29th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1693
– I present the following petition from 15 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: whereas the Government of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.
According to the Chaner of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people to selfdetermination.
We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 2 1 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 14 and 75 citizens of Australia respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
– A petition similarly worded has already been presented by Senator Carrick. I therefore do not propose to move that the petitions be read.
page 1693
-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Overseas Trade, Dr J. F. Cairns, will be absent from Australia until 1 7 October on his visit to China. During his absence the Special Minister of State, Mr Lionel Bowen, is acting as Minister for Overseas Trade. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Education, Mr Beazley, will be absent from Australia until 28 October to attend the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s General Conference in Paris. During his absence the Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, is acting as Minister for Education.
page 1693
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting 1 shall move:
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the provision of financial assistance for certain purposes conducive to the advancement of the Aboriginal people of Australia.
Finanical Assistance to the States
Senator CAVANAGH (South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to the States in relation to the Aboriginal people of Australia.
-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That standing order 76 be suspended so that Senator Greenwood may present to the Senate the following petition received by him and signed by 5 citizens of Australia, namely:
To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That whereas it was reported in ‘Newsweek’, 26 August, page 12, 1974, that the Australian Government agreed to send $225,000 for ‘ humanitarian purposes’ to black guerrilla movements fighting Rhodesians, South Africans and Portuguese in southern Africa;
And whereas these guerrilla movements being members of ZAPU, ZANU, FRELIMO and FROLIZI and other kindred organisations have been guilty of 96 documented acts of murder, abduction, mutilation, arson, cattle maiming and rape chiefly against other peaceful Africans between 22 December 1972 and 10 May 1974, in Rhodesia alone;
And abducted 29S people chiefly school children from St Alberts Mission in Rhodesia as reported in the news media;
And whereas these above mentioned and kindred organisations have been guilty of many other barbarous acts of brutality as reported in ‘The Silent War’ by Chris Vermaak and Reg Shaay, and the ‘Real Case For Rhodesia’ by Charlton Chesterton, both books widely read in Australia.
So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to prevent material and other assistance being sent to the above mentioned organisations in southern Africa which are guilty of various acts of terrorism as such assistance would give the impression of agreement of the Australian people and the Government to the various acts of brutality which have been perpetrated by the organisations concerned.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
At the bottom of the petition appear the names of 5 persons who have signed on behalf of the Australian-Rhodesian Association of Victoria.
page 1694
page 1694
-Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether the briefing on Australia’s mineral policies given to journalists in the latter stages of the Prime Minister’s overseas trip by the head of the Minister’s Department, Mr Renouf, was given at the behest of the Prime Minister or the Minister himself, or on Mr Renoufs own initiative? If the latter is the case, and considering the embarrassment the briefing has caused the Australian Government, what action will be taken against Mr Renouf?
– In answering a similar question this morning the Prime Minister said that he had not given Mr Renouf any instructions in relation to this matter and that it was natural on a trip such as that undertaken by the Prime Minister that Mr Renouf, as well as the Prime Minister and others, would talk to the Press about many things. I certainly did not give any briefing; I do not know anything about it. In the general briefings that were given to me while I was away I was made aware of certain reports. I was asked this question yesterday at a Press conference which I gave. I answered there that this seemed to be an incident which had blown up between the two men, that the waters had been muddied pretty badly by people pursuing this matter and I certainly did not intend to muddy them any more. I said further that some disagreement had blown up between two intelligent people. I think it is best if the matter is left there. I do not think any purpose can be served by blowing up an incident into all sorts of things. I am quite certain that this matter will be worked out between the two gentlemen concerned.
page 1694
– The Minister for the Media will recall a number of questions I have asked him in the past about the possibility of providing television services to the Leigh Creek area in South Australia. I ask him again: Can he provide any further information on progress that has been made in the discussions on this subject? Can he now indicate what parties have taken part in discussions with officers of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board on this subject? When can the people of Leigh Creek expect to receive a television service?
– I am very much aware of the honourable senator’s interest in this matter, as I am sure all members of the Senate are aware, having regard to the persistent manner in which he has raised the subject at question time. I certainly recall the questions that he has asked me in the past. On the last Thursday on which the Senate sat I well recall telling the honourable senator, as a result of a question that he directed to me that arrangements had been made for officers of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to confer in Adelaide with officers of the various State departments. At this stage I feel that I should compliment the honourable senator for the consistent role he has played in ensuring that discussions on this subject are brought about, and in particular for the way in which he has managed to obtain the interest and involvement of a number of Government Departments and authorities, both
Federal and State, in the development of a solution to this problem.
I can tell the honourable senator that as a result of his representations and persistent questioning, the conference to which I alluded last Thursday week did take place in Adelaide. Representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board were present and at least 4 South Australian Government Departments also were represented at the meeting. I understand that as a result of the discussions that took place the Electricity Trust of South Australia in particular is very interested in the possibility of providing financial assistance which will be necessary if the television service is to be established in Leigh Creek. I have already pointed out that the cost factors have been the major obstacle in the way of development of television at Leigh Creek. I am now informed that, as a result of the discussions that took place in Adelaide last Friday week- again as the result of the persistency of the honourable senator- the State Government departments are now prepared to consider the possibility of providing such financial assistance or other assistance in order that the obstacles may be overcome.
page 1695
-My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the current state of uncertainty in the Australian motor vehicle industry, when will the government announce a decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on the vehicle industry?
– Do you want me to answer this?
– I thought that you might be able to answer it as Leader of the Government, rather than the Minister. As the report was received more than 3 months ago and as the situation within the industry in the meantime has rapidly deteriorated, does the urgency not demand a prompt and clear statement of the Government ‘s intention on the report?
-I ask the Leader of the Australian Country Party to put the question on notice
page 1695
– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I draw the Minister’s attention to the impression prevalent among the Cypriot community that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees appears to be very slow to assess the total refugee complement in Cyprus. Can the
Minister comment on this? Is it also possible that the Cypriot Government is reluctant to allow a large exodus of its population to other countries?
– I do not know what the situation is with United Nations refugees. I will make inquiries about it. The whole humanitarian situation in Cyprus is a serious one and will not be finally settled until we can get a political settlement of the problems that exist there at the moment. I will make inquiries and find out what I can for the honourable senator.
page 1695
-My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and follows Senator Withers’ question about Mr Renoufs publicised briefing to journalists and the subsequent statement by the Minister for Minerals and Energy that Mr Renouf had apologised to him. Is not Mr Renoufs conduct in so misrepresenting the position of Ministers in charge of another department that he is impelled to apologise conduct which is completely reprehensible in a member of the Public Service? Is not such conduct disgraceful or improper conduct within the meaning of the Public Service Act? Why does not the Minister take action under section 56 of the Public Service Act to suspend Mr Renouf? Is the Minister’s unwillingness to take such action an indication that under this Government in future public servants may speak as they like provided only that they apologise afterwards, or is this to be a privilege to be extended only to Permanent Heads?
-I have said in 2 places already what the situation is. I do not think anything is to be gained by trying to exacerbate this situation. I am certainly not going to exacerbate it in any way. As to whether or not there was an apology promised I do not know. I think it is a matter for the 2 gentlemen concerned. There is a condemnation by Senator Greenwood without his knowing, I suggest, a lot about it that this action was reprehensible. I think the matter is better left where it is and, as I said to Senator Withers, for these 2 gentlemen to work out between themselves.
page 1695
– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. In view of the fact that the present rate of postage at 10c for letters has had the effect of dissuading people in increasing numbers from exchanging greetings at Christmas time, and because in many instances this is the only occasion in the year when contact is made between relatives, friends and former acquaintances, would the Minister consider providing a 5c postage rate for Christmas cards which could be identified by the use of an unsealed envelope and, if necessary, some other readily identifiable distinguishing mark? Would this not substantially increase the mail flow and restore the revenue situation which must be diminishing because of the disinclination of people, including a great many pensioners and other people on the lower income level, to meet the increasing costs from year to year of this ageold and time honoured custom?
– I can only undertake to have the matter examined. It is a very involved question and may require an assessment by Treasury and the Australian Post Office. Although the rate has increased from 7c to 10c, because of the lifting of the weight restriction that was formerly applied there is an improvement in the present rate for the most commonly used letters. Previously many Christmas cards attracted a higher rate and would have cost 1 5c to post. They will now cost 10c. The provision of a special rate over Christmas would need legislation and would need to be considered first by Cabinet. I will have the matter examined by the Post Office. As to whether or not people use the service, the fact is that since the new rate was applied there has been a slight increase in the amount of mail posted when compared with the same period last year. I will let the honourable senator know the result of my inquiries.
page 1696
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Following the Minister’s statement that Australia has 15 years of petroleum supplies in reserve, based on present known quantities, can the Minister state the basis for his calculations? Did he take into consideration the problem of maintaining present production rates when some wells and fields are 80 per cent to 85 per cent depleted? I point out that this applies also to the extraction of condensates in gas fields. With the change in the Government’s resources policy, can we now expect to see some encouragement in the exploration for and exploitation of hydrocarbons in both the on-shore and offshore areas of Australia?
-I ask that the question be placed on the notice paper to allow the Minister for Minerals and Energy to reply in detail.
page 1696
– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. He will recall that in the last week of sitting of the Senate I asked a question similar to the one I am about to ask. Has the Minister seen in this morning’s Press a report indicating that the Secretary of the Community Radio Federation in Melbourne has criticised the proposal for an experimental radio station for the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Melbourne on the ground that it will undercut any attempt by the community groups to establish a radio station? Does the Government intend to establish or maintain a Government monopoly and indirect censorship over community radio services?
– I have seen the report in this morning’s ‘Australian’ newspaper to which the honorable senator has referred. I feel that I should make several points perfectly plain. Firstly, the radio station that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has been invited to establish in Melbourne will be established by the use of its standby transmitter and will be used by the ABC on an experimental basis. I have made that point quite plain in the past. I would think that that would make it perfectly obvious that the Government has no intention of undercutting attempts to establish community radio stations. Indeed, the position is quite the reverse. The Government, in particular my Department, has attempted to encourage the development of concepts of public access to the media. I very much doubt that an organisation such as the Community Radio Federation would have existed 12 months ago. But it was about 15 months ago, as a result of the initiatives of my Department, that this concept started to develop
In addition, I advise the honorable senator that, so far as the Government is concerned, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is guaranteed political and programming independence. What use the ABC might make of its standby transmitter in Melbourne is completely a matter for it. Certainly, the Commission has not been directed by me, by my Department or by the Government to engage in any form of programming arrangements. Those arrangements have been left to the ABC to determine. If the ABC, in its determination, is setting out to assist in the development of public access broadcasting, then I say that that is to the credit of the Commission.
page 1696
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. In the recent increase in pensions, why was the blind pensioner’s allowance of $6 a fortnight reduced to $3 a fortnight, which had the effect of giving blind pensioners an increase of only $7 a fortnight when all other pensioners received an increase of $10 a fortnight? In view of the great disabilities suffered by the blind, will the Minister urgently take action to see that this allowance is restored without delay and thus give justice to these pensioners?
-Senator Lawrie was courteous enough to let me know that he intended to ask a question on this subject. I have obtained some information on the matter from the Minister for Social Security. In fact, the reduction of the allowance to which he refers results from the phasing in of the abolition of the means test by the Labor Government. On 11 September last year the Government announced the first phase of its program to abolish the means test on age pensions. The first phase applied to all residentially qualified people aged 75 or more. In the same year the Income Tax Assessment Act was amended to make pensions and similar benefits payable to people of pensionable age, that is, 65 years for men and 60 for women, taxable, as from 1 July 1973. Pensions for the blind have been wholly free of a means test since 1954. The abolition of the means test therefore conferred no benefit on blind people. But the decision to tax those pensions received by persons of pensionable age would have been to the detriment of blind age pensioners. They were not receiving any additional pension but they were to be taxed due to the imposition of tax on pensions. This applied particularly in those cases where they had significant amounts of taxable income other than the pension.
To look after the interests of blind people who were in these circumstances a transitional benefit for the aged blind was introduced by this Government. On 1 1 September last we announced that the benefit would be payable at the rate of $3 a week. I should stress that when Senator Lawrie talks about our taking away a benefit, it is a benefit which we introduced, not one which we inherited from the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. The $3 a week benefit was designed to alleviate any financial disability which blind persons of pensionable age might experience when their pensions became taxable. I think it must be emphasised that when the Minister for Social Security gave his second reading speech on the Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1974 he said:
As its name implies, the transitional benefit was intended to be phased out over subsequent years as increases in pension rates improved the benefit rate to these pensioners.
As there was a substantial increase in the means test pensions in August of this year, the Government decided that the first step should be taken to phase out this transitional benefit. Accordingly, a reduction of $1.50 a week was made in the amount of benefit payable to these people. The single age pensioner who is blind would nevertheless have received a substantial increase of $3.50 a week. So the total of the pension received by the blind person, far from being decreased as Senator Lawrie ‘s question would suggest, has in fact been increased as a result of the actions of this Government.
page 1697
– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the truth or otherwise of stories circulating in Queensland that negotiations have commenced between the Queensland Government and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, or a subsidiary of that company, to establish a tourist complex on Palm Island? If such negotiations have commenced or are about to commence will the Minister intervene to ensure that only Aboriginal residents on Palm Island own and control any projected tourist company?
– All I know is that Mr Hewitt, the Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland, has made a statement that there have been no negotiations. As I have told the Senate, we shall introduce legislation this session to take over Aboriginal reserves in Queensland which, I am inclined to think, will include Palm Island. We shall see that Palm Island becomes land owned and controlled by Aboriginal people in Queensland.
page 1697
– I direct this question to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to the Minister’s expressed concern at the Japanese stop-go approach to purchasing wool and meat from Australia- described by the Minister as ‘just not acceptable’. I appreciate the Minister’s efforts to arrive at a trading situation with Japan beneficial to the meat producing and wool industries with continuity of supply being a basic consideration. I ask: Can the Minister indicate whether there is a real prospect of some form of rationalisation of purchasing arrangements with Japan?
-I indicated during my visit to Japan last week that the Australian Government is desirous of maintaining a regular supply of raw wool to the Japanese market. That is consequent upon discussions which were held in Tokyo in October 1973 when a delegation of Ministers led by the Prime Minister indicated to the Japanese Government our desire to be a reliable supplier of raw materials and foodstuffs to that market. Wool has been, as we all know, a volatile product over the years. The point I was endeavouring to explain last week during my visit to Japan was the fact that if we are to achieve the stability which the industry in this country wants we cannot do it on our own. There must be some comparable effort on the part of the buying nations to assist us to obtain that stability. Unfortunately, in my discussions with the Japanese Minister concerned, Mr Nakasone, he indicated that the Japanese Government at this stage is not prepared to enter into any arrangements with the Japanese industry to help bring about that stability. The Japanese Government takes the position that it is a matter for the Japanese industry to work out solutions to the problems that currently beset it.
page 1698
– Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether any formal discussions have taken place between either the Prime Minister or himself and any members of the Indonesian Government in respect of any action being taken in Indonesia in the cause of human rights to release political prisoners who, it is widely alleged, have been imprisoned without trial over a number of years? If discussions have taken place what effect do they appear to have had?
– Yes, such discussions have taken place. I discussed the matter with several members of the Indonesian Government -in particular with the Foreign Minister and Minister for Defence- when I was there earlier in the year. The Prime Minister mentioned this matter, I think, on his visit prior to my being there, and again the other day. We have pointed out to the Indonesian Government, as we have pointed out to other countries which have numbers of prisoners, that although this is a matter for their internal administration nevertheless it is a factor in their relationships with us, particularly as from time to time some of their detainees are fairly well known in Australia. The main detainee in Indonesia, of course, was Buyung Nasution who was well known in law circles in Australia. We have pointed this out to the Indonesian Government.
The Indonesian Government mentioned to the Prime Minister that people from Australia would be welcome to attend trials of political prisoners to see that they were carried out in a proper manner. I cannot answer the honorable senator’s question as to what effect the discussions may have had. I do not know what effect we have on the minds of these people. It is not only the Indonesians who have prisoners. I hope that we have a very marked effect on them. It is a difficult situation because it is the internal business of the governments concerned. At the same time it disturbs a lot of people in Australia and throughout the world. I do not blame them for being disturbed about it. Another thing the Australian Government tries to do is to talk to other governments from time to time about any influence they might have with governments that have prisoners. This matter has been mentioned on several occasions to the Indonesian Government
page 1698
– Has the Minister for the Media seen a report that a senior advertising executive, an awards chairman of the Australian Television Society, has complained that there is a shortage of actors available to appear in television commercials? What is the reason for this shortage and what steps, if any, can be taken to overcome this problem?
– I have seen the report to which the honourable senator referred. As much as I sympathise with the problem of the advertising industry in this area, I must say frankly that I am personally very delighted to hear that there is, at long last, a shortage of actors in this country. I suggest that the shortage has been brought about as a result of the initiatives taken by this Government since we came into office. This confirms the effectiveness of the measures that the Government has taken to increase opportunities of employment for Australians in the local industry. These measures include the points system which was so much under attack at the time when it was introduced by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
If advertisers are worried in this area, at least they have the compensation of knowing that for the first time since 1965- again as a result of the initiatives taken by this Government -according to the annual report of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, sets are now being turned on rather than being turned off, thereby bringing advertisers much nearer to market saturation. This means that advertisers may be having difficulty in finding actors for their advertisements, but at least they are getting larger audiences for the advertisements that are being placed and therefore, I would suggest, are getting a better return for their money.
page 1699
– My question which is directed to the Minister for the Media refers to the information that he gave to Senator Poyser earlier this morning. What is the Minister’s response to the request by the Secretary of the Community Radio Federation to delay the opening of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s public access station until a licence is granted to an independent community radio station? What precisely is the program for development of experimental public broadcasting under the AM frequency by independent community access groups?
– If the honourable senator peruses the Broadcasting and Television Act she will see that at the present time the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is empowered to license stations only for commercial operation. Therefore, all other types of licences have to be issued by my colleague the Postmaster-General under the terms of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Such stations are licensed, generally speaking, according to conditions and standards laid down and authorised by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. Certainly, so far as the program that has been established is concerned, I would hope that the Music Broadcasting Society of Victoria and the Music Broadcasting Society of New South Wales will be able to operate experimental FM stations by the end of this year. Certainly after the Cabinet decision was taken they were invited to accept such licences. They have accepted, and I understand that plans are now under way by them to get those stations going. Likewise, the Adelaide University station- also operating under the terms of the Wireless Telegraphy Act- has been invited to extend its operations. Of course, the Australian Broadcasting Commission is looking at the question of possible public access broadcasting by the use of its standby transmitter, apparently in Melbourne.
Having said that I emphasise, as I emphasised earlier, that these activities are being encouraged by the Government on an experimental basis at this stage. For the sake of the radio industry and of the community broadcasting section- a section that is very much interested in this area- we do not want to rush blindly into this subject until we have investigated it. We want to move carefully and cautiously so that we can investigate on an experimental basis the effectiveness of this type of broadcasting.
page 1699
– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. I draw the Minister’s attention to recent Press reports that a ban has been placed on the export of historical documents relating to arrangements made between Aborigines and explorers or early settlers. My question is whether the Minister’s action was directed at any particular document and, if so, what is proposed to be done about the possible loss of other articles which are of great historical significance to Australia?
– Yes, it was directed to a particular document, namely, one of the 3 copies- or, as they were described, ‘original copies’- of the deed of grant to Sir John Batman in respect of the land on which the city of Melbourne stands. The information was that this document was to be sent overseas for auction. The regulation which was introduced under the Customs Act prevents that. It is intended to make a wider regulation which will preserve other articles of national historical significance.
page 1699
– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: If, as reported today, he considers the United Nations a madhouse and the duties of being President of the United Nations merely a tremendous grind of interminable meetings and speeches which just go on and on, what are his motives for seeking the presidency of such an organisation?
-I noticed that when I used the word ‘madhouse’ in relation to the United Nations it was taken out of context. I have often heard that term used in relation to this place, too. The advantage which we have here over the United Nations is that we have a time limit on the length of our speeches, which it does not have. Yesterday I was asked a couple of questions about this matter. One question was in relation to my personal reaction. I said that the job is quite a grind- and it is. Today it is vastly different to be President of the United Nations, which has 138 members. There is much more activity throughout the world than there was in the old days. Watching Mr Bouteflika while I was there, and talking to him, I realised that the job is not an easy one. In relation to the question about the United Nations being a madhouse-
- Senator Wright has gone over there.
-He is doing well. Among the many people with whom I had conversations was Senator Wright. He is enjoying the place very much. Of course, the United Nations is a madhouse to the extent that one rushes from one appointment to another. Many Foreign Ministers are there in the early stages of a debate and they want to see you and you want to see them. It is a bit like this place when honourable senators go from one committee meeting to other committee meetings. That is the sense in which I used the term.
As for the reasons for my name happening to be the Australian name which has been submitted, the United Nations over the last 12 or 14 years, as it has become bigger, has seen the establishment of groups. We belong to the group called the Western European and Others. I ask honourable senators not to ask me where the tide comes from. That is what it is. It consists of 22 countries. It is the turn of our group to submit a name for the presidency to the General Assembly. I believed that in the early stages Australia should submit a name, along with the others. At the moment 3 nominations have been submitted. There could well be others. Theoretically there could be nominations from all 22 countries. This will be worked out some time next year. Generally a consensus is arrived at among the various countries in the group and one name goes forward. I believe that Australia should put its name in and that this name should be considered with the other names when the time arrived.
page 1700
– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. I have noticed that the Department of Repatriation and Compensation recently has been referring to ex-servicemen as veterans. Is the Minister aware of this change? Will he tell the Senate why it is necessary, as the term ‘ex-service man or woman’ has been in common use in Australia for over 50 years? Does the Minister agree that such a change would be not only costly but also unnecessarily confusing to thousands of people in Australia?
– I am aware that this has been done. Far from it being confusing, it was felt that this would help remove some confusion. There have been several changes in terminology. From now on those people who previously were described as ex-service men or women are being described as veterans. The term ‘war service’ is no longer being used. The term ‘ service ‘ has replaced it. The term ‘ war pension’ also has gone out of use. It is to be replaced by either ‘disability pension’ or ‘dependant’s pension’, whichever is appropriate in the circumstances. This has been done because of the extension of repatriation type benefits to people other than those who had engaged in what could be narrowly described as war service. There has been an extension of various benefits to national servicemen, for example. There has also been an extension of those benefits to people who served in Malaysia and Singapore and who were not in fact engaged in war but were engaged in various other duties on behalf of the Australian Defence Forces.
In fact, with the number of Acts and the number of benefits which were available to people for different types of service it was becoming increasingly complex to have a narrow definition for a whole range of people. As the benefits which are being paid are based on the same principles it would seem to be quite suitable to use this one set of terminology - a practice which in fact is followed in the United States, New Zealand and Canada where the word ‘veteran’ is commonly used to describe all of those people who are eligible for the various benefits. It is not believed that any additional cost will be involved. We are phasing the new terminology into the departmental documents as they are prepared. In fact, in the long run there will probably be a saving of expense and a saving of time in the use of the standard terminology to cover all of the veterans and the various types of benefit which they are receiving.
page 1700
– Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to a reported speech by the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr J. F. Cairns, in China in which he is reported to have said: ‘While Australia can claim to be no more than an honorary member of the Third World, the independent foreign policy we look for is really a Third World policy’? As the Prime Minister is reported to have told the United Nations that Australia did not aspire to Third World status, I ask the Minister which policy represents Australia’s official foreign policy. If the Prime Minister’s statement represented Australia’s official policy, will this be conveyed to the Government of the People ‘s Republic of China so as to prevent any misunderstanding as to our official policy?
-Anything the Prime Minister said in his address to the United Nations would certainly be known to the Chinese as well as to anybody else. I have seen a newspaper report of what Dr Cairns is alleged to have said. I checked on this matter before I came into the chamber. We still have not received an official cable in relation to it. So I do not know the truth or otherwise of the allegation.
page 1701
– Has the AttorneyGeneral seen reports suggesting that the Treasury had strongly opposed the 1974-75 Budget presented to the Parliament by the Treasurer? Is the Minister aware that these reports suggested increased taxation and higher unemployment as a cure for inflation? Is the Minister further aware that a former Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, has criticised similar Treasury advice given to him in 1971-72? Has the Minister seen further reports suggesting that Treasury has placed a submission before the Treasurer arguing for a higher tax on lump sum superannuation payments? Will the AttorneyGeneral institute an inquiry into these reports to establish their authenticity or otherwise? If they are found to be genuine, will the Minister advise the Senate how the reports came to be published before the Parliament and the Cabinet had an opportunity to consider their contents?
– Yes, I have seen some newspaper reports which have suggested that the Treasury was proposing policies on taxation which were contrary to policy decisions taken by the Government and apparently even more contrary to the policy of the Opposition. So I suppose, if there was any truth in those reports, it should be understood that the Treasury officials would be talking to themselves because apparently nobody else was listening to them. I am not sure and nobody else can be sure whether the newspaper reports are correct. We all know that we read in the newspapers a lot which is not correct. But the honourable senator raises matters of some importance. If in fact statements are being made which are contrary to Government policy in this way, I have no doubt that the appropriate Ministers- the matter touches the Treasurer and perhaps others- will look into them and take whatever action is necessary. But I do not think that we should look upon it as though these matters are being discussed before the Parliament has considered them, because it may well be that they will never come before the Parliament for consideration.
page 1701
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to various statements made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers on the Leyland P76 car, specifically to the gratuitous statement by the Prime Minister that the car was a dud and to the statement by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry that it was a lemon. I ask the Minister in view of those statements: Is it a fact that the Government intends to purchase a number of those vehicles for the Commonwealth fleet? On what justification do the Prime Minister and the Minister for Manufacturing Industry see fit to condemn a vehicle in an industry which is struggling due to direct action on tariffs by the Government itself? If it is a lemon or a dud, why are they buying it?
-I am not familiar with the statements which have been made about the car but I suppose that if people allege that a motor vehicle is a lemon they might find themselves in difficulty under the Trade Practices Act for suggesting that the vehicle has qualities which obviously it does not possess. If the Ministers have anything else to say in relation to the matters raised by the honourable senator I will certainly refer his question to them so that they may reply further if they wish.
page 1701
– I wish to address a question to the Minister for the Media. In line with the Government’s desire to make as much information as possible available to the public, can the Minister advise the Senate whether there are plans to extend the Australian Information Service to areas other than the capital cities, such as large provincial cities. In the case of the capital cities, are there plans to enlarge and extend those bookshops which, in the case of Melbourne at least, are small and not well situated?
-The honourable senator will recall that I have answered questions on this subject from time to time and have mentioned the successful operation of the Australian Government bookshops and inquiry centres. About 3 weeks ago I answered a question on the subject in relation to Melbourne. I mentioned that in the last 3 months of this year there was, from recollection, a 300 per cent increase in sales in the Melbourne bookshop compared with the corresponding period last year. We have now established Australian Government bookshops in all capital cities of Australia with the exception of Brisbane. I understand that the Brisbane bookshop will be opened in November and the Darwin bookshop in December. After that we certainly intend extending the facilities to a number of provincial centres. In addition to the mobile bookshop and inquiry centre that we have at present moving around New South Wales my Department is in the course of negotiating for the extension of mobile bookshops into all the other States. It has been a very successful innovation by the Government. I think I have already told the Senate that in the last financial year over $lm of revenue came to the Treasury from the sale of Government publications.
page 1702
– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister in his then capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs on 24 May 1973 in which he spoke at great length about a new resources diplomacy for Australia. In particular, he said:
I consider the resource question will become a very important aspect of our foreign policy, and to that end this Government aims to work towards a comprehensive, integrated resource policy which takes our foreign as well as domestic interests into account.
Has the Minister carefully studied that statement of 24 May 1973? Have these foreshadowed policies ever been clearly formulated and published by the Government? If so, when were they and where are they to be found? Have these policies not changed in recent weeks or months? Was the Prime Minister in his recent speech at the United Nations, when he reassured countries which depend on our resources that they will have steady secure access to them at fair prices, expressing any change in this policy or was he simply expressing the policies that had been laid down in May 1973?
-As I remember it the question was: Did I study the statement carefully? At the time I did. I do not see any great change between what was said in 1973 and what the honourable senator is saying now. I do not know what is in his mind. The general thrust of these policies is a correct one. I hope it is one that will be followed for quite a long time to come. I think it is quite right to say that we ought to be getting for our minerals et cetera roughly the world price. I do not think we should allow people to gouge out our minerals and sell them at whatever price they like just for short term gain. On the other hand it is necessary for our trading partners, particularly Japan which is completely dependent on imports, that we reach a situation where they can be assured of continuing supplies. They must understand, as well as other countries, that they have to pay a fair price.
Also we have to look at the long-term situation of those minerals which we may not have in abundance. There should be some sort of conservation policy. We ought to be moving wherever we can towards processing some of these ourselves. To me that is an unexceptional policy and it is one towards which we have been working . It is one in which I do not see any change. I think this policy has been flowing on. It is not an easy situation because of rapid development and because of the new approaches that have had to be made in the fields of mining and energy. Honourable senators will have seen statements recently in which Mr Connor talked of handling uranium in our own country. I think this is a good policy and it is one which is being pursued. But it is one which, when we are dealing with other countries, is naturally rather slow to implement.
page 1702
– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Can he inform the Senate whether there is a policy ensuring that employees of sensitive defence and security establishments are Australian citizens?
– I can only answer in regard to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Some time after assuming office as Attorney-General I directed that the policy be pursued that all officers be Australian citizens. Quite a number of them were not. That directive has been implemented. I cannot speak in regard to the other security and defence intelligence organisations but if the honourable senator will put the question in notice no doubt the answers can be obtained from the appropriate Ministers.
page 1702
– I direct a question to the Attorney-General in view of the reply he gave to a question in the Senate on 3 October in which he said that he hoped shortly to take some action in relation to the question of the protection of privacy. Will the Attorney-General assure the Senate that he will reject any proposal to introduce legislation similar to the Privacy Bill introduced into the South Australian Parliament by that State’s Attorney-General, Mr King? Is the Attorney-General aware that the South Australian legislation goes as far as defining the use of facts likely to cause annoyance or embarrassment as an intrusion into privacy? Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that many responsible citizens are gravely concerned that individual cases of unwarranted intrusion may be used as a basis for a similar Act, all embracing in its implications, which would inhibit fair comment and muzzle the media, especially in relation to their interpretation of actions of the Federal Government of the day and of its Ministers in Canberra?
-I heard Mr King speaking on a television program the other night. I thought that he handled very well the questions which were put to him about the Privacy Bill. I do not think this is the place to discuss the details of his legislation because he did say then that the legislation had been introduced and that it was being put on the table of the South Australian Parliament and would be there for discussion. He said that it would be considered for some time and that every interest that was affected would have the opportunity to put forward submissions. Mr King is a very innovative and wise Attorney-General. I am quite sure that if any improvements can be made to the Bill that he has introduced in South Australia he will be only too willing to make them. I think the honorable senator ought to accept that there is a widespread feeling that the concepts of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the Press ought to be able to live together with legal provisions which guarantee against unreasonable invasion of privacy.
page 1703
– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it correct that the Liberal Party’s new platform no longer pretends that the SEATO treaty has anything to do with Australia’s defence? If so, does this indicate that the Liberal Party has begun to catch up with the realities of the 1960s?
- Mr President, I rise to order. The question of what the Liberal Party has as its policy may well be a matter of great public concern to the people of Australia in the near future; but it is not a matter for which I think even Senator Willesee would claim any responsibility. I submit that it is not a matter of public affairs upon which questions may be directed.
– I think it is within the Minister’s discretion to answer the question. I call Senator Willesee, the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
-I hope that, upon whatever other ground Senator Greenwood may have raised that point of order, he is not resting his case upon precedent. I do not know what the Liberal Party decided. I was out of the country when the Liberal Party held its conference, or whatever it is called. So I am not aware of what was decided. I have just attended the Council meeting of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. The situation in relation to SEATO is that all countries that are still members of it are quite happy with the arrangements that were floated last year by New Zealand and Australia. Those arrangements recognise that there is a vastly different situation existing now compared to the time when SEATO was set up. It was really set up for the containment of the People’s Republic of China. That situation has disappeared. I could not imagine SEATO being established in today’s new circumstances. What has happened is that largely the military side has been taken out of SEATO. The countries within SEATO still work very happily together. All the member countries in the region- the Asian countries- are very happy with the way the organisation is proceeding, as are the non-regional countries such as the United States of America, Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia.
page 1703
– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. I refer to the decision by the Government to grant experimental licences for FM radio in Melbourne and Sydney and the decision to establish new Australian Broadcasting Commission radio stations. Can the Minister say whether discussions have been held with the Public Broadcasting Association and other interested groups with a view to the development of community radio? Does the PostmasterGeneral have the sole responsibility for the granting of new radio licences, whether they are experimental or otherwise? Will the Australian Broadcasting Control Board be the authority to ensure that objective, balanced standards are maintained in the establishment of new radio services or does the Minister plan to establish another representative body to perform that function? Can the Minister indicate whether it is intended that legislation be brought down to ratify the changes which are being proposed for radio broadcasting?
– I think I have answered already a number of the points embodied in Senator Jessop ‘s question. For instance, I have mentioned already that under existing legislation stations of the type envisaged by Senator Jessop can be licensed only by my colleague Senator Bishop under the Wireless Telegraphy Act because the Broadcasting and Television Act at present empowers the Board to license stations only for commercial purposes. It can recommend the establishment of stations on a national basis, as it does, and it can recommend the licensing of commercial stations, as it does.
But under the existing legislation it is not empowered to recommend licences for anything other than national or commercial purposes. Therefore it is the responsibility of my colleague Senator Bishop under the terms of the Wireless Telegraphy Act to license stations of the type referred to by the honourable senator. Generally speaking, they are licensed according to standards and conditions that are set by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
The honourable senator asked me whether discussions have taken place with public broadcasting organisations. I can tell the honourable senator that earlier this year my Department took the initiative of holding a public seminar to engage in community discussion with a wide cross-section of the community that is naturally interested in this type of extension of the broadcasting spectrum. In addition to holding a public seminar my Department also bore a portion of the expenditure in enabling the public broadcasting community groups to hold a seminar of their own so that they could formulate some ideas of their own as to how these organisations should be established. The manner in which the Government will move in future after this experimental period is, of course, a matter of Government policy on which I will not comment at this stage. However, I understand that in the very near future a recommendation will be put to me by my Department that I establish a committee of community broadcasters and others involved in the community to liaise with me and my department on the matter so that we can see where the land lies during the course of and after this experimental period.
page 1704
-Has the Minister for Agriculture seen reports of the impending withdrawal of Kraft Foods Ltd from the cheese equalisation scheme? As it has long been agreed that this company has been the linchpin of equalisation, what action, if any, can the Australian Government take to prevent the collapse of the scheme should Kraft withdraw?
– It is true that the Kraft organisation indicated that it would be withdrawing from the equalisation arrangements, but subsequent to that decision it has advised the Australian Dairy Industry Council that it will continue as a member and abide by the present equalisation arrangements. To overcome the obvious deficiencies in the present scheme a committee has been appointed in conjunction with the industry and the Australian Dairy Industry Council to look at ways and means by which equalisation arrangements can be updated and made more equitable throughout the industry and the States. A firm of management consultants has been commissioned to consider the matter. Between the two groups I would assume that within the next perhaps 2 months we should see an alternative plan put to the industry for new equalisation arrangements.
page 1704
-On 3 October 1974 Senator Steele Hall asked me a question without notice concerning the apparent delay in the publication of the report of the Great Barrier Reef Petroleum Drilling Royal Commission. The Special Minister of State has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
I understand that there has been no delay in the preparation of the report for publication. Whilst the Commission has taken some 4V4 years to carry out its investigations and compile its report, it was faced with quite extensive terms of reference and the difficulty of operating with two of the commissioners resident overseas- one in England and one in Canada.
The present position is that the report should be ready for presentation to the Governor-General and the Governor of Queensland toward the end of this month. However, the report is quite large- some 1,100 pages- and therefore the related printing work will take some time. It will probably be another month after the presentation date before the printing is completed.
page 1704
– Pursuant to section 44(3) of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972 I present the report of the Council of the Institute of Marine Science for the year 1973-74 together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.
page 1704
– In accordance with the provisions of section 28 of the Australian Film Development Corporation Act for the information of honourable senators I lay upon the table the fourth annual report of the Australian Film Development Corporation.
page 1704
– In accordance with the provisions of section 78 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1973 1 lay upon the table the 42nd annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
page 1705
– For the information of honourable senators I lay upon the table the second annual report of the Department of the Media.
page 1705
– For the information of honourable senators I present a report entitled ‘Technical Education in the Australian Capital Territory’ dated September 1 974.
page 1705
– I present the annual report of the Australian Wool Commission for the year ended 30 June 1972 and the concluding report by the Commission for the period 1 July 1972 to 31 December 1972.
page 1705
Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the inquiry into quarantine in Western Australia dated March 1974. Due to the limited numbers of the report available at this time I have arranged for reference copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.
page 1705
– Pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1 964- 1 973 1 present the report of the Council of the Institute for the year ended 30 June 1974, together with the Institute’s financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements.
page 1705
- Mr President, I present the report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the law and administration of divorce and related matters and the Family Law BUI 1974.
Ordered that the report be printed.
-Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the report.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.
– I move:
In doing so I should like to thank my fellow members on this Committee for what I regard as the most impressive performance by a Senate committee in the time that I have been in this place. Matrimonial law is a field of human anguish about which lawyers and laymen have strong and divergent opinions. But that those opinions have little to do with politics in the ordinary connotation of that term was illustrated by the deliberations of this Committee.
This report is virtually unanimous. On only one point of substance was there a disagreement, and this did not follow party lines. The Committee unanimously endorses the proposal in the Bill for the elimination of the concept of fault from the grounds for dissolution of marriage, and its replacement by one single ground of irretrievable break-down of the marriage provable by establishing that the parties have separated for a period fixed by the statute. There was a difference of opinion about the appropriate period of separation. A majority was in favour of the period mentioned in the Bill, that is, 12 months; a minority favoured a period of 2 years.
Those who take the trouble to read this report- I am sure that that will be most members of the Senate because of the interest in this subjectand also the documents, the record and the submissions that were tabled with the interim report, will see that a great deal of work has gone into this report in a very brief period. The Committee not only considered the philosophical and social implications of the Bill but also, if I may say so, it brought a lawyerly precision to the clause by clause examination of the Bill. In the result, the Committee has recommended many amendments ranging from small suggestions for more exact drafting to such major innovations as the proposal for the setting up of a totally new and separate family court of Australia. This proposal involves the assimilation of all family matters into one court, with active pre-divorce and post-divorce counselling not merely to assist reconciliation but also to provide for the reduction of bitterness and distress and alleviating ongoing post-divorce problems. It introduces the concept of a helping court. The Committee modestly, but I suggest justifiably, considers that its suggested amendments, if adopted by the Parliament, will result in an improvement in the code of matrimonial law contemplated -
- Mr President, I raise the point of order that the Bill is before the Senate; it is on the notice paper. It seems to me to be completely out of order to be talking about a report of a committee while the Bill is yet to be considered by the Senate and is on the notice paper. We might as well have a debate on the speech by the Chairman of the Committee before we get to the Bill.
- Mr President, in speaking to the point of order I suggest to you, to Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and to other honourable senators that a somewhat curious course was taken here. The Bill itself was left with the Senate. The motion which was adopted by the Senate was to refer the clauses of the Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That meant that the Committee was properly authorised to consider those clauses and to report upon them. A departure was deliberately taken from what might have been the usual procedure. The Committee was requested to inquire into and to report upon these clauses. The report is now coming back. I suggest, with respect, that the Committee is entitled to report and to do what it is doing because of the way in which the matter was sent to it. I think the Committee is within its rights in coming back here and reporting, especially when the speaker has been given leave.
- Mr President, I do not canvass the mechanics of the matter. I am critical of the mechanics because of the extraordinary situation in which you find yourself as our presiding officer. Here we have a Bill -
- Senator, to which Standing Order are you referring?
– This is out of sequence in the sense that we cannot debate a Bill before we get the Bill. In a sense this is in anticipation of the Bill.
– Normally it would be in anticipation.
– It is in anticipation. What I am objecting to is that Senator James McClelland is canvassing the Bill. I do not mind him putting down a report and saying: Here it is . This will be of advantage to anybody who will have a free vote on the Bill when it comes up’. But when the honourable senator starts to canvass the pith, the substance or the guts of the Bill as I heard him doing when I came in, I say that that is completely improper and out of order.
– In relation to the point of order which has been raised, let me say that an inquiry has been conducted with the authority of the Senate and Senator James McClelland asked for leave of the Senate to make some brief comments in presenting the report.
– He did not ask for leave.
– He asked for leave and leave was given. Therefore I rule that in presenting the report Senator James McClelland is entitled to make some brief comments.
– In any event, Mr President, I had almost finished the comments I was making on the report. I only wish to say that the Committee believes that its suggested amendments, if adopted by the Parliament, will result in an improvement to the code of matrimonial law which is contemplated in the Bill which was sent to the Committee for its consideration. In conclusion, once more I compliment the other members of the Committee on the dedication, skill and sheer hard work which went into the preparation of this report.
-I understand that Senator James McClelland moved a motion that the Senate take note of the report. I desire to advert to one or two matters in connection with the report. Firstly, I imagine that the report will be of considerable assistance to all honourable senators in the consideration of the clauses of the Family Law Bill when it comes on for debate. I also believe that the report will be of some assistance to persons outside the Parliament who are interested in the provisions of the Family Law Bill. I am receiving, as I am sure most honourable senators are, a number of submissions from concerned persons and organisations urging a course to be taken either in support of or against the Bill or in adopting an attitude in regard to some of its provisions. It is my impression that the persons who are sending the submissions have an inadequate appreciation of what the clauses of the Bill actually state. I feel therefore that it is a matter of some concern that such public debate as takes place should be as informed as possible.
I mention that for 2 reasons. The first is that part of the misapprehension which exists at the present time is due to what I have ascertained to be a fact, namely, that copies of the Family Law Bill were not easily obtainable and in some places frankly were not obtainable until some steps were taken to have increased supplies made available. I think there have been difficulties in assessing public demand for copies of the Bill. I believe there will be a very large demand for copies of this report. I only hope that the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, or you, Mr President, if it is a matter for the Department of the Senate, or the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McLelland) in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Australian Government Publishing Service, will ensure that an appropriate number of copies of this report is made available for the interested public. My impression is that it will not be a matter of having available just a few hundred copies; it will run into thousands of copies and possibly tens of thousands of copies if the demand for this report is to be likened to demand for copies of the Bill. I only make the plea that the purpose of this report will not be as well realised as it could be realised if an inadequate number of copies is made available. I trust that steps will be taken to ensure that copies are made available.
The second aspect to which I wish to refer is concerned with my regret that the Committee has limited its work. I notice in the first paragraph of chapter 1 of its report the Committee acknowledges that it was on 7 December 1971 that the Senate referred to the Committee the following matter for inquiry and report:
The law and administration of divorce, custody and family matters with particular regard to oppressive costs, delays, indignities and other injustices.
My recollection is that it was Senator Murphy who, with the full support of the Senate, moved that that matter be referred to the Committee. I think it will be recalled that throughout 1972 the attitude of the previous Government was not to proceed with its own inquiry into what were the necessary reforms in the area of divorce, custody and family law generally but to await the report of this Committee. To that end the previous Government submitted a very extensive report and commentary on the operation of the existing law and areas where changes could be made to that Committee, along with all the other bodies from whom submissions were received in response to the public advertisement. It was a matter of regret that the Committee had not reported by the end of 1972. But, as it indicated I think, in an interim report which was presented towards the end of that year, its task was a very large one and it had other matters with which to deal. My efforts throughout 1973 to ascertain how many meetings had been held by this Committee with a view to finding out whether the work was proceeding were unrewarded. But, as I understand from discussions with some people, the work in regard to this term of reference virtually did not take place throughout 1973. Indeed, it is only with regard to the term of reference relating to the clauses of the Bill that any work has been done.
What is the result? We now have a report, which I am sure will be valuable, on the clauses of the Family Law Bill. But we do not have a report on the whole question of the philosophy and the objectives which family law legislation should be recognising and endeavouring to achieve. That was the type of objective which Senator Murphy had in 1971 when he referred this matter to the Committee. It was the view which, I think, the Senate concurred in and it was certainly the view which the previous Government believed this Committee could well fulfil. I think it is a matter for regret that we have not received the report of the Committee on that larger scale of reference. I do not know why, having regard to the terms of reference, the Senate Committee has limited itself in the way that it has. The reference of the clauses of the Family Law Bill to this Committee stated:
That notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Orders, the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs be empowered on its reappointment to consider the clauses of the Family Law Bill 1 974 during its consideration of the matter previously referred to it, namely the Law and Administration of Divorce, Custody and Family Matters.
Obviously the consideration of the clauses of the Bill was to be a part of the consideration of the larger matter. What we are denied by this report is the consideration by this Committee of all the submissions which it received prior to 1973 in terms of what should be the objectives of family law legislation in this country. We have, as it were, an isolated examination of the clauses of this Bill.
Whilst that examination must take into account the views already formed by members of the Committee, having regard to the membership of the Committee and the time which they have taken, there could not have been full consideration of the earlier submissions. I regret that the Committee took the view which it states in paragraph 7, that the Committee did not consider that it had been instructed by the Senate to embark de novo on a general inquiry into the philosophy, history and variety of legal forms of matrimonial relations and divorce or to invite submissions at large from interested persons and organisations. I think the Committee has far too narrowly construed its task and it may well have done an injustice. I mention these things because I think they ought to be said lest there be an assumption that this report represents the complete and last word on the matters which are referred to it. It ought to be recognised as a report simply on the clauses of the Bill.
The third point I make is that many people feel they have been misled and let down by the course which this Committee has adopted. I have had these representations made to me. I think there is some weight in what has been said and I mention it because I think again that it ought to be recognised in any assessment of the report. The Committee did not ask for any general submissions from the public as to the clauses of this Family Law Bill.
– It sounds as though you have an advance copy in your hand, senator.
– Order! The question is: That the Senate take note of the report. What is happening is quite in order.
– I heard Senator Murhpy’s comment. Let me say that I received this report when it was circulated here today. I have not had any advance copy and I do not really know why Senator Murphy should say that. It is fairly easy to read the first couple of pages to get the gist of what is happening and to bear that in mind along with the representations I have had made to me beforehand that the Committee did not seek public submissions. That appears from the early part of this report. It means that the Committee has received the views of persons who are publicly known as adherents to the Bill. The names of those persons were set out at some stage in the report. They are Mr Watson, Mr Turner and Mr Piggott. I leave aside what Mr Yuill ‘s view might be but I think it is a matter of public knowledge that Mr Turner, Mr Piggott and Mr Watson have a very decided view on this whole question and their views came to the Committee, but I have not heard the views and apparently the Committee did not receive the views of other persons who are becoming prominent in the community in opposition to this Bill and who are wanting to put forward different views. I think it is a matter of regret that the opportunity was not given to those people to put forward submissions to the Committee so that their views could be considered by the members of the Committee.
– That is a condemnation of your colleagues.
– I do not know where blame should be placed, if it is a matter for blame. I think it is a matter for regret that people feel they would have liked to have their views put to the Committee but were not aware that the Committee was receiving submissions at this stage of its inquiry and no opportunity was taken by the Committee to make them aware of that fact. All these matters therefore seem to me and I hark back to the first point I made - to warrant that the fullest publicity be given to this report so that whatever the standpoint of persons interested in this Bill they can read it, endorse it if they wish to or seek to provide differing considerations if they wish to use differing considerations. I hope that time will be taken to enable that to be done and that adequate copies of the report will be available.
– I move that the debate-
– I desire to speak on this matter.
– I simply want to move that the debate be adjourned so that honourable senators might have an opportunity to consider the report because it is hardly fair to engage in a debate on the matter when most honourable senators have not read it.
– Would you provide an early opportunity?
– Yes, we would want to do that. I move:
- Senator Missen, do you wish to take a point of order?
– Yes.
– You will not be able to speak to the motion but only raise a point of order.
– I would like to speak on the adjournment.
– The question must be put immediately.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:
That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
– I would like to speak to this motion because certain comments have been made by Senator Greenwood which at this time should be clarified. As the honourable senator rightly said, he has had the oportunity only of reading the first couple of pages of this report and the impression should not be left that the matters which he properly raised have not been considered by the Committee. I wish as a member of the Committee to support what has been said by Senator James McClelland and to say that the Committee has certainly considered the questions which Senator Greenwood has raised.
– The question before the Senate is that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. If you have anything to say against that you may speak but you must not refer to the subject matter of the report or to the previous motion.
-I am denied.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1709
Motion (by Senator Greenwood) agreed to:
That Standing Order No. 76 be suspended to enable Senator Greenwood to present to the Senate the following petition received by him and signed by six citizens of Australia, viz.:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That whereas it was reported in Newsweek, August 26, page 12, 1974 that the Australian Government agreed to send $225,000 for “humanitarian purposes” to black guerrilla movements fighting Rhodesians, South Africans and Portuguese in southern Africa;
And whereas these guerrilla movements being members of ZAPU, ZANU, FRELIMO and FROLIZI and other kindred organisations have been guilty of ninety six documented acts of murder, abduction, mutilation, arson, cattle maiming and rape chiefly against other peaceful Africans between 22 December 1972 and 10 May 1974, in Rhodesia alone;
And abducted 295 people chiefly school children from St Alberts Mission in Rhodesia as reported in the news media;
And whereas these above mentioned and kindred organisations have been guilty of many other barbarous acts of brutality as reported in “The Silent War” by Chris Vermaak and Reg Shaay, and the Real “Case for Rhodesia” by Charlton Chesterton, both books widely read in Australia.
So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to prevent material and other assistance being sent to the above mentioned organisations in southern Africa which are guilty of various acts of terrorism as such assistance would give the impression of agreement of the Australian people and the Government to the various acts of brutality which have been perpetrated by the organisations concerned.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. signed:
Malcolm McEachern (President)
Dr Charles Huxtable (Patron)
David R. Bean (Vice Chairman)
David Clarke (Vice Chairman)
C. Dillon (Hon. Treasurer) on behalf of the members of the Australia /Rhodesia Associ ation of New South Wales. signed:
Bruce H. Dalton (Vice Chairman).
page 1709
– I move:
Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber, Committee B in Senate committee room no. 1 and Committee C in Senate committee room no. 3. It is proposed that the Estimates committees will sit until approximately 10 o’clock this evening and that at about 10.15 p.m. the Senate will be called together for the proposed adjournment.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1709
Reference to Standing Committee on Social Environment
Motion (by Senator Davidson) agreed to:
That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment the following matter-
The effects of the development in Australia of new inland cities, with large populations, and in particular-
the consequences flowing from the demands placed upon waters inland used for industrial and domestic water supplies in those cities; and
the steps which ought to be considered and taken for the proper management and control of such waters to prevent and control any ensuing pollution.
page 1709
Assent to the following Bills reported:
Queensland Grant (Ross River Dam) Bill 1974.
Julius Dam Agreement Bill 1974.
Sewerage Agreements Bill 1974.
States Grants (Beef Cattle Roads) Bill 1974.
States Grants ( Universities ) Bill 1 974.
Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use Tax) Bill 1974.
Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use Tax) Collection Bill 1974.
Nitrogenous Fertilisers Subsidy Bill 1974.
Universities Commission Bill 1974.
page 1709
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Murphy) read a first time.
– I move:
Mr President, the purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to amend the Book Bounty Act 1969-1973 to give effect to a recommendation of the then Tariff Board in its report of 2 1 September 1973 on Products of the Printing Industry. Book bounty to date has been an interim measure of assistance to the industry pending the Board’s inquiry. The report recommended that the bounty rate be increased from 25 per cent to 33 W per cent of cost of production of bountiable books to permit the local industry to remain competitive with overseas producers. The new rate will be effective from 17 December 1973, as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam) in a Press statement on 18 December last.
The report recommended also that packaging charges and protective covers be included in bountiable costs but that otherwise the production costs on which existing bounty is claimed, should continue to provide the basis of payments at the new rate. Text books as denned in the Bill are excluded from the minimum page criterion governing other bountiable publications which must contain 49 or more predominantly printed or illustrated pages comprising a total area of at least one square metre. The Bill does not seek to implement the report’s recommendation that saddle-stapled publications be in future excluded from bounty assistance. A survey of the affected sector of the industry conducted since the Board’s inquiry has led the Government to decide that saddle-stapled publications otherwise eligible, should continue to receive assistance in terms of this Bill. The subjective requirements of literary or educational character contained in the present Act are deleted but all other exclusions are retained. These relate to advertising material and publications the printing, publishing or postal transmission of which would be an offence against a law of Australia. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.
page 1710
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Murphy) read a first time.
– I move:
I ask for leave to have the speech incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
Mr President, the Bill now before the Senate seeks to implement the Government’s decision to adopt a recommendation of the then Tariff Board that assistance by way of bounty be afforded the manufacture in Australia of sealed unit compressors of 1.5 kW or less. The recommendation is contained in the Board’s report of 10 October 1973, on domestic appliances, heating and cooling equipment etc. Honourable senators will recall that the report advocated also a reduction in the rate of duty on sealed unit compressors of 1.5 kW or less from 43.125 per cent to 25 per cent. An appropriate amendment to the Customs Tariff has operated since 4 February 1974. On and from that date and until 3 February 1976, this Bill provides that a bounty of $5 each be paid on sealed unit compressors of 1.5 kW or less. Capacity of the local market is estimated at 400,000 units annually and bounty ceiling is confined by the Bill to $2m per annum with provision for the rate per unit to be proportionately decreased if the total of valid claims should exceed the annual ceiling. There are 3 Australian manufacturers of this type of compressor, the largest of whom has a substantial export market and is undertaking expansion and further mechanisation of production facilities. The steps being taken by the Government are intended to rationalise this manufacture.
The Bill further provides that to receive bounty a compressor must be produced and sold by the manufacturer during a bounty period for use as a refrigeration component in the manufacture of other goods that are subsequently used in Australia. Other provisions of the Bill are those normally included in similar legislation to ensure the proper disposal of public funds. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.
page 1710
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the terms of my second reading speech.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
I present a Bill to be known as the Remuneration Tribunals Bill 1974. This Bill, which will amend the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, has 4 major purposes. First, the Bill expands the formal jurisdiction of the Remuneration Tribunal beyond the limits set in the present Act, to give full effect to the Government’s policy that the Tribunal should fix the remuneration for all senior public offices in the Australian Government area. At present the Act provides for the Tribunal to determine the salaries of statutory office holders, but does not give it power over many similar positions which have in the past been dealt with by the same salary-fixing procedures as statutory office holders. Examples are the various offices which were included in the indicative determination which formed part of the Tribunal’s 1974 review. They included, amongst others, the General Manager of Qantas Airways Ltd, the Chiefs of Staff and the heads of several interim bodies for which statutory provision was to be made.
Second, besides expanding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal the Bill lists several groups with which the Tribunal is not intended to deal as they do not form a part of the higher salaries group and their remuneration has been fixed by other procedures. These groups include for instance, the Trade Commissioner Service, which ought not to be in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction but which falls within it at present. Thirdly, the Bill clarifies a number of miscellaneous issues which have so far arisen from the application of the principal Act. Finally, the Bill inserts a new Part in the principal Act providing for the establishment of an academic salaries tribunal along the lines announced by the Government in April. The Tribunal will have the power to determine salaries for universities and colleges of advanced education established by law in the territories and will recommend the rates of salaries which should be used as a basis for grants to the States.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill. Clause 6 amends section 3 of the principal Act to expand and clarify the jurisdiction of the Remuneration
Tribunal along the lines I have described. It lists the various categories of public office with which the Tribunal is to be required to deal, in addition to offices in the First Division of the Public Service, under section 7(3) of the principal Act. Besides setting out these categories the Bill makes provision for additional offices or appointments to be prescribed by regulations. Clause 6 goes on to list offices for which the Tribunal will not have power to determine remuneration; in general these are less senior appointments. There is also provision for prescription by regulation of any other offices which should be excluded from the Tribunal ‘s jurisidiction
Clause 7 amends section 4 of the principal Act. It relaxes the very stringent conditions governing eligibility for membership of the Remuneration Tribunal. As the Act stands at present, a person cannot be appointed to the Tribunal if he has at any time served in one of the offices within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Bill provides that a person should be disqualified for membership only if he has served in a relevant office within the previous 7 years. Clause 7 also provides that a member of the Tribunal shall not be appointed as chairman if he has in the past 7 years been a member of the full time staff of a university or college of advanced education. This provision is included because the Chairman of the Remuneration Tribunal will be constituted as the Academic Salaries Tribunal.
Clause 8 amends section 6 of the principal Act which deals with judges and Ministers of State. Its purpose is to include with judges, persons who have the same status by virtue of an Act. This means that the Tribunal will report on the remuneration of such persons rather than determine it. This provision has been introduced to cover the case of the President and Deputy Presidents of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There is no constitutional obstacle to the Tribunal having power to determine salaries for these people but it is desirable for the sake of consistency that they should be considered by the Tribunal in conjunction with judges. Clause 8 also revises the existing provision in section 6 of the principal Act dealing with matters ‘significantly related to remuneration’. It authorises the Tribunal to inquire into matters which are, or which it considers to be, significantly related to the remuneration of Ministers and judges either on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister.
Clause 9 amends section 7 of the principal Act which gives the Tribunal power to determine remuneration for parliamentarians, First Division officers and statutory office-holders. It introduces a revised provision dealing with ‘significantly related’ matters similar to that in clause 8. It also provides that where a body has funds available for the payment of remuneration they shall be used for this purpose. The principal Act at present provides that remuneration in every case be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and this is inconsistent with long standing arrangements for a number of companies and statutory corporations. Clause 9 also provides that members of Parliament or candidates for election will not be entitled to any remuneration for holding a public office, that persons in the full-time service of Australia will not receive payment for holding a part-time office except as prescribed, and that the holders of judicial offices in the States and other countries will not receive remuneration except as prescribed.
Clause 10 amends section 8 of the principal Act to make an exception from the general rule that the Tribunal must deal at the one time with all the offices in its jurisdiction. It provides for the Tribunal to make individual determinations for new offices and offices whose functions have substantially changed since the Tribunal last reported.
Clause 1 1 amends the principal Act by the insertion of a new Part establishing the Academic Salaries Tribunal. As I said earlier the Academic Salaries Tribunal will be constituted by the Chairman of the Remuneration Tribunal. There is provision for appointment of assessors. The Tribunal will deal with academic staff in universities and colleges of advanced education. As I indicated earlier it will determine salaries for academic staff in institutions established by the laws of Australia in the territories. It will also report on the rates of salaries for academic staff in other institutions of tertiary education and recommend the rates to be used for making grants to the States.
Besides considering academic salaries, the Tribunal may report on the salaries of vice chancellors, principals, other chief executive officers, and other senior officers such as registrars and bursars in universities and colleges of advanced education. The procedures relating to the Tribunal’s determinations will be the same as for the remuneration tribunal. The Minister will arrange for a copy of each determination to be laid before each House within 15 sitting days of receipt by him and either House will be able to disallow any determination within 15 sitting days after a copy has been laid before it. The Tribunal itself will have power to decide when to make reports and determinations. The provisions relating to methods of inquiry by the Tribunal are the same as for the Remuneration Tribunal. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
– The Opposition is not opposed to this Bill. Basically it includes the academics in the purview of the Remuneration Tribunal and it has some tidying up machinery provisions. It does not affect parliamentarians in any way, as I understand it. It is to bring in the academics. It takes out trade commissioners. It sorts out the list. It is mainly a Bill of a technical character, apart from putting academics ‘ salaries within this whole range. The Opposition wishes it a speedy passage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1712
Debate resumed from 3 October on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– I understand that the Government wants a cognate debate on the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1974 and the Commonwealth Banks Bill 1974.
– The Government has no objection to a cognate debate taking place
– I rise to speak on a subject which we have had time to learn about- to read about and to make up our mind on the views we hold on it. I would have thought that every honourable senator has views on the tourist industry and the national banking corporation. I understand that the Government desires a speedy passage of these Bills to get on with the job. I will co-operate with the Government although I would have enjoyed the privilege of addressing the Senate on certain aspects of tourism which I believe need to be given great stimulus in this country. These 2 Bills are important in one respect. The first Bill is the Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1974. The kernel of the amending legislation is that section 15 of the principal Act is deleted and the following section substituted:
IS. The Commission is established for the purpose of the encouragement-
of visits to Australia by people from other countries, and
b) of travel in Australia, including travel by people from other countries.
As you, Mr President, would be aware, prior to this legislation the duties of the Australian Tourist Commission were to encourage and promote visits by overseas tourists to this country. This legislation will allow an enlarged Commission to promote and encourage travel within Australia. Any government or organisation that will help Australians to know Australia rather than going overseas for their fun, I think, is doing a worthwhile job. The more we know of this country the more loyal we will be to it and the more cooperative we will be in helping its development.
The Commonwealth Banks Bill which is to amend the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959-73 in respect of the functioning of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, in paragraph 3 states:
Section 72 of the Principal Act is amended-
That means that the resources of the Development Bank are to be made available under certain conditions to help promote tourism in Australiato help the private tourist facilities. This must be beneficial to our whole economy. Unfortunately the tourist industry in Australia today is lagging. It is feeling a recession. The private enterprise sector is finding it almost impossible to keep up with the spiralling costs. Charges are increasing and dividends are getting lower or are non-existent. Unless the Development Bank comes into the picture with the money needed for investment in this industry private enterprise will dry up.
I commend the Government for introducing this legislation. I make one important request to the Government, to the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) and to the Australian Tourist Commission: Now that we will give them authority to promote and stimulate tourism within Australia I hope that they will have full co-operation from the State governments which have carried the burden of this particular aspect of tourism through the years. We want assistance; we want co-operation. It must be remembered that the States do not get added revenue from the tourist industry; it is the Commonwealth Government that gets the added revenue. The only way in which the States can get added revenue is to introduce a tax on tourism, such as a bed tax or a petrol tax. But if this Government is of the mind to co-operate with the States, as this legislation gives it power to do, I believe that only success can come to an industry that should be daily helping to strengthen the economic future of Australia. On behalf of the Opposition Parties I give my support to the Bill.
-Mr President, my Party does not oppose the Australian Tourist Commission Bill. Possibly we have some little misgivings about it in the sense that we would not like to see the Australian Tourist Commission grow to have an absolute monopoly in the tourist field to the exclusion of the existing State and local authority organisations and private people who promote tourism in various parts of Australia. The Commonwealth Banks Bill is designed to enable the Commonwealth Development Bank to provide finance for tourist facilities. The Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in his second reading speech said:
Most operators in the industry seeking development finance are experiencing difficulty in obtaining new funds on satisfactory terms, particularly for smaller undertakings in remote areas, and the proposed legislation is designed to help alleviate these problems.
We think that that is very commendable and should be encouraged. But I should like the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) to elaborate a little on the following passage which appears in the second reading speech:
The amendment to section 72 will also empower the Development Bank to provide advice and assistance to tourist enterprises.
Does this mean that the Bank will set up a new department for the purpose of providing advice? I presume that the assistance will be financial assistance as well as other assistance. Subject to that, we have no opposition to the Bill and we support it. But I should like a little explanation of that point.
– in reply- The Government appreciates the speedy passage that is being given to this legislation by the Opposition. I shall reply briefly to the points that have been made by Senator Marriott and Senator Lawrie. The Australian
Tourist Commission Bill and the Commonwealth Banks Bill are two of several initiatives in tourism being undertaken by the Government. In regard to the point about co-operation between the Australian Government and the States which was raised by Senator Marriott, I can inform the honourable senator that next Friday there is to be a meeting of the Australian Tourist Ministers Council which consists of the Minister for Tourism in each of the States, together with the Federal Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) and the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Bryant). The Council will be working out the degree of co-operation that will be extended.
As regards the point raised by Senator Lawrie which concerned the reference in the second reading speech by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) to the Development Bank and to the initiatives to be undertaken by the Bank, I think that the phrase to which Senator Lawrie drew attention indicates that the Bank will be developing its own expertise and its own financial arrangements in the activities in which it is involved in the development of the tourist industry. The Bank has industrial development expertise, and we suggest that it also will have tourist development expertise.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1714
Consideration resumed from 3 October on motion by Senator Wriedt:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1714
– Order! To enable Estimates Committees A, B and C to meet, the sitting of the Senate is suspended until approximately a quarter past 10 this evening. Estimates Committees will meet at 2.15 p.m. Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber, Committee B will meet in Committee Room 1 and Committee C will meet in Committee Room 3. I bring to the attention of honourable senators the fact that the bells will be rung for 5 minutes prior to the meeting of the Estimates Committees at 2. 1 5 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 1.2 to 10.15 p.m.
page 1714
Order of Precedence- Prison System in Queensland- Unemployment in TasmaniaReport by Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs
Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) proposed:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I am bound to state to honourable senators that I am not an adjournment speaker. I learned this lesson many years ago when the Ministry kept us here until about 3.30 in the morning pushing some of its legislation through the Senate. The adjournment was then moved and I thought that I would have some amusement by keeping the Ministry sitting for about 2 hours after that, and I did.
– Why break your record?
-I am quite sure that Senator Cavanagh will remember the incident. I merely make this preliminary explanation and state that I have no intention of keeping honourable senators for another 2 hours tonight. Senator Cavanagh will be very relieved to hear that.
Mr President, the reason I address myself to the motion for the adjournment of the Senate involves a matter that has caused me a great deal of disturbance. What causes my disturbance is to read in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ today where the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ transmits an historical method of communication which is a variant of the court circular in London. It comes under the heading in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of ‘Vice-regal’. I think honourable senators will find a similar section in the Melbourne Age’. But this morning, the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ conveys under the heading of ‘Viceregal’ the following information. With the permission of honourable senators and you, Mr President, I would like to read what is stated to the Senate:
The Governor-General and his daughter, Mrs Kibble, held a dinner at Government House, Canberra, last night, in honour of His Royal Highness The Prince Charles. Guests at dinner were the Honourable the Prime Minister and Mrs Whitlam, the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives and Mrs Cope, the Honourable the President of the Senate and Mrs O’Byrne, -
The notice then goes on to state who were the other guests. I raise this matter because it involves a question of constitutional priority. The constitutional priority involved in this situation is that the Constitution of Australia states that the
Parliament of Australia shall be composed of a Parliament of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I point out to honourable senators that I am not quoting the exact words in the Constitution. Traditionally, in these terms, the President of the Senate takes precedence of Mr Speaker, who is the presiding officer of the House of Representatives. Some 10 years ago the Prime Minister of the day, the Right Honourable Harold Holt, in an administrative sense changed the order of precedence. I want honourable senators to observe this phrase: Administratively he changed the order of precedence. I think it is proper that I should advise honourable senators that the table of precedence is not a matter for any Prime Minister. It is a matter for the GovernorGeneral in the terms that we understood up to, say, 4 or 5 years ago. Of course, in present day terms, the Governor-General is the Viceroy. In other words, he occupies the position of Queen of Australia in the absence of the Queen from Australia.
How is the table of precedence established? The table of precedence is a table of precedence as established by the sovereign who lays down what is the order of precedence in Australia. It is the sovereign- the Head of State- who lays down the table of precedence. The Prime Minister of Australia administratively is seeking to change the table of precedence. As far as I know, there has been no consent to the change of precedence. Mr President and honourable senators, I go back to indicate to you that this question was raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) some time ago. Why does a court circular or, if you like, a vice-regal notice suddenly appear in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’- I have not looked at the ‘Age’ newspaper but I assume it would be in it also- showing that the Speaker of the House of Representatives has taken precedence of the President of the Senate in the area of the vice-royalty? This is what I wish to know. How has this been achieved? Has there been a change in the table of precedence, bearing in mind that the table of precedence cannot be altered except by the sovereign or her viceroy? The table of precedence cannot be altered by a fiat of the Prime Minister of the day.
The present table of precedence was established by the consent of the sovereign and by the Right Honourable Robert Gordon Menzies when he was Prime Minister. My information indicates that the table of precedence that he submitted to the sovereign was accepted by the sovereign. There is no evidence to indicate that the sovereign has consented to any change of precedence since that time, except that there has been an attempt- I think a successful attempt- to change administratively the table of precedence. Mr President, I have no worries about myself as your predecessor. But, Sir, I have a great deal of worry about you as the representative of the Senate, the elected leader of the Senate and the President of the Senate. You should not be put below Mr Speaker in the table of precedenceput below Mr Speaker not by any consent of the sovereign but by administrative practice.
Honourable senators will recall that when His Imperial Majesty, the Shah of Iran, was entertained in Parliament House by the Prime Minister, not by the Parliament, it was assumed that the table of precedence would be issued by the Prime Minister’s Department to put you, Sir, below the salt, as it were. I know that those people who convey messages to the media of one sort or another will make sneering remarks that the senators are preoccupied by a miserable matter of who should be on the right or the left. That is not involved here. What is involved is the constitutional proprieties of the Senate versus the House of Representatives. The Constitution laid down quite clearly and unequivocably that the Senate takes precedence of the House of Representatives. My worry is that the circumstances commenced by the late Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Harold Holt, are now being continued by the present Prime Minister to usurp the prerogative of” the sovereign or, in this case, the viceroy- the Governor-General of Australia. I wish to know by what right a Vice-Regal notice can be sent to the newspapers of Australia putting below the Speaker of the House of Representatives the President of the the Senate, who traditionally for 70 years has been acknowledged constitutionally and without qualification as being senior to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on these ceremonial occasions.
– It could be inaccurate reporting.
-I do not accept that for one single solitary moment. It is not the first time that this has happened. I merely mention for example that when his Imperial Majesty the Shah of Iran was in Parliament House only a fortnight ago the President of the Senate was put below the salt. By what means is the Presiding Officer of the Senate put below the salt? It is true that the host on this occasion was the Prime Minister of Australia, and he was occupying Parliament House by permission of the Presiding Officers. The Prime Minister of Australia does not hold court in Parliament House except by consent of the Presiding
Officers. He cannot have luncheons or dinners in Parliament House except by consent of the Presiding Officers. Undoubtedly you, Mr President, gave your consent that the Prime Minister should hold a luncheon here in Parliament House. But how can he ask the host, who is you, Sir, to hold a luncheon or a dinner or whatever it is in Parliament House and then put you, the senior host, below the salt? That is what happened.
A constitutional matter is involved in this. It is the propriety of subverting the constitutional system of administrative processes. I want to say in most categorical terms that if this method of administrative subjugation of you, Sir, as President of the Senate, is continued, there is only one course left for the Senate; that is for the Senate in its parliamentary sense, not subjugated to any temporary Prime Minister or any Prime Minister who passes through the corridors like a shadeGod knows, we have seen a few of them in the last few years- to sustain the parliamentary propriety and authority. This simple administrative act to which I have referred involves an attempt, firstly, to subvert the proprieties of parliamentary authority and, second, to subjugate the parliamentary authority of a Prime Minister who is temporarily embedded in this place. I say no more at this stage, except to draw honourable senators’ attention to the unfortunate position in which you, Mr President, find yourself and to assure you that the Senate will support you in any endeavour you may make to support and sustain the authority of the Senate.
- Mr President, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was kind enough to inform me a little while ago that he proposed to raise this matter in the adjournment debate. It is true that the country is faced with a great number of problems which to most of us transcend the problem which he has raised. Nevertheless, I suppose it is correct to say that each of the questions which are raised, whether they be little or great, must be dealt with in their own way. The honourable senator raised the issues of tradition and the proper procedures in dealing with questions of this nature. He is entitled to do so. There are other bases upon which such questions ought to be approached. One of those is fair dealing between the 2 Houses, the members of the Senate and the members of my Party. On 25 September 1974 a luncheon was held for the Shah of Iran in the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. That day of the week was also the day on which traditionally the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party meets in its conclave called the Caucus. After the luncheon I was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) on this subject. He said:
My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is there any substance in the allegation, or rumour, to put it at that level, which is about the Senate that the Government is contemplating any change in the Table of Precedence affecting the longstanding tradition of the Parliament that the President of this chamber take precedence over the Speaker of the other place?
I answered:
Mr President, I should be quite frank with the Senate. There has been some uncertainty, let me say, in this matter. I inform the Senate that there has been no change in the Table of Precedence. I inform the Senate that the present position is that the President takes precedence over the Speaker in accordance with longstanding tradition.
Mr President, as you and my colleagues know, there had been a meeting of my Party on that day, prior to the luncheon for the Shah. I had good reason to believe that the statement that I made to the Senate following the luncheon for the Shah reflected the position as I understood it. I had good reason to believe that that was in complete accordance with the decision which had been taken by my Party. This evening, shortly after this matter was drawn to my attention, I had the opportunity to consult Senator Wheeldon, who was intimately acquainted with the matter, and he confirmed my belief that what I put to the Senate was correct. I had no intimation before this evening that there had been any change in the circumstances.
Mr President, I have had some discussion this evening. I do not propose to acquaint the Senate with it, but I take the view that apart from tradition and precedence there is a question also of fair dealing as between members of this House and members of my Party. My understanding of the position is, as I stated on 25 September 1974, that the President take precedence over the Speaker in accordance with longstanding tradition.
– I rise to support both the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) and Senator Sir Magnus Cormack who brought this matter to the light of day. Following a question asked by my Leader ‘:a the reply given by Senator Murphy, I was honoured by receiving an official request, Mr President, to have the privilege of representing you at Fairbairn Airport on Saturday afternoon last to join in the presentation and welcome to His Royal Highness Prince Charles. On my arrival in Canberra I was given the daily brief and the instructions for participants in clear bold type. I found that the order of precedence was Mr Fry who I think came into this Parliament on 18 May for the first time as a member for one of the Australian Capital Territory electorates for the House of Representatives. He was representing Mr Speaker. I was next in line representing you, Mr President, and proudly so. I have been a member of the Senate for nearly 21 years. Then came the Chief of the General Staff, Admiral Sir Victor Smith, Sir John Bunting and Mr Scholtens. Knowing the feeling in the Senate, having some good knowledge of what went on in Caucus and knowing of the belief that there the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had expressed the view that the holder of the office for the longer period should be the senior, I made inquiries of an unofficial nature. All I am prepared to say is that over the weekend, having made these inquiries, I was informed that as far as my informant was able to say the Prime Minister’s Department had been given a direction and that direction had not been changed.
– I do not want to detain the Senate for very long either. I will be like Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and confine my remarks. I want to raise a couple of points in relation to justice in Queensland gaols and the justice system in Queensland generally. The Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) is probably aware of these matters because a lot of people have written to him along these lines. But there are a number of things that I want to read into the Hansard record because they are of paramount importance so far as the State of Queensland is concerned and so far as justice in Australia is concerned. It is significant that the Queensland Government never listens to complaints from the people. The dominating coalition Party in Queensland is fortified by the fact that it has 19 per cent of the people’s vote in Queensland so that they are able to dictate to all sections of the community behind a strong fortification of 19 per cent of the vote. There have been periods when even Government Ministers have said they would look into this and would arrange for a royal commission or a commission of inquiry. But when the pressures go on, of course, we never see the commissions of inquiry nor do we ever see a royal commission.
Because there are a number of controversial issues involved I propose to read a few paragraphs of the statement I wish to incorporate in Hansard. I have made a request to the AttorneyGeneral to see whether it is possible to make Australian Government moneys available for the upgrading of Queensland prison services. If this is not possible, then I will seek the help of the Australian Government through the AttorneyGeneral in obtaining a royal commission into prison services in Queensland. Over a long period of years there have been many complaints about the treatment that prisoners have received in Queensland gaols. If it is not constitutionally possible to have moneys made available at the Australian Government level for the updating of prison buildings and the abolition of primitive punishment methods, I will seek the AttorneyGeneral’s assistance in having a royal commission instituted into prison conditions in Queensland and with particular reference to the Stuart Creek gaol.
For a considerable period of time former prisoners and gaol inmates have been lodging statements with my Townsville office complaining of inhuman and primitive treatment. Some prisoners have given us the complaints in signed documents. They realise, of course, that when they give these statements to us in signed documents they really put themselves on the line. For obvious reasons, the names will not be revealed unless the persons concerned are protected by a royal commission with wide terms of reference or by some similar type of inquiry. Former prisoners have volunteered to make public statements on living conditions and details of punishment meted out to Stuart gaol prisoners. I know that this applies to the gaol at Rockhampton and I know that it applies to other points of imprisonment in Queensland.
Let me quote a couple of examples. On a date early in August a prisoner collapsed and died in the prison hospital at Stuart Creek. He died on the floor near his bed where he had lain for some hours with several other prisoners present. Within minutes of the death an officer who acted as a medical orderly appeared. All this man did, or apparently knew how to do, was to place a stethoscope on the dead man’s chest for a brief period of 15 to 20 seconds and then pronounce the prisoner dead. No attempt was made at any form of resuscitation. This particular person had been admitted to the gaol some weeks previously and was ill even at that point of time. He was given oxygen soon after his arrival and then put into the prison hospital. The prisoner apparently suffered from an acute form of asthma and was unable to sleep. Often he struggled around the prison hospital ward and other prisoners complained because of his heavy breathing and nocturnal wanderings which kept them awake but no prisoner was in doubt regarding the fact that he was obviously a very sick man. I am told he complained many times that he was receiving little or no treatment from the prisoner doctor.
The doctor apparently visits the hospital on 3 days each week. During the week before this particular prisoner died, his ankles had swollen to an abnormal size. There are plenty of witnesses to this. In the two or three hours before his death he fell from his bed to the floor, was moaning loudly and was calling for help. I am told that a passing prison officer heard the noise and opened the hospital door to investigate. But he did nothing about it at that point of time. He again opened the door at 6 a.m. to let the people who are known as ‘early workers’ out of the ward. The prisoner patient was still on the floor and remained there until he died shortly afterwards. After the stethoscope check the body was moved from the floor to the bed to await the arrival of the prison doctor. The body remained on the bed for about 4 hours with a sheet covering the body but not the face. Other prisoners were issued with their breakfasts a few feet away. The man was a middle-aged Aboriginal and Aborigines, incidentally, suffer more than white prisoners who, according to statements made to me, have suffered as well. For the record, Mr President, I state that the percentage of Aboriginal prisoners in Queensland gaols is fairly high. This is consistent, of course, with the position in most other States of Australia where there is a fairly high population of Aboriginals. Other deaths have occurred in the prison and the stories invariably are almost identical. The prison doctor on his 3-times-a-week visit remains for a period of 1 to 2 hours.
Another statement describes the agony of a prisoner who screamed for hours from a gallstone attack. The attack did not occur overnight. He had complained previously and had sought hospital treatment but this was refused. There are other instances I can relate and which I hope to be able to relate in an open form of inquiry where the prisoner’s right will be protected. He lodged his complaints with the doctor and the visiting justice. My informants tell me that there is documentary evidence to cover this accusation. I hope those documents remain intact after what I have said tonight. Many black prisoners are incarcerated for long periods of time in cages. There is no relief. Some seek sanctuary in the cages to avoid bashings and worse. One man has told an informant: ‘While I’m in here I’m left alone’. So at least he feels protected while he is in the cage.
Some months ago a man committed suicide when he was supposed to be under strict observation. This particular prisoner committed suicide by hanging. When the prisoner was cut down it was obvious that he was not dead but recuscitation was not carried out because the mask for the oxygen apparatus could not be found for about 50 minutes. A few days ago another young man who was a suicide risk died because he was not kept under strict observation. This man had been receiving treatment for cuts to his wrists but he was able to hang himself with a bed sheet. When prisoners are released they seldom have money but are usually given a rail pass and according to custom cannot register for unemployment benefits until at least 24 hours later. Ex-prisoners who are in severe financial straits obviously will be tempted to commit another crime in order just to live. There should be proper rehabilitation processes with trained social workers who are able to assist discharged prisoners until they can get back on their feet.
Many prisoners are demoralised when they are forced to work at menial jobs during their prison terms when in fact they are often qualified tradesmen or are qualified in a profession and should be allowed to serve out their hard labour in their respective callings. Stuart is one of the worst places in Queensland for release to work orders as very few are given this concession. I understand that there have never been more than three or four. Unfortunately, internal supervision is not properly carried out and this leads to lack of security. If prisoners take the opportunity to arm themselves with a knife- mostly only for self-protection- they are given additional sentences and life is made very much harder for them when they are detected. In addition to the complaints that have been lodged with me, other statements have been made to representatives of the Aboriginal and Islanders Legal Service, and there are a number of other people in the city of Townsville who will be prepared -
– I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is reading that speech to knock Queensland.
– I understand the honourable senator to be referring to copious notes.
-Thank you, Mr President. I said at the outset that there were certain controversial things which I proposed to read into the record so that people like Senator Sheil and others would not be able to say something tomorrow about what I did not say tonight. That is the reason why I have done it.
– I raise a point of order, Mr President. It is quite true that a previous President ruled that a senator may speak from copious notes. What he meant by that was that the senator could refer to copious notes. He did not say that the senator may read his speech.
The Senate Standing Orders say that a senator may not read his speech. Senator Keeffe, from the moment when he rose to his feet, has been reading something and no honourable senator knows whether it is Senator Keeffe ‘s thoughts or something that somebody else has written for him. Therefore, Mr President, I request, on a point of order, that the honourable senator address the Senate in terms of his own thoughts and not somebody else ‘s.
– I would take it that the honourable senator is referring to a document and that at some later time he will continue with his speech.
-Thank you, Mr President. For the benefit of the honourable senator who just rose on a point of order I would point out that I have been referring to this document, as I said at the outset I would do. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack would know that over the years I have been one of those people in this chamber who are able to speak without copious notes. I should like to point out that no member of the Australian Country Party sitting in this chamber is able to make a speech unless he reads it, and that at all times the speech has been written for that member of the Country Party. I might point out to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack that in the days when he occupied the Chair he allowed those honourable senators to get away with it.
Mr President, I again refer to what I was saying previously. I had mentioned that life was very much harder for those who were detected with a knife, and that in addition to the complaints that have been lodged with me other statements have been made to representatives of the Aboriginal and Islanders Legal Service. I pointed this out at the time and it emphasised the point that I had made earlier. If Senator Sir Magnus Cormack looks at me now he will realise that I am not reading a speech. I said that Aborigines were getting a worse time than most other members of the community and I repeat that with emphasis mostly for the benefit of Sir Magnus Cormack.
I am not making accusations against those who are responsible for the administration of Queensland gaols but I am saying that the system is rotten from the top, and this is where the trouble is. There are people in charge of gaol administration in Queensland who do not have the moral courage- and apparently with 19 per cent of the vote in Queensland do not have the legal right- to carry out proper reforms. I bitterly accuse the State Government and the top people in charge of our prison system of living in the last century, and if Senator Sir Magnus Cormack wants to make something of that he too is living in the last century. Men and women who offend against the laws of society, as we accept them, must pay for their social sins but we have no right in a so-called civilised society to treat those who have been deprived of their liberty and personal freedom with physical punishment and undignified procedures that label them as less than animals. If any member on the Opposition benches wants to keep that sort of prison system going he is welcome to it, and the sooner he participates in it as a prisoner the better. Those in charge of the prison system in Queensland should be prepared to face a wide-open public inquiry and all prisoners and others who are prepared to testify should have their rights fully protected. If the Premier- and I am referring to my good, close, personal friend, Holy Joh- and his Cabinet evade the issue they should be prepared to hand over the whole prison system in Queensland to the Australian Government, and those who have been accused by society will then at least be sure of justice.
That is all I am asking for. I am asking the Attorney-General to examine the possibility in those 2 areas to which I have specifically referred. I am not accusing the people who are caught up in the punishment system in Queensland and who are forced to administer it but I am accusing those who are responsible for the administration. In particular, I accuse the Premier and his Cabinet of meting out less than justice to those who are deprived of their personal freedom.
– I wish to refer briefly to a meeting which took place in the city of Launceston today. It was organised by a number of trade unions and supported by the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries. It was attended by some 500 people. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) or his representative had been invited to that meeting; so too had been the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) or his representative, and other members of Parliament. As I, representing the Leader of the Opposition, was the only member of Parliament present, I undertook to make known to the Senate the resolutions which were carried unanimously at that meeting, and I do so. The first resolution, which was a major resolution, reads as follows:
This meeting of citizens of Tasmania calls on the Australian Government to pay due regard to the unemployment problems which affect Tasmania more than any State in Australia.
We express grave concern at the economic crisis which is developing, with particular emphasis on rising unemployment and inflation.
We are concerned at the increase of both the above factors throughout Australia, but we draw to the attention of the Government that it is and has been a historic fact that Tasmania has always suffered unemployment in excess of the Australian average. At present it is far in excess of the Australian average.
We call on the Government to immediately inject funds into those industries which are in need of immediate assistance, and are also well established in Tasmania. The present Government policies are driving long established companies to the wall, with resulting unemployment. The result of such a policy in Tasmania will be that people will have to move to areas where employment might be available. This will result in further centralisation of the population. Unless employment is available in Tasmania, people will leave; this is inevitable.
This meeting declares that it is totally opposed to any policy which will result in people leaving Tasmania, irrespective of the government which is responsible for that policy.
We call on the Government to equalise transport costs, so that Tasmanian industries are not at a disadvantage to their mainland counterparts because of their location in Tasmania.
We call on the Government to adjust transport costs into, out of, and within the State on an equitable basis so as to allow Tasmanian companies to compete on equal terms with their competitors on the mainland and overseas.
We call on the Government to build ships for its own shipping service so that Tasmania can enjoy a more efficient, regular and continuing service.
We call on the Government to make use of the resources of the Australian Industries Development Commission to assist in ensuring employment in established industries, and also to develop other labour intensive industries.
We call on the Government to adapt its policies so as to guarantee markets for goods produced in Australia, rather than allowing excessive imports.
We call on the Government to introduce controls over all types of imports so as to protect the jobs of Australian workers, particularly those who are employed in the established industries which are located in decentralised areas, and above all we call for a fair go for Tasmania and Tasmanians.
That motion was moved by the secretary of the Launceston Trades Hall Council and was seconded by the secretary of the Chamber of Industries. It was carried unanimously. A further motion was carried. It reads:
That this meeting calls upon the Federal Government to forthwith publish the report of the task force which inquired into unemployment in the Launceston area.
That motion was moved by me and it was seconded by the president of the Chamber of Commerce. It was carried unanimously. A further motion was moved which reads in the following terms:
That this meeting calls upon employers to recognise that they have social responsibilities to the communities in which they operate, and that the retrenchment of workers as a means of maintaining or increasing profit levels is an abnegation of these responsibilities.
Further, that this meeting condemns the current practice by manufacturers, particularly in the textile and clothing industries, of selling, in competition with their own locally produced goods, imports from cheap-labour countries in which they own plants.
I believe that motion was moved by a Mrs Thorne, but I am not certain. I do not know who seconded it. It was not carried unanimously but it was declared carried. They are the motions which were carried at the meeting today. I think it is also relevant to inform the Senate that the Australian Secretary of the Australian Textile Workers Union, Mr Hughes, spoke at the meeting. It will give some idea of the seriousness of the mood of the meeting which I think will impress itself upon the Government if I quote but one part of what he said. He stated:
I cannot see any person employed in the manufacturing industry supporting a return of this Government at the next election. That is a shocking thing to say but . . .
He went on to explain that he felt he had to say that. That was said by the Australian Secretary of the Australian Textile Workers Union who, as he mentioned at the meeting, is also a member of the executive of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria. He estimated that by the end of October the loss of employment in the textile industry in Australia will be in excess of 40,000 in that one industry alone. I hope the Government will treat as serious the unanimous view of those people gathered in Launceston today. I hope we will obtain a considered reply. I do not expect the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby) to respond tonight. But I seek to have him respond at the earliest opportunity and preferably this week.
– I want to raise with the Senate a matter which I think should not go beyond this day unanswered. It was raised this morning when the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs was put down in the Senate and when a motion was moved that the Senate take note of the report. I shall not speak about the report to which I am happy to be a signatory. Nor shall I speak about the debate. But remarks were made this morning by Senator Greenwood in relation to the procedures which had been adopted by the Committee. I think those remarks should not go unattended this evening lest there be-
– Unrest in the camp.
– This is a matter on which I am expressing my view. This morning Senator Greenwood, quite rightly, pointed out that he had not read more than 2 pages of the report. Obviously he was uninformed about the nature and details of the report. But 3 things were said then which I think should not go uncorrected. In the first place Senator Greenwood asked whether there would be a sufficient number of the report available for people to see. I am sure I speak for all members of the Committee when I say the Committee realises that the report will be of considerable public interest and that there will be a requirement for a considerable number of copies. The Committee is aware of this and it has taken steps to see that there are such a number of copies. I am assured by the secretary of the Committee that copies will be kept ahead of demand and that they will be available for the public.
In addition it was suggested by Senator Greenwood that copies of the Bill would not be available. I know that on one occasion copies were not available and this was unfortunate. Of course copies of the Bill certainly are available with this report because, as honourable senators will have noticed, a copy was annexed to the report. Therefore it will be quite simple for people to consider the report and the Bill. So I think the feeling which Senator Greenwood had is answered because of the fact that the Committee had these matters very much in mind.
Perhaps the second matter which the honourable senator mentioned is of a more serious nature. He expressed the view that it was unfortunate that the Senate Committee had not dealt with the inquiry generally but that in its report it had dealt only with the clauses of the Bill. Senator Greenwood also said that the Committee limited itself to the clauses and that it had too narrowly construed its role. I think when one looks at the report one will see clearly that that is not so. In fact, the Committee has already brought down an interim report in which it dealt with and quoted from the general submissions. It summarised those submissions and the various proposals which had been put up by members of the public.
– How many submissions did the Committee receive?
– The number is set out in the report. It is something like 109. We received a large number of letters and quite a considerable amount of public information. Or course, the interim report was brought down so that honourable senators could read the submissions which had been considered and studied by members of the Committee, including the new members. I believe that I have read all the important submissions and all the evidence which was given before the Committee. I believe that while considering the clauses of the Bill we had very much in our minds the inquiry generally and the submissions. Of course, the fact is that when one looks at the 3 Bills which have been presented to the Senate on this subject and if one reads the submissions, time and again one will see that the submissions and ideas have gone into the Bills. They have come in and varying Bills have shown the varying results of the submissions.
In its whole consideration of the Bill the Committee has looked at the submissions. It has kept them in mind. I believe that it has produced results which will satisfy the great bulk of the submissions which were made. I suppose we could have given a general treatise on the submissions which were made. We could have presented to the Senate perhaps a report of 140 pages instead of 40 pages. But we believe that what we have submitted is really succinct. It covers the submissions which have been made. So I do not think it can be said that the inquiry has not been reported on.
The third thing which Senator Greenwood said was that people feel let down because this Committee did not ask for further general submissions and did not advertise. Or course the Committee did not advertise. When it was formed immediately before the recess it was given instructions. It was told to report back in a month’s time. It was well publicised and well known that the Committee had been re-formed for that purpose. The Committee knew that it had the general submissions and that it would get detailed submissions on the Bill from various groups and organisations. It did that. When the secretary of the Committee was asked he encouraged organisations to write to the Committee. They did this and every such submission was looked into and taken into account by members of the Committee
I think there was some mild criticism because the Committee had a number of lawyers before it and because it did not invite or seek out witnesses while it was carrying out this stage of its investigation into the clauses of the Bill. The Committee had before it a number of people of very capable ability who are lawyers. They are familiar with the material involved in family law. They assisted the Committee in the work which it was really doing. That was the purpose for which the Committee was formed. It did that. The background submissions which had been made were in the minds of all members of the Committee. Finally, it was said that there was blame lying on the Committee for not having done this. If there is any blame I am sure I and any other member of the Committee will readily accept it. We believe we have done a pretty massive job in a matter of weeks. We believe these things ought to be brought to a head at a reasonably early stage. We believe indeed that it is better to put an end to investigations and to come forward with suggestions that might do something to take away some of the heat and shed some light on the public controversies about this subject. I feel that before this night ends we should clarify those criticisms, which I think are illfounded.
– Could I follow on briefly from what Senator Missen has said. I think it may be of interest to honourable senators.
– I limited Senator Missen to correcting misunderstandings of the debate that took place earlier today. I do hope, Senator Milliner, that you will confine your remarks to that area.
-I do not wish to take advantage of any situation. For the information of the Senate, I think honourable senators will all agree that the report that was tabled this morning was a very important document. As Chairman of the Publications Committee I have taken a flying minute of members of that Committee to see if the report can be printed in a somewhat unusual manner so that publishing can be expedited. I do not know the result of that minute but I expect the remainder of the Committee to agree with the suggestion I have made. As a result, I think that there would be ample copies available inside a fortnight.
– Mr President, I wind up the debate and reply briefly to the matters that have been raised, other than the matter to which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack addressed his mind and on which subject Senator Murphy has already replied. My colleague Senator Keeffe spoke on the present system in Queensland and alluded to the maltreatment of certain prisoners at certain institutions. At the time he spoke I was under the impression that Senator Murphy would be replying, but he was called away from the chamber in his capacity as Attorney-General and I give my undertaking to Senator Keeffe that his remarks will certainly be drawn to the notice of my colleague, the Attorney-General.
Senator Rae took advantage of the motion for the adjournment of the Senate to advise us that he had attended a meeting at Launceston today in what I thought he said was the capacity of an observer representing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden). I did happen to note that during the course of his remarks -
– I did not say ‘observer’.
– I was under the impression that the honourable senator was implying this, if he did not say it exactly. He was saying that neither the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) nor his representatives attended the meeting but he attended in the capacity of representative of the Leader of the Opposition. I would therefore assume that he was there as an observer for an on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. Having said that, I did take cognisance of the fact, as my colleagues did, that Senator Rae decided to propose at the meeting a motion which was apparently adopted. I assure the honourable senator that every member of this Government is very concerned about unemployment, irrespective of where it might be. It is concerned about unemployment in Tasmania, in particular in Launceston. Hopefully, tomorrow there will be debated in this chamber a States Grants Bill which will enable all senators from Tasmania, because the Bill relates particularly to the Tasmanian economic situation, to express their points of view on ways and means by which unemployment within Tasmania in particular can be tackled. Of course, the Senate will be on the air and all 10 Senators from Tasmania, if they so wish, and any other senators who might be interested in the subject, will have the opportunity to address their remarks to the matter alluded to by Senator Rae.
I might also tell the honourable senator that tomorrow, hopefully, the Government will be introducing into the Senate the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Bill which, when enacted by the Parliament, will make available to the State pending receipt of the Nimmo Committee report a subsidy of $2m for outward bound cargo other than bulk cargo and paper. It is an interim measure estimated to meet the additional disability for Tasmania consequent on the recent 25 per cent cent increase in Australian National Line shipping freight rates. The Bill when enacted will virtually amount, as an interim measure, to a subsidy of about $2 a ton on such outward bound cargo arrangements.
I hope, because such a measure when enacted will considerably reduce the unemployment situation in Tasmania, that it will be passed speedily and expeditiously. I hope that my colleagues in the Opposition, because of the serious unemployment situation in Tasmania, will consider now that tomorrow when that legislation does come before the Senate they should not adjourn the debate but should enable it to take place forthwith. That is one of the areas of attack that the Government has for tackling unemployment in Tasmania. I hope that we will receive the support of the Opposition in obtaining a speedy passage of the Bill.
Senator Missen spoke on the subject of the presentation of the report by my colleague, Senator James McClelland, from the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs relating to its consideration and its recommendations after its deliberations on the Family Law Bill. As the President has mentioned, the matter is the subject of an adjourned debate in the Senate and therefore it is not for me to add fuel to the flames at this stage because of the situation in which the matter finds itself on the notice paper. However, so far as the making available of sufficient copies of the report is concerned, I can tell the honourable senator that this morning at the time I was notified in my capacity as Manager of Government Business in the Senate that the Bill was to be reported, his leader- the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers- was in my office. It was there and then that I picked up the telephone in my capacity as Minister for the Media and spoke to the Australian Government Publishing Service, which is a branch of my Department, and asked that steps be taken to ensure that a sufficient number of copies of the report was made available and distributed as widely as possible.
I was told at the time that because the report was in a roneoed form and not in a printed form there might be some difficulties involved but that my officers would investigate the matter and see what could be done to expedite the printing of sufficient copies. The last information I had just prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner was that some filming process might be able to be engaged in and if this could be done certainly sufficient copies of the report would be made available. I will go one step further and ensure that advertisements are inserted in the newspapers and /or over radio stations letting everyone know that these copies of the report and the Bill, which is included in the report, are available through the Australian Government bookshops and inquiry centres. I thank the honourable senator for drawing my attention to the matter.
Question resolved in the affimative.
Senate adjourned at 11.14 p.m.
page 1724
The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
3 ) The computer is being used for:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
What documents of provisional intention of any kind relating to the purchase of a model 370/168 computer system were exchanged between the Department of Social Security and IBM Australia Ltd (a) before 29 November 1973 and (b) between 29 November 1973 and 1 1 December 1973.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Letters were sent to IBM on 26 January 1973, 2 April 1973, and 31 May 1973 seeking information regarding the availability of a computer system of the scale of an IBM 370/ 1 68 and to ask related technical questions.
In each of these letters, it was specifically emphasised that the request for this advice was not to be taken as a commitment to purchase.
Following the submission of a quotation from IBM Australia Limited in response to the specfication for Tender sent to IBM on 21 November 1973 formal notification of intent to purchase was given on 1 1 December 1 973.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Subsidy limits under the Aged Persons Homes Act were increased and a separate additional subsidy for land introduced.
A three stage approval of new homes was introduced to ensure that proposals are viable both socialogically and economically having regard to such factors as the need for the particular type of care in the area, suitability of the site and proposed buildings, availability of ongoing care in the area and the overall cost of the project.
An embargo on the soliciting of second and subsequent donations’ from prospective residents of aged persons’ homes is in the process of being implemented.
Organisations are being counselled and encouraged to improve communications with residents, abolish over restrictive ‘house rules’ and foster the formation of residents ‘ committees.
Similar measures have been agreed to in respect of the Aged Persons Hostels Act and will be introduced as soon as the necessary amending legislation can be enacted.
A working party of senior officers from the Department of Social Security and the Treasury was formed to examine the adequacy of current maximum limits, means of cushioning the effect of rising building costs and the difficulties some organisations are experiencing in establishing aged persons homes in remote areas.
The Committee is an independent committee set up by the Social Welfare Commission.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice:
– The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice;
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I am not aware of any proposal to staff health centres in New South Wales using second year resident medical officers seconded from teaching hospitals. In New South Wales, medical staff employed in community health centres are employed under the NSW Public Service Act. It is possible that this question is related to a misunderstanding of the nature of the Family Medicine Program of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, under which some resident medical officers may attend such centres as part of their training.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741015_senate_29_s61/>.