Senate
14 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1065

MINISTERIAL CHANGES AND ARRANGEMENTS

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

- Mr President, I inform the Senate that earlier today, His Excellency, the GovernorGeneral, accepted the resignation of the honourable R. F. X. Connor as Minister for Minerals and Energy. His Excellency subsequently directed and appointed me to hold the office of Minister for Minerals and Energy.

page 1065

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Fraser Island

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 natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the world natural heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. That the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and
  2. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

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

Petition received.

Fraser Island

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 natural environment of Fraser Island is so outstanding that it should be identified as part of the world natural heritage, and whereas the Island should be conserved for the enjoyment of this and future generations,

Your petitioners humbly pray that the members, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:

  1. . That the Australian Government uses its constitutional powers to prohibit the export of any mineral sands from Fraser Island, and
  2. that the Australian Government uses its constitutional authority to assist the Queensland Government and any other properly constituted body to develop and conserve the recreational, educational and scientific potentials of the natural environment of Fraser Island for the long term benefit of the people of Australia.

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

Petition received.

page 1065

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I preface my remarks by saying that I regard the Minister as an honest and honourable man.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

Senator WITHERS:

-I do, as do all honourable senators on the Opposition side. I ask: Is not the Minister concerned at the dishonesty, deception and corruption of the Government as illustrated by the latest developments in the sordid overseas loans scandal? Does the Minister not agree that the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, must take responsibility for these atrocious events? Is the Minister, like all Australians, ashamed and contemptuous of the actions of the Prime Minister a man anxious to take the credit when things go right, but the first to run for cover when things go wrong? Is he not disgusted at the way in which the Prime Minister evades his responsibility by sacking, removing or demoting his own friends and colleagues Mr Crean, Dr Cairns, Mr Barnard, Mr Cameron, Dr Cass, Mr Cope, Mr Bryant, the then Senator Murphy and now Mr Connor to name just a few. Finally I ask: As an honest and honourable man, will not the Leader of the Government in the Senate do the honest and honourable thing and refuse to serve under a Prime Minister who, to use an expression well known to members of the Australian Labor Party, rats on his mates and is interested only in saving himself?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I would think that the last person who could be described as one who would run for cover would be the Prime Minister. I suggest, with great respect, to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that depending on what he and his colleagues may be doing over the next few days, they may well have cause to find that out in the weeks ahead. Allegations against this Government concerning the loans issue have been debated in this chamber on many occasions. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments. I wish only to make this one comment: On many occasions the Opposition has been invited to establish some credibility for its argument that anything improper or illegal has been done by this Government in respect of those matters. After all this passage of time and the inability of the Opposition or anybody else, for that matter, to produce that evidence, I suggest that the matter ought to be allowed to rest there.

page 1066

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question concerning Senator Greenwood’s assertion that Mr Justice Murphy had been guilty of disgraceful conduct in connection with the High Court’s decision on Senate representation for the Territories. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether there have been any other examples of judges who had formerly been members of the Australian Parliament sitting on cases involving legislation with which they may have been directly or indirectly involved as members of Parliament?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The first 5 justices of the High Court of Australia were all former politicians. They were Chief Justice Griffith, Justices Barton, O’Connor, Isaacs and Higgins. All but Mr Justice Griffith were members of the first Federal Parliament. They decided cases on legislation which they had earlier voted on and on the Constitution which they had drafted and voted on. Justices Evatt, McTiernan, Chief Justice Latham, Chief Justice Barwick and Justice Murphy were also members of the Federal Parliament. They have sat on and decided cases on laws they helped to make in the Parliament. A former Liberal Party senator and Attorney-General, Sir John Spicer, who was responsible for drafting the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and setting up the Commonwealth Industrial Court was appointed by the Liberal Government of which he was a member as the Court’s first Chief Judge in 1956 and has continued from then on to pass judgment on his own legislation. No one from any side of politics has ever objected to that situation.

Of the present High Court, Chief Justice Barwick and Justice Murphy were AttorneysGeneral of Australia and Justice Mason was Solicitor-General of Australia. In those capacities, each of those 3 men necessarily gave advice to their governments on the interpretation and constitutionality of numerous laws and proposed laws. If they were not to sit on matters in which they had given relevant advice to the governments then in office, very little work would have been done in the High Court. The fact is that each of them and the other justices before them were appointed to the Court, acted for numerous persons and bodies and gave advice on aspects of the Constitution and the laws which are constantly coming before the High Court.

I recall that many years ago- in 1922, as a matter of fact- 2 justices of the High Court, Chief Justice Knox and Mr Justice Starke, sat to determine the constitutionality issue in the actual case in which they had previously appeared as counsel. There are cases in England in which the same thing occurred. In the famous constitutional case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall presided over the United States Supreme Court and ruled on the validity of events in which he had participated as Secretary of State

It should be noted that in the case of which Senator Greenwood complains each of the 7 judges held that all the procedures in section 57 of the Constitution for passing the Senate Representation Bill at the Joint Sitting were observed. That is apparent from the order of the Court. It is absurd to suggest that Justice Murphy should not rule on whether, apart from the method of its passing, the Act was constitutional. In that respect, the case was no different from the one concerning the constitutionality of any one of the hundreds of Acts which were passed during the period of each of the former advisers to the government who now sit on the High Court. The outburst by Senator Greenwood is explained by his notorious paranoia in all matters concerning Mr Justice Murphy.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr President, I rise to take a point of order. I object to the term paranoia’ being used against Senator Greenwood. I take the gravest objection to the term being used against my colleague, Senator Greenwood, a previous Attorney-General, because it has an accurate, specific meaning which is unfounded and unsubstantiated but which is characteristic of the usual allegations made by Senator James McClelland. Mr President, I ask you to rule on this matter and direct that Senator James McClelland withdraw the word.

The PRESIDENT:

– On previous occasions I have ruled that when a request is made by another senator for the withdrawal of some word to which exception has been taken, I should leave it to the honourable senator to take appropriate action.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Are you directing him to withdraw?

The PRESIDENT:

– I leave it to the Minister to take the appropriate action.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I believe that the term that I used is so amply demonstrated by the persistent conduct of Senator Greenwood that no withdrawal is called for.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr President, I rise to say that not only has the Minister not given an unqualified withdrawal but also he has refused to acknowledge the proprieties that exist in the Senate. I ask you to direct the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Senator James McClelland, to withdraw the word completely and absolutely.

The PRESIDENT:

– Replying to the point of order that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has raised, I believe that the comment that was made during the course of the answer to the question was a political comment and that it takes its place amongst a number of other words that have not been previously listed as being unparliamentary. I rule in that way.

page 1067

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate intend to make clear to the Senate and to the Australian public by way of a statement the reasons for the dismissal or resignation of the former Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor? If that former Minister has resigned does his resignation inform the Parliament that the statements regarding the overseas loans affair and his dealings with Mr Khemlani and the statements he has made to the Parliament have in actual fact misled the Parliament? What is the reason for the dismissal? Is it due to the incompetence of the former Minister, due to the fact that he has misled the Parliament -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Ask a question, Senator Webster, and do not make a comment.

Senator WEBSTER:

– … or because he has misled the Australian Labor Party Caucus?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The resignation of Mr Connor is a matter between Mr Connor and the Prime Minister. The resignation has been accepted. I do not know whether the Prime Minister intends to make any public comment on it. It is purely a matter for him to decide.

page 1067

QUESTION

POSTAL SERVICE

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. What progress has been made by the Australian Postal Commission in its plans to regionalise mail centres and what advantages are foreseen in the decentralisation of mail services?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The first of the 12 mail centres that are to form the new network around Australia was established at Blackburn in the Melbourne metropolitan area in August last. Another centre will be opening at Geelong later this month. A further one will be opening at Ballarat in April 1976. There are plans to set up similar organisations in New South Wales and Queensland. The advantages are, of course, the greater reliability of the network in facilitating the direct interchange of mail between the centres, the flexibility in meeting variations in growth and the smaller working groups in more congenial organisations. The concept, of course, is one that derives from the recommendations of the Vernon Committee.

page 1067

QUESTION

ACTU-SOLO ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Does he recall the finding of the Royal Commission on Petroleum which criticised the integrity and honesty of the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Souter? Does he recall that the finding of that Commission was made without hearing Mr Connor and on the basis that Mr Connor had been deceived? Does he and the Government now accept the assurance of the Secretary of the ACTU that the Government was not deceived over the price being paid by ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd for its crude oil allocation?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I ask that that question be placed on the notice paper.

page 1067

QUESTION

CHRISTMAS MAIL RATES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I would like to direct another question to the Postmaster-General on the subject of concessional rates for Christmas mail. I ask: Has the Postmaster-General seen a suggestion published in the Press- I read it today- that aerograms with traditional Christmas greetings be produced in several languages at a reduced rate of postage? I think it was implicit in the article that it be done through the postal services. Has this been considered by the Australian Postal Commission?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-Yes, I have seen the article. Already a decision has been made that an aerogram depicting a biblical scene, which we think will be acceptable to the public generally, will be on sale from the end of October 1975 until 1 December at a cost of 25c. This compares more than favourably with the ordinary charge of 45c for a letter to England. It was decided not to produce the article in multiple languages because of the large number of ethnic groups in Australia and the danger of offending some of these groups.

page 1068

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Minerals and Energy, as a first step in his new portfolio, demand all files, papers and documents in his Department relating to the attempts to raise loans overseas? Will the Minister table these documents in the Senate as soon as they come into his possession? If not, why not?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is difficult to go over these matters all the time and to repeat the challenge which has been made to the Opposition for it to produce the evidence which would justify any such action being taken by me or any other Minister for Minerals and Energy. That is precisely the position. I would not undertake to seek documents as asked by Senator Guilfoyle. I believe that it is up to the Opposition to establish a case of some illegal or improper conduct on behalf of the Government.

page 1068

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to reports that Australian citizens are supplying arms to Fretilin forces and are helping Fretilin forces on the ground in Portuguese Timor? Can he confirm whether there is any truth to these allegations?

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

-I have seen these reports. We have no information which would confirm these reports. The export of arms to Portuguese Timor would not be permitted by the Government and we have taken steps to make sure that any proposed exports are prevented. We are checking with the Portuguese authorities as to the basis of these reports. We would regard it as absolutely deplorable if there were any substance in them. We do not favour the involvment of Australians in a private capacity in any military activity abroad.

page 1068

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. If the Government has done nothing illegal or improper in relation to the overseas loans matter, why is it that all the Ministers involved in the Executive Council meeting of 1 3 December last have now been removed from the Ministry with the exception of one only, the surviving Prime Minister?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I would have thought that Senator Rae was sufficiently aware of the history of events over the last few months to know the answer to that question. I would have thought he would remember that Senator Murphy was appointed to the High Court. I would also have thought that he would recall that Dr Cairns was dismissed from the Ministry by the Prime Minister and that Mr Connor has put in his resignation and it has been accepted. They are the reasons why those three Ministers are no longer members of the Ministry.

page 1068

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation whether he has seen reports in the Waverley Gazette of a debate organised to discuss the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation? Did he note that the Liberal member for Bruce declined to debate this issue with the endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate for the seat of Bruce which area the newspaper covers? Is he able to provide some information on who eventually debated this subject with the Labor Party candidate? Is this further evidence of the close collaboration now taking place between the Opposition and the insurance companies in their doomed attempts to destroy the social welfare initiatives of this Government? Is there anything in the report which gives demonstrably false information about the insurance companies?

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-My attention has been drawn to the Waverly Gazette by a number of interested readers of that journal. I have seen the reports of a debate which took place. My information is that the endorsed Labor candidate for Bruce was asked to debate the issue of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation with the present member for Bruce whose name would still be familiar to some honourable senators opposite. The honourable member for Bruce declined to take part in the discussion but, in the interchangeable way which they apparently have, a senior functionary of the National Mutual Life Association represented the Life and General Insurance Committee and/or the Liberal Party in the debate.

The representative of the Life and General Insurance Committee, a Mr Ferres, did misinform his audience, as reported in the Waverley Gazette, when he said that insurance companies provided about 50 per cent of all investment funds for the business community through premium income. In fact, any examination of the statistics about investment by insurance companies throughout Australia shows that that is a gross exaggeration of the kind one is becoming used to from these sources. In fact, the statistics show that life insurance companies have invested something like 14.3 per cent in the assets of financial institutions and 6.6 per cent are controlled by non-life insurance companies. It is absolute nonsense therefore to say that they are responsible for 50 per cent of the investment. I believe that this is a further instance of the collaboration between the Liberal Party and the insurance companies and the manner in which the life and other insurance offices spend their policy-holders’ money on appearing for the Liberal Party in campaigns of this sort.

page 1069

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for

Minerals and Energy whether he will take immediate steps to ascertain what negotiations, if any, have been going on with Mr Khemlani by the former Minister for Minerals and Energy since 20 May and to determine the present state of any such negotiations?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The answer to the honourable senator’s question is no, I will not.

page 1069

QUESTION

NUCLEAR MEDICINE CONGRESS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Special Minister of State aware that the Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, proposes to sponsor a regional conference in nuclear medicine to provide a scientific forum for scientists from Asian and Pacific countries who are unable to attend other similar international meetings? Can the Minister say whether special funds have been sought from the Australian Government towards meeting the costs of holding the conference and, if so, with what result?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand that it is intended to hold the first Asian and Oceania Congress on Nuclear Medicine in Sydney in September of next year. Representations were made to me in my capacity as Special Minister of State for a contribution towards the conference by the Australian Government. The matter was considered by me, by my colleague, the Federal Treasurer, and, I think from recollection, by my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, those Ministers being the committee of Ministers who are responsible for handling matters of this nature. I can advise the honourable senator with pleasure that the Australian Government has approved a grant of $10,000 towards the cost of holding the conference in Sydney.

page 1069

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Minerals and Energy undertake to take no part in raising loans overseas and will he refer to the Treasury any person contacting him with respect to loans? If the Minister’s answer is yes, will he advise the Senate on what basis, other than faith in the integrity of the Minister as an individual, the Senate and the Australian people can have confidence in such undertakings from Ministers of this Government in the light of the conflicting statements made by Mr Connor and Mr Khemlani with respect to the history of attempts to raise loans overseas?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The Prime Minister made an announcement some months ago, quite clearly, that all matters concerning overseas raising of loan funds are the direct responsibility of the Treasurer and no other person. That is the policy that stands, and I am quite sure that as Minister for Minerals and Energy it would not be part of my function to raise loan moneys on behalf of any of my ministerial responsibilities. That is strictly a matter for the Treasurer and I accept his authority.

page 1069

QUESTION

FLAMMABLE NIGHTWEAR

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Police and Customs seen Press reports indicating that some State governments intend to ban the manufacture and sale of children’s nightwear made from fabrics of high fire hazard? Does the Minister intend to introduce controls to prohibit the importation of children’s nightwear made from such fabrics?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Police and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have seen reports that Victoria has imposed a ban on the production and sale of flammable nightwear and that New South Wales is considering the matter. My Department administers regulations which provide that imported children’s nightwear shall be marked to indicate the extent of the in flammability of the material. Those regulations are in accordance with standards issued by the Standards Association of Australia. The Government cannot see the value of prohibiting the importation of children’s flammable nightwear while it can be manufactured and sold in Australia under State laws. If the ban on the production and sale of flammable nightwear extends to all States then the Government certainly will stop the importation of such goods. I am having discussions with my colleague the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs on the question of introducing complete import control of this material.

page 1070

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. When did the Prime Minister have this sudden access to knowledge that it was the function of the Treasurer to raise overseas loans? Is it not a fact that when the Government gave its definite authority for the Khemlani $4,000m loan, it was by Executive Council meeting on 13 December presided over by the Prime Minister? Did not the Secretary of the Treasury then, in the words of Mr Connor reported in Hansard at page 361 1, strongly object to the inclusion of the Treasurer and did not the Prime Minister name the Minister for Minerals and Energy as the person authorised to borrow the money? Further, did not the Prime Minister say in the House of Representatives on 9 July that the reason why. the then Treasurer, Dr Cairns, was dismissed and that Mr Connor was not was that Mr Connor was authorised to raise the loan and that the Treasurer had no authority to intervene in such a matter?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am quite sure that the Prime Minister has been aware for a long time of the authority of the Treasurer to raise loan moneys overseas. If Senator Wright had been careful in his homework he would know that during the currency of this Government irrespective of authorities issued to Mr Connor by the Executive Council, the Treasurer and his predecessors have negotiated loans on behalf of the Australian Government. That is, the Treasurer has done that. Even during the currency of all the propaganda and the smokescreen raised by the Opposition over the past few months on this matter, a loan for $ 100m was negotiated by the Australian Government on the New York market, quite distinct from any loans under the authority issued to Mr Connor.

page 1070

QUESTION

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is the attack by Senator Greenwood on Mr Justice Murphy another breach of convention in that it has always been the rule in this Senate that no senator should criticise the Crown or the judiciary? What action can be taken, either inside or outside the Parliament, against this reprehensible act?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-To adopt a currently fashionable term, it would be hard to imagine anything more reprehensible than the attack made by Senator Greenwood on Mr

Justice Murphy. It is especially reprehensible, coming from a lawyer and a former AttorneyGeneral. It has always been a convention, as I have understood it, that lawyers do not choose a privileged occasion to attack judges. It is certainly a cowardly act, seeing that His Honour is in no position to reply. I would think that it is also characterised by the sort of selectivity that I mentioned in that Senator Greenwood reserved his barbs for one judge but omitted mention of many others who could equally have been charged with a breach of duty or disgraceful conduct, as Senator Greenwood has said. I think that in addition to the way I categorised it earlier, which aroused the ire of Sir Magnus Cormack, I would say that this action and all such actions of Senator Greenwood are based primarily on jealousy of Mr Justice Murphy’s great achievements as a legislator in this place. As to possible remedies, Senator Greenwood would know that his statement undoubtedly constitutes contempt of court, but I would be surprised if the judges of the High Court did not take the view that his remarks were beneath contempt.

page 1070

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to his emphatic and unqualified statement during the July debate on the overseas loans affair that all relevant information and all relevant documents had been made available to the Parliament, the Senate and the public. In view of the current revelation that a considerable volume of highly significant documents and material available then were withheld from the Parliament and the Senate and that the Senate was gravely misled on this matter, what explanation does the Leader of the Government now offer for his July statements? Does the Minister still assert, as he did then, that the then Minister for Minerals and Energy was wholly forthcoming in his statements, disclosures and documents in July?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It would appear, as has been stated in the House of Representatives, that all the information of substance which one assumed had been tabled in the Parliament may not have been tabled. In both Houses of Parliament, Ministers accept in good faith the information and the material which is forwarded to them. I believe it is unfortunate that it has to be conceded that some material which could have been made available to the Parliament was at that time presumably not made available.

Senator Webster:

– What an apology!

Senator WRIEDT:

– It is not an apology. It is not intended to be an apology. I certainly would not be apologising to Senator Webster. The fact is that the Prime Minister has indicated his position in respect of Mr Connor in relation to these matters and action has been taken accordingly.

page 1071

QUESTION

DRUG SMUGGLING BY AIR

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Police and Customs: Is it a fact that the volume of passengers travelling to and from Australia by international aircraft continues to increase? Is it a fact also that we hear reports of upward trends in drug smuggling generally and particular instances of drug syndicates utilising air couriers to import drugs? Does the Minister accept that the staff of the Department of Police and Customs must be on the horns of a dilemma? On the one hand, they have to increase the rate of processing passengers and on the other hand they have to exercise more stringent controls in order to stop illicit drug importations. If this is the case, what steps has the Department taken to overcome the problem?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– It is a very serious problem in view of the great increase in the number of passengers arriving in and departing from Australia by all means of transport, particularly air. The number of arrests on charges of illicitly smuggling drugs into Australia indicates an increase in smuggling. To try to co-ordinate a thorough check and an expedition of entry of passengers through customs, my Department has introduced a new system of processing at international airports. Computer services will be greatly used. The Department has introduced a new passenger statement, with a tick box system in 5 languages. It has abolished the requirement for passengers to make an oral declaration. It has introduced a quarantine channel to facilitate the entry of passengers who are bringing in luggage that may be subject to quarantine.

In regard to the selection of baggage to be examined, today the Department does not examine all baggage but selects baggage which, on some information, it may be suggested is suspect and should be selected. It selects other baggage at random on a computerised basis. The incoming passenger never knows the occasion on which his bags will be subjected to a thorough check. The new system is intended to reduce the number of baggage examinations on low risk passengers but places greater emphasis on the more sophisticated detection of high risk passengers. Despite this, I think it must be accepted that some drugs are coming in with overseas passengers. We do not know how we can reduce that inflow although I think the illicit drug traffic in

Australia is not all coming from overseas passenger luggage.

page 1071

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the new Minister for Minerals and Energy. Will he be accepting all the responsibilities of the previous Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, including those relating to any financial commitments entered into with Mr Khemlani or his associates involved directly or indirectly in the overseas loans affair? Will the Minister state whether there are any such financial commitments? If so, what are they?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I would have thought that the reply which I gave Senator Chaney was sufficient to answer that question. I said that I do not see my role as being one responsible for raising funds overseas, outside the authority of the Treasurer.

Senator Young:

– I am not talking about future commitments; I am talking about the commitments made by the previous Minister.

Senator WRIEDT:

-That is not a question which I would attempt to answer. If Senator Young would like me to give some consideration to it, I suggest that he put it on notice.

page 1071

QUESTION

FAILURE OF HELICOPTER ENGINE

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence. I refer to reports concerning engine failure of a Royal Australian Air Force Chinook helicopter which crashed at Amberley some time ago. Are the restrictions which were imposed on the aircraft at the time still in force? What has been the effect on RAAF operations?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– There was a forced landing by a Chinook helicopter in about June at Amberley. It was severely damaged. Following the accident, an interim restriction of 100 hours flying time was placed on all engines in service, pending an investigation of the cause of the engine failure which had resulted from a failure of a bolt in the power turbine area. The cause of the failure has been resolved. The interim restriction on engines which have been inspected and cleared for normal overhauls has been lifted. There was some slight effect on squadron operations, but they have now returned to normal.

page 1071

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– As a person with only a passing knowledge of the game of chess, I would not be able to answer that question.

page 1072

QUESTION

BIRDS AT SYDNEY AIRPORT

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. In view of earlier failures associated with the use of falcons to combat seagulls at the Sydney Airport- some of the falcons went A.W.L. to Adelaide- I ask the Minister whether the new falconer and his birds will be paid only on results achieved.

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I am not an expert on birds. Senator Mulvihill asked me to obtain information about the success or otherwise of the use of falcons to combat the seagull problem. I have not been able to get any information about the question regarding Adelaide, but I am now told that currently a series of trials are being done by professional men from the United Kingdom who have had wide experience in the operation and handling of these birds at aerodromes in that country. We can never really be sure whether the use of these birds will be successful because much depends on whether the operators are amateurs or professionals. I have been told that there may be some difficulty in training the birds to adapt to our Australian conditions. The choice of birds is another factor. The birds have to be young enough to train but at the same time old enough to have had some hunting experience. The trials are expected to be completed in December this year or January next year. The information from the Department is that the use of these birds is regarded as successful in other countries, and we expect the same thing to happen in Australia.

page 1072

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Does the Minister for Labor and Immigration recall saying on the television program This Day Tonight on 15 July 1975 that The public knows all that it needs to know about the loans affair … all that it needs to be told’? Does he adhere to that view, or did the Prime Minister merely tell him all that he needed to know? Is Mr Connor just another sacrifice on the altar of the Prime Minister’s ego, and is this another attempt to deceive the Australian public on this whole sordid and scandalous affair?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am certainly enjoying a vintage example of pious selfrectitude from the Opposition today. I cannot say that I keep a note of my ipsissima verba every time I appear on the box, but I would not resile from the accusation that is uttered by the honourable senator, that I may have used the words ‘all that the public needs to know’.

Senator Missen:

– You did.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I agree that I probably did say those words. Since I have said them I regret having said them because I did not intend the words in the way in which they were interpreted. If Senator Sim had more experience of appearing on television he would know that you do not always have the opportunity to utter the mot juste; that you sometimes do not choose your words as wisely as you would like. I welcome this opportunity of conceding that it was an unfortunate choice of words, and that I did not mean it in the way that it has been taken. I do not for one moment suggest that the public is not entitled to know everything about a matter about which some doubt may have been raised.

page 1072

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Social Security in his regular study of that strange journal the AMA Gazette read an article advising doctors not to include a provider code on their stationery and claim forms? Can he inform us what will be the result of such irresponsible action on the functioning of the Health Insurance Commission and on its operating costs?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes, I have seen the copy of the AMA Gazette to which Senator Grimes has referred. I have seen the article to which the honourable senator refers in which the Australian Medical Association apparently advises its members not to include the provider code on the forms which they submit to the Health Insurance Commission on their stationery. For a number of reasons, including a need to see that there is accuracy in the computer assessments of Medibank claims, it is necessary to give to each doctor and other providers of services which are covered by Medibank and listed on the item fee schedule, a reference number which is referred to as the ‘provider code’. As each Medibank claim is prepared for computer processing, it is necessary to look up the provider code on a listing and then write the number on the claim. Because provider coding is causing quite long delays in the processing of claims, a number of improvements in the methods of coding are under examination.

On 15 September last, nearly 22 000 letters were sent to doctors. As at 29 September, the number of favourable responses had reached only 5300. But it is still quite a substantial number of replies within such a short period from doctors who were prepared to carry out these suggestions. It has been estimated that for each doctor participating in this proposal, Medibank would save up to $340 a year in clerical costs. The doctors who have replied to this letter have displayed considerable co-operation. It is unfortunate that other doctors are not doing so. It is apparent that despite the imploring of the AMA, through its gazette, to doctors to take part in the sabotage of Medibank, the majority of doctors are patriotic citizens who do not wish to disrupt the economy of this country and who wish to see that the laws of the country are carried out effectively and are providing this information.

page 1073

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Did the Minister today, in answer to a question from Senator Carrick earlier, regarding the exit from Cabinet of Mr R. F. X. Connor, state that the Prime Minister took action to obtain Mr Connor’s resignation? Is it also true that the Australian Labor Party Caucus confirmed this Whitlam activity by about fifty-five votes to twenty five?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I can only say, as I have indicated earlier, that Mr Connor submitted his resignation; it has been accepted by the Prime Minister and by the Parliamentary Labor Party.

Senator Rae:

– You said that the Prime Minister took action.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I may have misunderstood Senator Marriott’s question. He asks did I say whether the Prime Minister took action?

Senator Marriott:

– That is right.

Senator WRIEDT:

– That is a question which I will refer to the Prime Minister.

page 1073

QUESTION

CHARGES AGAINST ABORIGINES

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Did the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs see the Australian Broadcasting Commission Four Corners program at the weekend, which reported that a number of Northern Territory Aborigines had been detained on a rape and assault charge and had signed statements to this effect when in fact it was proven that the charges were specious and that the method of obtaining the statements was questionable? I ask: Is this a common police practice in the Northern Territory when dealing with Aborigines?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I saw the segment on the Four Corners program on Sunday. I asked my Department to obtain some information on the allegations in the segment. This information was provided just before question time. It is a telex some 6 feet long and gives some explanation from the police at Alice Springs. I have not yet had time to see the telex. The Department has promised to get it into readable form and bring it back to me this afternoon. I do not think that the suggestion was that the evidence was false. The suggestion in the segment on television was that there was an open confession by 12 people who had raped and inflicted injuries on a girl who subsequently died. The Reverend Downing pointed out that the confession could not have been of Aboriginal origin insofar as it used words that Aborigines would not know and gave information that Aborigines would not have.

The medical evidence, as suggested by the segment, was that the girl died from injuries inflicted some 4 hours before death. Of course the rape had taken place some 24 hours prior to death. Thus there had been a confession by 12 Aboriginal males to something that they could not have done. I believe also that the evidence suggested that the girl had never been raped. This shows that there is some method of detailing and presenting Aboriginal confessions which are not true. I do not know whether these are the true facts of the case. I have asked my Department as soon as possible to get the whole transcript of the evidence presented to see whether there was any travesty of justice in the method of presentation of the case. I note that the Aborigines were not convicted. The charge was dismissed. During the next fortnightly parliamentary recess I will go to Alice Springs to have discussions with the Reverend Downing and the police to see whether it is possible to get a better and more accurate system of law enforcement between the citizens, the police and the Aboriginal communities at Alice Springs.

page 1073

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Did the Leader of the Government in the Senate hear the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program AM today in which he said that the Government is prepared for an election and in which the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hawke, in his usual dulcet and endearing tones, said that the Australian Labor Party is not prepared for an election? Will the Minister inform the Senate which statement is correct?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

- Mr President, mine.

page 1074

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Special Minister of State seen a Press report in the Age newspaper of 13 September that the methods now being adopted by the Prices Justification Tribunal as regards retail prices will result in higher prices to provide higher profit margins for those companies? How would he reconcile this with the function of the Tribunal to maintain restraint on prices?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have seen the report referred to by the honourable senator. While I do not disagree with much of the article, I think that the particular point that the honourable senator has raised as coming from the article is based on a misconception. The Prices Justification Tribunal’s approach to the retail trade is set out in chapter 3 of its last annual report. It is clear from that chapter that the Tribunal has made quite some progress with what is an extremely difficult problem of dealing with price changes that occur in the multitude of retail trade items. What the Tribunal now does is to obtain forward budgets from the major retailers dealing with their overall retail business arrangements together with budgets for certain specified merchandise categories. These budgets are then examined and must be approved by the Tribunal. However, if the Tribunal considers that lower profit margins than those that have been notified to it ought to apply, the companies have the option either to accept the Tribunal’s recommendations or to have the matter examined at a public inquiry by the Tribunal. A general comment on the matter is contained on page 1 7 of the Tribunal’s annual report and is as follows:

Overall, the new exemptions considerably improve the Tribunal’s surveillance of the major retailers’ operations with little requirement for information not normally compiled by the companies in the course of their business operations.

Therefore, having mentioned that I do not disagree with much of the article, I point out that having regard to what is written in the annual report of the Prices Justification Tribunal, the article is based on a misconception.

page 1074

QUESTION

WHITLAM MINISTRY

Senator MISSEN:

– I direct a question to Senator Cavanagh, the Minister for Police and Customs, particularly Customs. As the Prime Minister is noted for his profound interest in alliteration and other aspects of the English language, I draw the Minister’s attention to the common sad experience connected with the names Cairns, Crean, Cope, Cameron, Cass and now Connor and ask: Does the Minister expect or fear uniformity of treatment for the remaining undiminished ministerial name of Cavanagh?

Senator Poyser:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. Under the Standing Orders no question can be accepted which is couched in ironical terms. Your predecessor ruled such questions out of order on many occasions.

The PRESIDENT:

– I rule that the honourable senator is seeking information.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I have no fears. There seems to have been some sounding of the death knell in relation to those in the Cabinet whose name begins with a C but they were not Irishmen. I think that is some protection on this occasion. I have not been criticised for my handling of the portfolio. Therefore I do not fear reprisals in the future as a result of having a name that starts with a ‘C. It is a name that, in accordance with Irish tradition, can at all times be commenced with a K as well.

page 1074

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to an article in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph quoting a report by the Victorian Employers Federation which has suggested that Australia’s 300 000 unemployed are costing the taxpayers nearly $1 lm a week?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes, not only has my attention been drawn to that article but also by a coincidence I have it with me. In replying to a question of a similar nature that was asked of me last week by Senator McAuliffe I told the Senate that there were not 300 000 people receiving unemployment benefit. Those are the unemployment statistics of the Department of Labor and Immigration, which relate to people who are seeking employment and who are not necessarily, by any means, people who are eligible to receive unemployment benefit. The number of people who are receiving unemployment benefit is considerably less than 200 000. The total number of people receiving unemployment benefit at the end of August was 1 70 927 and the total payments for those in receipt of unemployment benefit for the month of August was approximately $35m. I repeat that the level of unemployment is in no way reflected accurately by the figures that are provided by the Department of Labor and Immigration, and I say that in no way critically of my colleague or his Department. In fact, if one wishes to look at the true position- the position of those people who are unemployed in the sense that they are eligible to receive unemployment benefit- the figures that are provided by the Department of Social Security are a much more reliable guide to the total number of unemployed within the community and in fact the cost of unemployment benefit is considerably less than that which was claimed by the Murdoch Press’s Sydney newspaper.

page 1075

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WITHERS:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. A short while ago, in answer to a question from, I think, Senator Carrick, he said words to this effect: ‘The fact is that the Prime Minister has indicated his position in respect of Mr Connor relative to those matters and action has been taken accordingly’. I ask: If Mr Connor did not resign, what action did the Prime Minister take?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is my understanding that the Prime Minister had some discussions with Mr Connor last night. I repeat that Mr Connor submitted a resignation to the Prime Minister which was accepted.

page 1075

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer to estimates of the number of school leavers who will attempt to join the work force at the end of the year and ask: Are the estimates regularly revised at the Minister’s request? What is the present estimate? Does that vary from earlier estimates? Is there an estimate of the number who will return to school next year because they do not expect to be able to find jobs?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask that that question be put on the notice paper.

page 1075

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister for Social Security by reminding him that inflation continues to erode the value of pensions and ask: Is the Minister aware of rumours that the Government, perhaps because of a lack of ready money, does not now intend to increase pensions from 1 November, as promised? Will he deny those rumours and indicate when the Bills to authorise the new pension rates will come into the Senate to enable the new rates to apply from 1 November?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I have not heard these rumours. I do hear a lot during the course of the day but I am afraid these have not reached me.

Senator Rae:

– Have you been otherwise engaged?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I have been listening to other rumours, yes. The order of presentation of Bills before this chamber is in the hands of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate.

page 1075

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO DAIRYING INDUSTRY

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. In view of the announcement at the weekend of a fall of 10c a pound butterfat in milk for manufacture and also in view of the inevitability of some considerable reduction to dairy farmers’ incomes due to the world build-up in stocks of dried milk powder, has the Government any plans to assist this industry in what many reports indicate is a difficult period of some magnitude?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-A11 1 can say is that I had discussions with the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation and some dairy products manufacturers in Melbourne on Friday. They pointed out some of the problems arising from the fall in prices, particularly of powder, of which Senator Bessell will be well aware, and the effect that this will have on the equalisation arrangements. Certain proposals were put to me and I said that I and the Treasurer would consider them. It is true that the position of interim values for those products under equalisation is not promising at present and it is possible that the dairy industry will experience quite a tight period in the months ahead.

page 1075

QUESTION

DISMISSAL OF TEACHER

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration whom I refer to reports alleging that the employment of a New South Wales teacher, Mr Michael Clohessy, was terminated because of his public statement that he is a homosexual. Will the Minister cause investigation of this incident which appears to be in breach of section 1b of the International Labor Organisation Convention to which Australia is a signatory and which renounces all forms of discrimination in employment based, inter alia, on race, sex, religion and politics? Will the Minister ensure that the national and State committees on discrimination are empowered to act in such cases of totally reprehensible and unacceptable discrimination based on the sexuality of the person?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was not aware of the report to which the honourable senator has referred me but I will check its accuracy. Despite the prehistoric whistles which emerged from the other side of the chamber when this question was being asked, if it turns out to be true, 1 would regard it as an outrageous discrimination and would certainly refer it to the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation.

page 1076

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I rise claiming to have been misrepresented and seek leave to be heard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator James McClelland in certain replies which he gave to questions asked of him as Minister representing the Attorney-General. The answers he gave related to the circumstances and purpose of what I had said relating to the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy in sitting on the High Court and giving judgment in a matter in which he had been actively involved while he was a senator. Senator James McClelland used the occasion for an attack, an imputation of motives and an exercise in invective which can be judged for its worth by those who know both the background of Mr Justice Murphy and the circumstances in which he was appointed.

In the first place, the statement which I made was made publicly and outside privilege and the suggestion that it was made under privilege is unworthy of the Minister and contrary to the facts. It was a statement which was made in the exercise of the right of free speech which all citizens and persons engaged in politics possess and was warranted by the facts which I related. Those facts were set out for those who heard my final conclusion to judge for themselves. Unfortunately the Minister chose to use only those words I had used which he wanted to use, an exercise in selectivity for which he and his colleagues are renowned.

Secondly, it ought to be recalled, in the light of what he said, that Mr Justice Murphy had declined to sit upon the first constitutional case which the High Court heard after his appointment. In the Petroleum and Minerals Authority case the Chief Justice told the court before the hearing began that he had agreed to Mr Justice Murphy’s request not to participate in the case. He went on to say:

It is usual for the Bench on hearing a constitutional case to be composed of all Justices available to participate in the decision. Mr Justice Murphy has indicated to me that because of his earlier association with the subject matter of the proceedings we are about to hear, he does not regard himself as available to participate in the hearing and decision of this case. I have accepted this view.

That initial attitude which was expressed by Mr Justice Murphy was not carried through to subsequent cases of constitutional import on which he has sat, one alone of which has so far reached the point of judgment. The statement which I made ought to be looked at in the light of the statement enunciated by Dr Evatt in 1 948 when he said to the High Court in a case in which he was engaged and in which he challenged the position of some of the judges that the principle ought not to be denigrated from in the slightest degree that a judge should not have any association with the subject matter of the case. There is very much in the history of the High Court to the same effect.

The Minister’s reference to Sir Adrian Knox and Mr Justice Starke I think completely misrepresents the actual statement which those judges made in which they explained why, having regard to a provision that there should be at least 3 justices concurring in any constitutional case, they had to sit. These are matters, I know, which might be regarded as embarking upon a debating of the issue, and I therefore forbear from referring to other authorities of which there is a great number. All I desired to say by way of personal explanation was that the imputations of the Minister were ill-founded, that there was a very solid and basic ground for Mr Justice Murphy not sitting, and he should not have sat. I repeat under privilege what I said outside privilege, and that is that it was disgraceful conduct. My motivation in this was a concern for the standing of the judiciary, the upholding of judicial standards and acceptance of the law and the courts and the decisions of the courts throughout the community. That is a theme on which I have spoken on countless occasions, as I am sure the Minister well knows. If there are bad appointments of partisan politicians and highly controversial figures there is a risk of the standing of the law and of the courts being jeopardised.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I submit that Senator Greenwood has sought in vain to distinguish the case of Mr Justice Murphy from that of other distinguished judges whom 1 cited in my reply to the question I was asked earlier and who saw no conflict, no breach of judicial duty, in having advised governments and then having sat as judges in interpreting cases based on Acts on which they had advised governments. In fact, I cited the case of Chief Judge Spicer of the Australian Industrial Court who played a leading role in framing the statute which set up that Court and who has constantly sat since 1956 interpreting disputes based on the Act of which he was more or less the founding father. The case which Senator Greenwood has cited of Mr Justice Murphy requesting the Chief Justice that he should not sit on one of the earlier cases that came before the High Court concerning the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill, I suggest, is very persuasive evidence of the seriousness with which Mr Justice Murphy approaches his duties and the etiquette of the Court. The fact that Senator Greenwood cites it is, I think, some refutation of the attitude which he has taken towards Mr Justice Murphy. As Senator Greenwood has chosen to refer to the case which I cited that of Chief Justice Knox and Mr Justice Starke, sitting in a case in which they had actually been counsel I think I should set at rest any doubts that the Senate might entertain as to what sort of precedent is established by this case.

Senator Greenwood:

– Did you read what they said?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, and I should like to quote a section from the judgment of Mr Justice Starke.

Senator Greenwood:

– As long as you read it all, I think it is relevant.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-If there is to be misrepresentation, let me have an opportunity to clear it up. It has been suggested by Senator Greenwood that it is outrageous for Mr Justice Murphy to sit on a court in which a matter is before that court concerning an Act on which he may have advised. The case to which I am about to refer was, one would think, according to the principles enunciated by Senator Greenwood, a much more grievous breach of legal etiquette in that 2 of the judges involved had actually participated in the litigation. The case is reported in Vol. 31,CommonwealthLaw Reports, page 42 1, and the passage I cite appears at page 456, where Mr Justice Starke stated:

This case was heard before my brother Isaacs, who found certain facts, and reserved for the consideration of the Full Court the question, what judgment should be entered upon the facts so found? The Chief Justice-

That was Chief Justice Knox- and I, when at the Bar, had been counsel for opposite parties in this litigation, and would, in the ordinary course, have taken no part in the decision of this case. But during its discussion before the Full Court, some questions affecting the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth arose, and it was doubtful if a decision of the case could be arrived at unless those questions were determined. The Judiciary Act 1912 . . . and the amending Act of 1920 . . provide: ‘A Full Court consisting of less than all the Justices shall not give a decision on a question affecting the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth, unless at least three Justices concur in the decision’. The Chief Justice and I thought that we could not, with due regard to our duty, decline the responsibility of adjudicating upon such questions if they actually called for decision, but we made it clear that we should take no further part in the case.

That supports my proposition, Senator Greenwood, not yours.

Senator Greenwood:

– Let us differ on that.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The significant aspect of that passage is that the 2 judges involved did not consider that to participate in a debate on the constitutional aspect of the matter was in any way in breach of their duty.

Senator Rae:

– They not having debated it during the earlier hearing.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-But they adjudicated on the constitutional aspects, which is exactly what Mr Justice Murphy has been doing in this case, and I think that the tortuous casuistic attempts which Senator Greenwood has made to justify his original totally unjustified slur of Mr Justice Murphy simply will not hold water.

page 1077

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported :

Customs Tariff(Coal Export Duty) Bill 1 975

Customs Bill (No. 2) 1975

page 1077

AUSTRALIAN WINE BOARD

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929-1973,Ipresent the interim annual report of the Australian Wine Board for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 1077

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORTS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on assistance to the beef industry and superphosphate production (tariff revision).

page 1077

EDUCATION COMMISSIONS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On behalf of my colleague the Minister for Education and for the information of honourable senators, I present a statement relating to funds for the education commissions for the 1976 calendar year.

page 1078

UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Pursuant to Section 15 of the Universities Commission Act 1959-1974 1 present the Universities Commission’s recommendations for 1976 together with a statement by the Minister for Education relating to those recommendations. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of the recommendations have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1078

CANBERRA-GOULBURN AIRPORT

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present 2 reports entitled An Explanatory Study of Canberra-Goulburn Airport and An International Airport in the Canberra-Goulburn Region to Serve the City of Sydney- Assessment of Likely Effects on the Environment.

Due to the limited number available reference copies of these reports have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1078

AUSTRALIA AND PAPUA NEW GUINEA DEFENCE ARRANGEMENTS

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the following documents relating to interim defence arrangements between Australia and Papua New Guinea: A joint statement by the Papua New Guinea Minister for Defence, Foreign Relations and Trade, and the Australian Minister for Defence on interim arrangements; a letter to the Papua New Guinea Minister for Defence, Foreign Relations and Trade from the Australian Minister for Defence and the four annexes thereto; and the reply from the Papua New Guinea Minister for Defence, Foreign Relations and Trade.

page 1078

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Drake-Brockman be granted leave of absence of one month on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.

page 1078

QUESTION

MEETING OF ESTIMATES COMMITTEE E

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– All Estimates Committees, with the exception of Estimates Committee E, have completed their sittings. I move:

I understand that only the estimates for the Department of the Environment are left to be considered by Estimates Committee E. I believe that by 8 p.m. this evening all Estimates Committees will probably be in a position to present their reports to the Senate. It is intended at this stage, subject to discussion between the PostmasterGeneral and a representative from the Opposition, that if suitable arrangements can be made after the presentation of those reports the Senate will deal with order of the day No. 8, namely the Inter-State Commission Bill after which we will deal with the Loan Bill 1975. The Government will then introduce the Appropriation Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The sitting of the Senate is suspended until 8 p.m. to enable Estimates Committee E to meet. The Committee will meet in Committee Room No. 1 . The bells will be rung for 3 minutes prior to its meeting.

Sitting suspended from 3.50 to 8p.m.

page 1078

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee A

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-Mr President, I bring up the report from Estimates Committee A together with the minutes of proceedings. I also table the Hansard report of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee B

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-On behalf of Senator Button, I bring up the report from Estimates Committee B together with the minutes of proceedings. I also table the Hansard report of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee C

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

-I bring up the report from Estimates Committee C together with the minutes of proceedings. I also table the Hansard report of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee D

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I bring up the report from Estimates Committee D together with the minutes of proceedings. I also table the Hansard report of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee E

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs · South Australia · ALP

– I bring up the report from Estimates Committee E together with the minutes of proceedings. I also table the Hansard report of the evidence taken at all meetings of the Committee except today’s meeting.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee F

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-I bring up the report from Estimates Committee F together with the minutes of proceedings. I also table the Hansard report of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Estimates Committee G

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I bring up the report from Estimates Committee G together with the minutes of proceedings. I also table the Hansard report of the evidence taken.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1079

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 22 May 1975.

Clause 1 (Short title).

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– The Senate will recall that in my second reading speech delivered on 23 April 1975 I specified in some detail the need for the proposed operations of the InterState Commission. Honourable senators will be aware that the Bill for the re-establishment of the Commission has been before the Senate since that date. I wish to announce that in the light of subsequent deliberations the Government has decided to withdraw clauses 13 and 17 of the Bill. Also, following negotiations between the Honourable C. K. Jones, Minister for Transport, and the Honourable P. J. Nixon, the honourable member for Gippsland in another place, certain further amendments to the Bill have been agreed to. These amendments will be moved by the Opposition in the Senate and will be accepted by the Government. I am pleased to be able to record these developments which will lead to the reappearance of this Commission after so many years to work in the field of interstate transport. We expect the Commission to make a positive contribution to actions of this Parliament in promoting the development of this country’s transport system.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I indicate to the

Committee that I will be moving a series of amendments which, as Senator Bishop has advised, will be agreed to. There are some 17 amendments. It is my intention, as there is agreement around the chamber, to be very short on each one.

Senator Wright:

– Have they been circulated?

Senator WITHERS:

-They are being circulated at the moment. I also indicate I trust that he does not mind me mentioning this that my colleague, Senator Wright, will move an amendment in the Committee stage by which he seeks to add a new clause 17a. I indicate to the Committee that by arrangement with both Senator Wright and the Minister in charge of the Bill, Senator Bishop, Senator Wright will move his amendment for a proposed new clause and that either the Minister or I do not care who will move for the postponement of the consideration of that clause until, say, the next day of sitting so that our respective parties can look at the amendment and decide on an attitude. I flag that for the information of honourable senators.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:
VICTORIA

-Is the intention to insert a new clause 17a?

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes. After the consideration by the Committee of clause 17 my colleague, Senator Wright, will be moving to insert a new clause 17a. Consideration of clause 17A will be postponed until the next day of sitting.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3. overseas transport’ means transport of goods or persons, being transport constituting part of trade or commerce with other countries or transport of goods that are the subject of such trade or commerce;

  1. A reference in this Act to the provision of a service is a reference to the provision of any service, whether with or without the supply of goods, and includes a reference to the letting on hire of plant or equipment, the leasing of land or premises and the provision of any facility, including a facility at or in the vicinity of, or by way of, a port, airport or other terminal.
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– Two amendments to clause 3 are standing in my name. The first one is to sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Bill. It seeks to leave out the definition of overseas transport. The simple reason for this is that this is a Bill dealing with an Inter-State Commission and therefore it ought to be confined to that aspect.

The second amendment seeks the deletion of sub-clause (2) of the clause. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, this Bill is to be confined to transport matters. Mr Chairman, I seek your guidance on a matter of procedure. May I move both of my amendments at once?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5.

This Act has effect notwithstanding anything in any Act passed before the commencement of this Act but, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, nothing in this Act affects the operation of any other Act so far as that other Act is capable of operating concurrently with this Act.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

The purpose of this amendment is to confine the Bill to what the Bill proposes to do. It is quite important, we think, that these words ought to be left out so as to tighten up the legislation and make quite certain what the Inter-State Commission is all about.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clause 5a.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

Proposed new clause 5a is quite self explanatory. All it does is to say that irrespective of what other powers may be contained within the Inter-State Commission this does not override the Airlines Agreements Act 1952-1973. It is just a simple tidying up of the drafting.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 6.

  1. 1 ) The Commission shall consist of a President and 4 other members.
  2. The Commission may exercise its powers notwithstanding any vacancy or vacancies in the membership of the Commission.
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

This is a simple amendment. The Opposition believes that, initially anyhow, the Commission should consist of a President and 2 other members. The Government has proposed a membership of four and we have suggested that there should be a membership of two. I am pleased to see that the Government is prepared to accept our proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7.

  1. The President has the same rank, status and precedence as a Justice of the High Court.
  2. A member other than the President has the same rank, status and precedence as a Judge of the Australian Industrial Court.

Clause 8.

As person shall not be appointed as a member unless the GovernorGeneral is satisfied that the person is qualified for appointment by virtue of his having had experience at a high level in industry, commerce, economics, law, public administration or some other field that has substantial relevance to the duties of a member.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr Chairman, if I may by leave of the Committee, I would like to deal with clauses 7 and 8. The effect of the Opposition’s amendment is to set out the qualification of the Chairman of the Board and the qualification of the other 2 members and basically it compresses clauses 7 and 8 into one clause and spells out their qualifications.

Senator Bishop:

– I have no objection, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that we proceed in that way? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

PART III- ( Clauses 9 to 17)

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The

PostmasterGeneral has already indicated that the Government will be seeking the deletion of clause 1 3 and, I think, clause 1 7. Mr Chairman, I will be shortly asking for leave to do it, but before doing so I would suggest to the Committee that I should have leave to move amendment number 7 circulated in my name, which in effect seeks the deletion of clauses 9 to 17, which quite obviously includes the clauses 13 and 17 which the Government proposes to delete, and the insertion of a new Part III in the form of clauses 9 and 10. This has come about as a result of consultation and agreement in the other place between the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and Mr Nixon, who is the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Transport. It is in relation to the powers of the Commission. It changes somewhat the emphasis of what the Commission would do. I think that the amendments are quite self explanatory. Therefore I ask for leave that I be able to move amendment number 7 as set out on page 2 of the amendments as circulated.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Part, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clause 17a.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I move:

It is rather a distant time to ask honourable senators to recall some words in a speech of mine in May, but I do take leave to remind honourable senators that when speaking in the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill I adumbrated this amendment and referred to it as invoking the powers of the Inter-State Commission for particular benefit from the point of view of Tasmania. It will be recalled that the Constitution provides that the Inter-State Commission is there ‘to execute and maintain’ the words of the Constitution all the provisions of the Constitution relating to interstate trade and all the federal laws that have been made in exercise of that power ‘to execute and maintain’, whatever that means. But it is a constitutional body that is not beholden to either the Commonwealth Government or the State Government and is therefore the only body in the Constitution of an executive nature that has a power to override divisions between a State and the Commonwealth. It derives authority from the Constitution and is therefore not bedevilled by the continuing disputation and division of a State and the Commonwealth. There is no need for agreement between the legislatures of a State and the Commonwealth. Therefore if the body is to be set up with that power it can be of particular benefit to one region of the Commonwealth that has been sorely bereft of any efficiency in services of transport hitherto, particularly maritime services. As we are divided by a strait, we are bedevilled, most unfortunately, by the monopolies that the maritime unions have secured with regard to Australian shipping. The purpose of my amendment, going to paragraph (a) of it, is to insert a clause in accordance with the type script. Paragraph (a) reads:

It shall be the duty of the Commission to maintain and execute all laws of the Commonwealth for the carrying on of stevedoring and shipping for carriage of cargo and passengers interstate and particularly between Tasmania (including dependent islands) - and, I am sure Mr Chairman, there are 2 islands dear to your interest, Flinders Island and King Island- and other States.

Honourable senators may laugh. We are entitled to reveal the fact that we have an intelligent perception of the origins of the Chairman’s interest. If we establish that duty in the Commission it would be a good thing. Paragraph ( b) reads:

  1. The Commission shall ensure that all such services are carried on regularly according to schedules and time-tables which shall be predetermined by the Commission so as to ensure regular and efficient and economic shipping and stevedoring operations;

I do not think I need to explain that. Those who live in Tasmania would know that it is necessary to reassert that self-evident proposition. A great deal of our freight that should come by ship comes by air at inordinate expense rather than have the cargo undergo the monopoly control of shipping operations that have been committed to other quarters. Paragraph (c) follows, and here perhaps is where there is need for thought on the part of those who would wish to consider it. It reads:

  1. (i) The Commission may at any time declare that the regular carrying on of such services is urgent;
  2. During a period of 60 days after such declaration it shall be unlawful for any person, company or union to take part in any strike or lockout interrupting such services;
  3. Any part in breach of the foregoing paragraph shall be liable to a penalty of $500 for any person and $10,000 for any company or union for every day for which such breach continues and shall also be liable to pay compensation for any damage caused by such strike or lockout.
Senator McAuliffe:

– Go on!

Senator WRIGHT:

-Senator McAuliffe, with an arrogant assertion of his superior wisdom in these matters, yawns or expostulates he does not make clear whichat the mere enunciation of my proposition. However, Senator Bishop and the Government and the Opposition will know that the reason why Britain has been brought to her knees has been the dominance of hag-ridden unions that a Labour government is impotent to legislate for.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– And disinclined.

Senator WRIGHT:

-No will; no heart. Until we press them where do we get action? Just as a passing reference if we had not pressed the overseas loan affair today where would we have got action? What I am asserting here is not for decision tonight, and this has been arranged. Therefore I am putting it over unmistakably so that those who are in the chamber will get the full sense of the drive of this amendment. It is to establish some authority in government and I have chosen the Inter-State Commission as the agency which will owe its authority to neither government if this legislation is passed but will owe its authority and origin to the Constitution and, therefore, will override State and Commonwealth governments.

If it is loyal to the task and if we give it the duty assigned in paragraph (a), to carry on in aid of the people of Tasmania regular and efficient services and if it declares a matter to be of urgency and there is any interruption on either side by strike or lockout it will be a matter of compensating those people who are damaged by the lack of shipping. I want only to add this -

Senator Poyser:

– Jackboot stuff.

Senator WRIGHT:

-No. This is following on the Taft-Hartley Act of America in 1949 since when -

Senator Poyser:

– Jackboot legislation.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Nonsense. Those people who are the pawns or the prawns of the trade union movement would be the ones who would say that it is jackboot legislation. It is no more jackboot legislation on the workers than it is on Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd or William Holyman and Sons Pty Ltd or the Union Steam Ship Co. or anybody else who locks out the trade. I have left it in my patience for fully 10 years, ashamed of the spectacle where the Tasmanian Government pretends to the Tasmanian people that it is out to get regular shipping services and it goes cap in hand to the unions on every occasion of trouble saying: ‘Please exempt Tasmania from the impact of your strike’. Of course, the union bosses just say: ‘Come and have a . drink. Forget it old man, it is the union that must prevail ‘.

The intendment of my amendment is that if the Inter-State Commission is established it shall be established as a potent force with particular benefit to Tasmania, saddled with a duty to guarantee efficient and regular shipping and transport services to Tasmania under the sanction that if this is not complied with there shall be a penalty and, more importantly, civil compensation for breach if the orders of the Commission are not carried out. This Commission will have the authority to examine shipping freights and the economy of them. It also will have the authority to examine stevedoring costs and their economy and then, having established freights and timetables, will have the authority to enjoin compliance. If there is non-compliance the law will give a right to anybody- and there are many importers and exporters in Tasmania who will be the victims of a breach of that right- to compensation for damage. I hope that the Committee of the Whole will consider this as a pioneering development attached to a new concept of the Inter-State Commission and try it out for an island State that has been beleagured and bedamned up to date for the want of such legislation.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I think it is unfortunate that at this stage Senator Wright should propose an amendment.

Senator Wright:

– I sent you the amendment in May.

Senator BISHOP:

– I am talking about an agreement made between the Government and the Opposition as we understood it.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– In which House?

Senator BISHOP:

-In the other place, of course.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– This is the House of the States.

Senator BISHOP:

– It must be extraordinary, surely, for the honourable senator to seek to defend in this place what I consider to be a breach of a very sensible arrangement made between the Opposition and the Government. Honourable senators have heard me allude to the report which refers to the fact that on 23 April we brought down a Bill and we agreed that the Opposition should consider it. We provided a vehicle by which it could set out its own views, and we reached agreement. What Senator Wright proposes is a Lone Ranger action, which is a most reactionary proposition. In the first place, it conflicts with what the Opposition agreed upon with the Government. That is the first point.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I did not agree.

Senator BISHOP:

– The honourable senator is involved as a member of the Opposition. I am surprised that the honourable senator should talk in that way because I know that generally he agrees with arrangements which have been made. As Senator Withers well knows, those arrangements have been made, and I came into the Senate thinking that in fact we had reached agreement. What Senator Wright proposes conflicts entirely with the arrangements which his own Party agreed upon, because we have dropped out of clause 16 (2) the sort of powers which he now wants to be put into the Bill.

Senator McAuliffe:

– It conflicts with all of them.

Senator BISHOP:

– Of course it does; it conflicts. It is an odd position for Senator Wright to take up. While we are used to Senator Wright taking up aggrieved positions, I cannot understand how an arrangement in relation to which there has been -

Senator Missen:

– What arrangement?

Senator BISHOP:

– The arrangement between the Opposition shadow Minister for Transport in the other place and the Government. I remind those honourable senators who are interjecting that I have been told that it was put to a meeting of their Party. If those honourable senators were not there, they should have been.

Senator Missen:

– I know nothing of it.

Senator BISHOP:

– I was told that the proposition was put to the Party of which Senator Missen is a member and that it was agreed upon. It has been reported. I have read the statement. If the honourable senator does not agree with it, he had better get on to his shadow Minister. Let me read the statement again for the honourable senator so that he may know the truth of the matter.

Senator Rae:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Chairman. Is not the situation that the Leader of the Opposition indicated earlier that an agreement had been made that the amendment having been moved, consideration of this clause would be deferred? Did Senator Bishop agree to that course being followed? Does it really matter what may or may not have gone on prior to that agreement being reached? Are we not wasting a lot of time in arguing the merits or otherwise of whether an honourable senator as an individual senator has a right to move an amendment which he wishes to have debated by the Senate irrespective of any arrangements which may have been made by his Party? Are we not wasting time if the fact there is an agreement that consideration of this clause will be deferred so that the individual senator can have his amendment considered by the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-I doubt whether that is a point of order.

Senator BISHOP:

– It is not my intention to argue the position. I am only irritated by the response from those honourable senators opposite who, I thought, were going to support the amendments. I have a statement from Mr Jones- I will be as honest as I can about itwhich says this:

Senator Marriott:

– Is that difficult?

Senator BISHOP:

– No, it is not, as the honourable senator well knows. I have always tried to give the Opposition a straight deal in this place, and I will give it to you now. The statement says:

Also following negotiations between the Hon. C. K. Jones, Minister for Transport, and the Hon. P. J. Nixon, certain amendments to the Bill have been agreed upon.

Senator Withers moved those amendments. I do not want to debate them; I simply want to say that that is the fact of life. I wish to refer briefly to what Senator Wright has put up. I agree that because of the short notice that we have had of Senator Wright’s amendment it would be wise to defer consideration of this matter until tomorrow. The Government would like consideration of this Bill to proceed tomorrow, and I understand that Senator Withers has so agreed.

As regards Senator Wright’s amendment, he has imported into this debate a proposition which has been dismissed by his own Party. That is the first point. It conflicts with the agreement which was reached. Secondly, it seems to me that what Senator Wright proposes to do is quite contrary to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which provides that any disputes that might occur in industry ought to be properly arbitrated, ought to be a matter of conciliation and judgment by the Court which the Parliament has set up to judge and adjudicate on these matters. A declaration in the terms which Senator Wright proposes is not only inconsistent with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act but also is quite an extraordinary move towards the sort of powers which the Parliament so far has not agreed to give to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Finally, and basically, the main reason I am opposed to the amendment is that I would have hoped that the consideration which the Opposition parties had given to it would be properly expressed in the Senate tonight and that it might have allowed to proceed the amendments which I said were mutually agreed upon. It may be that Senator Rae is right in saying that despite that fact any honourable senator can move such an amendment. In winding up I simply say that I understand that Senator Withers is prepared to accept the proposition that we defer consideration of this clause and that we take up the matter again tomorrow. That will allow both parties to consider, in a more definite form in my own case, the position that has been put forward tonight and, in the case of the Opposition, what it might want to make of Senator Wright’s amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the Minister wishes to move a particular motion, he is entitled to do so.

Senator BISHOP:

-I move:

That further consideration of proposed new clause 17a be postponed.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I wish to speak to that motion. I advise the Senate that the Opposition will agree to it. I wish to say something on the matters which have been canvassed. Yes, certain arrangements were made between the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) and the Opposition shadow Minister for Transport, but I will always be totally opposed to the concept that those arrangements would preclude any honourable senator from acting as a senator in this place and being able to move amendments in Committee or in the Senate.

Senator Georges:

– That is all right as long as we understand it.

Senator WITHERS:

-Do not get excited. I think it is fair to say that Senator Wright in the second reading debate foreshadowed an amendment along the lines which he has moved. The fact that the Opposition might have a view and the Government might have a view is one thing, but I will certainly not take away the individual rights of individual senators in this place. Any honourable senator is entitled, in my opinion, to move at any time his own amendment on any matter which is before the Chair. Whether or not he obtains the support of his colleagues is another matter. He must argue to obtain that support. For anyone to imply that merely because the Government and the Opposition have arrived at a certain view automatically takes away the right of any person sitting on either side of the chamber to act as a senator really debases the office of a senator. After all, I sit here as a senator. I may sit here wearing other hats, but I have been elected and sworn in as a senator for my State, and nobody is going to take that away from me, be it the Government or my own Party.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 18 to 25- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 26.

  1. 1 ) Subject to this section-

    1. the President shall be paid salary at the rate of $41,000 per annum and an annual allowance at the rate of $2,500 per annum; and
    2. b) a member other than the President shall be paid salary at the rate of $35,000 per annum and an annual allowance at the rate of $ 1 ,750 per annum.
  2. Where a member is absent overnight from his ordinary place of residence in the course of the performance of his duties, he shall be paid travelling allowance-

    1. in the case of the President- at the rate of $48 per day; and
    2. b) in any other case- at the rate of $42 per day.
  3. The Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974 applies in relation to the remuneration and allowances payable to a member under this section in like manner as that Act applies in relation to the remuneration and allowances payable to a Judge of a court created by the Parliament.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– Amendment No. 8, as circulated, is consequential upon the amendments moved to clauses 7 and 8. It sets out the remuneration of the President and the other members of the Inter-State Commission. I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– Amendment No. 9 as circulated relates to the substance of the overnight travelling allowance and other matters. I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 27 and 28- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 29.

  1. he shall be deemed, in respect of any service by him as a member, to continue to be an employee within the meaning of the Superannuation Act 1922-1974; and
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– Amendment No. 10 as circulated is consequential upon the amendments moved to clauses 7 and 8 relating to the qualifications of the officers of the commission. I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30.

  1. If a member to whom section 29 does not apply was immediately before his appointment, contributing to the Superannuation Fund under the Superannuation Act 1922-1974, he shall be deemed, in respect of his service as a member, to continue to be an employee within the meaning of that Act.
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– Amendment No. 1 1 , circulated in my name, again is consequential upon the change of qualifications previously dealt with in clauses 7 and 8. 1 move:

Leave out sub-clause (3).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31.

  1. 1 ) The Judges’ Pensions Act 1 968- 1 974 does not apply to a member to whom section 29 or sub-section 30 (3) applies.
  2. If a member to whom section 29 or sub-section 30 (3 ) would, but for this sub-section, apply elects, within 3 months after his appointment as a member, by notice in writing to the Minister, that that section or sub-section shall not apply to him, that section or sub-section does not apply, and shall be deemed not to have applied, to him.
  3. Where a member makes an election in accordance with sub-section (2), the Superannuation Act 1922-1974 applies in relation to him as if he had resigned.
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– Amendment No. 12, as circulated, is a redraft of the present clause 3 1 . It sets out the application to the President of the Judges Pensions Act and the qualifications under the Superannuation Act as if he was not a judge. These amendments are consequential upon the amendments to clauses 7 and 8.I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32.

Except with the consent of the Minister, a member shall not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The Committee will see that, as proposed by amendment No. 1 3, a member of the Inter-State Commission has to obtain the consent of the Minister to arbitrate on any matter without payment. The Government has agreed with the proposal of the Opposition that a member should not engage in any outside employment whatsoever. I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33.

  1. The President shall convene a meeting of the Commission upon being requested in writing to do so by not less than 2 members.
  2. 6 ) At a meeting of the Commission-

    1. 3 members form a quorum;
    2. all questions shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present and voting; and
    3. the member presiding has a deliberate vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote.
  3. In this section, a reference to the President shall, if there is a person acting as President, be read as a reference to the person so acting.
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– These amendments are consequential upon the amendment to clause 6 of the Bill and provide that the number of commissioners be reduced from four to two. I move:

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 (Operation of Prices Justification Act and Trade Practices Act)

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition is opposed to this clause. Perhaps the easiest way to deal with it might be to propose that the clause stand as printed.

Clause negatived.

Clauses 35 to 39 by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 40.

  1. 1 ) The Commission shall, within 60 days after each year ending on 30 June, furnish to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report with respect to the operations of the Commission in that year.
  2. The Commission shall include in the report with respect to its operations in a year particulars of any matters into which the Commission was directed by the Minister during that year to hold an investigation.
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– In relation to amendment No. 17, the Government and the Opposition have agreed as to what ought to be contained in the annual report by the Commission to Parliament. I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 1087

LOAN BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 October on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– When I rose to speak on this Bill last Wednesday evening I stated that I had not intended to enter into the debate but did so because of the scurrilous attack which Senator Carrick launched on 1 October upon the Government and the officials of the Department of the Treasury who had prepared the Budget figures. In the short time that I have been here I, like all other honourable senators, have suffered many harangues by Senator Carrick. Senator Carrick seems to regard himself as sort of orator whereas he has much more in common with a third-rate demagogue. He possesses many of the superficial attributes but little of the charisma of Adolf Schickelgruber. But the scurrilous allegations and innuendoes which were contained in his speech in the Senate on 1 October set a new low, even for Senator Carrick. They were concocted from false assumptions and faulty reasoning, compounded by arithmetic errors and propped up at the fringes by outright untruths. That sort of address is, of course, standard fare for many of the political primitives who represent the National Country Party of Australia in this Parliament, especially on economic matters. But Senator Carrick who, I note according to the Parliamentary Handbook, has had some training in these matters, should and presumably does know better than to expound the nonsense and indeed the scurrilous nonsense that he was propounding on 1 October.

Senator Baume:

– Which meaning of scurrilous’?

Senator WALSH:

– Thoroughly reprehensible.

Senator Baume:

– That is not what it means.

Senator WALSH:

– Tinged with undertones of untruth and the dredging up of dirt.

Senator Wright:

– Ask him to resign.

Senator Georges:

– Who are you talking about?

Senator Baume:

– His Leader.

Senator WALSH:

– Whose leader? Apparently Opposition senators express interest in the subject of truth. If they are particularly concerned with the subject of truth and whether people, particularly political leaders, speak the truth I remind them of some statements made by their present leader on 8 February this year when he said: ‘Bill Snedden has my full support. I support Bill Snedden. There is no contest’. I also remind Opposition senators of some statements made by Senator McLaren in the adjournment debate last Wednesday evening or the Wednesday evening before on the subject of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and how much store can be placed on his word. Senator McLaren revealed that the present Leader of the Opposition at a time when he subsequently claimed, he had absolutely no knowledge of the plot that was afoot within the Liberal Party to unseat its then Leader, Mr Snedden, was discussing this matter, this plot, this conspiracy with some of his trusty lieutenants in the dining room. I think that was in November of last year. If I was a member of this Opposition and I had voted -

Senator Missen:

– What has this got to do with the Bill?

Senator WALSH:

– The subject matter was introduced by your colleague. If I were an Opposition senator and I had either voted for the present Leader of the Opposition or was supporting the present Leader of the Opposition, I would be very wary of delving too deeply into the subject of whether the publiclygiven assurances of certain leading politicians can be accepted at their face value. The reason why Senator Carrick launched this scurrilous attack on 1 October is, of course, transparently clear. It was part of a continuing campaign being conducted by the Opposition and master-minded by the present Leader of the Opposition to scratch around with their fingernails in an attempt to find what he calls reprehensible circumstances’ to justify rejecting the Appropriation Bills and plunging this country into a constitutional crisis. The Opposition has attempted to do this on issue after issue, perhaps the most pathetic attempt being the attempt early in September to resurrect a 5 weekold letter from the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), the substance of which had been published 5 weeks before. That was pathetic.

Then there was the completely unsuccessful attempt to make a major issue of the ACTU-Solo oil transaction, particularly by the Leader of the National Country Party ((Mr Anthony). Indeed, even after a royal commission has found that the Government had no knowledge that this deal was being made, the Leader of the National Country Party persists with his reprehensible attitude and attempts to smear the royal commissioner and cast doubts upon his findings. Of course, Senator Greenwood has attempted to defame and smear no fewer than 4 judges of the High Court who brought down a ruling which is politically inconvenient to Senator Greenwood and his Party.

The central feature of Senator Carrick ‘s attempt to discourage the Budget estimates was an allegation that absolutely no allowance had been made for the likely increases in salaries during the financial year. He postulated firstly:

  1. . salaries shown throughout the Budget Estimates are calculated on March 1975 levels, before the national wage case and making no allowance whatsoever for the 23 per cent salary rises foreshadowed in the Budget Speech . . .

The figure foreshadowed in the Budget Speech incidentally was 22 per cent and not 23 per cent as Senator Carrick stated. That is a minor error. It is not true that no allowance was made for salary increases nor is it true that they were calculated simply on March 1975 salary levels. For further enlightenment on that subject I refer Senator Carrick, or anyone else who is interested, to the Hansard record of Senate Estimates Committee A of 9 October, pages 544 and 545. I refer honourable senators particularly to the bottom of column 1 of page 545.

Senator Baume:

– I rise on a point of order. I believe Senator Carrick was quoting directly from a Senate Estimates Hansard and that he was quoting accurately. I believe Senator Devitt would agree that that Hansard record was later shown to be inaccurate by the departmental officers. Senator Carrick ‘s quotation was accurate. It is not appropriate for Senator Walsh to make these accusations against Senator Carrick.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Order! My understanding is that Senator Walsh is quoting from Hansard. I. believe he has quoted from it accurately. I do not uphold the point of order.

Senator WALSH:

– You have overruled the point of order, have you, Mr Deputy President?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Yes.

Senator WALSH:

– I might just explain that I was quoting from page 878 of the Senate Hansard of 1 October. I correctly quoted what Senator Carrick said. If Senator Carrick was in fact quoting from Estimates Committee D Hansard, he did not make that clear. He said:

My third question is: Is it a fact, as evidenced in answers provided to Estimates Committee D on 1 1 September-

I quoted from there on. If he was quoting from the Hansard of Estimates Committee D, he certainly did not say so. I return to the subject matter. Senator Carrick then postulated that the Government’s wages bill would increase by 23 per cent. He then took a very substantial broad jump and implied- I stress that he implied; he did not state explicitly- that an inflation factor at the rate of 23 per cent would have to be applied to all Government expenditure.

I deal now with his reasoning. I disregard the small error in the percentage he quoted and the fact that he disregarded or was unaware of the updating by the Treasury of salary estimates as a result of the national wage case in May. That is shown in the Estimates Committee A Hansard. In fact, the estimates which were finally used were based on wage levels prevailing at the end of June. The much more significant conceptual error which Senator Carrick made was his assumption that if wages increased by 20 per cent during the year and the Estimates had been based on the level of wages prevailing at the end of June, the Government’s wages bill would increase by 20 per cent over the entire year. It ought to be apparent to anyone who stops to think for a moment about the matter- they would know that wage increases are usually at a uniform rate througout the year- that the increase will not be the increase from year’s end to year’s end but about half that because it will be averaged throughout the year. So Senator Carrick took a factor that was based on a couple of small false assumptions- it was twice as high as it ought to have been- and applied it to all Government expenditure instead of applying it only to the item to which it was applicable, namely wages and salaries, which comprises about 1 1 per cent of total Government Budget expenditure. By this little exercise, either in bad arithmetic or trickery, he was able to come up with a certain conclusion. He said:

We need to know whether the deficit is to remain at $2, 798m, or whether it is on its way to doubling and, if so, creating the absolute disaster that the Government says will happen if the Budget deficit gets to the order of $4,000m or $5, 000m.

A little later, with a bit more sleight of hand, he said:

Yet, here is Mr Crean saying that we are well on our way to doubling the deficit which the Government believes is disastrous.

He apparently implied that the possible or likely final size of the deficit would be about $8,000m or $ 10,000m. I thought that in that speech Senator Carrick had gone about as far as he would dare go in the area of misrepresentation. I was subsequently informed that he went further, outside this Parliament, when he rang the editor of the Melbourne Age and put before the editor of that newspaper a proposition that went like this: The Budget documents are shonky. The deficit has been grossly underestimated.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Who did this?

Senator WALSH:

- Senator Carrick. It is floating around the Press Gallery. It has been floating around there for a week. He rang the editor of the Melbourne Age and put before him the proposition that the Budget documents were shonky; in fact the deficit would be at least $5,000m; there were certain public servants who were so enamoured of this Labor Government that they would stop at nothing, including the falsification of the estimates of Government expenditure, to try to keep it in power.

Senator McAuliffe:

– The poor man must be sick.

Senator WALSH:

– Demented. Needless to say, the editor of the Melbourne Age treated Senator Carrick ‘s accusations with the contempt that they deserve. In addition to the gross error in the initial inflator which Senator Carrick usedusing an inflator about twice as high as it should have been and applying it to a principal nearly ten times as high as it should have been- he recognised that an allowance of $I50m was specifically provided for salary increases during the year. The item can be found on page 27 of Budget Paper No. 4. He did not say that there were two other items not specifically allocated to a function in the Budget Papers which could be used to cover salary increases or any other expenditure. I refer to the 2 Advances to the Treasurer amounting in total to $270m. He completely ignored the fact that Government cash transfer payments, principally payments to the States and payments for benefits to persons, mainly social welfare benefits payments, amount in total to $ 14,000m, which is more than twothirds of government expenditure. They are not susceptible to increases in wages or in the price of materials.

It has become apparent since Senator Carrick launched this tirade that the Budget deficit could be somewhat greater than the $2,800m which the Treasurer’s estimates had shown. However, the reason for this increase is not that expenditure has been under-estimated, as Senator Carrick alleged, but that revenue may have been over-estimated. The reason why revenue may have been over-estimated is quite simple. Wages appear to be accelerating at a lower rate than the Treasurer and /or the Treasury had anticipated.

Therefore, Government revenue via taxation has declined accordingly and more than proportionally, as always happens, when personal income is lower than anticipated. So the deficit could be higher, but it will be for a reason opposite to that which Senator Carrick postulated. If the Opposition wants to make a federal case out of that issue, I wonder on what ground it would base its objection. Is the Opposition saying that it is deplorable or reprehensible that wages are not increasing at a faster rate than some pessimistic forecasts had anticipated? If that is the case, what is the Opposition’s remedy? Does the Opposition suggest that the Government should embark on a policy of increasing wages and, thereby, the consumer price index at a higher rate? If the Opposition wishes to criticise the Government on this ground it is under a considerable obligation to show from which source it would find the extra revenue.

I emphasise that the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the Opposition, has already endorsed the size of the Budget deficit. He has put his personal imprimatur on the deficit and has committed his Party to it as a deficit which is appropriate in the current circumstances. He has criticised some items on both the revenue and expenditure sides, but he has stated that the deficit is appropriate. If Opposition senators are as worried as they claim to be about the prospect of the deficit rising to a higher level, I assume that they will strenuously oppose all proposals to increase Government expenditure or to spend money in areas which are not explicitly provided in the Budget estimates. If that is so, I anticipate that the Opposition will oppose the adoption of the Industries Assistance Commission report on the beef industry, for example, because the adoption of that report in full would entail a reduction on the revenue side and an increase on the expenditure side amounting in aggregate to $60m to $70m for the current year. If the Opposition is going to continue to press the argument that under no circumstances must the deficit be allowed to increase through increased expenditure, it must oppose that IAC report and if it is going to oppose the IAC report I hope that the National Country Party members of the Opposition will go out among their electors and tell them that the National Country Party is opposed to that IAC report. Alternatively, the Opposition can desist from this line which it has been following for the last 3 weeks, or it can come up with a proposal which will increase government revenue to the extent necessary to offset expenditure under the IAC report.

I return to what Senator Carrick said. He referredin fact, he was quoting an answer from the Government- to the forecast increase of about 20 per cent in the money supply, that is M3, for the year ended June 1 976. He went on to say:

If indeed what I have said is taking place, then the rate of growth of money supply will be enormous.

Later he continued:

  1. . as I would like to demonstrate, we will be increasing the money supply disastrously.

One must conclude from that statement that Senator Carrick regards an increase of the order of 20 per cent in the money supply as being dis.astrous, which begs the question: Where was Senator Carrick when the previous Government, of which he was a back bench supporter, took the decisions which led to the money supply increasing at an annual rate of 34 per cent in the last quarter of 1973? Where was Senator Carrick when the previous Government took that thoroughly reprehensible decision against the advice of the Treasury, of the Reserve Bank and of anyone who had more than a passing interest in the subject, and refused to revalue the Australian dollar in December 1971? If Senator Carrick wishes to suggest that an increase of the magnitude of 20 per cent in the money supply is disastrous, it is fair to ask him where he was in 1972 when the Government of which he was a supporter allowed the money supply to increase at an annual rate of 34 per cent- I might add, in economic circumstances somewhat different from those which prevail now and in circumstances which made it even more reprehensible to take that decision?

Senator Carrick:

– I really could not draw any firm conclusions from this particular section of his speech- referred to the alternative means of financing the deficit. He referred to whether it should be financed by treasury bill which many Liberals, including a former Liberal Treasurer, seem to think is a shonky device which has been invented by this Government when in fact treasury bill financing has been used by almost every government in the Western world ever since Lord Keynes showed them how to do it and why. Senator Carrick went on to discuss the 3 alternative means of financing the deficit. He referred to doing it by overseas borrowings which he implied, correctly, would be inflationary. The Liberal Party should know that because the amount of $ 1 ,900m which it allowed to be imported into Australia in 1972 because it refused to revalue the Australian dollar was the prime cause of the inflation that hit Australia in the next 12 to 18 months. So the Liberals should be authorities on how dangerous it is to allow $2 billion in hot money to flow into the country in 12 months. Senator Carrick said that was one way of financing the deficit and that it would be inflationary- full marks to Senator Carrick.

Senator Carrick said that another way of financing the deficit would be to indulge on a large scale in treasury bill financing. That also, he stated correctly, was likely to be inflationary. Now, the third way of financing the deficit is by loans raised domestically. Whilst there may be some dispute about this at the fringes between the professionals in this area, it is generally agreed that that method of financing a budget deficit is not inflationary, and in the August loan the Government raised some $68 lm in this way. Senator Carrick referred to this fact and then stated:

Of those loans 50 per cent or more was subscribed by the banks. Everybody knows that the banks, facing a call up through statutory reserve deposits, would prefer to go into the bond market than simply have their money called up at minimal interest rates.

There is no objection to that statement; it seems to make sense. Then some 2 paragraphs further on in his speech Senator Carrick stated:

What the Government is getting is subscriptions forced from the banking institutions . . .

He postulated another conspiracy theory. He postulated that the Government was holding the weapon of an increase in the statutory reserve deposits over the banks and saying in effect: ‘Unless you subscribe to our loan we will increase your statutory reserve deposits’. If there was any validity in Senator Carrick ‘s conspiracy theory I wonder why a day or two after he made that statement the Government in fact allowed the statutory reserve deposits to increase? The National Times of the weekend before last referred to this and drew the fairly obvious conclusion that by increasing the statutory reserve deposits the Government was likely to make it somewhat more difficult to attract money from the banking system into government loans. The National Times quite explicitly made the point that it was obvious that this decision was being taken by the Reserve Bank, by the monetary authorities, on purely technical economic grounds without reference to or consideration of the political considerations. So another of Senator Carrick ‘s conspiracy theories or monstrous allegations and innuendoes bites the dust.

It is possible that the Government will use all of these 3 means of financing the deficit in varying amounts, and it is not possible at this stage- a point which the Treasurer has attempted to put across to the economic primitives in the Oppositionto make any sort of accurate forecast as to how the deficit will be funded because that entails making forecasts about the level of liquidity and the response to public loan raisings up to 8 months hence, and that just cannot be forecast with any accuracy. The primary reason why the banking system has subscribed very heavily to government 10:ns is of course that the banks are holding a great deal of money. Oddly enough, in a period of fairly high inflation the public’s propensity to hold money seems to be at least holding or perhaps even increasing. As a result of this the money supply, the Ml, which was $7.6 billion in December of last year had increased by August to $8.8 billion. The money supply, which is defined as M3, in the same period has increased from $26.5 billion to $30.5 billion. It is obvious that the public is putting more money in the banks. While that happens and while the banks continue to put that money into government loans, it does not make any real difference, so far as its effect on the financing of the deficit, the level of the money supply or inflation is concerned, whether that money comes from the public into government loans through the banking system or whether it comes directly into government loans. One of the inaccurate statements which Senator Carrick used to support his shonky argument is a statement which is frequently made by members of the Opposition and picked up by the more uncritical sections of the Press, especially the rural Press concerned reinflation. Referring to higher interest rates, Senator Carrick stated:

This will trigger hyperinflation not seen in the history of Australia before- and this Government already holds the record.

Since that statement is so frequently made by members of the Opposition I think that the record should be put right. The highest rate of inflation ever recorded in Australia on an annual basis was for the year ended December 1951. The rate was 25.1 per cent. The highest annual rate recorded in recent times is 17.9 per cent recorded in March 1975. Just to fill in the record completely, a Liberal-Country Party Government was in power in December 1971 and had been for 2 years when we had record inflation of 25. 1 per cent over the preceding year. If we were to look at it on a quarterly basis, we would find that in the June and December quarters of 1 95 1 , the inflation rate- I am using the term ‘inflation rate’ as synonymous with the consumer price index or series C index of 1 95 1 -was 6.9 per cent. The highest quarterly rate of inflation recorded recently was 5.1 per cent in September of 1974. But I dare say that neither the facts, the rules of arithmetic, nor the parliamentary conventions which have governed Australia or which have regulated the political system in Australia for the last 70 years will deter the Opposition from circulating untrue statements, from attempting to establish what they call the reprehensible grounds which they are searching desperately to find to plunge this country into a constitutional crisis. The depths to which Mr Anthony, Mr Fraser and Mr Lynch have sunk over the ACTUSolo transactions, over the innocuous letter from the Treasurer to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in August this year and the depths to which they have sunk in attempting to use those issues and pretend that they provide reprehensible circumstances, and the depths to which Senator Carrick sank when he delivered this scurrilous outburst in the Senate on 1 October and above all, the depths to which he descended when he rang the Editor of the Melbourne Age, establish that apparently nothing is too reprehensible for members of the Opposition in this Parliament to contemplate if it helps them to secure their political objectives.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-The Senate is debating the Loan Bill 1975. 1 must say at the outset that I was grateful for the care with which Senator Walsh considered the very excellent contribution of my colleague, Senator Carrick. I am glad that Senator Walsh is impressed by Senator Carrick ‘s contribution. If catharsis is said to be good for paranoid and disturbed people, then so be it. Many of us here feel genuine sorrow for Senator Walsh, for his bitter negativism, for the uniform mediocrity of his contributions in this place, for his paranoia towards the National Country Party, for the meanness of mind and for the obvious unhappiness he brings to the chamber. I think he is likely to be no more successful here than he was as a farmer. His attack on Senator Carrick tonight has probably been beneficial. It has probably made Senator Walsh feel important. It has probably made him feel fulfilled and perhaps it has rid him of some of his worst aggressive tendencies. However, his speech lacked in content what it made up in spite.

The Loan Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 20 August and reached this place on 27 August. Senator Wriedt, in introducing the Bill gave it a second reading of exactly 3 minutes. He described it as ‘a machinery measure’, nothing more than that. He described it as just a machinery measure which we should pass and which really we should not examine too closely. But it was only when we came to examine this Bill, when we came to look at what it was proposing, that its ramifications became obvious to us. The further one goes in the examination of this Bill, the more and more interesting it becomes. Of course it deals with loans- loans by a government caught already in the mire of corruption. Its loans activities are responsible already for the disgrace and dismissal of a Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister, for the demise of Mr Cameron and now for the disgrace and removal of Mr Connor.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– And the translation of Senator Murphy.

Senator BAUME:

– As Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, reminds me, for the translation of Senator Murphy- a translation to happier and safer fields. This question of loans is no routine matter. It is at the very heart of this Government’s incompetence and dishonesty. We are in duty bound to examine this Bill closely as to what it seeks, what it is likely to achieve and the kind of price we are likely to pay for it.

The Minister’s second reading speech set out the purpose of the Bill- the funding of the deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The figures set out in paper No. 4 which accompanied the Budget illustrate to us that the estimated total expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be $20,203,436,000. Total receipts of the Fund will be $19,051,313,000 which will leave a difference, that is to say a deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which will have to be funded in some way. This Bill seeks to provide that funding. It is to be funded by a charge on the Loan Fund. The amount is described in a footnote to the table on page 10 of Budget paper No. 4 as ‘a residual balancing item’. That is the point that is interesting because the Bill, as it is drawn up, provides that the amount that can be raised by way of loan can vary depending upon the size of the residual balancing item that is required. The amount will be only the amount which the Government has stated if the receipts in the Consolidated Revenue Fund are as the Government has stated. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President: What is ever as this Government has stated? It will be the right balancing item only if the expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund is as the Government has stated. Again, I ask: Where in this Government’s record is any evidence that things are ever what the Government says they are.

The amount sought under this Bill from the Loan Fund will be used, as it were, to reduce the expenditure side of the Consolidated Revenue Fund by transferring part of defence expenditure to the Loan Fund. The amount sought for expenditure on defence at present is $ 1 ,790m although it could rise if the Government sought extra defence appropriations in the supplementary appropriation Bills next year. The plan at present is for the Government to transfer $1,152,123,000 of defence expenditure to the Loan Fund by means of this Loan Bill. But there is nothing fixed about these estimates for the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The receipts are expected to be $ 19,000m. But these can vary. We already have evidence from the present Treasurer that they are likely to vary. He has already given an indication that revenue from pay-as-you-earn taxation collections is likely to be less than was estimated and that the expenditure is likely to be greater than that set out. In fact, the Bill authorises any amount of transfer- any amount of loan raising under this Bill for the gap- provided it does not exceed the total amount set down for expenditure on defence. Of course, this manoeuvre is possible because clause 3(8) of the financial agreement allows the Government to borrow for defence purposes without seeking the approval of the Loan Council. The whole purpose of this manoeuvre is for the Government to fund the deficit in its Consolidated Revenue account without going to the Loan Council and without involving the States which it so dislikes.

Clearly, this Bill- this so-called machinery measure- represents a vital part of the Labor Budget strategy and has to be looked at in that way. It is part of the Budget and part of the consideration of the Budget. It can be understood only if we examine this Government’s capacity to control its receipts, to make sure that it complies with the Estimates and to control its expenditure in line with the Estimates which we have been examining in our Senate Estimates Committees. It seems, as I have said, that already receipts in the Budget have been maximised, that expenditure has been minimised and that the Government has sought artificially to show the smallest possible deficit as a going in position for the beginning of the financial year. Our job is to examine just how far from reality this is likely to be. The Budget deficit, in fact, will be enormous. Last year’s deficit, estimated originally at $570m ended up as a mammoth $2,567m, the worst Budget deficit that any of us can remember, not just by a few million dollars but by an order of magnitude.

I will illustrate just how great the Budget deficit was last year. In 12 years the total deficit of the Liberal-Country Party Government was $4,253m. That represents an average deficit of $3 54m a year; no more. How does that compare with this Government’s deficit? Last year, the Government made a massive and fictitious under-estimate of its deficit. We want to know whether we are facing the same situation for 1 975-76. If we also look at how the Loan Bill has been applied in previous years, we will see that under Liberal-Country Party governments our total raisings for defence purposes using the device of the Loan Fund was $ 1,062m. That represents an average of about $90m a year, compared with more than $ 1 billion which this spendthrift, reckless Government is seeking now- a government described today by one of the newspapers in the words, ‘Government totters’. How right that seems to be. It totters. Is it going? Of course, we are concerned.

We are asked to approve $ 1,100m to fill the fictitious gap- a gap which we know will be greater than that with each month that passes. Of course, we are concerned and we should be concerned. It would be recreant and irresponsible of an Opposition had we passed this Bill without proper examination, without proper questioning and without proper probing. We have expressed our concern and will continue to express it by means of questions- questions asked first by my colleague, Senator Cotton, in opening the debate for the Opposition and by Senator Carrick. They were questions which were sharp enough to drive Senator Walsh almost to a paroxysm of impotent anguish. They were questions designed to elicit the real story of this Loan Bill, the real amount of the deficit, the real needs for this loan borrowing and of the magnitude of the amount of money sought. We have sought to try to understand the Government’s strategy and its understanding of its own actions.

Questions on the Loan Bill were raised first by Mr Lynch in the House of Representatives to add to the 3 minute ministerial second reading speech given there, a 3 minute speech which was considered to be all that Parliament deserved or all that Parliament was going to receive. Mr Lynch received no adequate answers to his questions. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Crean), replying on behalf of the Treasurer, did not answer him properly. It is up to the Senate, where there has been responsible review of legislation, to take a closer, calmer and deeper look at this Bill and to get the answers to the questions. My colleague, Senator Cotton, first asked 10 questions concerning the purposes for which these loans were wanted. He asked them at the very first opportunity- on 28 August 1975 when the Bill first reached the Senate. He asked the questions in opening for the Opposition in the second reading debate. He received some answers on 2 September and he then asked some further questions. I remind the Senate that one of Senator

Cotton’s questions, question 7, as reported on page 366 of Senate Hansard of 28 August 1975 asked, among other things for:

Net drawings under overseas credit arrangements.

It asked as well about the net proceeds of other overseas borrowings; questions which today and yesterday in Australia seemed very appropriate and almost prophetic. Senator Cotton asked further questions on 10 September when the debate was resumed. One of those questions, question 14, is reported on page 697 of Senate Hansard as follows:

What would happen if the domestic market cannot finance the$2,800m deficit?

That, too, is a probing and appropriate question, the value of which has been shown by subsequent events, by the discomfiture of the Government, by its disarray and by the disgrace which has fallen upon yet another of its Ministers. Senator Carrick followed up with similar questions on 1 October. I remind the Senate that Senator Carrick asked 2 questions of which we should not lose sight. The first question was:

Will the Minister reaffirm the statement of the Treasurer, as recorded on page 419 of the Senate Hansard of 2 September, that ‘Present plans envisage that only small amounts will be raised overseas in 1975-76. Small refinancing loans to cover maturing debts are planned together with a borrowing of about $50m for on-lending to the AIDC which is provided for in the Budget”?

There we had Senator Carrick asking whether that in fact was an accurate answer to the question asked? How does the answer look today? How does the answer look to this Government? How does it look to the new Minister for Minerals and Energy (Senator Wriedt)? Senator Carrick ‘s second question was:

Will the Minister affirm that current activities in the money markets of Europe, and indeed of the world purporting to be directed towards the raising of substantial loans reputedly in units of $ 1 ,000m for Australia have no stimulus or support from the Commonwealth Government?

Senator Carrick scored a bull’s eye. No wonder the Government and Senator Walsh want to try to belittle the contribution. No wonder they dislike it; it hurt. Senator Carrick asked the very question that today’s events and this week’s events have shown up.

Senator Mulvihill:

-What did Sir Charles Court say about Senator Carrick ‘s paper on federalism?

Senator BAUME:

- Senator Mulvihill has now sat in the party room not with one but with 2 Ministers who have been sacked for lying to the Parliament and he should be ashamed of having shared their company.

I want to carry on by examining what is going to happen as the year progresses with this Government’s Budget in terms of the size of its deficit. I am concerned and have been concerned that the Budget has been grossly and deliberately understated. The receipts side of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, for example, shows all the expected increases in income. For example, the Government has shown that an extra $120m is expected from the duty on coal exports. That is an amount which is now known to be an overestimate because we all know that the Government changed its plans for the imposition of a coal export levy when the foolishness of those plans was revealed in this place. So that is an overestimate on the receipt side of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Government has already shown that it expects to receive an extra $680m from the excise on beer, spirits and tobacco. It has also shown that it expects to receive an extra $2, 600m from pay-as-you-earn income tax. Of course, that may not be possible if half a million or more Australians have no jobs and no income and therefore no capacity to pay income tax. That is likely to be an overestimate.

The expenditure side of the Consolidated Revenue Fund is equally interesting because the Government has gone to some lengths to underestimate- quite coldly and deliberatelythe magnitude of its expenses in a number of departments. I have the privilege of being a member of Estimates Committee D and have had the privilege of examining the estimates of expenditure for 3 departments in the last week or so. They are: the Department of Social Security, whose estimates the Committee examined for about 2 ‘A days; the Department of Repatriation, which came very well prepared and whose estimates were dealt with quickly; and the Department of Health, whose estimates went through in about half a day. The estimates of the Department of Social Security were a source of considerable interest. I remind the Senate that my colleague Senator Carrick has already drawn attention in his speech to the underestimate in the salaries item shown in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and in the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure which the Committee examined. The salaries to be paid for the people who work for the Department of Social Security are far in excess and will be far in excess of what was shown in the estimates because the Government took the figures only to the end of May.

If we go to the estimates for the Health Insurance Commission- that creation of a modern Utopia; the Government’s panacea for all ills- we find that the Government has grossly underestimated the size of its commitment to the Health Insurance Commission. I am not talking just about the money that is to be paid out for the medical or hospital side of Medibank. Let us look at the salaries. We were told that the Health Insurance Commission was to have 3500 permanent and 200 temporary employees and that the salary estimate for them was $25.5m. The new estimates, which were given in response to a question asked in this chamber on 7 October and which were confirmed in the meeting of Estimates Committee D on 7 October, indicate that the Commission now expects to have 3500 permanent and 700 temporary employees and that it is looking to a salary estimate of almost $3 lm. In one small commission in one department an extra expenditure of $6m is involved. Receipts are maximised and expenditure is minimised; that is the Government’s trick. Let us look at the allowance of $8 1 7,000 for overtime. The departmental officers told us quite cheerfully that that was an underestimate. Of course it is an underestimate. Overtime payments on the basis of a pro rata amount per month are already running ahead of what was estimated in May.

That is not where the matter ends. It is not just the $66m estimate for the salaries for the Department of Social Security that is not enough. What about the question of postage? The Department of Social Security has allowed $8.8m for postage but has not costed in the recent increases in postage rates- for example, the increase from 10c to 18c in postage for a letter. The expenditure side of the Consolidated Revenue Fund bears no relationship to the reality of today far less than to the reality of next June. There are many other examples in this Government’s Estimates which have convinced us that it is grossly underestimating and that it is going to face a deficit far greater than it will admit and far greater than it had realised. I mention Medibank itself, the unknown cost of hospital and medical Medibank based on best guess estimates. The Government admits that it will have large cost increases in the next year. The only estimate the Government made of the amount it should provide for hospital Medibank was after it asked the States what their operating costs would be, divided them by two and accepted that as its share. The Government will not know the real figures until the year ends.

There is no way in which the Consolidated Revenue Fund will end up with a gap as narrow as the Government has pretended and that is clear to all of us. It should be clear to everyone that the document represents another deception by a government that lives by deception. We can ask: What is the real deficit? Will it please reveal itself? Will it please stand up? Will it be $3 billion or $4 billion or $6 billion? Mr Hayden told us in his Budget that if we cannot control inflation we will not control unemployment and if we cannot control the supply of money we cannot control inflation. A deficit, increasing to the levels I am suggesting it might, will carry with it inevitably enormous inflation and increasing unemployment and that is what this kind of Budget and this kind of deficit means for Australians who work for a living and who fear for their jobs.

What does the Government itself have to say about the projected size of its deficit? From this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald I learned that the Government’s borrowings from the Reserve Bank have probably topped $ 1,000m, most of it obtained recently. It appears that all this massive deficit has been run up in the last month and that the Government’s deficit to this moment is already somewhere over $ 1,800m. It is trying to pretend to us at the end of its first quarter that it is still aiming for a deficit for the financial year as small as $2,700m. The Government is not coming clean on this matter, the same as it did not come clean on the loans affair and the same as it has not come clean on a whole range of things from the day it took office. Perhaps it would have been better if we had been given the truth about what we face as a result of this Budget and if we were spared the kind of inanities such as when Mr Hayden appears in the House of Representatives and tells us that a bigger deficit in fact will mean that things are getting better because it will mean that people are earning less and paying less tax. That is nonsense. We want a control of expenditure. We want a true statement of receipts. They are the things we want and we want to know more than we have been told. We want to know how this deficit will be funded, how this Government proposes to balance its books and how it proposes, for example, to balance the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Let me point out that if the balancing item required for the Consolidated Revenue Fund exceeds the total amount available for expenditure under the Defence appropriation this Bill will not have served its purpose. I have suggested that we are almost certainly going to see a situation where the gap to be funded is far in excess of the figure indicated. Will we have to see other loan Bills, different mechanisms? What will this Government do to balance the Consolidated Revenue Fund and to let us know what it is doing to this country? There is grave disquiet already in this country about the economic and commercial future of Australia. Every day that this Labor Government stays in office more companies fail, more people lose their jobs, inflation creeps along, unemployment gallops-

Senator Button:

– I rise to order. The question I rise on is one of relevance to the Bill before the Senate.

Senator Greenwood:

– Such sensitivity, really!

Senator Button:

– I am surprised that Senator Greenwood did not rise on the same point of order because he usually does. The matters which Senator Baume is now discussing have no relevance to the Senate. They may be of some psychiatric assistance to him in the current political situation but they have no relevance to this Bill.

Senator Greenwood:

– This is a Bill dealing with the authority of the Treasurer to raise loan moneys to cover the Government ‘s deficit. Surely factors which are relevant to the Government’s deficit must be relevant to this debate. I think Senator Button is far too acute to what is happening around him at the moment and should be quiet.

Senator BAUME:

– Speaking to the point of order, the Bill relates to the funding of the deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund and I have been addressing myself to the disquiet about the way in which that deficit will be funded.

Senator McAuliffe:

– I rise to order. What Senator Baume said is not correct. The Loan Bill seeks to give the Treasurer permission to raise money to finance certain defence expenditures. There is insufficient money in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to finance them. If Senator Baume were speaking correctly to the Bill he would be connecting his arguments on the Loan Bill to the defence expenditure and the emergency matters.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before the chair is the Bill to authorise the raising and spending of moneys for defence purposes and it covers matters such as the application of moneys borrowed. Clause 4 states:

Moneys borrowed under section 3 shall be applied only for the expenses of borrowing and for services specified under the heading ‘ Department of Defence ‘.

Answering the points of order that have been raised, I ask Senator Baume to connect his remarks to the purpose of the Bill as I have outlined it. Although it gives a fairly wide scope I would like the honourable senator to apply himself to the Bill.

Senator BAUME:

– I am very grateful for your ruling and of course I will abide by it. On the front page of the Bill there is a very long clause which indicates the maximum amount which can be borrowed and that amount relates to the gap that exists between the receipts and expenditures of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I draw that to your attention, Mr President. It is a very interesting way in which the Bill has been drawn and I am glad that Senator McAuliffe has given me the opportunity to say a few words about it. It is interesting that the Government has seen fit to introduce the Loan Bill with no fixed amount of money indicated. It wants to borrow an indefinite amount, an amount no greater than the gap between the receipts and expenditures of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I have spent some time developing the argument that that amount is unknown but that it is likely to be greater than the amount estimated in the Budget Papers and that for that reason we have a proper and real concern about the Bill and its functions. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1096

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1975-76

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! This is not a debatable motion. The question is: ‘That the Bill be now read a first time ‘.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is this not Appropriation Bill (No. 1)?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No, Appropriation Bill (No. 2).

Senator Greenwood:

– Are you bringing in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) first?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Minerals and Energy · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1975-76 for expenditure on:

  1. The construction of public works and buildings,
  2. b ) The acquisition of sites and buildings,
  3. Advances and loans,
  4. Items of plant and equipment,
  5. Grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution, and
  6. New policies not authorised by special legislation.

Details of the amounts sought by each department are shown in the Second Schedule to the Bill, the sum of these appropriations being $2,268,980,000. Of this, $1,081,981,000 was authorised by the Supply Act (No. 2) 1975-76, the balance of $1,186,999,000 being authorised by this Bill. The main features of the proposed expenditure were outlined in the Budget Speech. The Schedule to this Bill is the same as that contained in the document ‘Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in Respect of the Year Ending on 30 June 1076’ which was referred to the Senate Estimates Committees on 3 September for examination and report. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 1096

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1975-76

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Motion ( by Senator Wriedt) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise to speak on the first reading of a Bill. I draw the attention of the Senate to words which were said 2 years and 1 1 months ago when the man who is now the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Whitlam) was seeking office. He said:

Are you prepared to maintain at the head of your affairs a coalition which has lurched into crisis after crisis, embarrassment piled on embarrassment week after week? Will you accept another three years of waiting for next week ‘s crisis, next week’s blunder?

How apposite those words are today. This Government, as Mr Fraser has said, is the worst government in our nation’s history. Its incompetence and its mismanagement in the field of employment and inflation speak for themselves. But it is also a government which is devastated by deceit and by duplicity, by deviousness and by double standards, by improprieties, illegalities and far worse. There is one area which reveals the complete double dealing, the lack of standards, and the immorality of this Government, and that is what is revealed in the report of the Royal

Commission on Petroleum which deals with ACTU-Solo enterprises Pty Ltd. This matter is brought into very sharp relief by the resignation today of the former Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor. His resignation follows his exposure, if not for the lies he told, then for the misrepresentations and the concealments from the Prime Minister and the Parliament which were implicit in the allegations brought against him and the matters already conceded by the Prime Minister.

But he was also the Minister who was involved in the implementation of an indigenous crude oil policy. It is a policy under which immense financial benefits are available to the fortunate purchasers of crude oil produced in Australia. They can obtain crude oil at $2.10 a barrel, which is four to five times cheaper than the world price for crude oil. But it is not only a policy under which the purchasers of crude oil can purchase crude oil cheaply; it is also a policy under which the producers and the sellers of crude oil see themselves receiving far less than what the oil is worth on the open world market. Accordingly, if sellers and buyers can get together and conceal the true price which they are paid or are paying then the sellers can recoup a tidy profit above what is their entitlement and the buyers can still purchase at a price which is far less than what they would have to pay if they bought in accordance with the Government’s policy.

The Government’s policy, as it was initiated by the Gorton Government in 1969 and as it was claimed to be administered by Mr Connor, was not to approve sales of crude oil above the price of $2.10 a barrel. What happened, of course, under the ACTU-Solo purchase was that ACTUSolo bought for $5 a barrel and Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd sold for $5 a barrel. It was an agreement which was clearly contrary to the Government’s policy. It was an agreement entered into on 23 May 1975 by a company of which the managing director at the time was Mr R. J. Hawke, the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, and of which another director was Mr Souter who was the secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Two other directors were involved in commercial interests. They purchased at a price which they knew at that time was contrary to the Government’s policy. It meant that the company which was selling the crude oil to them was able to make a tidy profit in excess of $ 1 m. What a state of affairs it is when almost every night the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party appears on television castigating the multinational corporations, accusing them of fleecing and exploiting the Australian people, while at the same time he is agreeing, in defiance of his own Government- of his own Party’s policy- to benefit one of those overseas companies by $ 1 m. It is an absolutely scandalous situation, and there has not been enough revelation of what Mr Hawke and his colleagues were doing. This was a fact which was kept concealed from the Australian people. We heard all about the fact that ACTU-Solo was going into the retail selling market for petrol, and it was acclaimed as a venture by the Australian trade union movement into commerce; ordinarily a proposition I would welcome because it brings the union movement into the realities of the business world. But, of course, when it comes into the business world then the rules which apply to everyone else should apply to it.

This was an arrangement the details of which were concealed from the Australian people, until suddenly on 29 August it emerged as a fact before the Royal Commission on Petroleum. The Royal Commission was examining the ways in which retailers were able to sell at discounts, and the facts of the ACTU-Solo matter suddenly emerged before the Commission. The Press picked them up and the Government was required to make some statement. It said that the matter had to be investigated, and the matter was investigated. When the transaction had been examined by the Commission, the Commission delivered a report and attributed responsibility for what was a clear breach of Government policy to the directors of ACTU-Solo for misleading the Minister. In particular, the Commission singled out Mr Souter and Mr Wieland. But Mr Souter at all times protested his innocence of any deception of the Minister. He said that the Minister was not deceived. That Minister, of course, was Mr Connor, since resigned. Mr Souter is a man who, on my understanding of the position and on my belief, has a good reputation in the honoured sense of those words. It was not believed that Mr Souter would have deliberately deceived people in the way in which the Commission found he had, and I was interested to read the actual evidence before the Commission as well as to read the Commission’s findings.

After one reads what was said in evidence before the Commission, after one reads what the Commission said and after one reads what the Minister said to Parliament, I think certain conclusions can be drawn. I believe that there is a very strong contention that can be made that, far from the Minister being misled by Mr Souter, it was the Minister himself who led Mr Souter to propose the course of action which was followed.

That contention has a high degree of probability if reliance is placed upon what Mr Souter has said. Indeed, it is a contention which derives support from the circumstances of the whole transaction and the general belief amongst so many people that Mr Souter has been made a scapegoat. In short, the true position may well be that the Government and ACTU-Solo bear in mind that Mr Hawke is the leading light in ACTUSolo agreed on a joint course of action in which the Government benefited its friends and political supporters. They agreed upon a joint course of action, but when the facts were revealed the rogues fell out and Mr Souter was left to bear the burden.

This contention draws even greater strength from the conduct of deception and concealment which is now patently revealed and conceded by Mr Connor in connection with the Khemlani loans affair. In short, what I believe is the position from my reading in Hansard of what has been said by the Minister, from what appears in evidence and from what the Commission has found, is that the ACTU-Solo company in effect the Labor Party company headed by the President of the Australian Labor Party and served also by the Secretary of the ACTU, secured the indulgent blind eye of the Government. This was more than a case of jobs for the boys. It had all the indications of impropriety in public office for the benefit of the Government’s political party. If incidentally an overseas company benefited by over $lm, that of course was not something with which the Government was concerned.

I propose to take a little of the time of the Senate to look to the record to bear out some of the facts which support the contention I have made. The Royal Commission found, as indeed on the evidence it had to find, that the Minister for Minerals and Energy had before him an agreement which did not reveal the true price. There had been presented to him a letter, together with an agreement, which said that all that ACTU-Solo was paying was $2.10 a barrel. That of course was a lie, because the other documents which were before the Royal Commission disclosed that the price it was paying was $5 a barrel. The Commission found that the true price -

Senator Georges:

– Are you saying that the Minister knew that?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– If you listen to what I say I think if you are fair you will draw a conclusion which is absolutely inescapable that the Minister was aware of facts which, if he had given evidence, I am sure he would have been forced to concede. The Commission found that the true purchase price was $5 a barrel, and the agreement before the Minister disclosed a price of only $2.10 a barrel. What did the Commission find? In short form, as appears in the Commission’s conclusions, it stated:

On 16 May 1975 Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd granted an option to Solo Discount Petroleum Pty Ltd to purchase a parcel of 420 215 barrelsofcrudeatapriceof$5 a barrel.

It found as a conclusion that the same crude had previously been offered to nearly all the major Australian oil companies but that those companies had refused the offer on the” ground that the price was $5 a barrel and that would have been contrary to the Government’s policy. It found that on 23 May the option to purchase at $5 a barrel had been exercised on behalf of and for the benefit of ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd.

It was found that on 1 7 June Mr Souter had written to the Minister for Minerals and Energy enclosing an unsigned agreement in which ACTU-Solo was declaring that it purchased the crude from Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd for $2.10 a barrel. At approximately the same time Mr Souter said that he told the Minister by telephone that the price did not exceed $2.10 a barrel. The Commission found that these representations, both oral and in writing, were misrepresentations and they deceived the Minister as to the price being paid. It was said that Mr Souter, at the time he represented the price to be $2.10, was aware that if the price had been higher the Minister would not have approved and, as a result of the misrepresentations on price, the Minister found that the transaction was unexceptional in terms of the Government’s indigenous crude oil policy and communicated this view to ACTU-Solo and to the producers so that the crude could be uplifted. The Commission proceeded to find that the purchase price of $5 a barrel was divided into 2 agreements; one agreement for the $2. 10 and the other for the balance. The Commission stated, and I quote its words:

No reasons were ever given by ACTU-Solo to account for the division of the contracted arrangements into 2 separate parts or why the consideration was apportioned.

I stop there. How curious when you have an agreement to buy something for $5 that you should split the arrangement into 2 parts and to offer no reason as to why you are splitting it into 2 parts. If there is some undisclosed arrangement existing beforehand that this is the way it was to be done, then one would understand it. If, in fact, the purpose of doing it in this way is to show one agreement to the Minister and to conceal the other, then of course that is the way around the Government’s policy. But why was it done that way and at whose suggestion was it done? The arrangement appears so clearly from the evidence and from ;what the Minister said in Parliament -

Senator Button:

-Tell us about it. Put me out of my misery.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-I am coming to it. The arrangement resulted in Allied Petrochemical Company, securing a windfall profit in the tidy sum ‘ of “Between $1,019,000 and $1,224,000. A further conclusion of the Commission was: 25.21 The Commission considers that the Minister has never considered the ‘ true nature of the transaction as revealed by the totality pf the documentation and that in fact that Minister has never, approved the actual transaction as between A.P.C. and ACTU-Solo in its terms, and has never had an application in terms of the true price made to him for his approval.

That is a statement- which has many qualifications in it once .you examine it. It is a curious finding in light of the fact that there was no evidence given to the Commission by the Minister. But it is not curious if Mr Souter ‘s evidence is totally believed. In the light of what the Minister has revealed in the last few days, I would have thought there ought, to be people who will be looking at Mr Souter ‘s evidence and wondering why he should not be believed in the light of all that has happened.

The conclusion of the Commission to which I have referred is naturally to be considered in the light of the evidence placed before it. There was no evidence before the Commission suggesting that the Minister was given, to use its words, ‘the totality of the. documentation’. The only evidence was that-be-was shown the agreement which said that $2:10 per barrel was the price. On that evidence, the Commission’s findings are unexceptionable. It. is a hard-hitting report with conclusions which are clear. On the evidence presented to the Commission, I would think it is compelling that there is other material apart from the evidence which was presented to it. It should be noted that certain people did not give evidence to the Commission. We are not told why. Mr Connor did not give evidence nor did Mr Hawke, nor did Mr Keltie of the ACTU research staff, nor did any of the solicitors who prepared the documentation explain why the documents were prepared to . the form in which they were.

The Commission was satisfied that there were deceit and misrepresentation of the Minister; that APC was at all relevant times aware that there was an attempt to deceive the Minister; that all directors of ACTU-Solo bear responsibility for the deliberate deception; and that Messrs Souter and Wieland were the 2 directors of ACTU-Solo most concerned in the arrangement. But it is also to be noted that the Commission found that although Mr Souter was not the architect of the scheme he shares equal responsibilities with the other directors. The Commission does not- and I think this is quite unfortunate- say if Mr Souter was not the architect of the scheme who was the architect of the scheme.

Senator Button:

– But you are going to tell us, are you not?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Indeed, from the evidence it is not possible to say who the architect was. But Senator Button is curious to know who the architect is. With his knowledge of the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party, and with his understanding of what the Minister has been doing, I am pretty sure he knows who the architect of this scheme was. It is quite clear also from the evidence, when one links it with what the Minister said, at whom the finger points. If Mr Souter is to be believed, it may well be that it was the Minister himself who was the architect of the scheme.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is scurrilous.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Let us see what happens. We were told that we were scurrilous in making the allegations about the Minister for months. We were told we were doing dreadful things in this chamber. But what happens? In due course when the facts come out the Minister cannot be justified and the Minister resigns. He thereby- concedes the duplicity of which he has been guilty for months. But there are 2 questions which the Commission does not answer. They were not strictly relevant but they are nevertheless relevant questions which now emerge. The first is: After ACTU-Solo agreed to pay $5 per barrel to obtain the crude oil, why were the 2 contract documents prepared? Why was the purchase price of $5 split and on whose suggestion was that done? Secondly, why did the Minister in the light of his knowledge as revealed by him in answers in the Parliament allow the transaction to proceed as if it were consistent with Government policy?

Let the Senate consider what the Minister said in the Parliament. He stated that the Government did not approve of any contract by which a payment of more than $lm in excess of the Government’s approval price was made. He said that the Government did not approve of that sort of thing. He said that only one agreement was submitted to the Government and that it was the only one of which the Government had knowledge. He acknowledged that he had received a telex from his Department in which it was suggested that the APC company was only receiving what it was paying for the crude oil and, in fact, it was making a loss on the deal. It would not even recover the cost of a hotly contested piece of litigation in which it had secured the rights to this crude oil as against another company which was claiming it. Notwithstanding all that expenditure, APC was selling at a loss.

This was the advice given to the Minister which on the file the Minister ignored. Why? Possibly Senator Button might be prepared to interject at this stage to offer some reason in defence of the Minister. This telex was sent on 24 June 1975. Yet Mr Connor said that long before receiving that telex he had raised the matter verbally with Mr Souter and, as he said, ‘They assured me no consideration was being paid other than that contained in the agreement’. On the day after he said that in the Parliament Mr Connor said that he had no doubts about the nature of the transaction. He said he knew that the APC company had been endeavouring to flog off the right to this crude for $5 per barrel. He said he knew that the APC company had offered it to every major oil company by letter and that in all cases it had been rejected. He went on to say:

It was a natural thing for me immediately when approached first on the matter and before receiving any documentation specifically to raise the point that it was the same crude. I had no doubt and I insisted that it should be an orthodox transaction and nothing beyond that. It was not necessary for me to do other than to process the matter in the terms I did and in the light of the information that I received. Of course the matter was fully discussed between myself and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I received a proper assurance on it.

I stop there to interpolate that it was a great misfortune that at the time that was said Mr Souter, appearing before the Commission, had denied that he had had any such conversation with the Minister. It was rectified, of course, the day after when counsel for the Commonwealth- counsel appearing for the Minister- in a neat leading question put it to Mr Souter: ‘Of course you had a discussion’ and Mr Souter conveniently answered: ‘Yes’. But that is what the record reveals. Mr Connor then went on to say that he had had an assurance that the agreement which was put before him was one which conformed strictly with the policy of indigenous crude pricing. He stated:

Over the last 2 years I have quite consistently seen to it that policy was strictly enforced. In all cases of representation they have been told that there could be no windfall profits.

He went on:

I knew specifically that this oil had been flogged around and was continuing to be flogged around. For that reason alone, I was very emphatic that the indigenous oil price was to be the sole price paid and that was to be the final terms of that transaction.

The Minister said that was not what had happened and he had been misinformed. What appears so unaccountable and yet requiring explanation is how that squares with what Mr Souter has said, and how could a Minister reputed to be hard headed and, on his own words, ‘not to be a fool’ ever believe that anyone would be taken in by what he had said?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Because he has got an agreement.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– He was not prepared, on his own account, to do the elementary job of investigation. When the result of this is that misleading information in the totality is available then the Commission’s finding ought to be scrutinised.

Debate interrupted.

page 1100

ADJOURNMENT

ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I rise merely to put a case in support of the exMinister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, based on my knowledge of the matter of the contract that has been referred to by several people, including Senator Greenwood.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I raise a point of order. Under Standing Orders it is not possible to revive a debate that has taken place before the motion for the adjournment is moved. Senator Georges is seeking to do so.

Senator Georges:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. There is no such debate before the Senate. Senator Greenwood was speaking on the first reading of a money Bill. His speech need not be relevant to the Bill. Therefore I feel that during the adjournment debate I can speak on this matter. In fact, I could continue if I so desired. I intended, on my own initiative, to raise this matter at some point, to defend Mr Connor, based on the knowledge that I have.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Keep going.

Senator Georges:

– I am on the point of order. I think I ought to resume my seat so the President can rule on it.

The PRESIDENT:

– I refer to standing order 189. The only debate that has taken place has been on the first reading of a money Bill. This matter has been referred to in that debate. That debate could be a wide-ranging one. I believe that the matter which is being raised now by Senator Georges is relevant and can be referred to, although the matter was raised in the debate on the first reading of a money Bill. I rule that Senator Georges is entitled to refer to it again.

Senator Wright:

– I take a point of order. I do so, uncontentiously, to indicate that I propose to continue the debate on the matter that Senator Greenwood has initiated. It is highly inconvenient that we should take it this way. I simply suggest, Mr President, that you might exercise your influence to procure an orderly debate.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On the point of order, I suggest, with great respect to Senator Wright, that if he wishes to pursue the debate on the first reading of an Appropriation Bill, that is his right, just as any other honourable senator may speak on any matter on which he might choose to speak. This debate is on the motion that the Senate do now adjourn. That motion is distinctly opposite to the motion to which Senator Greenwood was speaking, namely, the motion for the first reading of an Appropriation Bill. I suggest that Senator Georges is quite within his right in raising any matter he might care to raise on the motion that the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator Greenwood:

– On the point of order, I have been ruled out of order previously, not by you, Mr President, but by one of your predecessors, for doing precisely what Senator Georges is now doing. If Senator Georges is in order it would mean that, if I had had the call, I could have continued my speech at the point where I had left off. I think that is implicit in the contention of Senator Douglas McClelland. I think that one of the incongruities would be that, if Senator Georges is allowed to continue, if I should secure the call when he ceases, I would be able to continue my speech at the point where I left off. In my submission, that is contrary to what the Standing Orders and the practice of the Senate have countenanced in the past.

Senator Poyser:

– I speak to the point of order. On all past occasions on which I have heard this point of order raised it has been in relation to a substantive debate on a second reading motion, certainly not in relation to the first reading of a money Bill when any senator may speak on matters relevant or irrelevant to the Bill. It could be said that if a person on the Opposition side or on the Government side raised a certain matter in a first reading debate it would effectively gag any other senator from speaking about that matter during the adjournment debate. Under the first reading rules in the Standing Orders, the debate on the first reading of a money Bill is in effect a grievance debate. It is not a substantive debate on the Bill before the House. If the debate was on a matter associated with a matter of substance in the Bill, Senator Greenwood would be right. On the first reading of a money Bill a senator may roam all over the place. He may talk about chicken farms on Norfolk Island if he likes. He may talk about anything he wishes. Now the Opposition proposes to gag a senator who is exercising his right under the rules in relation to an adjournment debate to express some views on a matter. If the matter which Senator Georges wants to raise referred to a second reading debate I believe he would be out of order. I think it would be most improper and wrong to rule him out of order at this stage when the first reading debate was virtually a grievance debate.

The PRESIDENT:

-Certain senators have opposed the right of a senator to raise in the adjournment debate matters which were raised on the first reading of a money Bill. Matters which can be raised on the first reading of a money Bill can be irrelevant and very wideranging. Therefore, my ruling is that Senator Georges is quite in order in continuing his remarks on the subject matter.

Senator GEORGES:

-Thank you, Mr President. If in the so called grievance debate tomorrow Senator Wright continues the allegations that Senator Greenwood has made I will exercise my right, under the standing order which allows me to speak to matters irrelevant to the first reading of a money Bill, to speak also. However, I do not think it would have been wise to allow Senator Greenwood to continue tonight. I must say that I did not know Senator Wright wished to continue the debate tomorrow. If I had known that I could possibly have said then what I intended to say now. For that reason I might shorten my remarks and take the opportunity to take part in the debate tomorrow on the first reading of a money Bill. But it is necessary for me to make a point on the information which I have and on the discussions which I had with Mr Connor. I am of the opinion that he was deceived and was not aware of the second part of the contract which the Australian Council of Trade Unions had undertaken.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The royal commission found that.

Senator GEORGES:

-The Royal Commission on Petroleum found that. Let us forget about the royal commission. Let me explain how I came into this exercise. The ACTU entered the petrol discounting business by obtaining an allocation of crude oil from Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd. Incidentally, I believe there may be some case for stating that XL Petroleum Pty Ltd, the company of Mr Sykes, had an entitlement to that crude, but it was ruled that XL did not have entitlement but Allied Petrochemicals did. When the ACTU entered into an arrangement with Allied Petrochemicals to take this allocation of crude it did it in 2 ways. Firstly, it undertook to pay what the then Minister said should be the price paid by any petrol company in Australia, that is $2.10. No company should take an advantage of this special allocation of fuel without at the same time making arrangements to take up an allocation of imported crude which would have made a considerable difference to the price of that allocation of Australian crude. But this was not the case. What the then Minister was made aware of was that the price was to be $2.10. Allied Petrochemicals was prepared to get out of the market and to pass its allocation across to the ACTU at $2.10. By this means ACTUSolo was able to enter the discount market and to discount petrol by as much as 14c a gallon, working on the principle that it could survive on a margin of 2c a gallon provided it got volume sales. This was the method by which the ACTU whether rightly or wrongly- I say wronglydecided to enter the market.

But the ACTU also intended to enter the market in Brisbane, exercising the same discounting arrangements which would have considerably dislocated and distorted the market. Let me make this perfectly clear: Mr Connor was always in support of an orderly market for the distribution of fuel. He was also always concerned about the need to protect those who were importing overseas crude, the price of the overseas crude being as much as three or four times that of Australian crude. Mr Connor took the view- in my discussions with him on this matter he supported the view- that there ought to be an orderly market for the distribution of fuel in this country and that the continuing supplies of fuel to this country depended on companies importing overseas crude. It would be grossly unfair for any company to take on a special allocation of Australian crude without at the same time taking the responsibility for the importation of overseas crude. The ACTU being aware of this apparently- whether it was Mr Souter or someone else- came to the arrangement of accepting this crude at the established price.

Senator Wright:

– How honest do you think it would be in the share market?

Senator GEORGES:

– It would not be what we would consider to be a fair practice, nor is it a fair practice, as I have expressed to Mr Hawke, to enter the market to discount wildly as the ACTU intended to do in various places to the disadvantage of the whole market and of the living conditions of many people who depend upon the orderly distribution of fuel. There is no doubt that because of the faulty distribution of fuel in Australia the price of petrol is too high. But the question ought not to be attacked in the manner in which the ACTU determined to attack it. It should be attacked in a more orderly fashion, reducing the distribution outlets to some reasonable level so that each person who operates a station at a fair margin can sell at a fair price.

We- by ‘we’ I mean the Union Co-operative in Queensland which operates 7 petrol selling sites- objected strongly to the ACTU ‘s entry into the market in the manner in which it entered the market discounting, as I said previously, wildly. We believe that this would distort the market and would in fact lead to the closure of the sites that we have operated not for the past year but for the past 9 years. I made an approach to Mr Hawke, and he agreed that we should be considered. I also made an approach to Mr Connor, and it is at this point that I strongly believe that Mr Connor was not aware of the second agreement. I feel confident that Mr Connor was not aware that anyone was prepared to break the agreement to which all the oil companies agreed, that is, that they would not purchase this oil at a price above $2.10.

Senator Wright:

– Why did he not go before the Royal Commission and give evidence?

Senator GEORGES:

– It was not necessary for the former Minister to go before the Royal Commission and give evidence because the Royal Commission found, as I consider rightly, that the former Minister was not in possession of the full information. In fact I believe that the former Minister- I feel strongly on this- at the present time has been disadvantaged for a variety of reasons. He should not be disadvantaged on the basis of this agreement that ACTU-Solo entered into with Allied Petrochemicals. The Royal Commission found rightly, and I think that it is quite unfair for anyone to bring charges against the former Minister at this stage. He consideredI say it again- that there must be an orderly market for the distribution of fuel in Australia. That was the view that he took. He would not have been a party to, nor did he know of, the methods that ACTU-Solo intended to use, that is, to give a 14c discount out of its 16c margin and to attract volume sale to the disadvantage of the rest of the industry.

I believe that if the ACTU-Solo operation is run correctly, if it is prepared not to distort the market and if it is prepared not to engage in unfair practices, it is one that ought to be supported, and I believe that if the ACTU-Solo organisation was prepared to take responsibility for importing overseas crude, it ought to be given an allocation. The organisation ought to enter the market as all other people enter the market, and on the basis of the organisation’s sales it should receive an Australian allocation. What I resent, firstly, is what Senator Greenwood and others have said about the former Minister being party to a deception. He was not. What I also object to is that ACTU-Solo should enter into the market using what I consider to be unfair practices of price cutting to the disadvantage of other people in the industry.

I reiterate that it is quite unfair for Senator Greenwood to attempt to disadvantage Mr Connor further. I believe that he has been disadvantaged enough. It is a little late in the piece for Senator Greenwood to enter this attack. If he seeks by this attack to embarrass the Government further, I do not think he will succeed. I think it would be wise for him to understand and to accept the Royal Commission’s finding that the former Minister was deceived. If Mr Souter was party to that deception, he must accept the responsibility. If there were others who had knowledge of that deception, perhaps Senator Greenwood should be directing his attack to them. As the matter stands, the Royal Commission found something. We should accept that. We should not pursue it any further. We should not drive Mr Connor any further than we have driven him so far.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.49 p.m.

page 1104

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Public Service: Decentralisation (Question No. 707)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in matters relating to the Public Service, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Minister’s answer to Question No. 56 1 asked by Senator Rae concerning the Government’s program for decentralising Australian Public Servants away from Canberra, that there is ‘no formal identification of growth centres’ proposed for Tasmania, what content does the ‘ range of urban development programs ‘ have specifically for the decentralisation of public servants away from Canberra to Tasmania.
  2. Excluding the proposed Australian Maritime College for Launceston, which was planned by the last LiberalCountry Party Government, are there no other specific plans to include Tasmania in the program to decentralise public servants away from Canberra.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The range of urban development programs on which the Australian and Tasmanian Governments are cooperating include-

The National Sewerage Program, aimed at overcoming existing backlogs in sewerage treatment and reticulation works, initially in Hobart and Launceston.

The Land Commission program. An interim committee for this program in Tasmania has been formed and has met, and this is expected to lead to the formation of an urban land council in Tasmania in the near future.

The Strategic Development Study, aimed at identifying Tasmania’s future growth patterns and integrating development of the State on a regional basis.

Tasman Bridge. The Australian Government is involved in the reconstruction and widening of the Tasman Bridge, in the planning of a second four-lane bridge across the Derwent, and in the upgrading of roads currently being used in place of the Tasman Bridge.

All of these programs are being handled by means of existing Government machinery, in Tasmania and elsewhere (including the recently established Tasman Bridge Reconstruction Commission), and none of them involves the decentralisation of public servants away from Canberra to Tasmania.

  1. The honourable senator seems to have no ground for asserting that the last Liberal/Country Party Government planned an Australian Maritime College for Launceston. This location was not mentioned in answers which previous Ministers gave the present Prime Minister (Hansard, 1 September 1970 page 904 and 16 September 1971, page 1516). Departmental documents of that period indicate that the proposed location was in Sydney. The Liberal/Country Party manifesto for the 1974 elections mentioned a merchant marine college but no location for it.

The establishment and location of the Australian Maritime College was fixed following the report of a Royal Commission established by the Labor Government and from consequential consultations with the State Governments.

In addition the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science and Consumer Affairs is being transferred from Melbourne to Hobart in accordance with the decision of the Labor Government.

There are at present no specific plans for the relocation of public servants from Canberra to Tasmania.

State Publications on the Arts (Question No. 833)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister say in answer to Question No. 768 asked by Senator Rae on Government funded publications in the Ans and associated areas published in the States and Territories, in addition to the Commonwealth, that ‘This information is not held in my Department’.
  2. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that there has been a complete and absolute breakdown in communications between him and the various State Ministers for the Arts and Cultural Affairs.
  3. Has the Prime Minister, or his Department, received any, and if so, what publications in these areas since 3 December 1972; if not, will he advise what publications the Government has received from the States.
  4. When did the Prime Minister, or the Government, abandon his pledge of 13 November 1972’. . . to widen access to, and the understanding and application of, the arts in the community generally’, in respect of his Department’s access to information on the creative and performing arts.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. There is regular formal and informal consultation between the State ministries and authorities responsible for providing support for the arts and the Australia Council. For several years formal meetings have been held every six months, alternately in the headquarters of the Council in North Sydney and in rotation around the States. The Executive Officer and senior staff of the Council meet with the permanent heads or directors of State departments and authorities to discuss matters of policy or administration, budgetary affairs, joint funding of organisations or projects, research and new ventures.

There is also informal consultation at staff level on matters requiring joint action or joint funding, and information is regularly exchanged between all parties. Most of the State bodies are recent creations and have as yet produced little systematic information.

  1. State Arts ministries do not regularly produce material about their activities, although statistics are published annually in each State yearbook.

Publications received regularly by the Australia Council from State Arts ministries and associated organisations are:

New South Wales- Information brochure about the Department of Culture, Sport and Recreation. Sydney Opera House Trustees annual report. Art Gallery of New South Wales Trustees annual report.

Victoria- Art Bulletin of Victoria.

Queensland- The Queensland Cultural Diary (monthly). A list of Queensland cultural organisations (annually).

South Australia- Adelaide Festival Centre Trust annual report.

Tasmania- Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery annual report.

It is understood that reports have recently been issued or are about to be issued by the Victorian, Western Australian and Tasmanian ministries. The Australia Council Library, which is available for public use, receives a variety of information from independent groups active in the arts.

  1. I have never abandoned this pledge. The Australia Council, established by my Government, has for the first time provided a focal point for information on the arts both through the issue of regular press releases and in its annual report.

Australian Maritime College (Question No. 847)

Senator Rae:

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

  1. 1 ) What date is construction expected to begin on the National College of Navigation and Communication in Launceston.
  2. On what date is construction expected to be completed.
  3. On what date will students be able to enrol.
  4. What local professional services (for example, contractors and architects) and what local materials has the Government included or proposed to include in its planning and construction of the College.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2), (3) and (4). It is not possible at this stage to give dates for the commencement or completion, or other details, of buildings for the Australian Maritime College in Launceston. The present state of play is that legislation has been introduced providing for the establishment of the College at Launceston and for the establishment of an Interim Council to undertake detailed planning for the College. As soon as possible after the legislation comes into operation the Interim Council will be appointed and will commence its work.

Major building projects for the College may not be complete for several years, but it is hoped that, through cooperation with other educational institutions and some use of temporary facilities, there may be some initial enrolments, on a limited scale, in 1977. This time-table assumes that the Bill receives a quick passage through Parliament.

Chile Refugees (Question No. 853)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Were refugees who come to this country from Chile required to sign a declaration that they would not engage in any political activity in Australia.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: l.No.

Department of Police and Customs: Unpublished Documents (Question No. 863)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Police and Customs, upon notice:

What are the titles of the reports, papers or documents produced by or for the Government since December 1972 in the areas of the Minister’s responsibility which have not been publicly released.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the reply to Question No. 885 (Hansard, 2 October, page 930) given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister.

Department of Labor and Immigration: Unpublished Documents (Question No. 866)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

What are the titles of the reports, papers or documents produced by or for the Government since December 1972 in the areas of the Minister’s responsibility which have not been publicly released.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to question No. 885 on 2 October 1975 (Hansard, page 930).

Department of Special Minister of State: Unpublished Documents (Question No. 878)

Senator Rae:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the titles of the reports, papers or documents produced by or for the Government since December 1972, in the areas of the Minister’s responsibility which have not been publicly released.
Senator McClelland:

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 885 (Hansard, page 930).

Sir Lenox Hewitt

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 2 September 1975 (Hansard, page 406) Senator Durack asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the proposed status of and offices currently held by Sir Lenox Hewitt as a servant of the Government. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Sir Lenox Hewitt was appointed to be a member of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for a period of seven years from 1 1 January 1973. He was subsequently appointed to be Deputy Chairman of the Commission with effect from 1 June 1 975 for the remaining period of his appointment as a member of the Commission. He is one of the Governmentappointed Directors of Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd. He is also Chairman of Directors of the Petroleum and Minerals Company of Australia Pty Limited. He ceased to be a member of the Pipeline Authority automatically on tendering his resignation from the office of the Secretary to the Department of Minerals and Energy.

It is not customary for the Government to discuss either the role of any official in relation to the formation of policy, or his future movements.

Department of Agriculture: Consultants (Question No. 824)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What persons or private companies outside the Public Service have been used by the Minister’s Department for research, public relations, advice, or any other purpose, since 1 July 1973.
  2. For what project or purpose were the services of each person or company utilized.
  3. 3 ) What was the cost of each of the consultations referred to above.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (l),(2)and(3)-

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19751014_senate_29_s66/>.