29th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1857
– I present the following petition from 1633 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
Divorce is a Social and Medical Problem not a Legal Issue and be Relieved accordingly.
All Family Matters must come out of the Legal System.
There must be No Lawyers- No Courts- And Especially- No Judges.
D.L.R A.’S Proposals must be considered for the New Divorce Laws.
1 ) The persons themselves to record their own divorce at the place where Marriages are made.
Guidelines to be established by Mediators (NonLawyers) to resolve difficulties particularly with children and property.
Joint Custody and Mutual Financial Support of children where possible.
Child Endowment to provide Financial Support of children when needed.
Property disputes to be resolved as an ordinary Civil Matter.
Adults not self supporting to be regarded as unemployed or on sickness benefits or pensions.
Only the breach of Agreement should incur Legal Process.
The motivation of lawyers in family matters is for profit only and their involvement has proved a disaster for the community since 1959.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 10 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:- Divorce is a social and medical problem not a legal issue and be relieved accordingly.
There must be urgent reform and the Family Law Bill must be presented to Parliament forthwith and accepted without further delay.
Irretrievable breakdown must be the only ground with a maximum of twelve months separation.
All Family Matters must come out of the Legal System.
There must be No Lawyers- No Courts- And Especially- No Judges.
D.L.R.A.’S. Proposals must be considered for the New Divorce Laws.
1 ) The persons themselves to record their own divorce at the place where Marriages are made.
Guidelines to be established by Mediators (Non Lawyers) to resolve difficulties particularly with children and property.
Joint Custody and Mutual Financial Support of children where possible.
Child Endowment to Provide Financial Support of Children when needed.
Property disputes to be resolved as an ordinary Civil Matter.
Adults not self supporting to be regarded as unemployed or on sickness benefit or pensions.
Only the breach of Agreement should incur Legal Process and the Family Law Bill used as a last resort, with family courts for enforcement only.
The motivation of lawyers in family matters is for profit only and their involvement has proved a disaster for the community since 1959.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 10 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:- Divorce is a social and medical problem not a legal issue and be relieved accordingly.
There must be urgent reform and the Family Law Bill must be presented to Parliament forthwith and accepted without further delay.
Irretrievable breakdown must be the only ground with a maximum of twelve months separation.
All Family Matters must come out of the Legal System.
There must be No Lawyers- No Courts- And Especially- No Judges.
D.L.R.A. ‘ S. Proposals must be considered for the New Divorce Laws.
1 ) The persons themselves to record their own divorce at the place where Marriages are made.
Guidelines to be established by Mediators (Non Lawyers) to resolve difficulties particularly with children and property.
Joint Custody and Mutual Financial Support of children where possible.
Child Endowment to Provide Financial Support of Children when needed.
Property disputes to be resolved as an ordinary Civil Matter.
Adults not self supporting to be regarded as unemployed or on sickness benefit or pensions.
Only the breach of Agreement should incur Legal Process and the Family Law Bill used as a last resort, with family courts for enforcement only.
The motivation of lawyers in family matters is for profit only and their involvement has proved a disaster for the community since 1939.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 9 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:- Divorce is a social and medical problem not a legal issue and be relieved accordingly.
There must be urgent reform and the Family Law Bill must be presented to Parliament forthwith and accepted without further delay.
Irretrievable breakdown must be the only ground with a maximum of twelve months separation.
All Family Matters must come out of the Legal System.
There must be No Lawyers- No Courts- And Especially- No Judges.
D.L.R.A.’S. Proposals must be considered for the New Divorce Laws.
1 ) The persons themselves to record their own divorce at the place where Marriages are made.
2 ) Guidelines to be established by Mediators ( Non Lawyers) to resolve difficulties particularly with children and property.
Joint Custody and Mutual Financial Support of children where possible.
Child Endowment to Provide Financial Support of Children when needed.
Property disputes to be resolved as an ordinary Civil Matter.
Adults not self supporting to be regarded as unemployed or on sickness benefit or pensions.
Only the breach of Agreement should incur Legal Process and the Family Law Bill used as a last resort, with family courts for enforcement only.
The motivation of lawyers in family matters is for profit only and their involvement has proved a disaster for the community since 19S9.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 10 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:- Divorce is a social and medical problem not a legal issue and be relieved accordingly.
There must be urgent reform and the Family Law Bill must be presented to Parliament forthwith and accepted without further delay.
Irretrievable breakdown must be the only ground with a maximum of twelve months separation.
All family matters must come out of the Legal System.
There must be No Lawyers- No Courts- and especially- No Judges.
D.L.R.A.’s Proposals must be considered for the New Divorce Laws.
1 ) The persons themselves to record their own divorce al the place where Marriages are made.
) Guidelines to be established by Mediators (Non Lawyers) to resolve difficulties particularly with children and property.
Joint Custody and Mutual Financial Support of Children where possible.
Child Endowment to Provide Financial Support of Children when needed.
Property disputes to be resolved as an ordinary Civil Matter.
Adults not self supporting to be regarded as unemployed or on sickness benefit or pensions.
Only the breach of Agreement should incur Legal Process and the Family Law Bill used as a last resort, with family courts for enforcement only.
The motivation of lawyers in family matters is for profit only and their involvement has proved a disaster for the community since 1959.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 1310 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
Petition to register objections to the introduction of the Family Law Bill into the Australian Parliament.
The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:
We, the undersigned persons, interested in the welfare of the family life in Australia and the maintenance of community standards, desire to bring to the notice of the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the registration of protests to the principle contained in the Family Law Bill.
The bases upon which the protests are founded are:
We consider that as no well-publicised inquiry to which the Australian people were invited to submit their views was held, the proposed legislation does not reflect the views of the Australian community in a matter of vital importance.
We consider that the proposed legislation does not support the principle laid down by United Nation’s Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”, in that:
It makes divorce easier to obtain by removal of concept of guilt and drastic shortening of time required to prove irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
There would appear to be no requirement that an honest attempt at reconciliation be made before a dissolution of marriage is granted.
There would appear to be no provision for compulsory conferences as at present- it is a proven fact that many marriages have been saved at these conferences.
The present law provides that consideration is given to the support of wife and children; it would seem that in the proposed law it will be far more difficult for the family to receive just consideration in the event of a dissolution of the marriage.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should be informed that the attached pages 1 to 54 be considered as supporting the statements contained above as objections to the introduction of the Family Law Bill into the Australian Parliament.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Victoria:
To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:
That the Family Law Bill (1974) is a matter of public importance;
That the subject matter of the clauses of the Bill will ultimately have the widest effects on the lives of the citizens of Australia;
That the proposals contained in this Bill are not adequately known to the citizens of Australia;
That the Bill as such has not been the object of the public scrutiny, dialogue and debate which it deserves;
That for these reasons grave concern is felt that the Bill may be passed before the community is aware of its long term consequences.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote that the Family Law Bill ( 1974) be made the subject of further community study and that to facilitate this aim the debate on this Bill be adjourned until April, 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Victoria:
To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:-
That the Family Law Bill (1974) is a matter of public importance;
That the subject matter of the clauses of the Bill will ultimately have the widest effects on the lives of the citizens of Australia;
That the proposals contained in this Bill are not adequately known to the citizens of Australia;
That the Bill as such has not been the object of the public scrutiny, dialogue and debate which it deserves;
That for these reasons grave concern is felt that the Bill may be passed before the community is aware of its long term consequences.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote that the Family Law Bill (1974) be made the subject of further community study and that to facilitate this aim the debate on this Bill be adjourned until April, 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Victoria:
To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:-
That the Family Law Bill (1974) is a matter of public importance;
That the subject matter of the clauses of the Bill will ultimately have the widest effects on the lives of the citizens of Australia;
That the proposals contained in this Bill are not adequately known to the citizens of Australia;
That the Bill as such has not been the object of the public scrutiny, dialogue and debate which it deserves;
That for these reasons grave concern is felt that the Bill may be passed before the community is aware of its long term consequences.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote that the Family Law Bill ( 1974) be made the subject of further community study and that to facilitate this aim the debate on this Bill be adjourned until April, 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 129 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 the divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that ail 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 101 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six 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 from 41 and 52 citizens of Australia respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family. ( 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 six 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.
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 arc very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Fmily Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six 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 the following petition from 1 48 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
. The Family Law Bill 1 974 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 six 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 1 6 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 modem 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 1 974 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 marriages.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six 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 63 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does hot 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 six 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 6 petitions, identical in wording, from 2, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 23 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 six 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 the following petition from 16 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.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six 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 27 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-
That whereas the Budget Paper No. 9 titled ‘Australia’s External Aid 1 974-75 ‘ allocated $ 150,000 for ‘humanitarian assistance to National Liberation Movements in Africa’;
And whereas the humanitarian needs of these oppressed people require greater assistance from Australia than the above amount allocated in the budget;
And whereas such assistance is in keeping with that provided by Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and New Zealand, and United Nations Organisations such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, FAO and WHO, and such non-Government organisations as the World Council of Churches, the Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Community Aid Abroad, and some Roman Catholic Aid Agencies in Europe;
So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to substantially increase the abovementioned humanitarian assistance.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 39 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-
That whereas the Budget Paper No. 9 titled ‘Australia’s External Aid 1 974-75 ‘ allocated $ 1 50,000 for ‘humanitarian assistance to National Liberation Movements in Africa’;
And whereas the humanitarian needs of these oppressed people require greater assistance from Australia than the above amount allocated in the budget;
And whereas such assistance is in keeping with that provided by Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and New Zealand, and United Nations Organisations such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, FAO and WHO, and such non-Government organisations as the World Council of Churches, the Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Community Aid Abroad, and some Roman Catholic Aid Agencies in Europe;
So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to substantially increase the abovementioned humanitarian assistance.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 397 citizens of Australia:
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 82 j of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $150 is $50.00 below the 1956-57 figure.
That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending schools, whether non government 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 under-staffed.
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 educational 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 1 973- 1 974 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 7 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the sole ground for divorce, as set down in the Family Law Bill 1973 based on one year’s separation.
Maintenance to be based on the needs of all the parties in a failed marriage. Effective automatic permanent entitlement to an ex-wife to be abolished.
Emphasis to be placed on rehabilitation and retraining of estranged wives to enable them to be independent.
Custody to be awarded in disputed cases on the basis of a qualified panel recommendation and to only take in to account the material, moral and psychological well being of children involved, not the possessive demands of their parents.
Matrimonial property to be divided equally, taking into account initial contributions. (0 Costs of matrimonial proceedings to be divided equally.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– As a similar petition has been presented by Senator Martin I do not propose to move that this petition be read.
page 1862
– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), who left Australia on 20 October to attend a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Pacific Area Travel Association in Western Samoa, will return on 25 October. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) is incapacitated due to an accident and is unable to attend the sittings of the House of Representatives during this week at least. In the absence of those Ministers, the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) will act as Minister for Services and Property, Leader of the House of Representatives and Minister for Tourism and Recreation.
page 1863
page 1863
– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. If the Government wishes to prevent international airlines from uplifting excess quantities of fuel in Australia, is it not a fact that the Government has power to prevent them from doing so under the powers available to his Department? If this is the case, why does not the Government follow this course of action instead of deliberately causing an increase in air fares, the burden of which will fall on the Australian community which already has suffered substantial increases in air fares under this Government?
-What the Leader of the Opposition is putting is probably correct- that action could be taken under the Customs Act, certainly by the passage of an appropriate regulation if the current regulations do not cover it already. It is a slightly technical matter and I will look into it to make sure what the position is. But I am certain that the Government is not taking any action with the intention of unnecessarily increasing air fares. In order that we can be sure that the best procedure has been taken, I will speak to the Ministers concerned and further inform the Senate.
page 1863
-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Is it a fact that Britain and France, through the British Aircraft Corporation, have committed themselves to building 16 Concorde aircraft and that they encountered a ban by Canada and the United States of America when they sought supersonic overnight permission? What action is contemplated to ensure that Australia does not become an environmental guinea pig?
-The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is true that there are commitments and that there are some banning provisions in the United States of America and Canada because civil air transport is allowed over their territories only on condition that no sonic boom effects will be encountered on the ground below the aircraft. I do not think Australia will become an environmental guinea pig on this question. The Minister has reported that he would welcome the operation of the Concorde aircraft on some routes which were proved by trials in order to establish once and for all whether the Concorde would be accepted environmentally in Australia. An assurance has been given that the noise level will not be greater than that of some subsonic aircraft in regular service to and from Australia at the present time. The experience gained from the flight of the Concorde 002 in this country in June 1972 shows that sonic boom does not cause structural damage over an area where there is no reflection. For the trial when the aircraft came here a route was selected where very few people would be affected. As the Minister stated, he is agreeable to holding some trials to see whether we can find a terminal for the Concorde in Australia which will have a minimal effect upon people and will not harm the environment
page 1863
-The Minister for the Media will be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has alleged that the Australian Press is attempting to bring about the downfall of the Labor Government. I ask whether he recalls any Labor spokesman complaining about biased and unfair political reporting in the months preceding Labor’s election win in 1972. Does the Minister see the Press as collectively and consistently biased in political reporting or is it accurate to say that Press reports and comments in the main are clear reflections of good or bad government?
– I can recall instances of members of the present Government complaining on one or two occasions about misreporting, in the months preceding the 1972 election. So the answer to the first question is yes-
– You must have a longer memory than most.
– I can also well remember the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate complaining bitterly at that time about the bias of the Melbourne ‘Age’ and wanting to refer a matter concerning ethics to the Australian Journalists’ Association. I remember him referring at length to the anarchists, the left wingers, the communists and the neo-communists in the employ of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I also recall him referring to officers of the ABC as being members of the Marcusian Left. I suppose that while there is a Parliament and while there is a Press concern will always be expressed by people as to the manner in which matters are reported either by the electronic or the print media. At the present time however I have directed the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to conduct a public inquiry into the alleged suppression of news by certain sections of the electronic media. Pending receipt of that report, I do not intend to comment any further on the honourable senator’s question.
page 1864
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Northern Development. Is he aware that the Premier and his Government in Queensland have initiated legislation to prevent members of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation from operating in Queensland except under the clear direction of the State Government? As the Queensland Government opposes all development work north of Kingaroy, this move is obviously designed to prevent any further work on the Burdekin Dam. Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the Australian Government will press on with plans for construction of the Burdekin Dam in spite of the opposition from the Queensland Government?
-Currently a joint FederalState committee is inquiring into the development of the Burdekin area to which Senator Keeffe has referred. It will involve not only agricultural development but also eventually, I believe, power generation. It is my understanding that there is a big potential for development in that area. This Government has endeavoured to make available the expertise of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to assist the States in these major developmental programs. It is my understanding that legislation is being drawn up in Queensland for the purpose of in some way frustrating this co-operation between the Queensland authorities and the Snowy Mountains Corporation. It seems an incredible thing to me that, where we make available these resources to any State, simply because of some personal feeling which appears to exist on the part of certain people in Queensland they are prepared to risk the further development of that scheme. I would have thought that the Queensland Government would be glad to cooperate with the Australian Government, irrespective of the feelings about politics and personalities which exist. But it seems that the people in the Burdekin area in Queensland may well be sacrificed because of these factors. I hope that common sense will prevail. It would be ridiculous to see the development of that area of Queensland suffer simply because the Premier of Queensland does not like this Government.
page 1864
-Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that, notwithstanding the current High Court challenge to the validity of the legislation which establishes the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, the Authority is proposing to expend the sum of $50m in this current year? In all the circumstances is not that expenditure recklessly imprudent? Without seeking any legal opinion from the Attorney-General, I ask: Has he been asked to give or has he given to the Authority advice as to steps which might be taken by the Authority to avoid this sum being totally lost if the Authority should be declared invalid?
– Of course I am aware that there is a challenge to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority legislation; but, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware, the legislation was passed at the Joint Sitting and assented to. Until some competent court declares it to be invalid it is to be treated as the law of the land. There has been no injunction in respect of the Authority. The Government’s duty is to treat the legislation as the law of the land. As to the other matters raised about expenditure, I understand from one of my colleagues that this has been raised already in an estimates committee. If someone wishes to stop the operation of that legislation, it is open to him to see whether he can get an injunction against the operation of the legislation pending any determination by the High Court. Until that is done, the Government quite properly is treating the legislation as being in full force and effect.
page 1864
-I ask the Minister for Agriculture whether he can confirm reports that the European Economic Community has extended its meat import ban beyond November this year for an indefinite period? If the reports are true, what action is Australia taking on this matter?
– It is true that the European Economic Community has extended the ban on the import of Australian beef into that economic group. At this stage there is not a great deal we can do. The EEC, as a member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, will be required, I think later this week, to appear before the properly constituted authorities of the GATT machinery to explain why it has taken the action which it has, in exactly the same way as Japan was required to do this week. The whole purpose of GATT is to ensure that these actions are not taken in the manner that they have been taken by Japan and the EEC. In relation to the EEC, we will need to await the outcome of the discussions that will take place among GATT countries.
page 1865
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON.Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health about the problem of the cholera outbreak in Manila. He undertook to refer urgently to the Minister for Health the question of health precautions taken by the Department of Health at the point of entry into Australia. I understand that the Minister has obtained some information from the Minister for Health. I am sure that it would be in the public interest that he be given an opportunity without delay to announce what it is.
– It seemed to me that this matter was one of some urgency, and I asked the Minister for Health to let me have a prompt report on the matter, which he has done.
– That is a change.
– I do not think it is a change. I think the Minister for Health is always very prompt with his replies. The Minister’s reply is: I am aware of the recent outbreak of cholera in the Manila area. The Philippines have been reported by the World Health Organisation consistently as an infected area all this year, and the latest outbreak is a resurgence of endemic disease. For some years Australia has required that passengers returning from overseas, from countries any part of which are infected with cholera, should be in possession of a valid certificate of vaccination against cholera. It was believed that vaccination would completely protect travellers from cholera so that on return to Australia they would be free of the disease and be unable to transmit it to others. Experience of epidemics in other countries has shown that the international spread of cholera is not prevented by vaccination or by prophylactic medication. The World Health Organisation in May 1973 pointed out that insistence on vaccination against cholera, while offering partial protection, did not preclude the possibility of importation of cholera into a country. This occurs because the protection afforded by current cholera vaccines is relatively low- 40 per cent to 60 per cent- and also because the vaccine is ineffective against the development of asymptomatic carriers of the disease. For these reasons the World Health Organisation, since 1973, has not supported vaccination against cholera for international travel.
It follows that the protection of populations depends mainly on sanitation and other public health measures taken within the country. Australia is fortunate in having good sanitation systems. Experience has shown overseas that in every recent case of importation of cholera into a country where standards of personal hygiene, sanitation and nutrition are satisfactory no secondary cases have occurred. Australia had one imported case of cholera in 1969, and 41 cases in November 1972. The latter outbreak was almost certainly caused by infected food taken on board an aircraft at Bahrein en route to Australia. There were, however, no secondary cases associated with either of these importations. While, therefore, Australia still requires that travellers arriving here by air from overseas countries, any parts of which are infected with cholera, shall be in possession of a certificate of vaccination against cholera, those not in possession of such certification are not isolated in a quarantine station but are given a notice which advises persons who have entered Australia by air from overseas to seek medical opinion if they develop an illness within 14 days of arrival. It is also proposed that by amendment to the Quarantine (General) Regulations vaccination against cholera shall not be required as a condition of admission of any international traveller to this country. Officers of the Department of Health performing quarantine duties at international airports have been notified of this resurgence of cholera in the Manila area and will exercise extra vigilance in regard to passengers arriving from this part of Asia. The Department of Health continues to advise vaccination against cholera for personal protection of Australians travelling overseas and likely to visit cholera infected countries.
page 1865
-What action does the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation intend to take to ensure that the new and extended benefits promised to Australian Government employees under the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1973 are implemented? If the Government does not intend to pursue this legislation, what steps will be taken by the Government to ensure that the interests of its employees are protected?
-The Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill of 1973 had a rather strange and chequered history. It was introduced into the House of Representatives in March 1973 and was passed without any opposition on 10 April 1973. It then came to the Senate where it was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs- of which I must confess I was a member at that time- and it was still before that Committee when the Parliament was prorogued. As the Bill had not been passed, the employees of the Australian Government were still receiving very unsatisfactory compensation, and normally efforts would have been made to reintroduce the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill in a form similar to that which had previously come before the Senate and had not been passed. However, as there is at present before the House of Representatives a Bill to provide for national compensation, which from 1 July 1976 will provide cover for all employees, including Commonwealth Government employees, it was decided not to proceed with any radical changes to the existing legislation regarding compensation to Australian Government employees.
However, as there is quite a considerable injustice being done to these employees at the present time because of the fact that the Act has not been amended for so long, I propose- in fact I think later today- to introduce into this chamber a Bill which will bring the benefits which are at present being paid to Australian Government employees to a level more commensurate with today’s costs and with the value of money today than the existing Act provides. But this, I repeat, is in the nature of a transitory provision which is merely meant to take the role of a stop-gap until such time as the more general compensation proposals of the Government have been adopted by the Parliament.
page 1866
-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it not a fact that the Government stated that meat prices were a big factor in the previous quarterly increase in inflation? Is it not also a fact that since then meat prices have fallen considerably during the September quarter? Following the Government’s previous comment, would not the present rate of inflation be much higher than the now record 21.6 per cent if meat prices had not fallen to a great extent during the latest quarter? Further, what steps is this Government going to take regarding the frightening rate of inflation at the present time?
– I will accept what is put by the honourable senator about what was said about meat prices previously, and presumably if meat prices had been higher the rate of inflation might have been higher, if we use the consumer price index. That index, however artificial it might be, probably has some relationship to what is happening in society. There is no doubt that there have been increases in a large number of commodities. We would hope that the effect of the Trade Practices Act is to pull down the prices of some commodities by increasing competition. Mr Bannerman, who is the Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission and very experienced, said that he expected this to be the effect of the Act very shortly. That is one measure which the Government is using to combat inflation. It has had only a few days of operation.
Of course, the Prices Justification Tribunal is another measure which the Government is using, and there is a whole series of other efforts which the Government is making. The honourable senator is aware that this is world-wide inflation, and it is not easy to contain something which cannot be contained elsewhere. We are affected by the movements in world prices. We are affected in a great number of ways, especially by the increase in the price of oil which affects the prices of various-
– Come off it.
– The honourable senator would realise that the increase in the price of oil to other countries has meant that there is a flow-on into the prices of all sorts of commoditiesthe base chemicals and all sorts of other things that come here. This has resulted from the dramatic increase in the price of oil and also from even more dramatic increases in the prices of some chemicals. This Government will do what it can. It would expect that some of the things which have been done in industry to feather-bed industries and to push up pricesprice fixing agreements and so forth- may be done away with. If at least they could be watered down it would have some helpful effects in combating the results in Australia of the world wide inflation.
page 1866
– I direct my question to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Further to the reply of the Minister to a question asked yesterday by Senator Keeffe, will the Minister confirm that all repatriation boards will commence to give reasons for their decisions from 1 July 1975? Will this mean the appointment of additional repatriation boards in all States? When does the Minister intend directing the Repatriation Commission to give reasons for its decisions?
– In answer to a question by Senator Keeffe yesterday I said that the repatriation boards would begin giving reasons for their decisions on 1 July 1975. In fact I misinformed the Senate in that answer. The boards will commence giving their reasons for decisions on 1 January 1975, 6 months earlier than the date which I announced. This certainly will mean a considerable amount of extra work for repatriation boards in preparing reasons for their decisions. It would appear from an estimate of the additional work that will be required that an extra board will be necessary in New South Wales and also in Victoria in order to cope with the additional work involved in the new procedure.
The boards in the other States are not full-time boards. They are part-time boards and it would seem at this stage that the way in which the additional work could be coped with would be by having the boards sitting more frequently than they do at present, or possibly by making one or more of them full-time boards. It does not seem at this stage that apart from in New South Wales and Victoria additional repatriation boards will be required. The great advantage in the requirement that repatriation boards give reasons for their determinations will be that dissatisfied applicants for repatriation benefits will have a much firmer basis on which to found appeals they may subsequently make than would be available if they were, merely told, as in the past, that their applications had been rejected.
As entitlement appeal tribunals are already making their decisions available and the repatriation boards will do so very early next year, the only tribunal determining entitlements to repatriation benefits which will not be making its reasons for decisions available as from 1 January next year will be the Repatriation Commission. It is proposed and hoped that procedures will be adopted whereby the Repatriation Commission, which is the first stage of appeal from a repatriation board, will also make its reasons for its decisions available. Some complexities are involved because the members of the Commission are also administrative officers of the Repatriation Department but I hope that in the fairly near future I will be able to announce to the Senate that appropriate steps have been taken for the Repatriation Commission also to make its reasons for decisions available.
page 1867
– In addressing my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate I refer to the inordinate rise of 5.4 per cent in the consumer price index for the September quarter- the biggest since 1951- and to the present inflation rate of 16.5 per cent which can be projected to 23.5 per cent within a year on present inbuilt forces. Does the Minister still claim that the present deeply disturbing situation is due to international influences? Is not our present condition the direct outcome of domestic economic policies pursued by this Government? Will the Government put aside its ideological theories now proven to be impracticable and, in the urgent national interest, put into effect the realistic measures advocated this week by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Snedden, as the practical means of combating Australia’s economic problems?
– As I was listening to the honourable senator’s question, the answers required appeared to be yes in some cases and no in others. It is very difficult to answer the last part of the honourable senator’s question because it was based on a completely erroneous premise. Do I understand the honourable senator to be putting to me that inflation is something which is peculiar to Australia and in some way, the fault of this Government- that it has somehow produced inflation on its own? Is the honourable senator unaware that inflation is raging all around the world, particularly in countries such as Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom? Economists everywhere are trying to cope with a problem which is caused by a number of factors which, upon analysis, are found not to be within the control of the Australian Government.
Inflation is occurring in industralised and nonindustrialised countries and in countries where there is high employment and in countries where there is high unemployment. It is absolutely idiotic to suggest that by some measures the Australian Government has created inflation in this country. The Australian Government is taking the best advice available and the best measures that it can to reduce the effects of inflation and to cushion the economy against the effects of the inflation which is manifesting itself elsewhere. The remedies which were put forward by the honourable senator and his Government were rejected on 2 occasions decisively by the people of Australia. I suggest that the honourable senator should co-operate with the Government and allow it to introduce measures which will enable it to manage the economy wisely, instead of continuing to engage in a process of obstruction to the Government.
page 1868
-Has the Attorney-General had an opportunity to study the amendments to the Family Law Bill proposed by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and, in particular, the amendments which would defer the right to commence proceedings for dissolution of marriage until after a period of 12 months separation has actually occurred? Has he also studied the recommendation for the setting up of a separate family court? Will the Attorney-General indicate whether he is prepared to accept those 2 proposed amendments to the Bill?
-Yes, I have studied those proposals. I have already commended the Committee for the excellent report it has made. I would indicate the acceptance in principle, because the details may differ, of those 2 proposals. The first proposal really does not involve a change in substance. Both under the Bill as it stands and under the amendment which is proposed, there would have to be a period of 12 months separation before a decree could be granted, and even then it could not be granted if the court was satisfied that there was a reasonable likelihood of resumption of cohabitation. Under this Bill as it stands, a party would be able to go to the court before the 12 months had elapsed. The decree could not be granted until 12 months had elapsed. It is suggested that this should be altered so that the party cannot go to the court until the 12 months have elapsed. One of the purposes of entitling a party to go to the court before the 12 months would elapse was to enable the party, when a breakdown of marriage had occurred, to get into the atmosphere of the marriage counsellors and the atmosphere which surrounded the court which might endeavour to reconcile the parties. It seems that this can be achieved in another way- by a party giving a notice of breakdown to the court before the 12 months had elapsed. The court would then assist the parties with some kind of counselling and reconciliation endeavours. It seems to me that this is a matter of procedure. The same object can be achieved with none of the worries about people saying that court proceedings could start before 12 months had elapsed.
In relation to the proposal for the family court, I think it has a lot to commend it. In the Family Law Bill provision is made for a family court to be established within the Superior Court. It was intended that the family court should be a separate division with judges especially selected for it. The consensus seems to be developing that it would be better to take the court outside the Superior Court especially as some people seem to have objections to the Superior Court. I would see no problem about this at all. Again, it is a procedural matter. If it will assist in the passage of the Bill and stop attention being distracted from the other great issues, that is, having a family court whether inside or outside the Superior Court and having these other important improvements in the area of family law, I would favour the acceptance of the separate family court. In principle, I would accept both those propositions.
page 1868
-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he is aware of a speech made last night, here in Canberra, by the Prime Minister to the Murray Valley Development League in which he was very critical of the River Murray Commission and proposed an expanded commission with, as he put it, ‘last resort power to ensure its effectiveness’? Does the Minister know if this foreshadows a move by the Government to establish such an enlarged group? As the Prime Minister has already expressed doubts that the States might not be interested, because of a loss of State power, can the Minister say whether it is proposed to confer with the States concerned before proceeding with any move of this kind? Does the Minister recall the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution relating to a water authority? If there is a conference with the States, will the recommendations of this Committee be studied?
-As to the last matter raised by the honourable senator, I do recall that important report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. I am not sure of the exact nature of its recommendations in relation to this matter. I am not aware either of the speech which was made last night or any of the other matters raised by the honourable senator. I think it would be better if he placed the question on notice.
page 1869
– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Because of the loss suffered by Australian Government employees as a result of the hold up in the Senate of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill, previously mentioned by the Minister this afternoon, is there any possibility that retrospective provisions can be included in the Bill which will compensate Australian Government employees because of the delay?
– I believe that this possibly could be done. At the moment it is not proposed that it will be done. The Bill will be introduced this afternoon. It would be contrary, I think, to the normal practice in relation to compensation Bills to make such provisions retrospective. It is certainly something which I believe could be considered during the committee stages of the Bill.
page 1869
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Is the Government aware of the hardships caused to families living in remote areas of Australia by the Government’s action in reducing the education deduction for taxation purposes from $400 to $ 1 50? Is the Government concerned that the families affected do not belong to the wealthy class or send their children to so-called wealthy schools? What action does the Government propose to take to protect these parents and their children from the folly of the Government’s action?
-The honourable senator will be aware, when he criticises this Government in regard to its education policy generally, that this Government has spent more on education than has any other government since Federation. The honourable senator also refers to the problems of people in isolated areas insofar as those problems relate to the rearing of families and giving their children educational assistance. When members of the present Opposition were in government there was a lot of talk but little action about what was going to be done to assist children in isolated areas educationally. I well recall the whole question being referred to a Senate standing committee for consideration. One of the first things this Government did when it came into office was to move in the area of giving very substantial assistance to parents of children in isolated areas for educational purposes. I believe that the benefits accruing to the children in isolated areas as a result of the assistance given by the Government under its isolated children’s program far outweigh any criticism that is now offered by the honourable senator.
page 1869
– Is the Minister for Customs and Excise aware that imported brandy is causing a considerable downturn in sales of Australian brandy? Is he also aware of reports that this cheap imported brandy is being marketed in various quarters as Australian brandy and that some of this brandy has not been distilled from natural grape juice and matured in wood for at least 2 years as required under the Spirits Act? In view of the damage being done to the Australian brandy industry by these imports, will the Minister explore the possibility of curtailing the great volume of cheap brandy imports into Australia?
– I am aware of statements to the effect of what has been stated by the honourable senator. I am not able immediately to verify the statements as he has put them. I am aware that the industry is very concerned about such imports. I shall look into the matter to see what can be done to assist what is a very important industry to Australia.
page 1869
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. By way of brief preface to explain the question, I refer to the fact that it is stated at page 27 of the Budget Speech:
Capital gains will include gains from the disposal of assets, capital sums otherwise derived from assets-
And other items.
A disposal will be deemed to occur in cases extending beyond sales and exchanges, and will include compulsory acquisitions-
And certain other cases and- transfers on death . . .
On 27 September 1974, at La Trobe in Tasmania, the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, assured people at a public meeting that the capital gains tax would not apply to a property left by a farmer to his family. Can the Minister explain who was correct- the Treasurer, in giving the Budget Speech, or the Deputy Prime Minister, who may otherwise be known as the shadowy Treasurer?
-Unfortunately, the question was marred by the unwarranted reference at the end to a shadowy Treasurer. I think that
Senator Rae would do best simply to ask questions and allow answers to be given. I have indicated in answer to other questions on this matter, that the Government has not yet made a final determination on the application of the capital gains tax. The principle of capital gains has been written into the Budget and it stands, but the manner in which it will be implemented and the various sections of the community which it will affect are still matters for determination. It is quite incorrect to suggest- and some people like to create this impression- that the Government is going to do certain things. I think it would be wise to await the final decision which will probably be made in the new year.
page 1870
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security and I preface it by pointing out to the Minister that children suffering from cleft lip and palate require orthodontal treatment, in some cases until they are in their teens, and that orthodontal treatment is very expensive. Will the Minister give serious consideration to allowing the cost of orthodontal treatment in these cases to be a legitimate claim on the medical benefits schedule?
– I agree that it would seem on the face of it that the absence of orthodontal treatment from the claims which can be made is something of an anomaly in the system. It is obviously not within my province to give any assurances as to what might be done about it, but I will see that the matter is referred to the Minister for Social Security.
– One is a health matter and the other is not.
-Thank you. I shall see that it is referred to the Minister for Social Security at the earliest opportunity so that we can have a reply from him on this very important matter.
page 1870
– I ask the PostmasterGeneral: Is it a fact that people living more than 8 kilometres from a telephone exchange now lose their right to the free use of departmental line plant for telephone installations? Under the new regulations has a quotation of $480 been made for the connection of a telephone line to a farm at Candelo in New South Wales just 1.3 kilometres beyond the regulation distance from the exchange? Will the Minister agree that this is yet another example of a punitive impost on the people of non-metropolitan Australia, that it is excessive and is likely to prevent the farmer and his family from availing themselves of a telephone service?
– The extensions which were agreed to by the last Liberal PostmasterGeneral created a situation which necessitated a subsidy which had to be met by every other subscriber to a telephone service. This Government decided last year that that practice was to be discontinued. That is policy now and it has been passed by the Parliament. If there is any specific case which Senator Baume would like to refer to me and which illustrates a particular hardship or about which there is special concern I will consider it. The honourable senator knows that this new policy was approved last year by this Parliament. In fact the Post Office says that when it first received a recommendation from the last Liberal Minister it considered that this was a mistake. It was a subsidy for which every other subscriber pays.
page 1870
-Has the Postmaster-General seen a report in the ‘Canberra Times’ called ‘The Cost of Vandalism’? It makes specific mention of the problems caused by vandalism to public telephones. Can the Minister given any details of what his Department plans to do to overcome this problem?
-Recently I told Senator Drury that I had recommended to the Post Office that it consider a new and more national campaign against such vandalism, which seems to be growing. The latest estimate I have of the effect of these destructive actions is that this year it will probably cost about $2m to repair the telephones. The Post Office has agreed to conduct later in the year a national campaign to bring to the attention of the public generally and to subscribers the need to assist, where they can, in protecting public telephones of which there are, I think, over 30,000. In recent years the Post Office has been considering a number of modifications which would help to reduce vandalism, including strengthening the metal of the telephones and the introduction of some alarm system. This was one of the reasons why the Government has been negotiating to take over the Red Phones. Those telephones are kept in protected places whereas public telephones are subject to all sorts of attacks at times. Of course, that is a bad thing because when people want to use the emergency services often they are not available.
The latest figures I have show that in Melbourne and Sydney sometimes about 1 5 per cent of public telephones are out of order. When the campaign is run the Post Office will do what it can and I know that the Minister for the Media will do what he can to illustrate this point. It will not only mean a saving but also will be of great assistance to the people in the community who use those telephones for emergency services.
page 1871
-My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture. Has the Government reached a decision in relation to the stabilisation assistance to be given to apple and pear growers for exports in the 1975 season? If not, does the Minister know the present position and can he say when a decision may be announced?
– Last year, in conjunction with the Governments of Tasmania and Western Australia, the Australian Government provided the greatest level of support to the fresh fruit industry in the history of the industry in this country. If it had not been for the action of the Australian Government it is almost certain that the fruit industry in Tasmania at least would have collapsed completely. Submissions have been made to me in respect of the forthcoming 1975 season. I am currently considering those submissions. Essentially, the Government has two alternatives- either to enter again into a guarantee arrangement with State governments or in some way to modify the stabilisation payments. I will not be in a position to make an announcement on this matter until three or four weeks time. As soon as a decision has been made it will be made public.
page 1871
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Did the Minister see the report of the Apprenticeship Commission of Victoria in which it was disclosed that Victorian industry had a record growth of apprentices in the past financial year but that many of them were unable to begin their technical training because of the serious deficiencies in facilities in technical colleges? As the Victorian Government has proved incapable of coping with this situation, can the Minister inform the Senate of the steps being taken by the Australian Government to assist in this situation?
– I know that my colleague the Minister for Education, Mr Beazley, is aware of the reports of deficiencies in the facilities of Victorian technical colleges and of the implications of those deficiencies for the training of apprentices. I understand that he has had some consultation with my colleague the Minister for Labor and Immigration on this matter. The Minister for Education and the Australian Government regard the technical college section of apprenticeship training as quite important and believe that the facilities in technical colleges should be improved. The Australian Committee on Technical and Further Education was established by the Government for the purpose of recommending programs in support of technical college facilities. The $ 10Om program now being brought into effect by the Australian Government in this area will undoubtedly lead to very substantial improvements in institutional facilities for technical training purposes in Australia. I understand that this overall program of $ 100m includes an amount of approximately $24m to improve technical training facilities in Victoria over the next 2 years.
page 1871
– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is a fact that the Government is inviting the People’s Republic of China to take over the plant of the Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia Ltd in Sydney? If so, will the employees of Leyland become employees of the Chinese Government? Will the Government make a full statement as to why it is seeking this type of foreign investment?
– As far as I am aware, the answer to the first question is no; so the second question does not arise.
page 1871
– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As far as the economy is concerned and bearing in mind the question previously asked by Senator Laucke, can the Minister say what was the level of purchases of new motor vehicles in the September quarter compared with other quarters? Further, has the Minister seen reports that sales of colour television sets are far exceeding expectations and that demand is well exceeding supply?
– It so happens that I can. The answer to the first question is that in the September quarter immediately past there was a significant increase in the registrations of new motor vehicles- that is, passenger and others- to 629,000. That was above the figure for the previous quarter of 580,000, which in turn was above the figure for the March quarter of 55 1 ,000. In case one might think that this is some kind of seasonal variation, let us compare these figures with those for the quarters of last year. Last year registrations in the September quarter were 589,000-1 am leaving off the hundreds- as compared with 629,000 in the 1974 September quarter. So there was a significant increase in the registrations of new vehicles. It is obvious that there is a great demand for colour television sets. The Minister for the Media informs me that colour television sets are selling like the proverbial hot cakes. Indeed, so much do the demand and the evident requirement for colour television sets exceed the supply that the television stations are asking that the date of introduction be advanced. It is evident that in some respects, in any event, the economy is showing significant signs of responding to the initiatives of the Government.
page 1872
– My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, relates to the retraining scheme. By way of preface I mention the following facts: Recently I was informed of a situation in Burnie in Tasmania where an employer needed 3 men. After advertising without result, he resorted to asking the Commonwealth Employment Service to send him 3 people. This was duly done. After the men had been employed he received a letter from officers of the retraining scheme asking for his estimate of how long it would take to retrain these men. He replied that it would take 6 weeks. But he received reimbursement for 22 weeks. I ask: Does this not indicate a misuse of public funds? Cannot some control over this kind of irresponsible use of public moneys be formulated?
– It is very difficult to give a correct reply to this question without knowing the circumstances. The manager or employer to whom the honourable senator refers may have a view as to how long it takes to retrain a person that is different from that held by the Department. After all, the Department has a number of experts in trades and industries; so it may be a matter of evaluation. I have not heard about the case before. I would like the honourable senator to give me the particulars of the case. I shall make inquiries into it and find out the reasons for such a decision.
page 1872
-Has the AttorneyGeneral seen the section of the transcript of last
Saturday’s Australian Broadcasting Commission program ‘Four Corners’ in which a member of the Sydney Stock Exchange criticised the AttorneyGeneral for not prosecuting directors of companies registered in the Australian Capital Territory ‘arising from their telling lies during the minerals boom’? Is there any evidence in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange that such directors did tell lies? Is there any evidence that directors of New South Wales companies and/or members of the Sydney Stock Exchange did indulge in malpractices during the minerals boom?
-I think it ought to be made clear that most of the material in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange concerns companies outside the Australian Capital Territory. I have directed my Department to follow up the allegations of conduct which may be a contravention of laws of the Australian Capital Territory, whether referred to in that report or not, to institute prosecutions where there is evidence available to do so, and to seek out the evidence in cases in which there are indications of fraudulent conduct by swindlers, whether or not those matters are covered in that report.
page 1872
– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen page 5 of the official transcript of a speech by the Prime Minister to the National Conference of the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations, held in Canberra on Monday, 2 1 October, when the Prime Minister spoke to the employees and gave them 3 assurances regarding unemployment? My question relates to the third assurance. The Prime Minister said:
If unemployment does occur in the community despite our efforts and our intentions wc stand ready to cushion its effects.
He went on to say how this would be done. Can the Leader of the Government tell the people of Australia how many thousands of people must be out of work in Australia before the Prime Minister of this country learns that unemployment has occurred?
– Although I am not aware of all the contents of the speech, it is quite clear from what was said by the honourable senator that the Prime Minister was assuring those to whom he was speaking that the Government would take measures to counter the effects of unemployment and would cushion those effects. The honourable senator ought to be fair. He knows that a number of schemes have been announced by the Government. The Minister for Labor and Immigration has announced the Regional Employment Development scheme. There are other proposals to deal with the effects of structural unemployment, whether in the metropolitan areas or outside. A great deal of work has been done by Ministers, the Public Service and those concerned with this matter to mitigate the effects of unemployment. To suggest that the Prime Minister is not aware of this unemployment is not fair at all either to the Prime Minister or to the honourable senator.
page 1873
– Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966-1973 I present for the information of honourable senators, the seventh annual report on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966-1973 for the period 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974.
page 1873
– For the information of honourable senators I present 2 reports entitled ‘The Pilbara Study’ and ‘The Industrial Potential of the Bowen Basin Region, Queensland ‘.
page 1873
Motion (by Senator Murphy)- by leaveagreed to:
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the Elimination of Racial and other Discrimination.
page 1873
Motion (by Senator Wheeldon) agreed to:
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to increase certain amounts of compensation payable to and in respect of seamen.
Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing orders suspended.
– I move:
The purpose of this Bill is to increase the rates and amounts of compensation payable under the Seamen’s Compensation Act to seamen and their dependants. The Bill will ensure that the monetary rates payable under this Act are kept in line with those contained in the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill. However, I should mention that the proposed amendments will not involve any cost to the Australian Government as payments under the Seamen’s Compensation Act are made by the shipowners. The Bill provides for the weekly rates of compensation for total incapacity to be increased from $43 to $57 for a seaman; from $ 1 1 to $ 1 5 for the dependent wife of a seaman; and from $5 to $7 for each dependent child of a totally incapacitated seaman. The maximum weekly amount payable in respect of partial incapacity is to be increased from $43 to $57.
In addition to the increase in weekly incapacity payments, the Bill provides for the lump sum death benefit, to which the lump sum benefits for specified injuries and maximum compensation are related, to be increased from $14,500 to $20,000. The weekly payment for each dependent child of a deceased seaman will be increased from $5 to $7 and the maximum payable in respect of funeral costs will be increased from $300 to $450. These increases in benefits for our Merchant Navy personnel will be payable on and from the date on which the Bill receives the royal assent. I commend the Bill to the Senate and trust that honourable senators will give it a speedy passage.
Debate (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) adjourned.
page 1873
Motion (by Senator Wheeldon) agreed to:
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1971-1973, and for other purposes.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing orders suspended.
-I move
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for increases in benefits payable under the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1971-1973 which provides workers’ compensation for employees of the Australian Government and its statutory authorities. Before outlining the provisions of the Bill I should mention that the Bill would not be necessary but for the Senate’s failure to pass the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1973. That Bill was passed without opposition by the House of
Representatives in April 1973 but its consideration was deferred on several occasions by the Opposition parties in the Senate and it eventually lapsed when the Parliament was prorogued last February. Because of the attitude of the Senate and also because of the Government’s intention to introduce a national compensation scheme, as evidenced by the National Compensation Bill 1974 introduced into the House of Representatives on 3 October 1974 by the Honourable L. F. Bowen, Special Minister of State, the Government decided not to persevere with the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill. However, as was announced at that time, it is proposed that the national compensation scheme should be introduced in stages, with the first stage not expected to come into operation until 1 July 1976. Because of this and also because there have been significant increases in the cost of living and in the benefits payable under State workers’ compensation legislation since the rates of compensation for Australian Government employees were last increased in November 1972, it is now necessary and indeed, only equitable, for the rates payable under the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act to be increased.
Compensation for total incapacity
The Act already provides for employees injured on or after 2 November 1972 to receive a weekly compensation payment equal to their normal full sick pay rate during the first 26 weeks of total incapacity for work. However, for long term cases, where the injury was sustained prior to 2 November 1972, and for cases where the injury was sustained on or after that date and total incapacity has exceeded 26 weeks, the compensation is based on fixed weekly rates specified in the Act. The Bill provides for these rates to be increased. Under the Bill, the weekly compensation for a totally incapacitated employee without dependants will be increased from $43 to $57. The additional weekly supplement for a dependent spouse will be increased from $11 to $15 and the weekly supplement for each dependent child will be increased from $5 to $7.
Compensation for partial incapacity
In accordance with the increase in the basic weekly rate for a single employee, the maximum amount of compensation generally payable to a partially incapacitated employee will be increased from $43 to $57 a week.
Compensation for death
The Bill also provides for increases in the amounts of compensation payable where an injury results in the death of an employee. The basic lump sum payable to dependants will be increased from $14,500 to $20,000. The weekly amount payable in respect of each dependent child of a deceased employee will increase from $5 to $7 and the minimum total amount payable for each child will be increased from $500 to $700. The maximum amount payable in respect of funeral expenses will be increased from $300 to $450.
Compensation for specified losses
The lump sums payable under the Act for specified losses will also be increased. The maximum lump sum payment for the more serious scheduled losses will be increased from $14,500 to $20,000 and there will be proportionate increases in lump sum payments for the less serious losses. Payments for loss of the capacity to engage in sexual intercourse and severe and permanent facial disfigurement will increase from $7,250 to $10,000 and compensation for loss of the sense of taste or smell will be increased from $1,450 to $2,000.
Other increases
The maximum amount payable for alterations to buildings or vehicles, or repair or replacement of certain aids and appliances will go up from $350 to $500. Finally, the amount of additional compensation payable where an employee requires the constant help or attendance of another person will be increased from $9 to $14 a week.
Minor amendments
The opportunity has been taken to make some minor amendments, some of a drafting nature and others to correct errors or anomalies, in what is comparatively new legislation. The first of these amendments will ensure that a ‘prescribed Court’, as defined in the Act, will include the County Court in the State of Victoria. Consequent upon the enactment of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, the Bill will amend the provisions in the Act relating to salary and allowances for the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and the Compensation Tribunal.
At present, a claimant cannot recover any costs he incurs in connection with a request to the Commissioner for reconsideration of a determination. However, a claimant is entitled to costs if after he has instituted proceedings before a compensation tribunal or a prescribed court, the Commissioner, on his own motion, reconsiders and varies or revokes the determination and thereby renders the proceedings before the tribunal or court abortive. Under a new provision contained in the Bill the Australian Government will be liable to reimburse any costs reasonably incurred by a claimant in relation to a determination which is varied or revoked by another determination as a result of a request to the Commissioner for a reconsideration; such a liability will be imposed when the second determination is more favourable to the claimant or, if it is less favourable to the claimant, when he was not the party who made the request for reconsideration of the first determination.
The Bill contains some amendments to the provisions in the Act relating to the calculation of an employee’s average weekly earnings to remove some anomalies which have come to notice. Some amendments of a consequential nature are also included because of the enactment of the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. These amend the provisions under which the portion of a superannuation pension not attributable to the employee’s contributions is taken into account when determining the weekly compensation payable for total or partial incapacity for work.
Amendment of other Act
Honourable senators may also care to note that the Bill provides for amendments to the Schedule to the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Act 1971-1973. This Act is a companion piece of legislation which extends the terms of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act to civilian employees employed by the United States Navy in connection with the naval communication station. The amendments to the Schedule are necessary to apply the amendments to the principal Act to these employees.
Application of amendments
The intention is that the amending legislation will come into operation on the day on which it receives the royal assent and the Bill provides for the increased weekly payments to apply on and from that date, notwithstanding that the payments relate to an injury sustained before that date. The increased lump sum payments for death and specified losses will apply on and from the date of commencement of the amending Act in all cases where the death occurs or the loss is suffered on or after that date, even though the death or the loss may have resulted from an injury sustained before that date. Increases in other benefits will apply in a similar manner.
Cost of increased benefits
The total cost of the increases to which I have referred is estimated to be $700,000 for the remainder of this financial year and $1.2m for a full year. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) adjourned.
page 1875
page 1875
Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:
That the Senate re-affirms the principle expressed in the resolution agreed to in the Committee of the Whole on 2 December 1971 and adopted by the Senate on 9 December 1 97 1 , viz, that whilst it may be argued that statutory authorities are not accountable through the responsible Minister of State to Parliament for day to day operations, they may be called to account by Parliament itself at any time and that there are no areas of expenditure of public funds where these corporations have a discretion to withhold details or explanations from Parliament or its committees unless the Parliament has expressly provided otherwise.
page 1875
Debate resumed from 26 September on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-In speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the Opposition on the Austraiian Film Commission Bill, the purpose of which is to establish the Australian Film Commission, ! stress that we are delighted that the Government is proposing the formation of the Commission. We have understood for a long time the need to develop an Australian film industry. Indeed, if history is correctly recorded it will show that in 1970 the Gorton Government gave the first impetus to the redevelopment of the Australian film industry by forming the Australian Film Development Corporation which at that time was designed to give encouragement to the commercial film maker in Australia by giving him some assistance. This was desirable for many reasons, but perhaps the overriding thought of the then Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, was that if we were to develop in the complete sense a national identity for Australia then all aspects of cultural and creative work should reflect this national spirit. It was felt that an Australian film industry would be another outlet for the expression of the newly emerging Australian national identity. The corporation was set up at that time to give this sort of encouragement.
In 1972 the Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, referred to the Tariff Board the matter of the
Australian film industry for the type of report that the Tariff Board can provide on any Australian industry. But, of course, there is an enormous difference between this industry and most of the other industries which would be referred to the Tariff Board. If we were talking in strictly economic terms, it could have been said that it was not the type of matter that could be best dealt with by a Tariff Board inquiry. The industry was very much in its infancy and there had not been a great deal of development in it. In its report the Tariff Board remarked along the lines that if we were talking strictly of the economic criteria which are usually evaluated in a Tariff Board inquiry there would be little in the way of Australian film and television production that could justify such an inquiry. However, the inquiry completed its work and presented its report which contained a great deal of valuable information about the Australian film industry and the attitudes that we could adopt to this industry in the future if we were to express our will as a government and as a people to develop our own Australian film industry. We have assisted film making in Australia in a variety of ways. The Australian Film and Television School has been doing remarkable work in training those people who will be the producers, directors and technicians of the future. Also the Australian Film Development Corporation itself has been instrumental in providing a great deal of support for this sort of development.
However, the Bill now before the House deals with the Australian Film Commission which was promised to be established by the Government. If we were to read the second reading speech of the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) we could be delighted at its formation, because in his concluding remarks the Minister says that the Bill will establish a Commission having the full statutory powers, resources, organisation and related activities needed to implement the Government’s policies in respect of this vital industry. He went on to say that those policies are aimed at developing and maintaining a strong, increasingly self-reliant, responsible and distinctively Australian film and television program production industry. We support such policies. However, the style of the Bill which is before the Senate does not give any degree of autonomy to the Commission in the work which it is seeking to do. The Bill has written right through it the necessity for ministerial approval and ministerial direction and the Minister’s influence in the work that would be undertaken. For this reason we will be referring to many matters during the consideration of the Bill at the Committee stage. I will not canvass at this stage those matters with which we will be dealing.
I want to refer to some of the matters contained in the Tariff Board report, and particularly that part of the report which talks about the distribution of films. This has been one of the major difficulties experienced by the Australian film industry. Whatever may be the qualities of excellence and the attributes of the product, the distribution and actual screening of films has been of particular difficulty in this country. The sections of the Tariff Board report which deal with distribution and exhibition are important. I believe that in the formation of the proposed Film Commission a great deal of work has yet to be done in these 2 directions. The Tariff Board concluded its report with the statement that the objectives of its inquiry could best be realised by reducing the present concentration of control within the film and theatre industry in this country. The Board referred to the fact that this would be possible only if the dominance of the prime exhibition outlets could be removed and the necessary measure of genuine competition created by restructuring the industry to provide a greater number of suitable alternative outlets in Australia. The Government has freely acknowledged that it will not attempt to do that in the setting up of the Australian Film Commission.
It would have to be questioned whether some of the matters referred to in the Tariff Board report could be undertaken by the Australian Government for constitutional reasons. I do not place any undue emphasis on the recommendations of the Tariff Board which have not been fulfilled in the formation of the Commission, but I simply refer to them as problems which still exist. It will be readily understood that if an Australian film is produced which establishes all of the criteria that we would want to see for an Australian film, it still has to seek an outlet in a theatre before it can be a commercially viable production for the people who have been interested in its development. That difficulty still remains, and it is one which does not have an instant solution. Its solution, I think, will need a great deal of wisdom in the development of our film industry in the future.
For this reason I think it is important that the personnel who will be appointed to the Film Commission when it is established should have the experience, wisdom and ability to recognise the problems and to do what is within the power of a statutory commission to overcome them. Because of this, we will be expressing some thoughts on the composition of the Commission during the Committee consideration of the Bill.
This is a matter which the Government considers to be important because it is restricting the type of interest in film making a person may have before he is eligible to serve as a full time member of the Commission. We will be moving an amendment in that regard in due course. We think it is important, because of the very limited degree of development of this industry, that a person from a small family company or in an owner developing type of situation should not be precluded from becoming a member of the Commission. We think that this would be unwise at this stage of the development of the film industry.
Let me now deal with some of the matters that are important to us. We feel that in establishing a statutory commission the Government should have the confidence to place the management of the operations of that commission within the hands of the people who are appointed to serve on it. We do not think that a commission which is overridden in all its powers and functions by a Minister of Government is operating in the way in which any statutory body ought to operate. That was one of our principal objections to the style of the Bill- that in relation to each power and function there is an opportunity for ministerial approval or direction to be exercised.
Another point to which the Opposition wants to refer in a general way in relation to Australian nlms is that the Government has listed some people who are necessarily to be Australians at the time we are considering whether it is an Australian film that has been created. The Opposition wants to introduce some other people into that classification. The nationalities and places of residence of the persons who take part in the film making, including authors, producers, actors and technicians have been mentioned. We believe that for the industry itself to feel that the understanding of its functions is clear, such persons as scriptwriters, editors, producers and directors also ought to be named as important when we refer to the Australian film industry. We believe that those sorts of people ought to be actually listed as an important group of people who take part in film making and are essential to the Australian characteristics of any film that is to be made. We believe also that it is important under clause 13 of the Bill not to delegate to a member of staff of the Commission some of the functions that should be the functions of members of the Commission. We feel that that particular delegation does not lend itself to the operations of a commission of this type. We feel that an amendment is appropriate in that particular instance.
Whilst talking about opportunities for film makers, I think that we ought to make mention of the fact that the Film Commission at this stage is giving its principal support to the makers of short films. Whilst we realise that the making of feature films is perhaps a very much wider field in which assistance could be given, particularly in the exhibition of feature films, we do make note of the fact that the Government has specified short films as being the ones where an opportunity will be taken to give assistance. It is important when we talk about commercial film production that we do not lose sight of the essence of a viable industry- the creation in the future of feature films and the opportunities that may be seen ahead for the exhibition of feature films made by Australians, with all the criteria that we have listed for Australian films.
I know there are problems and I do not overlook them. I also do not stress that I see a role for the Government to insist that films shall be shown. For this reason- in the area of short films- I think it is important that those films which are films produced, for instance, as Australian documentary films must lie equally with those short films which could be in the entertainment area, the education area or in any other area. It is not essential, if we are establishing an Australian film commission, to consider that priority should be given to those films which could be produced as Government documentary films and that the Commission should give priority to the production of such films. It is important to consider that if the Film Commission is to be entrusted with the assistance which the industry needs then all aspects of the industry should fall within its assistance. Priority should not be given to those things which may be important in the sense of government policies but not important in the sense that the Film Commission has been established to assist a new industry in its development.
I think these are the points that are of most importance to us in dealing with the Bill. Because the Senate is aware of the many proposed amendments which arise from the Opposition’s attitude to the Bill, I seek to limit my remarks at this stage to those points which I have mentioned. I will seek an opportunity in the Committee stage of this debate to canvass the various attitudes the Opposition has to the provisions contained in the Bill.
– I support this legislation. Before entering into discussion of the provisions contained in the legislation might I say that the great thanks of the industry, indeed of the Australian people, should be given to the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) for the way in which he has promoted his Department and has done everything possible to advance the interests of the people within the industry? If one were to think back a few years ago in terms of the Department of the Media, I suggest, with respect, that one would think of some aspects of radio, the Press and some minor aspects of television. Today when one speaks of the Department of the Media the advancement of Australian productions in the film industry instantly comes to mind.
I commend to honourable senators the proposition that if they are ever in Sydney they should go to the Department of the Media to see the great advances that have been made in the area of film production and film distribution. I was recently fortunate enough to be there. I was amazed at the progress which has been made in that direction. I am sure that other honourable senators, if they went along to the Department to make an inspection, would be equally pleased to see the progress that has been made in this field. For instance, there are many outposts of the Australian Government throughout the world. Within a matter of 24 or 48 hours the films of important happenings in Australia can now be flown to and shown in these outposts. I refer to the recent joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. Everybody referred to it as an historic occasion- as indeed it was. Honourable senators will be interested to know that within 48 hours a film of those proceedings was flown to our outposts throughout the world and shown. In addition to that, in the area of assisting migrants coming to Australia, educational talks and films are provided for those areas whence our migrants come. As a result they are better equipped to come into our country. All this means real progress and progress that has come about- I suggest- because of the enthusiasm of the Minister for the Media and the officers of his Department.
The purpose of the Bill, of course, is to establish an Australian film authority to take the development of the Australian film industry one stage further in accordance with the plans of the Australian Labor Government. There has been a remarkable revival of the film industry in Australia. It has undergone many vicissitudes over the years but today we find that at least 22 films are being made at the present time. In the immediate past, those of our films which have been the most successful have been accepted overseas. I ask honourable senators to think back a few years and wonder whether they ever heard of films that had been made in Australia receiving world-wide acclaim? Today that is the situation. I refer particularly to that television series Seven Little Australians’. That has received wide acclaim throughout English speaking countries. Of course, this reflects credit on the industry in Australia. Other films which do not meet with my entire approval- in other words, they are not my kettle of fish- such as ‘The Adventures of Barry McKenzie’, ‘Alvin Purple’ and a flood of similar films, have been made and have been remarkably successful overseas.
I suggest that this enthusiasm for our films in other countries indicates that a stage has been reached in Australia today at which the industry can go forward with confidence, knowing that its films will be accepted not only in Australia but also overseas. Of course, this is a great advertisement for Australia. I repeat that this has occurred in only a few short years. Hitherto, our film industry was almost dormant. There was no enthusiasm for it. In some directions, I pay tribute to Crawford Productions Pty Ltd. At least that company kept on operating and persevered. There may have been others, but Crawford Productions Pty Ltd carried on and endeavoured to establish the industry. Members of that organisation would tell honourable senators that it was not until recently that they received the encouragement from government to participate in this activity to the fullest possible extent. Now we see that with such encouragement there has been a further development in their films. I believe that that company is operating quite successfully today.
These things do not just happen. There has to be leadership. I say with due respect- I wish that the Minister for the Media were not present to hear me say this-that it is principally his enthusiasm for his job and his knowledge of the industry and its requirements that have led to the revival of our industry to the point it has reached today. I believe that this legislation will go a step further towards achieving the objective of establishing an Australian film authority to give greater impetus, if that is possible, to the encouragement of the film industry in Australia. It is with a great deal of enthusiasm that I support this legislation. I believe that it is a further tribute to what has been done in the past and what will be done in the immediate future. I hope that we will see the same rate of progress and the same success in the film industry in the future.
– I am happy to vote for the second reading of the Australian Film Commission Bill. Of course, I do so in the hope that significant amendments will be made to the Bill in the Committee stage. I will vote for this Bill, knowing that the original legislation which introduced the Federal Government into this very important sphere was initiated by a previous Prime Minister and Liberal Party Leader, Mr John Gorton. I suppose that he has been the most pro-Australian Prime Minister and party leader that the Liberal Party has had. I pay tribute to him for bringing in the legislation when he did. I believe that the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) helps the situation further by now introducing his amending legislation, especially if the amendments, which will be discussed at a later stage, are accepted.
I believe that this is a very important Federal involvement. I say that because I am concerned, as I am sure many people in Australia are, that Australian citizens should develop some conception of their country. If there is one fault amongst Australians today, it is a lack of any conception of where they have come from as a nation and where they are going as a nation. One of the ingredients in this lack of conception- it can be only one- is the very great lack of appreciation of things Australian, of the origins of this country and of a good presentation of the history of its development. I like to think that some of the films that have been encouraged on television by the Australian Government’s involvement in the points system have produced very quickly amongst Australians a greater awareness of their country. I certainly congratulate the Australian Government on its involvement in the points system for the television industry. I trust that this Bill will continue the very good work commenced there, in developing for Australia that awareness amongst its citizens which I would like to see.
However, my view of the Bill in relation to amendments is somewhat different from that presented by Senator Guilfoyle on behalf of the Liberal Party. I take a different viewpoint as to where the final authority should rest in regard to a number of important decisions which will be made. If there is one thing that this Bill does, it is to confer very great authority on the new Australian Film Commission. I insist- certainly the amendments I will propose will be to this effectthat some of that authority should be regulated and modified. These remarks apply particularly to clause 1 1 of the Bill under which the power, as it now stands, is complete. The Commission or its delegated authority, as represented by some other individual, could require any information of any person. That is simply too wide a power to provide to the Commission for the purposes of film making and film distribution. Therefore, I say that in my opinion the Senate should take a different viewpoint and in conferring, even under amended powers, very great power on the Commission, it should make sure that in the end it is the Parliament which has the oversight of the use or misuse of those powers. I certainly would like to see, by way of amendment, the final responsibility for the Commission intruding into what are now free industries or free enterprises in the community and how far the intrusion goes come under the direct oversight of the Parliament. In Committee I will be moving amendments to provide for parliamentary authority. Speaking at a different level, I think that the South Australian Films Commission set up by the South Australian Government would be operating far more efficiently if it were under far more direct supervision by the Parliament than it is at the moment. Certainly, in this instance of conferring much wider powers on the Commission I would like to see the oversight of it left with the Parliament itself.
I also hope that it is the Commission’s intention and certainly the Minister’s intention that a great deal of material should be available and that exhibitors and theatre operators in Australia should in no way be directed, in the sense that there is only a very small amount of material from which to choose, in disciplines they must observe in respect of the time factors which will be presented to them and the proportions they must observe in showing Australian short films. I imagine that it is certainly the Minister’s intention that the Commission should develop as soon as possible a very wide range of material so that a de facto form of censorship will not be imposed by that sort of limitation. I see little reason to hold up the second reading of the Bill. I certainly believe that there is ample precedent in the Minister’s attention to television for him to further busy himself as he desires in this direction. But, in approving the second reading of the Bill, I do so on the basis that I want to move quite important amendments during the Committee stage.
-I am pleased to enter this debate on the establishment of the Australian Film Commission. I acknowledge that it is a Labor Government which has decided that such a Commission should be established. Generally, in my view the Bill establishes an authority under government control which in fact will have a socialising influence, if I may put it that way, on the Australian film industry. I acknowledge that there is within the Bill scope for financial assistance to be given to private industry in respect of the establishment of companies involved in the production of short and full length films. The proposal is that the Australian Film Commission be a corporate body. One would take it from that that it would generally be removed from the day to day interference of government. I endorse the comments of Senator Guilfoyle on the many instances throughout the Bill of an authoritarian attitude. The Minister has powers of direction in so many areas. For one to enunciate all of them would take quite some time, but I instance one. Clause 8(1) states:
The Minister may, by writing under his hand, give directions to the Commission with respect to the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions but, except as provided by sub-section (2), shall not give such a direction with respect to a particular project.
I see that clause as giving the Minister complete power over this authority to direct it wheresoever the Minister believes it should be directed. I envisage that under that power a more entrenched socialist government than we have at present could pursue to a greater extent the elimination of private enterprise which I, for one, feel should be given encouragement in this field. The basis of my comment is the principle that this community would be best developed and directed under a private enterprise system. I feel that the Australian Film Commission, if it develops in the way set out in this Bill, could be inhibited to some extent. I certainly hope that the amendments suggested by Senator Guilfoyle on behalf of the Opposition will have brought a different attitude to this Bill by the time the Senate has passed it. I will listen with interest to those amendments which Senator Hall intends to move.
The Labor Government has taken a great interest in the media during its term of office and it is of particular importance that it sought the establishment of a Department of the Media, a department which has been headed particularly well and actively by a very competent Minister. I give credit to Senator Douglas McClelland as the Minister for the Media. Undoubtedly it is his own enthusiasm, demonstrated over the many years I have been in this Senate, which has led to the consolidation we see in the Australian Film Commission Bill. This authority will be the government sponsor in a tide of industry which has ebbed and flowed in its quality and its successes purely upon a private enterprise base.
The Minister’s second reading speech is monumental in some of the information it contains. It shows that this great country of Australia was a leader in the field of film production in the early part of this century. No other country had its expertise or competence in film production. America did not have the standards, quality or competence that the Australian film industry had. The Minister instances early films which some of us recall very well. I do not recall the ones running back to the early 1900s but I recall those in the 1930s which were of great credit. There were none in the world to compare with them. Undoubtedly as this industry developed, overseas expertise and the ability of overseas companies to obtain finance probably eroded the base of the Australian film industry. One hopes that if there is to be government finance or if the Australian public is to make money available- on a subsidy basis, as I would see it- the industry will further develop. Perhaps on the question of subsidies I would argue with the Government because in other areas of industry it shows that it wishes to reduce subsidies. It will be a matter of necessity that subsidies and financial encouragement be made available to individuals who see themselves as entrepeneurs in the film industry.
It appears to me that this is a particularly important time for consideration to be given to a renewal of interest in the film industry. The feature film industry has had some lift in the past few years as a result of several films being very popular in Australia and apparently having popular acceptance overseas. What does the success of a film mean these days? I imagine that it means financial success. One can only assume that if a film of Australian origin runs on the Australian film circuit for a long time this gives the basis of success to the director of the film and the managers involved in its production and will give financial stability to the organisation which can then pursue the possibility of film making in the future. Feature film making has been a most difficult field in this country. I see that situation continuing for some time although apparently the acceptance and success of films, if one is to read the advertisements in daily newspapers, depends now upon an emphasis on sex. I hope that because an emphasis on sex apparently wins box office acclaim and financial success for some directors the Commission will not find that it is giving the greatest encouragement to the production of films in this area.
Mention was made of the type of personnel who would head an organisation such as this. Having been involved in substantial loss through various theatrical organisations and film making institutions which attempted the production of feature films and full length films, I say that film production, as I see it, for ultimate financial success needs strong financial management and competence. In the last 10 years apparently the most financially successful man in Australia and the man who has headed the most successful run of films has been Hector Crawford. I would agree with Senator Milliner that Crawford has been successful throughout Australia. Something that is not known generally is that in the early history of Crawford Productions it earned more from the export of films to America and to Asian countries than its income from the Australian circuit. Here is a man who is competent financially and obviously very experienced in the production of films and in the handling of problems that go with success and failure in the various fields of the industry. That type of man along with the artists and writers make up the attraction for the public generally.
There are 2 areas in which Government assistance is absolutely necessary. Something that has not got off the ground in Australia in the last 10 years is the production of educational films. I believe that the time will come when we will see education being delivered to school children not on the expensive basis on which it is delivered today. In my State of Victoria over 40 per cent of the total Budget is spent on education, in line with the demands of the people. It appears to me that with Government financial assistance we will be able to put the best of our educators on film to produce the background story to the subject being taught. This will be put on cassette. In a classroom which will need the minimum of supervision the minimum class size can be expanded. The students will receive a top line delivery from the best educational service and advice that can be given. There is a need for the Australian Government, through this Commission, to enter into that field and I think that it would be widely accepted. One’s imagination is fired by the thought that the various classifications of education can be delivered to the outback schools and to schools in country towns, not purely to the large schools in the cities where the expert instructors are encouraged to live and work. We will be able to deliver to the outback schools the top educational instruction.
– This is done today.
– I referred to cassettes. Is that being done today?
– It is, with respect.
-On a great basis?
– Yes, with respect.
– It is being done on a very wide basis, is it?
– Yes.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! The honourable senator will address his remarks through the Chair.
– I doubt that the honourable senator is correct. The idea has been promoted. I spoke about it in this House five or six years ago. I attended a university seminar when it was stated that the subject would be promoted in the future. I have mentioned it because I do not think that it is being covered sufficiently at this time. If, with the availability of finance, educational films can be produced in cassette form on the advice of the educational authorities throughout the country, we can make a universal type of education available on specialised subjects. The honourable senator said that this was being done. I know that it is available but I do not think that every school has a television set into the back of which one can plug a cassette.
– That is the fault of your crowd. In 22 years you did not do it.
-Here we go. We have the same old comment from a senator from Queensland. At one stage he said that it is done. That would indicate to any sensible person that it had been done and that satisfaction was being achieved.
– It is done.
– It is not done properly today and it is something which this Film Commission may well take up. At the present time in this country we are about to enter into the field of colour television. I do not claim to know a great deal about the production of films but I imagine that the requirements for the production of films in colour must be vastly different from the requirements for the production of black and white films. We can learn something here from the technology of other countries. With the growing demand for colour television will come a regeneration. The old films that may have existed for some years will not be shown. They are to be put aside in archives. I note that one of the requirements of this Commission is to set up secure and safe archives for films that have been produced. I think that that is a very attractive proposition. This country has a great future. Certain efficient entrepreneurs have demonstrated that a great business can be made from the production of both short and long films in this country. I can see it happening with the Australian Film Commission.
The Bill before us requires amendment in a number of ways. When those amendments are proposed during the Committee stage by Senator Guilfoyle and Senator Steele Hall I hope that the Government will take notice of them and will embrace the benefit that can be gained from the advice of honourable senators on this side. I have pleasure in supporting the general principles of the Australian Film Commission Bill 1974.
– I greatly appreciate the speedy passage that is being given to the Australian Film Commission Bill which I regard and which I am sure all members of the Senate regard as being an important and an integral part of the development of a commercially viable film and television industry. I emphasise the second portion of that phrase. The recommendations came to the Government from the old Tariff Board after it had conducted an inquiry into the matter generally. I join with Senator Hall in commending a former Prime Minister of this country, Mr John Gorton, for having been responsible for introducing the legislation to establish the Australian Film Development Corporation in 1970. Honourable senators opposite will recall that at the time of the introduction of that legislation the then Opposition, now the Government- the Labor movement- did not oppose the introduction of the legislation and indeed commended the Prime Minister at the time for his foresight and wisdom in bringing down legislation to establish a corporation.
I think it is fair to say that that legislation followed upon a report by a Senate Select Committee which was presided over by the late Senator Vincent from Western Australia. The Select Committee was required to report upon the encouragement of Australian productions for film and television. That Committee became commonly referred to as the Vincent Committee. At page 30 of the Committee’s report, which was tabled in the Parliament on 29 October 1963, the Committee recommended that funds from Consolidated Revenue be made available for all purposes connected with the recommendations, provided that the appropriations did not exceed the sum of $lm. Whilst commendation must be given to the former Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, for his foresight in establishing the Australian Film Development Corporation, basically the decision to establish the Corporation evolved from a recommendation coming from an allparty Senate Select Committee, of which at the time I was a member.
Senator Guilfoyle and Senator Webster referred to the ability of the Minister under the proposed legislation to exercise an authoritarian hand. Those matters will be debated and discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill. But from my knowledge and experience of this industry, in order to ensure that effective financial assistance and other tangible support is given to the industry for its successful development, the industry must have a real voice in the Cabinet if it is to receive a fair share of the community’s financial cake. Perhaps Senator Webster, in his criticism to date of the apparent discretion given to the Minister under this Bill, should also have a look at the Canadian National Film Board legislation which is often cited by some people in the industry as being the criterion that should be adopted by any government which is embarking on the legislative course which this Government is now taking. I mention that merely in passing at this stage; I realise that it will be the subject of discussion and debate in the Committee stage. The Australian Film Development Corporation, throughout its three or four years span of existence, has been the subject of a lot of criticism. But I think one must concede that over that period it has been quite successful as far as its investment policies are concerned. I know that it was the subject of a great deal of criticism in evidence which was presented from a wide cross-section of the industry when evidence was being taken by the Tariff Board. But the Corporation has weathered the march of time. It is now commencing to earn substantial revenue from some of its investments.
Having considered the Tariff Board report, we believe that the stage is now set for further development in line with most of the recommendations in the Tariff Board report. We believe that the Commission which we are contemplating in this legislation should be established in order to encourage, whether by the provision of financial assistance or otherwise, the making, promotion, distribution and exhibition of Australian films and television programs; to make, promote, distribute and exhibt any films or television programs or to commission these activities on its behalf; and, through Film Australia, which is the Australian Government film production arm, to make or commission the making of films serving the purposes of a department of state or an authority of Australia, films dealing with matters of national interest to Australia and films designed to illustrate or interpret aspects of
Australia or of the life and activities of the Australian people; to assist a State or State authority to purchase Australian films of an educational nature and of national interest of importance; and to encourage the proper keeping of films in archives in Australia, providing financial assitance for this purpose if necessary.
Hopefully, this Commission, when established, will be an investment commission, a production commission and a promotional commission. Whilst Senator Webster used the words a socialist commission’, we believe that it certainly will be a very effective and efficient coordinating commission. This is part and parcel of the general expansion of the Australian film and television industries which has taken place under the administration of the Labor Government. Now we are acting basically in conformity with the old Tariff Board’s report and recommendations. We will be increasing the finance available to the commercial sector of the industry. When we came into office in 1972, 4 feature films had been made in Australia in that year. Last year 8 feature films were made in Australia. This year, hopefully and expectantly, about 20 feature films will be made in Australia. We have established the points system for commercial television to which Senator Hall made reference. As a result there has been a very substantial increase in expenditure by Australian commercial television stations on Australian television productions. We have increased operational expenditure for the Australian Broadcasting Commission from $66m a year in 1972 to $98m a year in 1974. Now television productions which are made by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, either in its own right or by way of co-production with other organisations, are being exported. Those things, to mention but a few, I suggest are tangible evidence of our determination to be successful in these new developments.
We have done this also by trying to bring about conference, consultation and co-operation within the industry. When we came into office the industry was very much split. In many respects it still walks the tightrope. But I believe that, as a result of conference between the industry, the Government and the unions which are involved in this sort of production, that tightrope has been eased very much. We established the Interim Board of the Australian Film Commission, representing a wide cross-section of the Australian community. One of the persons to whom Senator Webster referred and whom he lauded, Mr Hector Crawford of Crawford Productions, was one of the first people appointed to the Interim Board when it was set up by this
Government. The Board has played a very effective part in bringing about a better understanding on all sides of the industry of the problems confronting the industry as a whole. We as a government and my Department as a department have conducted seminars. We have published a guide to the facilities available for film production purposes in Australia. We have sent that to all our missions abroad. These things which we have done already will be able to be done more effectively by the new Commission which is to be established under this legislation. I know that there will be considerable debate in the Committee stages on several of the clauses now appearing in the legislation, but I appreciate the speedy passage of the second reading of the Australian Film Commission Bill which, as a Minister in the Labor Government, I am honoured to be handling in the Parliament today.
Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3.
In considering whether a film has or will have a significant Australian content, the Commission shall have regard to-
-The Opposition has an amendment to this clause. I move:
It is because of some amendments which will follow that we seek the omission of the definition of authorised person’.
– I suggest that debate on this proposed amendment which has been moved by Senator Guilfoyle could well take place in connection with the debate which will take place in relation to proposed amendments numbers (8) and (12). I suggest that a vote on this amendment would be consequential upon the determination of those amendments, as proposed by Senator Guilfoyle. Perhaps this clause could be postponed.
– Before the clause is postponed, we have a further amendment. I move:
We wish to have these words inserted because we feel that they are important in considering whether an Australian film has a significant Australian content. We believe that to include in the definition such creative people as scriptwriters, editors, producers and directors is an essential element of Australian films of the future. It would be quite easy for a film to be made without those people who are important to it, and to clarify Australian content’ we would like to see those people identified. If we are talking about the encouragement of this industry it is important for us to think that these people are identified and listed in the criteria which will determine the significance of the Australian content. For that reason I seek the insertion of those words in clause 3 (2) (c) (i).
– This amendment appears to me to be perfectly harmless, and the Government does not offer any objection to it. However, the wording in the present Bill is taken almost directly from section 4 (2) (c) of the Australian Film Development Corporation Act which states:
In forming an opinion whether a film has or will have a significant Australian content, the Corporation shall have regard to- . . the places of residence of the persons taking part in the making of the film (including authors, musical composers, actors and technicians);
We do not object to Senator Guilfoyle ‘s amendment to extend this definition to include scriptwriters, editors, producers and directors. However, I point out that the present Bill makes an additional provision to that now included in the Australian Film Development Corporation Act for the new Commission to take into account not only the residence but also the nationality of persons taking part in the making of a film. The Government does not object to this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further consideration of clause postponed. Clause 4 agreed to. Clause 5.
1 ) The functions of the Commission are-
films that are designed to illustrate or interpret aspects of Australia or of the life and activities of the Australian people;
-Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Opposition I move:
This is the first of the amendments which we shall move having in mind the attitude that I expressed when speaking on this Bill earlier today. We believe that the functions of the Commission are the functions of a statutory commission and that the persons who are appointed to the Commission should have the responsibility for their decisions and for the exercise of their functions. We seek to eliminate the philosophy behind the Bill that the functions are subject to the approval of the Minister. We believe that the Commission should exercise the functions that were stated by the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) in his second reading speech- to encourage the making, promotion, distribution and exhibition of films and television programs. There is no lack of accountability to Parliament for any of the actions of the Commission. It is the type of statutory commission which has the same accountability to Parliament as any other statutory commission. Although the Minister said that it must be subject to parliamentary authority, we take the view that it is subject to the accountability of Parliament for the funding which is given to it through Parliament, and for the reporting which it does annually to Parliament through the Minister. As a general philosophy the approval of the Minister for the day to day operations of its functions and for the directions and accent which could be placed on its work is an undesirable feature of the Bill.
We deplore in the strongest terms possible this attitude to the creation of a statutory commission to assist a developing industry. If it is to be a Commission comprising members who have experience, wisdom and expertise, that should be applied without being subject to the direction or the approval of the Minister. I have some particular interest in the matter because in the estimates committees we talked about the work that will be done for Film Australia. Bearing in mind that this Commission is to amalgamate the operations of the Australian Film Development Corporation and the Film Australia unit, and that its functions should concern both those bodies, the accent that is placed on the development of the studios at Lindfield for Film Australia should have priority in the encouragement which is given by the Commission to the film industry in this country. When I asked at the estimates committee about the facilities at the fine new studios which are being developed at Lindfield I was told that although their facilities are larger than required at present for the activities of Film Australia, they would be completely absorbed for that style of film making and there would not be a possibility for them to be leased or used for commercial film making. I stress that Film Australia intends to develop further the activities which have been undertaken. If the functions of the Commission must have the approval and direction of the Minister, a greater accent could be placed on the film making activities of the style of Film Australia than on balance would be placed on the development of the whole of the film industry in this country. For that reason we are seeking to remove the approval of the Minister from the functions of the Commission.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator WebsterSenator Guilfoyle, I note that the next amendment has similar wording to this one. Would it be acceptable to you if they were taken together?
– Yes, it would be.
– I do not object to their being taken together.
– I move:
– I understand what Senator Guilfoyle is saying, although I cannot see why the Minister should not have the authority to approve that this clause gives him. Such approval must be given in many other portfolios in which a Minister is responsible for his action in supporting programs in all sorts of financial enterprises. Certainly the clause that we are considering does provide specific assistance to a State or an authority of a State. I suppose the matter that you, Mr Chairman, spoke about in relation to educational films could be handled best by the Minister’s approval if we were to obtain the sort of condition in the film industry of which you were speaking.
Senator Guilfoyle said that the Commission already is to be fully accountable to Parliament. If the Commission is to be fully accountable to Parliament, I can see nothing wrong with giving the Minister the ability to approve, as this clause gives him. It seems to be that it is something of a contradiction to say that the Commission is to be fully accountable to Parliament and then to say that the Minister will not have the authority to approve in the way in which he desires. Certainly I can see no contradiction between the responsibility which is being given to the Minister in this case and the responsibility that is given to other Ministers when they are accomplishing specific targets and programs.
– I too oppose the amendment which has been moved by Senator Guilfoyle on behalf of the Opposition. Previously in this chamber I have heard reference to the National Film Board of Canada, and I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us about the powers which the Canadian Minister has under the legislation which set up that Board. That legislation has been referred to as a pretty authoritative type of legislation. I rely on an aspect that I do not believe was covered by Senator Guilfoyle in moving the amendment. Clause 5 ( 1) (b) states that the functions of the Commission are:
Subject to the approval of the Minister, to make, promote, distribute and exhibit any films and, in particular-
films that serve the purposes of a Department of State or an authority of Australia.
If one reads into that the powers that the Minister may exercise one sees that complete satisfaction is given to the States. For instance, there could be a request from the Queensland Government for a film about the Great Barrier Reef. Under those circumstances the Minister could exercise the power to assist the State. Of course, I refer to the Great Barrier Reef because I come from Queensland, but one could apply the argument to any State in the Commonwealth. One could apply it to the Chowilla Dam, if one wished to do so, and the same result. I say that because I believe it is important from the point of view of the States that the legislation should provide for some exercise of jurisdiction by the Minister. That is the way in which, as I interpret the clause, the Minister would exercise his authority or his approval in this direction.
– I rise to support fully the argument which Senator Guilfoyle has put forward, and I hope to put forward some considerations which might prevail with Senator Hall. I think that this is a tremendously important area because we are dealing with the making of films. Films are probably as potent a means of influencing opinion as any of the media of expression in existence today. I do not believe that when we are establishing an Australian Film Commission which will have large sums of money to disburse in order to make films which are designed to influence people, we should allow the Minister to have an absolute power as to what films shall or shall not be made. It is an area which I suppose will agitate those concerned with the protection of our liberal democratic processes as long as those processes survive. But I think it is enormously important that where those vehicles for influencing opinion are in private hands or in public hands, the uses to which they are put should be open to public scrutiny and examination.
Here, I believe, the Minister is trying to have the best of both worlds. As the Minister in charge of the Department he has always had the ability to control the operations of his Department. He has controlled the operations of Film Australia. It has been an expanding operation under the present Minister. I am sure that he has had some criticisms, and doubtless there would be a lot of other criticisms of him or of any other Minister as to the operations of Film Australia if it were simply to be in the Department under his control. For reasons which appear to him satisfactory he wants to divest himself of that ministerial control of Film Australia in his Department. He wants to put it in the hands of the Commission, and into that same Commission he wants to put all the functions which hitherto have been used in the Australian Film Development Corporation.
It is all very well to have a Commission if that Commission, constituted by its own members, will make reasonably independent judgments as to what films should be made and what films should be exhibited, and to do so as a statutory corporation accountable to Parliament but not subject to the day to day directions of the Minister. That is a concept which we know in this country and which has commended itself many times to this Parliament. But what the Minister is doing is to say that the Commission shall be able to do all these things, but it cannot do them unless it has the approval of the Minister. So, as it seems to me, he is keeping a day to day control and yet divesting himself of the responsibility for the exercise of that day to day control.
I believe that this is a tremendously important consideration. It ought not to be forgotten that only yesterday we received from the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) an injunction that we should avoid doing this very thing which the Minister is now doing. I think that the Committee will recall the few words which the Attorney-General had to say on the Book Bounty Bill. He said that it would be a dangerous day if ever we were to allow the decision as to whether money was to be provided for the production of books to be determined by the Minister who had the ability to hand out the funds. I refer Senator Douglas McClelland to what the AttorneyGeneral had to say:
If we were to embark upon that course it would be one of the most dangerous courses which could be undertaken by a government. It is well known that if one engages in that kind of censorship, very soon there can be political censorship. Nothing could be worse than a system where a government heavily subsidises the printing of material- books or, one day, it could be newspapers -
I interpolate to say that the day after that statement was made it happens to be films- and then makes that subsidy conditional upon some kind of conformity to the approval of the Government.
The Attorney-General also said:
I can imagine hardly any step which could be more dangerous in a democracy than the subsidising of printing or publication of material on a condition that it had the approval of the Government as to its contents.
What is happening here is that the Commission is given power under the Bill to make, promote, distribute and exhibit any films and, in particular, films that would serve the purposes of a Department of State or an authority of Australia. The Commission is to have that power.. Then it is stated that the exercise of that power is to be subject to the approval of the Minister. Therefore, although the Commission in its own sense of what is right and proper and acting, one would hope, objectively, decides to produce or to make a film, it must seek the approval of the Minister. If the Minister feels that it should not be done, he will veto it. But we know that in the way in which Ministers exercise their approval it is not done quite that way. What happens is that the Minister says: ‘Well, if you do it this way, or if you say these things, or if you project these particular sides of the question and leave this impression with those who view the film, I will give my approval’. Unless it is a very strong Commission, the Minister’s view will prevail in that way. I think that it is a tremendously dangerous step to have a system under which a Minister can operate in that way. It is not the viewpoint of the Liberal Party, and it is a viewpoint to which we will offer strenuous objection. If the Minister is to have power to say what the Film Commission can do in the making, exhibiting and distribution of films, our attitude towards the Commission will be one of suspicion because of the misuse to which the power could be put. We urge the Senate to accept the amendment which Senator Guilfoyle has moved.
– I wonder which is closer to the people, whether it is the Minister who is elected to this House or the Commission without the responsibility to the public and in the fashion as Senator Greenwood recommends it. I suggest that the Minister stands far closer in the control of the elector than does the Commission which is outside ministerial direction. If we are to suppose that we are arguing the cause of the people for control of their commission, certainly I would argue for the Bill as it is. I would urge not to take it completely out of the Parliament’s hands, as I believe the South Australian Film Corporation is quite separate from the Parliament. I think it is far too separate from public scrutiny so that the Minister is able to turn queries away from it. I would like to see the Bill passed in its present form. It is not unusual for a government to support publications, as Senator Greenwood said it ought not to do. I remember that once the South Australian Government gave $10,000 to produce a book on condition that it was produced by a certain society. It was produced by the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science to commemorate a conference held in South Australia. The title of the book was ‘South Australia from the Air’ and the South Australian Government quite freely and proudly subsidised its publication.
I am sure that there would be many other instances of governments helping in the publication of literature, and directly so, without an intermediary such as a commission. In a sense the Minister is his own customer in respect of some provisions of the Bill. The Senate has to realise that the Commission will be making films on behalf of some government departments. Once I had the responsibility of promoting industrial development. I commissioned a 10- minute film which was a major undertaking. I suppose it would have cost about $20,000 had it been done outside of government involvement. It was filmed by government cameramen and I supervised and revised the script. It was made to the customer’s specification. It was a successful film and was widely distributed around the world.
I imagine that the Government will request the Commission to make films specifically tailored for departmental use. I see nothing at all wrong in a Minister’s requesting a film for a specific purpose for his Department, whether in the field of urban development, foreign affairs or any other aspect of publication. Surely the Minister is not only right in having some approval conditions laid down for the provision of funds but also should go even further and, if necessary, look at the script if his own Department is the customer. I have a personal precedent, as I have said, which I believe proves that to be quite the proper thing to do.
If the Minister is to misuse his approval and is to direct ruthlessly to the detriment of the industry and the Commission, and what is possibly more important, the public investment in it, he will be responsible to this House. He will be subject to direct criticism and will not be able to shelter as some of his colleagues have been trying to shelter on the big financial questions of the day behind Treasury. He will have to take the responsibility for the decisions he makes and for him there will be no sheltering from the criticism of the public in the people’s House. Having regard to what Senator Greenwood has said, I choose the Minister’s approval and his responsibility here rather than his being removed from the scene and therefore unable to take that responsiblity. I cannot agree with the amendment.
– I support what Senator Greenwood and Senator Guilfoyle said with respect to the proposed amendment. I take it that the Commission will be reporting annually to the Parliament. The Commission will be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General and this House will have a further opportunity to examine its operations through the Public Accounts Committee. In my view there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny over the Commission and I wholeheartedly support the amendment proposed by the Opposition.
-I wish to comment briefly on the remarks of Senator Steele Hall. I think he overlooked the attitude of the Liberal and Country parties to the approval of the Minister being appropriate to the day to day functions of the Commission. The honourable senator referred to the style of organisation we have had in ‘Film Australia’. If the
Minister wants to continue with Film Australia making documentary films in the way it has done, why push it into the Australian Film Commission and have it there as something which has been designed, according to the Minister’s second reading speech, to encourage the film industry of Australia? We are talking about the encouragement of a commercial film industry in this country. If documentary films are to be made for the Government by the Commission they should be made by decisions of the Commission in its function within the scope of its powers and each of the decisions made by the Commission should not be subject to the approval of the Minister.
The financial arrangements for the Commission are those of any other statutory commission. It is accountable for its functions financially in the same way as any other commission, but I put it to the Committee that the Australian Film Commission will be part of communications throughout Australia. Will anyone suggest that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should be subject to the approval of the Minister. When decisions are taken within the Commission on what shall be news and what shall be done by the Commission it has always proudly been said that the ABC is a statutory commission which is not subject to the direction of the Minister or the government of the day. It is equally important if we are to say to the people of Australia that we are establishing new areas of communications in this country through the Australian Film Commission that it also should have the responsibility lying within the people who are appointed to the Commission itself. For this reason I simply repeat that the Opposition is philosophically completely opposed to the approval of the Minister which is written into the Bill.
– I think that Senator Guilfoyle is mixing the objectives of the Bill. She has them all mixed up because it is in a sense an industrial promotion exercise. It is not a venue to show films to the public. It has further disciplines that are set out in other clauses and I would advise Senator Guilfoyle to look at my proposed amendments. The amendments I propose take out the very specific power that the Minister has, make it of a far more general nature and apply it only by regulations laid on the table of this House. Certainly no one could properly claim that that is unparliamentary or undemocratic. Senator Guilfoyle is arguing that the Commission is a body which, without making its own decisions, is able to have a very direct say in what will be exhibited during a substantial amount of viewing time in theatres with the approval of the Minister.
When we get to who shall see it, it is with the approval of the Parliament, not the Minister. That applies to the amendments that are proposed to clause 10, but turning to a State industrial development organisation it is clear that the Treasurer always has to give his approval to development of a particular industry. If public money is to be used at some risk in the development of a tourist facility- perhaps a motel, a factory or a picture theatre- that would come within the province of State development and the Treasurer would have to give his approval. Otherwise the funds would not be available. This goes a little further than that obviously, but it is still in between a venue such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which Senator Guilfoyle used, and a direct industrial promotion. Quite frankly, if we are to lay heavily on one side or the other, I believe it comes down to an industrial promotion rather than an area of transmission. The transmission, as I have said, is conveyed or controlled by clause 10. I advise Senator Guilfoyle to look at the amendments which I have proposed, which give the final say in that regard into the hands of the Parliament by regulation.
– The Committee is debating 2 proposed amendments to the Australian Film Commission Bill in regard to paragraphs (b) and (c) of clause 5(1). The relevant paragraphs read: 5.(1) The functions of the Commission are-
subject to the approval of the Minister, to make, promote, distribute and exhibit any films and, in particular
subject to the approval of the Minister, to provide financial assistance to a State or an authority of a State for the purchase by it of Australian films that are of an educational nature and of national interest or importance;
Let me remind the Senate of the situation of Film Australia prior to this Government coming into office. Film Australia was then known as the Commonwealth Film Unit, and it was in the backwater of the old Australian News and Information Bureau which was responsible to the then
Minister for the Interior. For 23 years the Minister for the Interior had a body known as the National Film Board, the membership of which was appointed by him, which made recommendations to him concerning proposals that would come to the Film Board from the Commonwealth Film Unit. The Commonwealth Film Unit made recommendations as to which films would be produced by the Unit. The National Film Board, the membership of which was appointed by the Minister and which consisted of a number of public servants, would then scrutinise these proposals and make recommendations to the Minister. The Minister, under the previous governments, would approve of the proposals.
Shortly after I assumed this office I went to the production unit which is known as the Commonwealth Film Unit and I had a discussion with members of its staff. One of the things that they asked me was whether I would be prepared to establish an independent statutory body to enable them to carry out their responsibilities along the lines of the National Film Board of Canada. Frankly, I said that I had not studied at that stage the National Film Act under which the National Film Board of Canada operates. I told them that I would not commit myself until I had studied the Act. Since that time I have studied it and have found that the provisions under that legislation pertaining to the Canadian Film Production Unit are much less libertarian in outlook, if one might use that expression, than those sought from me by the staff of the Commonwealth Film Unit as long ago as January 1973. If one looks at the Canadian Act- and that is one of the criteria that some people in the industry are using- one sees that section 3 which deals with the responsibility of the Minister states:
For the purposes of this Act and subject to its provisions, the Minister shall control and direct the operations of the National Film Board.
Section 7 (4) which relates to the making of bylaws states:
The Board, with the approval of the Minister, may make by-laws not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act with respect to the conduct of the business of the Board.
So the Minister has a complete say, really, as to how the Board in Canada will conduct its own deliberations. Section 8 of the Act states:
The Chairman shall furnish a copy of the minutes of each meeting of the Board to the Minister.
Section 10 of the Canadian Act, which deals with the powers of the Board, reads:
The section then enumerates the matters which the Board shall carry out. In relation to contracts involving more than $15,000 the Canadian Act states in section 12:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Board shall not, unless the approval of the Treasury Board has been obtained on the recommendation of the Minister, enter into a contract involving an estimated expenditure in excess of fifteen thousand dollars.
Section 13, which deals with the plan of the organisation, talks about the approval of the Treasury Board being obtained on the recommendation of the Minister and so on. There are a number of other provisions set out which clearly disprove the contention that the National Film Board could, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered, as apparently it is by some people in the Australian industry, to be a completely independent statutory corporation.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of clause 5(1) are really related to clauses 8 and 43 of the Bill. Clause 8 states that the Minister may give a direction to the Commission with respect to a film or proposed film of a kind referred to in subparagraphs (ii) or (iii) of clause 5 ( 1 ) (b). Such a film would serve the purpose of a department of State or an authority of Australia. Frankly, the Australian Government spends, I think, roughly between $3. 5m and $4m on Film Australian production- films that are made for and on behalf of the Australian Government. Some of these productions already require my approval as Minister, and others are what are known as the departmental vote and require a client department, as it were- it could be the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Tourism and Recreation, the Department of Social Security- to decide that it wants to make a film and then to seek the services of Film Australia. Frankly, if the Government is not to have any say in the manner in which that film will be produced, I suggest that there will be a lesser expenditure on the part of the Government in the production of films. I would suggest, as Senator Hall has said, that this is virtually an industrial promotion activity. If the Government -any government of any political colour- did not have a say in how $4m of taxpayers’ money was to be spent in the production of a film, it would be recreant to the trust imposed in it. Certainly, so far as parliamentary responsibility is concerned, the Minister must have to account to Parliament.
– Would it not have a responsibility to Parliament?
-There would be a responsibility to the Parliament, but the honourable senator must admit that a Minister immediately responsible to Parliament is much more responsible to Parliament than a statutory committee which is responsible to Parliament merely through a Minister. With great respect, let us take the example of the Australian Broadcasting Commission which all members of this Parliament will say is a completely independent statutory body which is engaged in television production. It is not engaged in film production but it is engaged in television production. If that organisation were engaged in film production for and on behalf directly of the Australian Government, I should say that it should be accountable immediately to the Parliament through a Minister. That is the axiom which I am applying in this case. It applies to the specific matters that are spelled out in paragraphs (b) and (c) of clause 5 ( 1 ). As a complete protection to the Parliament, the Bill provides in section 43 (2) for complete public accountability and ministerial responsibility directly to the Parliament. Sub-clause 2 of clause 43 of the Bill states:
The Commission shall set out, in its annual report, any directions given to the Commission by the Minister under section 8 during the period to which the report relates.
I suggest that this is what one might call a ‘doctrinal ‘ debate. It depends on the question of ministerial responsibility and public accountability. I say it is in the interests of the Parliament, the Government, the Commission and- more importantlyit is in the interests of the film industry that the amendment proposed by Senator Guilfoyle be rejected.
– I wish to say that I am not moved at all by the explanations given by the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) a moment ago. I fully support the amendment moved by Senator Guilfoyle on the basic principle of allowing the Commission reasonable freedom in the discharge of its duties. The Commission could well become a docile servant of Government policy if the words are left in the Bill as is sought by the Minister. Then the Commission could make, promote, distribute and exhibit films only with the approval of the Minister. That would put the Commission in a completely servile role in my opinion. It would be hamstrung to a degree far in excess of that which should apply in a medium such as the film industry. Therefore, I believe that as we have parliamentary accountability through the Minister in due time there will be sufficient restraint on the Commission without making the Commission so subservient to the
Minister. The Commission should not be run almost as a Government department dictated to directly by the Minister. I fully support the amendment moved by Senator Guilfoyle.
– I think the expression used by Senator Laucke is particularly apposite. The Liberal Party will not lend itself to any proposal which will make this Commission or any other commission which plays a significant role in the media become a docile servant of government policy. We have seen sufficient in what the Labor Party has done in so many other spheres since it has been in Government to make us apprehensive as to the ways in which power could be used. I am sorry that Senator Steele Hall allies himself with the Labor Party on this particular issue because I believe it is a vital matter which liberals hold very dearly. In this area of the media one does not allow the media to come under the control and direction of government. Unless one resists that tendency on occasions when the desire to exercise that type of government control is apparent, before long one will find that so many areas of the media are under governmental direction.
It is probably coincidental but it is frightening nevertheless that at a time when there is controversy about the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the extent to which that Board may or may not have power over television and broadcasting stations- I do not embark upon the merits of whether what is proposed is good or bad- we have, at much the same time, this debate on what should be the Minister’s powers over the Film Commission and the extent to which he should be able to direct what films should be made by this Commission. It is not only a question of what films might be made by the Commission because we know there are other provisions in this Bill under which the Minister has the power to issue requirements to any and every motion picture theatre in this country as to the short films- films of less than 60 minutes, I recall- which must be shown by theatres. It is a power of enormous influence.
We feel that if there is to be the development of an Australian film industry- the Liberal Party is clearly committed to that course of action because it established the Australian Film Development Corporation in 1970- let us ensure that the films that are made take their place along with other films in this country and let us ensure that the Commission does not become a docile servant of government policy. We have had some debate on the accountability of this Commission to the Parliament. No one questions that any statutory corporation should be accountable to Parliament. There is no suggestion that this Commission should not be accountable to Parliament. It is accountable to Parliament in the sense that the Parliament is entitled to know what the Commission is doing. The Parliament is entitled to receive a report from the Commission as to how it has conducted its operations. Parliamentary committees are entitled, if they are properly appointed, to call before them officers of the Commission and seek information as to how the Commission is operating. All of that aspect of accountability to the Parliament is well recognised.
But it is another question entirely- and it is Senator Steel Hall who has got himself confusedto say that the approval of the Minister as to what films should be made and what financial assistance can be given is merely another form of accountability to Parliament. It is another question because it is merely a section or an aspect of the larger issue: Should the making of films be a departmental matter as it always has been under the Commonwealth film unit; or should it be a matter for a Commission? The Minister has adopted the policy of establishing a commission. The Opposition is prepared to go along with that broad approach but as I said earlier the Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have a commission and at the same time tie that commission down in so many ways that virtually everything it does is subject to the direction of the Minister
The Minister for the Media referred to the position in Canada. Whatever the position in Canada it can be no more than a guide upon which we operate in Australia. I would have thought that no matter where we look to get our analogy, it is the Australian scene in which we desire to have legislation. We will do what is appropriate to the Australian scene. I would have thought, if the Minister was referrering to the Canadian Film Board that he would do far better to refer to the Australian Broadcasting Commission because that is operating in a similar area. Indeed, I commend to the Minister for his reflection what he himself said when this question of the accountability of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the Parliament was being debated in 1 97 1 . He said: . . one thing that is transparently clear is that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has been given autonomy in regard to its operations. I would agree, as members of the Opposition agree, that it is entitled to autonomy in its operations. We have always said that. We have always supported that principle.
I would have wished that the Minister for the Media would have supported that principle in government as he espoused it in opposition because there is no question that if the Minister were to seek to exercise a power as to what film the Australian Broadcasting Commission were to make and as to what programs the Australian Broadcasting Commission were to produce, there would be an outcry from an enormous number of areas- no less, I imagine, than from the Australian -Broadcasting Commission itself. Whatever be the type of regulation, controls or other means of ensuring that statutory commissions act in accordance with their charters, that form of ministerial control is something which the Liberal Party will not support. I would hope that the Labor Party would never support it either. The analogy, I think, is a sound analogy.
In respect of the power which is given to make, promote, distribute and exhibit films and in respect of the power to provide financial assistance to a State or authority of a State for the purchase of Australian films which are of educational or national interest or importancewhatever that means- the Commission should have the right to make decisions and to report in due course to the Parliament how it is operating. The Minister will know how the Commission is operating. If he is dissatisfied with the Commission, he has the power to change it. But I do not believe that he should have the power day by day to direct its operations. I think that is a denial of the whole purpose of statutory corporations.
– I was reluctant to enter the debate. I do so in order to make only one observation in relation to the previous speaker, Senator Greenwood. Over the- years he has made an incessant cry about the power of the Arbitration Commission and about elements in the community that he feels put their own rights above the public good. If ever there was such an element in the community, it is the hierarchies of the commercial broadcasting and television stations. These are the people who are not interested in the common good. That is the only comment I want to make.
- Senator Greenwood makes his political motives very clear when he says that I have allied myself with the Australian Labor Party. Of course, that is his view. He would/’ vote against any legislation if he thought that it was to his political advantage, regardless of the national needs of Australia.
– Oh!
-Senator Young has made a remark. I could refer him to Senator
Greenwood’s ability to put a very large spoke in the wheel of the Constitutional Convention because of the views he holds for political reasons. Senator Greenwood is renowned for taking the politics in any issue and turning them to his advantage. He will do himself no good by claiming that I ally myself with the Labor Party. He can try that again if he wants to, but it will not do him any good.
We are discussing a Bill which apparently the honourable senator is deliberately misconstruing. He has refused to look at the further possibility of limiting the powers of the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland); he will not consider it in conjunction with the matter that we are discussing. He continues to talk as if we were discussing a body comparable with the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We are not. We are discussing, as was stated earlier, a hybrid of industrial promotion and matters of furtherance of Government policy in relation to lifting the standard of films in Australia by placing an emphasis on Australian content. Mr Chairman, I refer again to your remarks. Perhaps I do so unfairly as you are not in a position to defend yourself or to say otherwise. In your speech in the second reading debate you made a very strong case for the development of a far greater range of educational films in Australia.
I point out that, unless the Minister could set out a positive program along those lines, he would be reliant upon the Commission unfettered and without any direction to be placed alongside the financial resources of the public which are to be placed within its jurisdiction. There would be nothing to stop the Commission from adventuring into cinematographic equivalents of ‘Blue Poles’ and glass birds. I do not go along with Senator Greenwood’s apparent willingness to provide the Commission with great sums of money with which it can then flout the popular opinion of Australians and the needs of this Government. Possibly, it could do this at a time of great stress, as is now evident in the community, and at a time when we are looking for leadership. This is a time in which a body has purchased on behalf of Australia, to the ridicule of most Australians, very controversial, to say the least, works of art at highly inflated prices. If that is what Senator Greenwood wants to give the Commission freedom to do, I do not agree with him. I think that the Minister ought to have some control over such matters.
If Senator Greenwood can forget about the Labor Party and the Liberal Party for a moment when we are discussing the needs of the Australian community and Australian children in relation to educational films and if he can forget his partisan and divisive attitude on politics, he might be able to discuss what the community really does need. He might look to the fact that we should trust the Minister of the day, until the legislation is further amended, to control the Commission and, if necessary, there can be a responsibility that he must report back to the Parliament about its operations. I commend to Senator Greenwood that he support, if he can bring himself to do so, the amendments which will give him, as well as every other honourable senator, some parliamentary control in the oversight of the regulations made under clause 10 of the Bill.
– I rise only to disavow the intention and the deliberate misconstruction which Senator Hall attributed to me. I regard this as a tremendously important matter. I think that I made the reasons why I regard it as an important matter abundantly clear. I can only regret that Senator Hall does not regard the question of whether a Minister can have control over the day to day operations of film making in this country as a serious matter when we are establishing an Australian Film Commission charged with the responsibility of doing this. The honourable senator has a respect for ministerial approval. I think that it reflects credit of him that he is so trusting. But after all, the painting ‘Blue Poles’ and the other works of art on which there has been great expenditure, whether or not they were desirable purchases, were all purchased with ministerial approval. The mere fact that the Minister has the power does not mean that the power will be exercised in the appropriate way and in the best interests of the community.
– That approval was given under legislation enacted by your Government.
-In terms of the purchase, the ministerial approval was given. I quite agree that it was done under the broad umbrella of legislation. But this is part of the problem with which we are confronted. Is it desirable when one establishes a commission, a body which is designed to be autonomous, to make its decisions subject to what the Minister may decide? The value of establishing a statutory or autonomous corporation is lost when the Minister has that power. If the Minister in this area of film making chooses to use his power politically- I am sorry that Senator Steele Hall feels that in some way Opposition senators are political and Ministers are not- then the misuse of that power is something which ought to arouse objection. And it will. I think that the appropriate point of time to take the objection is when Bills which contain this power are going through the Parliament. That is why we object at this stage to giving that particular power to the Minister.
– I have listened with great interest to the discussion in the Committee stage on the amendment moved by Senator Guilfoyle. I must say that I have not been convinced by Government speakers or any other speaker who has not agreed with Senator Guilfoyle ‘s amendment. This is because no honourable senator has put forward any convincing reasons why the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) will not be in a position of total control to direct the Australian Film Commission in any way he sees fit. I remind honourable senators of what is contained in clause 5, which sets out the functions of the Commission. Clause 5 ( 1 ) (b) states:
It goes on to list 3 paragraphs. Sub-clause (c) states that these films, which it is the function of the Commission to make, are subject to the approval of the Minister. I will not say that trouble could arise under the present Minister for the Media. But this Minister will not always be with us. We do not know who may be the Minister. We have a situation which could be dangerous. This is an area in which there could be a political Propaganda machine established. Let us be h onest about the position. This is what it could be. Further on in the Bill we find that the Minister can direct theatres to show those films he wishes to be shown. He has that much power. This afternoon we are discussing whether we should give the Minister this much power.
One could go to extremes in such a situation, and in discussions such as this I think one should point out the extremes. We have seen in certain parts of the world what has happened when a propaganda machine has been put in the hands of an individual person. I am not going to say that it will happen in Australia. But the language of this Bill lends itself to this situation. The Commission will be an autonomous body but responsible to the Parliament. There is nothing this Commission can do in relation to its functions where it is not responsible to Parliament. So there is control of the Commission. In my view, there is no need to give this total power and control of the direction of this Commission to the Minister. I think that as a responsible chamber we are leaving ourselves wide open for criticism if we do so.
Question put:
That the amendments (Senator Guilfoyle’s) be agreed to.
The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Webster)
AYES: 27
NOES: 27
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
Progress reported.
page 1893
-Pursuant to standing order 408 I seek the leave of the Senate to explain a matter of a personal nature.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.
– I consider it proper, and in that view I am joined by the 4 other Tasmanian Labor senators, to explain to the Senate a development that has occurred today consequent upon the debate in the Senate last week on the States Grants Bill 1974. In the 3 main newspapers in Tasmania today an advertisement of some significant size appeared relating to that debate. I do not stay to read it to the Senate but I indicate that in the ‘Mercury ‘-that is the Hobart publication- it was on page 2. There is no name of any individual associated with it. In the Launceston ‘Examiner’ the same advertisement appears. Again no name is associated with it. In the ‘Advocate’, published on the north west coast of Tasmania, the same advertisement appears but in that advertisement the name of a person whom I will not mention but who has political affiliations and associations is given as the authorisation for the advertisement.
The advertisement deals with the form of a certain amendment that was before the Senate last week and it goes on to mention in large type the names of all Tasmanian Labor senators. It ends up with the words: ‘What value can we place on their promise now? ‘ It is not my purpose to canvass the advertisement but I wish to observe to the Senate, preparatory to stating that certain action is being taken, that the advertisements in the opinion of my colleagues and myself are a continuation of a campaign of misrepresentation and untruths which has been pursued against Tasmanian Labor members of the Australian Parliament and indeed against the Australian Labor Party itself. The time has come for action. Consequently, instructions have been issued today on behalf of the 5 Tasmanian Labor senators for legal proceedings for defamation in relation to those advertisements to be issued forthwith against appropriate defendants.
page 1894
In Committee
Consideration resumed.
-Prior to the suspension of the sitting, the Committee divided on the Opposition’s amendment to clause 5. 1 now indicate that the Opposition will not oppose clause 5 in its present form but feels that because the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) has insisted upon his approval being included in the functions of the Commission it is unable to concur with clause 10, which will be dealt with later, which gives him power to require the exhibition of Australian short films. The Opposition believes that the Minister should understand that this is the course of action its proposes to take, bearing in mind -
– I am sorry. What course of action?
– That the Opposition would not be able to support the retention of clause 10 as a power of requirment. The wide powers which have now been given to the Minister with regard to the assistance and the encouragement which can be given to films through the
Film Commission cause the Opposition a great deal of disquiet when they are linked with clauses such as clauses 8 and 10. The Opposition feels that, prior to voting on clause 5, it should state its intention with regard to clause 10.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 (Powers of Commission).
– I propose to move an amendment in the following terms:
At end of clause insert new sub-clause as follows:
The Commission shall set out in its Annual Report prepared and furnished to the Minister pursuant to section 43 a statement of such guarantees given by the Commission during the period to which the Report relates, the limits which the Treasurer has determined and the total amount of moneys the subject of such guarantees.
The Opposition considers that this item may have been included in the annual report prepared by the Commission but, so that the Parliament is in possession of the information to the extent that the Opposition believes is necessary, it has simply added this as a requirement of accountability to the Parliament for moneys which have been guaranteed to the extent to which the Treasurer has determined. I need say no more than that it is simply a seeking of information for the Parliament of the operations of the Commission, bearing in mind that these are guarantees to the limit determined by the Treasurer. The Opposition seeks the inclusion of this new sub-clause (4) as I have described it.
– The Government has no objection to this sub-clause being added to the terms of the Bill now before the Committee. I point out that it is not a term of the existing Australian Film Development Corporation Act, which is an Act of Parliament that was introduced by the previous Government. Since this Government assumed office it has been the practice of the Australian Film Development Corporation to report in the terms embodied in the amendment now proposed by Senator Guilfoyle. Indeed in the recent annual report of the Australian Film Development Corporation which I tendered in this chamber 2 or 3 weeks ago there is set out on page 4 under the heading ‘Guarantees’ the fact that the Corporation has power to guarantee money obtained by the Australian producers from other sources to the extent of Sim overall. On page 8 of the annual report details of the guarantees issued by the Corporation are set out.
So, it having been the custom and practice of the Australian Film Development Corporation, we can see no objection to its being written into the legislation. I have been presented with another form of words by the Parliamentary Draftsman which I am assured meets the provision more effectively than Senator Guilfoyle ‘s proposed amendment. 1 shall provide it to the honourable senator. If she believes that its terms fulfil the purposes of her proposed amendment and if she will move it in that form I will be happy to accept the amendment.
– I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that this wording fulfils our intention. Therefore, I move:
This is an amendment with regard to the information for the Parliament on the guarantees given under the Treasurer’s determinations. It was simply to ensure that this sort of information was available that we used the words in the original amendment. I believe that what has now been moved will provide for that as a requirement in respect of the annual report to this place.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7.
The Commission may, with the approval of the Minister but not otherwise, form, or participate with another person in the formation of, a company for the purpose of carrying on the business of making, promoting, distributing or exhibiting films and acquire, hold and dispose of shares or stock in the capital of a company carrying on such a business.
– I move:
The clause will then read:
The Commission may form, or participate with another person . . .
Again we have an attitude to the approval of the Minister in respect of the Commission’s ability to form a company for certain purposes. We know that under the Australian Film Development Corporation Act the Minister has the power of approval in the way in which it has been set out in this clause. But we feel that, with the formation of the Commission and with the statutory responsibilities which it will be exercising, the approval of the Minister in this instance is not essential. For this reason I have moved the amendment to have the words ‘with the approval of the Minister but not otherwise’ omitted.
– I support what Senator Guilfoyle has said. It appears that the requirement of the Minister indicates the extent to which he wants to have a control over the activities of the Commission. We repeat what we said earlier: The Minister should indicate his intention. Is it to have a statutory corporation control the making of films along the lines which this Bill contemplates, or does he want to retain a ministerial or departmental control over what is essentially a departmental matter? I know- I imagine that the Minister will make reference to this point- that at least in the Australian Film Development Corporation Act 1970, if not in other legislation, the approval of the Minister has been inserted as a requirement to be obtained before a commission or a corporation can enter into agreement with another company. I think there is a significant difference between other legislation and this Bill. This Commission is designed to promote the making of short or small films with a host of small producers. In those circumstances it seems an onerous requirement for every projected activity of the Commission to have to be taken to the Minister. It may be that the Minister has good reasons, which he may explain, why he wants to keep the provision in this case. Notwithstanding what the past may indicate, we feel that this is a particular circumstance which ought to be allowed to develop with the Commission having the autonomy to decide what contracts it will make with other companies. To that extent this is somewhat different from the provision in the Film Development Corporation legislation of 1 970.
– I would like to refer to some other aspects of this clause which, to my mind, are highly confusing. Clause 8 (1) states:
The Minister may, by writing under his hand, give directions to the Commission with respect to the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions but, except as provided by sub-section (2), shall not give such a direction with respect to a particular project.
The first part of that sub-clause contains a particularly sweeping power which is given to the Minister in relation to the Commission’s functions. In other words, all the functions under this Bill are subject to the directions of the Minister. If we are setting up an Australian Film Commission which has any reality or any powers, surely we cannot say in one clause that every one of its powers is subject to the direction of the
Minister except, as it states, with respect to a particular project. Sub-clause (2) states:
The Minister may give a direction to the Commission with respect to a film, or proposed film, of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph 5 (l)(b)(i),(ii)or(iii).
– We are dealing with clause 7.
– I am sorry. We are on clause 7, not clause 8.
– The Committee is dealing with clause 7.
– It seems that the Opposition’s purpose is becoming clearer. I do not think it would be doing the Opposition or the Liberal Party a disservice to say that it wants an Australian Film Commission without any inhibitions. It does not want any control over the Commission. It has striven to delete the earlier controls. It now wants the Commission to be able to enter into any company arrangements without any control, oversight or approval by the Minister. It is pretty chilling for free enterprise in Australia- those people who are operating private enterprise film productionto know that the so-called free enterprise party in this chamber is willing to put in an absolutely dominating position an Australian Film Commission which can do as it wishes without any ministerial control to inhibit it. Quite frankly, I would be extremely frightened of the Opposition ‘s view -
– You are a bit timid.
– I am not timid. I want to draw attention to the many film makers I know. I am sure that the honourable senator- I shall not dignify him with a name- knows of many film makers in his own State of South Australia who take pride in their film production and who have ambitions. If there ever was an ambitious field of endeavour, it is the film industry. It lives on hope. I might say that a few operators have not much more than that. But there are many operators who have a great deal of skill. They look to the future to develop their skill in a free enterprise way. No doubt some of them would like to cooperate with an Australian Film Commission and also develop their skill or make use of the Commission’s financial support. The omission of clause 8 will set up the Australian Film Commission without any inhibitions and take away all the directions that the Minister may give. By omitting clause 8 the Opposition intends to take away the Minister’s right to stipulate what films he wants even in his own Department. I cannot understand the so-called free enterprise system saying that it wants to set up an all powerful dominating film commission which can run private enterprise out of the field. In effect, that is what it is saying in this amendment.
- Senator Guilfoyle and Senator Greenwood very rightly and properly have drawn attention to the Australian Film Development Corporation Act which was introduced into the Parliament by the Gorton Government in which I think the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Greenwood, was Attorney-General. If my recollection is correct, he had the carriage of the legislation at the time the Bill was presented in the Senate. Section 2 1 of that legislation states:
1 ) The Corporation has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of its functions and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, has power -
That is the provision in the Act of Parliament. The Bill was introduced into the Senate by the previous Government, of which Senator Greenwood was a member. Bearing in mind the provision in that legislation and the widening scope of the proposed new Commission, the Government merely has transposed, as it were, that section from the Australian Film Development Corporation Act, as it related to distribution, into clause 7 of this Bill so that it can be related to all the proposed functions of the new Commission. The new clause now reads:
The Commission may with the approval of the Minister, but not otherwise, form or participate with another person in the formation of, a company for the purpose of carrying on the business of making, promoting, distributing or exhibiting films and acquire, hold and dispose of shares or stock in the capital of a company carrying on such a business.
One could have the ludicrous situation- I suppose that one must use the absurd to illustrate the situation- in which, if one gave the Commission complete powers in this regard and funds were made available to it to the extent of $4m, $5m, $6m or whatever the sum might be, and there was no ministerial approval required of the manner in which that amount was to be expended, the Commission might decide of its own volition not to spend one cent in the making of a film, whether it be a short or a feature film. I remind Senator Greenwood that the function of this Commission is much wider than the production of short films. But it could decide of its own volition to use the whole of those funds, say, in distribution, exhibition or acquisition.
– It could buy a theatre.
Exactly. For instance, it could engage in the purchase of a theatre for the distribution of other products that may not necessarily be made in Australia. The Bill simply gives to the Australian Film Commission a wider role than the Australian Film Development Corporation had. In the Australian Film Development Corporation Act and in this Bill the approval of the Minister is required for the formation of such companies. The Commission meets, makes a recommendation and the Minister either approves or rejects its recommendation. Because there is an annual report to the Parliament I cannot see any possible objection to that provision.
– I found the explanation of the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) not very convincing as to why this power ought to be provided. I acknowledged, and he reiterated, that it was in the Australian Film Development Corporation Act 1970. But, of course, there is a distinction between the purposes of that Act and this Bill. If that distinction is not good enough, I remind the Minister that the Government of 1970 to 1972 was sent into Opposition to learn the error of its ways in regard to things which it did when in government. We are learning to look closely at those matters which we think will reassert the role of the private sector of this community. This Bill does raise in one way the issue of free enterprise against government control by socialism. I repeat: I am sorry that Senator Hall has put himself with the socialists on this issue, because I do not accept that if one writes into legislation a power which gives ministerial control over the activities of a commission one is helping private enterprise. How Senator Hall can argue that way is beyond my comprehension. We will have either a Commission which will be able to operate as it wishes in the way that statutory corporations have always done- I think that is the purpose of this legislation- or we will have ministerial control exercised through a commission, which is a subterfuge. We have challenged the Government- we challenge it again- to make up its mind. What does it want? If it wants a commission, let it operate autonomously. If it wants to have ministerial control let it be done through a department in which the Minister is answerable day by day in the Parliament. Let us not have a situation in which the Commission is subject to day to day ministerial control. That is what the Minister is asking for. That is what Senator Hall is supporting. The Liberal Party does not accept it.
- Mr Chairman, I think we are seeing a pitiful occurrence here tonight. A former Minister of the Crown knows that he is defeated and that it has been proved conclusively to him that the Government is merely introducing something which he favoured when he was a Minister of the Crown. Yet he does not attempt to defend what he did as a Minister but draws the argument away from himself by attacking the Government on sheer stupidities. Mr Chairman, what is the situation? On behalf of the Opposition Senator Guilfoyle has the carriage of this legislation. But Senator Greenwood, because of his unreasonably intense dislike for Senator Hall, takes the matter out of the hands of the person entrusted by the Opposition with the carriage of its amendments for the sake of trying to make political capital. The honourable senator is pitifully weak in this direction. I suggest that the Opposition should hand back the task to the person who has been entrusted with it so that she may continue in the direction she has been going.
- Mr Chairman, I must at least agree that the debate has deteriorated a little since Senator Greenwood entered it. But it has a very humorous side because Senator Greenwood continually accuses me of being a socialist for insisting during the course of the debate on this Bill that the Minister is responsible on the floor of the chamber for the power that is given under the Bill, and in my view it ought to be this way. The power of the Commission, if it is to be called a commissionperhaps some of the stumbling block is in calling it a commission; perhaps we ought to call it something else and in some legalistic way that might satisfy Senator Greenwood, but if it is to be called a Commission, let us use that term- is to be represented here through the Minister who is to be given the responsibility for approving of certain of the Commission’s important actions. I still maintain more than ever that that is the most democratic process and the greatest safeguard for those individuals about whom we are talking who will be concerned with the Commission, and we have not mentioned them a great deal so far.
Senator Greenwood has said that he does not want any controls on the Commission, and that has been his view insistently. He does not disagree with that statement. Therefore, as I said earlier- and I say this again to refute Senator
Greenwood’s suggestion that I am being socialistiche is saying this in a practical sense as a socialist, which rather suprises me, but of late Senator Greenwood is noted for doing things other than what he says and of twisting words. He did this in relation to Tasmania as late as last week, and that matter has been the subject of further remarks here tonight. Senator Greenwood does not always do as he says. On this occasion he is free to accuse others of being socialists, but he wants to set up in the community an all-powerful government film making and distributing body, and let the private operators dance as the elephant said among the chickens- every man for himself. Senator Greenwood is going to let an elephant, in the form of this Film Commission, loose among all the small chickens that manufacture and make films in Australia, and he says that that is all right.
Senator Greenwood is a very anti socialist person, and he makes great play of it. In fact, ideologically he does not know much else in this chamber. He is simply anti- that is the first matterand sometimes he tacks socialist on to that. But he is generally anti, and throughout Australia he is known for his negativism. But forgetting that negative aspect, and tacking ‘socialist’ on tonight, he aims the word ‘socialist’ back at others.
– He did not say that.
-Oh yes, he claimed that I was a socialist. Let us not get into what was said the other night when you came into the chamber and said that Senator Greenwood did not mention me. Let us get it right. He has accused me of aligning myself with socialists tonight.
– That is right.
– Well, let us not mince words. That is a legalistic attitude. I know what the honourable senator’s colleagues do in my home State, and that is why I am taking some little time to refute the suggestion that Senator Greenwood has made. For the benefit of Senator Greenwood I again say to him that I believe that his view is completely socialistic, and I cannot support the letting loose in the community of a very large, powerful body free of any government direction which will gobble up the private operators in the film industry. I do not agree with Senator Greenwood, and I will fight him on it because I want to protect the small maker of films and, hopefully, generate large makers of films and leave them as private operators. I am sure that this legislation, under ministerial direction, will do that. Senator Geenwood, apart from being a negative anti-socialist is also a very great pessimist because he never thinks of himself as being back in government with a colleague administering this legislation. Surely he can see that far ahead, although with his actions he does a great deal to depress his Party’s chances electorally. If he encourages his colleagues to defeat this Bill tonight he will disappoint many tens of thousands of people in the community.
– Who is defeating it?
– If Senator Guilfoyle ‘s amendment to clause 10 is carried the main purpose of the Bill will be defeated. The defeat of clause 10 will obviously defeat the main purpose of this Bill.
– No.
-Let us just get this right among the interjections. Senator Guilfoyle has said that the Opposition will defeat clause 10. I am saying that that will defeat the Bill; it will not be worth proclaiming it.
– We do not believe what you say.
-Senator Jessop does not believe himself in that case, because his spokesman has said to the Committee that those events will take place. I admit to the honourable senator from South Australa that if he wants to vote on behalf of those who make films in South Australia he will divide away from his spokesman and vote for clause 10 in the amended form. To return to the point on which I rose to speak, I point out to the Committee how futile it is for Senator Greenwood to wrap up others in fancy words and to take a course of action himself which is the most socialistic that he can take on this measure. I want it to be clearly understood that he is acting firmly as a socialist, and it is certainly a paradox when the Minister opposite him is presenting to the Committee a proposal which gives the people a better claim on the legislation which is before us.
– Whilst I appreciate the solicitude expressed by Senator Milliner, I assure him that at no time has Senator Greenwood intruded on the handling of this Bill to my displeasure. It is unfortunate that personal remarks need to be made at the Committee stage of a Bill.
– Are you looking over that way?
– I am looking right around the chamber. I am speaking to any of the honourable senators who find it necessary to make personal allegations in order to sustain their contentions regarding the legislation. The types of remarks that have been made by Senator Steele Hall are unnecessary to explain his attitude to the Bill. His reference to the exercise of this power in the formation of a company to be used for the purchase of a theatre is precisely one of our concerns regarding the functioning of the Commission under ministerial approval. To have a Film Commission which may buy a theatre and which, with the approval of the Minister, may make the type of films that could be made as the means of Government communication, and then to insist that a proportion of the films shall be shown at the direction of the Minister, links together all of the attitudes that we believe are somewhat disconcerting in the legislation itself. It is for this reason that before we voted on clause 5 I foreshadowed that we would adopt this attitude with regard to clause 10 and to any other parts of the Bill which we believe gave this absolute power of direction to the Minister in the showing of films.
I was surprised to hear Senator Hall say that the film production industry is an ambitious one but it lives on hope. I rather feel that the industry is not living on hope at the present time and that it has not been living on hope since it was the style of Bill which has been designed by the Government for the Australian Film Commission. The film industry in Australia lives on its creativity, and it has done this with very limited assistance from government. It is not seeking patronage from government, nor does it want political patronage from any Ministers or any government which shall direct what the industry shall make, where the industry shall show it, what the content of the film will be and what will be the period for which the film can be shown. That is not the type of assistance that was hoped for by a hopeful film industry. The industry hoped for encouragement from government and realisation from government that a new industry to be competitive in a creative world may need some assistance. That was what we had hoped would be provided in the Australian Film Commission Bill. That was what we were seeking when we said that the Commission should be comprised of people of wisdom and experience who would be able to develop the functions and powers of the Commission and give the assistance, encouragement and development to the industry which we hoped it would receive. That is why I believe that the expression from Senator Hall that this industry is ambitious and lives on hope is unfair to the industry and should not be stated as a reason for placing limits on the functions of the Commission through ministerial direction and approval.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Guilfoyle’s amendment) be left out.
The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator J. J. Webster)
AYES: 25
NOES: 25
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 8.
– There is a problem with this clause because it provides for a power to be given to the Minister in the following terms:
What are the films or proposed films with regard to which the Minister may give a direction? He may give a direction with respect to films that serve the purposes of a department of State or an authority of Australia. He may give directions in respect of films that deal with matters of national interest to Australia. He may give directions with respect to films that are designed to illustrate or interpret aspects of Australia or of the life and activities of the Australian people. The power which the Minister so takes to himself has enormous import. On examination it is clear that it could be exercised to say to the Commission: You shall make a film on how good is the Department of the Media. You shall make a film on how excellent was the Deputy Prime Minister’s performance when he went to the People’s Republic of China. You shall make a film which will serve the purposes of every department of State. ‘ In short, the Minister is taking to himself a power to use the Film Commission as the greatest propaganda weapon which Parliament has ever given to an institution it has created. That is the unmistakable and unchallengeable effect of this clause which gives to the Minister the power to direct the Commission as to the type of films it can make and exhibit. We in the Liberal Party do not believe that any government, whether of Liberal or Labor persuasion, should have the power to use public moneys and the power of direction to tell the Commission what sort of propaganda shall be made by the film producers of this country. We shall oppose this clause.
-The Opposition will be opposing this clause. If clause 8 is linked with clause 5 and one sees the consequences of the directions and the approval which may be exerted by the Minister, we feel that clause 8, which gives power to the Minister to give directions to the Commission with regard to the exercise of its powers, should not have the support of the Opposition. Therefore I indicate that the Opposition will be voting against this clause.
-This is the clause which I, in too much eagerness, sought to discuss when the previous clause was before the Committee. In his remarks Senator Greenwood referred substantially to sub-clause (2). In my submission, both sub-clauses (1) and (2) are entirely objectionable. Sub-clause (2), to which Senator Greenwood was primarily referring, gives enormous power in regard to the directions which the Minister may give. If in fact what is intended by the clause is merely to repeat the power given in paragraph (b) of clause 5(1), which deals with the making, promotion and distribution and exhibiting of films being subject to the approval of the Minister, the clause could be regarded as unnecessary. But quite obviously it goes further than that. It does not simply provide for the Minister’s approval for the creation of a film; it provides for the Minister to give a direction to the Commission and the type of direction is not described. It must be taken as being a total power in accordance with a production being undertaken at any time and in regard to whatever may be done to a film or proposed film. Therefore the power conferred on the Minister merits the strength of Senator Greenwood’s objection.
Under clause 8 ( 1 ) the Minister may, by writing under his hand, give directions to the Commission with respect to the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions but, except as provided by sub-clause (2), shall not give such a direction with respect to a particular project. I point out that the term ‘particular project’ is in no way defined in the Bill. Nobody can say what is a particular project. Is it a particular film? Is it a particular series of films? Is it a particular organisation or arrangement with some other country? What is a particular project? That term is left in a most sloppy manner and undefined. But the worst thing about this sub-clause is that the Minister may give directions with respect to the exercise of the Commission’s powers. All of its powers are given under this Bill and the performance of its functions are set out in the Bill.
Let me give examples of that. The Minister has power to give directions in relation to clause 6, which sets out the powers of the Commission. So the Minister can give directions in relation to the guarantee of repayment of funds, the acquiring of rights to films, the providing of financial assistance to producers, its acting as a trustee, and its accepting gifts. The Commission will no longer have all of these real powers at all; it will be always subject to the direction of the Minister. This is true not only in relation to its powers but also in relation to its functions, such as the holding of meetings, which is dealt with in clause 27, the staff it employs, which is dealt with in clause 28, and the moneys it expends as well as the control of its moneys, which are dealt with in clause 32. All of the powers given to the Commission throughout this Bill become a nullity because, under this clause, they are all subject to the direction of the Minister. It means that we will have a Commission that does not have any independent powers in any part of its functions. I suggest that this clause is highly undesirable. It takes away from the Commission its status as an independent body which makes decisions in a nonpolitical and non-propaganda way. I suggest, therefore, that the clause is entirely objectionable and should be dropped from the Bill.
– I would be prepared to support this clause on certain reasoning. I would have thought that if the Opposition has a view on this clause it would have tried to put the clause in order according to that view. Surely the Opposition cannot take the view that the whole of the clause must be omitted, because I think it has a lack of conception on the practical side as to what the departments may need. As I understand it, there is nothing to stop a department from saying: ‘We will devote a certain amount of our yearly vote. We have allowed for a certain amount in our submission on the Budget for the making of a certain amount of promotional material for our department or some aspect of our department. ‘The department can go to a private organisation and commission it to make the film. It can give the organisation a script and say: ‘We are the customer’. I am quite sure that that is done. I cannot think of an instance but, of course, in the totality of the Commonwealth Government service it must be done over and over again. 1 think the Minister said that the Government spends $3m or $4m a year in film production. I ask the Minister whether I am correct in saying that he said that the Government spends $3m or $4m a year in film production.
– Nearly $4m on its own film production unit.
-The thing I therefore draw to the Opposition’s attention is that it is not as though the Government is going to make its first film via this Commission. As I see it what we will be doing by means of this Bill is giving the Government, through its departments and Ministers and so on, the right to say: ‘We want this film; we want this script’.
– The Bill is setting up a Commission which will do these things; it is not the Department.
– Yes, absolutely. What I am saying is that if the Opposition’s view prevails -
– You do not understand it.
-For the benefit of Senator Jessop -
– I am interested in you because you obviously do not understand it.
– I would like to hear Senator Jessop ‘s views. He has not spoken on this Bill yet.
– I have.
– I am sorry. He has certainly given the impression that he has not spoken. Perhaps he did not impress. What I am saying to the Opposition is that the Government has a need for a considerable footage of film to be produced each year for its various departmental needs. If the Opposition is successful in omitting clause 8 the departments or the Ministers will not be able to go to the Commission and say: We want this film on these terms with this script’. Whoever goes to the Commission in those circumstances might be lucky, but, as I understand it, what I have stated is the case. The Minister is prohibited in paragraph (b) (i) of caluse 5(1) from giving approval to make films that serve the purposes of a department of State or an authority of Australia. The Opposition proposes to remove the Minister’s power to make directions in that instance. He can give approval but he cannot give a direction in the simplest of terms. Under clause 5 the Minister may promote, distribute and exhibit films but he cannot give a clear direction in relation to the script. I can speak only of an instance about which I know from the past. What the Opposition is saying is that in that instance the South Australian Government was wrong in saying to its own film maker: ‘We want this script, and we direct you to take that line out and put this line in in order to promote a particular aspect of this Government’. The Opposition is saying that it would be wrong for the Government to do that if the Film Commission is the maker of the film. Why is it wrong?
– We do not want to create a department of political propaganda.
– In that case the South Australian Government would have had to go outside its own film-making organisation and give the project to an outside group. It would have had to say to its own people: ‘Sit there. The Opposition in South Australia, through its dominance in the Upper House, will not allow us to make use of you, so we will go outside and get it done’.
– No.
– It is no good the honourable senator saying ‘no’. That will be the effect of the amendment. I am only drawing upon that instance from my own experience because I believe it cannot be faulted. I suppose in the Commonwealth sphere departments can go outside the government film maker on many occasions. In a funny little way I suppose that is helping free enterprise. The rejection of the clause would prevent the Minister from dictating to the Commission. The Commission could say: No, we will not allow you to dictate those terms. The debate went on in the Parliament and you were expressly forbidden from doing that. That clause was omitted and therefore you cannot dictate to us. You can give a general approval but you will have to agree to the details in your general approval.’ I suppose the Government can go outside and have the film made more expensively and help free enterprise. I am quite sure that the Government will still get its films, whatever the Opposition does, but it will not be such a tidy arrangement.
If the Opposition objects to other more major aspects of the clause, surely it could tidy the clause. Because I think that this is an extremely valuable Bill to the free enterprise film industry in Australia I would ask the Opposition not to destroy it in an overall move- to abandon its previous tactics of simply defeating something entirely when there are only certain aspects that it does not like. Perhaps the Opposition can at least look at this clause later and put it in order with its thoughts. Surely it does not believe that every part of this clause deserves to go in the rubbish bin.
– The intention of the Opposition in moving this amendment is as outlined by Senator Greenwood. He fears that this clause could be used as a political propaganda weapon. With respect, if the Opposition analyses the provisions of the legislation it will see how this would be almost a sheer impossibility. The illustration given by Senator Greenwood was that a Minister of the Crown could perhaps go to China and be photographed there. The reverse situation could happen- a member of the Opposition could go to China and be photographed. These photographs could be used for propaganda purposes.
- Senator Greenwood is not going to China, is he?
-He has been there. I would not be ashamed of the fact that I have been to China.
– But you are not Senator Greenwood.
– But I would not be ashamed of that fact. I know Senator Greenwood would not be ashamed of the fact that he went to China to see for himself just what went on. Some members of the Country Party went to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics last year to learn what was going on. It was very good that they should do so. Let me come back to the point made by Senator Greenwood which was that this provision could give the Minister the right to use it as a political propaganda machine. The situation is that the Minister would be responsible to Parliament. Do honourable senators know how he would be responsible for his actions? He would be responsible under sub-clause (2) of clause 43. Honourable senators opposite know all about this clause because an amendment has been moved by the Opposition seeking to delete this clause. It states:
The Commission shall set out, in its annual report, any directions given to the Commission by the Minister under section 8 during the period to which the report relates.
– That is a bit late, is it not?
– The honourable senator has such a mind that he cannot trust anybody. Now he cannot trust the Commission.
– Who was it said that only he could reduce inflation by one-third? Do you think we should trust him again?
– If honourable senators opposite are going to indulge in those tactics I ask: Who was it, when he was Attorney-General, who raided a kid ‘s home on Christmas Day to incarcerate him and take him away from his mother?
– Order! The Chair will not stand for this type of argument. We will come back to the clause of the Bill.
- Mr Chairman, 1 accept your rebuke. I will return to the clause of the Bill with which we are dealing. The situation is that an interjection was made to the effect that it will be too late to do anything of that nature. If honourable senators look at it in that way and say that there is a team from the Film Commission going to China today and they will show the film tomorrow, they have a pretty poor conception of what artists would do in the making of a good film. I would suggest that it would take a little longer than honourable senators opposite envisage.
– We have a poor conception of what politicians would do in the making of a film.
– If the honourable senator wishes to refer to the ex-Attorney-General, she is at liberty to do so. I do not mind. The situation is that if that did happen the Commission would be required to report to Parliment what the Minister had directed it to do. Do honourable senators opposite mean to tell me that any parliament would accept any explanation of the nature that has been put forward by Senator Greenwood? Honourable senators opposite know quite well that if an independent commission put in its annual report that a Minister had directed it to do something that was contrary to its charter, the weight of the whole Parliament would be upon the Minister concerned. I would suggest to the Opposition that there are plenty of reasonable attitudes which could be adopted by the Parliament should the Minister overstep his mark.
-We are indebted to Senator Milliner for pointing out to us the requirements of the annual report of the Commission to Parliament. I should like to point out to the honourable senator that because the Minister now has the approval capacity in clause S he need not give as many directions as may have been anticipated nor would many of those directions find their way into the report because subject to the approval of the Minister under clause 5 the activities of the Commission are fairly stringently curtailed. The other matter to which I wish to refer was the comments made by Senator Steele Hall that the Commission would be unable to produce a film for a department of government. As I see it, this is not the function of the Commission at all. If a department- whether it is the Department of the Media, any other Commonwealth department or a State departmentwishes a film to be made by the Commission it issues its instructions to the Commission. The Commission has a function to make and produce films. Any person who is commissioning a film to be made may give his instructions to the Commission in a commercial way. There will be an undertaking between the Commission and the client. It is not necessary to have the approval of the Minister with regard to script and all sorts of details, including the type of film and other matters to which we have referred tonight because there will be a client-Commission relationship bypassing what was formerly the function of Film Australia. If, as we said earlier, the Minister wishes to retain a Film Australia type of operation then that is the type of operation that should be within the Department and not separately under the control of a commission, if he still requires to give it direction and give it approval for all of its functions.
There are film makers in Australia who have a sense of dismay that the Commission will be producing films itself. There are many people who have thought that the function of the Commission would be to give access, encouragement and outlet to other films which are produced. However, one of the functions of the Commission is that it shall produce films. With this in mind the films which are produced should not be predominantly those which have been approved by the Minister. This is the point that the Opposition has been trying to stress in its attitude to the functions of the Commission. We would like to see an independent Commission, which is what we were told it was to be, which had the discretion to decide what it should produce. I would hope that it would have given encouragement in a balanced way to the industry and would have encouraged the development of excellent short films, educational films, feature films- a whole variety of film making- that needs to find development in this country.
In the course of its operations I would have hoped that the Commission would have undertaken the documentary style of film that has been a requirement of the Australian State and Federal Government departments. In order to do that, it does not need the approval of the Minister for the Media or any other Minister of the Federal Government. The Commission can operate on an client-Commission relationship in a commercial manner. That is how the Opposition had hoped that the Australian Film Commission would function. It is quite absurd to say that it will not be able to make a film for a department of government because we have insisted an removing this other clause which gives power to the Minister to direct the Commission in the performance of its functions. It seems to me that clause 5 gives extreme unlimited power as it stands. This other power to give directions with regard to functions which are already under the approval of the Minister does not have the support of the Opposition.
– I rise to contribute again to this debate. I indicated earlier that this particular Commission is under the scrutiny of Parliament through the AuditorGeneral and also through the medium of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. Some honourable senators who have not been in this chamber for very long may not appreciate that particular point. I mentioned this when I spoke earlier. I want to make a point here in support of what Senator Guilfoyle has said. Senator Hall would like to give the Minister the power to dictate whatever script is required for his own purposes. We believe that this is a very dangerous power for any Minister to have, because it would enable him to generate his own propaganda machine. From what we have seen of the Labor Government since it came to power, this would be a very dangerous power with which to provide a Minister. But I say this irrespective of the government that may be in power.
Senator Guilfoyle has said already that this amendment moved by the Opposition certainly does not inhibit the Minister’s capacity to go to the Australian Film Commission with a request for a certain theme for a film. He goes to the expert body and says that he wants a film made on a particular theme. The Film Commission has the expertise available to comply with a request put in that way from the Minister. The same applies to any department that wants to have a film made. The department has the capacity to go to the expert Commission for that purpose. We believe that it is not in the best interests of the Commission for the legislation to enable the Minister to intrude into this area by dictating what ought to be the actual script of the film that is contemplated. Therefore, I support what Senator Guilfoyle has already said very capably, namely, that we oppose the idea of giving the Minister these powers, and I support her amendment.
– I have listened with interest to the debate and to the contentions put forward by the Opposition. Frankly, I am appalled and shocked at the abysmal ignorance of the people who have been putting the case that this clause should be omitted from the Bill merely because it gives the Minister, whoever he may be- whether it be me or someone else- the power of direction, a power that the Minister who was ministerially responsible for the Commonwealth Film Unit for 23 years before this Government came into office had and always had, a power that I, as Minister for the Media, have in regard to the Australian film production unit now known as Film Australia and a power that every other Minister who decides to use Film Australia as a production unit on behalf of his department also has.
What is the arrangement to be entered into? The Tarin” Board, as it was then known, recommended the establishment of a Film Commission having the powers of production, promotion, distribution and exhibition if necessary.
There is an Australian Government film production unit already in existence. Rather than have a Commission and also that Australian film production unit under the control of a department and therefore directly responsible to a Minister, what we say is: Take that film production unit holus bolus from the department and transfer it to the Commission. In that situation, in addition to carrying out the departmental functions which it carries out already and which are subject to the direction of the Minister, it can engage, if the Commission so chooses, in other production activities by itself for or on behalf of the Commission, or in connection with a coproduction arrangement. Once that film production unit, Film Australia, is transferred from the departmental function to the Commission, to which appointments have been made from throughout the industry to bring about the coordination of production, distribution, promotion and exhibition, surely there can be no objection if a Minister of the Crown requests that a certain film be made.
Let us assume that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) wants a film made by the Australian Film Commission for and on behalf of the Australian Government. He may want that film to be shown in a foreign country in order to promote Australia. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, through the Minister to whom the Commission is responsible to the Parliament, should be able to say how he would like that film made. The position is as simple as that. That is the reason for the request for power of direction. As my colleague Senator Milliner says, a direction of that nature can be issued now and, in fact, has been issued. For instance when Her Majesty the Queen was in Australia last year I directed Film Australia to make a film of the opening of the Sydney Opera House. There was nothing wrong with that.
– You do not claim that you had any such power resting with the Australian Film Development Corporation?
-No, because the Australian Film Development Corporation was not a production organisation. The Corporation was only an investment organisation in the form of a bank. It was in the form of an investment organisation, an organisation that lends or guarantees money. But this Commission is a much wider, more embracing organisation. It is a production organisation. It is a promotional organisation. It can, if necessary, be a distributor or an exhibitor. That power exists in a Minister now so far as Film Australia is concerned. When Film Australia is transferred to an independent organisation it should be able to be given the same sort of direction, especially since as my colleague Senator Milliner says a direction once given has to be reported in the annual report of the Commission. If honourable senators opposite like, the legislation can state that such a direction must be reported within 14 sitting days of it being given to the Commission. I do not mind how it is reported. But surely, if we are to keep government interested in investing in film production activities, there has to be a provision of this nature. That is why I believe that the Opposition’s decision to oppose this clause spells great danger for the future of Australian film production.
Question put:
That clause 8 stand as printed.
The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Webster)
AYES: 25
NOES: 25
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clause negatived. Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 (Requirement with respect to the exhibition of Australian short films).
-The Opposition will not support this clause. This is the clause which specifies the requirement with regard to the exhibition of Australian short films.
The Opposition realises that this provides the opportunity that the Commission can present to the producers of short films to show their films or have their films shown in cinemas in Australia. We realise that this is one area where the young director can gain experience in the production of short films. We realise that it is another area of commercial enterprise for the Australian film maker. However, our attitude with regard to this clause now that the functions of the Commission are entirely subject to the approval of the Minister is such that we believe there would be more difficulties created for the commercial film producer in Australia if this quota on short films were to stand.
We would anticipate that the short films that would be made, subject to the approval of the Minister and under the direction of the Minister, could be in direct competition to an alarming degree with those films which are commercially produced. To have a requirement whereby the theatres of Australia need to show a specified proportion of the number of their films certified by the Commission to be Australian short films, we believe, would place in jeopardy the very limited opportunities that now exist for commercial film makers to have their short films shown in the theatres. Understandably it is an opportunity that is sought by film producers to have access to theatres for the showing of the films which they produce but to have a specification of short films, produced as Australian short films with the requirements that now are within the functions of the Commission, we believe, offers no assistance whatever to the commercial film producers. For this reason we will be unable to support this clause and will be voting against it. But this is not without understanding that it is an important part of the requirements of the film industry at this time.
We believe that the Minister has it within his hands to design this Bill to prove to the young Australian film maker that the Minister does desire to give him access to the theatres in this country. We do not believe that the way in which the Bill has been designed does give any opportunity for competition from the commercial film maker with the documentary style of film which apparently is the main purpose of the production of films under the Australian Film Commission. For these reasons it is with reluctance that the Opposition has to take this attitude to clause 10 but we believe it is the only way in which we can give some measure of protection now to the film producers in this country who are commercially producing films which would be having unfair competition from the magnitude of the documentary films which it seems are to be produced under the direction and approval of the Minister. The Opposition will be voting against this clause.
– I think that Senator Guilfoyle has missed the real point because the amendment she foreshadowed to this clause would prevent the guidance and development of the Australian film industry. It would not help, but harm. One has to look at the points system in the commercial television field to see how that has opened up a whole new vista of enterprise for the Australian television film industry. As I said in my brief speech during the second reading stage, I think this clause has a much more important impact. Certainly the content of films can be slanted towards a very important aspect of Australia and that is to make Australians aware of their heritage. I am sure that in all sorts of ways the points system for television has been a very valuable instrument in that desirable direction. But the Liberal Party and Country Party sector of the Opposition has obviously decided simply to vote against the clause and has not tried in any way- and I find this depressingly frequent- to amend the clause or to insert a safeguard. It is rather illuminating or depressing, whichever way one looks at it, that the Opposition sees everything only in stark black and white. It seeks not to amend clauses but simply to defeat them and this is what it wants to do with this clause.
If the Opposition looks at the amendment I had proposed to move I believe it will see a very real safeguard in it. I hope it is not going to argue that the implementation of this clause by regulations laid on the table of this chamber is in some way undemocratic because if it does it will be arguing against the basis of the institution in which it sits. The amendments which I have framed to clause 10 are quite clearly to require that the proportion of films which must be shown in the theatre, the fact that they are certified and the time that must be devoted to their showing, dependent on the Minister’s laying regulations on the table in respect of those factors. The amendment clearly states that he may not operate unless he does so in this way. There is no way around it. The amendment is quite clearly and effectively drawn. My intention was put into words by better draftsmen than myself. It is clearly drawn and is not a fallible amendment. So we have the utmost safeguard. It will be interesting to note the response of the Opposition to my amendment, and if the laying on the table of regulations is not sufficient safeguard against malpractice by the Minister this will be a test of the Opposition’s intention. If it votes against this amendment and the clause it will show that it just wants to be against the clause. It is not out of any fear of misuse because in the hands of the Senate as at present constituted any real malpractice -
– We might be behaving like you on many occasions.
– I would hope that but I do not expect it from the honourable senator. I do not think he has that sort of wisdom. I say to the Opposition that it is a real test of motive. The utmost safeguard is given. To say that this is not sufficient is to say that this Senate does not convey the will of the people. If it does not convey the will of the people the fact that the Opposition has more supporters than the Government has no effect. So having a majority here, or at least equal numbers- with the half and half number it is a majority- the Opposition cannot claim that this is an undemocratic chamber. If I am saying that the Minister can act only through these amendments by laying a regulation on the table which ought to be at the Opposition’s mercy -
– Who has claimed that the Senate is undemocratic?
-Mr Chairman, I will not be distracted by the rather able senator from New South Wales. What I am saying is that I am providing in these amendments the utmost safeguard. The honourable senator can test his motives by voting against the safeguards and revealing his true intention, that he does want this thing to work in this way. If he wants that, let him say so. Senator Guilfoyle said that she wanted to encourage people and to give them opportunities, but her amendment did not provide opportunities because she is frightened of what could happen.
If one looks at this proposal one finds that in a way it is very similar to the points system. I know that it has a different mechanism but it wants to achieve the same thing for the exhibition of short films of less than 60 minutes. It has the same objective as the points system in commercial television. I do not think anyone here would say that that has been harmful. I do not hear any protest in the community about looking at too much Australian programming. The Australian film industry has been praised from all sides in the second reading debate. If we mean anything, if we are going to do more than mouth words, let us put some teeth into this measure at the same time maintaining some safeguard, so that the
Parliament- the House of the people- will have the final say as to whether the Minister’s actions shall be approved. Therefore, I move:
I hope that at least some members of the Opposition will come out and show that they believe in the Australian film industry and will not turn their backs on it by voting against this clause. There is no way of devising a better safeguard if we believe in the parliamentary institution. I ask honourable senators to support the amendment.
– What I am about to say I do not say unkindly or uncharitably, but I say with great respect to Senator Guilfoyle that either she does not understand the industry, she does not understand the Bill or she does not understand both the industry and the Bill, because if she had read the Tariff Board report she would have realised that the small film production unit is the whole crux of the development of this industry. Clause 5 of the Bill says that the functions of the Commission are ‘to encourage, whether by the provision of financial assistance or otherwise, the making, promotion, distribution and exhibition of Australian films’. Those films can be either short films or what are commonly referred to as feature films. Short films are not made by the Film Commission itself but are made by way of investment by the Film Commission in a small film production unit in order to bolster the small production unit.
The Opposition, by desiring to delete this clause of the Bill, is virtually denying the right of distribution or exhibition to those short films that are made by the small time film producer after the Film Commission has invested in the production. By their Opposition to this clause honourable senators opposite are not penalising the Film Commission’s Australian productions because they will find their way on the international markets in any event, as they do now. Admittedly they do not get the benefit of the certification of ‘short film’. But what honourable senators opposite are doing by their opposition to this clause is saying to the distributor and to the exhibitor: ‘So far as we are concerned, whilst they can make the film there is not a statutory requirement upon you in any way to distribute or exhibit it.’ If anyone believed that the LiberalCountry Party Opposition had any sympathy or genuine desire to help the small film makers who are struggling to make their way in the industry, certainly so far as I am concerned that belief has been shattered here tonight.
If there were one area in which the whole film industry could build its future it would be the young Australian film maker with limited financial backing who can afford in the first instance to make a short film only but who under the provisions of this legislation would be eligible for assistance by way of investment by the Film Commission in the production of that short film. To date he has had very little opportunity to have the sort of film which he makes and from which he wants to earn his bread and butter, shown in the cinemas throughout Australia. Because the Opposition has determined that because it did not get its way on other matters it is going to have its way on this matter, it is preventing the small time film producer from earning his living in the industry. Anyone who wants any further proof of that should turn to page 38 of the Tariff Board report under the heading ‘Shorts suitable for commercial release ‘. It says:
Evidence suggests there is a need for special consideration of the local producer of short films suitable for general commercial release. The producer of films in this category has generally advanced beyond the experimental or innovative stage but often lacks the experience and /or financial backing to enter the field of feature productions. Also the short suitable for commercial cinema and made on a low budget, can provide an excellent medium for acquiring experience and recognition. However, at present the remuneration obtainable is so limited that there is little commercial incentive to produce this type of film.
At present the majority of locally made shorts exhibited in cinemas are produced under the sponsorship of companies, government departments, or organisations with a message to present to the public.
This report was made principally as a result of evidence received during the term of office of the previous Government. The report continues:
In these cases the producer usually supplies the exhibition prints to the distributor virtually free of cost and the distributor in turn places the shorts with cinemas as part of a program package. Hoyts -
That is one of the largest distributors in Australia, if not in the world- claimed that there was a great shortage of good theatrical shorts, and said that patrons preferred story-type short films.
As the exhibitor usually obtains shorts from the distributor in a program package, it is the distributor who determines the allocation- of the film hire receipts between the components of the program. The feature film is the main attraction, and very little of the film hire is usually allocated to supporting programs. A supply of imported shorts is also available to the distributor from his overseas affiliates and will be used whenever the supply of low-cost sponsored local material is inadequate. Therefore, while some exhibitors are continually looking for good non-sponsored Australian shorts, distributors generally have little incentive to handle them and as the shorts seldom attract an audience into the cinema, the producer of non-sponsored shorts is in a weak commercial bargaining position.
What the Tariff Board was saying there was that the short film in the film production industry is the life-blood of the whole industry; it is the crux of the development of the industry in Australia. But, because in the past there has been very little or no incentive for exhibitors to take from distributors the short films which have been made in Australia, it has not been worth their while showing them. Therefore, there has been no outlet for the short film producer. In this area the Government has set out to ensure that the short film producer has a market for his product by way of a quota or, to use Senator Hall’s expression, a points system. But apparently for reasons unknown to me, for reasons which I just cannot fathom- the Opposition said that it believed in the development of a film industry- it has decided to oppose this very worthwhile and practical solution to the problem of the development of the whole film industry. I could go out and stump the country or stump this industry and I assure honourable senators opposite that it is my belief that they would not get one vote from any person who produces, directs or is employed in the film industry, especially in the short feature industry.
As far as Senator Hall’s amendment is concerned, I appreciate that the Bill as framed might have some problems from a parliamentary point of view. But, as an earnest and to get this legislation on the statute book in order to help Australian film producers, if this type of certification and quota has to be made within the framework of a parliamentary regulation the Government will accept that regulation. For that reason we of the Government are prepared to accept the amendment moved by Senator Hall. But, knowing what the Opposition is doing by its proposal to reject this clause in the Bill and knowing that it is impeding if not preventing the worthwhile development of the film industry, I plead with the Opposition to think again and to realise the consequences of its action.
-The Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) has questioned whether I understand the Bill or the industry. I assure him that I understand the Bill and that I am hoping to develop my understanding of the industry even further than I have been able to do in recent months. However, what he has said and what he has read out indicate the problem which we see. I am looking at page 38 of the Tariff Board report on Motion Picture Films and Television Programs, too. Part of one of the paragraphs which he mentioned states:
Our real concern is about the way in which the Bill has been designed. The proposed increase in production, which the Minister has mentioned more than once in this place, of Film Australia type films in the future leads us to believe that the quota which the Government is now introducing to cinemas in Australia could be completely overwhelmed by the type of low cost documentary film which will give very limited access of a competitive nature to the commercial film producer.
It is because the Minister has insisted on his approval being written into the functions of the Commission and because he has insisted that he be able to direct the Commission as to the way in which it will encourage the development of the Australian film industry that we suggest it is to the disadvantage of the Australian film producer that the Minister now be able to exercise the requirement of a quota in the theatres. The Minister should see this Film Commission as the independent statutory body which the Tariff Board recommended. On page 2 1 of the report the Board talks about an Australian Film Authority and states:
It should be a completely independent body, and publicly accountable to Parliament.
That is the type of Film Commission which we had hoped to see devised so that through the Commission the Minister would be able to give the functions to the members of that Commission. The Minister talks about the Australian film industry struggling. I believe that the way in which the Bill is designed means that it will be struggling against the Minister’s authority. He insists on exercising authority in the function of the Commission which is designed to give encouragement to the industry. It was because of this that I told the Minister earlier this evening that we would not be able to support clause 10 because of the other functions which are now written into the Bill. It is not because we misunderstand the need for access to theatres by the producers of short films. Indeed, we understand the access to theatres which is required by producers of feature films. That is one part of the Bill which has disappointed members of the Australian film industry. If we are using the Commission’s powers to talk of short films as a quota basis and if we are really talking about assistance to the Australian film industry, it may be that the Minister could have considered feature films as well as short films.
I do not question that judgment, but when the Minister talks about the support of the industry for his Bill I assure him that the industry has many questions and many disappointments because of the way in which the Australian Film Commission has been constructed. It is because of the reasons which we mentioned earlier and because of the need for commercial investment to be competitive with the type of film that will be produced under the Minister’s direction by the Commission that we say that more consideration ought to be given to the functions, the way in which the Commission will operate and the exercise of a requirement of quotas on short films in Australian cinemas.
– I am disappointed by the Opposition argument as given by Senator Guilfoyle. It seems to ignore the import of the amendments which are extremely important in the final construction of the clause. I thought they would alter the Opposition’s view of the clause immensely. Senator Guilfoyle raises a very important point. I would like to see the Australian film industry helped and not harmed by the deletion of this clause. The honourable senator has said that perhaps we ought to include feature films. I wonder whether the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) is interested in Senator Guilfoyle ‘s suggestion, which she has initiated, that perhaps feature films should be included. Would the Opposition accept this amendment, therefore, if private feature films were included, with the safeguard, as I have outlined, of parliamentary regulation by the Minister to institute their showing? It seems that the main objection which the honourable senator has is to a possible misuse of ministerial power. Of course that is remedied by my amendment. Her second line of objection is that feature films are not included. I would be happy to add private feature films to my amendment if that would satisfy Senator Guilfoyle.
-I think Senator Steele Hall has oversimplified the remark I made about feature films. The remark I made about feature films was to stress the fact that they also need access to Australian cinemas if we are to develop a commercial industry which is profitable and which can expand its operations.
– There is no dearth of feature film production in Australia today; and there is no dearth of short film production, but there is a dearth of the availability of distribution.
– I was just going on to say that. I referred to the feature film producers to draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that the industry was not highly delighted with the construction of the Australian Film Commission or the requirements within the Bill. I accepted the quota that the Minister imposed, or sought to impose, with regard to short films because it was a quota related to the short films which the theatres had agreed already to show. If we must draw a parallel I suppose that we get back to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board Authority Act. I would not say to Australian theatres that they shall show certain films. Neither would I say to them that they shall show certain short films that have been produced by the authority or at the direction of the Minister. The basis of our disagreement with the inclusion of clause 10 is that it relates to the inclusion of the authority of the Minister over the functions of the Commission. Senator Steele Hall’s suggestion that his amendment would be acceptable if it included feature films is not consistent with the comments that I made earlier. I indicate to him that that would not entice us to accept his amendment.
–I support Senator Guilfoyle. I think that it is quite apparent from what she has said that not only is she conversant with this Bill, what the industry is concerned to achieve and indeed what the Tariff Board has said about the industry, but she is also concerned about the import of what this Bill seeks to give by way of authoritarian power to the Minister. I want to stress the scope of the power which a Minister is taking in this vitally important area. I wish to stress a few things which are contained in this clause to which attention has not been given. Clause 10(1) gives a power to the Commission or an authorised person to serve upon a foreign corporation or a trading corporation carrying on the business of exhibiting films in a theatre or theatres in Australia a requirement in writing. Let us consider the import of who may serve this requirement in writing. It is the Commission or an authorised person. Who is an authorised person? It is any member of the staff of the Commission. So this great corporate body could be established, and any member of the staff could tell any theatre or group of theatres in this country what films it is supposed to show during the period that it is showing short films.
– If there is a covering regulation.
-Leave aside the regulation. We will come in due course to the facade which Senator Hall has tried to build up. Let me stress that the power that is given to the Commission enables orders to be given to theatres as to the films which they may show at certain times. It is not just the Commission but it is an authorised person, which means any member of the staff of the Commission, which has this power. What may this requirement show? This requirement shall specify a period and a theatre. It shall say that in that period a specified proportion of the short films that are being shown shall be Australian short films. Australian short films, of course, are any films with some Australian content, of up to 60 minutes duration. Likewise, it may specify that not only a proportion of the films shown shall be Australian films, but also they shall be shown for a specified period of the total period that Australian films are shown. That may be 10 per cent, 50 per cent or 99 per cent of the period. There is no regulation of the length of that period. Nor does Senator Steele Hall ‘s supposed safeguard state anything at all which would limit the period or the proportion of the period which the requirement may specify.
So the Commission takes unto itself an enormous power to decide what theatres shall show. I would concede- I think that Senator Guilfoyle demonstrated quite clearly- that if we could get some safeguards in that area a worthwhile objective could be achieved, because that is what the Tariff Board had suggested. But what are the safeguards? They are not the futile efforts which Senator Steele Hall has put forward, because his safeguards are full of holes. In the proposed amendments which were distributed before this debate the Opposition suggested 3 areas in which safeguards could be imposed. We wish that we could move them now. We have not moved them because at an earlier stage another amendment which gives to the Minister the power to decide which films may be made was rejected. That ministerial power over the whole film industry, which is to be supported by this Commission, will give to the Minister the power to use the Australian Film Commission as a weapon of propaganda which is the sort of power that no democratic country which believed in its liberal traditions ought to give to any government. Until that position is changed the Opposition believes that the Minister should have no power of control over the Commission to determine what films shall be made and then to say that the theatres in this country are to show those films. That is the area of the Opposition’s objection.
Senator Steele Hall has made great play of the supposed safeguards in his amendment. I will concede that he is trying genuinely to improve the clause, but I wish to point out to him where the amendment does not provide the safeguard. It states that a requirement which may be offered by the Commission shall not be made unless there is in force a regulation declaring that those requirements shall not be made on or after a specified date or that it shall not be made before a specified date. It then goes on to say that the regulations may make provision- I emphasise the word ‘may’- with respect to any matter in relation to the exercise of power to make requirements under this section. It states later that that power shall not be exercised otherwise than in accordance with any regulations. One does not have to make regulations as to what proportion of the films shown shall be the Commission’s films or Australian short films. One does not have to make any regulations for the period of time that Australian short films or the Commission’s films shall be shown. If one does not make regulations there is no obligation upon anybody to comply with regulations. With respect to Senator Steele Hall, for him to regard his amendment as a safeguard is to misunderstand the import of the regulation that is put forward.
There is a third reason that this clause has a power in it which warrants rejection. Sub-clause (6) is remarkable in its width. With respect to Senator Douglas McClelland, only a Labor Government could expect the Parliament to give effect to it. It states:
The Minister shall give such directions as he thinks necessary for the purpose of ensuring the observance, in the exercise of powers under this section, of the obligations of Australia under-
I invite honourable senators to listen to the next part-
The Code of Liberalisation of Current Invisable Operations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the Commission or an authorised person shall comply with those directions.
I have a copy of this curious document called the Code of Liberalisation of Current Invisable Operations’ which was made in November 1967. 1 do not know how it came to be made, with what authority it was made and what part Australia played in its operation.
– Which Government was in office at the time?
-A Liberal Government was in office, but it never sought to use a document of this character to give power under an Act of Parliament to a Minister of this country to do what he thought was necessary under that Code to tell theatres in this country what they should exhibit. This power virtually requires films to be given subsidies. There are no levies or taxes which might discriminate against imported films. There are various quantitative regulations which must be observed. Something which I find very difficult to ascertain in terms of Australia’s obligations under this Code is the clause which gives the Minister the power to interpret it as he pleases. If this Government in the last 18 or 20 months had not shown that it was prepared to use authoritarian powers to achieve any objective which it wanted, if it had not shown that it was prepared to use patronage and money to achieve desired objectives, one might have viewed the intent of this particular clause more charitably than one does at present. But I believe that this clause, in the way in which the Minister now has a power to determine what films shall be made, is part and parcel of a great scheme to make the Film Commission an instrument which the Minister can use for Government propaganda, and we will reject it.
- Senator Greenwood displays the trait of the lawyer or the barrister or whatever he may be. He tries to read something into a clause of the legislation and he says that it is bad. But the simple fact is that this was part of his Government’s arrangements in 1966. He holds up a piece of paper and says: ‘This is the proposition that is outlined in sub-clause (6) of this legislation’. He refers to the obligations of Australia under the Code of Liberalisation of Current Invisible Operations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. He denies that we, as a Government, should observe what has been arranged by the Australian Government in the past.
– And international obligations.
– He says that we should not accept those obligations, notwithstanding the fact that his Government was a party to accepting such obligations. I turn to another clause to which Senator Greenwood referred. Unfortunately he did not read out all the words in the clause about which he complained. I refer to the clause which contains the definition of an authorised person. Again one sees the trait of the practised lawyer coming through. Senator Greenwood read out some of the words in that clause which contain the definition of an authorised person, but he did not read out all the words. Honourable senators may recall that he said that the staff of the Commission may do certain things. What does the definition say? If Senator Greenwood had read all of this clause he would have had a greater appreciation of what the definition is. But he tried to cloud the issue. The definition of an authorised person is as follows: authorised person’ means a member of the Commission or of the staff of the Commission authorised by the Commission . . .
Senator Greenwood did not refer to those words authorised by the Commission’. He inferred that some message boy on the payroll of the Commission could undertake to do something. The plain fact is that the staff of the Commission must be authorised by the Commission to do a job, and that is a totally different proposition from that which has been advanced by Senator Greenwood. I am sorry to say that in my opinion this type of opposition to the legislation leaves a lot to be desired. It is an incomplete and dishonest approach to what we are considering to give to a definition an interpretation on which Senator Greenwood knows is completely wrong.
- Mr Chairman, I will add one or two remarks to those which have been enunciated by my colleague, Senator Milliner. I particularly refer to clause 10(6) which states:
The Minister shall give such directions as he thinks necessary for the purpose of ensuring the observance, in the exercise of powers under this section, of the obligations of Australia under the Code of Liberalisation of Current Invisible Operations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Commission or an authorised person shall comply with those directions.
The simple fact is that Australia joined the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on 7 June 1971 when the previous Government was in office. The Code was in force at that time, and it had been in force for some 10 years.
– We never put it into legislation.
-No, because the previous Government was not prepared to honour its international obligations, and that is the whole point to which I am coming. The reason why this clause is in the legislation is to tell the world that we, as a nation and as a
Government, are prepared to honour an international treaty to which the previous Government was a party and which we inherited when we came into Government. The defeat of this clause certainly would negate Australia’s obligations under the Code of Liberalisation of Current Invisible Operations.
– That is nonsense. It does not deny our obligations because we are not giving ministerial dictatorial powers.
– It ensures that the Government has an obligation to carry out its international obligations. How can an independent statutory commission undertake to carry out the Government’s international obligations unless it receives a ministerial direction about the matter? It is as simple as that. The Government’s advice is that this provision is the minimum requirement necessary for Australia to conform to her international obligations under the Invisibles Code. The clause was included to ensure that these treaty obligations are met by the Commission whilst avoiding the inclusion in the Bill of the very complex measures that are detailed in the Code itself. Furthermore, should the Code be varied from time to time and Australia’s obligations therefore changed, these variations can be applied simply by ministerial direction rather than by amendment to the Act.
The clause is not intended to give the Minister a discretion at all. It simply requires him to direct that Australia’s treaty obligations be met, and he himself cannot vary these obligations. When the Government considered the drafting of the legislation for the Film Commission it agreed that the exercise of powers under the Bill should be subject to Australia’s commitments under the OECD Code of Liberalisation of Current Invisible Operations. The effect of this is that if the definition of ‘Australian film’, as referred to in clause 3 of the Bill, had been confined only to films made wholly or substantially in Australia, that definition would have been in conflict with paragraph 8 of annexe 9 to annexe A of the Code. That paragraph requires equal treatment for films produced under international coproduction arrangements, and this is provided for in clause 3 ( 1 ) (c).
However, there are other provisions of the Code for which allowance must be made if Australia is to honour its international obligations. The Code in fact refers to the treatment to be afforded to short information or documentary films. Clause 10 is intended to ensure that an independent statutory body, the Australian Film
Commission, will not be in a position to embarrass a government by ignoring the obligations that Australia has under an international agreement. The advice available to the Government is that without this clause in the Bill the Government would face the risk of antagonising other members of the OECD by apparently washing its hands of responsibility for possible breaches of an agreement entered into in good faith under the previous Government. That, in short, is the reason why clause 10 (6) is included in this legislation.
As regards the definition of an authorised person, my colleague Senator Milliner already has pointed out that an authorised person means a member of the Commission or of the staff of the Commission authorised by the Commission. Surely honourable senators opposite cannot object to that when they have been saying all night that the Commission should be a completely independent statutory corporation. As to Senator Guilfoyle ‘s latter comment I suggest that had she been wanting to give effect to what she had said about the requirements for Australian short films to be distributed, her choice would have been to seek an amendment to the definition of Australian short films which appears in clause 3 of the Bill. That definition reads:
They are the films that require the approval of the Minister.
– They may be propaganda films.
Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDFrankly, I feel sorry for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. He has an overwhelmingly suspicious mind. He cannot believe that anyone wants to be constructive. I suppose what he is really saying is that for 23 years when his Party had control of the Commonwealth Film Unit it did nothing but make propaganda films, and because his Party did that for 23 years, ipso facto, this Government will do the same with an independent commission. I repeat that I feel sorry for Senator Greenwood. Having said that I intend to ignore the gravamen of his remarks. In addition to the films that Senator Greenwood chooses to single out the definition of an Australian short film includes the following:
that is an Australian film; and
It does not include films of a certain advertising nature. The people engaged in the production of that sort of film are the people who will be penalised by the opposition that honourable senators opposite now offer to this very constructive clause.
– I take notice of what the Minister has said in his attempt to salvage this clause. He has referred to the definition of the Australian short film and the requirements of this clause. Because we are sincere in seeking to ensure that there is access to theatres by short films I wonder whether the Minister would consider deferring this clause until we have had an opportunity to look at the definition of the Australian short film and how these 2 factors relate to one another and to our purpose in seeking to eliminate this clause.
– The Opposition has had since 2 October to consider this legislation. When I came into the Senate this afternoon I was given a list of the Opposition’s proposed amendments. I was also given the impression that the Opposition would seek to amend this clause. This evening the Opposition decided to change its attitude to that of opposing the clause altogether. We have been debating this clause since about half-past eight and it is now a quarter-past ten. The Opposition is now seeking deferment of the clause to consider its position.
– That is in the light of what you have just said.
-You have had 3 weeks to come to see me. In the light of what I have just said I am prepared to agree to the deferment of this clause in the hope that it will give you a chance to see some common sense, logic and reason in your point of view. I put on record that the Bill was introduced on 2 October. Today, for the first time, the Opposition told me that it would seek to amend this clause. After the suspension of the sitting for dinner the Opposition told me that it would oppose the clause. Now it is seeking deferment of it for further consideration. Being reasonable and wanting to do all it can to assist in the development of the industry the Government is prepared to defer the matter for consideration either until a later hour in the evening or until the next day of sitting.
– We would be happy to proceed, but not at a later hour this day in view of the lateness of the hour. As other amendments are yet to be dealt with I feel that this Bill will be in progress as the Senate rises this evening. In fairness the Minister should allow it to be stated that only within the last few minutes did he make a suggestion with regard to the definition of the Australian short film.
– You had the opportunity to see it.
– And the amendments -
– I am not here to tell you how to suck eggs.
– I am not asking you to tell us how to do anything. The amendment to which the Minister referred was consequent upon other amendments which we had hoped would be supported. However, those amendments were defeated. We then took a course of action for the remainder of the Bill. I accept the Minister’s offer to defer consideration of clause 10 at this stage and I take note of his suggestion that the deferment be related to the definition of the Australian short film. We will need to study those 2 matters in relation to one another.
– I take it that this means the deferment also of the consideration of Senator Hall’s proposed amendment.
– Is not that a little unfair to Senator Hall? He has moved an amendment to clause 10. The Minister has indicated that we are happy to accept that amendment, so surely that becomes part of clause 10. It appears to me that clause 10 with Senator Hall’s amendment is to be held over for further consideration.
-The Chair will accept a motion for deferment of consideration of the clause.
– I move:
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 11.
Penalty for a contravention of this sub-section: $200.
– I move:
This clause requires the Commission to keep itself informed as the the film industry and we believe that sub-clause ( 1 ) satisfactorily covers the requirements to perform that function. The requirements in sub-clauses (2) and (3) are very wide indeed and we feel that they are undesirable. Sub-clause (2) contains the requirements that any person with a notice served on him either personally or by post is required to supply within a period specified any information in his possession relating to the matter specified in the notice. We feel that this is an infringement of a person’s rights in the community when he is required to supply such information by the issue of a notice. It seems unnecessary to have detailed specifications of this type in the Bill. We feel that for the purpose of performing its functions, subclause ( 1 ) is adequate.
-I support the amendment which proposes the deletion of sub-clauses (2) and (3) of clause 1 1. This is a tremendously wide provision. Clause 11(1) provides that the Commission shall keep itself informed whether by the collection of statistics, the conduct of market research or otherwise, of all aspects of making, promoting, distributing and exhibiting films in Australia. Nothing could be wider than the whole area in relation to which the Commission is to keep statistics. This, of course, is very satisfactory. Sub-clause (2) entitles the Commission to obtain from any person any information- this could involve, of course, a complete attempt at obtaining the informationof a business, and that information may be of tremendous value to other competitors. This sub-clause requires that person to disclose the course of his activity, whether or not it is relevant to the purpose of the Australian Film Commission.
Senator Hall obviously recognises the width of this provision because he proposes to move an amendment but would not provide a satisfactory way of dealing with it. He proposes to add to the sub-clause the words ‘being a matter relating to the distribution or exhibition of films’. I may say that naturally the information may relate to those things, but Senator Hall’s proposed amendment will not cover the real difficulty of this clause which takes away all the rights of the individual to refuse to disclose matters which, whatever may be the purpose of the Commission, may be of extreme danger to an individual in his business activity. It is, I think, an infringement of a great number of rights enjoyed by the citizens of this community when they are forced to disclose ‘any information’. I suppose they may even be forced to disclose information which may incriminate them or which may cause competitors to have an unfair advantage over them. It may be information which may allow the Commission in its own business undertakings -under this Bill it is entitled to carry on its own business undertakings- to steal a march and thereby gain benefits in an economic sense over that particular person. I suggest to the Committee that there is no purpose in having this provision.
If sub-clause (2) remains in the Bill, naturally it has to be followed by the requirements of subclause (3) which provides for the imposition of a penalty on any person who does not comply. This clause provides for further offences and further disabilities on the individual. I suggest that it is a great breach of the rights of individuals in the community. Its provisions are too wide and should be rejected.
– I recognise the compass of clause 1 1 and I object to it because of the width of its provisions. That view has sponsored the amendment which I have circulated. But, on balance, I concede that the Commission would need some statistics, and I think Senator Missen has admitted that in his reference to sub-clause ( 1 ). What we are arguing about is the force which it will have in relation to the collection of statistics. The statistics which business people normally fill in must be filled in. They are of the widest nature and confidential as single items of information to the Department. However, heavy penalties are attached to them. I may say that if a businessman loses his statistics he had better quickly get another set because he will be fined. It seems to me that the information required by the Commission is no more than that which would normally be asked for in the collection of census and statistics, except, of course, I must say that the information will be used on an individual basis; it will not be grouped together just to get a general picture of an industry. Obviously the statistics will be individually held and used for the purposes and functions of the Commission. That is why I have proposed an amendment which I believe suitably limits the investigatory power of the Commission.
I admit that I am not happy with any form of intrusion in a personal sense that demands information of this nature. But all of us- we on this side of the House as well as honourable senators opposite- have qualified that many times in the legislation we have supported and which Ministers have sponsored individually. One would know that under Liberal governments the ordinary citizen has been deprived of many freedoms, especially in relation to such matters as health and the like. If the relevant Act is used fully by State governments or local governments, the individual has no real freedom at all. So we can point to many parallels of very great power being placed in the hands of government instrumentalities. In this sense, as I say, I come down on balance on the basis that the Commission, if it is effectively to fulfil the functions which have so far been approved, should have the ability to obtain statistics, and those statistics should not be able to be withheld.
Provision is made for a penalty to be imposed for the divulging of such information, but I believe that the penalty is inadequate. Therefore I propose to move a suitable amendment to increase the penalty substantially. Whatever may be the outcome of this particular amendment, I hope that a further amendment to be moved later will be effective and the $200 fine which will be imposed for divulging confidential information will be substantially increased. The proposed penalty is totally inadequate. I say that on the basis that I believe there has to be some force behind the Commission’s request for statistics, otherwise in many cases it will not get them. I support the Government’s clause and oppose the Opposition ‘s amendment, only on the basis that another amendment which I have foreshadowed will be passed and the investigatory power of the Commission is severely limited to its purpose.
– Clause 1 1 contains another of those authoritarian powers which the Government is seeking to take under the guise of the Australian Film Commission Bill. Once again I am amazed’ that Senator Hall is prepared to support an intrusion into privacy which I believe can have no legitimate warrant in our society. To equate the desire of the Government for the Film Commission to get information by compulsory process from any person with the compulsory powers that are occasionally found in health Acts which are concerned with public health is, I think, to have a sense of proportion which does not put public health or the Film Commission in its correct perspective. I ask the Senate to consider the width of this power. Clause 11(1) states:
For the purposes of performing its functions, the Commission shall keep itself informed, whether by the collection of statistics, the conduct of market research or otherwise -
I underline the fact that the words ‘or otherwise’ comprehend almost any means one can think of by which one can get information- of all aspects of making, promoting, distributing and exhibiting films in Australia.
I emphasise the words ‘all aspects of making, promoting, distributing and exhibiting films in Australia’. It is difficult to conceive an expression in the area of the film industry which would give wider ambit to the area in which inquiries can be made. Sub-clause (2) of clause 11, which deals with the compulsory process, states:
For the purposes of sub-section ( 1 ), the Commission or an authorised person–
Once again we have this authorised officer of the Commission, a member of the staff, who may purport to act on behalf of the Commission- may, by notice in writing served on a person either personally or by post, require the person to supply, within a period specified in the notice -
I interpolate here that according to the whim of the member of the Commission or the authorised person that specified period may be 12 hours, 24 hours, 7 days or a month; there is no restraint whatever placed upon the period except that it must be a reasonable period in the judgment, of course, of a person or a tribunal afterwards and scarcely in the judgment of the person faced with the requirement to comply with the notice at the time it is received- being a period that is a reasonable period having regard to the action to be taken to comply with the requirement, any information in his possession relating to the matter specified in the notice.
The 2 significant things which I have not mentioned but which ought to be mentioned are that this notice may be served upon any person and it may relate to any information in his possession relating to the matter specified in the notice. It is a power of enormous width. It is not limited to a producer, exhibitor, script writer, director or actor. It relates to any person who might go into a theatre and who might be given a document when he enters the theatre which has a number of questions on it which it is hoped that individual will answer for the purpose of obtaining statistics. Of course, if the Commission felt so minded it could require that person at some stage in the future to submit that document filled in. I do not think that is an altogether unreasonable assumption to make when one considers the way in which this present Government is obsessed with material which is obtained from all quarters with regard to forming judgments based upon surveys. Who knows what this Commission might want to do in the future? But I take another side of it.
I say this specifically for Senator Hall because of what he said earlier in this debate. Is it right that a commission which is engaged in the making and the exhibiting of films- presumably doing it on a commercial basis- should be able to compel information from its competitors as to their costs and as to their prices? Is the Minister able to say what a commission- yet to be appointedand whose composition I suppose he has not finally decided upon, might require in the exercise of its functions at some stage in the future? Of course he cannot. The Commission may well say that as it has the power to compel this information why should not it exercise that power. Is that the way in which private enterprise, individuals and companies engaged in production in our type of economy are to be subjected to the requirements of government? It is quite consistent with everything that this Government has been doing that it should subject the private sector to all types of restraints and why exclude the film industry from the whole private area?
The immensity of this power is such that I cannot understand why the Senate, unless it is bent upon authoritarian designs should give the power to any commission in this area of film production. Sub-clause 3 of clause 1 1 requires that a person served with a requirement shall comply with it. There is a penalty of $200 for a contravention of that sub-clause. It is not a heavy penalty. One would think that if there were real purpose in that provision a much heavier penalty would be involved. The fact that this is a small penalty rather suggests that this is an irritant of no significance. Nevertheless it is a power which can be used and a power which, if used, a commission will expect to be complied with. We take the view that these 2 sub-clauses should be excised from the Bill.
If the Commission wants its statistics let it go about its collection of statistics in the way in which one would expect a commission of this character to go about it. Let it ask the people concerned if there is this genuine desire to develop the industry. We know that there is a tremendous desire of that character amongst a lot of persons. It will be self-interest in the industry’s future which will prompt people to give the information which is required. But to require persons to submit to this type of notice requiring any information in their possession be given is the type of provision which we ought to retreat from and not extend. Why on earth should it be in the Australian Film Commission Bill?
– On this occasion I do not basically disagree with the contentions of Senator Greenwood about the width of the clause. I believe that the Commission needs some more authority than is conferred on it by the first part. If we are to have a difference of opinion on this clause and lose the entire clause, the Commission will be worse off for that action. I wonder whether the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) would care to suggest that this clause be postponed for further consideration to see if something better can be worked out. I do hot see how any viewpoint can lose by this course of action being taken. The viewpoints can still be adhered to as strongly as ever. I do not disagree with the general contention of Senator Greenwood although I would hot project it as far as he has. I do not like the extent of it. My amendments are framed to define it more clearly. I think we should give further consideration to the matter rather than have the Commission lose its power by passing different amendments which are inclined to do the same thing. We could avoid this if honourable senators on both sides of the chamber would agree on a course of action after further consideration.
– The Tariff Board in its report and recommendations to the Government considered this amongst a number of other matters. It suggested that the Australian Film Authority, as it termed it, should have the functions and responsibilities set out and that in particular it should be required to supervise and monitor the commercial activities of distributors and exhibitors including the collection of any necessary statistics and the conduct of any market research regarded as necessary. It was bearing in mind that recommendation that sub-clauses 2 and 3 of clause 11 were written into the legislation deliberately to enable the proposed commission to carry out recommendation (1) of the Tariff Board as shown at page 54 of the Tariff Board’s report. The manner in which the clause has been written virtually is a repetition, for want of a better term, of the legislation as it relates to the collection of statistics by the Bureau of Census and Statistics.
I can well understand- I personally have some sympathy for- the type of proposition that has been put by the Opposition that it is a very far reaching power which is being given to the Commission. I have always been one who has believed that there should be ministerial responsibility to a parliament. That is why I have been so insistent on the other clauses to which 1 have adhered. 1 note that Senator Missen and, I think, Senator Guilfoyle also appreciated that there has to be an ability on the part of the Commission to search out the type of statistics and other information on which they. can effectively plan the future development of the industry.
I notice, of course, that Senator Hall’s amendment desires to water down the proposed clause that we have inserted in the Bill to the question of covering exhibition and distribution. If we can obtain some unanimity of opinion by a discussion on the subject then I, too, am prepared to accede to Senator Hall’s suggestion that there be a deferral of sub-clause 2 and 3 of clause 11. I take it that Senator Hall and the Opposition do not object to the inclusion of sub-clause 1 of clause 11. I am prepared, on behalf of the Government, to agree to a deferral until a later hour of the day or until the next day of the sitting for further consideration of sub-clauses 2 and 3 of clause 1 1.
– I suppose that the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) would like to get through this Bill as quickly as possible. But it might serve his purpose to refrain from passing a clause if that would preclude amending it at a later stage.
Clause 1 1 (Commission to keep itself informed as to film industry.)
Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) that consideration of the clause be deferred agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13.
– I move:
We believe that the power of delegation under this clause to a member of the staff of the Commission is undesirable. We seek to have a clause which gives the power of delegation to a member of the Commission, but states that that delegation requires the approval of the Minister. We seek to have the amendments which I have described made to this clause. There are no overriding reasons which I wish to state. It is simply that we do not see that a member of the staff of the Commission should be written into the Bill as someone to whom a power of the Commission should be delegated. We suggest that the approval of the Minister should be required for the delegation of authority by the Commission. For those reasons I have moved the amendments I have described on behalf of the Opposition.
– This proposed amendment refers to the elimination of the general power of delegation of powers or functions to anyone other than a member of the Australian Film Commission. Clause 13 (1) states:
The Commission may, by writing under its seal, delegate to a member of the Commission or to a member of the staff of the Commission, either generally or otherwise as provided by the instrument of delegation, any of its powers or functions under this Act, other than this power of delegation.
As I understand it, the Opposition seeks to delete the words ‘or to a member of the staff of the Commission’ and to insert in lieu thereof ‘with the approval of the Minister’. Clause 13(1) would then read:
The Commission may, by writing under its seal, delegate to a member of the Commission with the approval of the Minister, either generally or otherwise as provided by the instrument of delegation, any of its powers or functions under this Act, other than this power of delegation.
Paradoxically, in this case the Opposition seems to seek to insert ministerial power of approval. It is difficult for me to see why it is desirable to insert ministerial approval in an instance of this nature when apparently it is considered undesirable in every other area.
– You do yourself an injustice by saying that.
– I do not know. In fact, it appears rather extraordinary that the Opposition should suggest that in the Commission’s day to day operations, the very area in which delegated powers are most commonly required- Senator Greenwood has had a lot of opposition to voice in regard to ministerial approval in this area- the Minister should be required to exercise some sort of discretionary or approval power in relation to the delegation of power.
– I would take it before they catch up with it.
– I am tempted to do that. I am pointing out what the Opposition is doing. To me, it is quite paradoxical. The effect of this amendment would be to ensure that the Minister could pick and choose which of the commissioners- presumably, his favourite- could exercise the delegated power.
The Commission may have good administrative reasons to ask another member to exercise those powers. If the Opposition wishes to press that amendment, I will not object to it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 19- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 20.
A person having a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a business or other undertaking involving the making, promotion, distribution or exhibition of films, otherwise than as a member, and in common with the other members, of an incorporated company consisting of not less than 25 persons, is not eligible-
– The Opposition has an amendment to clause 20. As I have indicated, the Opposition will not support clause 20. We will be voting against the inclusion of the clause. The clause describes the persons who have interests which render them ineligible for appointment to the Australian Film Commission. The clause contains requirements which mean that people who are members of an incorporated company consisting of not less than 25 persons are not eligible to be appointed to the Commission. We consider that the requirements under this clause limit the people who may have the skill and expertise to be members of the Commission. It seems to us to be inequitable that a differentiation is made between a member of an incorporated comany- a large company- and a person who is a member of a smaller company. It is obvious to us that in an industry of this type the persons well suited to be members of the Commission could be members who are partners in or are interested in smaller companies. They would be ineligible because of the wording of this clause, whereas a person who is a member of a large incorporated company would be eligible. There seems to us to be a limiting of the available resources of skill in the industry through the operation of this clause. The way in which we choose to deal with the matter is not to give our support to the requirements of clause 20. 1 indicate that the Opposition will be voting against this clause.
– I point out for the edification of members of the Opposition, in case they are not aware of it, that this clause relates only to the appointment of full-time members of the Australian Film Commission. It does not relate to the appointment of part-time members to the Commission.
– The clause states ‘otherwise than as a member’.
– Yes, it states ‘otherwise than as a member’. If members of the Opposition expect a full-time member of the Commission, once appointed, to be engaged in any sort of activity so far as the making, promotion, distribution or exhibition of films is concerned, frankly I do not know how he would be able to do that effectively. Once appointed as a full-time commissioner he would automatically have to give his full time to the occupancy of that position. This clause does not relate to the appointment of part-time commissioners. Therefore, I suggest with great respect that the request of the Opposition to omit the clause is frankly beyond my comprehension. Clause 20 states:
A person having a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a business or other undertaking involving the making, promotion, distribution or exhibition of films, otherwise than as a member, and in common with the other members, of an incorporated company consisting of not less than 25 persons, is not eligible-
to be appointed under section 14 as, or to remain, a full-time member; or
to be appointed under section 19 to act, or to continue to act, in the place of the Chairman -
Under this legislation the Chairman is automatically a full-time member- or another full-time member.
It is beyond my comprehension why the Opposition under these circumstances would want to omit this clause from the Bill. Frankly, the passing of the amendment in relation to the clause would mean a significant increase in the powers of the Minister. It would mean that the Minister, whoever he was would have unlimited power to appoint full members of the Commission regardless of whatever interests they might have in the film industry. Should this amendment be accepted, read in conjunction with clause 21 it would mean that any member holding prescribed interests would be required to leave any meeting at which the matter in which he had such interests was being considered. It could effectively mean that the Commission would be unable to acquire a quorum, dependent upon the composition of the Commission. It would also mean that once an appointment had been made the Governor-General would be unable to terminate that appointment on the basis of the acquisition of a prescribed interest. As the clause relates only to the appointment of full time members, 1 press for the inclusion of the clause and ask the Opposition to reconsider its attitude.
– I suggest we have a discussion on the proposition that the wording of the section would preclude a film producer who in the past may have made films and had a small family company in which he was involved. Those films still have rights to them and are paying him dividends even though he no longer is making films. He has a financial interest in a company of less than 25 persons and is ineligible to be a full time member of the Film Commission. On the other hand, on my reading of the clause, a person who is a theatre proprietor or a former theatre proprietor and a large shareholder in a large company- with that type of film interest- would be eligible to be either chairman or a full time member. Does the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) not see the conflict and limitation that this clause imposes on the composition of the Film Commission? Will he give me his considered view of the proposition I have put with regard to the application of the clause?
– I add for the consideration of the Minister that the point he makes about full time members is not, I think, an adequate response to the real point we are seeking to demonstrate. The point we are trying to show is that persons who happen to be shareholders in a small companywhich would cover a lot of the small producerswould obviously have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in that company because they are shareholders, leaving aside whether they may be employed as consultants or in some other executive capacity. Those smaller persons, because of their indirect interest, would be excluded even though they might have all the time in the world to give to being full time members of the Commission. Yet the Bill nevertheless would allow to be members of the Commission professional directors, if you please, and persons who are quite happy to give their full time to being directors but who have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in other firms connected with the distribution of films, simply because they are shareholders in large public companies. There is a number of large public companies in this country which are engaged in the promotion, distribution and exhibition of films. Just because a person has shares- and there may be a person who has a lot of shares- in one of those companies, he is entitled to go on the board of the Commission as a full time member whereas a small person is not. This is what the Opposition has in mind and what Senator Guilfoyle was adverting to when she explained the problems we saw in this clause. It seems fair that we either exclude all persons who have this direct or indirect pecuniary interest or we allow them to become members of the Commission and rely upon the next succeeding clause which says that if a member has an interest in any particular venture he must disclose that interest to the Minister. It is a vexing problem and I would think that if, as Senator Guilfoyle suggests, the Minister considers this in terms of the problems we see, this clause along with the other clauses might be left overnight.
– I am assured that this provision is of a somewhat similar nature to provisions contained in other statutes. I understand that a similar provision is contained in the Broadcasting and Television Act. I well remember that when this Government made an appointment of a full time member under the Broadcasting and Television Act the person appointed by the Government had to divest himself of interests that he had in the broadcasting and television industry. I would expect that the same sort of situation would apply here. I am told also that similar provisions exist in the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959, the Reserve Bank Act 1959 and, without having perused it I understand that a similar, if not the exact, provision is contained in the Australian Film Development Corporation Act.
– It is somewhat similar. When we debated it you adopted an attitude, not the same, but somewhat similar to that which we have adopted. If you look at Hansard you will find it.
-The Opposition is seeking the deletion of this clause, as I understand it. What I am saying is that when the Opposition, then the Government, enacted the Australian Film Development Corporation Act it enacted a somewhat similar provision to this. Therefore I suggest to Senator Greenwood that it is not I who is confused about the matter. He is differing now with the type of legislation that the Government of which he was a member enacted as long ago as 1970. If a person has a small company and is the main or major shareholder in that company, I would suggest that he virtually owns the company.
– He would not be eligible to be appointed if he has that sort of interest.
-Surely he can divest himself of that interest. Surely he would be expected to divest if he were to be appointed a full time member.
– Rut if he is a small producer trying to earn the benefits of past efforts it is a very hard task for him to divest in order to become a member of the Commission. There is an area of concern, I think.
– I fail to see the point. I do not think anyone is being impeded by this provision from appointment as a full time member. It is a provision which has been included in a number of other legislative enactments and, bearing in mind that this is a full time appointment, the Government must press for the inclusion of the clause.
– I indicate that the Opposition continues with its attitude to this clause because nothing that the Minister has said has removed the difficulty that there is for the fairly limited personnel in the film industry in Australia to serve as full time members of the Commission. We again stress the anomaly that is created in respect of a person who has a continuing interest in a company. It is not easy for a person to divest himself of shares in a private company at this time. If he has a continuing interest in a company and the benefits of previous activities in film making are still accruing to him as a member of that company he is excluded from appointment as a full time member of the Commission. Yet by contrast a person having a predominant interest in a large company is not precluded. It seems to me that there is a conflict in those 2 requirements.
– I would think that he could enter into a trustee arrangement if there were any validity in your argument. I would think it would be quite simple for such a person, if there be such a person, to enter into a trustee arrangement to enable him to become a full time member.
Question put:
That the clause stand as printed. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator J. J. Webster)
AYES: 25
NOES: 25
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clause negatived.
Consideration interrupted.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster)Order! It being after 1 1 p.m. in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I put the question:
That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.
Question resolved in the affirmative. (The Chairman having reported accordingly)
page 1920
– Order! It being after 1 1 p.m. in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.5 p.m.
page 1921
The following answers to questions were circula
International Women’s Year
Washington Meat Conference
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l), (2), (3) and (4). Funds provided by the Australian Government to the States for education in 1971-72 ($204.9m). 1972-73 ($259.4m) and 1973-74 ($622.5m) have been entirely in the form of grants. No loan funds are provided for the purpose.
In addition to the amounts mentioned, the Australian Government has, since 1970-71, provided a proportion of the States’ annual Loan Council programs in the form of interest-free grants. While not subject to any conditions as to the purposes for which they may be expended, these grants are intended to assist States in financing capital works, such as schools, from which debt charges are not normally recoverable.
Treasury: ‘Certificates of Inexpediency’ (Question No. 135)
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Certificates of Inexpediency
The person authorised to give certificates of inexpediency will exercise his judgment upon the facts of each proposed purchase; he will consider, e.g., the nonavailability of competing sources of supply or the real urgency of the requirement. The responsibility for the issue of a certificate that it is impracticable or inexpedient to obtain the prescribed number of representative quotations or publicly invite tenders rests finally with him. The grounds upon which a dispensation is sought from the requirement either to obtain representative quotations or publicly invite tenders shall be clearly stated in writing by the recommending officer and contracts shall not be signed or orders placed until a certificate of inexpediency is given. If a situation arises where the obtaining of representative quotations or the public invitation of tenders is considered impracticable or inexpedient in the case of particular supplies, and the department has no person authorised to issue certificates of inexpediency, application may be made for the issue of a certificate to the Chief Executive Office, Australian Government Stores and Tender Board, 199 William Street, Melbourne.’
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
There are 101 officers in Australia and a further 19 officers overseas who are currently authorised by the Secretary to the Treasury to issue certificates of inexpediency. These officers are spread throughout 17 departments.
Because of the decentralised way in which individual approvals are recorded, it would not be possible to obtain the information requested without an extensive search of departmental purchasing records.
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:
– The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Surgery consultation- $4. 10 Domiciliary visit- $6. 1 0
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1-3) The Minister for Social Security has not expressed the view the honourable senator attributes to him. The Government’s policy on ‘direct’ or ‘bulk’ billing is set out in paragraphs 3.15 to 3.22 of the White Paper titled ‘The Australian Health Insurance Program’, which was tabled in the Senate by the Minister then representing the Minister for Social Security (Senator Douglas McClelland) on 13
November, 1973. The three billing methods which will be available are:
The Government believes that the assignment of benefit or direct billing’ method should be available to the patients of those doctors who are willing to adopt it and that the method has advantages in terms of convenience, prompt payment and expense reduction which will appeal to doctors. The assignment of benefit’ method is particularly important for low income patients and for pensioners who meet the means test applied for the purpose of the Pensioner Medical Service. In continuance of the current policy and arrangements whereby such pensioners can receive medical services without charge, the Government will ask all medical practitioners to make this arrangement for every pensioner who produces a Pensioner Medical Service entitlement card and not to make any charge to the pensioner. An exception applies in the case of unreferred specialist services. The Government is confident that the sense of responsibility of the great majority of doctors can be relied upon to make the system work for the benefit of pensioners, as is the case of the Pensioner Medical Service. The Government holds the view that ‘direct billing’ is important in respect of those persons who would find it difficult to lodge claims themselves or to pay anything for the service due to their financial circumstances. However, doctors are free to choose the methods of billing in respect of all their patients, including pensioners and low income earners, and there is no direction as to which method they should use. Doctors’ freedom to choose their billing methods is quite clearly stated in the White Paper and has often been repeated since. If the majority of doctors do not use the ‘direct billing’ method, the alternative is that they will bill their patients as currently generally applies.
Visit by Minister for Social Security to New Zealand: Report (Question No. 202)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 studied a number of welfare matters while in New Zealand last year. I do not propose to table any report.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:
What is the number of trained quarantine staff in Western Australia.
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The number of trained full-time quarantine staff (exclusive of medical officers) employed by the Australian Department of Health in Western Australia is 23.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
M.V. ‘Olive Bank’: Fumigation (Question No. 214)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
M.V. ‘Lorana’: Fumigation (Question No. 215)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Director decided on 19 June 1974 that it was not necessary to fumigate the vessel because:
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741023_senate_29_s61/>.