29th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1801
– I present the following petition from 276 Australian Government employees:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian Government employees respectfully showeth:
That under the provisions of the existing superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees:
Contribution rates are excessively high especially for older members, and hence the preclusion of most contributors from the full pension theoretically available.
Costs of administration are needlessly high because of the complexity of the scheme.
Female contributors are discriminated against.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:
The introduction of the Treasurer’s proposals for a new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees presented in March1974.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– Pursuant to the suspension of standing order 76 yesterday, I present the following petition from5 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable 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 1974, page 12, 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 295 people chiefly school children from St Alberts Mission in Rhodesia as reported in the news media;
And whereas these abovementioned 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 abovementioned 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.
Petition received and read.
– I present 4 petitions, identical in wording and from 12, 29, 43 and 164 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 Bill1974. 1. The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages. 2. The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family. 3. 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 and first petition read.
-I present the following petition from 25 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 Bill1974 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.
– 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. 1. The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages. 2. The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family. 3. 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.
– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 10 and 74 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. 1. The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages. 2. The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family. 3. 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.
– I present 3 petitions, identical in wording and from 20, 23 and 92 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, and all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not provide or protect the legal or 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, 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.
– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 76 and 8 1 citizens of Australia respectively, in the following terms:
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 the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82J of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $ 1 50 is $50 below the 1 956-57 figure.
That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether nongovernment or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.
That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.
That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already overcrowded and understaffed.
That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.
That parents should be encouraged by the Australian Government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.
That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.
To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to. help meet escalating costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-74 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received and first petition read.
page 1803
– Yesterday during question time questions without notice were directed by Senators Chaney and Sir Kenneth Anderson to Senator James McClelland, Chairman of the Senate Committee inquiring into the Family Law Bill. In order to clarify my ruling I desire to make the following statement: With the development of the committee system a practice has grown up of directing questions to the chairmen of committees relating to the activities of their committees. The practice was considered at the last meeting of the Standing Orders Committee and will be further considered. My predecessor in the Chair adopted the practice of allowing questions to be put to the chairman of a committee provided they do not attempt to interfere with the committee’s work or to anticipate its report and that the chairman does not answer such questions except on the basis that he answers on behalf of the committee and not on behalf of himself. I ask honourable senators to keep within those limits.
page 1803
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the provision by Australia of aid for developing countries.
page 1803
page 1803
– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Attorney-General. The Minister will recall that yesterday I asked him whether the interdepartmental committee had yet reported on freedom of information Act. He will recall that yesterday he said that he would seek further and better information and advise me later. I now ask whether he has further and better information.
-Yes, I have. The Committee has reported. The report has come to me accompanied by a submission. I expect that Cabinet will shortly consider the matter. The honourable senator asked me about the tabling of the report. I see no reason to assume that the report will not be tabled. I know that some questions have been raised about the tabling of interdepartmental reports. In any event, I think the substance of the matters contained in the report would be tabled, whatever the arguments might be about the reports of such committees.
page 1803
-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence been made aware of a report in the Melbourne Sun’ that the rocket range at Woomera may fold? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether the report is factual?
– Yes, I have seen the report which appeared in the Press this morning. It is not true that the Woomera range will be closed down. It has been evident for some time that the work load foreseen for the range after 1976 could not be sustained at the present level of activity. It must be realised that the activities at Woomera are largely related to the requirements of the United Kingdom, which is our partner in the project. The Government has decided to run down the range after 1976 but to hold instrumentation facilities in readiness for revival. The whole operation will require a great deal of administrative and technical planning in consultation with the British who, as I have mentioned, are our partners in this project. However, the Woomera village will continue to be in demand for project Narrungar at least until November 1979.
page 1803
-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has any change been made in the original order for the purchase of 75 light observation helicopters for Army operations? If a change has been made, what is it and why was such a change necessary? How will the change affect the final unit cost? Can the Minister say what was the original contract price, including all spares and associated items of cost, and what is the present estimate? When can it be expected that final delivery of these aircraft will be made?
– The subject matter of the question asked by Senator Drake-Brockman has been referred to in the Press. As the honourable senator knows, the production run was reduced from 75 helicopters to fifty-six. This decision was made, as the honourable senator knows, in the context of the last options in relation to defence requirements. The consequence of this is that the Bell helicopter company decided to abandon the production of helicopters for civilian use. That meant that there was a need to renegotiate the arrangements. The decision which was made offered a number of important savings to the Government. Although the original military program had some advantages in the sharing of overheads on a production run, the subsidy for the commercial program offset these cost advantages. When the decision was made the estimated subsidy had reached a substantial level. Because negotiations are at the present time being carried on between the Defence Department and the company concerned, I am unable to supply details of them. I shall endeavour to do so as soon as possible.
page 1804
-I ask the Minister for the Media whether the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has received legal opinion that there is no valid basis for the Board to determine Australian content regulations under the existing Broadcasting and Television Act. Are the proposed amendments to that Act designed, amongst other things, to protect the employment of Australians in this industry which has been built up considerably by this Government? Is it also a fact that the right of the Control Board to determine the times during which children’s and family programs may be televised has been the subject of challenge by at least one commercial station? Is it also a fact that the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations has been pressing for some time to be allowed more advertising content? Further, does the Minister agree that it is a somewhat hollow criticism on the part of these commercial pirates to say that the proposed amendments to the Act are harsh, dictatorial and lead to a suppression of news and information?
-As I said yesterday, I will be seeing representatives of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations today. I had arranged last Sunday to see representatives of the Federation of Commercial Broadcasters also today but I was told late yesterday afternoon by a member of my staff that probably they will not be coming now. It is a fact that legal opinion has been tendered to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to the effect that there is great doubt about the Board’s ability under the existing legislation to lay down rules and regulations concerning Australian content. That arose from a challenge by one of the commercial stations. It is also a fact that the
Board’s right to determine the times when children’s and family programs may be televised also has been subject to change.
Probably in recent weeks the honourable senator has seen reports that the Board requested the deletion of certain matter from a television episode being shown in family and children’s viewing time. The station merely transferred the time slot for the particular program from 7 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. without deleting the material that was considered by the Board to be offensive. At the same time the station scored tremendous publicity and high ratings by advertising that the time slot was being changed. That publicity was added to by Press reports and radio advertising about the sensational type of drama appearing in the program. The Federation of Commercial Television Stations in its recent annual report has admitted that, since this Government came to office, for the first time since 1965 sets are being turned on again. It admits that there have been more new homes with television than at any other time since about 1958. It admits that it has had great co-operation from the acting profession and that it has been comparatively free from air time industrial disputes.
All these things have been achieved as a result of frank consultation and co-operation between the Government, the management and the unions. I am very much afraid that, as a result of the propaganda being peddled by the commercial licensees about the likely effect of these amendments, I am becoming quite cynical about their political bias and I fear that while they adopt this attitude the industrial harmony that has been built up in the industry in the last 20 months will not continue very much longer.
– With great reluctance I take a point of order. It is true that under the Standing Orders answers may be sought from Ministers on the basis of obtaining information but it is becoming clear that, because the temptation is always in front of any Minister of whatever political hue, some Ministers are using question time as a means not of giving information but of making statements. I suggest that question time should be restricted to the basic answers to particulars asked and that Ministers should seek permission of the Senate for leave to make a statement at the close of question time.
– May I speak to the same point of order? I am glad that this matter has been raised. I know that the Standing Orders prohibit questions being asked of Ministers relating to matters that are on the notice paper. What has happened in the last 2 days is a dangerous incursion into question time. Honourable senators and Ministers are using question time to peddle publicity on matters of Government policy that are on the notice paper of another place. If question time is going to be taken up by Ministers getting free publicity and trying to hoodwink the public by their answers on questions that are on the notice paper in the other place we are going to ruin question time absolutely.
-I would like to speak to the point of order. I submit that there is nothing in the point taken by Senator Marriott. What happens in the other House is no concern of this House. On the point of order raised by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack let me say that we well remember that he in his distinguished period of office as President adhered to the tradition and precedent which had been established over the years that Ministers answered questions as they saw fit. I do not think it is a novelty that some Ministers might introduce a little bit of publicity when answering questions. Maybe it is a matter of degree and the sense of the Senate but there is really no substance in the point of order. Over the years if there were any order which prevented it, it has certainly been honoured in the breach rather than the observance. I would submit that there is no real point of order at all.
– One of the finest developments of our Westminster system of government and Parliament is the right to seek information by questions without notice and it should be preserved at all costs. A Minister replying to a question has a discretion. I ask that Ministers make their answers as succint as possible. I intend to preserve that right of senators to seek information.
page 1805
-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry and I assure you, Mr President, that he does not know what I am about to ask him. My question refers to the congestion on the wharves in Sydney caused by the holdup of imported cars. I ask whether the present union ban on the handling of imported foreign cars can save the jobs of the workers at the Leyland plant? If those jobs can be saved, will the Minister explain why they cannot be saved by action other than a union ban? Is not the effect of this ban likely to lead not to the saving of workers’ jobs at the Leyland plant but to further losses including loss of employment in all production and distribution areas which are affected? Will the Government do something to ensure that those other losses do not occur?
– I am not aware of the industrial dispute to which Senator Greenwood is referring and I am not aware that any union has taken such action. I would not think that it would resolve the particular problems of the motor vehicle industry. As the honourable senator would know, the Government has before it a report on this very subject and this report is being considered. The Government is taking all necessary action to ensure that the secondary industries of this country are efficient and that they are maintained at their maximum level to the benefit of the Australian economy. If there is any further information on the dispute that Senator Greenwood has referred to I will get it from the Minister concerned.
page 1805
-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer and I ask: Will the Treasurer cause an investigation to be made into the extent to which manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers of essential commodities spent money on advertising on television, radio and in the Press, with the view to establishing (a) the effect of such advertising on the prices of essential consumer goods; (b) the extent to which the cost of such advertising has increased in the past 10 years; and (c) whether the imposition of a special tax on such advertisements is practicable and, if so, what effect it it likely to have on consumer prices?
-I am sure that the honourable senator would realise the complexity of the issues which have been raised, and I think raised very legitimately, by him. It would be proper for me to refer the question to the Treasurer to get a detailed answer.
page 1805
-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy whether he has seen reports that Australia may invite Japan to join with Iran in helping Australia to build a multi-million dollar petrochemical complex in the Pilbara district of Western Australia? Does this proposal mean that there is a change in the Government’s attitude towards overseas investment and also its resources policy? Will such a proposed petrochemical project at Pilbara jeopardise the proposed Redcliffs petro-chemical project in South Australia?
– I am not aware of the proposed investment to which the honourable senator has referred. I will have to refer that part of his question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Insofar as the honourable senator referred to a change in broad Government policy, I can state that there is certainly no change. We will remain committed to the policy we have enunciated from the beginning of our term of office. We will ensure that Australia’s resources and industries remain in Australian hands as far as that is economically practicable. We will not allow a repetition or a continuation of what happened in years past, namely, of overseas capital taking over Australian industries.
page 1806
-Is the Minister for the Media aware of the latest development in the inquiry at present being conducted by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board into the alleged suppression by commercial television station of a news item relating to soaps and detergents? As a result of this development, will he agree that the Australian public now has ample reason to be very much concerned about the apparent attitude on the part of some television stations of putting the private profit motive before the public interest? Does he also agree that this is ample justification for the Government’s proposals to amend the present outdated Broadcasting and Television Act?
– It is not for me at this stage to comment on the evidence that is unfolding before the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its inquiry into the alleged failure to publish news relating to a parliamentary committee’s report on soaps and detergents. Of course, any comment from me on that subject will have to await the receipt of the report and recommendations made therein by the Board. The simple fact is that when this Government came into office it introduced the points system for commercial television stations. That was done, amongst other things- it was stated at the time- in order to avoid a direct quota regulatory provision being imposed on the commercial stations. The points system was designed to enable the stations to bring about a diversity of programming having regard to their choice and also having regard to the time slots for children’s viewing time, family viewing time and matters of that nature. I think the television stations will admit that there has been about a 1 5 per cent increase in news and current affairs programming since this Government assumed office. Certainly, there has been no attempt on my part or on the part of this Government to suppress news or information of any kind that might be televised by commercial television stations.
page 1806
– I address a question to the Minister for Agriculture. Is it a fact that the European Economic Community is dumping surplus beef stocks on the currently few remaining normal Australian export markets at cut-throat, uneconomic prices? Has the Australian Government protested to the European Economic Community agricultural officials at this alleged practice? If so, what has been the reaction to such protests?
-I am not aware that the European Economic Community is dumping foodstuffs on any of the traditional Australian markets. It is true that sales of beef have been made by the European Economic Community in the last few months at prices much more competitive than those which can be offered by Australia. In fact, the prices have been approximately one-third less than the price that we can quote on the world markets. To my knowledge, the main sales have been made to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I am not aware that the European Economic Community would be engaged in the alleged practice insofar as the Japanese market is concerned, much less the American market. This matter comes really within the ambit of my colleague the Minister for Overseas Trade rather than mine. If there is any further information that he can supply to me, I shall forward it to the honourable senator.
page 1806
– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. In view of Leyland ‘s current difficulties and reorganisation, does the Minister expect any problems in relation to the purchase of Leyland mini-vans for the courier service?
– When it was decided to enter the courier service a contract was made with Leyland for the supply of, I think, 1 30 Clubman mini-vans. I have been told that because this van is assembled in Australia there will be no difficulty about servicing or spare parts. I think the current problems with Leyland can be related more to vehicles which are manufactured in Australia.
page 1806
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the
Senate. In spite of the Government’s understandable desire to boost the revenue of the Postmaster-General’s Department, does the Leader of the Government agree that it is gross extravagance and shocking administration for a telegram of some 40 words to be sent on behalf of a Minister of State in Parliament House to me in my office in the same building? If he does agree, will he use his undoubted influence in Cabinet to have such extravagances cease forthwith?
-No, I do not agree with that suggestion. The sending of a telegram is sometimes a useful way of communicating a message. It may even be cheaper if the person cannot be found rather than constantly wasting time to communicate with him. I understand that some persons have taken the view that sending a telegram may actually be in certain circumstances a saving of time rather than having persons trying to find someone or sending messages around. Certainly it is something that cannot be assumed to be such a gross administrative extravagance, as the honourable senator suggests. I suggest that his raising of this matter over a simple little telegram and the expenditure of public time and the use of the air waves to ventilate this matter is probably costing 10,000 times as much as the telegram to which he refers.
page 1807
– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. In view of the public interest in the Bills being introduced in the Tasmanian and South Australian Parliaments at the moment to protect the privacy of individuals, can the Attorney-General clarify for senators the rights of and restrictions on State police in carrying out the practice of telephone tapping?
-The police have no right to engage in telephone tapping, as Senator Grimes describes it. The Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act of this Parliament forbids the interception of telephone conversations except for the purposes of that Act, which are, broadly, national security. The interception must be carried out in accordance with the procedures under the Act, which is by a warrant from the Attorney-General, except in emergency circumstances when it my be done by the DirectorGeneral of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. But he must obtain afterwards the ratification of the Attorney-General. There are Acts in the various States which give permission to police officers and others to engage in listening with technical devices. The Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act would apply to the exclusion of such Acts. Insofar as they might seem to be inconsistent with the Federal Act, the Federal Act would prevail. Police officers have no right whatever to engage in any form of telephone tapping, as it is commonly called, for police purposes.
page 1807
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Excise and it arises from representations made on behalf of anaesthetists. I ask whether the Minister is aware that anaesthetists have been greatly inconvenienced by inability to obtain certain drugs, especially Pentothal, on which they are dependent? Is the Minister aware of complaints relating to his own Department and its control of the imports of such drugs? Can the Minister give any information that will assist anaesthetists to obtain important drugs for their requirements.
-I regret that I am not aware of this problem. I will have the matter investigated to see what can be done. If I can solve the problem I will. If there is any reason to prevent me from solving the problem I will inform the honourable senator and the Senate.
page 1807
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I ask: Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a notice which appeared in the ‘Border Chronicle’ of 3 October 1974 under the names of Dr D. R. T. Evans, Dr W. A. D. Ramsey and Dr D. C. Walker of Bordertown, South Australia, whereby they threaten to withdraw from the pensioner medical service? If so, will the Minister say what Federal body the doctors were referring to and what are its functions? Is it normal procedure for such a Federal body to seek confidential medical information from private medical practitioners who treat pensioner patients? Can the Minister state whether confidential medical information supplied by private medical practitioners is freely available to clerical and unknown medical personnel?
-As honourable senators will appreciate I am a frequent reader of the Border Chronicle’. I feel that it is in no way inferior in the information provided, its literary style and its intellectual content to most of the newspapers published in this country. I was therefore rather disturbed when I read the public notice that was inserted in it by the 3 medical practitioners to whom Senator McLaren has referred. Those practitioners made the complaints along the lines indicated in the ‘Border Chronicle’. I asked my colleague to prepare some notes on this matter after I read the article. It appears that the doctors are referring to the medical services committee of inquiry in South Australia. The committee consists of 5 members of whom 4 are nominated by the Australian Medical Association. The task of this committee is to inquire into and report to the Minister or the director-general regarding the services and the conduct of medical practitioners in connection with their duties in the provision of medical services under the pensioner medical service.
The committee, of which 80 per cent are members of the Australian Medical Association, was empowered- when this question was referred to it- to seek whatever information it considered relevant in order to enable it to conduct its investigations. It is normal practice for the committee to ask the medical practitioner concerned to forward clinical notes covering pensioner patients listed in the terms of reference. All of the information relevant to these cases is received and kept on a confidential basis. The information is available only to members of the committee, the secretary who is an officer of the Department of Social Security and senior officers of the State branch of the Department of Social Security. It is made available to those people only when the nature of the duties of these officers necessitates that they should have access to this information. The Minister for Social Security believes that the notice inserted by the doctors is couched in most unfortunate terms. It is a pity that they should have placed this notice in a paper such as the Border Chronicle’. The particular request to which they were referring was in fact addressed to Dr Evans.
page 1808
-I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. I refer to the Minister’s reply to a question yesterday regarding the proposed amendments in the Broadcasting and Television Bill 1974. The Minister stated that the Government insists that the Bill is designed to confirm what has already been believed to be the existing powers of the Board and is being introduced only because these powers have been challenged by the licence holders. Does the Minister agree that the proposed amendments to section 16(3) substantially amplify the regulatory powers of the Board by means of the use of directions in lieu of orders and regulations? As this clearly dispenses with the need for any regulations or orders and takes away the protection of parliamentary scrutiny over control which would apply to production, programming, news and advertising functions, will the Minister have the amendments redrafted, to be consistent with his statement of yesterday?
– I do not agree with the contention put forward by the honourable senator. If she looks at the Broadcasting and Television Act she will see that one of the functions of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is to lay down rules, regulations or standards in accordance with its determinations from time to time, and that in so doing it shall consult with licensees of commercial television stations. Clearly it was the intention of the Parliament that this matter should rest in the responsibility of the Control Board and not in my responsibility. If the honourable senator turns to the speech made by the then Postmaster-General when he introduced amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act in 1956 at the time when television was introduced in Australia, she will see that he said:
The Royal Commission on Television considered that selfregulation would not be sufficient to secure that commercial television programs would be of suitable standard to satisfy the public . . . With those considerations in mind, the Government proposes, . . . that a licensee should be required to provide programs which comply with standards determined by the Board, and to vary his programs, if so directed by the Board, so that they shall conform with those standards.
What we are now seeking to do is to clarify the powers which Parliament originally intended to give to the Board.
page 1808
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is the Department of Housing and Construction now receiving information on a quarterly basis from State valuation authorities on the number of residential allotments and dwellings sold in the major towns in each State and also in the major growth areas within those towns? If that is the case, will the Minister provided the Senate with information on the number of allotments sold, the average price and the percentage change from the previous quarter’s price for the last 5 quarters? Will he also ensure that the State housing commissions, especially in Queensland where they are attempting to bail out their rip-off land developing friends, do not pay more than the average retail price for so-called bargain price land?
-The Department of Housing and Construction receives, on a regular basis, some State valuation information on the average price of residential building lots sold during a particular period. This information is obtained from all States except New South Wales and Western Australia. 1 believe that the information cannot be obtained in Western Australia because of some technical reasons. But the sales data in New South Wales has been refused to the Department of Housing and Construction for reasons which we do not know but which could be political. Specific information about sales transactions is obtained for all local government areas in Victoria. Data also are obtained for Adelaide, Hoban, Launceston, Brisbane and major centres in south-eastern Queensland. As is known, the Australian Government is making large sums of money available to the States for housing under the 1973 Housing Agreement. But the detailed administration of housing, including the purchase and development of land, is largely a matter for the State housing authorities. Recently when examining the States’ requests for 1974-75, emphasis was placed by the Australian Government on the need for the money to be applied as much as possible in the construction rather than the purchase of homes. This was to assist in the employment position at the same time.
page 1809
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Australian Industry Development Corporation has 3 major investment advisers on its advisory panel? Are these companies Development Finance Corporation Limited, Capel Court Corporation Limited and Australian United Corporation Limited? Is it also a fact that, by definition in the Government’s own legislation, each of these companies is an overseas company; in other words, each is a multinational corporation? If the Minister does not know the answer, will he obtain it from the Deputy Prime Minister?
-Yes, I will obtain the information.
page 1809
– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, partly follows a statement which he made in reply to a question which was asked yesterday in the Senate on the subject of locust plagues. The Minister said that no. request had come forward to the Prime Minister in relation to the current outbreak of locusts in Queensland. I ask the Minister: Has such a request now been received by the Prime Minister? Does he know whether the request contained the information that the estimated value of crops currently at risk in Queensland is $65m? Has the Minister seen reports that swarms of spur-throated locusts, a species not currently eligible for extermination by the Federal Government, are now damaging wheat crops in northern New South Wales and that these swarms have moved south from Queensland? Since it is now clear that significant numbers of spur-throated locusts are prepared to cross the Queensland border in order to consume New South Wales wheat, will the Federal Government acknowledge that this species is no longer the problem of only Queensland farmers and can be considered to meet the Government’s criteria for a national problem? Will the Minister undertake to take whatever steps are necessary to revise the policy which presently restricts the Federal Government’s assistance for combating locust plagues to only one of the 4 species of locusts existing in Australia, and specifically to revise the policy in relation to spur-throated migratory locusts?
– I shall try to answer those dozen questions before 12 o’clock. After I answered a question yesterday to the effect that no request had been received from the Queensland Premier, I learned that by a remarkable coincidence a request had come in that morning. Nevertheless, the presence of these locusts had been known for weeks and even months. The point I was making yesterday was that, despite Senator Martin’s question of perhaps 2 or 3 months ago and despite the presence of these locusts, no request had come from the Queensland Premier. I want to make that clear. There is a request in now. I have a copy of it here. It sets out a case about the possible damage to crops in Queensland. But it does not give any indication of the amount which the Queensland Government is contributing towards the campaign there. It asks for Australian Government assistance in solving the problem by way of substantial financial assistance. Again there is only a very brief reference to the overall cost. I do not really think the Prime Minister could be expected to make any commitment on the basis of this document. Nevertheless, a formal request has been received. It is a matter for the Prime Minister now to negotiate with the Queensland Premier.
As to the variety of locusts, I want to restate what I believe I have stated in the past, that the decision to restrict assistance last year to combating Australian plague locusts was not a decision of the Australian Government but of the Australian Agricultural Council. The Council determined that the spur-throated variety is restricted largely to Queensland. It was not a decision taken by this Government. I do not know whether honourable senators appreciate the difference but I can assure them that there was a protracted argument between the Queensland and New South Wales Ministers about spurthroated locusts and plague locusts. I had never heard of them in my life until the matter was raised at the Council meeting. I have a vague picture now of the position, as I think the Australian Agricultural Council and the Queensland Government have. I reiterate that it was not a decision of the Australian Government to restrict aid as to variety. I hope it is clear that that is the case. No doubt the Prime Minister will take up this matter sympathetically because there is a potentially dangerous situation there and I am sure he will be aware of it.
page 1810
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration: What restrictions have been placed on the political activities of a Mr Curtis, who entered Australia illegally from South Africa, while his application for political asylum is being considered? Does the Government permit persons awaiting a decision on an application for political asylum to engage in controversial political activities, particularly of a domestic nature? If not, has Mr Curtis been warned to refrain from further political activities? What is the present position regarding Mr Curtis ‘s application?
– I do not have any information in relation to the gentleman referred to by Senator Sim. Had he let me know earlier today that he intended to ask the question I could have got some information. I will get it and forward it to him.
page 1810
– In directing my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate I refer to the ban by the Federated Clerks Union on imported cars. If continued it will do tremendous damage to the industry. Is the Minister aware that in South Australia alone there are about 400 new vehicle dealers who employ between 5,000 and 6,000 people? Does he realise that many of these people would be employed by companies dealing almost solely in fully imported foreign cars? Has the Minister noted the statement by a representative of motor car dealers in South Australia in which he said that if these cars could not be landed at Port Adelaide the companies would be brought to a standstill within a few weeks? Has he also noted the statement made or the concern expressed by one major distributor in South Australia who said that his company sold about 200 Datsun vehicles a month, of which about 60 per cent were imported fully assembled? This representative stated that his company’s 2 branches would quickly run out of stock and this would affect the jobs of between 130 and 140 employees. Reinforcing what Senator Greenwood has already said I ask: What is the Government doing to prevent unemployment in this important industry?
– This seems really to be a question which falls within the administration of one of my colleagues, the Minister for Agriculture, who represents the Minister for Overseas Trade, or the Postmaster-General, who represents the Minister for Labor and Immigration, and I will refer the matter to them. I regret that I am not able to answer the honourable senator’s question myself.
page 1810
– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Taking into account the complaints from meat producers that the prices they are receiving for their beasts are so low that their enterprises are becoming uneconomical, can he give the Senate an explanation of the continuing high prices that housewives are paying for meat?
– There is a long history to this problem which goes back to the appointment by the Parliament last year of the Joint Committee on Prices to inquire into meat prices. It is true that at that time saleyard prices were very high, whereas now they have taken quite a dramatic tumble. The Committee made certain recommendations to the Parliament, but certainly not all of them were accepted. One of them, of course, was to restrict the export of meat from Australia in order to force more meat on to the market and thus bring prices down. The Government in its wisdom rejected that recommendation, but now we see a lessening in the volume of Australian meat being exported and more meat coming on to the market. But, as the honourable senator says, this is not being reflected at the retail level. At the time they gave evidence to the Committee I understand that the retailers claimed that when saleyard prices were very high their margins were consequently very low because they could not increase the retail price without losing trade. When the saleyard prices fell they maintained that they were then entitled to operate on a higher margin than they had been doing when prices were very high. The Australian Government sought by means of the last prices and income referendum to exercise some control over these matters. The Government was refused the power it sought. If any action is to be taken on a prices basis, it can be taken only by the States.
page 1811
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, refers to a report in the ‘Advocate ‘ of Saturday, 12 October, that the Commonwealth fire protection services are to be withdrawn from the airports at Devonport and Wynyard in north western Tasmania. Can the Minister confirm this report? What would be the savings in cost of such an action? Does the Minister consider that as these 2 airports handle nearly 200,000 passenger movements a year the safety factor should be of paramount importance?
– I agree with the last part of the honourable senator’s question, namely, that the safety factor is of paramount importance at those airports or anywhere else. I do not think it would be true to say that fire protection services have been withdrawn completely from the airports. Some sort of service must be available. However, I will obtain the information which the honourable senator seeks from the Minister for Transport. Of course, I could not acquaint the honourable senator as to what would be the savings in cost. I will obtain the full details for the honourable senator and let him know.
page 1811
– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to Treasury Taxation Paper No. 5, details of which have been published in today’s Press? Has the Minister noted that the Treasury officials suggest that food, clothing and other daily durables should be subject to sales tax to increase Australian Government revenue? Will the Minister agree that this proposition would be highly inflationary? Is it not the policy of the Australian Government to reduce the incidence of indirect taxation?
-I think it would be better if I referred this question to the Treasurer. I will do that so that a precise answer may be given on behalf of the Government. No doubt I could readily give an answer but I think it is probably fairer, since the question involves an official document emanating from the Government, that the answer be given in that way.
page 1811
-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Is the Government aware that all municipalities and shires throughout Australia are suffering severe economic difficulties due to unprecedented inflation and that as a result many local government bodies have been forced to increase their rates by 30 per cent or thereabouts merely to preserve their basic programs? Is the Government further aware that, due to the credit squeeze and the alteration in the statutory rules governing savings bank lending, the borrowing programs of all semigovernmental and local government bodies are in jeopardy at this moment and that serious shortfalls will be likely in their borrowing programs and the resulting works programs? In view of the serious monetary shortage, why is there such undue delay in the dispatch of the grants made some months ago by the Grants Commissiongrants which although modest could help somewhat in this money shortage? Finally, has the Government given consideration to any program to underwrite semi-government and local government borrowings?
-I do not know why Senator Carrick should dismiss the efforts which have been made by this Government to assist the very problem which he has highlighted. This is the first time that any Federal government has undertaken to provide direct assistance to local government in Australia. It has been done in the first year to the tune of $56m. I think that that would hardly be a ground for legitimate criticism of the Government. As to the general questions on inflation, certainly it would have to be conceded that the liquidity problems are affecting most sections of the community and are no doubt affecting local government. But I do not know whether these payments have been delayed unduly. I will have to refer that aspect of the question to the Treasurer and obtain an answer.
page 1811
– I address my question to the Postmaster-General representing the Minister for Defence in this House. In view of the Government’s decision outlined in the Minister’s statement today to follow up its economic squeeze of the weapons research establishment through reduced Budget allocations, with direct action taken to place the defence facility in a mothballed, run down condition after 1976, will the Minister ask his Government to have this matter re-examined by an independent investigatory authority which will consider among other matters: (a) the concern widely felt overseas at the developing instability due to resource availability and its financial implications; (b) the need for Australia to maintain a developing scientific defence capacity independent of international sources; and (c) the retention in Australia of highly qualified scientists who may be lost to this country if the weapons research establishment- one of the finest facilities of its kind in the world- is dismembered because the Government considers the purchase of ‘Blue Poles’ and glass birds as more important than this country ‘s security?
– My answer this morning to Senator Donald Cameron related to what was going to happen at the Woomera rocket range. I pointed out that there would be no crisis until the end of 1976. In fact it depends largely on the negotiations between our Government, the Department of Defence and the United Kingdom authorities. It may well be that, resulting from those discussions and negotiations with our United Kingdom partners, we will not take any action which will prevent the range from being re-activated. The clear position is, as everybody knows, that unless there is a consistent involvement by the United Kingdom in the use of the range project the Government will have to spend many millions of dollars to keep it in the state of activity that we are used to and that we have liked in the past. That does not mean, of course, that the capability of Australian defence scientists and our defence abilities will be reduced. It is rather a question of seeing to what extent in the future there may be further involvements. As I have said, at the present time it is intended that the full instrumentation and other general backup facilities will be kept there. We must have them there because of the involvement with Narrunga. As to the other question Senator Steele Hall has asked, I will see whether I can obtain some additional information from the Minister for him.
page 1812
– I would like to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is he aware that the new approved fees that Tasmanian nursing homes may charge are up to $13 a day and that unless some increase is made in the pensioner benefit subsidy many pensioners in Tasmanian nursing homes will be forced out of those homes? Can the Minister advise where the Government will look after these people if they are forced to leave? Has the Government any plans to increase the pensioner benefit subsidy paid to pensioners in private homes in Tasmania, and when does the Minister expect any such additional payments to be made?
-Senator Townley did mention this matter to me while the Senate was sitting this morning. I told him then that I had not knowledge of this. I can only suggest that he put the question on notice.
page 1812
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and it arises out of an earlier question concerning fire-fighting services at northwestern Tasmanian airports. Is it not a misconception and a serious misrepresentation to say that all fire-fighting services are to be withdrawn from the Wynyard and Devonport airports in north-western Tasmania when in fact the situation is that fire-fighting services will be available for all arrivals and departures at those 2 airports? Is not the situation rather that the Government is giving consideration to the economics of the present position whereby fire-fighting services are maintained on a round-the-clock basis when the airport is being used for approximately six to eight arrivals and departures a day?
– In answer to a previous question I stated that I did not know what the position was. It is a very definite practice in respect of civil aviation activities within the Department of Transport that an operational airport is not left without safety precautions and fire protection. As to whether there has been some rearrangement of that practice and, if so, for what purpose, I do not know. As I promised in reply to an earlier question, I will get what information I can and convey it to the honourable senators.
page 1812
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. I refer to the distress in the textile industry of Queensland which is causing widespread unemployment, particularly in small country towns and cities. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will facilitate an application to the Industries Assistance Commission for emergency tariff protection of these industries?
– I am in no position to give any such assurance. The question will have to go to the Minister concerned.
page 1813
– The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is yes, it was referred on 16 August. I remind the honourable senator that it was also referred before in April.
– Not that particular reference.
-I think so. Well, it was very close to it. I understand that the honourable senator is right about there being 7 witnesses. As to the Committee’s meeting on only 3 occasions and some of the evidence being received in camera, he may be right. The honourable senator will recall that it was in 1971, I think, that I moved for the reference of this whole question to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That motion for referral was adopted by the Senate. Meetings of the Senate Committee were held and a great deal of public attention was paid to this matter. What was said then was publicised widely. Since then the whole question has been debated. If the honourable senator likes to look through the public records, he will find that the matter has been agitated in the newspapers. All sorts of letters have been written by various people. There have been numbers of articles on the subject and discussions have been held on it all over the place. I introduced the Bill in December. Of course, wide publicity was given to it then. The Bill is substantially the same now as it was then. An enormous number of articles have been written and there has been wide public discussion on the subject.
The Committee has met to discuss the clauses of the Bill within the reference made to it and has come down with a report. No doubt, the Senate will debate the matter and, assuming that the Bill passes the second reading stage, there will be a Committee debate in the Senate. The whole matter then can be gone through again. The honourable senator is focussing on the activities of a particular committee of the Senate and suggesting that somehow or other the whole matter is to be stopped. He is focussing his attention simply on the actions of that committee. I do not think that this is a fair assessment of the enormous public attention which has been paid to the subject matter. It is all very well to say that people want the passage of the Bill delayed. The other day I met representatives of one very vociferous organisation, which has been sending letters to the newspapers, for 2 hours in my office. I went through the Bill with them and asked them whether they could make any suggestion for an alteration of the existing law, such as to the grounds for divorce, whether they wanted to retain the particular grounds of adultery, desertion and so on, or whether they wanted a change in any of the particular matters contained in the Family Law Bill. I could not get any proposal of any kind out of them, notwithstanding the fact that several months ago that organisation circulated, no doubt at considerable expense and after a lot of effort, what purported to be an analysis of the Family Law Bill.
It is evident that a great number of people in the community think that there is a lot wrong with the divorce laws and that they ought to be altered. They are entitled to have an alteration of the law at least considered by the Senate. We have had 3 years of public agitation and even the emergence of divorce law reform associationsbodies that have sprung up because of the feeling about the poor state of the law. Gallup polls have been conducted. It was found in one that was conducted last year that 70 per cent of people were in favour of having an alteration in the grounds for divorce and of having one year’s separation as the sole ground for divorce. To suggest that the principles in this matter cannot be discussed and debated in the Senate and that we cannot make up our minds is not doing justice to those people in the community who look to the Parliament to make laws and to debate them. This institution has to work. Those who want a change in the law at least are entitled to have the matter debated, discussed and considered in the Parliament so that members of Parliament can, on a free basis, make up their minds whether they want to agree to the law. That is my answer to the honourable senator’s question. I think that the time is overdue for the matter to be debated in the Parliament. Ample opportunity has been given for discussion. I would like to see the matter proceed to debate as soon as possible.
page 1814
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– I am sure that I have been misrepresented by the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy). I was very careful in my choice of words in my question to ask for some direct answers. I used the words ‘or in relation to a particular Bill’. With great respect to the Attorney-General, I suggest that he did not give an answer to my question. If it will help him, I will send copies of my question around to him. I might find myself in agreement with many of the things that he said about the generality of divorce. But that was not the question that I asked him. I was asking with particularity about a particular Bill being referred to a Senate committee. Finally, there was the crunch question which dealt with the evidence taken by the Committee being taken in camera and not being available to members of the public who he says want to know all about it. I want to know what happened and what evidence was given. That was the whole import of my question, not that other part of the reply, which we had yesterday from another source, and which, with great respect, the Presiding Officer dealt with very properly.
page 1814
– Are you seeking leave to make a statement?
– Yes.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.
-I am anxious to seek your ruling, Mr President. Is it the custom of the Senate that all senators be given the call to ask one question before second questions are allowed? Some senators have been toying to get the call all week.
– In recent times question time has lasted an hour. We have been averaging about 25 questions and answers per day, which means that a little over 2 minutes is taken for each question and answer. Today there were 29 questions and answers. I regret very much that Senator Baume did not get the call today. I treat Sir Kenneth Anderson as one of the patriarchs of the Senate, and I give him special consideration. I assure Senator Baume that he will be first cab off the rank on Tuesday, to use a colloquialism.
– 1 was not objecting on that ground. I was seeking your advice about the practice of permitting senators to ask 2 questions before other senators have been called.
– I will give a ruling on that matter now. The practice has been to alternate questions from one side of the chamber to the other. While I have a questioner on my right or on my left in turn I feel obliged to call him.
page 1814
– I present the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiner’s report on science and technology in Australia, together with a statement by the Minister for Minerals and Energy on the subject.
page 1814
– (Tasmania- Minister for Agriculture)- I present the twenty-second annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
page 1814
– (Tasmania- Minister for Agriculture)- I present the annual report of the Superannuation Board for the year ended 30 June 1974.
page 1814
-(Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators I present an interim statement on the operations of the home savings grant scheme for the year ended 30 June 1974. When the final report is available it will be presented in accordance with statutory requirements.
page 1815
Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)Pursuant to section 39 (3) of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965-1973 I present the annual report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1974, together with financial statements and the AuditorGeneral’s report on those statements.
page 1815
Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table volume 3 of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into National Compensation and Rehabilitation. As honourable senators are aware, I tabled volume 1 of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Compensation and Rehabilitation in the Senate on 10 July this year and volume 2 of the report on 26 September this year. When tabling volume 2 I stated that there was a third volume to the Committee’s report which I was unable to present at that time because the printing of it had not been completed. Volume 3 is described as a compendium and contains statistical and costing details together with some other background information used in the preparation of volumes 1 and 2 of the Committee’s report. I have already distributed to all members of Parliament a copy of this volume 3 which unfortunately is in short supply. However, I have arranged for ten copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library for reference of members. Printed copies of the report will not be available until early next year. I commend the report for the consideration of honourable senators.
page 1815
– For the information of honourable senators I present the Department of Transport Air Safety Investigation Branch accident investigation report on the collision between a De Havilland Dove and a twin Commanche aircraft near Bankstown, New South Wales on 13 March 1974. Due to the limited number of copies available I have arranged for copies of this report to be placed in the Parliamentary library.
page 1815
– I table a Ministerial statement on ministerial settlements of disputes involving contraventions of the Customs Act 1 90 1 -74.
page 1815
-Is it the desire of the Senate to postpone or re-arrange business?
– I seek leave to re-arrange the business to enable me to table several further statements.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
page 1815
– I table 2 documents of public interest relating to the work of the Australian Government in the field of international trade law. These documents are: Papers and Summary of Discussions of a meeting on international trade law, sponsored by the Attorney-General’s Department in May 1974; and The Report of the Australian Delegation to a United Nations Conference, May to June 1974, which adopted a convention entitled ‘Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods’. I have also arranged to have circulated an explanatory memorandum to assist an understanding of the Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a short statement concerning these documents.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
I am making these documents generally available to ensure that the Australian community, particularly the business community, is fully informed.
The Australian Government has been closely associated with international initiatives to achieve some harmonisation of the laws of all countries relating to international trade.
Early in 1973 this Government caused Australia to join two important organisations which work towards international harmonisation of law; the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT). Australia is now actively involved in the work of these bodies.
However, the most important body working on these matters in the world today is UNCITRAL the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. Australia has been a member of UNCITRAL since its inception in 1968. It is represented at Commission meetings by the Solicitor-General and officers of the Attorney-General’s Department.
The preparatory work on the Convention on the Limitation Period in the International sale of goods was carried out by UNCITRAL. The draft convention is the first produced by UNCITRAL. The Government is currently considering whether to implement the Convention throughout Australia.
UNCITRAL is presently engaged on preparatory work for new conventions dealing with the international sale of goods, the carriage of goods by sea and international negotiable instruments.
The Government has recognized that, with all these initiatives taking place internationally, there is a need to keep the particular requirements of Australian business clearly in mind.
My Department has all along consulted with Australian organisations interested in these developments, but it was felt that more needed to be done.
To this end the Department organized a meeting on international trade law to discuss current initiatives in the area with Australian businessmen and lawyers. One document I have tabled today contains papers presented at this meeting and a summary of the discussions. The lawyers present at the meeting included teachers of law from all the law schools of Australian universities. The meeting therefore served the purpose also of providing background for the training of Australia’s future lawyers.
The meeting was highly successful. It is intended now to hold such a meeting at least once a year.
page 1816
– I move:
The Committees were scheduled to meet at twelve noon. Committee D will meet in the Senate Chamber, Committee E in Senate Committee
Room No. 1, and Committee F in Senate Committee Room No. 3.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1816
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Bishop) read a first time.
– I move:
The second reading speech is a 9 page statement. It is largely a technical statement relating to industrial conciliation and particularly to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I ask that the speech be incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
This Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry on Co-ordinated Industrial Organisations established by the Government in February 1974. The Committee was constituted by Mr Justice Sweeney of the Australian Industrial Court who was assisted by Mr R. E. McGarvie Q.C. and Mr K. D. Marks of counsel. It was set up to examine the desirability of a system of organisation and/or registration which would enable the one body to represent its members in both the Australian and State industrial arbitration systems.
Provision of such a system and the rectification of invalidities which have grown up under the current systems have been of concern to trade unions and employer organisations since Moore v Doyle was decided by the Industrial Court in 1969. Problems highlighted by that decision were examined by a working party consisting of representatives of the then Department of Labour and National Service, the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, the Department of Labor of the States of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, and Western Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Council of Employers’ Federations. Although this working party met on several occasions between September 1970 and November 1972, no agreement as to appropriate legislative changes was reached. Under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, a union may be registered and upon registration the union obtains corporate status. A union registered under the Act may have State branches but a State branch does not have corporate status separate from the parent body.
State trade union and industrial arbitration legislation in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia provides for the registration of unions for the purposes of State law. Under industrial arbitration legislation in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia a union that is registered acquires corporate status and the courts have held a trade union registered under New South Wales law is a separate legal entity with a legal personality of its own distinct from its members at any particular time.
In order to represent its members in Federal and State industrial arbitration systems, it is necessary for a Federal union to have its mem bers in a State branch registered as a union under the State legislation. Upon registration under the State legislation a legal entity distinct from the Federal union comes into existence. The result is that the members of the State branch can be members of two distinct legal entities, the federal union by virtue of membership of the State branch and the newly registered State union.
Problems, of which Moore v Doyle and other cases provide illustrations, arise from the fact that a State branch of a federal union and a State union are often administered as if they were the same body, with one set of books, one register of members, one membership fee, one set of officers, one election of officers for both bodies and one system of meetings. In some cases the rules of the State union are complied with and the rules of the State branch of the Federal union are ignored and in other cases the position is reversed. In further cases the affairs of the State union and the State branch of the federal union are conducted under an administrative amalgam of the rules of each but not pursuant to the rules of either.
For example, elections conducted for a State branch of a Federal union may be conducted under the rules of the State union and not under rules of the branch or partly under the rules of the State union and partly under the Federal union’s rules. Secondly, the rules which are treated as governing admission to membership of a Federal union may in fact be rules of a State union. Thirdly, some of the members may be entitled to membership of the State union but not of the Federal union. However, there may be a common roll of members in which all are treated as both members of the State union and the Federal union. A member who is only entitled to membership of the State union may therefore participate in the election for officers in the State branch of the Federal union.
As a result of these defective procedures, a State branch of a Federal union may be defunct and may have no persons who could validly be described as members or officials. Moreover, if a branch has become defunct, participation on the union’s committee of management of representatives purporting to have been elected to the Federal body to represent the branch may result in invalidities in the proceedings of the Committee. Some State unions may have become defunct for similar reasons. In such circumstances, it is possible that the Federal award system is in jeopardy. Where the log of claims on which an award is based has not been validly adopted, no industrial dispute will have arisen and any award made will have been made without jurisdiction. Similar considerations arise in State jurisdictions.
The Committee of Inquiry identified dual incorporation as the source of the problems that have arisen. The solution the Committee recommended is a process of amalgamation involving non-corporate State registration of a branch of a Federal union to achieve one body which can represent its members in federal and State industrial arbitration jurisdictions.
Before dealing with the provisions of the Bill I want to make these comments: First, although for the sake of convenience I have been referring to unions, the problem concerns employer organisations as well as employee organisations. Secondly, legislation by the Australian Parliament can go only part of the way towards the solution recommended by the Committee. That solution can be achieved only by States enacting legislation to complement the provisions of this Bill. Thirdly, a major consideration in the Committee’s approach to a solution was the necessity to preserve the viability of State systems of industrial arbitration. Finally, an equally important consideration was that any solution adopted had to operate fairly to all organisations involved, both those which function only under a State system and those which will seek to function under Federal and State systems.
I turn now to the Bill. The Committee’s recommendations fall into 2 categories: First, recommendations to bring about a system of registration of industrial organisations enabling one body to represent its members in both Federal and State industrial arbitration systems and, secondly, recommendations to free Federal organisations from the consequences and disabilities of past invalidities and to cure and overcome future invalidities. I will deal with each category in turn.
Amendments to implement recommendations in the first category are contained in clauses 4 to 15. Clause 15 proposes that a new Part WIIIB be inserted in the Act to provide a scheme of amalgamation of federally registered organisations and associated bodies, as defined in proposed section 158V. Under section 158X, the committee of management of the associated body and the committee of management of the Federal organisation each passes a resolution proposing amalgamation and specifying particulars of the proposed amalgamation. Application is then made to the Industrial Registrar by the Federal organisation for approval of the amalgamation. Sub-section (12) of section 158X provides that on the date on which the amalgamation is to take effect, all members of the associated body who are not already members of the Federal organisation but are or become eligible for membership of the organisation shall become members of the organisation and shall be deemed to have been members for the period ending on the date during which they were members of the associated body. It is implicit in the scheme that when a branch of a Federal organisation obtains non-corporate registration under a State Act, there is a contemporaneous deregistration of the associated body. This ensures a proper transition from the present system of dual incorporation to one of non-corporate registration.
Where the State organisation’s conditions of eligibility are wider than those of the Federal organisation, to achieve amalgamation it will be necessary for the conditions of eligibility of the Federal organisation to be widened. To allow this automatically to happen could be unfair to other unions, whereas to refuse it would mean that not all the members of the State body could be admitted to the Federal organisation on amalgamation. This problem is overcome by sub-section ( 10) of section 158X under which the Industrial Registrar, as a condition of approving the amalgamation, may require the applicant organisation to consent to an order under section 142 A, proposed by clause 1 1. Such an order does not prevent a union enrolling members but it can prevent it representing certain members under the Act. These procedures will enable the conditions of eligibility of a Federal organisation of employees to be widened so that it can enrol and represent in the State sphere the members of an associated body without a corresponding widening of the organisation’s representational rights in the Federal sphere. It will be for State legislation to deal with the case where the Federal organisation’s conditions of eligibility are wider than those of the State body.
For the protection of the interests of associated bodies and the State industrial arbitration systems in which those bodies operate, it is essential that branches of Federal organisations have sufficient autonomy to enable them to participate fully in the State systems.
Accordingly, section 133 A proposed by clause 5 provides that a condition to be complied with by Federal associations applying for registration under the Act and by registered Federal organisations shall include a condition that the rules of the association or organisation shall provide for a Federal fund which shall be managed and controlled in accordance with rules relating to the organisation as a whole and a branch fund for each branch which shall be managed and controlled in accordance with rules of that branch. The content of such funds is spelled out in detail. As a further protection to branches, sub-section (4) provides that rules relating to a branch fund shall not be altered except with the consent of the branch concerned. Clause 9 of the Bill also proposes an amendment to section 140 of the Act whereby the rules of an organisation must provide for the autonomy of a branch in matters affecting members of the branch only and matters concerning the participation of the branch in any State industrial conciliation and arbitration system.
An allied provision is contained in sub-section (2) of section 136A proposed by clause 7. As a condition of conferring non-corporate registration on a branch of a Federal organisation, complementary State legislation may require that legal proceedings may be taken by and against the branch as distinct from the corporation. The proposed sub-section provides for this.
It is, of course, necessary that the Act operate and powers under it be exercised so as to achieve the main object of this Bill, that is, a system in which one body can represent its members in Federal and State industrial jurisdictions. The amendments proposed by clause 6, section 136A(1) proposed by clause 7 and the amendment proposed by clause 13 are designed to ensure that a Federal organisation may participate in a State’s industrial arbitration system. The amendments to section 139 proposed by clause 8 deal with the role of the Industrial
Registrar. The effect of the proposed sub-section (5) is to require him, in considering whether to consent to or certify an alteration to an organisation’s rules, to have regard to the main object of this Bill. The proposed sub-section (6) provides for co-operation between industrial registrars in connection with alterations to rules of an organisation to prevent the occurrence of inconsistencies incompatable with the continuance of a branch as an integral part of the organisation.
Amendments to the Act in 1973 went part of the way towards a solution to the problems brought to attention by the judgment in Moore v Doole. Those amendments permit an employee organisation to enrol persons engaged in occupations akin to those of employees provided the organisation remains effectively representative of employees in or in connection with the industry concerned. The amendments proposed by paragraph (a) of clause 4 and clause 12 make corresponding provision in relation to employer organisations. It was made clear to the Committee of Inquiry that in a number of cases persons who are not employers, for example, persons conducting their own businesses without employees, are enrolled as members of employer organisations.
If the States also adopt the solution proposed by the Committee of Inquiry, the State tribunals will have very much the same controls as at present. However, in applications to disallow rules, order the performance of rules, order the admission of persons to membership and dealing with disputed elections, jurisdiction will be exclusive to the Australian Industrial Court as far as branches of Federal organisations are concerned. This is provided for by the amendment to section 147 of the Australian Act proposed by clause 14 of the Bill. The reason is that it is clearly undesirable that in such matters the same issue should be able to be litigated before 2 separate tribunals with perhaps different results. It is not necessary that these controls be vested in more than one tribunal, nor are any of them essential for the proper functioning of the State systems. To test the position the Committee sought information concerning the use of various sections of the New South Wales Industrial Arbitration Act. The report states:
In recent years there have been four sets of litigation involving unions in that State which are operating both as federal branches and registered industrial unions under the State Act. The proceedings involved rules and elections. All the litigation was conducted in the Australian Industrial Court and no embarrassment or prejudice to the State system occurred. I have examined situations which have occurred in other States and I am satisfied the like position results.
There has been near unanimous support by employer and employee organisations for change along the lines recommended in the Committee ‘s report. The report states that all unions, including a number which have only State registration, were in favour of the scheme and saw no prejudice flowing to them. On the employer side, Mr G. Polites, Executive Director of the Australian Council of Employer Federations and Mr E. W. Horton, Chief Executive Officer of the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia have indicated their support of the proposals.
The second category of the Bill’s provisions are those directed to remedying existing and future invalidities in organisations registered under the Act. I have outlined how irregularities and invalidities have occurred in organisations due to the present system of dual incorporation. The Committee’s Report states that this applies to all unions, both of employers and employees. There was no confident assertion that any single one at all was operating validly. The provisions of Part IX A proposed by clause 16 provide for: The validation of all acts done in good faith by a collective body or by a person holding an office in an organisation or branch, notwithstanding any invalidity that may afterwards be discovered in any election or appointment or any making or alteration of a rule of an organisation or branch; the Australian Industrial Court to have power to determine the existence of an invalidity and to make rectifying orders provided such orders would not cause substantial injustice; the Australian Industrial Court to have power to decide, whether a part of an organisation has ceased to exist or to function effectively and to approve a scheme for reconstitution of the part so affected and a like power in relation to any vacant office or position in an organisation or in a branch of the organisation; a method whereby a person who is eligible for membership and has acted in good faith and has been treated as a member for a certain period of time is entitled to be admitted to membership and may apply to the Australian Industrial Court for a declaration as to his entitlement in that regard; the validation of acts done by a collective body or by a person holding office and of elections or rule alterations after the expiration of 4 years; and the Australian Industrial Court to have power to declare that the provisions validating certain acts, elections and rule alterations are not to apply where the Court determines that they would cause substantial injustice.
Complementary State legislation is needed to achieve a system of registration of industrial organisations to enable one body to represent its members in Federal and State industrial arbitration systems and to overcome the potentially crippling problems threatening the operation of those systems. My colleague, the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) has indicated in another place that he believes complementary legislation will be forthcoming. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.
page 1820
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a first time.
– I move:
Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to the guarantee by the Australian Government of a US$ 10. 8m-A$7.3m- borrowing by the Government of Papua New Guinea from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The proceeds of the loan will assist in financing the development and expansion of the operations of the Papua New Guinea Electricity Commission during the period 1974-79. This loan follows a loan for US$23.2m-$A15.6m-to the Electricity Commission in 1971 to assist in financing a major hydro-electric project on the Upper Ramu River in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. The loan documents were signed by authorised representatives of the Australian Government on 12 June following negotiations in Washington which were attended by representatves of the International Bank, Australia, the Government of Papua New Guinea and the Electricity Commission. The Government of Papua New Guinea will onlend the proceeds of the loan to the Electricity Commission which, under an associated project agreement between the Commission and the Bank, is responsible for the project.
The project consists of 3 parts: Firstly, technical assistance for the Electricity Commission’s in service training program for indigenous staff; secondly, financing to cover the shortfall of funds available from the 1971 loan for the Upper Ramu River project attributable solely to exchange rate movements; and, thirdly, expansion of electricity distribution facilities. The total cost of the project is estimated at US$ 17.25m- $A1 1.6m- and the loan will cover the foreign exchange component of the total cost. Borrowings by the Government of Papua New Guinea automatically carry an Australian Government guarantee by virtue of the operation of section 75 A of the Papua New Guinea Act 1949-1973. However, with loans from the International Bank, a formal guarantee agreement is required from the Australian Government and this must be authorised by specific legislation. The guarantee agreement for this loan, which is shown as the First Schedule to the Bill, follows the form of the 4 guarantee agreements previously approved by Parliament in connection with a telecommunications loan made by the International Bank to Papua New Guinea in 1968, a highways loan made in 1970, the first hydro-electric project loan in 1971 and a second telecommunications project loan in 1 972.
The present loan carries an interest rate of 7.25 per cent and is for a period of 20 years, with repayments commencing after 5 years. A commitment fee of three-quarters of one per cent per annum is payable on undrawn balances until the loan is fully drawn. The Bill provides for parliamentary approval of the guarantee agreement. It makes consequential provision to ensure the effectiveness of undertakings in the guarantee and loan agreements regarding freedom of payments from Australian taxation or restrictions imposed by Australian law. It also includes an appropriation of moneys required for the Australian Government to make any payments under the guarantee. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
– This Bill is not opposed by the Opposition in the Senate; indeed, it is welcomed because it is a continuation of earlier Bills which were put through when we ourselves were in government. It provides for an extension of the electricity program and is principally designed to develop the resources of the Ramu Valley. The Bill is designed to provide technical assistance and finance and to expand the electricity distribution system. There seems to be little point in having a long debate about this Bill. It is consistent with previous Bills. The interest rate is satisfactory and the general repayment terms are satisfactory. The Bill contains a general proposal for the underwriting of the development of Papua New Guinea’s resources which began in the time of our government and is being continued in the time of this Government. Accordingly, we support the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1821
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-
This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to the provision of contractual guarantees by the Australian Government for overseas borrowings by the Papua New Guinea Government in foreign currencies not exceeding the equivalent of $A20m prior to achievement of independence in 1974-75. The proceeds of the loans will be used by the Papua New Guinea Government to finance public works and services. In the 1 972-73 financial year the Papua New Guinea Government made its first overseas borrowing on the international capital market. This borrowing, which was guaranteed by the Australian Government under legislation similar to that now before the Senate, was for an amount of 50 million Deutsche marks. Under the Papua New Guinea Loans Guarantee Act 1973 guarantee for loans of 5 billion yen and 50 million Swiss francs have also been given. Parliament has also, on a number of previous occasions, approved similar contractual guarantees by the Australian Government in respect of loans to Papua New Guinea from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Asian Development Bank.
It is proposed that arrangements for the borrowings for which this Bill provides contractual guarantees will be concluded prior to the achievement of independence by Papua New
Guinea. Loan possibilities on overseas markets are currently being investigated by the Papua New Guinea Government. The form of guarantee that is customarily required in international capital markets is similar to those that have been given to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and to the Asian Development Bank in respect of borrowings by Papua New Guinea from those institutions. The borrower and the guarantor would also both be required to give customary undertakings to the effect that interest payments and repayment of the loan would be made without deduction for taxes and would also be free of exchange control restrictions. The Bill accordingly provides for such undertakings to be given.
The Bill is purposely couched in general terms in respect of the currencies and the precise forms of the proposed borrowings so as not to restrict the Papua New Guinea Government’s choice as to the particular overseas markets in which it finally decides to arrange the loans. The provision of contractual guarantees by the Australian Government will materially assist Papua New Guinea in negotiating favourable terms for the borrowings as well as enhancing its status as a borrower on overseas capital markets. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
– We see here what is known as the Wreidt-Cotton operation for speed in the Senate. The Papua New Guinea Loans Guarantee Bill is a straightforward measure. It is not opposed by the Opposition; indeed, it is welcomed. It is mentioned in the second reading speech that Papua New Guinea engaged in its first overseas borrowing in the year 1972-73. It did so then with the support of the Opposition, and it does so again. This is a guarantee arrangement to cover Papua New Guinea as it passes towards independence. This Bill gives Papua New Guinea a more favourable opportunity in the international money market. It allows Papua New Guinea to achieve a more effective interest rate. It is couched in general terms, as is expressed in the second reading speech, so that the currencies in which Papua New Guinea may wish to negotiate are open for it to judge. This Bill allows us to give Papua New Guinea a guarantee by underwriting loans. A far as we can see, the measure follows exactly the same form as the previous legislation. It has our support and we welcome it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1822
– The sitting of the Senate is suspended until approximately 4.45 p.m. to enable Estimates Committees D, E and F to meet. The committees will meet as soon as possible. Committee D will meet in the Senate chamber, Committee E will meet in Senate Committee Room No. 1 and Committee F will meet in Senate Committee Room No. 3. The bells will be rung prior to the meeting of the Estimates committees.
Sitting suspended from 12.8 to 4.46 p.m.
page 1822
– I move:
In moving that motion, I indicate that in accordance with the schedule distributed to honourable senators the Estimates Committees will resume their sittings following the adjournment of the Senate. It is not proposed to ring the bells. It will take approximately 15 minutes to rearrange the Senate chamber, but members of committees meeting in downstairs committee rooms are asked to move immediately to their committee rooms and resume as soon as possible.
– I would like to say a few words about a matter which has arisen in the sense that I have now been able to read one or two reports of what happened in my absence from the Senate yesterday concerning a vote that was taken in this chamber. I have also had the opportunity to peruse a report printed in the Launceston ‘Examiner’ concerning that vote. I want to read to the Senate my reply to that report which I sent to the ‘Examiner’ today. I hope that the ‘Examiner’ will print my reply and put in its correct light the situation in relation to the vote taken yesterday on the States Grants Bill. I wrote to the ‘Examiner’:
The sense of your report in Thursday’s copy of ‘The Examiner’ concerning the debate on the States Grants Bill in the Senate was admirably developed on a pro-Tasmanian basis. I applaud your paper’s active interest in your State’s future.
However, the real issue of the debate was the provision of an additional $15m per year to Tasmania on a progressive annual growth rate.
I did not vote against that Bill, as was inferred in the first paragraph of your report.
I interpose here that the first paragraph of the report stated:
Senator Hall, of South Australia, joined Labor senators last night to defeat a motion calling on the Government to increase funds for Tasmania.
My letter to the ‘Examiner’ continues:
In fact, I voted for the Bill without reservation of any kind.
The point of contention on which you have reported concerned an additional paragraph that Senator Rae unfortunately moved to have inserted into the motion for the second reading of the Bill.
I voted against his motion which was nothing more than a divisive expression of opinion because it was potentially of great harm to Tasmania.
The States Grants Bill as passed is a matter of some pride for Tasmanians as it now enables them to be governed outside of the Grants Commission. It is the result of a successful negotiation which will help every taxpayer in the State.
Senator Rae’s motion was potentially a very harmful proposition for his State. He was quite clearly hitting out at the hand of generosity extended by the Commonwealth, and I am sure that if it had passed on my vote in the Senate it would have depressed Tasmania’s reputation on the Federal level.
I do not lay all of the blame for this at the feet of Senator Rae. The Opposition has been unable to clearly see its role and has missed many excellent opportunities to effectively attack a Federal Labor Government which I believe is doing a great deal of harm to this nation.
Instead of concentrating on those proper areas of attack, the Opposition has hit out blindly as in this particular instance of Senator Rae’s, and often harmed the free enterprise system which it ought to protect.
The loss of the amending AIDC Bill is one example where Tasmanian industrial development could well be delayed because of the Opposition obstruction in the Senate.
Liberal Senators will have to learn to put the welfare of their State above their Party.
I trust they do not try to mount another political stunt for the benefit of mainland politicians at the expense of Tasmania.
That is my reply to the report which appeared in the Launceston ‘Examiner’. Upon making inquiries I found that the leading part of the article in the ‘Examiner’ was written on a report telephoned through to the ‘Examiner’ by Senator Rae. There was no misconception in the reporting of the debate and of the vote in this House in any message conveyed by the newspaper reporters in the Press Gallery. I have checked that. The matter was properly reported in every respect except in relation to that aspect which Senator Rae reported himself.
– Detective Steele Hall.
– Yes, it is detective work. The time has generally arrived- it will not be this evening unless honourable senators want to convey it further- to take apart the sorts of motives which prompted Senator Greenwood and Senator Rae in the debate which took place yesterday. They were of the lowest motives and they do not match up with the statements made previously by those 2 honourable senators, which I have begun to research in Hansard. It will take some considerable time to ascertain what their motives are in this place but, if Senator Rae wants me to, I could refer to some of his previous remarks about smear campaigns and misrepresentation. He has been joined by his Deputy Leader who had been very frequent in his references in this chamber to higher motives. He has used such references in recent times, especially yesterday. As I say, it is the business of other honourable senators if they want to continue with this matter.
I give fair warning to people like Senator Rae and Senator Greenwood that if the level of their motives is as has been indicated, this matter will not rest there. I will use a considerable amount of time to reveal those motives to their own electorates and to the people of Australia generally. I will certainly bring them to the attention of the Senate. The particular incident to which I have referred is an example of a severe misrepresentation, which has been clearly set out in my reply which I hope the ‘Examiner’ will print. I want to make it quite clear at this stage that I voted without reservation yesterday for the advantages to be given to Tasmania. I hope that further negotiations will be entered into with the Federal Government on behalf of that State in regard to its other needs. I hope that I will be given the chance to vote on further proposals which will be of advantage to Tasmania. I will not have a proper approach made by the Tasmanian Government to the Federal Government besmirched by the attitudes of the honourable senators I have named who tried to use Tasmania for their Party ends yesterday.
-I will not engage in a reply to some of the more extreme matters raised by Senator Hall in his flights of fancy. I will, however, try to put the matter into perspective by stating the truth. The truth is that the headline in the ‘Examiner’ is: ‘Tas Refused More Money’. The sub-headline is: ‘Senate Plea Defeated by One Vote’. The article which follows reads:
Senator Hall, South Australia, joined Labor senators last night to defeat a motion calling on the Government to increase funds for Tasmania.
I pause there and ask: In what way is there any misrepresentation in that? The Senate was considering a motion which did call on the Government to increase funds for Tasmania. The motion was defeated and Senator Hall joined with the Labor Party senators to defeat it.
Government senators- Hear, hear!
– Thank you. The article continues:
The sponsor of the motion, Senator Rae, said that the purpose was to equalise Tasmanian shipping costs with tonnemile rail freights in other States.
That was what is said-
The motion also claimed that the present grants to Tasmania were inadequate and should be increased.
Again I simply refer to the Senate Hansard of yesterday in which it is quite clear that that is what the motion said. The article went on to say :
The motion was moved by Senator Rae during the debate on the Bill to provide a grant of $15m to Tasmania in lieu of former Grants Commission assistance.
I believe that that too is a fact. And so the story goes on. In no way does it misrepresent Senator Hall’s shameful actions in this chamber.
In relation to the other matter raised by Senator Hall, which is where the story came from, in this chamber last night I received a message from the attendant asking me to telephone the Examiner’ in Launceston. I telephoned the Examiner’ in Launceston and asked who it was who wanted to talk to me and what it was about. I was asked by the ‘Examiner’ to give some further information on the story which it had received from the Press services of this place. The further fact which I refer to in conclusion is that there is no inaccuracy in any way. There was a motion moved by me, supported by the Opposition, to increase funds for Tasmania. That motion was defeated, lt was defeated by a combination -
– It was an expression of opinion.
– Calling on the Government to increase funds is surely a way in which it could be described, and that is what it did. It expressed the view that the Government should forthwith provide further funds. If that is not calling on the Government to provide further funds I cannot imagine what is. None of Senator Hall’s misstatements or misguided performances in this place are going to impress anybody in Tasmania. The Tasmanian people know where he stands. He is against the small States. He is against keeping the Labor Government to its pre-election promises. We will see what sort of performance he is able to make if he wishes to put forward anything on behalf of South Australia or if anybody else does. We will see whether he stands up. More and more one gains the impression that he is far more interested in looking after the interests of the present socialist Government.
– I claim to have been misrepresented.
– The honourable senator may make a personal explanation after the debate is completed.
– It is not my custom to speak on the adjournment debate but this occasion impels me to do so. It will be recalled that I was one of those who took part in the debate yesterday. As an elected member of this chamber I felt that I had the right to do so and to say the things that I said. I do not resile from that position because if I did I would be putting the position of every honourable senator in this chamber in jeopardy. I do not think we should stoop to the sort of thing that is being attempted at the present time. Suffice to say that in my 10 years in this Senate this sort of thing has never happened to me, but I will read to the Senate the contents of a telegram which awaited me after I left an Estimates Committee of the Senate chamber and returned to my office at 20 minutes to 5. The telegram is addressed to Senator D. M. Devitt, Parliament House, Canberra. It says:
We were appalled at your performance in the Senate last night in the debate on the second reading of the Bill to provide Tasmania with the additional $15m assistance. The amendment which was proposed by Senator Rae provided an opportunity to alleviate the interstate freight problem to and from Tasmania. It was an amendment well worthy of your support and we think it a great pity that you could not have expressed your personal opinions and done something to assist the State you represent instead of voting on Party lines scoring political points and mouthing arithmetic about aid in the field of education and health. You must be aware that unless Tasmania’s grim transport problem is solved in the near future industry in this State will commence an irreversible downward trend.
It is signed: ‘Sherlock, Hobart Chamber of Commerce’. I have not had sufficient opportunity to review the response which I am proposing to make to that telegram. I just point out here that in the Press reports in Tasmania today concerning the debate my name was not used. I do not know whether Mr Sherlock of the Hobart Chamber of Commerce was listening in to the radio broadcast last night and drew the conclusions he did as to the comments I made but at the moment I am proposing to put something on the record. I may subsequently alter or amend it because I had about 5 minutes before the sitting resumed to put this on paper. It is my intention at the moment to address myself to Mr Sherlock, of the Hobart Chamber of Commerce in these terms: ‘In response to your telegram’ -
– Speak up.
– Shut up. I propose to say:
In response to your telegram which I received today I wish to say that I have no intention of identifying myself with the cheap and blatant political stunting of members of the Opposition who, when in government, did so little for Tasmania. The Bill which was passed met every cent of the request of the Tasmanian Premier. Contrary to your belief, which also appears to be based upon a biased political stance, all my endeavours are bent towards assisting my State of Tasmania- always have been and always will be. I reject out of hand your cheap and slanted gibe which henceforth I propose to ignore unless you have the good grace and decency to apologise.
That will be signed ‘Senator Don Devitt’.
-I desire to say one or two things on this matter because there has been an attack today by Senator Hall on the accuracy and the morals of members of the Opposition. I think it is clear now when we hear the accurate reading of the article which appeared that what was said by Senator Rae and what appears in the article is the dead accurate truth. What appears is what should be known to the people of Tasmania. I think that someone else should stand up and say that honourable senators on this side respect Senator Rae for the way in which he has supported thoroughly the interests of his State. He has been denigrated by Senator Hall in a highly unsatisfactory way.
Two things that Senator Hall said may have a little more than general application. He stated that if he voted for the motion last night which called on the Government to provide further moneys for Tasmania and further support, that might have done damage to Tasmania. What can that mean but that the Government would have taken out some petty revenge on Tasmania if the Senate last night had carried that motion? I think that it is not capable of any other interpretation. If Senator Hall thinks that, he should have had the moral courage to stand firm against that feeling, vote for the motion on its merits and put the Government to the test. Would it have taken revenge against Tasmania if the Senate had carried that motion last night? I suggest that it really should have made him vote the other way.
The last thing I say is this: He has attacked the morals of Opposition senators- he is not sure what are the low morals of the Opposition- for taking their stance last night. He says that he is not sure but that he will investigate. Yet he is prepared to attack. If he intends to have the name liberal’ in his Party and if he intends to have the idea of ‘liberal ‘ in bis policy and philosophy he must find out the facts before he attacks the morals of the people who sit on this side of the chamber. I suggest that he ought to find out the facts not only about articles that are written but also about the motives of people who sit here before he makes these attacks which have no basis. Senator Devitt has read out something which he has received. I do not know why he has done that because surely it indicates that people in Tasmania feel strongly about the lack of support that they receive from this Government. I suggest to the honourable senators opposite who have spoken that they ought to get their facts straight. Of course they are unhappy about the reaction they have received from Tasmania to their miserable attitude. That is the reason why the attack was made on Senator Rae today.
- Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented.
-Standing order 410 states:
A Senator who has spoken to a Question may again be heard, to explain himself in regard to some material part of his speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood, but shall not introduce any new matter, or interrupt any Senator in possession of the Chair, and no debatable matter shall be brought forward or debate arise upon such explanation.
– I certainly have been misconstrued in the words used by Senator Rae. I want not to introduce any new subject matter but only to reject utterly the blatant and deliberate untruth that I am against the interests of small States. Senator Rae has no basis whatsoever for saying that and it is a desperate and unwarranted untruth.
– I rise only to assert the right of senators in this chamber to speak as they wish to speak on issues and to submit themselves as they may have to from time to time to the rejoinders of those who do not like the way they speak. I spoke very briefly last night and I am surprised that Senator Hall should feel that what I had to say should cause him embarrassment. I sense that he was embarrassed because it is quite unusual for him to speak with the feeling with which he spoke both at a later stage last night and again today, and in the course of what he said today to claim that in effect there was a misrepresentation which does not exist. I have read the report in the Launceston ‘Examiner’ and it is totally accurate.
– In your opinion.
-There may be some selecting from what was said during the course of the debate but so far as Senator Hall is concerned it was accurate in what it related about him. He has got to face the fact that he did vote with the Labor Party to reject Senator Rae’s amendment which simply asked that this Senate express the opinion, in effect, that Tasmania was being hardly dealt with and suggested that it would be better if Tasmania were given more money and that we should recognise the problems which Tasmania experiences because of the cost problems in regard to transport. That is the real problem facing Tasmania today. It has been a problem facing Tasmania over a long period.
The folly, the vice, of this present Government’s position is that for so long it promised to equalise the cost differentia] between Tasmania and the mainland on the basis that Tasmania was simply one of the mainland States and the Government has failed to live up to its promise. Why should we not use every opportunity to point that out?
Last night I rose simply to highlight the fact that the Government senators had not honoured their promise and I finished by saying, after I had made that point:
We only regret that the man who speaks for the State of South Australia as he claims, as the Liberal Movement senator, was not prepared to speak on behalf of the State of Tasmania.
I do regret it, because Senator Hall comes here as the solitary independent from South Australia and as a States’ interest man and it is a matter of regret that he cannot speak up on behalf of another State. I will not be intimidated by some suggestion that I have a past which can be investigated and I do not think it reflects credit on Senator Hall that he uses that sort of intimidatory tactic.
– I should like to say only a few words because in all the to and fro in the discussion on Tasmania there is still one point which has not been clarified. I might be doing some of our speakers an injustice, although there were many excellent points raised by them, but I do not think it was brought out on this side and it was left to Senator Hall to raise this point. The point that Senator Hall has raised- and he raised it in the form of a question- is: What precisely is the Liberal Party’s economic policy? As I understand it, the gravamen of the Opposition’s criticism of the Australian Labor Party is that it is engaging in too much public expenditure but what the Opposition says about Tasmania is that we are engaging in too little public expenditure.
Is the argument therefore that there ought to be a reduction in the expenditure in all or some of the other States in order to make up for the increased expenditure in Tasmania? If so, which States are they to be and to what extent? If this is not the case, how is the Opposition proposing to us that the Government can couple increased expenditure on Tasmania with a Budget which in toto is reduced? This point has still not been answered and I should be delighted, even at this late hour, if somebody from the Opposition- perhaps Senator Greenwood, instead of pursuing his personal vendetta against Senator Hall- were to deal with matters of substance and matters of policy and not matters of personality and explain to us precisely what it is that they have in mind on economic policy.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1827
The following answer to a question was circulated:
Was the application granted; if not, have
Senate adjourned at 5.11 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741017_senate_29_s61/>.