

Further inquiries show that

Had your secretary waived her claim to a printing job the task my secretary undertook on behalf of Mr O’Brien would have been completed that day.

It’s always been standard practice with my staff if the photocopying machine is in use we wait until the other job is finished.

Mr O’Brien was adamant that his job was urgent. You got your priority job completed while my secretary’s duties on this project overflowed to the next day. If Property and Services and/or Media want special services in the future my staff aren’t going to be trampled upon.

That is a crystallisation of the dispute that Senator Carrick talks about. Let us be clear about it. Senator Carrick is a formidable adversary in debate and I know that when he puts his gimlet eye on Commonwealth staff- and perhaps to a lesser degree on Mr O’Brien- they are not going to be there. I do not expect them to fight my battles. I put it very clearly: Media people came down and asked my secretary to undertake a particular assignment. Incidentally, whilst I did have a slap at Senator Carrick and his staff I was equally caustic to the Minister for the Media (Dr Cass) to whom I have written. I have also phoned Mr Spigelman, the Secretary of the Department of the Media. The Committee for which my secretary had undertaken this assignment is a bi-partisan committee- it includes Senator Davidson and myself.

I will play second fiddle to no man. My secretary started a job which disrupted my office and which she was doing for Mr O’Brien and other people. She had a job to complete. Senator Carrick says that his secretary did not exert any undue pressure. The fact of the matter is that his secretary could have adopted the course that I and my staff adopt and said: ‘We will come back tomorrow because it is a pretty big job that you are doing’. In the letters that Senator Carrick is having incorporated in Hansard, he refers to a brief operation’. One operation was on quartosize paper and the other on A4-size paper. No matter what Senator Carrick says about regretting anything, the plain fact is that he got his priority service. I have never sought priority service and have never got it. If Mr O’Brien came to me and asked my secretary to do a job and not Senator Carrick ‘s secretary, it should have been completed without interruption. I stand by that and say again, with respect to everybody, that my prime job was to ensure that my secretary was not treated as an industrial chattel. Nobody, not even the media people, had anything to say to the effect of: ‘Senator, your office routine has been disrupted; your staff should have been allowed to complete its work’. Whatever heartburning Senator Carrick has had, I have been equally caustic in my comments about Ministers in relation to this matter. It was standard practice for one job to be completed. I admire Senator Carrick ‘s loyalty to his secretary, but my secretary has rights too. Nobody asked her whether the disruption of her work meant anything, and this is the point. As I saw it, we were entitled to complete the job. If I hit hard, it is because I know Senator Carrick’s attitude. If Senator Carrick wants to argue and lecture on the conduct of staff, he should look at the attitude of his secretary when his car is not waiting for him. She has been pretty tough in that respect. I admire her loyalty to Senator Carrick, but my secretary will not be treated as though she were second class. It will take a bigger man than Senator Carrick to dictate my attitude. Hugh Gaitskell was well known for fighting and fighting again, and I stand by what I have done. As far as I am concerned, it does not matter 2 hoots what Senator Carrick thinks. That is the simple answer.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I am pleased that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Wheeldon) is here. I raise a matter which I understand is within his portfolio. In the adjournment debate on 9 July this year I referred to certain questions in relation to Statutory Rules No. 135.1 asked a series of questions -

Senator Wheeldon:

– What does it relate to?

Senator WEBSTER:

– It relates to health insurance. I do not know whether the Minister’s attention has been drawn to it or whether his staff has given him a copy of the report of my speech. I am rising again because I am anxious that a reply be given. I mentioned then that concern was being felt in Victoria over this regulation. I express my view in relation to it, namely, that a clear distinction should be made between medical treatment and hospitalisation and other services. Specifically, this regulation has the effect of bringing surgeons under the control of a State Commission. In all probability in the future it will be a Federal Government commission. In my view this is tantamount to civil conscription. I ask that the Minister look carefully at this matter because it is something which is specifically banned under the Australian Constitution.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I would like to add a little to what Senator Webster has said about Statutory Rules

No. 135, which relates to the designation of certain hospitals by the Health Insurance Commission and proscribes them so that Medibank benefits will not be payable to patients in those hospitals. I understand that the Government had a certain intention in bringing in those statutory rules. I would like to make it clear that 2 bodies have expressed considerable concern that the regulations may go further than the department intended. There is the opinion of counsel- at least 2 lots of counsel- that these regulations may have the effect of denying Medibank benefits for care given in intermediate and private beds in the hospitals named. There is no doubt that the spirit of the legislation was that Medibank benefits should be claimable by patients in intermediate and private beds. We are concerned that this might not be the case. I inform the Minister for Social Security (Senator Wheeldon) that we have today dispatched a telegram to his Department informing him of the concern felt by the Health and Welfare Committee of the Opposition Parties about the possibility that the regulation may have the effect of excluding from benefits private and intermediate patients who might rightfully think they are entitled to this cover for their medical care. We are extremely anxious that the Minister expedites an answer to our telegram, certainly before the Parliament resumes in August.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I should like to speak on the matter which has just been raised. I was not aware that Senator Webster was going to raise this matter tonight. It is obviously something which does not require a more detailed examination and a better answer than I can give off the cuff. I think the only thing that I could say at the moment is that obviously there are going to be problems in the introduction of Medibank as there are in any substantial social change of this nature. I am not altogether surprised that there are some things such as that which has just been raised, being drawn to my attention as Minister for Social Security. But I will certainly have this matter examined immediately together with the telegram to which Senator Baume has referred which I take it has been sent to the Director-General of the Department of Social Security. He has not as yet drawn it to my attention. I will see that answers in writing are sent to both Senator Webster and Senator Baume in connection with the matters that they have raised as soon as I can take proper advice.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise only because indications were given to me that an attempt was going to be made to resume the sitting of the Senate and continue the business tonight. I have not been informed as to the result of that proposal and I see Senator Douglas McClelland indicating that the present arrangements stand. I rose only to give him the opportunity to ensure that there was no misunderstanding before we did adjourn.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– in reply- After I moved that the Senate do now adjourn about 5 minutes ago, Senator Withers came to me and suggested that the Opposition might negative the motion to adjourn the House in order to enable the proceedings to continue this evening. I pointed out to Senator Withers that a number of Government senators had left the precincts of the House at 6 o’clock and would not be here to take part in the proceedings. Therefore, there was no alternative as far as the Government was concerned but to continue with the proposition that the House resume its sitting on the subject of the crossexamination of Mr Karidis at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania)-by leave- Mr President, may I just make another comment? It could be anticipated that my total questioning time being limited to 15 minutes, I would take only another 5 or 7 minutes. Rather than have a resumption of the sitting tomorrowof which I had no notice- I would waive my. right to any further questioning if that is the only business that there is for tomorrow.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND (New South Wales- Manager of Government Business in the Senate)- by leave- Mr President, Mr Karidis was brought here at the instigation of Senator Hall and the members of the Opposition. Government senators did not agree with Mr Karidis being brought here. I would assume that if the Opposition has completed the questioning of Mr Karidis, the Government would not want to proceed with any questioning of him. I am assured by Senator Wheeldon that he has no questions. Therefore I suggest that we might adjourn until the ringing of the bells to resolve the matter.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– by leave- Mr President, as an alternative, someone could move another amendment. I think we have to rescind the motion that we should sit tomorrow.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, the question before the Chair is ‘ That the Senate do now adjourn ‘.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, but if we could move that the Senate adjourn until a date to be fixed, it would save an amendment to the motion.

Senator Withers:

– We could negative the adjournment.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We could negative the adjournment on the voices and then I could move another motion.

Senator Wright:

– We could recommit the date to which we adjourn.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it the wish of the Senate that we ring the bells?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No. We will have the question put.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

Rescission of Special Adjournment

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I seek leave to rescind the motion that the Senate adjourn until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 23 July.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-by leave- I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Discharge of Attendance of Witness

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That Mr Karidis be discharged from further attendance before the Senate.

Leave of Absence

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

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

Special Adjournment

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland)- by leave- proposed:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 19 August 1975, at 2.30 p.m., or such other day and hour to be fixed by the President or in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and in the event of such other day and hour being fixed that the hour and day of meeting so determined be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

Senator WITHERS:
Lea.der of the Opposition · Western Australia

– I move the following amendment:

At end of motion add:

P Provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an a absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator by telegram or letter.

For these purposes a request by the Leader or DeputyLeader of the Opposition shall be deemed to be a request by ever y member of the Opposition and a request by the Leader or /Deputy-Leader of the National Country Party of Australia shall be deemed to be a request by members of the Part.y.

Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the sam e to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President.

In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy-President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accoordance with the terms of this resolution ‘.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the reasons that were given on 12 June when the last sessional period was adjourned the Government opposes the amendment that has been moved by Senator Withers and urges that the matter be determined forthwith.

Amendment agreed to.

M[otion as amended, agreed to.

Committee of Privileges

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– Before the adjournment motion is put I wish to say that although I have not formally put this in a letter to you, Sir, my understanding is that Senator Wriedt and I both wish to retire- I do not think Senator Wriedt minds my saying this- from the Privileges Committee. If that Committee should meet between now and 19 August there would be no opportunity for us to get off the Committee. I propose to seek leave to move a motion that Senator Wriedt and I, by leave of the Senate, be discharged -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will move an appropriate motion.

Senator WITHERS:

-A11 right. Senator Douglas McClelland has it under control.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the membership of the Committee of Privileges may be varied by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate notifying the President, by letter, that their places on the Committee are to be taken by senators named in the letters.

Adjournment

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The Senate adjourned at 6.25 p.m., to a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

page 2856

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Australian National Airlines Commission (Question No. 342)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Australian National Airlines Commission.
  2. When was each member appointed and when does the term of appointment of each expire.
  3. What remuneration does each member receive.
Senator Bishop:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Minister for Transport has supplied the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3)-

Poison Gas Tests (Question No. 582)

Senator Jessop:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Did any servicemen die as a result of poison gas tests conducted during World War II; if so, how many.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

There is no evidence or implication in Defence records that any servicemen died as a result of mustard gas tests conducted in Australia during World War II.

Mail Services (Question No. 587)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Were packages, posted in Hobart on 2 May 1975 by several Government Departments and addressed to the King Island Council, not received until 14 May 1975, and were some received even later.
  2. Is 12 days delay a normal time for the 300 mile delivery of posted parcels.
  3. Is there any way in which the residents of King Island can be provided with a mail delivery service, including parcels, more in keeping with the twentieth century.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The articles for the King Island Council were not received at Currie Post Office until 1 4 May 1 975 because of a transport delay. These articles were then delivered on the same day, apart from one which could not be sorted before the addressee’s private box was cleared.
  2. No. Because of the paucity of suitable, regular shipping services, non-standard postal articles and parcels addressed to King Island are forwarded via Melbourne, from where air freighter services to King Island are uti lised to convey these categories of mail twice weekly. How ever, the frequency of the air freighter services was restricted at times during May because of airport runway repairs at Currie.
  3. Under normal conditions, the present arrangements for the conveyance of non-standard postal articles and parcels to and from King Island provide a reasonable grade of service. There is also ample provision for faster delivery of these articles via frequent airmail despatches to and from King Island if postage has been prepaid at airmail rates. Standard letters of course are in any case despatched by air.

Alleged Seizure of Documents

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On 29 May,

Senator Greenwood:

asked the following question, without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Are reports correct that officers of the Trade Practices Commission, aided by the Commonwealth Police, raided a businessman’s home and business p remises and seized documents last weekend? Is not such action contrary to the Trade Practices Act which gives no power to seize documents and gives no authority whatsoever to the police? If so, are not raids of this character and the seizure of documents typical of the notorious dictatorships of this world? Is the Government now accepting that in th is country a person’s property and privacy may be invaded to discover evidence with which to convict him? In view of the fact that citizens appear to have no redress to thecourts against invasions of this character, will the Minister table in the Senate the documents under which this invasion ofprivacy took place?

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

On 25 May 1975 officers of the Australia Police Force, accompanied by officers of the Trade Practices Commission, entered certain premises and seized documents believed to constitute evidence of offences against the Trade Practices

Act 1974. The officers took this action pursuant to search warrants issued by a magistrate under section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914-1973 and the Chief Commissioner of the Australia Police is satisfied that they acted properly in all respects. Prosecution proceedings based in part on evidence obtained by the officers may shortly be instituted. Until prosecutions have been instituted it would be undesirable to table the warrants and thereby identify the persons whose premises were searched.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 July 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750722_senate_29_s64/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant