Senate
15 July 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2727

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with

    1. a ) the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, National Superannuation Plan.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Townley.

Petition received.

page 2727

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– By leave- I inform the Senate that His Excellency the GovernorGeneral determined the appointment of Mr Whitlam as Minister for Environment from 14 July 1975 and that day appointed Mr Berinson as Minister for Environment. I also inform the Senate that the Deputy Prime Minister is Mr Crean, the Minister for Overseas Trade.

page 2727

OVERSEAS LOAN NEGOTIATIONS

Examination of Persons Called to the Bar of the Senate

On 9 July 1975, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) made a statement relating to the overseas loan raising activities of the Government, and moved:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) spoke to the motion, and moved:

At end of motion add- but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government has failed to give to the Parliament and the Australian people a proper, full and accurate account of the activities of its Ministers, servants and agents, relating to all dealings by them both prior to and subsequent to the Executive Council Meeting of 13 December 1974, which authorized the Minister for

Minerals and Energy to borrow a sum not exceeding four thousand million dollars in the currency of the United States of America for temporary purposes, and because the Government refuses to appoint a Royal Commission with proper and adequate terms of reference to investigate and report upon all aspects of the Government’s overseas loan activities, the Senate resolves-

) (a) That the following persons be called to the Bar of the Senate, by summons under the hand of the Clerk of the Senate, on Tuesday, 15 July 1975, at half-past two p.m., and from day to day until the Senate otherwise orders-

Sir Frederick Wheeler, C.B.E.;Secretary, The Treasury Mr J. O. Stone- Deputy Secretary (Economic), The Treasury

Mr R. J. Whitelaw, O.B.E;First Assistant Secretary, Overseas Economic Relations Division, The Treasury

Mr A. R. G. Prowse; First Assistant Secretary, Revenue, Loans and Investment Division, The Treasury

Mr A. P. Bailey; Assistant Secretary, Revenue, Loans and Investment Division, The Treasury

Mr I. Hay; Revenue, Loans and Investment Division, The Treasury

Sir Lenox Hewitt, O.B.E.; Secretary, Department of Minerals and Energy

Mr J. T. Larkin; First Assistant Secretary, Energy Planning Division, Department of Minerals and Energy

Mr C. W. Harders, O.B.E.;Secretary, AttorneyGeneral’s Department

Mr M. H. Byers, Q.C.; Solicitor-General, AttorneyGeneral’s Department

Mr A. C. C. Menzies; First Assistant Secretary, Advisings Division, Attorney-General ‘s Department

Mr D. J. Rose; Senior Assistant Secretary, Advisings Division, Attorney-General ‘s Department and such other person or persons as the Senate determines- to answer questions upon these matters and to produce all documents, files or papers in their possession, custody or control relevant to these matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament; and

that notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, and unless otherwise ordered, the examination of such witnesses take place immediately after the presentation of Petitions and the giving of Notices each day, and provided that a motion to summon any other person or persons to the Bar of the Senate may be moved without notice prior to the commencement of the examination of witnesses each day.

That, if, prior to 15 July 1975, the Government announces the intention to appoint a Royal Commission consisting of at least one judge, and with proper and adequate terms of reference agreed to by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, the President is authorised to cancel the meeting of the Senate set for 15 July 1975 and to release all witnesses from their obligation to attend before the Senate, provided that a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators is received by the President for the cancellation of the meeting and such cancellation shall be notified to each Senator by telegram or letter.

For these purposes a request by the Leader of the Government in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every member of the Government, a request by the Leader of the Opposition shall be deemed to be a request by every member of the Opposition and a request by the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia shall be deemed to be a request by members of that Party.

Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President.

In the event of the President being unavailable the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy-President, or, should he be unavailable any one of the temporary Chairmen of Committees who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to cancel the meeting on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this resolution. ‘

The Leader of the Government in the Senate replied.

The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am advised by the Clerk of the Senate that summonses were served on eleven of the 12 witnesses called by the Senate, and that those witnesses are now seated in a gallery of the Senate. A summons could not be served on Mr R. J. Whitelaw because of his absence overseas. In response to a request by the Acting Clerk of the Senate on Thursday, 10 July, for advice as to Mr Whitelaw ‘s whereabouts and how he could be contacted, the Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Frederick Wheeler, advised as follows on 10 July:

Mr Whitelaw ceased duties as First Assistant Secretary, Overseas Economic Relations Division, on 14 April 1975 to take up his appointment as Executive Director for Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and Western Samoa of the International Monetary Fund in Washington. Mr Whitelaw is at present on the unattached list on leave without pay.

As part of his duties as Executive Director, Mr Whitelaw is at present visiting Western Samoa for the purposes of the consultations being held by the IMF with that country. Mr Whitelaw is due to arrive in Canberra on 16 July at 1 1.45 a.m. and is booked to stay at the Lakeside Hotel.

In the meantime I am informed that he could be contacted by sending a post office telegram c/- Department of Finance, Apia, Western Samoa.

A telegram was sent to Mr Whitelaw on 10 July at the address advised by the Secretary to the Treasury, and advice was received from him by telegram dated 1 1 July that he was endeavouring to arrange flight connections to enable him to arrive in Canberra on Monday. A subsequent message received from Mr Whitelaw, however, indicates that he will be unable to arrive in Canberra until tomorrow. I will report further to the Senate on Mr Whitelaw ‘s arrival in Canberra, when I think it will be necessary for the Senate to consider another resolution for his attendance.

Honourable senators, before proceeding with the order of the day, which is the attendance of witnesses before the Senate, I feel bound to report to the Senate certain documents that 1 have received from the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), from other Ministers and from the

Solicitor-General. I shall read the documents to the Senate:

Prime Minister Canberra 15 July 1975

My Dear President,

I refer to the summonses which have been served on certain officers of the Australian Public Service and on the Solicitor-General to attend before the Senate on Tuesday 15 July 1975 and from day to day thereafter to answer questions, and to produce relevant documents, files or papers in their possession or control, upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975. The Resolution, a copy of which was attached to each summons, is directed to the activities of Ministers and servants and agents of the Government, relating to dealings by them prior to and subsequent to the Executive Council meeting of 13 December 1974 authorising the Minister for Minerals and Energy to borrow a sum not exceeding four thousand million dollars in the currency of the United States of America for temporary purposes.

I write to you concerning the summonses that have been served on officers of the Public Service. The SolicitorGeneral, as the Second Law Officer under the Law Officers Act, is writing to you directly. The officers of the Public Service summoned will attend in accordance with the summonses. I wish to inform you, however, that each officer will be instructed by his Minister to claim privilege in respect of answers to all questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and in respect of the production of all documents, files and papers relevant to those matters.

The inquiry is plainly an inquiry into Government policy and decisions of Government. The principle of Ministerial responsibility is, and must remain, the keystone of our Parliamentary system. In keeping with that principle, officers do not decide, and are not responsible for, Government policy or for Government action.

What I have just said reflects a time-honoured constitutional principle of the greatest importance. It is a principle that has been frequently stated and has been endorsed by, among others, Sir Robert Menzies who has written . . . ‘it would be curious and alarming if an anti-Government Senate could undermine the objectivity and non-political integrity of the Public Service by exposing its senior and most responsible officers to a Parliamentary inquisition from which they had a right to be immune and compelling their entry into a field of political debate ‘.

In the Government’s view, the real intention of the nonGovernment parties in the Senate is to seek to avoid the normal and proper procedures of the Parliament.

The House of Representatives was specially convened on 9 July 1975 to debate the whole subject of overseas borrowings. There had previously been a debate in the Senate on 12 June on an Opposition urgency motion. Answers have been provided to 69 questions without notice on the general subject of overseas borrowings, 37 in the Senate and 32 in the House of Representatives, between 31 October 1974 and 12 June 1975. Of the 7 questions placed on notice, 6 have been answered already.

In the course of the proceedings in the House of Representatives on 9 July, the Leader of the Opposition tabled a series of 44 questions and all will be answered. He requested the tabling of certain documents and a response to this request will be given when the House of Representatives reconvenes on 19 August, although I add in that context that, in respect of the four Executive Council Minutes, the information sought has already been provided in answer to Senator

Wright’s Question No. 646 (Senate Hansard 9 July, pages 2723/24).

It is clear that the non-Government parties in the Senate have by no means fully tested this matter through the normal and proper Parliamentary procedures available to them- in debate, in questions and, if necessary, in urgency motions or even no confidence motions. The House of Representatives was recalled so that the normal and proper Parliamentary procedures could apply. What the Opposition proposes is a procedure essentially foreign and contrary to established Parliamentary principles and practice.

I make plain the Government’s view that what the Senate is seeking to do is to obtain through officers of the Public Service information and documents which should be sought from Ministers by the normal and proper procedures of the Parliament. In taking this course, the fundamental character of Ministerial responsibility is challenged. It is the Governmentnot the Public Service- that will answer in the Parliament any request, any challenge put to it. It is the Governmentnot the Public Service- that is responsible to the people. This is in accord with the principles on which our democracy is based. If these principles are successfully challenged, Government would become unworkable.

I am sending a copy of this letter to each of the Ministers concerned.

Yours sincerely, E. G. WHITLAM

Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne, President of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

I have also received a letter from the Minister for Minerals and Energy. It reads:

Minister for Minerals and Energy Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 15 July 1975

Dear Mr President,

I have received from the Prime Minister a copy of his letter to you dated 15 July 1975 concerning the summonses issued and served pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975.I have sent a copy of that letter to the Secretary of my Department and have asked him to send a copy to each officer of the Department who has been summoned.

In accordance with long-established principles, I have directed officers of my Department who have been summoned to appear before the Senate to claim privilege in respect of answers to all questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and in respect of the production of all documents, files and papers relevant to those matters.

I certify that the answering of any questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and the production of any documents, files or papers relevant to those matters by officers of my Department would be detrimental to the proper functioning of the Public Service and its relationship to government and would be injurious to the public interest.

Yours sincerely,

F. X. CONNOR

Senator the Hon. J.O ‘Byrne, President of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T

I have further received a letter from the Treasurer, which reads as follows:

Treasurer Parliament House Canberra 2600 15 July 1975

Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne President of the Senate The Senate Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Mr President,

I have received from the Prime Minister a copy of his letter to you dated 15 July 1975 concerning the summonses issued and served pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975.I have sent a copy of that letter to the Secretary of my Department and have asked him to send a copy to each officer of the Department who has been summoned.

In accordance with long-established principles, I have directed officers of my Department who have been summoned to appear before the Senate to claim privilege in respect of answers to all questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and in respect of the production of all documents, files and papers relevant to those matters.

I certify that the answering of any questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and the production of any documents, files or papers relevant to those matters by officers of my Department would be detrimental to the proper functioning of the Public Service and its relationship to government and would be injurious to the public interest.

Yours sincerely, BILL HAYDEN

I have also received a letter from Mr Kep Enderby, the Attorney-General, in exactly the same phraseology. It reads:

Attorney-General Canberra 15 July 1975

Dear Mr President,

I have received from the Prime Minister a copy of his letter to you dated 15 July 1975 concerning the summonses issued and served pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975.I have sent a copy of that letter to the Secretary of my Department and have asked him to send a copy to each officer of the Department who has been summoned.

In accordance with long-established principles, I have directed officers of my Department who have been summoned to appear before the Senate to claim privilege in respect of answers to all questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and in respect of the production of all documents, flies and papers relevant to those matters.

I certify that the answering of any questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and the production of any documents, files or papers relevant to those matters by officers of my Department would be detrimental to the proper functioning of the Public Service and its relationship to government and would be injurious to the public interest.

Yours sincerely, KEP ENDERBY

Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne, President of the Senate, Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T.2600

I have further received a letter from the SolicitorGeneral of Australia, which reads as follows:

Solicitor-General of Australia Canberra A.C.T. 15 July, 1975

Dear Mr President,

May 1 refer to the summons and its attached Resolution which I received last Thursday, 10th inst. That Resolution recites the Senate’s opinion ‘that the Government has failed to give to the Parliament and the Australian people a proper, full and accurate account of the activities of its Ministers, servants and agents, relating to all dealings by them both prior to and subsequent to the Executive Council Meeting of 13 December 1974, which authorized the Minister for Minerals and Energy to borrow a sum not exceeding four thousand million dollars in the currency of the United States of America for temporary purposes’ and states that the Senate resolves that a number of named persons of whom I am one be called to the Bar of the Senate ‘to answer questions upon these matters’. The matters are the activities and dealings previously recited both prior to and subsequent to the Executive Council meeting of 1 3 December 1974.

It is apparent, therefore, that whatever opinions I may have expressed in order that ultimately members of the Federal Executive Council might advise the Crown, fall within its terms. The Act (the Law Officers Act 1964-68) under which I was appointed provides that the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth ‘shall be the second Law Officer of the Commonwealth’ and is to be appointed by the GovernorGeneral. That is, the Solicitor-General is the second Law Officer of the Crown. The point of my mentioning this is but to indicate that I stand in a constitutional relationship to the Crown in which under the Constitution the Executive power of the Commonwealth alone is vested.

It is a well recognised constitutional principle that the deliberations of the Crown are secret. To quote Sir Owen Dixon: ‘The counsels of the Crown are secret and an inquiry into the grounds upon which the advice tendered proceeds may not be made for the purpose of invalidating the act formally done in the name of the Crown by the GovernorGeneral in Council’.

The passage I have quoted may be found in his judgment in Australian Communist Party v. The Commonwealth (1951) 83 C.L.R. 1 at 179. The principle is reflected in the oath taken by members of the Federal Executive Council which presumably in this respect derives from that taken by a Privy Councillor. This latter oath is set out in full in Anson ‘s Law and Custom of the Constitution (1935) 4th Ed. Vol. II Part I p. 153. The relevant pan of each is, of course, the obligation of secrecy.

In addition the right of the Crown or what is legally the same thing, the Executive, to claim privilege is clear enough. The accepted practice as mentioned in paragraphs 127 (as to the House of Commons) and 136 (as to the Courts) in Parliamentary Paper 1972 No. 168 Parliamentary CommitteesPowers over and Protection afforded to Witnesses by Senator the Honourable I. J. Greenwood, Q.C. and Mr R. J. Ellicott, Q.C. is that this privilege extends to opinions of the Law Officers. The principle applies whether they be written or oral. The Crown has claimed its privilege. As one of its Law Officers, I may not consistently with my constitutional duty intentionally act in opposition to its claim.

The above considerations and much anxious thought have compelled me to conclude that I must object to answer any question relating to the Resolution that may be put to me, for should I answer any, the claim to privilege may be to that extent defeated. Naturally, 1 shall attend the Senate in answer to the summons issued by it as one of the constitutional organs of government.

I have taken the liberty of writing this letter to you, Mr President, in the hope that you will inform the Senate of it and in the wish that it may receive prior notice of the position I have felt impelled to adopt.

Yours sincerely, M. H. BYERS Solicitor-General of Australia

I lay the letters on the table of the Senate.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I ask for leave to make a statement.

THE PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WITHERS:

-The Opposition was not altogether taken by surprise as a result of the letters which you, Mr President, have read out. I think the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) would agree that we ought to have time to consider those letters in detail. Therefore I invite the Leader of the Government in the Senate to move the adjournment of the Senate until, say, 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I believe in the circumstances that is a fair and reasonable request on the part of Senator Withers. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 2.53 to 5 p.m.

Senator WITHERS (Western Australia-

Leader of the Opposition) (5.0)- I have had a very brief discussion with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) and I think between us we have devised some procedures whereby all the Senate will be satisfied as to our intentions. Perhaps I ought to leave it to the Leader of the Government in the Senate to add to that. I now ask for leave to make a brief statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I intended asking for leave to move a motion forthwith. I have had a quick conversation with the Leader of the Government about our intentions. I hope the Senate will agree to what we think is a sensible procedure. I wish to be given leave to give notice of a motion now. I hope that somehow or other I will be given leave to move a motion to make the matter the first priority of business tomorrow and that in the meantime the Senate will adjourn until tomorrow so that the Government can take on board the notice of motion which I will give. I believe that this motion ought to be proceeded with and resolved before the witnesses are called. That would be our intention.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why do we not debate the motion now?

Senator WITHERS:

– Because it is a very long motion. I hope copies of it have come off the reproduction machine by now. I think I ought not to be trying to take the Government by surprise. That is what the Leader of the Government and I have agreed upon. I ask leave to give notice of a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the Senate notes the statements contained in the letters of the Prime Minister and of the Minister for Minerals and Energy, the Treasurer, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General addressed to the President of the Senate and declares and resolves:

1 ) That the Senate affirms that it possesses the powers and privileges of the House of Commons as conferred by Section 49 of the Constitution and has the power to summon persons to answer questions and produce documents, files and papers.

That subject to the determination of all just and proper claims of privilege which may be made by persons summoned, it is the obligation of all such persons to answer questions and produce documents.

That the fact that a person summoned is an officer of the Public Service, or that a question related to his departmental duties, or that a file is a departmental one does not, of itself, excuse or preclude an officer from answering the question or from producing the file or part of a file.

That upon a claim of privilege based on an established ground being made to any question or to the production of any documents the Senate shall consider and determine each such claim.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I accept the basic position which has been put by Senator Withers. I believe that the motion of which he has given notice requires some consideration. I believe the proper course would be for the Senate to adjourn until tomorrow when this matter would be the first one for debate. Therefore, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2732

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:

That the Senate do now adjourn until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Senate adjourned at 5.5 p.m.

page 2733

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Australian Embassies: ASIO Activities (Question No. 157)

Senator Gietzelt:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Attorney-General seen reports by Mr A. P. Renouf, O.B.E., Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, that Australian Security Intelligence Organization agents have been active in many Australian embassies; if so, were those agents placed in Australian embassies by Liberal/ Country Party Governments to deal with matters not connected with Australia’s security.
  2. What action has the Government taken to remove Australian Security Intelligence Organization agents from Australian embassies, particularly in those countries with which Australia has close and friendly relations.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

  1. 1 ) The Attorney-General has seen the reports. Ostensibly those agents were not placed in embassies to deal with matters not connected with Australia ‘s security.
  2. The need for ASIO officers to be located in Australian Embassies is under review and is currently being examined by the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security.

Security: Arabs in Australia (Question No. 169)

Senator Primmer:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did an officer of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization attempt to keep under continuous observation a Palestinian, Abou Bassan Layhari, while he was recently in Australia.
  2. Did an Australian Security Intelligence Organization officer recently interview a Dr Hadj, a medical teacher at the University of Melbourne, with respect to his attitude to the medical treatment of alleged terrorists.
  3. If the answers to ( 1) and (2) are in the affirmative, why is the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation making a special point of observing, harassing and interrogating Arabs visiting or residing in Australia.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

It is not the practice to give information relating to ASIO operations. However, these matters fall within the compass of the Inquiry by the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security under Mr Justice Hope.

Alleged Intimidation of Building Companies (Question No, 228)

Senator Durack:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

With reference to the answer given by the previous Attorney-General, Mr Justice Murphy, to the question asked by Senator Greenwood concerning the alleged intimidation by the Australian Builders Labourers Federation towards six building companies concerning their proceedings before the High Court:

from whom did the previous Attorney-General receive the correspondence referred to by him in his answer;

what action did he take in regard to the matter;

did he authorise any investigations; and

is there not an over-riding and paramount responsibility on the Attorney-General to protect the rights of people whose position before the Courts may bc jeopardised by intimidation and threats.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. So far as I am aware, the former Attorney-General received no correspondence from either the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders’ Labourers Federation or the building contractors concerned. The correspondence to which he referred in his answer to Senator Greenwood was a copy of a telegram sent by the General Secretary of the Federation to the Master Builders’ Association, a copy of which the Master Builders Association made available to my Department.
  2. (c) and (d), See the former Attorney-General’s answer to the question asked by Senator Greenwood in the Senate on 26 September 1 974 ( Hansard, page 1433).

Air Excursion Fares to Middle East (Question No. 408)

Senator Missen:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Is the low excursion air fare available to Australian citizens to re-visit their former homelands in the Middle East, including Israel, to be discontinued by the airlines from December 1974; if so, will this impose hardship and expense on citizens who wish to make short journeys to such countries.
  2. Is the Government prepared to make urgent representations to ensure the continuance of such excursion air fares.
Senator Bishop:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) Low cost excursion fares for air travel from Australia to the Middle East were temporarily suspended by the airlines in December 1974, but were re-established in January 1975, to five countries in the Middle East, including Israel, and continue to be available on all airlines.

Aviation Fuel Prices (Question No. 340)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister for Minerals and Energy directed oil companies that as fuel contracts with international airlines come up for renewal the companies are to increase the prices of fuel charged to those airlines.
  2. What is the extent of the increase to be applied.
  3. If a directive has not been issued, how is the policy change being made known to the fuel companies and the airlines.
  4. Have all airlines and oil companies been advised of the changed policy; if not, which airlines and oil companies have been advised, and what was the method of advice.
  5. When was the change of policy relating to the cost of aviation fuel to international airlines approved.
  6. When was the change of policy announced.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– The Minister for Minerals and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. to (6) The Government’s policy is to secure world prices for mineral exports, including petroleum products. The procedures necessary to give full effect to this policy in relation to the supply of aviation fuel in Australia for international airline services are in the course of being settled.

Travel Agents (Question No. 477)

Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. ls the Minister aware that the International Air Transport Association and the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ Leisure Club, in association with the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ New World Travel Agency have acted in concert to defy the Federal Department of Transport’s instructions to all travel agents that they must not advertise, quote, or sell international air tickets at a cost lower than the cost approved by the Australian Government.
  2. Will the Minister investigate why the mostly foreigncontrolled International Air Transport Association and the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ travel agency are able to break Government decisions when all other Australian travel agents are compelled to comply with the Government ‘s instructions.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) No. The Department of Transport has no evidence that the International Air Transport Association and the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ Leisure Club, in association with the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ New World Travel Agency, have acted contrary to the Australian Air Navigation Regulations or the Department’s instructions to travel agents as to the advertising, offering or selling of international air travel.

Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 519)

Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

In view of public reaction to the extremely restrictive criteria laid down for the entry into Australia of Vietnamese families and in view of assurances given by the Minister that representations relating to the admission of Vietnamese families would be taken into account, will the Government give early consideration to reviewing the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister and extend greater humanitarian terms to the families?

Senator Willesee:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

The Australian Government took prompt action in approaching the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to urge that there should be co-ordinated international action under the direction of the High Commissioner for the placement of refugees from Vietnam in as many countries as possible.

The Government subsequently received an official approach from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees asking it to take some of the refugees and the Government replied that it was willing to do so.

Immigration officers were sent to Guam and arranged for the transport to Australia of Vietnamese persons there who were approved for entry into Australia. Immigration officers were also sent to Hong Kong where they processed and arranged for the movement to Australia by charter flight of 20 1 Vietnamese refugees. The Government is in touch with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about the general situation of Vietnamese refugees and is examining what further action it might take. As the Prime Minister has announced, the criteria for refugees are obviously wider than normal migrant criteria.

Sydney-Lord Howe Island Air Service (Question No. 527)

Senator Baume:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Is there at present under consideration by the Department of Transport an application from an operator wishing to operate an air service from Sydney to Lord Howe Island.
  2. Does this or any other application envisage the purchase of Rockwell 690 turbo-prop aeroplanes to operate this service.
  3. Has a feasibility study been carried out or is one intended to be carried out prior to final consideration being given to applications for licence to service the route to and from Lord Howe Island.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) The Department of Transport received a number of applications from organisations wishing to operate regular air services from Sydney and other centres to Lord Howe Island. One of the applicants, Advance Aviation, has been authorised to provide commuter air services from Sydney direct to Lord Howe using an Aero Commander 690A aircraft. The service commenced on 1 June.

Advance Aviation was authorised by the Australian Department of Transport following advice from the N.S.W. State Transport authorities that it had selected that operator to provide this intrastate service. Advance Aviation meets the operational requirements for the route.

  1. The Australian Depanment of Transport did not carry out a feasibility study. I understand, however, that the N.S.W. State Transport authorities carried out a study prior to selecting Advance Aviation as the operator to provide the service.

Non-smoking Seats on Aircraft (Question No. 529)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) On what basis are the number of non-smoking seats in aeroplanes determined.
  2. Will the Government take steps as part of its effort to contain the incidence of smoking in Australia to increase markedly the number of non-smoking seats available in aeroplanes.
  3. Is a majority of seats in many American airlines designated non-smoking.
  4. Does the Minister look forward to a day when smokers in Australian society will be seen as the exception and nonsmokers as the healthier majority.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) I have been personally interested in the development of non-smoking areas in Australian domestic aircraft. In February 1972, Ansett Airlines and TAA agreed to set aside groups of seats in both first class and economy class compartments for non-smokers, who might ask to bc seated in these areas when seats were being allocated prior to the departure of the flight. At that time 18 seats were set aside for non-smokers in DC-9 aircraft and 20 seats in Boeing 727-100 aircraft.

Since the introduction of non-smoking seats, which, I might add, were not widely availed of initially, both Ansett and TAA have carried out continuous market surveys to ensure that the provision of non-smoking seats has kept pace with social trends. In this regard non-smokers are now provided with 27 seats on DC-9 aircraft, 30 seats on B.72 7-100 aircraft and 36 seats on Boeing 727-200 aircraft, the number of seats being proportionate between first class and economy class compartments.

I am sure that you will also be interested to learn that Qantas Airways has recently doubled its seat allocation for nonsmokers and will now provide up to 108 non-smoking seats on Boeing 747 aircraft and 40 non-smoking seats on Boeing 707 aircraft. Although some other international airlines do provide slightly more non-smoking seats, it is pleasing to see Qantas adapting to passenger requirements. lt must be recognised, however, that a significant number of air travellers do wish to smoke and would undoubtedly object strenuously to measures preventing them from doing so. The airlines are, of course, sensitive to this as. indeed, they are to the position of the non-smoker. The arrangements which they have introduced for the segregation of smokers and non-smokers is essentially a compromise. Nevertheless, it is an encouraging development in line with social trends and one which 1 am personally keen to see pursued further.

As the level of community reaction against smoking increases, as hopefully it will, the arrangements made by the airlines for the accommodation of smokers on their aircraft will unquestionably reflect this changed community attitude. We might look forward, perhaps, to the assignment of smokers to seats in smoking areas, segregated from the majority of non-smokers. For the present, however, the airlines are endeavouring to ensure that their passengers, both smokers and non-smokers alike, are subject to the minimum of inconvenience.

Medibank Advertising (Question No. 545)

Senator Sheil:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Attorney-General noted that the Labor Government’s Medibank advertising, which is being paid for by the taxpayer, claims that Medibank is a free service when in fact all taxpayers will be obliged to fund, not only their own health needs, but also those of people who, for one reason or another, do not pay taxes.

    1. Has the Attorney-General also noted that the same Labor inspired taxpayer funded advertisements infer that patients could choose their own doctors, when in fact patients, if hospitalised, must accept services by that hospital’s doctors or else must elect to be a private or intermediate ward patient thus having to pay hospital fees.
    2. Will the Attorney-General consider what action may be taken under the terms of the Trade Practices Act if advertising in respect of Medibank is misleading and false and in breach of the Act.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Medibank advertsiements have stated that everybody in Australia will have free medical insurance under Medibank. The advertisements have qualified the reference free’ by pointing out that medical insurance will be free of direct contributions in the same way as other welfare services and benefits are free.
  2. The advertisements* have pointed out that people will be just as free to choose their own doctor as they are now.
  3. The honourable senator may rest assured that advertisements in respect of Medibank will not bc misleading or raise.

Australian Legal Aid Office (Question No. 568)

Senator Greenwood:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the previous Attorney-General in or about September 1973. give a direction to the effect that the existing Legal Service Bureaux be called the Australian Legal Aid Office.
  2. What public notice, if any, was given of the direction.
  3. If the answer to ( 1) is in the affirmative, what was the text of the direction.
  4. Why was it given.
  5. By what authority was it given.
  6. Was the direction in breach of section 105 of the Reestablishment and Employment Act 1 945- 1 952.
  7. Are there any Legal Service Bureaux as contemplated by section 105 of the said Act still in existence.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. On 25 July 1973 the then Attorney-General issued a press statement that was published in the national press. All ex-service organisations were informed. On 13 December 1973 a statement was made on the matter in the Senate by the previous Attorney-General.
  3. The text of the direction is as follows:

Following my press statement of 25 July 1973 the existing Legal Service Bureaux are to become the Australian Legal Aid Office with effect from the date of this directive.

Role

  1. The role of the Australian Legal Aid Office will be to provide a service of legal advice and assistance, including assistance in litigation, in co-operation with community organisations, referral services, existing legal aid schemes and the private legal profession. In particular, its decentralised offices will provide administrative support bases for community advice centres and legal or welfare advice groups generally.

Services to be provided by the Office 3. (a) The Office will provide legal advice, including continuing advice, correspondence and endeavours to achieve settlement of problems.

  1. The Office will conduct undefended divorce proceedings, ancillary proceedings and family law proceedings arising under federal legislation on behalf of persons who do not have adequate means to pay for the cost of representation.
  2. The Office will also conduct minor litigation in Courts of Petty Sessions and other tribunals and such other litigation as is approved by the Attorney-General or his delegate. The general intention is that the Office will, in appropriate circumstances, provide representation when adequate and ready assistance is not available from existing legal aid sources. Representation will be provided at the expense of the Australian Government if the client does not have adequate means to pay for the cost of representation.
  3. In other litigious matters, the client will be referred: to the appropriate legal aid body, e.g. Public Solicitor or Legal Aid Committee; or to private legal practitioners on a panel maintained by the Office under procedures ensuring a reasonable and equitable spread of work.
  4. A ‘Duty Solicitor’ will be provided from the staff of the Office to attend at the ‘Special Federal Court’, Sydney and at magistrates’ courts in the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory to provide advice and to appear on pleas of guilty and applications for adjournment or bail.
  5. The Office will make representations to Government departments or authorities on behalf of persons with complaints or grievances against them.

  6. The Office will prepare simple documents such as simple wills or powers of attorney.

    1. Care is to be taken to see that the services of the Office are not abused by persons seeking assistance in clearly unmeritorious cases or by vexatious litigants. Clearly the Office should not conduct prolonged litigation in matters that the Courts have traditionally regarded as appropriate to be settled rather than litigated having regard to the public interest or the interests of the parties themselves. Examples are some building disputes and disputes between neighbours.

Eligible Persons 5. (a) Eligibility for the services set out in paragraph 3 above will be as follows:

  1. In matters arising under Federal laweveryone in need

  2. in other matters- pensioners servicemen, ex-servicemen and their dependants aborigines migrants assisted overseas students persons approved by the AttorneyGeneral or his delegate.

    1. In cases not falling within the preceding subparagraph, the Office will act as a referral service, referring persons as in paragraph 3 (d ) above or to an appropriate welfare organisation or government department.

Means Test

  1. Subject to paragraph 3(b) and (c) above-

    1. there will be no means test for social service pensioners, aborigines or assisted students;
    2. there will be no means test for servicemen, exservicemen and their dependants in all matters arising out of or connected with war service, repatriation or rehabilitation; and
    3. there will be no fixed means test for other persons but each case will be considered on its merits, the intention being that there should be some financial need and that the service should not be provided to a person who is clearly able to afford the services of a private legal practitioner.

Standard of Service

  1. The Office should satisfy the best standards of the legal profession in the provision of service to clients who should be made to feel that everyone in the Office is anxious and ready to help them with their problems. For example, any person calling at the Office for assistance must be seen as soon as possible, and preferably on the same day, even if this involves overtime on the part of officers.

    1. To implement the Australian Government’s policy of providing additional legal services to servicemen, exservicemen and their dependants and its policy of providing those services to other persons for whom the Government has a special responsibility.
    2. By authority of the Attorney-General.
    3. No.
    4. Yes, under the name of the Australian Legal Aid Office.

Vietnam: Paris Agreements (Question No. 597)

Senator Carrick:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government regard the military victory of the Provisional Revolutionary Government in South Vietnam as relieving North Vietnam of any responsibilities towards the essential principles of the 1973 Paris Agreements; if not, has the Government communicated its view to North Vietnam and to the Provisional Revolutionary Government.
  2. What elements does the Government consider are necessary to ensure a just peace in South Vietnam.
  3. Is it possible for fair and free elections to be held in the South.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (I), (2) and (3) Whether changed circumstances have affected the Paris Agreements is really a matter for those who signed the Agreements. Australia was not a signatory. The Australian Government does, however, support the principles of national reconciliation, general elections, and reunification by negotiation, all of which were included in the Paris Agreements.

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport: Display of Fork Lift (Question No. 611)

Senator Mulvihill:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Under what terms and conditions does the firm of Lansing and Bagnall (Aust.) Pty Ltd exhibit a Fork Lift in the main hall of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport’s International Air Terminal.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has supplied the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Since 1972 T.D.I. (Transportation Displays International Pty Ltd ) had held concession rights for advertising in Sydney International Terminal. Lansing and Bagnall Fork Lift display was arranged by T.D.I, as part of that contract. The Government receives a percentage of fee paid to T.D.I, by Lansing and Bagnall.

Fuel Equalisation Scheme (Question No. 650)

Senator Jessop:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Police and Customs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that people living at the opal mining town of Coober Pedy in South Australia have to pay 84.4 cents per gallon for supergrade motor spirit, 81.7 cents per gallon for standard petrol, 41 cents per gallon for diesel fuel and on credit 42.S cents per gallon (duty free) and 72.7 cents per gallon (not duty free); if so does the Minister realise that because of such high costs many miners are unable to afford to use much of their equipment.
  2. Will the Minister give favourable consideration to reintroducing the fuel equalisation scheme to reduce the cost of fuel, in view of the serious financial problems facing the miners, as the cost of petrol increased by 12 cents per gallon when the subsidy was discontinued.

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

  1. and (2) 1 am aware that the termination of the Petroleum Products Subsidy Scheme has resulted in an increase in the cost of some petroleum products, including petrol and distillate, in certain country areas. The amount of subsidy payable on petrol sold at Coober Pedy was 11.6 cents per gallon, and on distillate 7.6 cents per gallon, when the Subsidy Scheme ceased operation on 1 August 1974.

While fully appreciating that the increased fuel costs which followed abolition of the Subsidy Scheme are significant in some more remote areas, the Government is convinced that there was no overall economic or social justification for continuance of the Scheme.

Whilst the Scheme partly subsidised the transport costs of some petroleum products in particular areas of Australia the community in general bore the cost of this subsidy. The community does not bear the costs of transporting other essential products such as building materials, food, clothing, machinery, liquefied gas and so on, and there is no special reason why it should do so in the case of petrol and other petroleum fuels.

If the subsidy had not been removed the Government would have been obliged either to set taxation at a higher level or to make corresponding reductions in other, better justified areas of expenditure.

Sale of Uranium

Senator Wriedt: On 27 May 1975 Senator Marriott asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, without notice, whether Australia has agreed to sell uranium to any foreign country and, if so, with what countries and for what quantities have the contracts been made.

The Minister for Minerals and Energy has advised me that various uranium contracts were approved by the former Government prior to 2 December 1972- and some of them only just prior to that date- for the export of uranium to foreign countries. The quantity of uranium to be exported pursuant to the approvals of the former Government is 9045 tonnes of uranium for Japan, United States of America, and the Federal Republic of Germany. No new export contracts have been approved since the Labor Government came to office.

The Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam

Senator Willesee:
ALP

– On 11 June 1975, Senator Sim asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following question, without notice:

As the Government has recognised the Provisional Revolutionary Government as the Government of the Republic of South Vietnam I ask: Is it a fact that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam has not recognised the PRG as the Government of the Republic of South Vietnam? Is it also a fact that the administration of South Vietnam is being conducted by North Vietnamese military forces and not the PRG? Is the Minister aware that all indications are that the control of South Vietnam will be exercised by the People’s Revolutionary Party of South Vietnam, referred to by North Vietnam as the Southern Party, and that the PRG has never been more than a shadow organisation with no right of independent action? When will the Government recognise the realities of the situation in South Vietnam?

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

While the DRV has not made any announcement of its recognition of the PRG, it considers the PRG to be a separate government. The DRV relationship with the PRG is regarded as special and not on a par with the position of other governments whose recognition of the PRG it nevertheless supports. The PRG has a Special Representative in Hanoi who is in charge of Southern interests.

The city of Saigon is being administered by a Military Management Committee. Other areas of South Vietnam appear to be administered by similar military management committees or by People’s Revolutionary Committees. No details of the composition of these Committees are available.

The PRG is the executive arm of the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF) which was established in 1960 and is a coalition of three South Vietnamese political parties, one of which is the People’s Revolutionary Party (PRP)

At least sixty-five countries have recognised the PRG. Before it assumed power on 30 April, the PRG was recognised by forty-six countries. Since then many other countries have recognised it. These include Britain, Burma, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, India, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Pakistan, Sweden and Thailand. In addition, a number of Governments claim that they recognise states not governments and therefore that the question of recognition does not apply. Included in these are France, Belgium and Switzerland, all of which have announced their intention to establish diplomatic relations with the PRG.

The recognition of a government implies nothing more than the acceptance that the government is the government of the country. We accept that there are two legal entities in Vietnam, the one the DRV in North Vietnam and the other South Vietnam. The PRG is the only government now claiming to be the government in South Vietnam. In recognising it the Australian Government was recognising the realities in South Vietnam. The only alternatives to recognising the PRG were either to continue to recognise a government- the Government of the Republic of Vietnam- which all acknowledge went out of existence on 30 April, or to recognise a government- the Government of the DRV- which makes no claim to be the Government of South Vietnam. To have followed either of those courses would have been absurd precisely because neither would have recognised the realities of the situation in South Vietnam.

Vietnamese Refugees

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 10 June 1975 (Hansard page 2389) Senator Sim, Western Australia, asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration How far have the guidelines laid down by the Prime Minister prevented South Vietnamese refugees from entering Australia on humanitarian grounds? Does the Minister accept the fact that South Vietnamese refugees pose a great human problem and that Australia has a role to play in alleviating this problem?’ The Minister undertook to convey the honourable senator’s question to the Prime Minister, who has provided the following information.

The guidelines which I laid down for the admission of refugees from South Vietnam take into account those categories of people who have had the closest links with Australia, i.e. designated categories of relatives of people in Australia and people with long and close associations with the Australian presence in Vietnam.

This policy has in fact provided for the entry of more people from Vietnam than the number who have arrived to date. Many of those eligible for entry were not able to take advantage of our offer to fly them to Australia because they could not obtain the travel documents required by the then Government in Saigon for them to leave South Vietnam. Since the change of Government in Saigon, the Australian Government has worked actively to assist those who were able to leave South Vietnam and are eligible for entry to come to Australia. Immigration officers have been sent to such places as Guam and Hong Kong and the Government has provided aircraft to bring approved cases to Australia, the most recent instance being the airlift of 201 refugees from Hong Kong. As I explained in my answer on 5 June 1975 (House of Representatives Hansard page 3403), the criteria for the admission of” refugees from Vietnam to Australia are wider than the criteria which applied to migrants from Vietnam before the change of Government in that country and than those applying to evacuees from Vietnam who are now within American jurisdiction.

The Government has consistently maintained that an international effort under the direction of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who has the experience and respect required to carry out a humane and effective program, offers the best solution to the difficult problem of repatriating or resettling refugees from South Vietnam. In early May the Government approached the UNHCR to urge that a co-ordinated international program be adopted. Since then we have been in continual contact with the UNHCR about the resettlement of refugees. Only recently, on 20 June, I announced a further grant of $A1m to the UNHCR in response to a request for money to meet the costs for maintaining and resettling or repatriating Vietnamese and Cambodians who are temporarily resident in a number of Asian countries and America. This brought to $A3.5m the total of Australian grants to the UNHCR ‘s Indo-China operations in financial year 1974-75 and to $A4.75m the amount that Australia has contributed to all international agencies over the same period for humanitarian relief in the area. In addition to this Australia has provided RAAF Hercules aircraft for ferrying humanitarian relief supplies in South Vietnam. The Australian Government has been both humane and generous in responding to the plight of refugees from Vietnam and has, I believe, made a significant contribution to alleviating the hardships they have experienced.

Newspaper Advertisement (Question No. 499)

Senator Chaney:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of (a) the metropolitan daily papers in each State and Territory; (b) the major provincial papers in each State and Territory; (c) the ethnic papers; (d ) the weekend press; and the trade union press, in which the advertisement which included a photograph or other representation of the previous Attorney-General appeared, which was referred to in the answer to Senate Question No. 445.
  2. On how many occasions did the advertisement appear in each such publication and the Bulletin, and on what dates.
  3. What was the cost of the advertisements in each case.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) see the table below

    1. Metropolitan Daily Papers
  1. Weekend Press
  1. Trade Union Press
  1. The cost for placement of the advertisements was as follows:

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 July 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750715_senate_29_s64/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant