Senate
8 June 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1973

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magens Cormack) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2565

QUESTION

YUGOSLAVIA

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: How indifferent can this Government become to the treatment meted out to its citizens by the ruthless totalitarian government of Yugoslavia? I refer to the latest news that Mr Colig, a law abiding Australian, on all accounts, has been sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. How many Australians have to be executed or imprisoned before Australia will take some positive action, either unilaterally, with other nations or in the United Nations Security Council? I ask: When will the Government stand up for Australian citizens and condemn a communist government?

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

– First of all, 1 disregard the statements of the honourable senator which are derogatory of a country with which Australia has friendly relations and with which most countries of the world have friendly relations. The honourable senator mentioned a name and spoke of Australians. I do not know the facts of the matter. I do not know whether the persons he referred to are Australians. I saw some newspaper reports which suggested that some persons who had been described as Australians were not in fact Australians at all. I have no information to convey to the honourable senator. But I deprecate the fact that in this chamber very often statements are made with very little and, often, no basis in fact. If the honourable senator desires it I shall pass the matter on to the appropriate authorities to look into what has been said by him. I say that without any adoption or rejection of the proposition that the person mentioned is an Australian or of the facts which were suggested because I do not know anything about the facts given by the honourable senator.

page 2565

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER: ATTITUDE TO STATES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister, when responding to a welcome in Darwin yesterday, say that the Government would not give the Northern Territory statehood? Did he also say that the present system of States was most unsatisfactory and was not working properly? Do the Prime Minister’s comments mean that this is further grounds for the States and local government bodies te fear that the Whitlam Government will deliberately take whatever action it caa to centralise all government in Canberra?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I do not know what was said other than what I have seen in the newspapers. It would be much better for these affairs to be dealt with on the basis of exactly what was said by the Prime Minister. As for the Prime Minister’s attitude to the States, what has been happening in this chamber must clearly be related to what the Prime Minister and the Government think. We have seen day after day that measures are introduced to grant very great sums of Federal money to the States to carry out their activities. We see that the Australian Government has joined with the States in having a constitutional convention to discuss the matters which affect the Government and the States and in order to balance the functions and the finances of the States, the Australian Government and local government. We see also in regard to the third-tier of government the insistence by the present Government that local government be brought into the constitutional convention and that there be proper regard to its important role in the affairs of the Commonwealth. Throughout the Australian Labor Party platform, throughout statements of the Prime Minister and throughout those of the various other Ministers there is proper recognition given to the necessity for our achieving a sensible balance between the functions, the finances and the roles of the Australian Government, the State governments and local government. At all times, and for a very long time, Mr Whitlam as Leader of the Opposition and as Prime Minister has made this clear. I think it is unnecessary to start to tear out of newspapers one or two sentences and to deal with them as if they were a summation of the whole of the philosophy of the Prime Minister. It just will not wash.

page 2565

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN STEEL INDUSTRY

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Acting Minister for Labour. I put it to him that in view of the precedent established by the war-time Curtin Government of invoking national security regulations against the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd for a breach of an industrial code, in the face of an appeal from Mr Short of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and the other 10 unions in the steel industry, will the good graces of the Commonwealth Government be available to get sanity in industrial relations in the steel industry?

Senator BISHOP:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– All I can say in reply to Senator Mulvihill’s question is that he and the unions can be assured that the officers of the Department will always be available to help in settling industrial disputes.

page 2566

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade and Minister for Secondary Industry a question based upon a reply that he gave to a question by me last week. Is he aware that the reason why there has been no case of serious injury sufficient to invoke the safeguard clauses of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement appears to be because of a determination not to accept any claim of damage under any circumstances? Would the Minister indicate whether the departmental officer who induced the former Minister for Trade and Industry to take up this attitude is now feeding the same folly to the present Minister? Would the Minister admit that imports to an already glutted market are the cause of considerable damage to that market?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

– I am most certainly in no position to endorse or contradict any reflections that are contained in the honourable senator’s question against a departmental officer. This, of course, is not my direct portfolio and I do not have any direct dealings with any of the officers of the Department of Overseas Trade. I think Senator Lillico would accept the fact that the whole purpose of the agreement with New Zealand is to maximise trade between our 2 countries. We know full well that problems have arisen on many occasions as a result of that agreement being entered into. I am not in a position to answer the specific question that was asked by the honourable senator. However, I will obtain the information if I can and will advise the honourable senator accordingly.

page 2566

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask whether the attention of the Attorney-General’s Department has been directed to an article in the early edition of the ‘Sun’ of 30 May 1973 which states:

Premier Askin said today that the phone tapping had been authorised by the New South Wales Parliament.

If the Department is not aware of this article, will it search it out? Will it also concentrate on a further statement alleged to have been made by New South Wales Police Commissioner Hansen? He is reported to have said that phone taps could be authorised only by the Commissioner or an Assistant Police Commissioner and that any such authorisation would be given only when justified by the strongest suspicion in order to protect the public from serious crime.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– My attention has been drawn to the article. I know that this matter has been raised, and very properly raised, by the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Legislative Council, Mr Wran. There is no power at all under the New South Wales Listening Devices Act for the Premier of New South Wales, the Commissioner of Police, an Assistant Commissioner of Police or anyone else to authorise the listening in to or the recording of private telephone conversations. The Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act entirely covers the area and none of the State Acts can permit the listening into or recording of any conversation in contravention of that Federal Act. Any kind of eavesdropping or recording in that way by anyone is not permissible. That has been made clear before, and I make it clear again. It is illegal and it is a breach of the Federal Act, and this will be pursued by the Federal Government.

page 2566

QUESTION

KAPUNDA COPPER MINES

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy aware that in the early history of South Australia the copper mines at Kapunda, situated 50 miles north of Adelaide, were of major significance in the State’s economy? Is he aware that there is now a magnificent opportunity for the Kapunda copper mines to be re-opened, provided the Government approves of a joint venture between local interests and a large United States mining group, Utah Development? Will the Minister urge on the

Minister for Minerals and Energy that such approval should be given in the interests of decentralisation and the economy of South Australia?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not aware of the details of the matter Senator Laucke has raised, lt appears that obviously there would be some merit in this matter being considered. I do not know whether any approaches have been made by the South Australian Government to the Commonwealth, but if that is not the case, certainly I will raise the matter with the Minister. I take this opportunity to say that the Government does not adopt an inflexible attitude in respect of the use of overseas capital for developmental purposes. Our prime concern is to ensure that there is no overt control or any influence which would be to the detriment of Australian resources. As the question has been asked, I shall certainly draw it to the Minister’s attention and obtain an answer for the honourable senator.

page 2567

QUESTION

POLITICAL PRISONERS IN SOUTH VIETNAM

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to previous questions asked in this sessional period by Senators Gietzelt and Mulvihill concerning the plight of civilian and military prisoners in South Vietnam gaols. In view of the overwhelming evidence that the Thieu Government is continuing to breach the provisions of the cease fire agreement relating to the release of political prisoners and is holding a great number of such prisoners under barbarous and brutal conditions, will the Prime Minister, when he sees President Nixon later this year, urge the President to use his influence with President Thieu to secure the release of all political prisoners in South Vietnamese gaols?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I will pass on to the Prime Minister the suggestion put by the honourable senator. To deal with political prisoners in any country in the way described in the question is to be deplored. The long history of barbarous treatment of persons in South Vietnam is something that has become notorious throughout the world. I am sure that this is a proper matter which ought to be raised at the international level by those who might be able to bring some influence to bear on the Government of South Vietnam.

page 2567

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Scooter MURPHY- I am sure that there is a large number of unanswered questions on the notice paper. I think that I would be responsible for a good number of them. There are some answers which will be provided today. I assure the honourable senator that if there is a Minister in the Senate who is more at fault than I am in this matter then I shall certainly lecture him severely.

page 2567

QUESTION

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the AttorneyGeneral aware of glaring inequities in many hire purchase agreements? Has he seen a report detailing several serious examples of unfair and deceptive consumer credit practices? Does the Government propose to take steps to ensure that such practices are checked and that the consumers are afforded full protection on all occasions?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The question of consumer protection is a very serious one. It has received attention in other countries. In Australia there have been attempts in the States to deal with this problem but those attempts have been only partly successful. With the best will in the world the States have not been able to cope with the problem of affording protection across the board to consumers. It is the intention of the Government - and I have had legislation prepared - to protect consumers by invoking the corpora. ion’s power.

That legislation would be directed, for example, to false or misleading advertisements, to the supplying of goods which did not come up to the descriptions which are given and also in a number of other ways to deal in a direct manner with fraud and deception thereby giving effective remedies to the consumer by way of damages and where that was not a suitable remedy, providing for pecuniary penalties to be recovered by officials of the Commonwealth. The legislation would in various other ways provide what we conceive to be an up to date and proper method of applying consumer protection.

page 2568

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy. I ask whether I am correct in recalling that Sir William Pettingell made a comment last week that the route decided upon for the gas pipeline from South Australia to Sydney has involved an unnecessary expenditure to the extent of $20m. I ask the Minister: Will he state, as fully as he can, upon what engineering and surveying advice any decision as to the route had been made and what economic assessment of the project had been made?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is my understanding that a proper economic assessment was made of the whole project by the Australian Gas Light Co. before the Commonwealth became involved. 1 have not seen the remarks of Sir William Pettingell. Therefore, I am unable to comment on them. I will have to refer this matter to the Minister concerned and have him supply an answer.

page 2568

QUESTION

CANBERRA SEWERAGE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to 2 Ministers, who happen to be the one Minister. My first question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation. Can the Minister inform the Senate how sincere the Government is in its determination to preserve the natural environment in areas under its control? Did the Minister interest himself in the question raised in the Senate yesterday, addressed to the Minister for Works, regarding the proposed sewer pipe which is purported to be 8 feet 6 inches in diameter and to run for about 10 miles on the surface in the Molonglo Valley? Is’ it not the stated policy of the

Minister’s Department, the Department of Works, to study the environmental effect of major works prior to their being undertaken? Ls this proposed work not the most major blunder in environmental planning that tha Labor Government has undertaken in its short term in office? My second question is directed to the Minister for Works. Will he right the comment that he made yesterday that after tenders closed, suggestions for the use of underground piping came from a firm which has developed a process for underground piping? Will he make it clear that the Department of Works had received a proposition, prior to its closing of tenders, for an underground pipeline at a cheaper price?

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Cavanagh, you are in the, singular position of being able to wear your own cap and the cap of another Minister.

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Works · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, and my own cap is the only one that I am involved in wearing. Senator Webster claims that an incorrect statement was made yesterday. Of course, no incorrect statement was made yesterday. Firstly, the firm concerned submitted alternative tenders, one for underground piping and one for above ground piping. It became concerned with the environmental aspect after it was unsuccessful in receiving the contract for the job. What I said was that the agitation for an underground service came from a certain firm whose tender was not successful. Quite a deal of experimental work was involved in this question. According to my notes and the material before me - that is mainly a file of correspondence from the firm, not only to myself but also to a number of politicians to try to have representations made to the Minister - the work hi planned and constructed by the National Capital Development Commissi oil with the Department of Works carrying out investigations, design and supervision of construction on its behalf. The Commission decided what is to be constructed and will enter into all contracts associated with the project. Therefore, it is neither my Department nor the department of any Minister I represent in the Senate that is making the decision. In view of the minute that I received on 2 May, I referred the matter to the Minister for Urban and Regional Development who has replied to me. He possibly would be one of the men in the Parliament most concerned with environmental matters. The Minister said:

Different schemes including tunnels and other matters you have raised were considered and appraised during the initial investigation stage of the total scheme.

The matter has been considered and the Department has rejected the tunnelling scheme. Senator Webster has introduced nothing new that was not before the Department in regard to the scheme, its capabilities and its environmental impact.

page 2569

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, arises out of a question asked earlier this morning by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson in which he wrongly claimed that 347 questions on notice were left unanswered. Will the Leader of the Government check and verify that there are only 119, and will he make a statement for the record?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am pleased that my adding ability is the same as that of Senator McLaren. I just ticked through the questions on notice which remain unanswered and I came to the same answer, 119. I think that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, by oversight, took the number of questions on notice which had actually been asked. There were 347. The greater proportion of those had been answered. A good number of those questions are directed not to Ministers in this chamber but to Ministers in the other chamber. That chamber has risen. I think that the last 12 of the remaining 119 questions are directed, to Ministers in the other chamber. On top of that, as honourable senators can see, there are a number of answers ready to be given today to questions on notice. AH in all, it appears that a reasonably creditable performance has been achieved in regard to answers to questions.

page 2569

QUESTION

MINISTRY OF URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: STAFF

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development been drawn to a report that Mr Uren, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, is to have a staff of 300, including a high powered staff structure with 30 executives earning between $14,500 and $19,000 a year? These positions will be filled mainly by economists and sociologists. That Department will have also 2 deputy secretaries, 7 first assistant secretaries and 20 assistant secretaries. Can all these people be gainfully employed?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– Before any appointment can be made to the positions which Mr Uren intends to fill, approval of the Public Service Board has to be obtained. Judging by the difficulty which I am having in my Department, it is not easy to get such approval. The Press report stated that he has received approval from the Public Service Board for the appointment of a staff of 300. After having influenced the Board and having obtained its approval, after an inquiry, I do not think there can be any criticism of the Department. It must have been demonstrated that this number could be gainfully employed or the approval would not have been obtained.

page 2569

QUESTION

TANZANIA

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to Mr Whitlam’s statement in New Delhi on Wednesday that Australia would be deserting its traditional friends and allies, Great Britain and the United States of America, in voting in the United Nations and would be consulting 5 other powers, including Tanzania? Is the Minister aware that Tanzania is a oneparty fascist type state, despite its close subservience to Red China? Is it a fact that Tanzania’s air force, such as it is, is being trained by Red China near Peking? Can the Minister explain to the Senate by which line of tortuous reasoning Australia possesses any social, political, economic or other interests with Tanzania?

Senator Mulvihill:

– Or Spain or Portugal.

Senator HANNAN:

– The Prime Minister did not say that he would consult Spain or Portugal. I suppose that is relevant. Can the Minister explain why we propose to desert Britain and the United States of America for the advice and opinion of such a fascist state? Is this a fair indication of the phoney independent foreign policy being foisted upon Australia by the present ephemeral Government?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The interest that Australia has with Tanzania is the ‘ interest that she has with the other member countries of the United Nations Organisation, that is, that we all live on the same planet and we have many problems in common. The world is seeking more and more a resolution of these problems by discussion and by decision in the United Nations and various conferences. The question as to whether we have military commitments is a very difficult one. I would like the honourable senator to reflect upon some of the military arrangements that are made from time to time. For example, I understand that for a long time - I do not know whether it is continuing - the United States of America was supplying military aid to the Government of Yugoslavia, which has been mentioned on occasions in this chamber.

I wish to make it clear that the Government of Australia votes in the United Nations in the way which it considers to be in the interests of Australia. It exercise its own independent judgment. It is rather foolish to speak about desertions and so on. For the first time in 23 years the Australian Government and the Australian people are able to hold up their heads and are being regarded throughout the world with the respect which was given to Australia only in the period when Dr Evatt was representing us at the United Nations, when a previous Labor Government was in office and when Australia took a major part in the affairs of the world. It is pleasing not only to Australia but to the rest of the world that we have been restored to that position.

page 2570

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP: QUALIFICATION PERIOD

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration: Is it a fact that the Minister, speaking in the Senate on 17 May, said that the Government’s proposal for the common period of residence before Australian citizenship could be sought would be 3 years? Is it also a fact that the Senate agreed to that period of time proposed by the Government and repealed a section of the earlier Act relating to certain other specified periods of time? Will the Minister explain to the Senate, the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Immigration that the waiting period for Australian citizenship for all nationalities had been reduced to one year? As this statement appears to be at variance with the Government’s policy and that accepted by the Parliament, will the Minister advise what is the actual present position regarding the citizenship waiting time?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that the. Australian Citizenship Bill passed by the Senate this week provided that the period of residence should be 3 years. I am unaware of the statement made by the Minister for Immigration yesterday. I will draw the Minister’s attention to the question and will find out for the honourable senator what tho situation is.

page 2570

QUESTION

NATIONAL RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science. Did the National Radiation Advisory Committee hold a meeting on 14 May? If so, did it produce a report? If such a report exists, will the Minister publish it?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I take it that the honourable senator refers to 14 May last. I do not know whether the National Radiation Advisory Committee met. I do not know whether it made a report or, if it did, whether the report was published. Presumably if it has met and made a report that report will be published in due course. I think the reports to date, leaving aside the one that the honourable senator mentions, if there was such a report, have been published in due course and I assume that any other report will be published in due course also.

page 2570

QUESTION

MINING ROYALTIES PAID TO ABORIGINES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory. Can the Minister inform the Senate what body is responsible for the disbursement of accrued royalties payable to Aborigines by mining companies in the Northern Territory?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not able to answer that question but I will obtain the information for the honourable senator.

page 2570

QUESTION

OWNERSHIP OF SPANISH COINS

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the AttorneyGeneral decided whether the Commonwealth Government is the owner or has a legitimate claim to the ownership of the collection of Spanish coins recovered from the wreck of the ship ‘Gilt Dragon’ referred to by me in a question I asked last week? If he has decided that the Commonwealth is the owner, what action does the Government propose to take? If he has not yet decided this question, when can we expect him to make a decision?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I have not yet decided this because it is a very difficult question and has been passed on to the officers of my Department who are very expert in these matters. They are unravelling the law on it. There is some agreement with the Dutch Government but there are other questions of State as well as Federal law to be determined, questions such as the extent of territorial limits. I should inform the honourable senator that in accordance with what I said the other day, action was taken by me to put before the Executive Council a regulation which it duly approved preventing the export of any such coins without the permission of the Minister for Customs and Excise. That regulation has come into force and means that while any question is being determined it is unlikely that the coins will go outside Australia. The regulation will serve to ensure that coins other than those which the honourable senator has mentioned will be kept in Australia while questions as to their final disposition or acquisition by the Government for national historical purposes are determined.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Jessop, are you seeking to attract my attention?

Senator Jessop:

– No, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Georges.

page 2571

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Senator GEORGES:

– It is a bit late in the session to complain about the method of calling; I will leave that matter until the August session.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have explained my method of calling honourable senators and I will continue that practice.

Senator GEORGES:

– If I may comment on what you have said, Mr President-

The PRESIDENT:

– You may not comment. You may ask a question without notice.

Senator GEORGES:

– It seems odd that you should call a person who has not stood in his place.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Will you ask your question.

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General and leave the other matter until the August session.

Senator Murphy:

– You must not reflect on the Chair.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am not reflecting on the Chair. My question to the AttorneyGeneral follows the question I asked earlier this morning concerning telephone tapping in New South Wales. If telephone tapping in New South Wales is being carried out on suspicion, would the Attorney-General not accept that the practice must be widespread in New South Wales? What guidelines has he for authorising the tapping of telephones if the New South Wales police conform with the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act and approach him for authority?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– There are no guidelines because there is simply no way, as I see it, in which this can lawfully be done. The only approach that could be made is one in accordance with the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act by the DirectorGeneral of Security for national security purposes - I am using the term in the broad sense - as referred to in that Act. There is no provision whereby the New South Wales police or the New South Wales Premier may make such an approach. There is no authorisation for the interception or recording of telephone conversations because people may be suspected by the New South Wales police of having committed crime. There is no doubt that this has been done in the past in the States, because evidence has been given by police officers in New South Wales and Queensland that there has been recording of telephone conversations. It has been given in evidence against persons.

Senator Carrick:

– Without the approval of the PMG?

Senator MURPHY:

– There have been breaches of the Act in cases in which evidence has been given of such recordings entirely unconnected with the national security. The honourable senator interrupts. I recall one case in New South Wales several years ago in which an alderman was charged with receiving some money to influence him in the carrying out of his office. That had nothing whatever to do with the national security. The charge ultimately was dismissed, but in that case evidence was given of recording of conversations contrary to the Act. Any such breach of the Act - any such listening in to or recording of telephone conversations contrary to the Act - cannot be authorised by the State police or by a Premier. I want to make it as clear as crystal that such breaches, whether they be authorised by the police or by other authorities of the States, will not be permitted. This Parliament has made the law. It has been made by both Houses and in the proper form. While that remains, the Premiers have no authority whatever to decide that they can authorise commissioners or assistant commissioners, for whatever reason they may have, to break that Act.

page 2572

QUESTION

LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT: ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to Senator Murphy in his capacity as the Leader of the Government and Minister representing the Prime Minister in this place. How does he explain his inconsistency in answering certain types of questions? For example, how does he explain his inconsistency in, on the one hand, answering in words of agreement any questions which imply blame, guilt or misconduct on the part of the South Vietnamese Government, as he did this morning, and, on the other hand, regularly and consistently requiring questions asking the Government to use its influence with North Vietnam to stop its aggression in Cambodia and South Vietnam and to cease its breaches of the ceasefire agreement made last January to be put on the notice paper, as has been done consistently to my questions throughout this session and to a question I asked this morning? Does this inconsistency represent a personal bias, or does it underlie the whole Government attitude

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– That is an absurd abuse of question time. As the honourable senator knows, he has made a speech asking for some analysis. It is just a lot of nonsense. I do not propose to answer him. The best way in which he can deal with the matter, I think, is to read about the conduct Of the South Vietnamese governments. If he reads that, he will find that over a period of years, and especially during periods of changeover of governments, one government after the other in South Vietnam was condemning its predecessor for its brutal treatment, its outrages, its corruption and so on. With this succession of events, which were recorded in the United Nations, I think there is sufficient evidence to convince anyone of what has been going on, unfortunately, in South Vietnam. The honourable senator can ask argumentative and hypothetical questions, and he will receive answers in kind.

page 2572

QUESTION

TRIALS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. The fact released this morning that 2 of the Croatians on trial in Belgrade resided in Australia for 8 years and did not seek Australian citizenship destroys the credibility of those people who claim that we have a bounden duty to intervene on their behalf.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You cannot make explanations. You did not ask a question; you made a statement. I call Senator Wright.

page 2572

QUESTION

LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT: ATTITUDE TO NORTH AND SOUTH VIETNAM

Senator WRIGHT:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I think he will admit that in his last answer to Senator Greenwood he took the opportunity of exhibiting his prejudiced hostility to South Vietnam and he spoke not a word of condemnation of North Vietnam. Does he admit that North Vietnam is engaging in aggressive hostilities against Cambodia? Does he admit that the North Vietnamese Government is pursuing the cause of communism? Is his favouritism to North Vietnam and his hostility to South Vietnam a personal prejudice or does it underlie Government policy? That is very material to the country.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– That is an argumentative question. The honourable senator has asked my personal views on all sorts of matters. My personal beliefs are not a proper subject matter for answer at question time. If the honourable senator wants to ask any question directed to Government policy I suggest that he put it on the notice paper. He will obtain an answer in due course from the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 2572

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator SIR KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I want to use the form of asking a question to make an explanation. Apparently, my notice

Questions paper mathematics are not too good. The figure which I cited related to the number of questions put on notice; it did not have regard to the ones taken off. I regret that error. The other point is that I never at any time thought, or suggested in my question, that I was directing my remarks at Ministers in this place. I realise that questions cover the whole ambit of the 27 Ministers.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is another statement with no question involved in it.

Senator Murphy:

– May I say, in deference to the honourable senator who is a former Leader of the Government in the Senate -

Senator Withers:

– 1 raise a point of order, Mr President. No question is involved. What right has Senator Murphy to rise? Please let us obey the Standing Orders.

Senator Murphy:

– Mr President, something has been directed -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Murphy, you should seek leave to make a statement.

Senator Murphy:

– I seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

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

– Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson was absent when another question was asked about the matter. Out of deference to him and to his former position here I say that the Senate regarded what the honourable senator put merely as an oversight on his part. We understood that he did not intend to misrepresent the position. It was a simple error. In any case, action has been taken to deal with the remaining questions which do seem to be reasonable.

page 2573

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Senator CARRICK:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he is asserting that State police are telephone tapping without the knowledge or co-operation of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. In other words, are they acting illegally? Has the Department complained of any such alleged telephone tapping? ‘If not, are the allegations hypothetical, or what specific evidence currently exists to support the statement made by the Minister?

Questions 2573

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– If the State police are telephone tapping - to use that expression - that is, if they are doing things covered by the Federal Act which is the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act, then there is no doubt that they are breaches of the Federal Act. It does not matter who has authorised it. If police are engaged in actions which are prohibited by that Act, whether it is to pursue what they consider to be suspected criminals and whether it is authorised allegedly by some kind of State Act or regulation is immaterial. Let us not obscure this. If they are doing things which are stated to be prohibited by the Federal Act then that is a breach of Federal law. The honourable senator will be aware that in no way can that conduct be authorised by any supposed authority of any official of a State, however highly placed.

page 2573

QUESTION

CURRENCY REVALUATION: CANNING FRUITS INDUSTRY

Senator LAUCKE:

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the severe financial hardship being experienced by growers of canning fruits in the Riverland district of South Australia because of the inability of canneries to pay the price set for fruit for 1971-72? As a substantial short payment to growers has arisen from the realignment of currencies and the high proportion of export sales involved in the disposal of canned fruits, will the Minister give consideration to assisting canners to meet the adverse effects of the currency situation and so assist both growers and the canning organisations?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The canning fruits industry was one of the industries which qualified for assistance under the Government’s scheme of adjustment payments following revaluation. The amount involved is a maximum of $1,500 per grower of both canning and fresh fruits. It has not been brought to my attention that it is still considered by the industry to have been an insufficient payment. Further claims may have been made. The growers are at liberty to do so, but I am not aware of any having been made. I turn to the subject of the payments to growers by canneries. I was under the impression that the 1971-72 obligations to growers had been discharged by the canneries. Apparently 8 June 1973 that is not the case, according to Senator Laucke. The nature of the payments under the present structure has given me considerable concern since I have been in my portfolio. I find it difficult to believe that a better system could not be devised. It has been a problem for growers who have had to wait for a year - in some cases 2 years - to get returns from the canneries. I do not know whether there is an alternative. I hope there is. If there is I shall be doing something about it.

page 2574

QUESTION

THE SENATE: DIVISIONS

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I, as a Temporary Chairman of Committees, direct a question to you, Mr President. Some confusion arose last night during the process of determining whether a division had or had not been called for. There was some misunderstanding. One of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees was in the chair at the time. Would you be kind enough to intimate, for the guidance of the honourable senators who occupy the chair from time to time, what the practice is regarding calling for divisions? The Standing Orders are rather specific. They state that a division can be called for on-y if the decision of the Chair is challenged by at least 2 honourable senators, who must call the word ‘Divide’. The practice has grown up whereby the Chair often says: Is a division required?’ I should be obliged if, for the guidance of Temporary Chairmen of Committees, a settled practice could be determined. Should the Chair continue to invite honourable senators to indicate whether they want a division or should it insist on the word ‘Divide’ being called by those who challenge the ruling? What are the circumstances in which a division may be called for?

The PRESIDENT:

– -I am not aware of what occurred last night. The subject of divisions and how they are called for has been examined by me. The Clerks have produced a research paper on it. It is on my desk at the moment. I will have it duplicated and forwarded to the Temporary Chairmen of Committees.

Senator Byrne:

– I want to point out that 1 was not casting any reflection upon the gentleman who was occupying the chair. I thought there was some confusion; that is all. I was not reflecting on the honourable senator who was occupying the chair.

page 2574

QUESTION

EXCLUSION OF JOURNALIST FROM PRESS GALLERY

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. I ask: Are you aware of the concern that has been expressed by representatives of the media, subsequent to the statement made by Mr Speaker and yourself on 29 May, at the withdrawal of a Parliamentary Press Gallery pass from Mr Barry Everingham? As Mr Everingham or persons acting in his interests have purported to relate his account of the events which led to the withdrawal of his pass, and as a serious question of whether justice has been done arises on the relating of those facts, will you, Sir, lay on the table of the Senate the documents available to you and to Mr Speaker and on which, for your part, your decision was made?

The PRESIDENT:

– I will take this matter under consideration and discuss it with Mr Speaker. As it involves both Presiding Officers I do not propose to take any unilateral action. Subsequent to the rising of the Senate I will find out what the situation is and I will let Senator Greenwood know by letter what decision is taken by the Presiding Officers in this context.

page 2574

QUESTION

MARGARINE: MANUFACTURE IN AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I apologise for the fact that I have to give some advertising names. My question is related to the Marrickville affair in Canberra. I ask the Minister whether he will check the facts to ascertain whether Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd has advised all its South Australian distributors that as from 12 lune all Miracle margarine which is to be distributed in South Australia will originate from and will be sold from the head office of Marrickville in Canberra. If the situation is that all South Australia’s supplies are to be provided from the Canberra factory, does the Minister believe, as Minister for Primary Industry, that his agreement with the various State Ministers for Agriculture will be completely flouted by this attempt by Marrickville to hide behind section 92 of the Constitution and thereby avoid the quota restriction which supposedly was put on by Mr Enderby when Marrickville was permitted to be the sole manufacturer of margarine in Canberra?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I shall check the facts in relation to the matter raised by Senator Webster. The practice up until now has been that there has been an agreement between the States as to the manufacture of margarine in the various States. I find it difficult to believe, firstly, that the 300-ton quota which has now been agreed to in the Australian Capital Territory would make a significant impact on the market in South Australia. Three hundred tons of margarine is not very much and I do not think it would have much impact on the market even if it were shipped interstate. ] personally hold to the principles of the agreement which currently apply insofar as they concern the States. I will take up with Mr Enderby the matter of whether there has been a breach of principle on anybody’s part.If there has been such a breach, I certainly will ensure that the practice does not continue. Like most people, I have my own view on the whole question of margarine quotas. But at the present time certain principles apply and, as far as I am concerned, they will continue to apply until such time as they are altered by agreement.

page 2575

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Some time ago a number of honourable senators - in particular Senator Hannan in a question addressed to Senator Willesee on 3 May - queried the actual date of execution of 3 persons in Yugoslavia. I have just been sent a document from the office of the Special Minister of State and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Willesee. The document states that the date of 17 March 1973 has been confirmedas the date on which the 3 deaths occurred. The message I have received is that the Foreign Affairs Department has received advice from Belgrade - Belgrade cable No. 777 - that the death certificates have now been received and in each case show that death occurred on 17 March 1973. This is the date which the Government has stated to the Parliament all along.

page 2575

QUESTION

DEFENCE: NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I take the opportunity to give some further information to Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson inrelation to Nationwide Air Services Pty Ltd about which he asked a question on Wednesday. Nationwide Air Services Pty Ltd of Sydney has been appointed distributor for the Nomad aircraft in Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Fiji and adjacent Pacific island territories. This firm is a wholly owned subsidiary of News Limited. The agreement covers the following main points: It grants distributorship within the defined territory to Nationwide Air Services Pty Ltd and reserves to the Government Aircraft Factories the right to sell in that territory on a direct basis; it debars the distributor from selling products of a competitive nature and provides for actitve and reliable marketing arrangements for both the aircraft and spare parts; the agreement establishes a remuneration structure and sets out the conditions on which the distributor will operate in handling orders and sales; joint promotional action is provided for; and provision is made for technical assistance by the Government Aircraft Factories to the distributor to ensure proper performance of its technical functions. The agreement came into force on 5 June 1973 and continues until terminated by either party. Conditions of termination are specific and fully protect the interests of the Government. The agreement specifically enables the Government to make government to government and other sales in the territory allotted to the distributor without benefit to the distributor except in relation to any after sales service required.

page 2575

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF WORKS: GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT

Ministerial Statement

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I lay upon the table a document setting out the general conditions of contract of the Department of Works. Mr President, I ask for leave to make a short statement in connection with this matter.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The National Public Works Conference General Conditions of Contract, known as NPWC Edition 1 and prepared by the Commonwealth Crown Solitor, has been adopted by the Commonwealth Department of Works as the standard document upon which contracts for works which proceeded to tender after 2 April 1973 will be based. Introduction of NPWC Edition 1 in tender documents by other Conference members, namely, the respective State Public Works Departments and the National Capital

Development Commission, will result in a number of major public construction authorities using uniform conditions of contracts. This is the first time such a situation has been achieved in Australia.

The National Public Works Conference was established in May 1967. One of its objectives was to examine ways in which general conditions of contract and associated administrative procedures for governmental construction works could be made more uniform. Completion and adoption by all Conference members of uniform general conditions of contract represent achievement of a primary objective of the Conference. It is indicative of the extent to which agreement can be reached between Commonwealth and State government agencies on matters of common interest to them.

From time to time during preparation of the document, construction industry organisations were consulted and kept informed of the developments which took place. The Commonwealth Department of Works and other Government members will continue to maintain close liaison with construction industry organisations who have an interest in conditions of contract to ensure that introduction of NPWC Edition 1 is a success from the point of view of owner and contractor and that problem areas are minimised.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement on the same subject.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIGHT:

– As Minister for Works in the previous Government I was well aware of the very purposeful consultations which were taking place in this area designed to achieve a standard Form of contract for public works. I express my pleasure that that has been achieved. I abstain from comment on it. But I assume that it does not include any conditions that require tenders to be given only to firms which have good relations with trade unions, or any of those contentious industrial matters which were a personal emanation from Senator Cavanagh in January.

page 2576

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE: VIP FLIGHT

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP

– Last week in response to questions by Senator McManus and Senator Townley the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) and I advised the Senate that details of travel in Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft would be tabled. Details of travel in Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft up to and including 4 February 1973 have been previously tabled in the Parliament, the most recent occasion being 7 March 1973 when I tabled details for the period from 18 August 1972 to 12 February 1973. The documents I now table embrace all details of VIP travel in RAAF aircraft in the period from 5 February 1973 to 13 April 1973.

page 2576

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it desired to postpone or rearrange the business?

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That business of the Senate orders of the day Nos 1 to 5 be postponed till the next day of sitting.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I ask for leave to withdraw notice of motion No. 9 under general business standing in my name. The motion was to set up a Standing Orders committee. As at long last it has been achieved ‘I ask for leave to withdraw that motion.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

page 2576

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1972-73

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 1972-73

Cities Commission Bill 1973

Pipeline Authority Bill 1973

Housing Agreement Bill 1973

States Grants (Housing) Bill 1973

States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill 1973

Book Bounty Bill 1973

page 2576

XING ISLAND HARBOUR AGREEMENT BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 June (vide page 2561), on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Before the adjournment of the House last night we were discussing this Bill. It will be remembered that the Bill is asking the Commonwealth Parliament to authorise an agreement under which the Commonwealth will make a loan of $677,500 to the Tasmanian Government. A similar amount has been given by the Commonwealth Government to the Tasmanian Government for the construction of the port at Grassy so the total amount made available by the Commonwealth in this area will be about$1. 3m. In the report of the Senate Select Committee on Shipping Services between King Island, Stanley and Melbourne which was presented yesterday it was shown that the cost of the sinking fund on the loan in this Bill is of the order of$90,000 this year. The total figure of$1. 8m represents $1.3m from the Commonwealth Government,$0. 3m from the State Government and some incidentals. The total cost to public finance will be of the order of$2m. With the loss of port charges in King Island being about $30,000. the loss of port charges in Stanley being about $70,000 and the loss of port charges in Melbourne being about$40.000, the total annual waste of these assets, which today the Parliament will authorise, is of the order of $400,000 in one year.

The highest loss that the Australian National Line ever attributed to the ‘Straitsman’, even on its insufficient assessment of the trade, was $360.000. I remind honourable senators that in arriving at that estimate the ANL neglected to take into account cargoes which the Committee thatI chaired found were available and expanding, and cargoes which were promising to develop over a period at a consistent rate of 8 per cent a year. So the cost to the public fund of waste by non-use of assets on the part of this Government has exceeded any subsidy that would have been required, on an ANL assessment, to bring the trade into balance. That shows how absolutely shortsighted was the decision not to work this whole integrated program consisting of the erection of this new port and modifications at Stanley and Melbourne and the construction of the Straitsman’ - Mr Davies showed this in his speech - which has lainidle since June last year. Mr Davies is right when he complains that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) is adamant against the use of that ship, and that decision is not understood by any sensible Australian. This is a matter of great regret but it brings into focus the complete stupidity of this Government. Today the Senate is authorising the capital finance for this project but yesterday we heard a derisive suggestion by the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt), a Tasmanian, against the use of assets which today we are financing.

The PRESIDENT:

– The time allotted for all stages of the Bill having expired, I put the question:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– I now put the further question:

That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2577

SUPPLY BILL(No. 1) 1973-74

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 30 May (vide page 2120), on motion by Senator Bishop:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– The Senate is dealing now with Supply Bill (No. 1). I think it is better to deal separately with Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2) because each relates to separate matters. Supply Bill (No. 1) substantially relates to what might be called the operating forward expenditure for 5 months from 1 July 1973 to the end of November 1973. It contains one or two other elements to whichI shall refer. Supply Bill (No. 2) substantially sets out a capital works program for the same period but contains other elements to which one might refer also. Figures are not given in the second reading speech of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Bishop) as to increase in total expenditure under Supply Bill (No. 1) for these 5 months as against the same period last year but I do not object to that at the moment. One can pick that matter up when we come to deal with the full Budget position and one can carry out an analysis at that point of time. I just mention that matter now to indicate that this is the sort of thing one would want to know something about later on.

The amounts set out in the Bill do not cover the requirements for expenditure under special appropriations already made, and that is understood. It covers 1 1 pay days for salaries and payments in the nature of salary in the period under review. The Bill underwrites the process of government from 1 July, when supply runs out, until such time as the Budget has been brought in, debated, subjected to examination in the House of Representatives and by the Estimates Committee in this House, and passed. Supply then continues on the authority of the Budget. There- fore this Bill in effect covers the operation of government on a proposed schedule arrangement for 5 months from 1 July. An amount of $15m is included in this Bill for the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund for which legislation was passed this session and that is to be understood. An amount of $30m is allocated to enable the Treasurer’s Advance to be carried on and particulars will be submitted to the Parliament later. That always is done and it is specifically stated that this expenditure will be covered by particulars in due course.

There is one interesting departure. In his second reading speech the Minister stated:

This Bill also contains a special appropriation of an unspecified amount-

I repeat ‘unspecified amount’- subject to certain limitations, to cover such salary and wage increases as become payable after the Bill was prepared for which specific provision will not, of course, have been made.

That is of course normal practice. The Advance to the Treasurer normally would cover it. The Minister went on:

This is an alternative to increasing substantially the Advance to the Treasurer which in recent years has been called upon to provide substantial amounts to meet salary and wag; increases. It is hoped that this special appropriation will become a permanent feature of future Supply Bills,

This is a notable departure in practice from having Treasury advances large enough to cover such adjustments as they arise. What disturbs me is the comment that ‘This Bill also contains a special appropriation of an unspecified amount subject to certain limitations’. I think it would have been more appropriate, to say the least, and more courteous for the Treasurer (Mr Crean), to have spelled out roughly the specifications of the amounts and the limitations. I will not hold up these Supply Bills - we are very near to the end of the session - but I think it proper that I should say that for a departure of this magnitude in accounting and financial responsibility style the comments ought to have been made to the Parliament as to the area of the amount unspecified and the certain limitations. That is a responsibility which the Treasurer and the Treasury owe to the Parliament. I would like the responsible Minister to note my remarks and to pay me the courtesy after the Senate rises of providing me with more details in writing of the section to which I have referred so that I may examine it a little more exactly on behalf of the Opposition.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I rise to speak on this Supply Bill not so much to canvass the particulars which are comprised in the schedules to that Bill but to take the opportunity because no encomiums will be passed on this occasion to comment on the work of the parliamentary counsel who have been operating in this session. As you know Mr Acting Deputy President, some few years ago we reconstituted the status of the Parliamentary counsel from that of parliamentary draftsman to counsel attached to the Parliament. I doubt that a body of parliamentary counsel has ever been called upon to provide such a great quantity of work of professional skill in such a short time and with such effect. I do not canvass the merits or demerits of m legislative program in this comment which I now make, but undoubtedly these gentlemen were faced with a particularly onerous situation. They were asked to accommodate and articulate in formal legal terms some new social and political philosophies, and some very great departures from practice in Bills such as the Prices Justification Bill. They have done this with such skill that such an enormous burden of work should not pass without comment in this chamber.

I understand that by the time the Senate concludes these sittings about 130 Bills will have been presented to it. When one realises just what is involved in this mass of Bills and the time allocated for their deliberation, one realises the immense burden of responsibility which has been imposed on the parliamentary counsel, the draftsmen who draft the legislation; for unless the most detailed scrutiny is applied - and even in the most ideal circumstances that it not possible - a tremendous burden must rest upon their skill, dedication and particularly their professional integrity. I think that we have seen demonstrated on this occasion a magnificent contribution to the functioning of the Parliament by these gentlemen of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. 1 therefore wish to convey, at least on behalf of the Democratic Labor Party, our appreciation of the work they have done in the professional field and the extent to which they have been able to accommodate the program of the Government, which in many other circumstances would be subjected to severe criticism but which from their point of view is a professional exercise in which they have carried into legal form the philosophies and the ideas of the Government which has just assumed office. I think that we ought to place on record our appreciation of Mr Comans and his draftsmen for the contribution they have made to the functioning of the Parliament.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The 2 Bills before the Senate - Supply Bill (No. 1) 1973-74 and Supply Bill (No. 2) 1973-74- are typical of Supply Bills which come before the Senate at this dme of the sittings. These 2 Bills together seek to appropriate the amount of $1,961,320,000. It is an enormous figure. I understand that it is the highest amount that has ever been appropriated in 2 Supply Bills. This is a matter which is normally debated at great length by the Senate, and we have in previous years felt proud of the Senate for making some investigation of the expenditures of the Commonwealth. Senator pointed out the most important factor relating to these Bills. To my knowledge, for the first time in history there is to be a special appropriation in Supply Bill (No. 1) of an unspecified amount. The Government is saying to the Senate: ‘Please provide for us an unspecified amount, subject to certain limitations, to cover increased expenditures which may be incurred by the Government’. But the Parliament will not be able to look at the actual expenditures that are incurred. I think this instances the great problem which other senators and I have. This is a most important matter. Undoubtedly the Government has escalated its expenditure over the past 6 months of its office. The Government now says: ‘Will you grant us an unspecified amount so that we can mec! expenditure incurred during the ensuing months’. I note that the second-reading speech on Supply Bill (No. 1) states:

It is hoped that this special appropriation will become a permanent feature of future Supply Bills.

So far as I am concerned, that is a completely unacceptable proposition. I ask that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations look not only at this matter but also at some other matters which have been raised in relation to finance Bills which, it has been suggested by me and by others, should be closely scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. It may be appropriate for the Senate Standing Committee to look at this matter.

Whilst the quarter of an hour that the Government has said the Senate can have to debate the expenditure of close to $2,000m is most inadequate, I take this opportunity to draw attention to one matter which has been given publicity by the Tariff Board, which has conducted its inquiries in a manner which has not been entirely impartial to Australian industry. I think that people who take a responsible interest in these matters would express considerable surprise at a reply given by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) last week to a question about the activities of the Tariff Board in this direction. It seems to me that, having been asked a question by an honourable member in the other House well known for his anti-protectionist sentiments and for his unwavering support to the Tariff Board, the Prime Minister, without being too sure of what it was all about, simply gave vent to his own previously expressed antiprotectionist sympathies and rushed in to support the Tariff Board. The Prime Minister was asked whether he had noted that the Australian Industries Development Association had criticised the Tariff Board for commissioning and releasing a report on an inquiry carried out by a private organisation as to the price the public might be willing to pay for colour television sets. He said that he had and that what AIDA had said was an aspersion against the Tariff Board.

If one looks into what the situation was, one finds that it is laughable. Apparently the Tariff Board said to some research organisation: ‘Ask people what they are prepared to pay for coloured television sets’. Can you imagine anything more stupid? People’s answers would depend their affluence and their feeling. We could imagine the type of response that would have been forthcoming. What value there would be in releasing the results of such a survey in advance of the Tariff Board’s inquiry into colour television is hard to say; yet the Tariff Board saw fit to commission such a survey and officially release the results. However, the important thing that the Prime Minister clearly missed was that the Australian Industries Development Association’s statement was a plea for the preservation of the credibility and impartiality of the Tariff Board and was not an attack on those desirable features, as the Prime Minister’s reply to a question suggested. As the time available to debate this matter is so restricted, I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard the statement made by the Australian Industries Development Association. As you will remember, Mr Acting Deputy President, I showed this statement to you last night.

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

page 2580

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION INQUIRY INAPPROPRIATE ACTION BY TARIFF BOARD

The action of the Tariff Board in commissioning and releasing the results of a survey seeking to ascertain the price that the public would be willing to pay for colour television sets was not an appropriate action for the body charged with conducting an impartial public inquiry into the question of manufacturing such sets in Australia. This comment is not directed against the provision of the information in connection with the inquiry, but at the inappropriateness of the survey being commissioned and released by the body which is to conduct the inquiry.

It would have been appropriate for the Tariff Board to ask that such information be given as evidence at the forthcoming inquiry. There is little doubt that the information would then have been tendered by a party taking part in the inquiry. In those circumstances a proper and impartial evaluation of the circumstances and the results of the survey would have been possible on the basis of submissions put to the inquiry by interested parties.

The Tariff Board’s action in commissioning and releasing the survey has altered this. The survey will be taken to have some sort of status as an official document of the Board, and indeed it already has been dealt with on that basis in the press. No matter what qualifications and assurances are given by the Board, it will be taken to be a preliminary part of the Board’s report and a pre-judgment of a part of the case before the inquiry had ever been held.

The Government should take careful note of the implications of this action in connection with its plans for a Protection Commission. It is appropriate for a body conducting an impartial inquiry in a judicial manner to ask for evidence and information to be put before it. It would be wrong that such a body itself, before the public inquiry, should originate and release what appears to be evidence having the endorsement of that body, and which could be interpreted as being some pre-judgment of all or part of the case yet to be heard.

The Tariff Board’s action gives force to the proposal put forward in the AIDA bulletin for April that pre-inquiry information gathering, investigation, collation and analysis be the function of the department of the Minister who refers a matter to the Protection Commission. The Commission then should conduct an impartial inquiry in a judicial manner on the basis of the information and analysis put before it by the relevant department, and to which industry and other interested parties would address their submissions and arguments.

It is worth adding that this comment is directed neither in favour of nor against protection for the manufacture of colour television sets in Australia. This is a question for decision by the Government in the light of all of the relevant circumstances, and for that purpose it set in train the current Tariff Board inquiry. What is needed is an impartial inquiry followed by a report which will give a full and understandable account of all of the issues involved together with a meaningful explanation of the bases for the recommendation made by the Board This would enable the Government to make the best decision in the national interest and enable the Australian people to understand why the particular decision is made.

At this stage the appropriate action for individuals or groups who believe that they have information and evidence which will contribute towards the best decision is to put their case to the Tariff Board inquiry. This could well be noted by some newspaper leader’ writers and television ‘current affairs’ commentators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills, together, read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) to give me the assurance that I sought earlier with respect to being provided with further details on the matters that I raised.

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

– I will have the request made by Senator Cotton passed on to the relevant Department. In fact, officers of the Department of the Treasurer read the record of the debates in this Parliament and deal with matters such as this. I ask those officers specially to send to Senator Cotton the details which he has requested.

In dealing with the clauses of the Bills, I think that it is proper to respond to what was said by Senator Byrne about the parliamentary counsel. They have performed magnificently in this period of sittings. They have responded to the requests that have been made of them to draft legislation in a quantity which has never before been required of them, involving very large departures from the previous pattern of legislation. In every way, they are entitled to the gratitude of the Parliament. Certain organisational changes have been made. The initiative for these changes came from the First Parliamentary Counsel. In brief, these changes mean relieving the parliamentary counsel of the necessity to draft regulations and ordinances. The drafting of those matters has been brought into the Attorney-General’s Department. There is a special legislative drafting section there which attends to those matters. As a result, the parliamentary counsel have been freed of the responsibility for drafting regulations and ordinances and have been able to concentrate on the drafting of Bills. I think that this action has enabled the parliamentary counsel to carry out their task in the extremely efficient way in which it has been done.

Senator Milliner:

– Hear, hear!

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank the honourable senator, as I thank other honourable senators for their indications of gratitude to the parliamentary counsel. I am sure that, with other proposals that we have in mind, we will be on the way to curing the vexed problem, the problem of which all honourable senators are aware-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Durack:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Order! The time allotted for consideration of all stages of the Bills having expired, I now put the question: ‘That the Bills be agreed to’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills together, reported without requests or amendment.

Remaining stages of Bills agreed to.

page 2581

PARLIAMENTARY AND JUDICIAL RETIRING ALLOWANCES BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 31 May (vide page 2217), on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This Bill is intended to improve parliamentary retiring allowances and judge’s pensions which are fixed by Acts of Parliament. The proposals in the Parliamentary allowances legislation were foreshadowed in a statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) which was repeated in this place when we were considering the Remuneration and Allowances Bill last March. The proposals in this Bill, in the broad canvass, cover those proposals to which we were alerted and which in the generality 1 am sure received approval when the statements were made at that time. For that reason I can say that the Liberal senators in the Opposition give complete support to the Bill. We believe that we will be able to assist in the passage of this legislation in the time allotted for debate under the present arrangements.

Very briefly, the Bill provides that the retiring allowances for those qualified to receive them under the principal Act will be changed. At present they receive 50 per cent of the contributor’s Parliamentary base salary. Their pensions will be changed to have regard to the length of their parliamentary service to enable their pension to increase from 50 per cent after 8 years to a ceiling of 75 per cent after 20 years’ service. The other chief provision in the Bill is for the rate of pension for judges on retirement, on conditions otherwise provided, to increase from 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the salary at retirement.

It may be asked why we are dealing with parliamentarians at one level and the judiciary at a different level in the same Bill. Quite obviously - it should be stated so that it will be clearly understood - it is because the judiciary does not have a contribtion scheme for retirement pensions, whereas parliamentarians pay a contribution of the order of Hi per cent per annum of base salary. That is a significant rate of contribution from parliamentarians. As against that, I repeat that the judiciary is not required to contribute to a retirement scheme under this legislation.

The other thing that I want to refer to quickly is the decision which becomes evident in the Bill with which we are dealing to abandon the ministerial pension arrangements. I could not think of anything wiser and more sensible than that. If ever there was an extraordinary proposition which never pleased any Minister who was obliged to contribute for a pension, it was this scheme - except for Ministers who became eligible almost at the time the Act came into being. The ministerial pension scheme provided that contributions would be made to the fund by Ministers and they would become eligible to receive a pension after 8 years as Ministers. If the Minister did not succeed in being a Minister for more than 8 years, even if he stayed in Parliament for another 30 years after he was a Minister, he would receive at the date of his retirement only the amount of money he put into the fund.

Disregarding the world tendency to inflation, even under the old order of things the value of money would have fallen. A person could be a Minister for 7 years and 11 months and make contributions of, say, $5,000; then he could remain a member of Parliament for another 30 years and when he retired - even if he stayed in the Parliament almost until he died on his feet - he would receive from the pension fund only the exact amount of money he put in. The relative value of what he received would be absurd. In this legislation the Government is proposing to abandon that system. What would happen if a Minister took out an endowment policy or some sort of insurance policy and paid into it for 7i years? There would be no comparison betweeen what he would receive from the insurance policy and the benefits he would receive under the previous ministerial retirement fund.

Under the proposed scheme former Minister or former leaders of parties, if they were eligible under the previous scheme - I happen to be one of them - when they retire from the Parliament will receive the ministerial pension in the ordinary way. Those former Ministers and former leaders of parties who would not have been eligible under the old system for a ministerial pension now will not have to wait until they retire to receive the amount of money they contributed. They will now be able to receive that money without delay. Of course, there is a provision in the Bill that those eligible for a pension, having been former Ministers for 8 years, may withdraw their contributions when they wish. Of course, that would be very unwise, particularly in a pension fund which is a good and sensible arrangement.

The only other thing I want to say is that whereas this Bill will provide for parliamentarians from the time of their retirement under the provisions of the principal Act and the new Act, it should never be forgotten that there are about 170 former parliamentarians or dependants of parliamentarians who will automatically receive benefits as a result of the passage of this Bill, subject to the royal assent. They will automatically get significant increases in retirement benefits. That is something that we should also bear in mind. It is a very good feature of the Bill. In fact, former members of Parliament and their dependants will attract quite significant increases in some cases. It should also be appreciated that these people will also be eligible for a pension up to the 75 per cent ceiling where they are former Ministers or dependants of Ministers who had over 8 years and up to 20 years service as a Minister.

In conclusion, I just want to mention that 1, of course, am a trustee of the fund. 1 believe that this Bill is an excellent piece of legislation. It is true that it is inevitable that one would find a lack of provisions in it for some people who we may say have not yet been provided for adequately. It would be quite stupid of me to suggest that that is not so. For instance, honourable senators would be aware of a point that has been raised in relation to the question of dependants where the contributor to the fund is a bachelor or a spinster. There are some questions in relation to the passing on of benefits to the dependants of these people where there is not a wife or parent concerned. Nevertheless, even though this Bill does not cover that particular point and even though there might be some oddities in the winding up of ministerial funds I say that we should not deny the passage of this Bill. I believe that in the generality it is a particularly good Bill and we should give it a speedy passage. Those matters that are not dealt with on this occasion should be referred to the trustee for further examination and if they are prepared to make recommendations to the Government for subsequent variations of the Act that is something they are entitled to do. But we should not deny the passage of this Bill. The Liberal Party senators in the Opposition consider that this is a good Bill which should be passed this morning.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I appreciate the remarks of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. It is not my intention to impede the passage of this Bill which has so many good, worthwhile and salutary provisions, some of which perhaps have been too long delayed. As honourable senators know, I have circulated an amendment which 1 propose to move at the Committee stage which deals with the position of unmarried members of the fund. Honourable senators will recall that yesterday in the course of debate on the defence forces retirement benefits scheme I moved an amendment to the second reading to project the same principle in relation to male and female unmarried members of the defence forces. This amendment was in considerable detail. The propositions which were relevant to that submission are equally relevant to this. After all, in this fund unmarried persons pay the same percentage of salary as do married persons.

This Bill will make certain extensions of benefits to surviving widowers of female members of the Parliament, a proposition with which I think in justice we must agree, and also provides for extended benefits such as portability to those who come from other Parliaments and it provides benefits to some members already on superannuation who have married or remarried. We agree with these changes. But I am unable to see why the position of single men or single women in the Parliament should be denied acceptance and acknowledgment. If they pay the same percentage of salary they certainly should have the same right, within the limits of reason, to pass on their entitlement to a mother by way of right or to a dependent brother or sister above a certain age - because I think it would be improper to give that entitlement to a very young brother or sister. But within those limitations I think the proposition can be well made and is very easily defended and projected. I am unable to see why this proposition has consistently been rejected.

I know, as other honourable senators will know, of 2 former female members of this (Parliament who are in this position. I do not know nor would I presume to canvass the domestic situation of those estimable ladies but they were unmarried and. may or may not have dependants or those who would look to them for ultimate support. Yet they are not able to pass on an entitlement to such a person as an entitlement can be passed on to the widow or widower of a deceased member. It has always appeared to me in relation to both this fund and other funds that this is a denial of justice. There is some element of discrimination. This is particularly so in these days in relation to female members when there is a growing acknowledgment of the equality of rights of males and females. It seems only right from the point of view of ladies that they should be acknowledged as having the same entitlements and benefits as do males in this place, lt seems to be a denial of the currently accepted and developing political philosophy that this discrimination should continue to apply.

As I said at the beginning of my speech I intend to move an amendment to clause 17 of the Bill during the Committee stage. The amendment which I will move is as follows:

After proposed Sub-section 2 of proposed Section 19 insert:

Section 19 (2a) Upon the death of a Member or of a former Member who was receiving a retiring allowance, without leaving a widow or widower, the mother or sister of such Member or former Member if such mother or sister was totally or mainly maintained by the Member or former Member shall receive the same benefits as she would receive if she were the widow or widower of the deceased Member or the person receiving the retiring allowance.

Provided that if such sister is a ‘child’ within the meaning in the Act such sister shall receive an allowance as a ‘child’.

There may be certain personalisation in that amendment though I am not certain that those provisions would necessarily apply in my case. Part of the amendment certainly would not apply in my case; the remainder may or may not, according to the interpretation of the terms in which the legislation would emerge. So while there is a certain personal element is this, it is not necessarily totally personal but is a projection of the principle which I outlined in the conclusions of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation. I have no fond expectation that the amendment will be accepted. But I put it forward in a formal manner so that it may be adverted to.

I agree with Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson that there are still anomalies in the scheme which may be eliminated in time. I formally put this proposition in the hope that it will be placed before the trustees and subsequently the Government to look at and to see if what I have outlined cannot be embodied in subsequent amendments to the legislation.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I desire to support the arguments put forward by Senator Byrne in regard to his amendment. I also endorse the sentiments which he expressed. As a bachelor who has subscribed to this fund for 23 i years I think it might be well and truly said that I have subscribed probably a fair sum of money. It amazes me that over the years so little consideration has been given to the single men and women who serve in the Parliament and who contribute to this scheme. I know that there has been a peculiar attitude in Canberra about single persons in Parliament. When I first came to this area single persons were not even allowed to bring a partner when they were invited to functions at which dancing took place in Kings Hall. It was suggested that the people organising the functions were afraid of the type of person that one might bring. Over the years we have managed to educate Canberra to do what any little civic authority would have done, that is, to give the right to bring a partner. When I asked who I would dance with I was told that I would dance with the other men’s wives. This shows the warped view that has been taken in regard to single people in this Parliament.

The points put forward by Senator Byrne had substantial logic behind them. My mother has passed on. If anything had happened to me when she was alive no one would have been more deserving of some compensation from a fund such as this to which I have contributed as a result of my service in this Parliament. My mother made a sacrifice in bringing up my sister and myself probably equal to the sacrifice made by anybody. Such persons are deserving of consideration.

As Senator Byrne has said, single members of Parliament may have sisters who are dependent. This matter needs to be looked at from a human point of view. This position does not affect me to the extent that it may affect others. Younger single members of this Parliament may have an accident and lose their lives while in transit to or from this place. They may have mothers who are entirely dependent upon them. Senator Byrne mentioned 2 former female members of this place, although he was a bit afraid to give their names. They were Dame Dorothy Tangney from Western Australia and Dame Annabelle Rankin from Queensland. I think that Dame Annabelle Rankin has a mother in her 90s. If anything happened to Dame Annabelle Rankin while carrying out her present duties in New Zealand or anywhere else what would be the position in regard to her mother? I think that the Parliament would be pretty tough if it did not pass legislation to recognise her position.

The married members of Parliament - both men and women - now have been very well catered for. There is no question about this. The married women had to fight for some time to obtain these benefits. The husbands of the married women who have been in this Parliament may have been in quite good positions but the trustees sponsoring the fund eventually recognised that they had rights because of the contributions made. The husbands of married female members of the Parliament will receive the same benefits on the deaths of their wives as do the widows of deceased married male members.

I think the only area that is now neglected is that of the single men and women who serve in this Parliament. Surely in this enlightened twentieth century we should not have the situation that existed when I first came to Parliament in Canberra when spinsters or bachelors could not even bring a partner to a function. Therefore I shall strongly support the amendment that will be moved by Senator Byrne. I hope that the Senate will carry it. It is of no good for us to say that we are in favour of the amendment; unless we take a strong stand on these things we might as well say goodbye. We know that the Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) are nol in favour of such things. They do not mind spending the country’s money in pretty big lumps galloping around the world to stage themselves. 1 therefore support this proposition and ask that it be treated in a human way.

Senator NEGUS:
Western Australia

– I rise to indicate that I will support the proposed amendment. I believe it is wise that we should look at this matter in the light of what has been said by the 2 previous speakers. As honourable senators know, recently I was in a position similar to that which they outlined. Usually one can make an application to the appropriate authorities to appoint a nominee if one wants a partner to accompany one to a parliamentary function or to Parliament House. I am sure that all honourable senators will agree with me when I say that one’s mother or father deserves definite consideration, but if they have passed on I believe that a single member of Parliament should be able to nominate a person in his family to be his dependant, as it were. I think that a member who has spent many years in Parliament deserves consideration in this regard and that he should be able to nominate a person in his family.

Senator Little:

– He pays his hard cash for it.

Senator NEGUS:

– I realise that. I also realise that provision is made for a lump sum payment, equivalent to what a member has paid but that is not sufficient. If a pension is paid to the dependant of a married person, a pension should be paid to the dependant of a single person. Therefore, I will support the proposed amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise to say a few words words regarding this Bill. Firstly, I recognise the truth in what Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson said, that there is little disposition to impede the passage of this Bill. We are self interested in the Bill, and that is a matter which should be acknowledged at the outset. Secondly, the provisions for retirement allowances made by this Bill are generous and even over-generous by comparison with other funds and also by comparison with other people who are not superannuated at all.

The 2 great areas covered by the provisions of this Bill involve a further charge on public funds. Hitherto, as I understant it, the retiring pension has been 50 per cent of the parliamentary allowance at the time of retirement. The rate is being increased under this Bill. After 20 years service it is to be increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the current parliamentary allowance. Under this Bill parliamentarians who retire after 20 years service are entitled to a pension of 75 per cent of the current parliamentary allowance. The second great charge on the funds that is being created by this Bill, as I understand it, is that all former parliamentarians who are receiving a pension at the present time are being raised from the level of their actual retiring allowance - the individual retiring pay at the time of their retirement - to 50 per cent of the present parliamentary allowance, and that will be continued. Those are the 2 important changes made by the Bill.

There is one other feature of the Bill which I do not understand. When a widow becomes entitled to a pension she will have the option of receiving a lump sum pension instead of an annuity. I do not understand that, and I want to know whether it applies to a widower who for the first time is being made eligible to receive a benefit under this Bill. It seems to me, for obvious reasons, to be quite contrary to all annual superannuation allowances to allow pensions to be turned into lump sums. The fact is that under the Bill parliamentarians will be entitled to receive 50 per cent of their parliamentary allowances, advancing to 75 per cent, after paying a contribution of Hi per cent of their salaries. That compares with the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund which we discussed last night. Under that scheme a serving member of the defence forces after 20 years service is entitled, I think, to a pension of about 35 per cent of salary and only after 40 years is he entitled to a pension of 76 per cent of salary. But the contributions paid by members of that scheme are not Hi per cent but 5i per cent of salary.

I am endeavouring to bring these things into focus in a determined effort to ensure that when the New Zealand judge considers the matter of compensation in September it will be shown how outrageously excessive were the proposals for what is virtually superannuation under the Compension (Commonwealth Employees) Act. There it was proposed that retirees by virtue of sickness or accident should receive, without making any contribution whatsoever, 100 per cent of their salaries, however high the salaries might be.

Now I want to advert to some other matters which have not been mentioned in this debate. I refer to the report of the Commonwealth Actuary on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund as at 30 June 1970. So far as I know, that is the latest report. We do not want to think that we are financing the whole of the fund. The fund’s share of the pensions paid in that year was $127,000. The Treasury’s share of pensions paid in that year was $373,000. The total pensions paid amounted to $500,000. The Fund, when valued by the Actuary, showed a deficit of $114,000. The Actuary said:

It is a matter for concern that the investments of the Trust are still confined substantially to short-term Commonwealth and semi-Government securities and that the recommendations contained in my 1966 report for steps to be instituted with a view to obtaining an improved future rate of interest earnings have not been implemented.

Then the Actuary said that if it is not possible to convert these low interest bearing securities into higher earning rates - the funds are shown to exist mainly in Commonwealth stock and therefore the conversion of them, I would think, would be quite an impracticable business proposition - in the meantime - *in my opinion, it is essential that prompt action be taken to obtain an improved long-term rate of interest earnings. If such a course is not possible, it appears that there is no alternative to recommending the payment of special contributions by existing members to eliminate the deficiency of $114,600’. I want the Senate to note that sentence. If that step is not taken, obviously the deficiency will grow by reason of the added charges imposed by this Bill. I think that a sense of responsibility belongs to every member of the Parliament to heed the Actuary’s advice that the deficiency should be provided for by the payment of special contributions from existing members. I think that as men we ought to face it.

Senator McLaren:

– What is the date of that report?

Senator WRIGHT:

– It is dated 1970.

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · ALP

– There is very little time left for debate. Senator Byrne raised some matters about the difficult position of those who had dependants but who were not married. There is provision whereby those people may leave by will amounts which form part of their estate, subject to some deduction if they have been receiving a pension. And that goes some way to relieve the position for those persons. However, no doubt this question will be raised again.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Poyser) - Order! The time allotted for all stages of the Bill having expired I put the question: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2586

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1973 INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1973

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 5 June (vide pages 2298, 2300 and 2301), on motions by Senator Murphy:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– These 3 Bills are being taken together but one would need to discuss them separately in this debate for which limited time has been allotted. The Income Tax Assessment Bill deals with concessional deductions for life insurance premiums and superannuation payments. There is provision in the Bill regarding company losses. There is also provision in regard to what is called excess distribution in private companies on the basis that company shells are objectionable. The Opposition has done quite a lot of work on the Income Tax Assessment Bill and has come to the conclusion that it was quite proper to allow the Bill to pass particularly in regard to the provisions relating to concessional deductions for life insurance premiums and superannuation payments and in regard to provisions relating to company losses.

It is well known to the Department of the Treasury and to the Taxation Office that we did have reservations about the test of retrospectivity in distributions of excess profits by private companies. But those of us in the Opposition who worked on this, after discussion with the Taxation Commissioners’ representatives, to whom we pay full credit for their courtesy and attention to us, satisfied ourselves that while there were some areas of potential retrospectivity there was in general a fairly substantial prospect of revenue being avoided by tax avoidance schemes and therefore we ought to support the measure. We were given the assurance that bona fide cases of distress and disturbance would be examined very carefully. I think that that certainly has happened and that it will continue to happen. People who feel that they are in any situation which makes them liable to a substantial penalty can, of course, always go to a board of review. From that point of view the Opposition felt that the Income Tax Assessment Bill ought to be allowed to pass. I am sure that other colleagues of mine will want to refer to various matters in that Bill. I shall content myself with those observations.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) deals with the right of appeal. This Bill seems to us to be a substantially good measure and we find ourselves not having any particular objection to it. Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) contains 4 provisions. Three of these are in no way opposed by the Opposition. They relate to tax deductions for certain education expenses, domiciliary nursing care costs and the withdrawal of the tax concessions available to visiting industrial experts. We thought that those matters were all well worthy of support. But this Bill provides for the withdrawal of income tax concessions under section 77c and section 77d of the principal Act which relate to investment in companies engaged in the search for oil and minerals. The Bill provides that the deductions - there are certain exceptions - will cease to be generally allowable for capital paid to mining or prospecting companies after 7 May 1973. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) indicated in his second reading speech that he was substantially concerned with the provisions in section 77c and section 77d because they had been used by certain companies as a method to avoid the payment of tax. The Bill proposes to prevent such further activities. We of the Opposition are, of course, in no way in favour of tax evasion or tax avoidance schemes. We want to see revenue collected from those who properly ought to pay it but we are always concerned, as we should be in the legislative processes, to see that in doing this the net does not gather in some people who are innocent as well as some of those who are guilty. One should always look at these things on the basis of what are the tests and the protections.

Quite a lot of references have been made to the Opposition. There have been discussions with us. As I said earlier, the Taxation Commissioners have been extremely helpful and courteous to us in our inquiries. The House of Representatives debated some of these matters in substance. There have been one or two observations made outside the Parliament which I think are worthy of note. Mr S. McAlister, the President of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges, said in regard to tax concessions:

If the tax concessions were being abused why not eliminate the abuse, rather than a system which has helped mobilise millions of dollars of countless private investors in Australia, so helping to create a more progressive market

One would, 1 think, have some broad sympathy with that view. Yes, overcome the abuse, but in the process can we protect the genuine investors in this country, the genuine Australians who have supported mining ventures both in the past and in the future and who, 1 am sure we all believe, are entitled to some sort of support because of their endeavours in this regard. As 1 said earlier, I have dealt in the broad with the 3 Bills. Some of my colleagues will take up particular points. In regard to Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2), the Opposition will move an amendment. Senator Durack will take care of that. As I have indicated, we think that the other 2 Bills should be allowed to pass without any change or suggestion of altered wording other than by broad comment.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– Senator Cotton has said that the Liberal Party is not opposing the passage of these 3 Bills which seek to amend the Income Tax Assessement Act. They cover a wide range of amendments to the Act, but I think it would be broadly true to say that they have 2 purposes. One is to eliminate the opportunity for people to enter into various tax avoidance schemes which although legal are really quite outside the intention of the taxation laws and have been available only because of technical deficiencies which clever advisers in the accounting world or the legal world have been able to discover for the benefit of, in most cases, wealthy clients. We in the Liberal Party, when we were in government, had been preparing a number of these amendments, and in accordance with policies which we had pursued in plugging these loopholes we undoubtedly would have proceeded with legislation of this type. Of course we are fully in support of it. The other major purpose of these Bills is to eliminate the concessions in regard to taxable income which have been available to shareholders of mining companies for calls which they had paid to the companies, and that applies to the petroleum companies as well as the other mineral exploration companies.

Although we are not opposing those provisions in the Bills we nevertheless wish to register our strong opposition to this aspect of Government policy. We have been placed in a very awkward position by the Government in relation to these provisions because the clauses in one of the Bills which provide for the elimination of these concessions are part and parcel of a number of other provisions in the Bill with which we agree. If we sought to amend that Bill then we would be holding up the policy, with which we fully agree, of eliminating and plugging the loopholes. Also, we would be holding up various other provisions of the Bill with which we agree, such as ensuring that payments to parents of isolated children and payments of the domiciliary nursing allowance are not to be subject to tax.

In addition to registering the opposition of members of the Liberal Party to the elimination of concession to mining companies in regard to calls for their shares, I also want to register our protest, particularly my own protest, at the way in which the Government has introduced these whole series of major policy changes. We agree with some of them and want to see them passed as quickly as possible, but we disagree with others. Bearing in mind we have little time to deal with the Bills in view of the fact that the guillotine has restricted debate on these 3 important Bills to 1 hour, the Opposition feels that the best thing to do is to move an amendment to the motion that the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1973 be read a second time. A copy of the amendment has ben circulated. On behalf of the Liberal Party Opposition 1 move:

At end of motion add: % but the Senate regrets that the Bill abolishes the right of a shareholder to deduct calls paid to genuine mining companies and expended by them or their subsidiaries on mineral exploration’.

I wish to direct the major portion of my speech to this aspect of the Bills. It is an issue that raises fairly and squarely the whole of this Government’s attitude to the mining industry. As I have said, by this Income Tax Assessment Bill the Government proposes to eliminate the concession, by way of deductions from taxable income, for calls paid to mining companies. It is true that entitlement to this concession has been abused by some people in the way I have mentioned already in relation to some of the other tax avoidance schemes with which these Bills deal. But the mere fact that some people have abused this entitlement, as Senator Cotton has said and as he has quoted Mr McAlister, President of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges, as having said, is absolutely no reason why these deductions paid by genuine investors to genuine mining companies and expended on genuine mineral exploration should be abandoned.

The Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1973 contains specific clauses which eliminate the abuses. It cannot be said that the Government had to eliminate the concessional deduction because it was being abused and there was no way of distinguishing the abuses from the genuine cases. The drafting of this Bill which contains special provisions to deal with abuses and also with abuses which occurred at an earlier time, shows clearly that there have been no insuperable drafting problems in sorting out the genuine cases from the cases of abuse. Therefore, it is clear that the Government, by eliminating entirely the entitlement of the tax deduction for calls made to genuine mining companies, is registering a policy and an attitude to the mining industry in this country. To say that the Government has to eliminate these concessions in order to prevent abuses is disproved by the way in which the Bill is framed. In any event, that would be tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I turn to the Government’s policy towards the mining industry. It is a very serious and sad reflection on the Government and on its attitude to the Parliament that in the dying, I was about to say hours, but I should now say the dying hour of this session-

Senator Cotton:

– Minutes.

Senator DURACK:

– In almost the dying minutes of this session we have an opportunity to debate the Government’s policy in regard to the mining industry. It is not simply this provision - the elimination of these concessions to the mining industry - that is of sole concern. We have had during the last 6 months, and even during this session of the Parliament, various expressions of attitude to the mining industry by this Government and in particular by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). It is of enormous importance to this nation that yesterday or the day before the Director of the Australian Mining Industry Council, on behalf of the leading mining companies in Australia, expressed his and their grave concern at the policy of this Government to the mining industry. We have had from the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) a recognition of the enormous importance of the mining industry to this nation. There have been constant reminders of this fact in recent years. The Prime Minister at a recent dinner of the Australian Mining Industry Council openly recognised this. But the Council has stated publicly that it does not know the Government’s policy in relation to the industry and that it cannot find out because the Minister for Minerals and Energy will not talk to its members and will not tell them. There is ample proof of that. We have not only the provisions in this Bill which, as I have said, it an important revelation of the Government’s attitude to mineral exploration, but also other major Government policies that have had a very serious impact on the mining industry.

One in particular was the decision made in the early days of this Government to require a 25 per cent deposit to be paid when any overseas funds were borrowed by Australian companies. That 25 per cent of all the money borrowed had to be deposited with the Reserve Bank and could not be recovered until the money was repatriated. Of course, that has had a tremendously serious impact on the cost of borrowing money for mineral exploration and development. This restriction has been applied by the Treasury, the Reserve Bank or whichever authority is controlling this policy. In fact, one wonders at times who is controlling the policy or whether there are any stated guidelines of control. This policy is now being applied not only to loans from abroad but also is being extended to capital which companies are wanting to bring into Australia for mineral exploration. That policy is having a most serious impact on mineral exploration because not only are funds not available for exploration, but also funds obviously will not be available either or, if they are available, will be available at a much higher cost for the development of mineral deposits. We have already a problem with some of the developments of iron ore deposits in Western Australia. Arrangements for development projects may have been in process for some time. Now, with the tremendously added cost of obtaining funds from overseas for the development of such projects, these will be unable to proceed. This policy is being applied not only to the actual development of the mine but also to the building of an alumina refinery in the south-west of Western Australia. What is the Government’s policy? It says that it wants the processing done in Australia. Yet, by this requirement of a deposit, it is preventing the acquisition of adequate funds to establish a refinery to process bauxite in Australia.

In addition to this very severe restriction on mineral exploration which I have mentioned - the requirement of the 25 per cent deposit with the Reserve Bank - there is a policy, which has not been ascertained or expressed, of some sort of Government blanket ban on an Australian exploration mining company entering into what is known as a farm-in agreement with a foreign investor. This is one of the serious features because we have had no guidelines and no clear policy has been laid down. The first example of this was in relation to the off-shore petroleum resources on the north-west shelf of Western Australia earlier this year when there was a refusal by the Minister for Minerals and Energy to give permission under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act to such a farm-in arrangement. There has been no denial of this bv the Government. There is no indication of its policy. I have been advised that this ban on a farm-in arrangement is applied to all mineral exploration companies. This prevents Australian companies from making sensible arrangements to get funds from overseas to proceed with the exploration and development of their deposits. The Australian companies have control of the deposits. There is no takeover of the Australian company. There is no formation of a new company which is foreign controlled. There is simply a farm-in arrangement by which funds become available for the joint development of deposits.

This provision in the Bill is the final straw. The Government will not give any encouragement to Australian investors to invest their money with Australian companies engaged in mineral exploration. This is a quite unbelievable policy because if the Government’s policy is one of encouraging Australian ownership, this provision may prove to be the very crux by which Australian ownership of and Australian funds being invested in mineral exploration may be discouraged. One has to look at the total picture of what the Government is doing in relation to the mining industry and at the total lack of any coherent stated guidelines as to what the Government’s policy is. All that one seems to have is a negative attitude that somehow or other mineral companies are a menace to the nation because of some absurd notions which the Government has that they are quarrying and using up our resources. That is the attitude of the Government - a negative one of fear of the mining industry and a total lack of recognition of what the mining industry has done for Australia. It is of vital importance to Australia, and any talk about being able to satisfy the demands of the Australian people for greater benefits can depend only on increasing growth and increasing the total economic wealth. In this respect the encouragement and development of the mining industry are absolutely vital.

The Government is dealing a series of body blows to the mining industry. We are afraid that the provision in the Bill is another one of these blows. The way things are going, before long the Government will be dealing the death blow. The money expended on mineral exploration in Australia already this year has declined by $40m or $50m. What is required? Because of the situation in the international sphere in the last couple of years in which the mining industry has been facing problems, what this nation needs is a government which will encourage the mining industry and mineral exploration and which will enable the development of growth in line with what its Treasury has told it. I hope that this Government will take a bit more notice in future of the realistic attitude of the economists in the Treasury and cease following the attitude of the Minister for Minerals and Energy.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Poyser) - Order! Is Senator Durack’s amendment seconded?

Senator Webster:

– I second the amendment.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I share many of the views expressed by Senator Durack in his remarks about the Bills which we are discussing, but I relate my remarks particularly to the Income Tax Assessment Bill. This Bill has been designed to end schemes of income tax avoidance. I support the remarks made by Senator Cotton in his introduction of the Opposition’s approach to this Bill. I shall direct my remarks in specific detail to section 80 of the Act. I am in somewhat of a difficulty because normally it would be appropriate to discuss at the Committee stage some of the matters which I intend to raise, but I am conscious of the time which has been allowed to discuss these Bills and I feel that it might be appropriate if I were to make some comments in the hope that there will be a response by the Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Murphy) to some of the matters which 1 raise.

The Income Tax Assessment Bill concerns the recoupment of losses for taxation purposes and provides that for a company to obtain these benefits there has to be a real and substantial identity between its beneficial ownership when the losses were incurred and its current beneficial ownership. This continuity of ownership test under the existing income tax legislation is as to not less than 40 per cent of the shareholders rights to dividends, to voting and to the return of capital. The Bill is designed to prevent trafficking in companies with accumulated losses. The combined effects of proposed sections 80a and 80d, when coupled with the stringent continuity of business provisions in section 80e, are expected substantially to achieve these objectives. Firstly, if we consider proposed section 80a we see that it increases the continuing ownership test from not less than 40 per cent of the shareholders rights to more than 50 per cent of those rights. The more than 50 per cent test may be met by the retention by more than one shareholder of rights which, in the aggregate, are equal to more than 50 per cent of the total shareholders’ rights.

At this point I wish to discuss a little the attitude with regard to the more than 50 per cent test and to draw the attention of the

Commissioner of Taxation to the very normal business practice of joint ventures which have a 50-50 ownership between 2 companies or 2 shareholders. I comment that the more than 50 per cent test makes it somewhat difficult for the very many companies which are acting in equal joint venture relationships as a normal commercial practice. I shall say a little more about that as I proceed further with the remarks which I wish to make. Secondly, to prevent the channelling of income into a loss company, even where the continuity of ownership test is satisfied, section 80da is proposed in the current legislation. This proposed section overrides proposed section 80a. In his explanatory memorandum the Treasurer (Mr Crean) stated:

The provisions of section 80da are designed to ensure that deductions for previous years’ losses are not allowed to a company in circumstances where, although the ‘continuing ownership test’ has been technically satisfied, the benefits from the allowance of the deductions would, in fact, flow wholly or mainly to persons who were not shareholders in the company during the years in which the losses were incurred. The section is mainly intended to ensure the effectiveness of the ‘continuing ownership test’ and will not apply to a company which meets the requirements of the ‘same business test’ under section 80e.

It may be advisable to comment that section 80e has had certain provisions applied stringently in the past, and I assume that this ownership test will be continued in the way in which we have seen it operating as a past measure. The law does not use the term ‘continued business test’ section 80s may permit a company to claim certain past losses although it fails to satisfy the ‘percentage of shareholdings’ test. However, if the affairs of the company are so arranged before a change takes place in the shareholding so that the continuing business test can be satisfied technically, the operation of this alternative test is not available and the Commissioner has no discretion in this matter, and the losses may be carried forward despite changes in shareholdings if certain provisions which are now stated in section 80a and section 80b of this new Act operate.

Proposed section 80da would have the effects that, unless the ‘same business test’ in section 80e can be satisfied, prior years’ losses would not be available as deductions even if the continuing ownership test is met. This proposed section could have harsh consequences in cases where one shareholder who has always been a substantial shareholder holding not less than, say, 40 per cent of the shareholders’ rights, pursuant to a plan of reorganisation acquires shares held by other shareholders and restructures the business to achieve profitability but, by reason of restructuring of the business, cannot meet the stringent requirements of section 80e. As an example of this I quote the situation of a company with 2 shareholders each holding 50 per cent. The company was making losses and one shareholder bought out the other with a view to restructuring the company so that it would become profitable. In order to do this there needed to be changes in production or services or the operation of the company. When these were put into effect the strict ‘same business test’ would not apply under section 80e. This is the situation with 2 shareholders each holding 50 per cent of the existing capital. It means that no one shareholder could apply a continuing ownership of more than 50 per cent. Section 80e thus would not apply, and as he originally held only 50 per cent there is no way in which he could attain a majority share as a continuing interest.

I give another example in the hope that the Government will see this as a sort of anomaly and difficulty which I find in the provision because of what is a normal business practice of a 50-50 ownership. This example could be the case where one family bought the shares of their relatives who held just over 50 per cent of the shareholdings, and the relatives bought shares in other companies. The price was fixed on the basis that substantial tax benefits would accrue under the existing law because of more than 40 per cent continuity of ownership under the previous section 80a. Tax losses had been incurred in the substantial development of a large pastoral property in a low rainfall area, including heavy expenditure on research in conjunction with State departments and on other experiments. These experiments were carried out in a new area where one could produce a fairly good case to suggest that this sort of experimentation was necessary. It was to encourage exactly that sort of research, presumably, that the current Act left this opening, and in this case the opening will now be closed. It will be seen readily that employment could be affected in cases of business reorganisation where the availability of deductions for past losses becomes a critical factor in the economics of resuscitating or rationalising a previously unprofitable operation.

There are further anomolies which I could cite but I do not want to take too long on this. Let us consider, for example, the reorganization of interests in a mining company with accumulated losses for tax purposes, where the reorganisation is designed to increase Australian equity participation from an assumed 40 per cent to, say, an assumed 60 per cent. The mining company could in such circumstances be denied deductions for past losses if it had been in the exploration or construction phases when the losses were incurred and subsequently were to derive income from mining operations. The derivation of mining income would not, as 1 interpret it, satisfy the ‘same business test’ contained in section 80e. If the mining company were to open a new mine - even if the mineral were the same as that previously mined from another mine - and derived income from its new mine I wonder whether these provisions would apply and whether the ‘same business test’ could be satisfied in such circumstances. I would appreciate a response on these matters.

A further supposition might relate to a company, mining or otherwise, with past taxation losses, with 100 per cent overseas ownership now intending to invite Australian participation in its business or potential business which either may not then have commenced or may change or expand to new business activities in the future. The proposed provisions of section 80da in their present form might, even if the overseas company retained control but, on a possible construction of the remarks I have already made in relation to section 80da, not enable the company to take a deduction for past losses against the income which it expects to earn in the future. There are many 50-50 companies which have been formed as a vehicle to undertake business operations virutally in partnership. I have extracted some figures with regard to overseas interests. These show that we have an enormous number of companies which have exactly a 50-50 ownership relationship. From the Directory of Overseas Investment in the Australian Manufacturing Industry for 1971, put out by the former Department of Trade and Industry, I was able to select at random 100 companies which have a 50-50 ownership relationship between 2 partners.

Senator Wright:

– The Act says more than 50, does it?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The Act says more than 50. My suggestion is that if the Act were to. state not less than 50 instead of more than 50 there would be no great loss of revenue nor would there be any way in which the intentions of the Treasurer could be substantially overridden. I would like to have been able to pursue this matter in greater depth. I believe that a specific answer could be given on this matter. I hope that a review of the particular wording of that sub-section will be looked at as a matter relating an Act to a normal business commercial practice.

The type of anomaly to which I have referred could be overcome by inserting words such as the following:

Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where a person, who in the year of income beneficially owned shares which carried the rights to exercise more than one-half of the voting power in the company and to receive more than one-half of any dividends that may be paid by the company and to receive more than one-half of any distribution of capital of the company, owned shares which in the year of the loss carried rights to exercise not less than 40 per cent of the voting power in the company and to receive not less than 40 per cent of any dividends that may be paid by the company and to receive not less than 40 per cent of any distribution of capital of the company.

I think that this proposed amendment would not run counter to the purpose of the proposed legislation. The effect of the amendment would still be to avoid conferring the benefits of deductions for past losses wholly or mainly on persons who were not shareholders when the losses were incurred. On the other hand, the amendment which I have suggested - not as a formal amendment but as a future amendment to this Act - would permit the recovery of losses in a genuine corporate reorganisation in relation to which one partner had always held not less than 40 per cent of the total interest of shareholding and capital. This is put forward as a suggestion to improve this legislation in the interests of commercial activity. I hope that it will be seriously considered.

The only other brief comment I want to make is in regard to the matter discussed by Senator Durack. It relates to mining exploration expenses. I would like to put forward, as a personal proposition, the suggestion that if we are to encourage the exploration of our mining resources it should be considered that genuine mining exploration expenses could be deductions from ordinary income instead of being applied only to income from mining companies. I envisage companies such as those engaged in earth moving, contractors with the type of equipment which would enable them to undertake exploration and be part of what would be a national program of commercial development in the search for our mineral resources. Because such companies had no mining income and did not come within section 122J of the Act they would not be able to deduct genuine exploration expenses from their ordinary income for taxation purposes. That is another suggestion which I put to the Commissioner for consideration in the interests of Australians pursuing the development of their own resources. I support these Bills and hope that the comments I have made will be referred to the Commissioner of Taxation and to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) for their consideration.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– Less than 20 minutes remain till debate on these 3 taxation Bills will be guillotined by the Government. I regret that this is so. There are very important matters associated with this legislation. Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) which we have before us is important in various areas, particularly that referred to by Senator Durack relating to capital subscribed to mining companies. If I could incorporate in my speech much of what he said about the Government’s attitude to the mining industry I would do so. However, I do not have the doubts that the honourable senator has about the intention of the Government. As I have said previously, I see the aims of the Government, particularly in relation to the mining industry, as the aims of a socialist government. The provisions which we have dealt with relating to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, the National Pipeline Authority and others show that where private enterprise is unable to undertake mining operations the Government will do so as a socialist obligation to the country. That is the greatest problem I see.

Senator McLaren:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I just heard one good socialist say ‘What is wrong with that?’ That shows where we stand. In the Bill before us the provisions relating to remuneration paid to visiting experts require a great deal of consideration and not the cursory few words which senators will be able to say on that problem. Taxation provisions in respect of isolated children and domiciliary nursing care benefits should also be considered. Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) has sufficient in it to command the time of this Senate for many more hours than we have at our disposal. The explanatory notes on Income ‘‘“ax Assessment Bill (No. 3) reveal that this Bill provides that income tax appeals, now falling within the single justice jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia only, will come within the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Courts. That is a provision which lawyers could discuss for some time.

The Bill to which I will devote my attention in the few minutes available to me today is the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3). Senator Guilfoyle in the time at her disposal dealt effectively with a number of clauses in this Bill, putting to the Treasurer (Mr Crean) that the law which requires a company to have a continuing interest in that it should have in excess of a 50 per cent shareholding will catch within its claws every genuine partnership agreement in respect of shareholding. Even the small man who has entered into a partnership, usually on a 50-50 basis, will now find that he is discriminated against by this taxation measure. The suggestions that Senator Guilfoyle made about the shareholding being not less than 50 per cent are comments which the Treasurer and his advisers could well look at.

A more important matter, however, and the one which has received a great deal of attention by the Opposition is the suggestion that the taxation provisions in the Bill will have some retrospective effect when they are implemented. This point was taken up by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) who said that the Government wished to catch individuals who are supposedly trying to beat the law. I have heard honourable senators on both sides of the chamber siding with the proposition that people who are beating the law should be caught. I certainly agree with that attitude. But if in fact people can arrange their affairs in accordance with the law they should be free to do so. Sir Garfield Barwick, the Chief Justice of Australia, said that it is not for the Commissioner to entertain dissatisfaction in cases of this kind merely because a taxpayer has sought to produce a set of facts which when they exist entitle him under the statute to benefits in the assessment of income tax. He said that a taxpayer is quite entitled to create such a state of affairs if he can. I think that that is the principle we should examine.

There are so many circumstances in relation to the collection of income tax which are unfair. There seem to be double standards. For instance, the ordinary worker has to pay his own fares to work and gets no benefit by way of a taxation deduction of that expense from his salary. Ministers of the Government - in the previous Government and in this Government - had and have the great benefit of receiving probably a S 10,000 a year transport benefit for themselves, their wives, their families and others. Where has been the complaint? There has been no complaint. Nevertheless the law discriminates against the individual who has to find his fares out of his own income. The proposition, of course, is that here is a facility provided by the Commonwealth to enable the individual to carry out his work. That principle also applies in some areas of business. There is retrospectivity in this Bill and, while the officers of the Taxation Office have attempted to deal with this matter, I feel that retrospectivity still applies in a number of areas, namely, company losses, bad debts and private company excess distribution. There will be insufficient time for me to go into the various clauses of the Bills so with the concurrence of honourable senators I seek to incorporate in Hansard a 2-page document setting out the opinion on retrospectivity of one of the leading Queen’s Counsel in New South Wales.

Senator Murphy:

– Who is that?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Unless Senator Murphy opposed the incorporation of this document I would prefer not to mention the name of the Queen’s Counsel because his opinion is taken from a private advice in relation to taxation. I seek leave to incorporate this document.

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

In regard to other matters that I consider relevant (which 1. (if natural persons, as I am instructed they are) I am asked to deal with by question (c)) the principal question of concern seems to be whether the amendments can properly be characterised as retrospective. It seems to me that in any ordinary use of that term they are.

The traditional attitude of the law to retrospective legislation has been to assume that, unless the language of legislation is perfectly plain, legislation affecting substantial rights is not intended to be retrospective; no such presumption operates however in relation to merely procedural legislation. The reason for these rules of construction (for which see, for example, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Ed., at 204 and 205) is that retrospective legislation affecting substantial rights is regarded as likely to be unjust or unfair. The law has always taken the view that, although the legislature has full power to change rights retrospectively, it will not ordinarily do so because of the possible injustice involved and Statutes have invariably been construed accordingly. That is, the Courts will, where the language is plain, recognise the retrospective operation of Statutes even although they deal with and change substantial rights. The Courts, however, will always be alert to look critically at the language of any such legislation and in any case of doubt, because of the presumption of unfairness in retrospective alteration of substantial rights, construe such legislation on the basis that it is not intended to be retrospective.

In the present circumstances there is no doubt in my opinion about the effect of the proposed legislation. I do not see that the Courts will be able to construe it in a restrictive way so as to prevent its retrospective effect. The rules of construction will not be able to prevent what seems to me to be a retrospective alteration of substantial rights. Whatever the precise legal characterisation of the situation may be, it seems to me to be fair to describe a situation where a company which under the law had no obligation to pay a particular tax becomes obligated by a change in the law to pay $95,000 in tax as one where there has been a substantial alteration of the company’s rights.

To illustrate my opinion a little further, I draw attention to the facts that the subject raised for consideration in the memorandum I have set out above is the application of Division 7 to income of the Company for the year ending 30 June 1972. Because of the definition of ‘year of income’ and ‘year of tax’ in Section 6 of the Act and the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, where the income of the year ending 30 June 1972 is in question, the financial year for which income tax is levied is the year ending 30 June 1973. Income tax was imposed for this year by the Income Tax Act 1972 (Section 5) which came into operation on the 4 October 1972. The Income Tax Act 1972 incorporated the Assessment Act and the two were to be read as one (Section 4 of the Income Tax Act). The Income Tax Act 1972 further fixed the rates of tax payable by various classes of taxpayers including companies (Section 9). Section 11 of the Income Tax Act 1972 provided that the tax imposed by the preceding provision was levied and should be paid for the financial year that commenced on the 1 July 1972. Thus, as at the 4 October 1972 the law concerning the levying of tax both generally and under Division 7 of the Assessment Act upon the Company was fixed. Companies knew what the rules were concerning their taxability for the year ending 30 June 1972. By various provisions of the Act time was left to them (as, for example, under Division 7) to take such lawful steps as they might think prudent to arrange their affairs to their best advantage in view of the rules laid down by the Act.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The summary at the end of this document states:

The Income Tax Assessment Bill 1973 proposes changes to those rules which will have drastic effect in some circumstances on the amount of tax in fact to be paid by companies. This therefore seems to me to be the kind of legislation which is properly characterised as retrospective and which may fairly be thought to suffer from the defect of retrospective legislation in that it unsettles existing rights and disturbs the legitimate expectation of taxpayers that once a particular set of conditions has been laid down as governing taxability for a particular year, that set of conditions will not be changed.

There is much to be said on this point. The Treasurer in his second reading speech assured the Senate and the House of Representatives that the allegation of any sort of offensive retrospectivity is not accepted. I take that as fact. I ask the Minister at the table, Senator Murphy, whether he will give an unequivocal assurance that the Treasurer’s words can be accepted and that there will be no application of retrospectivity in any income tax assessment. I have here a note, which 1 am anxious to table, sent out by the Commissioner for Taxation in relation to some assessments already made. It says in part:

It is emphasised that the amount of deemed distribution shown on notices issued with notices of assessment of private companies based on income for the year ended 30 June 1972 has been calculated without reference to the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1973 that is now before the Parliament.

That in itself suggests that there is provision for retrospectivity by which the Department of Taxation, if this Bill is passed, will review assessments that have been made.

There are 2 matters in respect of which the comments of the Treasurer in his explanatory statements do not quite hold water when they are related to the provisions of the Bill. I refer to clause 24 (2) and (7). Clause 24 (2) contains the words: ‘the Commissioner may’ which gives a discretion to the Commissioner in relation to what he may do with regard to this legislation. However, if one reads the explanatory statement, one finds in relation to clause 24 (2) that the Treasurer states:

Sub-clause (2) will ensure that all companies have at least until 30 June 1973 to satisfy . . .

Whilst one proposition in the Bill gives a discretion to the Commissioner to review a particular assessment-

Senator Cavanagh:

– The word ‘may’ does not give a discretion to the Commissioner.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The word in the Bill is ‘may’ but the Treasurer in his explanation said that it ‘will ensure that all companies . .’. I acknowledge that it is quite possible that the Minister for Works (Senator

Cavanagh) may not understand the difference between the 2 terms. However, in relation to clause 24 (7) exactly the same provision applies and I would say that these proposals need to be looked at. One should be able to accept the explanatory statement of the Treasurer which is given to the Parliament as being a reflection of what one will find in the Bill but in that instance I say that the explanatory statement does not reflect what is contained in the Bill. Being mindful of the many professional accountants and accounting societies which have approached honourable senators, I believe the Minister should give an assurance to the Senate that there will be no retrospectivity provision in our tax law, which has operated over many years without provision for retrospectivity.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– 1 rise to speak briefly and specifically with regard to Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3). I echo what other honourable senators have said when I say I regret that we have been subject to this guillotine. Much which could be said on this question of retrospectivity and, I think, on the drafting of the Income Tax Assessment Bill will not be because of time limitation. Further, 1 would endorse all that was said - I think more, could have been said with time - by Senator Durack with regard to Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2). The Opposition supports Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3). It was supported in the House of Representatives. Very little was said on the Bill on that occasion and, I think, virtually nothing has been said in this chamber. I rise to support the Bill because I think it reflects a general principle which I hope will be permanent and not, as the explanatory notes to the Minister’s second-reading speech on this Bill would indicate, of a temporary character.

The Bill provides for a right of appeal from a Commissioner’s assessment to be taken, in effect, either to a Board of Review or to the Supreme Court. The existing provisions have always given a right of appeal to a Board of Review on the one hand or to the High Court of Australia or to the Supreme Court on the other. Practice over the years has shown that if a person chooses to go to the court, he will go to the High Court and not to the Supreme Court. The reasons given in this Bill for conferring the right of appeal on the Supreme Court and excluding the High Court is that it will relieve the pressure, of work on the High Court. Unquestionably, there has been pressure of work on the High Court as a result of income tax appeals but it seems to have fluctuated on a basis which is not readily ascertainable. Whilst the pressure was tremendously high in the middle 1960s, it eased towards the end of the ’60s; however, I gather that this pressure is again increasing.

I think it is important that the. High Court should be in a position at the pinnacle of our judicial system, able to concentrate on its work of being the ultimate appellate court and also on its work of interpreting the Constitution. I would visualise that throughout Australia we should have one system of courts, with the High Court at the apex. I do not think its assists the development of justice or people’s understanding of the law of the courts to have 2 systems of courts existing side by side. They have this in America and 1 think it creates problems even for lawyers, and certainly for the layman who is in a great difficulty in appreciating what type of court it is in the United States where particular matters will be heard. If we in Australia can evolve this one system of courts, capable at the one time of hearing matters arising under Federal and under State laws, there will be a simplicity and benefit to all concerned.

The proposal which is embodied in Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) carries through the statement which was made by the previous Government on 27 October last year which indicated the abandonment of the earlier concept of a Federal superior court and a preference for concentrating all the legal work in the existing State supreme courts with, of course, the High Court as the ultimate court of appeal. This Bill carries through that concept by giving to the judges of the Supreme Courts the opportunity exclusively, if people want to go firstly to the Supreme Courts, of hearing income tax appeals. It also ensures that if there is an appeal from a Board of Review, it will go to a Supreme Court and then, ultimately, if a further appeal is desired, to the High Court. In that respect, I wonder whether the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) will explain, if he has time, why in some cases appeals are with leave and in other cases they are without leave.

Much could be said, I think, in exposition of the advantages of this measure. It will provide readier and quicker access to litigants compelled to go before a Supreme Court and not wait for the sittings of the High Court in one of the major State capitals. It will provide a wider diversification for the judges of the Supreme Courts and this, I believe, must have its effect on the profession at large and particularly amongst counsel in attracting them to the legal work which is involved in the tax field. I think the Bill will maintain what I see as the great advantage, a single, but an integrated, system of courts. As I said, I would like to say more, but I conclude by saying that we support the Bills, particularly Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3).

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral, Minister for Customs and Excise and Leader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– in reply - There is very little time, so I will be brief. In a joint statement, the Federal Treasurer (Mr Crean) and the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), said that, following the recent amendments - I take it they were referring to the proposals in these Bills - designed to terminate taxation abuses derived from concessional deductions for mining share investors, it was their desire to assist genuine Australian mining ventures in their initial stages, which were capable of being developed into substantial producers. There were many Australian-owned companies which, having located and identified mineral resources, lacked the financial means to develop them to a stage of substantial production. In other special cases, after satisfactory investigation, by the Bureau of Mineral Resources as to their geological validity, additional exploration and proving would be supported.

It was indicated that various other measures would be introduced during the Budget sittings in order to support the development of exploration. Both Ministers stressed that they considered action of this type to be a proper replacement for the tax benefits which, they said, all too often had gone to undeserving interests, who had manipulated the taxation concessions for their own benefit instead of producing minerals for Australia.

It is not possible for me to answer now all that has been said here by a number of honourable senators, but I assure them that consideration will be given to the matters which they have raised. It is possible - indeed, it is almost certain - that, in complicated technical legislation of this kind, there are some anomalies. There would certainly be some hard cases in this as in other aspects of the law, and since certain important changes are being made, it is wise that their effect be gauged in the period of the next few months. Consideration will be given by the Treasurer and other officers to what has been put forward in this chamber. As to what was put by Senator Greenwood, I would say that it has been firmly stated by the Government that the relief to the High Court of Australia by directing the appeals to the Supreme Courts of the States is intended only as a temporary measure. There is very strong reason why taxation matters should be vested in a tribunal where there is consistency of decision. That is one of the reasons why the High Court was a proper tribunal to hear these matters. But, because of its overloading, it is necessary to send these matters elsewhere. The Government takes the view that when the Superior Court is established it will be in the interests of Australia that matters such as this be vested in that Superior Court in order that we may have a tribunal with special interest and perhaps obtain more consistency of decisions, which is in the interests of the whole commercial world.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allotted for all stages of the Bills has expired.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be added to the motion for the second reading of the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1973 (Senator Durack’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 26

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2597

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales-

Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12.47) - The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) has mentioned to me a number of matters that might well be discharged from the notice paper. They relate to ministerial statements. If anyone has any objection, that can be dealt with easily when the matters are called on. The proposal is to deal with orders of the day Nos 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 24. I move:

The intention is simply to put the questions and to have the Senate take note of the statements. If any honourable senator objects, one word will be enough to leave the matter on the notice paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2597

PARLIAMENTARY DRAFTING

Ministerial Statement

Consideration resumed from 7 March (vide page 219), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2597

FUTURE OF ASIAN RESIDENTS OF CHRISTMAS ISLAND

Ministerial Statement

Consideration resumed from 1 May (vide page 1 168), on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2597

PRIME MINISTER’S OVERSEAS VISIT

Ministerial Statement

Consideration resumed from 1 May (vide page 1171), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2597

PETROLEUM SEARCH POLICY

Ministerial Statement

Consideration resumed from 3 May (vide page 1291), on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2597

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

Ministerial Statement

Consideration resumed from 3 May (vide page 1293), on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2597

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SYSTEM

Ministerial Statement

Consideration resumed from 3 May (vide page 1300), on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Senate take note of the statement Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2597

STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS

Ministerial Statement

Consideration resumed from 10 May (vide page 1498), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2597

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

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

page 2597

RETIREMENT OF MR C. E. CLARKE

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation and Acting Minister for Labour · South Australia · ALP

– Mr President, I seek leave to refer to the retirement, after very long service as a parliamentay Private Secretary, of Mr C. E. Nobby’ Clarke.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BISHOP:

– I take the occasion to refer briefly to the retirement of Mr Clarke, who has the distinction of having served, if not the longest term, one of the longest terms as a parliamentary Private Secretary - a period of 18 years. He is due to retire on 3 August. Mr Clarke commenced his duties as Private Secretary to Senator Sir Neil O’sullivan in 1955. Since then he has been Private Secretary to the following Ministers: Senator Gorton, Sir Alan Hulme, Senator Wade, Senator McKellar and Senator DrakeBrockman. He is at present employed by me. 1 was very pleased upon receiving my appointment to have his services available to me.

He is well known as a person of great integrity, general efficiency, ability and alertness. I know of many occasions on which he has helped younger and less experienced staff members in the Parliament. In my opinion he is a classic example of what a Private Secretary should be. He is a model which younger persons who assist Ministers, the Parliament and the parliamentary system may well emulate. I take this opportunity to thank him publicly for his assistance to me and to the other Ministers he served, and also to wish him and his wife a happy retirement.

Honourable senators; - Hear, hear!

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– I seek leave to make a statement on the same subject, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I join Senator Bishop and other honourable senators in paying tribute to the services of Mr ‘Nobby’ Clarke. Around a Parliament the size of this one, both inside and outside it there are from time to time characters. I think ‘Nobby’ Clarke is one of them. He has become quite a personality among the hard working staff members of this Parliament. I speak from experience in saying, as Senator Bishop said, that he has been of great assistance to new members of the staff of this Parliament. I well recall younger people, or less experienced people, ringing him and saying: Nobby’, what do you do about this and what do you do about that?’ I think I speak on behalf of all back bench members of the Parliament when I say that if ever one of us wanted to know something about a particular

Minister’s portfolio and did not want to worry the Minister we had only to go and see Nobby’ Clarke and in a few hours he would have our requests attended to and in most cases an answer provided for us. I think that speaks volumes for his integrity and his diligence.

From the late 1950s until late last year he served 3 Country Party senators. Every one of the Ministers he served spoke highly of him. I think he formed a very close personal relationship with all of them. I notice that he is present in the Senate gallery. I thank him for the assistance he gave to me and my colleagues in this chamber. I join with Senator Bishop in wishing ‘Nobby’ and his wife Molly a very happy retirement.

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

– I seek leave to make a statement on the same subject.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MURPHY:

– If I may say so, I think the sentiments which have been expressed by both Senator Bishop and Senator DrakeBrockman echo the sentiments of the whole chamber. All of us have a very great affection for him and a very great regard for the efficiency, loyalty and integrity which he demonstrated over many years of service. Senator Bishop and Senator Drake-Brockman have expressed the wishes of us all. Perhaps they may be conveyed formally to Mr Clarke through you, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– I undertake to do that.

page 2598

TEXT OF TREATIES

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I lay upon the table the texts of the undermentioned treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature:

Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia relating to Air Services, signed at Sydney on 4 October 1972.

Exchange of Notes between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom constituting an Agreement concerning the establishment of a station to monitor compliance with the Partial Test Ban Treaty, signed at Canberra on 31 October 1972.

Agreement between Australia and the Netherlands concerning old Dutch Shipwrecks, signed at The Hague on 6 November 1972.

Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation Financial Agreement 1973 drawn up at Ottawa on 24 November 1972 and signed for Australia at London on 30 March 1973.

Agreement Terminating the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation Financial Agreement of 1969, drawn up at Ottawa on 24 November 1972 and signed for Australia at London on 30 March 1973.

I lay on the table the text of an agreement which has been signed by Australia and which will enter into force after Notes have been exchanged by the signatories:

Trade Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, signed at Canberra on 14 November 1972.

I lay on the table the texts of treaties in relation to which Australia has deposited instruments of ratification:

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Treaty was opened for signature at London, Washington and Moscow on 1 July 1968. Australia signed the Treaty on 27 February 1970. The instruments of ratification were deposited for Australia at London, Washington and Moscow on 23 January 1973.

Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof. The treaty was opened for signature at London, Washington and Moscow on

II February 1971 and signed for Australia on that date. The instruments of ratification were deposited for Australia at London, Washington and Moscow on 23 January 1973.

Amendment to Article 61 of the Charter of the United Nations. The amendment was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 December 1971. Australia deposited its instrument of ratification on 13 November 1972.

Protocol amending Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs drawn up at Geneva on 25 March 1972. Australia signed and deposited its instrument of ratification on 22 November 1972.

Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise (ILO Convention No. 87), adopted at San Francisco on 17 June 1948. Australia deposited its instrument of ratification on 28 February 1973.

Convention concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively (ILO Convention No. 98), adopted at Geneva on 8 June 1949. Australia deposited its instrument of ratification on 28 February 1973.

I lay on the table the text of a statute to which Australia has become a party by accession:

Statute of the international Institute for the Unification of Private International Law, drawn up at Rome on 15 March 1940 and acceded to by Australia on 21 March 1973.

I also lay on the table the texts of a convention and treaties to which Australia is considering becoming a party by ratification:

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, opened for signature at London, Moscow and Washington on 28 September 1971 and signed for Australia on 10 April 1972.

Treaty between Australia and the Republic of Austria concerning Extradition, signed at Canberra on 29 March 1973.

Treaty between Australia and Sweden concerning Extradition, signed at Stockholm on 20 March 1973.

Agreement between Australia and Indonesia concerning Certain Boundaries between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, signed at Djakarta on 12 February 1973.

page 2599

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until a day and hour to be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 2599

ADJOURNMENT

Division of Grey: Pre-election Promises

Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I rise at this time fully aware of the fact that Government senators, having guillotined their way through this week and prevented full and adequate discussion of important measures, are anxious to get back to their States. I will not keep them for very long. But I do want to refer to a speech which was made last night in the Senate by Senator Cavanagh.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. The honourable senator has indicated that he wants io refer to a speech I made last night. He is completely prohibited from doing so under standing order 413 unless he claims to have been misrepresented or gives some other reason for doing so.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have not yet heard what Senator Jessop wants to say. He was about to get to that stage. I assume that that was the case. Senator Jessop asked me whether he had any rights in this matter and I said that he could address himself to the motion for the adjournment of the Senate and that parliamentary propriety required that he should inform the Minister to whom he was going to address his complaint.

Senator JESSOP:

– 1 have done both of those things, Mr President. I believe that some of the things Senator Cavanagh said did reflect upon my integrity. I know that there beats within Senator Cavanagh’s breast a compassionate heart and I am sure that he would not mind my commenting upon what he had to say. At page 2559 of Hansard he is reported as having said: . . Senator Jessop was successful in winning the seat of Grey in the 1966 election on the promise of providing a water supply for the important area of Kimba.

Firstly, 1 made no such promise. The only promise I ever made during that period was that 1 would see that a railway line was provided between Whyalla and Port Augusta. That has in fact happened. Senator Cavanagh went on to say:

He lost his seat because he did not keep his promise.

I think that that was an unfair thing for him to say. He also suggested that if I were to make at Kimba a speech similar to the one I made last night I would not get a very good response.

I would like to remind Senator Cavanagh that in the 1969 election the rural sector in the electorate of Grey showed an improvement in favour of the Liberal-Country Party Government. I would like to think that that result reflected to some extent the appreciation of the people of that area of my efforts with regard to the legislation that was before the Senate last night. I look upon its introduction as in fact fulfilling the job I started when I was the representative in another place of the electorate of Grey. If it had not been for the intervention of a deputation- 1 led that was able to introduce new evidence, South Australia would not have received this benefit.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works, Acting Minister for Transport and Acting Minister for Civil Aviation · ALP

– I will not take long. But the compassionate heart which it has been acknowledged I have has to be suppressed at times in order to get at the truth of the matter. The remarks I made yesterday possibly were harsh and would not be made socially. But what I said was factual. A man who condemned the State Labor Government and pointed to what the area got out of the McMahon Government was rejected by the people in the area involved. He lost his seat in the Parliament.

As I stated, I campaigned in the area on the occasion on which he won the seat, and 1 do not think he won the seat by virtue of the fact that I campaigned in the area on that occasion. It was widely known in the area that Kimba would get a pipeline if the area changed its representation in the Federal Parliament. I do not know who made that promise, but if Senator Jessop did not, someone did so on his behalf. The honourable senator says that during his term of office be was successful in having a railway built to Port Augusta, but this was not achieved during his term of office. Every achievement that has been made in the electorate of Grey has been the result of the efforts of Senator Jessop, or so we are asked to believe. I have never heard such false egotism in my life as the mistaken statements that have been given to the Senate on this occasion.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before I put the motion for the adjournment, I take the opportunity of wishing all honourable senators a safe journey in the foreign climes to which many of them are going and a safe return.

Question resolved in the affirmative

Senate adjourned at 12.52 p.m., to a day and hour to be fixed by Mr President

page 2601

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

page 2601

IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND LIMITED: BOTANY PLANT

(Question No. 153)

Senator CARRICK:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Will the Attorney-General, having regard to his recent statement that he would seek the active help of various bodies in the interests of crime detection and prevention, urgently seek the help of the Amalgamated Metal Workers’ Union regarding a series of recent and current incidents of alleged physical violence to persons and property at the Botany plant of Imperial Chemical industries of Australia and New Zealand Limited.

Senator MURPHY- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Members of the Amalgamated Metal Workers’ Union were one of a number of unions involved in a stoppage of work for some weeks at the Botany plant of Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Limited. I understand that the New South Wales Police Force attended but that no arrests were made and that no charges are to be laid. The members of the unions involved in the stoppage returned to work on 29 March 1973. There were no breaches of Federal law and there Is no basis for my intervention.

page 2601

CROATIAN EXTREMISTS

(Question No. 172)

Senator GREENWOOD:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Will the Attorney-General name each of the incidents involving criminal wrongdoing on which he relies to establish the activities of Croatian extremists in this country.
  2. Will he state in what way the facts of each incident explain or warrant the allegations that Croatian extremists were responsible.
  3. With respect to each of the incidents he names, were proceedings taken in any court to charge the persons with any offence in respect thereof.
  4. If proceedings were taken, what was the result of each proceeding.
  5. In respect of each of the incidents in respect of which no proceedings were taken, why were no proceedings taken.
  6. Where no proceedings were taken was the decision to take no proceedings in any way the result of some, and if so what, direction or omission on the part of the Liberal-Country Party Government.

  7. If no proceedings were taken were investigations instigated by (a) the Commonwealth Police, and

    1. any and what branch of what State Police.
  8. Has the Attorney-General any reason for believing that the investigations were not carried out thoroughly and competently by the police force carrying out the investigations.
  9. If the Attorney-General has any such reason in what way did the investigation fail to be carried out thoroughly and competently and what step has he taken since becoming Attorney-General to repair the omission.

Senator MURPHY- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. As the honourable senator would be aware the detailed history of incidents of Croatian extremism is not a proper subject for answer to a question. For some of it he is referred to the evidence and circumstances contained in my statement of 27 March 1973 and in the documents tabled on that day and the following day and to the numerous publications dealing with such incidents.
  2. -(9) Having regard to my answer to question (1) these questions do not arise.

page 2601

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ‘ POLICE: HOUSE SEARCHES

(Question No. 181)

Senator GREENWOOD:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Were any houses in Canberra searched by Australian Capital Territory Police on 26 September 1972; if so, were such searches conducted under search warrant or by consent of the occupier?
  2. Were such houses occupied by members of the Croatian community?
  3. Why were such searches made?
  4. Was any property or were any possessions seized on the occasions of such searches?
  5. Were any arrests made?
  6. Have any prosecutions been instituted in the Courts in respect of property or possessions seized; if not, why not?
  7. What was the result of any such prosecution?

Senator MURPHY - The answer to the honourable senator’s question, on information provided by the Commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force, is as follows:

  1. Yes. A house at Number 3, Greenvale Street, Fisher, A.C.T. was searched by Australian Capital Territory Police on 26 September 1972. On the same day, a house at 69 Stornaway Road, Queanbeyan, was searched by New South Wales Police assisted by Australian Capital Territory Police. In each case searches were conducted with the consent of the occupiers, but in the case of the residence at Queanbeyan, a Search Warrant was in existence.
  2. Yes.
  3. The searches were made following the arrest in Sydney by Commonwealth Police on 25 September 1972 of Ante Ruskovic, formerly of 3 Greenvale Street, Fisher, A.C.T., and Ivo Rabusic, formerly of 69 Stornaway Road, Queanbeyan, New South Wales, immediately before they were to board an aircraft at Mascot on the way to Yugoslavia. Ruskovic was in possession of a double barrel shotgun and 50 shotgun cartridges and Rabusic was in possession of 100 shotgun cartridges.

  4. Yes. The Australian Capital Territory Police have possession of property from the residence at 3 Greenvale Street, Fisher, A.C.T. as follows:

    1. Four (4) full sticks and two (2) half sticks of deteriorating gelignite, plus three (3) detonators;
    2. One sterling brand, 12 gauge single barrel shotgun, No. 5344 (unlicensed);
    3. One Mossberg brand, 12 gauge repeating shotgun, No. 45867 (unlicensed);
    4. One box of 25 Winchester Super “X( 12 gauge shotgun cartridges;
    5. Five boxes of assorted 12 gauge shotgun cartridges containing 45 in number;
    6. One box of 50 Winchester . 22 calibre, hollow rounds;
    7. One leather cartridge belt containing 14 assorted 12 gauge cartridges;
    8. One game holder attached to the above cartridge belt;
    9. One length of yellow safety fuse contained in a Winchester 30.30 box;
    1. One metal cogged device.
  5. No.
  6. No. The Honourable Senator was AttorneyGeneral at the time and responsible.
  7. Does not arise.

page 2602

PRE-DAWN RAIDS BY POLICE

(Question No. 192)

Senator CARRICK:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Was the list of names, provided by the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, Mr Bijedic, the basis of the pre-dawn raids by police in Sydney some ten days ago.

Senator MURPHY- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The Prime Minister did not supply a list of names. See also answer to Question 191. The searches made in Sydney by the police on 1 April 1973 were based on police information.

page 2602

REVOLUTIONARY ORGANISATIONS

(Question No. 195)

Senator CARRICK:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it at present an offence or does the Australian Government intend to make it an offence:

    1. to display portraits, symbols, slogans or flags of past or present revolutionary organisations which may, be in philosophical conflict with existing sovereign States throughout the world;
    2. to raise funds or materials other than weapons for use towards the overthrow of an existing regime;
    3. to advocate verbally or in writing the overthrow of an existing regime; and
    4. to establish an organization the stated objective of which is the overthrow of an existing regime.

  2. What is the significance of the Prime Minister’s statement (vide Hansard, 28 March 1973) in which be said ‘I do not want it to be thought that I approve of action against organisations in general terms. I do not subscribe automatically to guilt by association

Senator MURPHY - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. This requests a legal opinion, and consistent with the Standing Orders, is not answered.
  2. Evaluation of the Prime Minister’s remarks as sought by the honourable senator is not appropriate for questions directed to the Attorney-General.

page 2602

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE: HOUSE SEARCHES

(Question No. 182)

Senator GREENWOOD:

asked the Attor ney-General, upon notice:

  1. How many houses were searched by the Australian Capital Territory Police, Criminal Investigation Division, on 22 September 1972?
  2. Was each such house occupied by a member of the Australian Croatian community?
  3. Why were such houses searched?
  4. Were search warrants obtained prior to the searches; if not, were the searches permitted with the consent of the occupiers?
  5. Was any property or were any possessions seized by the Police on the occasion of such searches?
  6. Were any charges instituted in the Courts following such searches; if so, what were the charges?
  7. What were the results of such charges.

Senator MURPHY- The answer to the honourable senator’s question, on information provided by the Commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force, is as follows:

  1. Sixteen.
  2. Twenty-one adult persons were interviewed. Eighteen claimed to be of Croatian birth and three of Bosnian extraction. Seven claimed to be naturalised Australian citizens.
  3. For the purpose of obtaining evidence to establish the identity of the person or persons responsible for the crimes committed in George Street, Sydney, on 16 September 1972, in which explosive devices were used; to obtain evidence of crimes committedin the Australian Capital Territory against the Yugoslav Embassy and property of the Free Serbian Orthodox Church of St George which involved the use of explosives; and to obtain evidence of reported plans for attacks on Yugoslav Diplomatic Missions and Diplomats. Each householder was reputed to have demonstrated a bitterness towards the established Government of Yugoslavia and was suspected of being affiliated with individuals and groups of persons with similar attitudes. One was reported to have recently constructed an explosive device.
  4. No Search Warrants were used. Searches of premises were made only with the consent of the occupiers.
  5. Yes. Property taken possession of by the police Included:

Two . 22 calibre rifles which were unlicensed; One 6mm starting pistol which was unlicensed; A quantity of multi-gauge detonator wire; Six rounds of . 30 calibre ammunition.

A quantity of documents in the Serbo-Croatian language, which translated and summarised, included the following:

A circular from the Croatian Democratic Committee (HDO) listing events in Yugoslavia such as the bombing of the Belgrade Railway Station, and praising such activities as Croatian heroic deeds.

Five pages of a Croatian National Resistance (HNO) publication ‘Croatian Struggle’, published in Washington, United States of America in March, 1972. The publication provided instructions and illustrations for the making of hand grenades, molotov cocktails and petrol bombs, as well as the fitting of silencers to firearms.

Letter announcing that the Croatian Liberation Movement (HOP) of the Argentine, has nominated a Croatian resident in Australia to attend a meeting of Buenos Aires on behalf of the HOP in Australia. Branches of the HOP are asked to collect $2,000 for the trip.

Typewritten circular entitled ‘Report from the Revolutionary Front’, Number Two, containing detail of guerilla activity in Yugoslavia. It claims that the guerillas are winning and describes successful battles.

Maps of central Yugoslavia including details inserted by hand, believed to depict areas of guerilla activity in July, 1972.

Correspondence referring to the explosion of a Pen Bomb’ at the Richmond Town Hall in Melbourne and the resultant injury to a child.

  1. No charges were preferred. The owner of one unlicensed firearm is known to have travelled overseas since this incident and the weapon has remained in the custody of the police.
  2. Does not arise.

page 2603

INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT BY PRIME MINISTER OF YUGOSLAVIA

(Question No. 191)

Senator CARRICK:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Did the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia or any member of his staff, during the recent visit of Mr Bijedic, give to the Australian Government a list of names of alleged Croatian terrorists now residing in Australia.
  2. Did the Australian Government seek to establish from the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia the alleged sources of the information upon which the assertions were based.
  3. Did these alleged sources include (a) interrogations of persons taken in custody in Yugoslavia or elsewhere, and (b) information from Yugoslav diplomatic sources within Australia.
  4. Does the Australian Government accept the authenticity of such information.
  5. Does the information provide further inference of the existence of Yugoslav secret police in Australia.

Senator MURPHY- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. A member of the staff of the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia delivered a document that made mention of some names and Yugoslav authorities provided a list of names.
  2. No, because the matters referred to and the names listed were already known to the Commonwealth Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization.
  3. and (4) Do not arise.
  4. No.

page 2603

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS AFTER DEPARTURE OF PRIME MINISTER OF YUGOSLAVIA

(Question No. 198)

Senator CARRICK:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Following upon the departure from Australia of the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, Mr Bijedic, how many additional police, including uniformed and plain-clothed officers and members of security or special branches, were on duty inside Parliament House on each sitting day, until Thursday, 5 April 1973, giving the numbers day-by-day.
  2. Why were these precautions deemed necessary.
  3. For what reasons was it deemed justificable to diminish or remove these arrangements.

Senator MURPHY - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Twenty-three additional police officers were on duty inside Parliament House on 27 March 1973.

Three additional police officers were assigned for duty inside Parliament House on each of the sitting days of 28 and 29 March 1973 and on 3, 4 and 5 April 1973.

  1. This is a matter under the control of the Presiding Officers. Information had been received by the Police concerning the possible use, particularly on 27 March 1973, of explosive devices by some extremists in the Senate or the House of Representatives.
  2. Upon completion of the debate in the Senate on Croatian terrorist activities, the police authorities considered that the additional security precautions that had been taken were no longer necessary.
Senator CARRICK:

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice:

  1. Since the Attorney-General stated on 27 March 1973, with relation to the visit of the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, Mr Bijedic, that ‘the least risk referred to (by his advisers) was an extreme degree of risk’ and that a very high Commonwealth Officer had assessed that ‘the danger was so great that the visit should not be held’, why was the visit held.
  2. Why did the Australian Government proceed in the face of such advice.
  3. Did some officers recommend that the visit should proceed and were they in a majority or minority.

Senator MURPHY- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: The Prime Minister approved of the visit.

page 2603

PRIME MINISTER OF YUGOSLAVIA: ‘ VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 200)

page 2604

USE OF VIP AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 205)

Senator CARRICK:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Was a VIP aircraft requisitioned and used for the purpose of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation incidents on 15-16 March 1973, or subsequently.
  2. Who requisitioned the aircraft, who approved of its use and for what purposes was it used or intended to be used.
  3. Who were the passengers upon its flights.
  4. Why were the normal commercial services not availed of.

Senator MURPHY- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. No.
  2. to (4) These questions do not arise.
Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice:

  1. Which, of those persons named by the AttorneyGeneral in his statement to the Senate on Croatian terrorism in Australia, have had no charge laid, or conviction recorded, against them.

    1. What course is open to those persons to clear their names of the suggestion of involvement in terrorist activities made against them by the AttorneyGeneral.

Senator MURPHY- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The persons I named as criminals have had convictions recorded against them.
  2. Does not arise.

page 2604

CROATIAN TERRORISM: STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(Question No. 227)

page 2604

CROATIANS

(Question No. 234)

Senator GREENWOOD:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is the Attorney-General aware of the interview conducted on the television program ‘A Current Affair’ on Friday, 23 March 1973 in which an anony mous person claimed that he has been required by the Yugoslav Embassy to supply a death list of Croatians in Australia.
  2. Has this person’s claim been investigated.
  3. Has the person been identified.
  4. What are the investigations which have taken place.
  5. By whom were the investigations conducted.
  6. What have been the results of the investigations.
  7. If no investigations have been carried out, why not.
  8. If no investigations have been carried out, will the Attorney-General arrange for investigations to be conducted and inform the Senate of their outcome.

Senator MURPHY- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Yes.

  1. and (5) The Commonwealth Police have made inquiries.
  2. So far the Commonwealth Police have been unable to interview the person concerned.
  3. and (8) Do not arise.

page 2604

SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION

(Question No. 250)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Did the Minister state that the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation is a totally irrelevant dead horse, and that Australian participation under a Labor Government would not continue.

Senator WILLESEE- The Minister for External Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s statement on foreign policy in the Senate on 24 May in which the Prime Minister made it clear that ‘. . . the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation - conceived as an instrument for the containment of China in the cold war era - must be modified if it is not to become completely moribund.’

page 2604

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: APPROACH BY AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

(Question No. 266)

Senator CARRICK:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is the approach by the Australian Government to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, concerning French nuclear tests, the first legal approach to that body by any Australian Government.
  2. Does the Australian Government fully accept the jurisdiction of the Court; if so, does the Government accept that it will be bound, without qualification, by any future decisions of the Court, including those which may adversely affect Australia, for example, a dispute on territorial waters.

Senator MURPHY - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes, in the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, (i.e., in proceedings brought by one country against another country).
  2. Australia is a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The jurisdiction of the Court as described in Chapter II of the Statute is therefore accepted by Australia. Article 36 (1) of the Statute provides that the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. One such treaty is the 1928 Geneva Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. In addition, Article 36(2) of the Statute enables States parties to the Statute to declare that they accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on the basis set out in the Article. Australia has made a declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, subject to the reservations mentioned in the declaration, in relation to any other country accepting the same obligation and on condition of reciprocity (see the declaration of 6 February 1954 published in Australian Treaty Series 1954, No. 8, which is available in the Parliamentary Library). Within this jurisdictional framework Australia accepts the binding force of decisions of the Court in proceedings in which Australia is a party.

page 2605

CHINESE NUCLEAR TESTS

(Question No. 268)

Senator CARRICK:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. When was the protest of the Australian Government made to the Government of the People’s Republic of China concerning that country’s nuclear tests.
  2. Was it, as reported by the media, in the form of a note delivered by the Australian Charge d’ Affaires.
  3. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the full text of the protest.
  4. Has there been any response by the People’s Republic of China, or any attempt by the Australian Government to secure a response.
  5. Since it is possible that the People’s Republic of China might explode a nuclear device at any time, is the matter not equally as urgent as the French tests.

Senator WILLESEE- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 10 April 1973.
  2. The protest took the form of a letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr Chi Peng-Fei. The letter was handed to the Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister, Mr Chang Wen-Chin, by the Australia Charge d’Affaires in Peking. They held a conversation in which they explained the views of their respective governments.
  3. It is not intended at this stage to make the text of the communication public.
  4. No.
  5. The Prime Minister is on record (Hansard 12 April) as having said that the Government believes that France and China should both accede to the Limited Test Ban Treaty; and that we have protested to the Chinese Government against its failure to accede to this treaty. Unlike France, China has not made a declaration of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction pursuant to Article 36 (2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Unlike France, China is not a party to the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 1928. Therefore, while Australia can unilaterally require France to appear before the Court, it cannot so require China.
Senator CARRICK:

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice:

  1. What is the current level of man-made nuclear fall-out over Australia.
  2. Is it 2 millirads or less and is it one of the lowest in the world.
  3. What contributions have the Chinese and French tests made to this total fall-out.
  4. Is the Chinese fall-out approximately 20 per cent, the French fall-out approximately 60 per cent and and the residual British, American and Russian fall-outs 15 per cent to 20 per cent.
  5. Is the Chinese fall-out approximately one-third of that of the French.
  6. Since this information must be freely and immediately available from the Attorney-General’s advisers and since its nature cannot possibly prejudice the Government’s approach to the International Court of Justice, will he make this information available either now or prior to his departure from Australia.

Senator MURPHY - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) The main components of the fall-out currently being deposited over Australia are the longlived fission products strontium 90 and caesium 137. From all data available to date from the monitoring of fall-out in Australia, from all sources, it is estimated that, at present, Australians are receiving radiation doses from strontium 90 and caesium 137 at the rate of about 1 millirad per year to body tissues generally, and 2 to 4 millirads per year to bone tissues, depending on the person’s age. It is not possible to make a definitive comparison between these estimates of current radiation dose rates to the Australian population and those to populationsof other countries because:

    1. up-to-date results are far from complete for the relatively few countries which have fall-out monitoring programs as comprehensive as that of Australia, and
    2. as shown by reference to the various reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, including that of 1972, for many countries there are no fall-out data at all. (3), (4) and (5) The relative contributions to the current radiation dose rates to the Australian population from the strontium 90 and caesium 137 fell-out are estimated:
    3. for body tissues generally, to be approximately 55 per cent from French tests, 10 per cent from Chinese tests, and 35 per cent from the British, American and Russian tests, and
    4. for bone tissue approximately 30-40 per cent, 5-10 per cent and 50-65 per cent respectively, depending on age.

Overall, strontium 90 and caesium 137 fall-out from French nuclear tests is currently giving rise to 5 to 6 times as much radiation to the Australian population as that from Chinese tests.

page 2605

NUCLEAR TESTS

(Question No. 270)

page 2606

SMALL BUSINESSES

(Question No. 276)

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer examine what credit and other assistance can be given to independent small businesses to protect them from elimination by the big organisations, following correspondence received by many parliamentarians on the serious disabilities suffered by such businesses.

Senator WILLESEE - The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I would draw the honourable senator’s attention to a Ministerial statement made by the Minister for Overseas Trade and Minister for Secondary Industry on 12 April 1973 (Hansard pages 1399-1404) in presenting the Report of the Committee on Small Business to the House of Representatives. The Committee made recommendations directed at improving the efficiency of small businesses.

The specific question of availability of credit was outside the Committee’s terms of reference. The honourable Senator will know that the trading banks and Other financial institutions have been traditional sources of funds for small businesses. In addition, the Commonwealth Development Bank provides finance to small industrial undertakings for development purposes.

page 2606

CROATIAN EXTREMISTS

(Question No. 269)

Senator GREENWOOD:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has the Attorney-General seen a report in “The Canberra Times’, by a person claiming to be a Serbian, that the incidents against alleged Croatian extremists were manufactured by the Yugoslav Embassy.
  2. Have these allegations been investigated.
  3. What are tbe investigations which have taken place.
  4. By whom were the investigations conducted.
  5. What have been the results of the investigations.
  6. If no investigations have been carried out, why not
  7. If no investigations have been carried out, will the Attorney-General arrange for investigations to be conducted and inform the Senate of the outcome.

Senator MURPHY- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. to (6) The Commonwealth Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization have reported that investigations have been made and are continuing to be made by the Commonwealth Police Force and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. To date the allegations made in the article have not been substantiated.
  3. Does not arise.

page 2606

TAXATION DEDUCTIONS: INTEREST ON MORTGAGES

(Question No. 304)

Senator WITHERS:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. When will legislation be prepared and introduced which will enable home buyers to claim interest on mortgages as a tax deduction, as promised by the Australian Labor Party during the 1972 election campaign.
  2. If there is a delay in the preparation of this legislation, could the Treasurer advise what the delay is.
  3. If the legislation cannot be introduced in this session, will the Treasurer give an asurance that, irrespective of the date of enactment, it will apply for the full financial year of 1973-74.

Senator WILLESEE - The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) The proposal is being examined and will, in the normal course, come under consideration in the context of the Budget discussions. I add that it would, in any case, be customary for legislation of this kind to be introduced during a Budget Session of the Parliament and to have effect for the whole of the income year of introduction.

page 2606

AEROFLOT

(Question No. 306)

Senator WITHERS:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics commercial airline, Aeroflot, allowed to operate flights to and from Australia. If not, why not?

Senator CAVANAGH- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The USSR airline, Aeroflot, is not authorised to operate a scheduled air service to and from Australia. No agreement authorising such a service has been entered into between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The operation by Aeroflot of non-scheduled flights to and from Australia would be governed by the Australian Government’s requirements applicable to such flights by foreign airlines.

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the

Media, upon notice:

  1. What indications are there that Australianproduced films and television programs reach the standards of films and programs in other countries.
  2. Is there any recent evidence that such films can gain international acceptance, as well as acceptance in Australia.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. There are now quite substantial indications that Australian films and television programs come up to overseas standards in a number of areas, judged in terms of both their ability to compete in overseas markets and their record of achievement at competitive international film festivals. The Department of the Media will shortly begin a survey of the distribution of local productions overseas, and the prospects for distribution in the near future. In the meantime, following discussions that I have had with representatives of the American industry, I have recently been informed that a number of Australianproduced films are under consideration for distribution throughout the United States, after displaying some success on the Australian market.

Should such distribution eventuate, the Australian film and television industry will have better prospects for development than have been seen for some decades.

Distribution overseas provides not merely greater financial return, but also the opportunity for greater prestige and work opportunities for creative resident Australians whose work in such fields as direction, scriptwriting and acting ‘leads’ have not often been recognised outside of this country.

  1. Without going outside of the Department of the Media, it is possible to find evidence of such international acceptance as well as local acceptance.

My latest information from the Commonwealth Film Unit is that 5 of the Unit’s film productions had won awards in international competition in the first 5 months of this year. A list of those awards, along with recent awards in Australia, is provided below for the honourable senator’s information. I should also add that apartfrom its usual distribution outlets, the Commonwealth Film Unit has also managed to arrange for at least four films to be released in West End theatres in London recently (‘Australian Colour Diary. Sydney Opera House’, ‘Paddington Lace’, ‘Eighteen Footers’, and ‘Where Dead Men Lie’). Another Unit production, the ‘Towards Baruya Manhood’ series, has been a notable success in Paris this year, with the result that the director, Mr Ian Dunlop, was recently invited to present the films at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington.

As for evidence of acceptance of television productions, I have also listed below for the honourable senator’s information Australian Broadcasting Commission programs which have recently been sold overseas, and are currently being screened on television in quite a few countries throughout the World.

AWARDS FOR COMMONWEALTH FILM UNIT PRODUCTIONS

In period 1 January to 31 May 1973

In the Bush’ - Silver Medal, Flora and Fauna Section, 7th International Cinema Review ‘Countries and Peoples’, La Spezia, Italy.

Time and Place’ - Shared Award (replacing 2nd prize) with two other films. International Film Competition, Chur, Switzerland.

Rooftopics’ - Certificate of Creative Excellence, U.S. Industrial Film Festival, Chicago, U.S.A.: 6th Annual Gold Camera Awards.

Where Dead Men Lie’- Gold Camera Award (First Place in History, Biography Category) U.S. Industrial Film Festival, Chicago U.S.A. Merit Award Certificate to Dean Semler, Short Films or Documentaries Category, 1973 A.C.S. Awards for Cinematography, Sydney, Australia.

Water for a City’ - Gold Camera Award (First Place in City, Urban Development Category) U.S. Industrial Film Festival, Chicago, U.S.A.

Leisure and Entertainment’ - Gold Tripod Award to John Hosking, Current Affairs and Documentary Programs (TV) 1973 A.C.S. Awards for Cinematography, Sydney, Australia.

The Amazing Platypus’ - Gold Tripod Award to John Shaw, 16mm Industrial, Scientific or P.R. Documentary Category, 1973 A.C.S. Awards for Cinematography, Sydney, Australia.

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION OVERSEAS SALES

Television

United Kingdom

Bellbird, 52 episodes x 15 mins - Thames

Bellbird, 24 x 15- Thames

Bellbird, 52 x 15- Southern TV

Delta, 13 x 50- Thames

Delta, 13 x 50- Yorkshire

Delta, 13 x 50- Southern TV

Wild Australia, 6 x 30 - BBC

The Money Game, 1 x 50- BBC

Rolf’s Walkabout, 7 x 26- BBC

Hongkong

The Money Game, 1 x 50

Delta, 23 x 50

Wild Australia, 6 x 30 4 Corners Segment, 1 x 15

Cricket: International Highlights Australia vs World

Malaysia

Wild Australia, 6 x 26

Rolf’s Walkabout, 7 x 30

Delta, 23 x 50

Singapore

Wild Australia, 6 x 30

The Art of Sailing, 26 x 10

The Infinite Pacific, 1 x 50

April is the End of Summer, 1 x 50

Canada

Lost People of Chowilla, 1 x 22 (Educational Telecasts - province of Ontario only)

Pakistan

Cricket: International Highlights Australia vs World, 5x60

page 2607

AUSTRALIAN PRODUCED FILMS AND TELEVISION PROGRAMS

(Question No. 319)

Poland

Australian Wildlife, 4 x 30

Denmark

A Big Hand for Everyone, 1 x 44 (plus repeat)

Finland

A Big Hand for Everyone, 1 x 44

Portugal

Cry of Nukumanu, 1 x 40

New Zealand

Flying Machines (A Big Country), 1 x 30

Four Corners - Rhodesia, 1 x 40

Four Corners - Aborigines in the Alice, 1 x 21

Cricket: International Highlights Australia vs World XI, 5 x 60

Call of the Bellbird (A Big Country), 1 x 32

page 2608

AUSTRALIAN COASTAL SHIPPING COMMISSION

(Question No. 315)

Senator WITHERS:

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

  1. Who are the members of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission?
  2. When was each member appointed and for what term?
  3. What is the age of each Commissioner?

Senator CAVANAGH- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: 1, 2 and 3.

The Commissioners of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission are:

Mr Herbert Philip Weymouth, C.B.E., Chairman Appointed Commissioner on 26 September 1956 for period of 2 years from and including 1 October 1956

Re-appointed on 14 October 1958 for period of 5 years from and including 1 October 1958

Appointed Vice Chairman 10 June 1960

Re-appointed 7 October 1963 for period of 5 years from and including 1 October 1963

Re-appointed 20 October 1968 for period of 5 years from and including 1 October 1968

Re-appointed on 26 August 1971 as Chairman and Commissioner for period of 5 years from and including 1 October 1971.

Age at 1 June 1973: 67 years.

Sir Reginald Charles Reed, C.B.E. Vice Chairman

Appointed 16 September 1971 as Vice Chairman and Commissioner from 1 October 1971 to 30 September 1973

Age at 1 June 1973: 63 years.

Mr Donald Dean von Bibra, O.B.E.

Appointed Commissioner on 7 December 1970 for a period which will expire on 30 September 1975

Age at 1 June 1973: 68 years,__

Mr Eric Russell Beattie

Appointed Commissioner on 14 September 1972 for a term which will expire on 30 September 1974

Age at 1 June 1973: 63 years.

Mr Neville George Jenner

Appointed Commissioner on 1 October 1970 for a period which expired on 30 September 1972

Re-appointed 14 September 1972 for a 5- year period from and including 1 October 1972

Age at 1 June 1973: 46 years.

page 2608

VIETCONG AND NORTH VIETNAMESE DELEGATION: USE OF COMMONWEALTH CARS

(Question No. 330)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Is the report that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese delegation, whilst they were in Australia and, in particular, during their tour of rural areas in South Australia, were transported in Commonwealth Government cars, which information was previously sought in Senate Question No. 296, correct.

Senator MURPHY- The Prime Minister has supplied the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

See answers to Senate Questions No. 275 and 296.

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice:

  1. Is the Attorney-General aware that Question No. 227, of which notice was given on 12 April 1973, asks which of those persons named by the AttorneyGeneral have had no charge laid, or conviction recorded, against them in Australia.
  2. Does the Attorney-General understand that this Question does not infringe Lie civil rights of individuals, but that naming them as terrorists and then not clearing their good names, if no charge or conviction exists against them, does infringe their civil rights.
  3. Why is it that the Attorney-General has been unable to provide the information required.

Senator MURPHY - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) See answer to Question No. 227.
Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– On 23 May, Senator Wright asked me the following question, without notice:

What is the date of the Ordinance which regulates the production of margarine in the Australian Capital Territory? Was any amendment made to the Ordinance before the issue of a licence to Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd? Were applications called for from other companies? If not, were other companies considered?

The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There is no legislation restricting or regulating the production of margarine in the Australian Capital Territory. As a licence is not required the question of applications did not arise.

page 2608

CROATIAN TERRORISM: STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(Question No. 322)

page 2608

MARGARINE MANUFACTURE IN CANBERRA

page 2609

PUBLIC SERVICE: OFFICE ACCOMMODATION AT MURRAY BRIDGE

(Question No. 318)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

  1. What is the area of office space being leased by Australian Government Departments at Murray Bridge, South Australia.
  2. What is the annual cost to the Australian Government for this space.

Senator MURPHY- The Minister for Services and Property has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 5,079 sq ft.
  2. $4,552.
Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– On 23 May 1973, Senator Lawrie asked the following question, without notice:

I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports that some insurance companies are refusing to insure certain popular makes of new motor cars in the Australian Capital Territory? I point out that this applies also to someof the States. Does the Government condone this discrimination? Will the Government have a full investigation made to see whether certain makes of cars are more accident prone than others and, if this is the case, endeavour to find the cause? Will the Government treat this matter as urgent in view of the mounting road toll?

The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

My attention has been drawn to press reports made by the NRMA Insurance Ltd that they will refuse to insure Falcon GT and Lotus motor cars with comprehensive motor vehicle insurance. To my knowledge this decision applies in the Australian Capital Territory and the State of New South Wales.

I have been advised by the NRMA Insurance Ltd that their decision not to insure Lotus motor cars is based on the high cost of replacement parts for these imported vehicles. The decision not to insure Falcon

GT motor cars is based on the insurance experience set out below with a comparison with a Holden Kingswood 6 cylinder vehicle:

page 2609

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE

These figures show the Falcon GT to be 33 per cent more likely to make a claim which claim will cost 450 per cent more than for a Holden Kingswood. The NRMA Insurance Ltd does not have its rating structure geared for differences of this kind in insurance experience and prefers not to insure Falcon GT cars rather than attempt to charge very high premiums.

There are a number of qualifications which must be made to this information.

The NRMA Insurance Ltd does not suggest that Falcon GT cars are more likely to be involved in accidents but rather that they are 33 per cent more likely to be involved in claims than a Holden Kingswood. The difference has been suggested by the Ford Motor Company to be attributable to the fact that the Ford GT has been eagerly sought by professional thieves in business to steal and strip cars in the Sydney area. Many of these cars are never recovered, generating adverse insurance experience over and above that attributable to accidents.

I have looked carefully at this question as I was concerned by the issues raised however I am now satisfied that my investigation has not revealed anything not covered by the Select Committee on Road Safety and the Report of the Expert Group on Road Safety.

On the matter of discrimination I would draw the attention of the honourable senator to the fact that the NRMA Insurance Ltd is the only insurance company involved and there are many other companies willing to write this type of insurance.

page 2609

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ARMY OFFICERS

(Question No. 4)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Has, the Minister read the allegations contained on page 446 of the Nation Review for 26 January- 1 February, concerning the involvement of senior Army officers with private firms in procurement operations; if so, what arrangements have been made for the Commonwealth Police or some other investigating authority to probe the allegations?

Senator BISHOP- The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I have seen the Nation Review to which the honourable senator refers. However, prior to that publication, the matter had been brought to my notice.

Serious allegations were made against two Army officers- one a Brigadier and one a LieutenantColonel. The allegations have been subject to extensive investigations by the Commonwealth Police.

Consideration is still being given to the allegations against the Lieutenant-Colonel and it would be improper to comment further on his case at this stage.

In the case of the Brigadier, some of the allegations were found to have no substance, but others gave rise to concern and required further examination.

The Military Board gave the most careful consideration to all the material, including both the report of the Commonwealth Police investigation and a detailed submission by the Brigadier. I should say at once that there is no evidence of impropriety in the procurement of equipment for the Army.

However, the Military Board concluded that in his relationships with a particular firm the Brigadier’s standard of conduct had fallen short of that required of officers of the Army- particularly of officers of such senior rank.

As a consequence the Military Board decided that the Brigadier should be called upon to tender his resignation. At its meeting on 31 May the Executive Council accepted the Brigadier’s resignation.

Since I assumed office as Minister I have been closely concerned with these cases. I have been involved at all stages of the Military Board’s deliberations and actions. I am satisfied that the Board’s decision to call on the Brigadier to resign was both appropriate and just. As I mentioned earlier, the case of the Lieutenant-Colonel is still under consideration.

When these cases are concluded I will be prepared to consider making a more comprehensive answer Tot the information of the Parliament.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– On 14 March, Senator Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Bearing in mind that the ship ‘Straitsman’ was built especially for the service from King Island to Tasmania and Victoria, will the Minister lay on the table all documents relating to the negotiations between the owners of the ship Straitsman’ or- their representatives, including any liquidator or receiver, and the Government in respect to the reintroduction of that ship into the service for which it was built at a cost of Sl.Sm?

The Minister for Transport has supplied me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The only letter received by the Minister for Transport from the owners of ‘Straitsman’ or their representatives including any liquidator or receiver was one dated 12 February 1973 from Mr C. H. R. Jackson, Joint Receiver and Manager of Hungerford Spooner and Kirkhope. I understand representatives of this firm were appointed joint and several Receiver and Manager of R. H. Houfe and Co. Pty Ltd on 11 October 1972.

Mr Jackson’s letter detailed the financial situation of R. H. Houfe and Co. Pty Ltd and asked for a meeting with the Minister to discuss any proposals for the resumption of the service.

The Minister for Transport has met Captain Houfe to discuss the King Island service but has not negotiated with Captain Houfe or his representatives on the re-introduction of ‘Straitsman’.

The Senator will be aware that a Senate Select Committee has been established on the King Island shipping service and has submitted its report to the Senate.

The list of witnesses shown in the report of the Committee shows that Captain Houfe gave evidence and information on the vessel ‘Straitsman’ has been made available to the Commitee by my Department.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– On 8 May, Senator Davidson asked the following question during the committee stages of the passing of the States Grants (Water Resources Measurement) Bill:

In relation to the treatment of waste water, the Bill deals with the measurement of water and water resources, but in recent times there has been a great deal of attention given to the matter of waste water, the treatment of waste water and the re-use of water. In any program dealing with water measurement and the measurement of water resources, I would have thought that the matter of the assessment of waste water, the treatment of waste water and the re-use of water would have been mentioned. While we are dealing with this very important matter of water resources, I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on this aspect and give us any information he has which would be of interest to me and of value to the committee.

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

I have been advised by the Minister for the Environment and Conservation in the following terms:

The Bill under consideration relates to the measurement in terms of quantity, of Australia’s water resources, both surface and underground. Work is proceeding within the Committee structure of the Australian Water Resources Council on compilation of a desirable water quality measurement network. When this is completed I expect that a firm proposal will be made to the Government concerning implementation of a suitable program.

My Department is currently considering a number of other proposals relating to waste water treatment and re-use. Consideration of these matters is also a function of the Australian Water Resources Council, through its Technical Committee on Water Quality and also of the Australian Environment Council through its Monitoring Sub-Committee. As the Secretariats of these groups are within my Department all of these activities are co-ordinated.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– On 22 May, Senator McLaren asked the following question, without notice:

Is it a fact that in August last year the then Minister for the Interior, Mr Hunt, who is a member of the Australian Country Party, initiated discussions with the Australian Margarine Manufacturers Association which resulted in an invitation being extended to all margarine companies to submit proposals for the establishment of a margarine factory in the Australian Capital Territory? If the answer is in the affirmative, can the Minister inform the Senate which companies submitted proposals and which one of them was successful?

The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourabl senator’s question:

At the request of the Margarine Manufacturers’ Association the then Minister for the Interior met representatives of the Association on 31 August 1972. The question of a margarine factory in the Australian Capital Territory came up during their discussions. Provincial Traders Pty Ltd, and Vegetable Oils Pty Ltd, subsequently expressed interest. Marrickville Holdings Ltd, followed up an earlier interest by ascertaining that I had no objection to their securing and equipping premises to set up production.

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– On 29 May Senator Withers asked me a question relating to Naval personnel who do not wish to sail in HMAS Sydney’ to take part in the protest against the French nuclear test.

The Minister for Defence has provided me with the following information in reply to the question:

At present 18 naval personnel have requested postings from HMAS ‘Sydney’. Fourteen of the requests have a compassionate basis associated with family problems, one request is based on financial loss occasioned by a long standing commitment while 3 of the requests are based on political andhealth reasons. The numbers and categories are: 1 Chief Mechanician Marine Technical Propulsion 1 Petty Officer Marine Technical Electrical 2 Leading Seaman Electronic Technical Commu nications 2 Leading Seaman Marine Technical Power

Electrics 1 Leading Radio Operator 1 Leading Dental Assistant 1 Leading Steward 1 Leading Seaman Physical Training 1 Leading Seaman Photography 1 Writer 1 Able Seaman Aviation 3 Radio Operator 1 Cook 1 Sick Berth Attendant

In addition, 23 naval personnel will be granted leave which would have been due during the period involved. In 22 of these cases the granting of leave is in no way connected with the French nuclear tests and would be normal for any unexpected deployment of a ship (14 are for compassionate reasons and 8 for family financial reasons). One sailor will be granted leave for political and health reasons. The numbers and categories of personnel being granted leave are: 1 Chief Artificer Marine Technical Propulsion 1 Shipwright 1st Class Marine Technical Hull 1 Petty Officer Marine Technical Propulsion 2 Artificer 2nd Class Marine Technical Propulsion 1 Leading Seaman Quartermaster Gunner 1 Leading Writer 1 Leading Stores Assistant (Naval) 3 Leading Seaman Marine Technical Propulsion 5 Able Seamen Marine Technical Propulsion 1 Radio Operator 1 Musician 1 Able Seaman Quartermaster Gunner 1 Able Seaman Underwater Control 1 Able Seaman Weapons Mechanic 1 Able Seamsn Radar Plot 1 Able Seaman Marine Technical Electrics

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On 1 June, Senator Carrick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education aware that the Central Commission of the Australian Catholic Bishops, representing all the Catholic Bishops of Australia, has emphasised in a prepared statement dated 30 May its unqualified support for direct per capita aid to independent schools without means test and its opposition to a system of lump sum payments to schools according to the needs of the school or parents? Will the Government give this statement full consideration when considering the report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission - the Karmel Committee - and when reflecting on the pre-election promise of Mr Whitlam in June 1972, that all existing State aid provisions, including therefore direct per capita aid without means test, would be maintained?

The Minister for Education has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

The Secretary of the Australian Episcopal Conference forwarded a copy of the statement of the Conference of 30 May to the Minister for Education. In his letter, however, the Secretary His Grace the Archbishop of Canberra informed the Minister that after the release of his statement the Conference had learned that the Karmel Committee report had been tabled in Parliament and the Central Commission of the Conference issued the following statement:

This report produced by a group of highly qualified persons is obviously the result of much study. It deals with matters of great importance for education in Government and Independent schools. Consequently it merits careful study.

page 2610

KING ISLAND SHIPPING SERVICE

page 2610

WATER RESOURCES

page 2610

MARGARINE MANUFACTURE IN CANBERRA

page 2611

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS: HMAS ‘SYDNEY

page 2611

AID FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 June 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19730608_senate_28_s56/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant