28th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers. . .
page 1317
– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to an answer which he gave to the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party in the Senate yesterday when he stated that the conflict in the Middle East could lead to a world war. I ask: In view of that statement is the Government reviewing its defence programming in relation to which the Minister for Defence stated that there would be no foreseeable threat of war for IS years. Further, does the conflict in the Middle East not point up the absurdity and danger of allowing the Australian armed forces to be decimated in material, manpower and especially morale?
-I suppose, that the honourable senator’s question reveals the difference in approach between the present Government and the previous Government. It is quite clear that when any suggestion is made that there is no threat to Australia in the foreseeable future, the Government is stating, as some members of the previous Government to thencredit did state, that there is no threat to Australia as such. If we speak of the possibility of war arising out of events in the Middle East iri which, without saying anything that would aggravate the situation, there could be a conflict in which the super powers would be involved, this is something of an entirely different order. What Australia might or might not do in such a situation would, I think on any reasonable view, be regarded as completely irrelevant. But a war in which nuclear powers could be involved on a world scale would be a devastating experience for’ mankind and the contribution or involvement or otherwise of Australia in such a matter would be so small that it is absurd to suggest that Australia could start even to contemplate having defence forces on s scale that would be material to such a world conflict, which would probably be over even before a report could-be made to the Senate of its commencement.
page 1317
– I refer the AttorneyGeneral to the answer which he gave to me yesterday that he would regard any deferment of debate on the Trade Practices Bill 1 973 as simply stalling.. I ask. him: Is it not a fact that he has received requests from the Associated Chambers’ of Manufactures of Australia, from the Institute of Directors, from the national manufacturing industry associations and from a host of other bodies seeking from him, firstly, a deferment of debate on the legislation so that industry can examine its new and complex provisions,’ and, secondly, an opportunity to discuss the provisions of the Bill with him? Why has the Attorney-General prejudged any submission which may be made to him as simply stalling? Is this to be taken as an example of the continuing co-operation and consultation which the Prime Minister promised in his pre-election policy speech?
-I indicated that during the course of this year officers of my Department have been available for discussion. They have discussed the legislation which was emerging with many representatives of industry and commerce. I have said that after the last election I indicated on a number of occasions, orally and in writing, the general outlines of the new legislation. I have also done that from time to time here in Canberra in the Senate. The principles of the legislation are fairly straightforward. Those who are making representations have great resources, legal and otherwise, to examine the legislation and my officers are available to discuss it with them. They were available during this week and will be available during next week. They continue to be available. It is important for Australia that this legislation be brought into effect I have indicated that there is provision for a 4-months moratorium after the legislation becomes operative in regard to various agreements and so on.
I want to say to the Senate that every day that passes without this legislation in operation there is a continuance of restrictive practices and of conduct which will be forbidden by the legislation and which is injuring consumers. Every household in Australia is suffering. I am not content to see any undue delay in the legislation coming into operation. I ask honourable senators opposite to apply themselves to the matter. They ought to be assisting so that the legislation can come into operation with all due expedition. The Bill has been presented to the Senate and has been made available to people so that they can discuss it. Surely we at least ought to be ready to enter upon the debate as to whether the Bill ought to be given a second reading in this chamber. I think it would be very much against the public interest and injurious to every consumer and every household in Australia if this legislation were not dealt with in these current sittings.
page 1318
– I ask leave to ask a supplementary question.
– I hope it is not a complicated one.
– I repeat the question and ask the Attorney-General to answer it Has he received requests from the bodies I mentionedthe Associated Chamber of Manufactures of Australia, the Institute of Directors, national manufacturing associations and other bodies- asking for 2 things, firstly that the legislation be deferred until they have had an opportunity of examining it, and secondly that they be permitted to have discussions with the AttorneyGeneral about the matter?
-There have been suggestions by way of telegram and letter from certain bodies, including those mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that there should be some delay. I am not prepared to have any delay which would mean that this legislation would not be dealt with by the Parliament in these current sittings. Let it be quite clear that that is my position. I think that reasonable opportunity should be given to honourable senators to’ study the legislation and to discuss it I am prepared to have the officers of my Department discuss with those bodies the matters they want to put’ forward. Insofar as time is available for me to discuss it with them I shall do so: There is no special reason why they should not discuss matters with the officers of the Department or with other persons. That they all should want to discuss the matter with me is no excuse for delaying the legislation. I am prepared to take any reasonable steps so that it can be dealt with. Everyone ought to be aware that people who have been
Setting away with restrictive practices for the last decade, since these practices were exposed, would want to delay this legislation as long as possible.
– I rise on a point of order, Mr President With due respect, I submit that under standing order 99 the question was out of order. Standing order 99, in part, states:
Question* shall not anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter which appears on the Notice Paper.
I also submit that the Leader of the Government in the Senate was completely out of order in answering the question. Standing order 100 states:
In answering any such Question, a Senator shall not debate the matter to which the same refers. .
I believe that this question and the previous one were out of order. I believe that the Leader of the Government was out of order in debating the matter to which the question referred.
– I uphold the point of order. In doing so I remind the Senate, as.l have reminded it in times past, that if honourable senators ask debating questions they invite debating answers. It is matter of self-discipline for honourable senators.
page 1318
– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. He will know that the Australian States are united- in a federal Commonwealth which is called the Commonwealth of Australia. Why does the present Government, the Prime Minister in particular, constantly use the title ‘Australian Government’ rather than Commonwealth Government*? Is it because the Federal Government begrudges. the States the powers which they possess under the Constitution? Is it a title adopted prematurely by the Federal Government in anticipation of the time when the Australian Labor Party hopes to have a single government for Australia? Is it one thing to use the title ‘Australian Government’ in correspondence and conversation, and quite another thing’ to change physically the title on Commonwealth buildings, as this Government has done?
-I think the word ‘Commonwealth’ is a good word. It has been used in relation to other political entities in the world. A number of States in the United States are called commonwealths. I understand that Massachusetts and a number of other States use that title. The popularity of the title was the reason it was adopted as the title of this country. With the emergence of the ‘British Commonwealth of Nations’, then ‘Commonwealth of Nations’ and then simply the ‘Commonwealth’ I think people became disturbed about the confusion over the title and the loss of identity of Australia. I am trying to explain to the honourable senator how the expression ‘Australian Government’ has come into use.’ A feeling began that there should be some expression which indicated more clearly the national role. It was fitting that the name Australia’ should be used, because of our increasing international contacts. I think the people of Australia welcome references to the ‘Australian Government’ and the ‘Australian Parliament’. When we speak of the courts the tendency is to speak, say, of the Chief Justice of Australia. Everyone knows who he is. This term seems to be a more satisfactory term than ‘Chief Justice of the High Court’. I believe that the use of the expression to which the honourable senator referred is paralleling the feelings of nationalism which are arising in Australia. I think the honourable senator will find that most people regard it as a welcome development and do not see anything sinister in it, as he might.
page 1319
– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noted the decision of the oil producing countries in the Persian Gulf to increase the price of crude oil from $3 to $3.45 per barrel, which is a rise of 17 per cent? Is the Minister aware that one-third of our oil requirements are imported and that the new price could have a major effect on fuel costs? Is the Minister able to say whether the Government’s new fuel policy took into account this possibility and whether this possibility is substantially the reason why the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, has been energetic in his endeavours to establish Commonwealth control and direction of our fuel resources? Can the Minister tell the Senate whether the locally produced oil can be held at its present price to minimise the effect of the Middle East decision on all fuel users?
– I agree with the honourable senator’s remarks about the foresight, wisdom and application of Mr Connor, the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Since the Minister is the expert on the matter, since he is taking all the steps that can be taken to safeguard Australia’s energy resources and our position in the world in regard to minerals and energy, and since he is trying to keep down the price of minerals and energy to the consumer, I shall refer the honourable senator’s question to him.
page 1319
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In the event that he has not seen it, I draw his attention to a report appearing in the newspaper, the ‘Australian’, today regarding the Prime Minister’s forthcoming visit to the People’s Republic of China. The lead-in paragraph states:
The Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, is using his visit to China to push Advance Australia Fair as our now national anthem.
The article goes on:
But he’s already sent word to the Chinese Government that he does not want God Save the Queen played on official occasions.
Allowing for the comments of the Minister a few moments ago as to the rising Australian feeling for nationalism, I ask him whether he is not concerned about the release of this information on the day on which Her Majesty the Queen is, as the first component of the Australian Parliament, joining with the other 2 components, the Senate and the House of Representatives, in an official luncheon at Parliament House, Canberra? Would the Minister agree that perhaps some inquiry should be made as to the unfortunate timing of this release and that the Senate should express some concern that no reflection was made by the announcement of this matter in these terms on this day?
– I regret that I have not seen the statement I do not know the circumstances of it. In the circumstances, I will take it up with the Prime Minister.
page 1319
page 1319
- Mr President, I am in the same position as I was in last Thursday. I wanted to ask a question of the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, but he is not present in the Senate chamber.
– I shall call the honourable senator later.
page 1319
– I direct a question about world peace to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as foreign affairs spokesman. Has he noted the recent assessment of the Kosygin-Tito talks as talks in which Yugoslavia declined to depart from its non-aligned stance in Europe? Can we interpret that as meaning that the policy of the Australian Government will be to dissociate itself from any moves by elements to fragment Yugoslavia, a policy which I know is supported by the previous Government’s spokesman on foreign affairs in the Senate, Senator Wright?
-I am aware of the occasion on which Senator Wright, when he was voicing the opinion of the previous Government, stated, in effect, that it would be contrary to the Government’s policy and to the interests of world peace if there were such fragmentation. I do not purport to give his exact words, but he used words along those lines. Yugoslavia is a country with which Australia has friendly relations. We would all hope that those relations would continue in the friendly and harmonious way which is of assistance to both countries. If there is any further information that can be given in elaboration of my answer to the honourable senator’s question, I will speak with the Minister for Foreign Affairs so that he may supply it
page 1320
– I direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I preface it by referring to a question asked by my colleague, Senator Maunsell, yesterday relating to an outbreak of virus influenza at Edward River Mission in Queensland. Will the Minister inform the Senate who informed him of this outbreak of virus influenza at Edward River Mission, Queensland? Will he inform the Senate why the Aboriginal and Island Affairs Department in Queensland and the Royal Flying Doctor Service were not consulted? Is he aware that a Government doctor from Cairns visited the Edward River Mission and confirmed, the sister’s finding that there were, in fact, only two or three cases of ‘flu?
– As I stated yesterday, I recall receiving a report. I cannot recall who it. was from or the method by which I received it. I think that would be known in my office. I immediately referred it to the Department for investigation. I thought that .was a satisfactory approach to adopt. I certainly would not state the name of the person who informed me. I do not think I should. It was a question of someone coming up with a report to the Minister. I will make inquiries of the Department as to the latter part of the honourable senator’s question and let him know.
page 1320
– On Tuesday last I asked the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, Senator Rae, whether be had any further information to supply relating to the presentation of the report of the Committee and he said that he would obtain some. I understand that there has been a meeting of the Committee since then. I now ask the Chairman whether he has anything to report to the Senate.
– As has been mentioned, on Tuesday last- 16 October- Senator O “Byrne did - ask whether, in view of the dme that had elapsed since the Securities and Exchange Committee completed taking evidence, I could inform the
Senate of the reasons for the delay in the presentation of a report and give some indication of when a report will be presented. Firstly, -I would like to point out that the Committee completed taking evidence only on 15 June 1973. The Committee has met on numerous occasions in deliberative session since then, both during the recess and’ during this session, to consider its draft report It should also be remembered that there was a period- during which the Committee was unable to proceed, that is, from the prorogation of Parliament in November 1972 until the Committee ‘s reconstitution in April 1973.
The Committee forwarded the first chapter of its report to the Government Printer on 20 August. A further 8 chapters have been forwarded since then. It was only on Friday last- 12 October- that the Committee received the first chapter back from the Government Printer for checking. Honourable senators will be aware of the difficulties that the Government Printer has been experiencing with his new computer setting machinery. Further chapters have been approved by the Committee. Several have yet to be completed. It has been and continues to be the Committee’s firm view that there is a special need for great care and accuracy to be taken in the compilation and checking of not only the report but also the many Committee documents being printed with the report. I am sure that has been the practice with previous Senate committees. One can instance the time taken by the Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources- a committee of which Senator O ‘Byrne was a member. It took over 4 years .to complete its inquiries. Bearing all those matters in mind, the Senate may be assured that the Committee is making every endeavour to bring in its report as soon as possible.
page 1320
– My question, which is directed to. the Leader of the Government in the Senate, may point out the difference between the present Government and the previous Government. I ask : Has the Labor Government given an instruction that no. union flag is to fly over or. near Parliament House during Her Majesty’s visit? As no message has been reported to the Senate of royal assent to the amending Royal Style and Titles Bill 1973, why has the Labor Government acted in such a manner as to ban the flying of the Union Jack? Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate give consideration to my request that the Government’s instruction be varied at least to permit a courtesy flag of the union to fly to mark Her Majesty’s visit?
– I am not an expert in these matters. Out of my comparative ignorance and innocence in these matters, I rather thought that the Queen would be pleased that this country of which she is Queen and which has a flag would be flying its flag. That may be the explanation. Arrangements may have been made on the basis that it is showing proper deference to the head of this country that her flag as head of this country should be shown and not that we should be flying some other flag as if she were not truly the head of this country and, as was put by an honourable senator earlier today, the first constituent part of the Parliament of Australia.
page 1321
– Has the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to the problem some breeders of merino rams are experiencing, namely, that many of their young rams are found to be sexually inhibited? What research facilities are available to such breeders for the purpose of ascertaining the causation of and remedial measures necessary to correct these inadequacies which can be deleterious to the future wellbeing of the Australian wool industry?
- Senator Wriedt, I assume that you are up to date on ovine biochemistry.
-That is what I would call a technical question, Mr President, and I will get a technical answer.
page 1321
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the announcement yesterday evening concerning the suspension of trading in shares of Queensland Mines Ltd and Kathleen Investments (Australia) Ltd on the stock exchange. I refer further to the statement by the companies that this decision was made in view of the fact that the Government had failed to make a decision concerning the renewal of the companies’ licences and titles to mining tenements in the Northern Territory. In view of the reported statement by the Minister for Minerals and Energy that he is in favour of the renewal of the licences, but as the matter is apparently in the hands of several other Ministers of the Government as well, can the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell me when the Government is likely to make a decision on a matter which is of vital importance to the many Australian shareholders of these companies?
-I am informed that the matter is under active consideration by certain members of the Government. As the honourable senator indicates, there are sacred rights involved and those sacred rights include not only those of property which is mentioned but also the sacred rights of the Aborigines. All those matters have to be considered.
page 1321
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation. No doubt the Minister is aware of the very good work that is done on behalf of returned soldiers by the Legal Service Bureau which, I believe, is in Sydney only. Can the Minister say why this service should be available only to some returned soldiers in that one area of Australia and not, for instance, to those who live in my State of Tasmania? Will he consider extending the Legal Service Bureau to all States for the benefit of assistance of those attempting to obtain repatriation pensions?
-The Legal Service Bureau has been operating in a number of centres. I do not think that the honourable senator’s statement about it not operating in Tasmania is quite correct. As I indicated to one of the Senate Estimates committees, my recollection was that last time I was in Hobart I visited the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s office and then and there someone came in to take advantage of the Legal Service Bureau. I do not think a full-time officer is engaged but I believe an officer is engaged part time. The Bureau was actually in operation while I was there. In any event the Legal Service Bureau is to be absorbed into the Legal Aid Office. This will mean that the activities will be considerably expanded and will cover ex-servicemen as well as other people. I think that what will emerge and is emerging out of this, because a great deal has already been done, is a much more effective service. Without any doubt that service will be operating not only in Hobart but also in Launceston and some arrangement will be made either directly or indirectly, to have it operating right throughout Tasmania.
page 1321
– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether it is a fact that Sydney lawyers, frustrated by mail delays and inefficiencies, operate what they call a city documents exchange which serves as a distributing point for inter-firm and other mail. Is it a fact that Member 427 of the city documents exchange is Mr Lionel Bowen, the PostmasterGeneral, and his legal partner, Mr Gerathy?
– It is true that lawyers in Sydney operate such a service. I am not sure what it is called now but certainly, when I went to the Bar in 1947, that service was operating between solicitors and barristers. Clerks or their offsiders delivered documents.
– I thought it was formed 2 years ago.
– No. Over the years there has been such a service. Documents have been picked up and taken around. This has been a common thing for a very long time. I think that it was probably institutionalised or more commercialised some 2 years ago under the previous Administration. I do not know about Mr Bowen. I do know that he was a legal practitioner. I do not know the circumstances of his partnership or former partnership but if there is any suggestion that Mr Bowen is in Sydney receiving legal documents, I assure honourable senators that he is one of the hardest worked members of the Government. He is not engaged in any kind of practice in the law. As everyone knows, he is engaged heavily in the activities of the Postmaster-General’s Department. For some reason or other his name may have been left on a document or shown on some list. The honourable senator may be facetious in pointing this out but the reality is that such services have been going for some time. I have some impression that there is some intention on the part of the PostmasterGeneral to extend the services of the Postmaster-General’s Department to minimise the necessity for any such independent service.
page 1322
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. I refer to a report in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ of 1 7 October in which it is claimed that the Postmaster-General’s Department has issued fee adjustment accounts to the holders of all private boxes and private bags, as being the difference in fees over the period 1 October 1973 to 31 March 1974. By accepting payments for these services originally the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, in effect, legally contracted to supply these services until 31 March 1974 at the fee paid. Will the Minister advise whether the action of the Postmaster-General’s Department in this instance sets a precedent for government services under annual contract fees?
-I think that because this involves matters of legal assessment of what has been done it is better that the question be referred to the Postmaster-General so that a formal answer can be given as to whether what has been done is lawful and whether it is appropriate in the circumstances that it should be done in the way the honourable senator has suggested.
page 1322
– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that a Murray Grey bull considered to be worth more than $8,000 will be presented by the Australian Government to the Chinese Government? Is it also a fact that the bull will be transported to China by a Royal Australian Air Force Hercules aircraft at an estimated cost of $20,000? If so, will the Minister inform the Senate whether the transport cost will come from the vote of the Prime Minister’s Department or from that of the RAAF which has already suffered seriously from a curtailment of funds and flying hours?
-I do not know the details which the honourable senator requests. I do know that all through history it has been the custom for the heads of governments to exchange presents. When Marco Polo went to China he took presents with him. When others went there they were dealt with graciously. The exchange of presents between governments is a friendly exhibition of cordial relations. It is very nice to know that primary industry is being recognised in this way by a present which is being given to the greatest country on earth, with some 800 million or 900 million people. I would think that the Senate would be very pleased to know that the Government is taking every care to see that the present is delivered in good condition. All Australians will be proud of the fact that our own Services are being used to transport the present and I trust that the honourable senator is pleased that the Government is taking this action.
page 1322
– My question which is directed to the Attorney-General, refers to the reported murder of the Secretary of the Federated Ship Painters and Ship Dockers Union- another violent incident in the long history of murder, violence and disappearances associated with that particular trade union. Whilst appreciating that the investigation of the killing is a matter for the State police, I ask: Will the Attorney-General undertake a study of all acts of violence and intimidation and of disappearances in recent years associated with that trade union and make an early report to the Parliament? I remind the Minister of his earlier statements that violence, whether from the Left or the Right, should be thoroughly investigated and eradicated.
-I will do what the honourable senator suggests. If there is violence or, in fact, murder which is associated in any clear way with either the operations of an organisation which is registered federally or in some way with the functions of Commonwealth instrumentalities or is within the legislative competence of the Parliament such as in the field of interstate trade and commerce or trade and commerce with other countries, that, I think, would be a legitimate concern of this Parliament. I do not know, and no one can know, whether murders or violence in some sphere have real connection with union activities, are related to some sphere of organised crime or might be a result of casual crime. Certainly, any kind of violence, and especially murder, would be disapproved of not only by everyone here but also by the trade unions of Australia which have a reputation of being free of the kind of violence and intimidation which has sometimes occurred in the United States when there has been infiltration from outside. Often this was done by big organisations in the United States which wanted to gain control of the trade union movement. I would hope that there is no emergence of that in Australia. However, I will look into the matter as the honourable senator suggests.
page 1323
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Services and Property. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the dispute within the ranks of the Queensland Country Party members in which it is disclosed that important members of the Country Party organisation have trenchantly criticised 4 Country Party Cabinet Ministers for alleged failure to implement Country Party policy? Is he also aware of the fact that one Country Party member of the State Parliament has been informed that his re-endorsement for the next election is in jeopardy unless he bows his knee to the outside directions of his Party?
– I rise to a point of order. If our question time is to have meaning and if the Standing Orders are to have application, this question has absolutely no relevance to a matter of public affairs in respect of which any Minister of this Government has responsibility.
– I constantly hear questions from my left directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate asking him whether it is a fact that something took place inside the Australian Labor Party Caucus or at some Labor Party Conference at Launceston or Adelaide. So far as I am concerned Senator Milliner is entitled to ask that question.
-If that is the attitude of honourable senators opposite I will withdraw the question.
– The Attorney-General wants to answer it.
– The question has been asked and I will answer it. I simply say that we have known all along that previous Ministers in the Australian Country Party have been dominated by outside interests and have been prepared to abandon policies which were in the real interests of those whom they purported to represent. The fact that their own constituents and members have woken up to this is entirely to be expected.
– On a point of order. Senator Milliner withdrew his question and in spite of that Senator Murphy is just gabbling on.
– I regard what has taken place as a piece of Senate education both for myself and for honourable senators.
– What we want is Standing Orders.
– You have Standing Orders all right. Please do not instruct me on these matters. I am not a provincial magistrate.
page 1323
– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this place. Will the Minister table the dispatches sent to Australia by the Australian Ambassador to Chile covering events relating to the overthrow of the Allende Government? Will the Minister request the Minister for Foreign Affairs to allow the Ambassador to brief the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on events in Chile?
-I do not think it is usual to table such reports. In fact I think that the honourable senator, having some acquaintance with the way in which foreign affairs are conducted, would be astonished if that course were taken. I do not think that anyone has suggested that under our system of open government such documents should ordinarily be produced. The honourable senator asked what could be done to instruct persons to give evidence before the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Surely that is a matter for the Committee to make its own request. But in any event I will pass the honourable senator’s observations and requests to the Minister.
page 1324
– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate the following question: As I have received no answer to my urgent question requesting the Government to instruct Sir Laurence Mclntyre to intervene in the United Nations on behalf of the Senate’s unanimous resolution on Soviet dissidents, when may I and the whole Senate expect an answer? In view of the urgent nature of this matter I especially ask the Minister to proceed as speedily as possible before the matter recedes so far into history as to be no more relevant than Caesar’s Gallic wars.
– I will try to do that because if we are to wait as long as that not even the honourable senator or I would be here to receive the answer.
page 1324
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Air. For specific reasons I desire to have a statement of the use made by the Deputy Prime Minister of VIP aircraft in relation to Tasmania. I ask the Minister whether he will afford the Senate a specific statement on that subject next week?
– This question concerns the Minister for Defence who is represented in this chamber by Senator Bishop. I think that the question could be answered in this way: The schedule of personnel who use VIP aircraft is made available from time to time. I do not know whether the honourable senator wants details of that schedule or whether he wants a statement of why the aircraft were used. I think that he would be unlikely to get such a statement.
page 1324
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Transport any information as to the whereabouts of the ship ‘Blythe Star*? When was the marine centre in Canberra first informed of the disappearance of the ship? What steps were taken to instigate a search for the ship? Is it normal for Australian coastal ships to report their position by radio at any particular times during voyages?
– From time to time I have given the Senate information about the activities of the Department of Transport in relation to the search for the ‘Blythe Star’ after it was first reported missing. I do not know the usual practice in relation to navigational aids or wireless operations but I shall try to get the information. I can say that I received a report at 9.45 a.m. today. A flare search, as reported, was not held last night as previously planned because of bad weather. This morning 6 aircraft are continuing the search- 4 Royal Australian Air Force aircraft from the East Sale base in Victoria and 2 Royal Australian Navy Tracker aircraft. A report was received this morning that an oily substance had been sighted in the sea and on the beach in an area between Sandy Cape and Pieman River on the west coast of Tasmania. Police at present are heading for the area of the sighting in a 4- wheel drive vehicle. They hope to have a sample of the substance to give to the Hobart police for examination tomorrow, Friday.
page 1324
– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate who represents the Prime Minister. How does the Government reconcile its attitude of hostility to acceptance of overseas capital in assisting the development of Australian resources, as instanced in the case of the proposed petro-chemical works at Redcliffs and exploitation of the copper deposits at Kapunda in South Australia, with its policy of predominant support of overseas advertising agencies as against Australian-owned agencies? Is it a fact that no government sponsored instrumentality or statutory authority has transferred its advertising business to allAustralianowned advertising agencies or enterprises since this Government came to office?
-In a discussion of these matters it is not wise to introduce terms such as hostility’ and then suggest that there is a lack of hostility or something in some area. It is better to look at exactly what is happening. The Government has made its attitude clear in various specific areas and there is a fair amount of concordance in the Parliament with respect to policy on some matters. I recall that the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, under the chairmanship of Senator Withers, presented an interim report last year in which there was general agreement on a number of matters in this field. I would much prefer that such matters be considered free of emotional expressions. The question of advertising was raised on a number of occasions by the Minister for the Media when he was in Opposition and I have seen a great number of articles about it. I think it would be wise for some statement to be made on the matter. I hope that the Minister for the Media will be back with us next week. I will refer this matter to him so that he may make a statement about what is happening.
page 1325
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Am I correct in understanding that one of the issues of Commonwealth stock opened by the Government in the last week or two is an issue for 20 years at an interest rate of 8.5 per cent? Does the term of the loan indicate that the Government’s expectation is that this excessively high interest rate for stock will be more or less permanent? Is this a record high rate of interest for Australian Government stock? How does the Treasurer justify the charging of this high rate of interest which must have the effect of relatively high interest rates being charged for home ownership and in the commercial market?
-I think it is safe to say that one cannot deduce from the fact that there is an issue at a high rate of interest which is to be payable over a lengthy period that that rate will apply to any other issue during, say, the next 20 years. I think it is common knowledge that it would not. The management of the bond market is a very technical area. The way in which bonds are issued has particular regard to the circumstances. I think the inference which the honourable senator suggested might be drawn can safely be rejected. No such inference can be drawn. There would be many examples over the years, in Australia and elsewhere, which would indicate that that inference is not properly to be drawn. The mere fact that such a period is provided for is intended to have a particular effect upon the management of the money market at the precise time and does not carry with it any suggestion that that interest rate will be the rate over 20 years in respect of other issues.
The honourable senator queried the justification of such action. The Treasurer is acting on advice as to how to deal with the existing rate of inflation. I remind the honourable senator that the Leader of his Party- the Leader of the Opposition in the other House- called upon the Government to use a range of measures and not merely to rely, for example, upon the 25 per cent tariff cut to deal with the economic situation. In his judgment, the Treasurer is doing that. I think the Treasurer should be commended. When the interest rate can be reduced I have no doubt that the pressures from the whole community will be such that it will be reduced. Not only Senator Wright but also members of the Parliamentary Labor Party and of the Labor Party itself, and persons throughout the whole community have an evident desire to get the interest rates down as soon as they can be got down because everyone knows the adverse effect that continued high rates of interest have on intending home purchasers. The Treasurer, as well as everyone else, will do his utmost to overcome the inflation which was inherited from the previous Government. We will get the economy into order. We are living in a state of great prosperity and everyone in Australia will continue to enjoy it for a long time.
page 1325
-My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to the new appointments to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Were those appointments made on the advice of the Minister for Labour or the Attorney-General? Are two of the appointees long term and well known members of the Australian Labor Party and serving executive members of the Australian Labor Party? If so, how does the Government justify the appointment of active political executives to a commission in which objectivity and impartiality on the industrial issues which come before it, particularly when many of them, such as the 35-hour week, have express political backing, are essential? Why should not a cynical public regard the appointments as a deplorable example of jobs for the boys?
-I regret what has been stated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. One commissioner who has been appointed- not a presidential member- I well know to be a member of the Australian Labor Party, and a very respected member of it. I am not aware that either of the other men appointed is a member or was a member of the Australian Labor Party. I simply do not know. If he happens to be, the honourable senator is better informed than I and Senator Cavanagh who is sitting beside me. He may be, but I am not aware of it. Last year a number of appointments were made by the previous Government to the very same body. A controversy arose in the Senate about them. I then stated my position on the matter and the position of the Australian Labor Party- that there was no objection to persons being appointed to these posts who had political views or who had been active in the industrial sphere. What else does the honourable senator expect if persons are to be appointed to a conciliation and arbitration commission but that such people will be experienced in this field? They may be experienced on the employers’ side. Equally, it should be recognised that under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as it has been administered over the years by all governments, people may be appointed who have been active on the trade union side. It would be expected that many of those persons would be members of the Australian Labor Party. I am not sure about this, but I think it was suggested last year that some who had been appointed had been members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I, sitting on the other side of the Senate chamber at that time, said that there was no objection whatever and there would not -
– I do not think that he was a member of our Party. I am not sure, but I do not think that he was.
– He may not have been, but the discussion went on on the basis that there should be no legitimate objection to the appointment of such persons. Persons are appointed to the judiciary who might have been members of a political party before they are appointed. It has happened in the case of the Senate. We have had a distinguished Chief Judge of the Industrial Court who was Attorney-General in the LiberalCountry Party Government and who served in the Senate. Is it to be said that he should not have been appointed to the Bench because he was a member of a political party? I think that the suggestion made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not only wrong but also is to be deplored. When those persons are appointed they cut themselves off from their political affiliations. They swear to apply the law and to carry out their duties without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. That is their oath of office and they carry it out. I think that Australians are proud of the fact that they carry it out. The suggestion made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that in some way the persons who have been appointed, who have either taken or who are about to take their oath of office, will not observe that oath is something to be deplored and should never have been suggested in the Senate.
page 1326
Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– Speaking briefly to the motion that the Senate do now adjourn, I remind honourable senators that this afternoon Senate Estimates Committees A and F will meet at approximately 3.30 p.m. Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber and Estimates Committee F will meet in room L11.I also remind honourable senators that Estimates Committees A and C will meet on Monday next at 2 p.m. Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber and Estimates Committee C will meet in Senate committee rooms 1 and 2. The Senate bells will ring for 2 minutes before each of these meetings.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 11.59 a.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 October 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19731018_senate_28_s57/>.