Senate
16 July 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2741

PETITION

The Clerk:

– The following petition has been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 2741

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Bill 1975

Australian Heritage Commission Bill 1975

Health Insurance Bill 1975

Grants Commission Bill 1975

Australian Bureau of Statistics Bill 1 975

National Gallery Bill 1975

Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1975

Trade Practices Bill 1975

Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1 975

Victoria Grant (Seymour Flood Mitigation) Bill 1975

National Capital Development Commission Bill 1975

States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill 1975

States Grants ( Universities ) Bill 1 975

Railways (South Australia) Bill 1975

Railways (Tasmania) Bill 1975

Tasmania Grant (Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd ) Bill 1975

Dried Fruits Levy Bill 1975

Dried Fruits Export Charges Bill 1975

Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance ) Bill 1975

Customs Tariff(Anti-Dumping) Bill 1975

Customs Bill 1975

Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1975

Ship Construction Bounty Bill 1975

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1975

States Grants (Beef Industry) Bill 1975

Dairy Produce Bill 1975

Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Bill 1975

Northern Territory Supreme Court Bill 1 97 5

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Bill 1975

Wool Tax Bills (Nos. 1 to 5) 1975

page 2741

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN NEGOTIATIONS

Examination of Persons Called to the Bar of the Senate

Debate resumed from 1 5 July.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

I feel I can do no better in opening this debate than to quote the opening words of the Special Report of the Senate Select Committee on National Service in the Defence Force. The Committee was comprised, I think, solely of Labor senators and reported to the Senate in 1951. The report opened with these words:

Parliaments without parliamentary liberties are but a fair and plausible way into bondage.

That quote was from John Pym. The report continued:

The important truth, powerfully expressed in those words of prominent 17th century statesman, John Pym, may well form the theme of this Special Report-

May I substitute for ‘Special Report’ the word debate’.

Mr President, may I deal firstly with the letters which you read yesterday in the Senate. I make no criticism whatever of the action you took in reading them. They were addressed to you. It was your duty to read them. But Mr President I do take exception to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) wrongly using the President of this place for a Party political propaganda exercise. That is what his letter was. If he had any respect for the Presiding Officers of this Parliament- he has shown in another place that he has not, and he has shown in this place, by his denigration of you prior to Her Majesty the Queen altering the order of precedence, that he has not- he should have put that letter down by a statement from the Leader of the Government (Senator Wriedt) in this place. The Presiding Officer in this place should not be used as a mouthpiece for the Prime Minister’s political propaganda.

How did all this occur? I ask this question: Why did the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s staff continually feed out to the media from Wednesday to Monday statements implying that witnesses would be free to answer questions except on matters of policy? It might be said that that was a good exercise in that it was misleading the Opposition. I take no exception to that, but I do not know whether the Prime Minister and his staff ought deliberately to mislead the media, whether they ought deliberately to mislead the public, and that is what they set about doing. Why did they attempt that? They attempted it so that they could pull the cheap schoolboy trick of running an ambush, here at 2.30 p.m. yesterday and from that I totally exonerate the Leader of the Government in this place. I take no real exception to the Prime Minister and other Ministers attempting to gain an advantage by surprising the Opposition. I think it is fair enough for the Prime Minister to do that, for the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) to do that, for the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) to do that and for the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) to do that. But I ask: Why did the Solicitor-General get into the same exercise? He cannot claim in his letter, which is dated 1 5 July, some special sort of independence and at the same time be a party to a Government ambush. I ask: Why did he not write last week? Why did he not write to you, Mr President, last Wednesday or Thursday or Friday? Why did he do this at the last minute? The last sentence in his letter states:

I have taken the liberty of writing this letter to you, Mr President, in the hope that you will inform the Senate of it and in the wish that it -

I assume that is the Senate- may receive prior notice of the position I have felt impelled to adopt.

That appears at page 2 of the letter. If that is prior notice, it is not the sort of prior notice I ever expected or gave in normal practice.

The Government now takes a stance as set out in those letters. But what was its stance in Opposition? What did the Government then believe in? May I quote from page 38 of the Australian Labor Party policy speech of 1972, remembering always that part of the Government’s policy when it was in Opposition, and which in fact it carried out, was to repeal regulation 34(b) to free public servants to criticise government policies and actions. On page 38 there is reference to freedom of information. I know it is not Freudenberg at his best, but the Prime Minister did his best with it. Under the heading ‘ Freedom of Information’ the statement appears:

Restrictions on public servants will be reduced to the minimum necessary for the conduct of the affairs of government. Excessive secrecy in government is directly related to the fact that the Liberals have been in power too long: they have a lot to hide.

What a paraphrase one could run on that. But the better statement appears on page 9, and this is really Freudenberg at his best. He states:

We want the Australian people to know the facts, to know the needs, to know the choices before them. We want them always to help us as a government to make the decisions and to make the right decisions. Australia has suffered heavily from the demeaning idea that the government always knows best with the unspoken assumption always in the background that only the government knows or should know anything.

By jove, that really is Freudenberg at his best. On the next page, of course, the document goes on to say:

The Australian Labor Party will build into the Administration -

Senator Mulvihill:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. Senator Webster, who is sitting on my right, has been making reference to ‘crooks’. We put up with Senator Gair last year, but I am not going to put up with this animal indulging in those -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I did not hear any remark made by any honourable senator, but I would request honourable senators to allow the speaker who is addressing the Chair to continue his speech in silence.

Senator W WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Thank you, Mr President. The final quote from this very interesting document reads:

The Australian Labor Party will build into the administration of the affairs of this nation machinery that will prevent any government, Labor or Liberal, from ever again cloaking your affairs under excessive and needless secrecy. Labor will trust the people.

What a thing to say! What did we hear last night on This Day Tonight when my colleague Senator Greenwood was debating the matter with Senator James McClelland, the Minister for Minerals and Energy? As I recall, Senator James McClelland -

Senator Wheeldon:

– He is the Minister for Labor and Immigration.

Senator WITHERS:

– What is he now? The Minister for Labor and Immigration.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You are that stirred up you do not know what you are saying. Settle down.

Senator WITHERS:

-There have been so many changes. The only one who seems to be reasonably permanent is the Prime Minister and his position is somewhat in doubt. Senator James McClelland said last night that the people have been told all they need to know and they have been told all they ought to know, or words to that effect.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Why do you not quote what I said? Why are you claiming that you do not know what I said?

Senator WITHERS:

-I leave it to Senator James McClelland to say later what he did say. We all heard what he said- that they have been told all they need to know.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You do not even know.

Senator WITHERS:

-Do not get excited. Senator James McClelland could have swallowed his tongue after he said it because he knew that he ought not to have said it.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What did I say?

Senator WITHERS:

-That is what you said. Let us go on to talk about how excited the Prime Minister got yesterday about his attempts to say what an unprecedented thing the Opposition was indulging in by attempting to have public servants come before the Parliament and explain their actions. On Wednesday, 1 November 1967, Senator Murphy, the then Leader of the Opposition, gave notice of the following motion:

That the Senate considers that the Government has failed to give any proper explanation or excuse for the untrue statements on VIP aircraft and accordingly that:

the Secretary of the Department of Air be called to the Bar or the Senate, by summons under the hand nf the Clerk of the Senate, to give evidence upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate

I was well aware of that because I went to that notice of motion as a precedent for the drafting of my own. It is well known that the debate raged for some time and that eventually a division was taken. Of those Labor senators who still sit in this place, who voted for it? Senator Bishop, who is a member of the Government; Senator Cavanagh, who is a member of the Government; Senator Devitt, who is now the Assistant Whip; Senator Keeffe, who has disappeared to where he ought to be; Senator McClelland, who is a Minister of the Crown; Senator Mulvihill, who still sits in the same place; Senator Wheeldon, who is one of the Prime Minister’s brightest Ministers- the Prime Minister said that, not Dr Anthony; and Senator Willesee, who was a distinguished Leader here. According to the transcript from the Parliamentary Library, Senator James McClelland said on This Day Tonight last night: ‘The public knows all it needs to know about the loans affair, all that needs to be told ‘. That is what he said.

Who else would have voted for the motion if he had been present. One can assume that Senator Poyser, the Government Whip who was then paired, also would have voted for it if he had been present. I ask: Was that not a Caucus decision to summom a public servant to the Bar of this place?

Senator Wheeldon:

– How did you vote?

Senator WITHERS:

-I was not here. I was not a member of the Senate. Ask a silly question and you get a sensible answer. At that stage, of course, Mr Whitlam was the Leader of the Opposition in the other place. On 8 November 1 967 he moved an amendment to a motion, that the House take note of a statement, in exactly the same terms as the one Senator Murphy moved in the Senate, namely, that an officer of the PublicService, the Secretary of the Department of Air, be summoned to be present before the Parliament. I will not give the name of every member of Parliament who voted for that amendment, but I will list the Ministers in the other place who voted for it. They were Mr Bryant; Mr Clyde Cameron; Mr Connor, one of the men now claiming privilege; Mr Crean, the new Deputy Prime Minister pro tern; Mr Daly, the great parliamentarian down there and the man who runs the Parliament; Dr Everingham; Dr Patterson: and one E. G. Whitlam, currently Prime Minister. Who was paired in the voting? Mr Beazley, again a great proponent of the parliamentary system; Mr Hayden, one of the signatories to the letters; and one Charles Jones, another Minister. We could assume that they would have voted for the amendment.

The Prime Minister had the nerve to say at his Press conference yesterday that what we are doing here is indulging in the politicisation of the Public Service. As I recall the speech of the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Renouf, he came into the political arena. I do not mind him doing it, but he came into the political area and criticised the policies of the Opposition. I take no exception to this. But if the public servants want to indulge in politics they have to live with politics. They just cannot put their toes in the water and go back home when it gets a little chilly. As to the Prime Minister stating that we should not politicise the Public Service, I ask: Has he never heard of the appointments of Menadue, Wilenski and Spigelman? Mr President, it is all too ridiculous for words. With that, I dismiss the letters. I now come to deal with the motion I moved this morning.

Senator Cavanagh:

– About time.

Senator WITHERS:

-I come to deal with the paragraphs of the motion, which is in 2 parts. It states, firstly, that the Senate take note of the letters. I ask honourable senators opposite: With which, if any, of the 4 paragraphs of the motion do they disagree? Do they disagree with the first paragraph, which states that we affirm that we have the powers and privileges of the House of Commons as conferred upon us by section 49 of the Constitution? Do they deny paragraph 2? Do they deny paragraph 3, which is lifted straight from the opinion of Solicitor-General Bailey which was accepted by honourable senators as a true representation of what they felt? Do they deny that paragraph 4 sets out a sensible and proper method of dealing with this matter?

Senator James McClelland no doubt will be speaking to this motion. He represents the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) in this place. I think this is a magnificent opportunity for the Government to state its views on the claim of privilege- not just the claim of privilege of witnesses summoned before the Parliament but also the claim of privilege before other tribunals. I think it is fair enough to say that Senator James McClelland ought to inform the Senate what the Government would argue and what it would instruct counsel to argue. Would the Government argue that the decision in the Cammell,

Laird case be adhered to, or do honourable senators opposite believe that -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is what Sir Robert Menzies believed.

Senator WITHERS:

-That was long before the case of Connor v. Rimmer. This is where the Government always jumps too early.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Have you read what Senator Greenwood said about it?

Senator WITHERS:

-I think that Senator James McClelland ought to put down a view. It is very interesting to note that on 15 April 1970 Mr Whitlam, the then Leader of the Opposition in the other place, put this question, which is recorded on page 1 13 of House of Representatives Hansard of 1 5 April 1 970:

I ask the Prime Minister a question. My question relates to the question of parliamentary committees which he, yesterday, said in answer to the honourable member for Lang has been receiving the attention of the Government and to the practice under which, if a Minister certifies that he regards it as injurious to the public interest to divulge information concerning particular matters, a parliamentary committee accepts the Minister’s certificate and does not require the production of documents on those matters.

In those days under our government the Leader of the Opposition was entitled to ask enormously long questions. He continued:

He will probably remember that, in November 1953, Sir Robert Menzies sent Professor Bland the classic letter on this subject and relied on the 1942 House of Lords case of Duncan v. Cammell, Laird. I ask the right honourable gentleman whether he or his Government has reconsidered this matter in the light of the later decision of Conway v. Rimmer, 2 years ago, in which the House of Lords did not follow its earlier decision but held, in effect, that the body calling for the documents, while giving full weight to the Minister’s view, should itself decide whether the documents should be produced and, for this purpose, will generally be entitled to inspect them? In other words, I ask him whether the Government now takes the view that a parliamentary committee is itself entitled to inspect documents for which it calls and to decide whether it is in the public interest for the documents to be disclosed.

Senator Wright:

– Who asked that question?

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr Whitlam, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives on 15 April 1970 and recorded at page 1118 of the House of Representatives Hansard. I think it is a fair inference to draw that the Prime Minister would not ask a question in those terms unless he thought that the decision in Connor v. Rimmer was the proper decision and ought to be the procedure to be followed before select committees.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Conway v. Rimmer. Get your facts straight.

Senator WITHERS:

-Conway v. Rimmer. The honourable senator is taking a long time to catch up with me. If it was the right procedure to be followed by select committees and other committees of the Parliament, I ask: What is wrong with the same procedure for the Parliament as a whole? The Prime Minister and the Government in the past used to rely greatly upon the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Former Senator Murphy used to quote them tediously. The Prime Minister has always been somewhat addicted to the United States Supreme Court. He rather likes the fact that it seems to be comprised now of lawyers with a social conscience. However, throughout the whole of this exercise, not once has the Prime Minister or any of his colleagues adverted to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in connection with the Nixon tapes. I think a fair summary of what the United States Supreme Court said is that if Congress wants something there is no such thing as executive privilege. I hope I am not doing the United States Supreme Court an injustice in putting it in those terms.

One would imagine that what the Senate is indulging in at the moment is something unusual or something strange. Committees of the Senate are but part of the Senate and for at least 10 years public servants have been coming before Senate Committees of all sorts and sizes and on all sorts of inquiries. I ask: When has a public servant ever been embarrassed before a Senate committee in relation to questions that have been asked of him? I and every honourable senator in this place have sat on committees at which very senior public servants have attended and quite often they have said: ‘Mr Chairman, I would like to seek advice on how I ought to answer that question because I think we may be getting into a policy area’. What has always been the decision of the Senate Committee? It has been to grant that request. No Senate committee has been so stupid as to threaten to come back to the Senate and suggest the gaoling of a public servant because he was in some quandary as to whether he was getting into policy areas. Yet the Prime Minister yesterday said in his typical, smart alecky fashion: ‘I would like to see the Senate attempt to gaol public servants’. It was never in contemplation. I do not think it has ever been in the contemplation of any person who sits in this place.

The whole exercise indulged in yesterday in the writing of the letters to you, Mr President, was but a further attempt by the Government to prevent the people of Australia finding out something about the loans affair. The whole operation of the Government, from the time this matter surfaced, has been a cover-up operation. The Prime Minister said yesterday that there are ample procedures in the Parliament for Ministers to be questioned. If one had time to go through Hansard one would see questions unanswered for month after month after month. Questions on the notice paper stay there almost from the beginning of one Parliament to the end of it. Yet the Prime Minister said that there is ample opportunity for members of Parliament to question the Government. In fact there is very little opportunity to question Ministers and there is less opportunity to obtain answers from them. We know, and any fair-minded person will admit it, that on the government side question time is a matter of Dorothy Dixers and propaganda speeches in reply, and on this side questions are asked and no relevant answer is given. That has been the practice in this Parliament for far too long.

Senator McLaren:

– What about the 23 years that your parties were in government?

Senator WITHERS:

-I admit that we indulged in it also.

Senator McLaren:

– Of course you did.

Senator WITHERS:

-Of course. I have no objection to admitting that fact. But for the Prime Minister to indulge in the humbug in which he indulged yesterday and to say there is ample opportunity in the Parliament does him no good. This debate and the re-summoning of the Parliament are all part of the continuing story, the continuing saga. It is part of an attempt by the Government to bury the whole of this loans issue and to hope it will go away. But it has not gone away. It will not go away. It will not go away, Mr President, by the Prime Minister’s writing letters to you and it will not go away by the Ministers’ writing you letters. It will not go away by the Ministers’ telling their public servants to claim privilege on all questions, even when asked for their names and addresses. They have been told to claim privilege about all questions. This matter will not go away. I do not think I can do better in finality than to quote the last paragraph of the editorial in today’s Melbourne Age which states:

But he has not won the battle of the loans. And he will not win it while he allows this charade of deceit, misconception, misrepresentation and abuse of responsibility to continue.

I commend the motion to the Senate.

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

– As a result of the Opposition’s resolution of last week the Senate now has before it 2 essential matters: The question of whether the Government has given a full and proper account of its attempts to obtain overseas loans for the development of Australian resources, and now the question of whether the Australian Public Service is to remain a nonpolitical service. I intend to re-state the course of action which has been taken by the Government in respect of the loan matters and to make one or two observations about the appearance of public servants before the Bar of the Senate. However, I shall leave the question of privilege to be argued in greater depth by my legal colleagues.

The decision of the Opposition to recall the Senate and to proceed on this dangerous course of calling public servants before the Bar was bad enough in itself. The motion which the Opposition now has before the Senate has compounded that situation. Probably never before in the history of this Parliament has a more irresponsible action been taken. It would do us well to recall the words of Sir Robert Menzies on this subject. He said:

Civil servants ought not to be dragged into Parliamentary debate. They have great responsibilities which, in my experience, they discharge with outstanding honesty, and it would be deplorable to have their names and views bandied about in Parliament, thus involving the civil servant much against his will in party political controversy.

Our Constitution and practice are that, instead of having a complete separation between legislature and executive, we have our inherited system of ‘responsible government’, under which Ministers sit in Parliament after being elected to Parliament, answer questions and engage in debate.

They are properly responsible to Parliament: their advisers are not. There are overwhelmingly good reasons for this. A political minister must face the music in Parliament: that is his duty and his privilege. He takes responsibility for his department and its administration.

But a non political officer called before Parliament in relation to a matter of political controversy would be put into an intolerable position.

Questions put to him would be in the sole discretion of individual members. It would be remarkable if he were not asked for his opinions and the advice he had given his minister.

He would become a political chopping block. His confidential relationship with his minister would be impaired and perhaps destroyed. He would be irresistibly tempted never to write a memorandum again that he was not prepared to read in print some day.

But now Sir Robert Menzies is disowned, he is repudiated, he is cast aside by the Opposition in this scheme to score off the Government this irresponsible attempt to overthrow ministerial responsibility.

These words explain succinctly the situation with which we are confronted today. The Opposition believes that the Government has acted wrongly in relation to the raising of overseas loans. It would like to believe that impropriety has been involved. It has, however, been unable to find evidence of any such impropriety- and now Mr President, it is bringing before the Bar of the Senate the Solicitor-General and eleven of the Government’s principal public service advisers in the hope that it might, through some disclosure, discredit by further innuendo, the reputation of this Government.

On Wednesday last, 9 July, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers), gave notice of motion to call before the Bar of the Senate the Solicitor-General and 1 1 senior officials that it wanted to answer questions upon the activities of the Government’s Ministers, servants and agents relating to all dealings by them prior and subsequent to the Executive Council Meeting of 1 3 December 1974 which authorised the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) to borrow a sum not exceeding US$4,000m. They were to be required to produce all documents, files or papers in their possession or control relating to these matters which have not been tabled in the Houses of the Parliament. Attendance before the Bar of the Senate was to be waived in the event of the Government announcing prior to 1 5 July 1975, its intention to appoint a royal commission with proper and adequate terms of reference to investigate and report on all aspects of the Government’s overseas loan activities. 1 made it clear during the debate on the Opposition motion that the Government did not support the proposal. It is now claimed by the Opposition that the Government did not vote against their motion.

Let me refresh the memories of honourable senators opposite. I said:

We do not agree with the course of action being taken by the Opposition. We are realists. We know quite well that if the Opposition wishes to have these persons brought before the Bar of the Senate it has the numbers to have them brought before the Bar of the Senate. I indicate that we do not agree with the course of action which is being taken. Wc do not believe that the Senate chamber should be turned into a Star Chamber before which many people of high repute in the Public Service will be dragged. 1 believe that it is an action which demeans the Senate, and I think it will be embarrassing and probably degrading to the people who will have to be involved. We regret that that course of action is being taken but there is very little that we can do about it.

Honourable senators will recall that the Government on the voices voted against the motion. It would have been a futile exercise to have forced a division. This resolution is but a continuation of the cynical attitude of the Opposition in this matter, as described by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam):

No responsible person has expressly or directly made any specific charge of impropriety, of illegal or corrupt conduct on behalf of any Government, myself or an individual Minister. Innuendo, insinuation, the sneer, the smear

. willing to wound yet afraid to strike.

Just how cynical the Opposition’s motives really are is best demonstrated by their introduction of this resolution in this House less than 5 hours after the Prime Minister and the Minister for Minerals and Energy had tabled a substantial number of papers in the Lower House- ninetyseven in all- and even before I had tabled them in this House. One might be excused for thinking that the Opposition was saying: ‘Do not confuse us with facts, our minds are made up! ‘ Mr President, the letter you have received from the Prime Minister and have read for the benefit of all honourable senators indicates clearly and simply why the Government has determined that although officials should respond to the Senate’s summonses by attending, executive privilege should be claimed for them.

The inquiry by the Senate in relation to which the summonses have been served is in essence an inquiry into Government policy and decisions of Government. It is not an inquiry into the working of the Public Service or an inquiry into the activities of public servants. It would be inevitable that the inquiry would attempt to go into the extent to which the officers were involved in the formulation of the Government’s policy and decisions- policy and decisions which are the responsibility of the Government and individual Ministers. It is an inquiry that cuts directly across the principle of Ministerial responsibility, a cornerstone in our Parliamentary system. In keeping with that principle, an official does not formulate policy nor is he responsible for that policy or the decisions taken by the Government. It follows that he should not be asked in this place or elsewhere to express personal opinions on Government policy or to make known the views he held and expressed to the Government on any proposed Government action. His role is as an adviser to the Government and this has been made abundantly clear in the statement of the Prime Minister that I read to the Senate last Wednesday evening. Let me remind the Senate of those words from the Prime Minister’s statement. He said:

It is no secret that the Treasury had reservations about my Government’s intention to authorise the Minister for Minerals and Energy to investigate loan raising overseas in the terms of the Executive Council authority. I freely admit that fact, which apparently has become known to the Opposition and the electorate through the leaking of documents. In the event, we took the advice of other departments. In saying that we did not accept the Treasury reservations, I make no apology, as I make no apology for the Government’s original concept of borrowing extensive petro dollars for capital development. Nor should I. It is an arrogant suggestion that a government, whatever its policies, should be frustrated in its decisions because of any bureaucratic opposition.

Is there any real challenge to this view from the Opposition? Certainly there was none when it was in government.

If it needs support, I need go no further than the 1968 Garran oration by the former Governor-General and former Minister of the Crown, Sir Paul Hasluck, who examined very closely the proper relationship between advisers and Ministers. There are numerous other authorities such as those quoted by the Solicitor-General in the memorandum incorporated in today’s Hansard. This reaches to the heart of the matter- the real origins of this present controversy. Our decision had political objectives, it was a decision about policies.

The action that the Government has taken to instruct the officers summoned by the Senate not to attend is not without precedents. In 1 95 1 the then Acting Prime Minister, the then Mr Fadden, took similar action to prevent the Chiefs of Staff from attending before a Senate Select Committee on National Service in the Defence Force. But there are substantial differences between the situation we have today and that applying in 1951, when a courteous invitation was issued to the Chiefs of Staff to attend rather than the peremptory summonses that were issued last week. Then there was no disclosure. Here there has been full disclosure. One might have a little more sympathy for the Opposition’s tactics if it could be genuinely claimed that the Government had been secretive in this matter.

Let us look at the Government’s record. It answered some 69 questions without notice that were asked between 31 October 1974 and 12 June 1975-37 in the Senate and 32 in the House of Representatives. Of 7 questions placed on notice, 6 have been answered and the seventh, asked of the Minister for Minerals and Energy by Senator Wright on 1 1 June will be answered as soon as possible. There was an urgency debate in this House on 12 June 1975. The Government freely and fully participated in that debate and, I believe, answered the Opposition’s charges. The basic facts in this matter were, as a result of answers given by Ministers, well known to both senators and members alike. Indeed it could have been argued that there was no need for the Government to recall the House of Representatives on 9 July. Nevertheless the Government took this action and in the course of debate on that day some 97 documents were tabled by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Minerals and Energy- documentation that was tabled by me on their behalf when the Senate resumed its sitting at 8 p.m. that day. The full text of all of those documents is available in Hansard.

In the course of proceedings in the House of Representatives on 9 July the Leader of the Opposition tabled a series of 44 questions, and all of these will be answered. Similarly the Leader of the Opposition has requested the tabling of certain documents and a response to this request will be given when the House of

Representatives reconvenes on 19 August, although I must add in this context that, in respect of his request for certain Executive Council minutes relating to loan negotiations, the information sought was provided in response to a previous question on notice from Senator Wright.

It is clear that the non-government parties in the Senate have by no means fully tested this matter through the normal and proper parliamentary procedures available to them- in debate, in questions and, if necessary, in urgency motions or even no confidence motions. The Parliament was recalled so that the parliamentary procedures could apply. What the Opposition proposes is a procedure essentially foreign to normal parliamentary practice, untested on the scale and in the manner envisaged in the history of the Senate, untested in any respect at all in over 20 years.

I make plain the Government’s view that what the Senate is seeking to do is to avoid the normal and proper procedures of the Parliament to obtain through officers of the Public Service information and documents which should be sought from Ministers. In taking this course, the fundamental character of ministerial responsibility is challenged. It is the Government which must decide, weigh and take decisions on advice submitted by public servants. It is the Government that will answer in the Parliament any request or any challenge put to it. It is the Government- not the bureaucracy- that is responsible to the people. This is in accord with the principles on which our democracy is based. The Opposition is attempting to substitute this chamber for ministerial decision. If these principles are successfully challenged, government would become unworkable.

In the Government’s view, the real intention of the non-government parties in the Senate by the course of action they seek to impose is to avoid the normal and proper procedures of the Parliament. The Government, on the other hand, has given a full response in the Parliament to the rumour and innuendo that have characterised the debates on overseas borrowings. The Government has not declined to answer questions put by the Opposition. It has not declined to produce papers sought by the Opposition which by standards acknowledged on both sides of the Parliament it would be proper to produce publicly.

Before concluding my remarks, Mr President, I wish to refer briefly to the reference in the resolution that the calling of senior public servants before the Bar of the Senate has arisen from the Government’s failure to appoint a royal commission. The Government would, if there were sound and compelling reasons, appoint a royal commission. But what are the grounds? The Government’s purpose was to pursue policies in the interests of Australian control of Australian resources. The proposal was economically sound. Legal advice was obtained from the Government’s legal advisers before the Minister for Minerals and Energy was given authority by the Executive Council to proceed with negotiations for the loan. Proper care was exercised with the assistance of the Government’s legal advisers to ensure that the intermediary in this matter would have no claim against the Australian Government. The Australian Government was protected at all points in connection with the proposed borrowing. Proper checks were made on the bona fides of the gentlemen involved. Not a cent has been paid or will be paid to the person concerned. There has been no impropriety on the part of the Australian Government. There have been no breaches of the law. Australia’s international reputation as a government with prime borrowing status remains unchanged- remains as high as it ever has been. Why then should the Government appoint a royal commission? The answer is clear. There simply is no need for a royal commission.

In closing my comments I say that, notwithstanding the arguments one way or the other that will apply in this debate, this is a sad day for the Senate, for the Parliament and for Australian democracy. All political considerations aside, and no matter which Party is in power, this situation should never arise again. We, as a Senate, have a responsibility to prevent it arising again. I hope that in the future the Parliament will have sufficient common sense to ensure that the Public Service of this country will not be subjected to the sort of indignities to which it is subjected today.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The prepared speech which has just been read by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) ignores the vital issues contained in the motion moved by Senator Withers. The issues before the Senate are not the issues to which the Government would like to limit the debate. The Government has asserted that it has given to the Parliament and to the people all that it- the Government- believes the people ought to know, but the Senate believes that it should have further information. The Senate disclosed that it wanted that further information when it affirmed last Wednesday that certain members of the Public Service should appear before it. To that request by the Senate the Government has given a blanket direction that no questions are to be answered and no documents are to be produced and that the public servants are to claim privilege. The Government has challenged the power of a House of the Parliament. The Executive is seeking to place itself above the power of Parliament, representing the people, to seek information which the Government has declined to provide.

The importance of the issue as to whether the Executive can override and withstand the rights of a House of the Parliament to obtain information which it wants is at the core of what we are debating, and that is an issue which Senator Wriedt has by-passed. Parliament and parliamentary authority are under a challenge today as they have not been for many generations. Outside the Parliament there are those who would tear down the institution. Within the Parliament there are those who would subdue it and denigrate it so that it becomes merely the servant of an all-powerful Executive. We in the Senate have a challenge before us on this occasion to assert that there are rights which parliamentarians can exercise and, with a sense of responsibility, should exercise as occasion demands. This is a right which is inherent in the parliamentary system which we have inherited from Great Britain. Under the Constitution the Senate has the powers, immunities and privileges possessed by the House of Commons at the time the Commonwealth was founded. What were those powers? I refer to what was said by an English Judge in 1845 as to what those powers of the House of Commons were. It is a well-known statement which I think ought to be remembered in 1975. It reads:

That the Commons are, in the words of Lord Coke, the general inquisitors of the realm, I fully admit: it would be difficult to define any limits by which the subject matter of their inquiry can be bounded: it is unnecessary to attempt to do so now: 1 would be content to state that they may inquire into everything which it concerns the public weal for them to know; and they themselves, 1 think, are entrusted with the determination of what falls within that category. Coextensive with the jurisdiction to inquire must be their authority to call for the attendance of witnesses, to enforce it by arrest where disobedience makes that necessary, and, where attendance is required, or refused, in either stage, of summons or arrest, there need be no specific disclosure of the subject matter of inquiry, because that might often defeat the purpose of the examination.

That constitutes the power of the House of Commons then as today. It constitutes the power which the Senate possessed in 1901, then as today. If this Parliament, if this Senate, abdicates the functions and the powers and the rights which it possesses to get information in the public interest then it shall be doing a fateful disservice to the institution of Parliament itself.

This is not the first occasion on which this issue has come before the Senate. It came before the Senate in the form of a report from a Senate Select Committee in 195 1. It was an issue for debate in the Senate, precluded only by the fact that a double dissolution of the Parliament occurred and the debate was not resumed after the election. It is well known by those who have studied this question that the issue is unresolved, that it is an issue which could from time to time arise and require resolution. I wish to refer to what is said in paragraph 65 of the special report of that Committee, a document already adverted to by my Leader, Senator Withers. As I say, it is a report of a committee which was comprised of Labor senators. Paragraph 65 reads:

The action of the Government in directing Commonwealth officials not to attend to give evidence before the Select Committee was clearly calculated to defeat, hamper and obstruct the purpose which the Senate had in appointing the Select Committee. This action revived, in the crudest possible way, memories of the old struggle between Parliament and the Executive. The history of that struggle, and the result, should have been in the minds of members of the Cabinet when they adopted their dictatorial attitude. The Committee can do no better than quote the following words of the present Prime Minister of Great Britain (The Right Honourable Clement Attlee), who, speaking in the House of Commons during the Sandys case, said-

There can be no greater blow to democracy than the admission of any right of the Executive to hamper, hinder or restrain members of this House from carrying out their duty to the nation. The freedom of members from pressure by the Executive was fought and won years ago, and it must be defended against attack even if that attack should be cloaked under anxiety for the national safety.

That is what we are about today. I know that there are those who would claim that the power of the Executive is a power which overrides all who would seek to question. Regrettably that appears to be the basis upon which the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) has based his case today. I think those who argue that case in this chamber have an enormous responsibility because they are asserting the right of the Executive over the right of the chamber of which they are a member. The view that the Senate has a complete power to require information, both in practice and in theory, is unquestioned. The existence of that power has been widely acknowledged and there are few who would challenge it. We know- Senator Wriedt referred to the instance- that in 1951 Mr Fadden as the Acting Prime Minister directed certain persons not to appear before a Senate committee. However, it should be remembered that preceding Mr Fadden ‘s statement Sir Robert Menzies as the Prime Minister had replied to Senator McKenna’s request on behalf of the Committee that the particular chiefs of staff should appear before that Committee and had indicated not that they should refuse to attend but that in matters of giving opinion there were difficulties in public servants expressing opinions on government policy and therefore he doubted whether there would be any value to the Committee in hearing from those chiefs of staff. That is a far different position from asserting that a person shall not attend before the Committee.

Senator Wright:

– It was on a subject of defence.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I take up the point made by Senator Wright. It was a different issue, in any event, from the issues with which we are concerned here. I assert that the power of the Senate is a power which, in theory, is unlimited and which, if it is to be limited in practice, is to be limited having regard to the circumstances in which the request is made, having regard to the efficacy of other means of securing the information which is sought and having regard to the importance to the Senate and- -to the nation of securing that information.

There are, of course, certain inquiries which have taken place in regard to this whole question. I am well aware that reference has been made to a document which has been tucked away in the archives for the last two or three years and which was prepared by Mr Ellicott and myself during the lifetime of the previous Government. It has been misused in the conclusions which have been sought to be drawn from it, because it is a document which raised for discussion and consideration a number of possibilities. What that document states is that there are practices in the United Kingdom, there are practices before the courts, there is a practice in the United States of America and there is a practice within Australia under which claims which are made by the Executive in the name of privilege- to refuse to answer questions or to produce documents when requested. by a House of Parliament or by the courts or by litigants before the courts- are to be dealt with, and it is a question- this was one of the aspects the paper was concerned to consider-which ought to be clarified in the interests of greater certainty. It is a pity that over the 2V4 years the Government has been in office it “has not sought to take some action in an area where there was already a basic document suggesting lines along which further inquiries should take place. I refer to one paragraph of that report to indicate the vital issue with which the authors were concerned. It states:

At the threshold the question could arise as to whether the House should accept as conclusive the certificate of a Minister or should adopt a system similar to that now adopted in the Courts, namely that the House or committee, in relation to some classes of documents or evidence, not obviously privileged, should look at the documents or consider the nature of the evidence for the purpose of determining whether or not it is in the public interest that they bc produced or the evidence given. An alternative course would be to submit to a Court the question whether Crown privilege should be upheld in a particular case.

That is one of a number of paragraphs, and 1 do not doubt that other people can look at other paragraphs.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Look at the very next paragraph.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– 1 ask the Minister to look at the succeeding 2 paragraphs after the next one. The whole point is that what we are concerned with here is a situation which has been produced by the failure of the Government to provide answers to vital questions which have been asked persistently not only in the Parliament but also outside the Parliament and in respect of which the Government has set up a brick wall. We have asked, through the Opposition in the House of Representatives and in this chamber, that a royal commission or other form of judicial inquiry be instituted so that the facts can be ascertained. We believe that a royal commission is the desirable means of achieving that end, because a judge or judges who would comprise that commission would bring that accepted legal ability to sift what is relevant from what is irrelevant, to analyse evidence, to give due weight to what people have said and to give it the relevant importance and overall to apply that objectivity which is the characteristic of a judge going about his business. That is what the people of Australia need, it is what the people of Australia should be given; but this Government has refused to give to the people that sort of inquiry. We acknowledge that the exercise upon which we are embarked is second best, but it is the only course which is available to us, and we desire to ascertain further facts.

What does the Government do? It simply says that there is to be a claim of privilege by every person who is summoned to appear before us. How valid is that claim of privilege to be regarded? I think that if the letter which the Prime Minister sent to the President and the letters which the Ministers sent to the President are acknowledged the pattern becomes clear: The Prime Minister is simply setting out what he has instructed his Ministers to do, and it is the Ministers’ letters which are the relevant letters. All that the Ministers have said is that they have directed officers of their Departments ‘who have been summoned to appear before the Senate to claim privilege in respect to answers to all questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and in respect of the production of all documents, files and papers relevant to those matters’.

So what the public servants have been asked to do when they are asked a question is to claim privilege. It will be interesting in due course to hear what the witnesses actually say. Will they use the words: ‘I claim privilege’? What will they say if they are then asked: ‘ What is the ground of privilege upon which you are relying?’ One would hope that they would state what is the ground of privilege because what we in the Senate believe is important is that at that stage, knowing what the claim of privilege is, we should be able to say whether or not it is a sound claim of privilege. The Opposition in the Senate will act responsibly, and I have no doubt that the whole Senate would act responsibly, in not taking the view that there is a public interest which would require the withholding in some cases of some information. But the important thing which the Senate must assert is that it will determine whether or not the claim of privilege is a valid claim which should be upheld. That is the position which the courts maintain.

Prior to 1 968 and the famous case of Conway v. Rimmer, to which Senator Withers referred, there was an attitude in England, though not in Australia, that if a Minister gave a certificate that it was against the public interest to produce a document which someone wanted in the course of a court hearing, the courts accepted what the Minister had said. They did not inquire as to whether it was a proper certificate and whether it was proper in the public interest that those matters be not revealed. In the name of Crown privilege or in the name of the public interest, vital information was often withheld. The House of Lords, with that bold move which it is capable of achieving from time to time, said that the past law was too restrictive. It has laid down the case, which subsequent judgments have confirmed, that whenever a Minister says that it is against the public interest to produce information it is for the judge to decide, on an examination of the documents if necessary, whether or not that claim is to be properly made and upheld.

I will not go into the judgments which I have here because that would take time. The fact is there; it is unchallengeable. What we say is that the Senate should not place itself in a position with regard to the Executive which is a lesser position than that which the courts adopt. If in this House a claim is made that there should be a withholding of documents, the ground for withholding the documents must be explained, and it is for the Senate to make that decision. That is the position in the courts. One could remember something of more recent history. I refer to the case of President Nixon in the United States who claimed confidentiality for certain tapes and records of conversations which he did not wish to reveal. The District Court in the United States had said that if the special prosecutor wanted those tapes he was entitled to have them; and the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided that the District Court was right. I quote from the judgment of Chief Justice Burger. He said: . . neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.

But we are talking today about the claim of the Whitlam Government that it, without more, can claim in all circumstances a complete immunity from answering questions or producing documents to a House of the Parliament; and that is a position which the Senate will not maintain.

Mr Deputy President, I have made the claim publicly and outside the privilege of the Parliament that what has been disclosed so far prima facie represents criminality. There has been an attempt by unlawful means to subvert the Constitution, to by-pass the Parliament and to raise, so that one might govern without Parliament, $4,000m. Most lawyers know what Halsbury ‘s Laws of England says as to the meaning of conspiracy. It says:

If two or more persons agree together to do something contrary to law, or wrongful or harmful towards another person, or to use unlawful means in the carrying out of an object not otherwise unlawful, the persons v*5 so agree commit the crime of conspiracy. ‘**”

What is happening in Australia at the moment is of far greater significance than what happened to President Nixon in the United States because the enormity of people in government raising billions of dollars without telling the Parliament and indeed without telling their fellow members of Cabinet, and using that as a means of subverting the Constitution and by-passing the Parliament, is criminality in the highest degree. There is a prima facie case, a suspicion if you like, which ought to be answered. It is not answered by a Prime Minister saying that nobody has made any charges of criminal conspiracy or of illegality when I have made such charges and the newspapers in some States have carried them.

When that situation exists is a Senate, or either House of the Parliament, to sit mute and to accept that those persons against whom these charges may be made will use the fact that they have a power which they claim to be an executive or Crown privilege to withhold information from the Senate? We have in this case a motion which first affirms the powers of the Senate. Will the Government vote against that? Secondly, the motion states that it is for the House of the Parliament, upon just claims of privilege being raised, to decide upon those questions of privilege and that subject to the determination of those claims it is the obligation of witnesses, persons called before the Senate, to answer those questions. To use the words of a former distinguished Solicitor-General, the mere fact that a person is a departmental officer is in itself no ground or basis for refusing to answer questions.

The matters which are to inquired into are matters vital to the performing by the Parliament and by each House of the Parliament of the matters with which they are charged. We are engaged in an exercise of high constitutional import. Irrespective of what might be the apprehensions or what might be the implications extending into the immediate or the long term, when great issues have to be faced, they have to be faced. We are facing a great issue now. I believe that the Senate will not flinch from the task which it must perform, and that is to assert its right as a House of the Parliament in 1975 to do what other Houses of Parliament in the English tradition extending back over the centuries have done- resist the power of the Executive and resist it responsibly and in the public interest. That is what we will be doing.

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

-The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers.) referred to a statement of mine about what- the people need to know. He has certainly given ample evidence here today that there is a great deal that he needs to know. For example, he said that nothing was unusual about what is happening here today. I challenge the Opposition to cite one instance in the history of this Parliament where an officer of the Public Service has been summoned to give evidence on any subject. Senator Withers remains silent. Is there nothing unusual about that, Senator? I would say that it is one of the most unusual events in the life of this Parliament.

Senator Withers also took it upon himself to challenge me, as the Minister representing the Attorney-General in this place, to state whether, on the matter of Crown privilege, we relied on the well known case of Duncan v. Cammell, Laird or whether we took as our authority a case which he found difficulty in pronouncing, that of Conway v. Rimmer. I assure him that there is an even more recent authority in the person of somebody who sits beside Senator Withers on the benches here today. I refer to none other than Senator Greenwood who has treated us to his customary display of righteous indignation. I would have thought that an honourable senator who set for this country the high standards which he elaborated today would have set himself a rather high standard in quoting from his own work. In dealing with this very matter of Conway v. Rimmer, which lays down new legal standards about Crown privilege, Senator Greenwood cited a paragraph from the book which he coauthored with a present member of the House of Representatives, Mr Ellicott, a former SolicitorGeneral. He cited paragraph 146 which comes immediately before a paragraph which gives an answer to the question asked by Senator Withers. I will quote paragraph 147 which Senator Greenwood did not see fit, for all of his moral righteousness, to cite to this House. I ask Senator Withers to listen closely in order that he will know the attitude of his colleagues on the matter of Crown privilege.

Senator Withers:

– I am asking your attitude; I know ours.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-You do? Well, this is also mine. I adopt the view of Senator Greenwood and of Mr Ellicott. Throughout this debate of course there has been the curious example of members of the Opposition saying that on the matter of Crown privilege the Labor Party has always been right and the Liberal Party has always been wrong. Frankly, I prefer their view, and I will cite it to Senator Withers’ discomfiture. These are the words of the selfrighteous Senator Greenwood, or perhaps he will say they are the words of Mr Ellicott:

On this matter . . .

This is on the matter he has just been discussing in paragraph 146- . . it is not easy to express a view which will satisfy the varying points of view on the question of the desirability of making Executive information available. However, against the background of a system which is based on party Government and the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, we think the preferable course is to continue the practice of treating the Minister’s certificate as conclusive.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Who said that?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This is a learned document prepared by a man who held the office of Attorney-General of this country assisted by a man who was Solicitor-General, and their interpretation of the law as it stands in the light -

Senator Missen:

– Rubbish!

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is rubbish, is it, Senator? If the Senate were to bear with me I would read the whole document which throws a great deal of light on the matter which we are discussing. In it the self-righteous Senator Greenwood and the learned Mr Ellicott come down squarely in favour of the proposition that a certificate granted by the Minister is conclusivethe position which we are arguing today. In this matter we, the Government, are acting according to principles of parliamentary democracy which have always- until today- been preached by our opponents. If they want a little chapter and verse, seeing they have not bothered to bring it before the Parliament, I will give it to them. Sir Garfield Barwick- I suppose he would be accepted by the Opposition as a reasonable sort of an authority on these matters- in a letter to the then Senator Spooner on 2 May 1960, which is a little more recent than 1845, said:

I would go even further than May . . .

He had been referring to May’s Parliamentary Practice- . . and say that should the Senate order the presentation of a particular file which in the view of the Government it would be contrary to the public interest to present the file should not bc presented.

Senator Sheil:

– A particular file.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-‘The file should not be presented’. We are well aware of the view of Sir Robert Menzies which has been referred to by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt), and I think there is no necessity to cite it. One thing which is particularly interesting about the claim for privilege in relation to the VIP aircraft matter, about which Senator Wright was very eloquent- I will remind him of his words a little later- was that it was not some matter of the defence of the country, it was not some large matter of public interest about which one would have expected that there should be any concealment. We are accused today of being less than honest in not being ready to produce all documents relating to a major matter of state, a matter of extensive loans which the Opposition considers to have been totally unwarranted. The Liberals claimed privilege, in no uncertain words, on a matter of producing documents concerning the use of VIP aircraft. Was that a matter of more far reaching state importance than the matter which we are discussing today? Yet Sir Robert Menzies and all the Liberals claimed that that matter was a matter on which it would be quite unwise to bring the permanent head before the Senate. What sense of proportion is there involved in a change of attitude like that?

Senator Greenwood, I suggest not quite as honestly as one would have expected from a man who proposes to be a Simon Pure, referred to a previous case when the Senate Select Committee on National Service in the Defence Force, which was comprised solely of the Labor Party members, invited various officers of the armed Services to appear before the Senate. It wrote to the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies. Senator Greenwood attempted to find some comfort in the fact that Sir Robert Menzies did not say in a blanket way that they should not give evidence. Sir Robert said that he did not think it would be of much use if they were asked to comment on Government policy. Senator Greenwood attempted to distinguish that from the stand which the Government has taken in this matter today. However, with the selective type of quotation to which he is evidently addicted, he did not go on to tell us what the then Acting Prime Minister, Sir Arthur Fadden, said when this matter was followed up by the Committee- Sir Robert Menzies having gone abroad. Prime Ministers went abroad even in those days. So I will read to the chamber the full text of the reply of Sir Arthur Fadden which, I suggest with respect, puts a rather different light on the attitude of the Government of the day to that which Senator Greenwood attempted to convey to this chamber today. Sir Arthur Fadden wrote:

Dear Senator McKenna,

I have your letter of 12 January. The Chiefs of Staff and the other officers mentioned therein have informed me that they have received invitations from the Clerk of the Committee to attend to give evidence at various times during the next few weeks.

Cabinet has considered fully the proposal to call these officers and has decided that it would be against the public interest for the Service Chiefs or members of the Public Service to be required to participate in this inquiry. The ground of the Cabinet decision is clearly stated in the Prime Minister’s letter of 23 December last.

It is quite impossible to draw the line between what your Committee may call factual and what is policy and it should not be for any official or for the Committee, in the view of the Government, on matters which may touch security, to decide whether it is either one or the other.

Since the officials concerned would be compelled to claim privilege immediately they have been directed that there is no purpose in their attending and that they should accordingly not do so.

That, I would have thought, would be a fair enough principle for us to rely on in this debate. But we hear no mention of that just as we hear no defence of the great white father, Sir Robert Menzies, when his words are quoted to support our stand against the stand that has been taken by the Opposition in these proceedings.

Seeing we have got into the field of quoting legal cases I should like to refer to a couple of recent comments made in cases in this country- a little closer to home than the House of Lords. Perhaps they will have some persuasive influence on the great Australians opposite. In the case of Lanyon Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth of Australia the late Mr Justice Menzies in the High Court of Australia upheld a claim of privilege in respect of documents falling within a certain class, namely: . . documents brought into existence within Government departments and instrumentalities for consideration in formulating a submission to Cabinet and recommending a decision of Cabinet, its committees or sub-committees thereon.

The basis on which His Honour upheld the claim was:

It is that the Government process directed to obtaining a Cabinet decision upon a matter of policy and Cabinet s decision upon that matter should not, in the public interest, be disclosed by the production of Cabinet papers, including what I would describe as papers which have been brought into existence within the governmental organisation for the purpose of preparing a submission to Cabinet. Such papers belong to a class of documents that in my opinion are of a nature that ought not to be examined by the court except, it may be, in very special circumstances.

I would suggest that the above observations would apply equally well to deliberations of the Executive Council.

In another case here in the Australian Capital Territory, the case of Kent v. Cavanagh- the Black Mountain case- Mr Justice Smithers in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory upheld a claim of privilege to certain documents falling within a certain class, namely:

  1. . high level communication between a senior public official and his Minister relating to forming of policy by the Australian Government.

So if we are to rely on the law I suggest that the law and opinions on the law by learned lawyers like Senator Greenwood and Mr Ellicott are all on one side. They are all on the side of the position that has been taken up in this matter by the Government.

The notice of motion given yesterday by the Opposition was given belatedly after some confusion. It was given after the Opposition claimed it had been ambushed. That was a very curious claim. One would have thought that one of the possibilities that would have been envisaged by an alert and competent Opposition was that the Government would take the position that it has taken in the light of all the authorities which should be dear to the hearts of honourable senators opposite. The motion which has been moved deserves a little examination. In paragraph ( 1 ) it states:

That the Senate affirms that it possesses the powers and privileges of the House of Commons as conferred by Section 49 of the Constitution-

I point out to the honourable gentlemen opposite and especially to the lawyers in their ranks that it is a matter for the Parliament to declare its privileges under section 49 of the Constitution. If they take the trouble to read the section they will find that it is not for the Senate alone to declare the privileges of the Parliament. The Parliament has not done so in any relevant way.

Senator Missen:

– Rubbish!

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Parliament has not done so and so we rely on the rules of the House of Commons.

Senator Missen:

– That is right.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But my comment, in case Senator Missen does not understand, is that it is not for the Senate to affirm its rights, privileges and immunities. It is for the whole of the Parliament to do so, and until it has done so there is no point in a pious resolution like this. Paragraph (2 ) of the motion reads:

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

I should point out that that paragraph denies the existence of any right in the Executive Government to make a general claim of privilege in relation to any subject matter of inquiry. Read it closely and it becomes obvious that it bears no other meaning. Indeed, it denies the right of any Minister to make a claim of privilege and asserts that the claim may be made only by a witness. Now, a witness may be a relatively junior man in the service and yet have come into possession of secret information of great importance, say a defence secret, in respect of which a claim for privilege certainly would be allowed if it were made. But paragraph (2) would forbid a claim of privilege in that case. Nowhere has it ever been suggested, apart from this resolution, that a claim for privilege must be asserted only by the witness. The privilege is the privilege of the Executive Government, of the Crown, to have its affairs kept secret, and the duly appointed agents of the Crown, having a right to address the Senate, must be entitled to submit to the Senate a claim of privilege. Paragraph (3) reads:

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

My comment is that the Government asserts that the very fact of a witness being an officer of the Public Service is important in itself and must be recognised as important for the purpose of a claim of privilege. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and individual responsible Ministers have claimed privilege in this case based on principles of responsible government, principles which, as 1 have shown, have been adhered to, preached, written about and boasted about by representatives from the other side of politics for years and only belatedly disowned for opportunist purposes here today. I submit that if the Senate can go behind the Ministry and seek evidence of the Ministry’s activities from the advisers to the Ministry then responsible government is undermined. I am supported in that proposition by a very learned quote from Senator Wright which I will produce a little later. As I said earlier, the Opposition can cite no example of a public servant having been summoned to appear before the Senate.

I think it is significant also, as the Press has had a mention in these proceedings, to note that the newspapers which have lambasted the Government over the past couple of weeks about the loans matter generally- notably the Australian Financial Review, a newspaper for which I have a great deal of respect, and the Age, one of Senator Greenwood’s favourite newspapers which I think he would have to admit has not been kind to the Government over this matterboth have editorialised in the last couple of days upholding eloquently the principle which the Government seeks to uphold here today. But perhaps I can go to no more eloquent exponent of the position the Government is putting than the honourable senator, Senator Wright, who has been curiously silent today, even forbearing from his usual penchant for interjection. I should like to remind him of a couple of passages that appear in the Hansard of 1 November 1967, when the VIP debate was being conducted in this place. There are a couple of matters there that are quaint, ungrammatical, but redolent of the familiar brand of indignation which we in this chamber have come to expect from the upright, honourable and learned senator.

Senator Wright:

– At what page?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-At page 1959, Senator. I would have thought you would be familiar with it. I will not attempt to reproduce the sounds of righteous indignation which I am sure Senator Wright used at the time, but he said, inter alia:

I would hope that we would not proceed in the hurly burly of public debate where witnesses can be made ribald . . .

An odd word, but these are his words-

  1. . and the truth can become obscured by passion. I would hope that we would go about it by appointing a select committee.

Then in his peroration he said:

I despise the attitude that will parade the cause of integrity of Ministers with regard to truthfulness as a mere election expedient to obtain headlines through the Press.

Perhaps a Freudenberg would have put it more eloquently, but perhaps it is worthy of the level of what has fallen from the lips of Senator Wright’s colleagues in this debate today.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Deputy President. I have been misrepresented by the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland). When the matter which was the subject of a motion by Senator Murphy was before the Senate on 5 October 1 967, Senator Cant moved an amendment to the motion that the Senate take note of the ministerial paper with regard to VIP aircraft. That amendment, which appears at page 1254 of Hansard of that date, was to the effect that there be laid on the table of the Senate all accounts and papers relating to the use of VIP aircraft by Ministers and other members of Parliament during the period July to October 1966 and, in particular, all accounts and papers containing records of applicants and applications and a whole list of other particulars. That amendment was debated and was passed with the support of 4 Liberals- unlike those who are caged in the Caucus trap- and the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. The 4 Liberals were Senator Hannaford, Senator Lillico, Senator Wood and Senator R. C. Wright, who is now speaking in the form of this personal explanation to give the lie to Senator James McClelland.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. The privilege of being allowed to make a statement was given to Senator Wright as he claimed that he had been misrepresented. He is now going through a debate which was never quoted. Therefore he cannot say that he was misrepresented. Senator James McClelland used the tactic of calling -

Senator Wright:

- Mr President, I should not be interrupted like this.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, my point of order is just that Senator Wright has been granted the privilege of clearing up where he was misrepresented. No one has said that he did not vote according to the manner in which he has claimed. The statement he made that has been quoted is reported in an entirley different section of Hansard. I took it that the basis of his claim of being misrepresented was that he did not make that statement or that the wrong interpretation has been placed on that statement. I suggest that he ought to be restricted to where he claims he was misrepresented in relation to the privilege that has been extended to him and not be allowed to justify his whole attitude, which has been shown up by Senator James McClelland.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Senator Wright has full right to address the Senate by leave. I would ask him to seek leave or to take his normal place in the debate and continue then with his remarks. He has the alternative of either seeking leave to make a personal explanation or of making a speech to the Senate.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Mr President, I submit with great respect that when I have been misrepresented on a personal matter I have a right at the conclusion of the speech in which I have been misrepresented to correct the misrepresentation.

The PRESIDENT:

-That is true; you have that right. You may continue.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I have pointed to the record of the Senate and I have shown that far from giving countenance to the actions of my Party, which was at that time resisting the production of the VIP documents, I made a speech in support of the amendment seeking the production of the documents and, together with three of my colleagues, voted for it. Senator James McClelland took the quotation that he made completely out of context. I say that because on 1 November there was a motion before the Senate to suspend Standing Orders to take advantage of the absence of a Minister and to bring on a matter precipitately and before it would come on in due course of proceeding. What I said then was that I believed that a matter of this sort should be considered with much more deliberation and much more thought. But the point that was made by Senator James McClelland by implication was that I resisted the production of Government files. Against my own Party I voted for the production of Government files, which was the proper constitutional course.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I support Senator Withers’ motion, which is before the Senate, because I believe it is the only logical next course of action he could take. There are many questions as yet left unanswered. I think that the rule that one could run over the whole loans matter, which is an embarrassing one for the Government, is this: Is the question largely satisfied? 1 find, in looking at it and in reading the information available inside and outside the Senate, that the question is far from satisfied.

There is no satisfactory conclusion to the question as to where the Loan Council stands and where the State Premiers stand in relation to their rights in regard to the Government’s intention to borrow money from overseas. It is all very well for the Federal Government to say that the indebtedness of Australia is minimal. The State governments basically carry the debt of Australia. They have every right to know when the Government is going to introduce new and major loan borrowings as it intended to do from overseas. The matter of ‘temporary purposes’ and just what those purposes were is by no means outlined in any of the answers given by the Government. In a third question, there is no answer as to who will benefit individually from the allocation of these loans. This is something that has not yet been dealt with properly.

The questions are unsatisfied. The Government has claimed that it has given all the answers it intends to give. Senator James McClelland said on television last night that the members of the public have been told all they need to know. In the face of that attitude, Senator Withers is showing an unusual amount of logic today. I have much pleasure in supporting his motion because most certainly the matter will not rest here. Does the Government believe that simply by denying further information to the Opposition and to the public, which is thirsting for it and which is being led by the media to obtain it, it can close the books? It cannot.

This is an evolving situation. The Parliament has been tried and the Ministry has not answered. This is the second major attempt to obtain information which so far has not been available. If the Government is able to frustrate this move, something else will happen. If I were in the Opposition’s position I would adjourn the Senate until 1 January next year and let the people decide in the meantime. Something will have to be done to find out just where the Government is culpable or where it is blameless, because it will not say. The Opposition’s position is, of course, somewhat difficult. As I have said, it cannot let the matter rest here. It will be the Government’s responsibility- I have no doubt that it will be the Government’s responsibility- if the Opposition is forced into further action to obtain the information that it desires.

I think that the matter of privilege which has been dealt with, of course, by the lawyers of the Senate and is to be dealt with further by the legal members of the Senate is something which could be settled happily by compromise under the motion put forward by Senator Withers. It would be a matter of qualified privilege. I am sure that the Senate would not try to force any questions which were the subject of privilege as between the Government and its advisers. In fact, by the very rejection of penalties it has given away the ability to enforce answers to such questions. The Opposition has made it clear that it does not desire to enter into that area of confidentiality which is paramount in Government administration. But it also has made it clear that it wishes to know what is proper and what has taken place in regard to certain communications which should take place automatically. The question of where the Loan Council stands is a matter in particular which could be satisfied by questions in the Senate.

The question of innuendo has been raised. I suggest that the Government has fostered the unknown, the rumour and the innuendo by its failure to answer. As a South Australian senator I have been particularly interested in the frequent references to the Adelaide contacts. This is not about some of the other fanciful matters which have brought about the demise already of one Minister or about those matters which have been dealt with in truth in some other publications; it is a reference included in the documents tabled in this House by the Government and deals with the loans which the Minister was so urgently and in some cases so humiliatingly seeking.

We have had references to the Adelaide contacts. In South Australia we have had some publicity in our newspapers about a Mr Karidis who was a personal friend of the Minister, Mr Cameron. We have other people who also have been publicised, and in these documents tabled by the Government there are references to the Adelaide contacts. Mr Khemlani in a communication to Mr Connor and Mr Cameron dated 1 December last year said in part: 1 have already informed my associates in Adelaide and given a message to them to convey to you . . .

What was that message? Was it conveyed? Who was conveying it? Who were the Adelaide contacts? The Minister in reply to Mr Khemlani in London on 3 December, 3 days later, said:

We have also asked through Adelaide whether draft documents could be sent out in advance of your visit and we hope for an early response to that enquiry.

What contacts in Adelaide was the Minister, Mr Connor, dealing with? Who were they? How were they to benefit from the allocation of those moneys? Mr Khemlani, again on that day, sent a telex to the Minister and said: 1 shall be in touch with my associates in Adelaide.

There is great curiosity in the capital city of my State about what is going on in Adelaide. What is the position of Mr Karidis? What is the position of the Minister, Mr Cameron? Recently- I will not overstate or understate this position- threats to a person’s personal safety were made about the disclosure of material relating to these loans. When we reach that stage it makes one wonder who is benefiting. At what stage -

Senator McLaren:

– More innuendo.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Yes, indeed. I would be happy to furnish names and have those people called before the Senate in a private capacity to indicate who made those threats and have the matter out here where the innuendo will be ended. I take that no further at this moment. However, if that is the level to which this great discussion about the $4 billion loan is to be taken, if that is one aspect of it, it must certainly conjure up the vision of some funny money. It is not good enough for the Government to say: ‘ We close the books. We have told the public all it needs to know’. That is what the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) has said. It is not the case. The questions are largely unanswered. The major questions are unsatisfied. We have to know the answers.

I will be sorry if when this motion is passed, as I believe it will be, the result is not satisfactory. I will be sorry if the witnesses are not able to come forward and give selected answers according to their view as to what is confidential between them and the Ministers and what is pertinent to the general inquiry which the Senate is conducting, which, of course, would be the case. If that does not take place I can assure the Government that the public and, I assume, the Opposition, although I cannot speak for the Opposition, will not be satisfied and will take it further. What is the use of delaying this matter? What purpose is the Australian public served by carrying this on for weeks and perhaps difficult months with people involved as they have been in all directions and with Ministers losing their jobs over it? What is the purpose, for the proper administration of government in Australia, in the Government’s denying in a blanket fashion all evidence before the Senate from its public servants? One can only assume that there are matters which the Government would find very embarrassing indeed if they were outlined in this House; not that they are matters simply of confidential advice from its advisers. They are matters which will reflect gravely on ministerial responsibility. This being the case I have pleasure in supporting Senator Withers’ motion.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I think Senator Hall rather flattered me in implying that I was going to speak on the law of privilege. I am afraid that as a practitioner that was a field in which my practice was not very extensive. In fact it was non-existent. My long suit was breaking, entering and stealing, which probably also has relevance to some of the discussions we have been having here today. In the practice of breaking, entering and stealing one tends to confine oneself to the facts rather than to the law, as one learned magistrate in the city of Perth often used to point out to counsel when they raised questions of law. I therefore would like to try to draw us back, in a spirit of some common sense, to what it is we are trying to do today. I think that what we need to do is to find out what the Opposition is trying to do.

I have given a great deal of my time, in fact about 5 per cent of it, to studying the various accusations that the members of the Opposition have been making about loans and so far what I have seen paraded for me has been a cast of characters who are certainly exotic, some may say picaresque. In fact they almost sound like the passengers in Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express. We have had references coming from the various journals and the members of the Opposition to an assorted group, including a dentist who also is the president of a football club; a Pakistani who apparently lives and transacts business in a basement; a man who it appears changed his name and claims to have been a member of the secret service of one or more countries; a person who has been described by the Premier of South Australia as a certified lunatic; another gentleman with a Hungarian name who also has been certified, but this time by Sir John Bunting of whose ecclesiastical status I was hitherto unaware, as a good Christian, and the Saudi Arabian authorities were informed accordingly; a number of knights of the realm; and Mr Phillip Lynch. We have heard about all these people and they have all done various things. They seem to resemble in some ways the Flying Dutchmen of the jet age, constantly flying from Zurich to Melbourne, to Tokyo and to New York, sending telexes and swearing affidavits. A most industrious group they are indeed, but what precisely it is that they are doing or are alleged to have done remains a mystery to me. I must say that I think the onus is on the Opposition to tell us what they have done and what the accusations are.

Senator Greenwood has told us that he has said inside this Parliament and outside this Parliament- with great courage, he tells us, and I do not want to dispute Senator Greenwood’s courage; I would be the last to do so for I remember the role he played in the Vietnam war- that he believes there has been criminality. Criminality committed by whom? Who was the individual who engaged in these criminal actions? It is not very heroic to say inside or outside the Parliament that someone has committed an act of criminality. If Senator Greenwood believes that someone has committed a criminal act let us hear from him who the criminal is and what his criminal act was. It is completely useless just to say: ‘I believe there has been some criminality’.

We have heard the same sort of thing from Senator Hall. I dare say that he found last Friday’s expectations were not satisfied on Saturday’s results but I would think that even in this state of disappointment he should give a little more attention to some of the matters he has brought before us today. Senator Hall has told us that he has heard that someone has been threatened by someone else, which is a very serious matter if it is true, and that the way to resolve the problem is to bring public servants before the Bar of the House. Apparently he thinks that Sir Frederick Wheeler, Sir Lenox Hewitt and other distinguished citizens will be able to shed some light on this problem which suddenly has been brought to Senator Hall’s attention.

I say to Senator Hall that if he has information about threats being made to some individual by another individual who is also unspecified with regard to these loans or any other matter the Bar of the Senate is not the place to deal with them. The place to deal with such matters is the Adelaide Police Court. If it is a criminal offence a charge should be laid there and it will be dealt with there, not here. I suggest to Senator Hall that he immediately takes steps now that I have given him that legal advice which is the only legal advice I intend to offer anybody today. Instead of wasting his time talking about these matters here, he should immediately see his solicitor. Possibly his State Leader, Mr Millhouse, would be able to advise him on this matter. He should arrange for a summons to be issued from the Adelaide Court of Petty Sessions where the matter would be clarified almost immediately without the presence of all these First Division public servants and Second Division public servants who are sitting around today watching this extraordinary performance which has been going on all day before them.

How did we get into this position? Apparently we got here because the Government refused a motion which had been put by the Opposition. I know that Mr Killen is in the gallery and I can see his embarrassment at this dreadful procedure. The Opposition put a motion that a royal commission be appointed with proper and adequate terms of reference to investigate and report upon all aspects of the Government’s overseas loan activities. What nonsense is this! If there is to be a royal commission or a judicial inquiry, there needs to be at least a clear prima facie case of illegal conduct or improper conduct. We have not heard such a case. We have heard innuendoes. We have heard people’s names bandied about, but there has not been one allegation. There has not been one substantive motion moved by anybody in the Opposition. To have a royal commission, one has to lay charges and the royal commission has to investigate these charges. Honourable senators opposite talk this nonsense about a royal commission into all aspects of the Government’s loan activities. Since when? Dating back to when?

Do honourable senators opposite suggest that we should have officials of the Australian Treasury coming into the Parliament, divulging confidential information accumulated over the years with regard to foreign loans which have been entered into or which the Government has attempted to enter into without any specifics being given of the matter which is under consideration, other than the innuendoes about somebody being threatened, somebody living in a basement and somebody changing his name which really do not have any bearing on Sir Frederick Wheeler or the other distinguished gentlemen who are associated with him? Of course not! This is absolutely preposterous! If this sort of thing continues, before we know where we are we will have private secretaries coming along and making statements about their Ministers.

I think the Parliament ought to set itself quite resolutely against the practice whereby the Parliament is allowed to go on a fishing expedition against members of the Public Service, forcing them to divulge confidential conversations which they have had with their Ministers because the result of that will be a total breakdown in government. Does anyone seriously suggest that a Minister should not be able to have a conversation with his permanent head about the competence of various officers in the Department, about how he is getting on with another department, how things are going with the Public Service Board or the Treasury or somebody else? Surely it is proper that such conversations should take place. But how can such conversations take place if the position is to be that the permanent head or one of his subordinates may find himself summoned before the Senate and, under duress, forced to disclose to the Parliament and to the public, private conversations concerning the conduct of his Ministry which he had with his Minister. This is what the Opposition is attempting to do here today. I am still waiting to hear charges from honourable senators opposite. I have not heard any specific charges at all. I have heard innuendo after innuendo.

I must say that I am surprised that even Senator Hall of the Liberal Movement- a Party with 2 seats in the South Australian House of Assembly- should come here today and raise this slander directed against nobody in particular, but everybody connected with the Government in general, that somebody has been threatened. If Senator Hall wants to name them, let him name them. Let him stand up, if he wishes to make a personal explanation on this matter, and name the people who made the threats. But let him not hide from that course of action by saying merely that somebody has threatened someone. If the person who made the complaint to him has a complaint, why does he not go to see the police instead of the time of the Senate being wasted by Senator Hall on that matter? In passing, I refer to one of the more sensible members of the Opposition, Senator Cotton.

Senator Cotton:

– Thank you.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Well, Senator Cotton is more sensible. I do not want him to get too excited about the compliment. I only said ‘one of the more sensible members of the Opposition’. If we look back to the year 1972, shortly before the collapse of the defunct Government which preceded us, a debate took place in the Senate concerning Jetair Australia Ltd. It was one of those scandals which crop up every now and then. I must confess that I do not remember precisely what the problems of Jetair Australia Ltd were. It is rather like the Chowilla Dam; I cannot remember what side I was on. Looking back on what happened with respect to Jetair Australia Ltd, we find that when this matter was being discussed a question was asked of Senator Cotton, who was then Minister for Civil Aviation, by Senator Wriedt. Senator Wriedt asked Senator Cotton whether he would give an assurance that all his departmental files relating to Jetair would be tabled as, if this was not done, information necessary to forming a proper picture of the role of the Department of Civil Aviation in the Jetair affair would be withheld from Opposition senators who would be inhibited in their capacity to ask specific questions. Senator Cotton, with very great commonsense, answered:

No, I certainly do not. What we will be doing here will be answering, as we have always done, specific questions concerning requests for information. We will do that.

How did he finish? He said:

I am also conscious of the fact that there are in the Department of Civil Aviation some 60 files relating to various aspects of this matter. Let us look at the administration of this country in a commonsense way. Are we to bring all the files of all the departments of State into the Senate, on request? If so, we will turn the Senate into a lunatic asylum.

I submit that Senator Cotton’s colleagues have today done their best to turn this Senate into a lunatic asylum. For that reason we reject the ridiculous proposition in the motion moved by Senator Withers.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition in the Senate

– In reply- I am glad to be able to follow Senator Wheeldon because -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a hard act to follow.

Senator WITHERS:

-Oh, yes. But I do not indulge in ‘Acts’; I present ‘Bills’. Mr President, Senator Wheeldon omitted to add one aspect in relation to that very interesting answer given by my most distinguished colleague, Senator Cotton. That is that, shortly after that question, Senator Wright in fact did come into the Senate with a mass of files -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Senator Wright?

Senator WITHERS:

-That is correct.

Senator Wright:

– I tabled all those documents. I tabled those files.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Wright tabled all the files without motion from the Senate requesting that action. It ought to be remembered that, despite the fact that Senator Murphy failed to secure passage of a motion seeking to suspend the Standing Orders to enable him to move to have tabled the files relating to the VIP flights, those files were tabled voluntarily.

Talking of the VIP files reminds me of the debate which took place in the Senate on 1 November 1967 on that topic. I refer to the remarks of Senator Wheeldon as reported at page 1962 of Hansard of that date. Senator Wheeldon will be delighted to know today that I read his speeches, especially the ones from the past.

Senator Wheeldon:

– You are improving.

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes. One very interesting part of his speech was in these terms: lt is an impossible situation to say that it is quite conceivable that some deceit has been practised by somebody or other- it may have been the Prime Minister, it may have been another Minister or it may have been the Government collectively -

He goes on to say:

  1. . but we cannot allow the affairs of the nation to he conducted in the circumstances where there is a great doubt in the minds of the overwhelming majority as to whether there has been a deliberate deception practised by the Government as a whole or by individual members of the Government.

Former Senator Murphy once said to me: ‘You know, your words come back to haunt you.’ There is a book, which was first published in 1972 by Angus and Robertson, by one J. J. Spigelman- Jim Spigelman- entitled Secrecy, Political Censorship in Australia. I think it is fair enough if I read the blurb on the front cover before I read some extracts. The blurb reads:

The citizen’s right to information is, according to Ralph Nader, the currency of democracy. Without it, the cherished right of free speech is empty.

Jim Spigelman’s Secrecy shows that in Australia the currency of democracy is being systematically withheld from the private citizen and, more often than not, from thc Government backbencher and the entire Opposition.

That is very pertinent. It goes on to read:

Even Secrecy itself is secret. Australia ‘s governmental system derives from a monarchy, and a belief that governments are to be trusted still persists.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do you agree with this, Senator?

Senator WITHERS:

-I am quoting Mr Spigelman. It goes on to read:

Excessive secrecy in government gives secrecy a mystique it does not deserve; it fosters obscurantism; it hides inefficiencies or plain inaction.

Jim Spigelman suggests that a state has been reached where the Federal Government can use secrecy, half-truths, lies and deceptions as a political screen behind which power struggles and survival plans are fought out.

One would think he was Mother Shipton, would not one? It goes on to read:

He argues the principle of freedom of information, and discusses the political systems which demand the immediate reduction of secretive fronts.

Mr Spigelman goes on to discuss, at pages 86 and 87, this very weighty matter of Crown privilege. Not knowing much about Mr Spigelman, although I understand he was a very competent member of the Prime Minister’s staff and is now one of the non-political appointments of the Prime Minister to the department of propaganda, I note that in the back of the book he is described as a practising lawyer. I did not know that before, so what he has to say on Crown privilege I think deserves a little more attention than if he were just some political scientist talking about it,

Senator Gietzelt:

– When he wrote the book he was talking about the Liberal Government.

Senator WITHERS:

-This is a book written about governments; not just a Liberal Government. Do not get excited, Senator. Merely because you are not wanted in this debate, do not try to get your remarks into the Senate Hansard by interjection. At page 86 Mr Spigelman begins the chapter headed Crown Privilege by saying:

One of the basic aspects of the effect of government secrecy on individual liberty relates to the doctrine of crown privilege … In many cases in which such claims have been made and rejected, it is clear that the-claim of privilege was simply designed to ensure the continued secrecy of potentially embarrassing materials.

These sorts of things run year in year out. We have been debating this matter for some 2 hours. The Opposition has put forward a motion comprising 4 paragraphs. Earlier I asked Government senators which one of those paragraphs they denied. I put it to the Senate that they have denied the validity of none of them.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I dealt with each one of them; were you not here?

Senator WITHERS:

- Senator, I never dignify your speeches by listening to them.

Senator McAuliffe:

– He made his speech and went home.

Senator WITHERS:

-I had better and more useful things to do. Senator Wheeldon did not deal with them. Which paragraphs of my motion do honourable senators opposite reject? Do they really say that the Senate ought not to be the master of its own house? 1 know that within the Labor Party it is quite common for members of the Caucus to be but division fodder for the Executive. If that is the role that they wish to play in the Parliament they can do so, but we are not prepared to play that role. 1 can remember powerful speeches in this place by Senator Cavanagh when he was in Opposition. He has even made them in Government when we have been discussing the Standing Orders. I think it has always been a contention of his- it certainly was contended by Senator Murphy- that the only rights the Senate will ever have are the rights which it asserts, upholds and demands. As I recall, Senator Cavanagh has always been one who has believed that if the Senate has a right that right should never be surrendered.

The Government has put up no argument as to why the motion which we have put down should not be agreed to. I think it is time we came to a vote on this matter. There have been 3 speakers from each side. Speakers from our side have fully canvassed the arguments. On the other side there has been the usual attempt to cover up. There has been the lack of will and of desire to come to grips with the motion. One senses- I put it no higher than that- that honourable senators on the Government side are but laggards dragging along behind the Prime Minister’s chariot, doing his bidding but not enjoying it. For them I have great sympathy. I believe that our motion is correct. It puts down quite properly in the constitutional, legal and parliamentary sense the way in which the Senate ought to operate. I trust the Senate will carry the motion.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Withers’) be agreed to.

The Senate divided:

The President:

- Senator the Hon. Justin 0 ‘Byrne

Ayes………. 26

Noes………. 22

Majority……. 4

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 12.42 to 2.1 5 p.m.

page 2762

VOTING ARRANGEMENTS

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

-by leave-Mr President, by arrangement between the Whips in the Senate, Senator Rae will not vote in divisions this day to compensate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Milliner.

page 2762

HOURS OF SITTING

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland)- by leave- agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 6 p.m. this day.

page 2762

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN NEGOTIATIONS

Examination of Persons Called to the Bar of the Senate

Debate resumed.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received communications from various Ministers which I wish to convey to the Senate. The first reads:

Minister for Minerals and Energy

Parliament House

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 16July 1975

Dear Mr President, 1 refer to my letter to you dated 15 July 1975 concerning the summonses issued and served pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975.

Having regard to the course that proceedings in the Senate have taken yesterday and today, I have given further directions to the Secretary of my Department in relation to the matter of claiming privilege in respect of answers to questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 and in respect of the production of any document, file or paper relevant to those matters. Those directions are included in a letter that I addressed to the Secretary today. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information and for the information of the Senate. I draw your attention to the fact that the directions in that letter are to be conveyed by the Secretary to Mr J. T. Larkin of my Department who has beensummoned as a witness before the Senate and that he is to be informed of my intention that those directions apply to him in the same way as they apply to the Secretary.

Yours sincerely,

F.X.CONNOR

Senator The Hon. J. O ‘Byrne,

President of the Senate

Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T.

The enclosed letter reads:

Minister for Minerals and Energy

Parliament House

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 16 July 1975

Dear Sir Lenox,

I am writing to you today to expand upon my letter to you dated 15 July 1975 in relation to the summonses issued by the Senate and served upon you and Mr. J. T. Larkin of my Department.

In case there should be any misunderstanding of the position that I have directed you to take as a witness before the Senate, I direct that, if the Senate rejects the general claim of privilege made by you, you are to decline to answer any questions addressed to you upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and to decline to produce any documents, files or papers relevant to those matters. This direction does not, of course, prevent you from giving answers to formal questions that may be addressed to you by the Senate.

I shall be glad if you will arrange for a copy of this letter to be handed to Mr Larkin. I ask you to convey to Mr Larkin the direction that I have addressed to you in the second paragraph of this letter, and to inform him that it is my intention that that direction should apply to him in the same way as it applies to you.

Yours sincerely,

R.F.X. CONNOR

Sir Lenox Hewitt. O.B.E.,

Secretary,

Department of Minerals and Energy,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

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

Treasurer

Parliament House

Canberra 2600 16 July 1975

Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne,

President of the Senate,

The Senate,

Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Mr President,

I refer to my letter to you dated 15 July 1975 concerning the summonses issued and served pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975.

Having regard to the course that proceedings in the Senate have taken yesterday and today,I have given further directions to the Secretary of my Department in relation to the matter of claiming privilege in respect of answers to questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 and in respect of the production of any document, file or paper relevant to those matters. Those directions are included in a letter that I addressed to the Secretary today. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information and for the information of the Senate. I draw your attention to the fact that the directions in that letter are to be conveyed by the Secretary to the other officers of my Department who have been summoned as witnesses before the Senate and that they are to be informed of my intention that those directions apply to them in the same way as they apply to the Secretary.

Yours sincerely,

BILL HAYDEN

The enclosed letter, which is addressed to Sir

Frederick Wheeler, reads as follows:

Treasurer

Parliament House

Canberra 2600 16 July 1975

Sir Frederick Wheeler, C.B.E.,

Secretary,

The Treasury,

Parkes,A.C.T.2600

Dear Sir Frederick,

I am writing to you to expand upon my letter to you dated 15 July 1975 in relation to the summonses issued by the Senate and served upon you and other officers of my Department.

In case there should be any misunderstanding of the position that I have directed you to take as a witness before the Senate, I direct that, if the Senate rejects the general claim of privilege made by you, you are to decline to answer any questions addressed to you upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and to decline to produce any documents, files or papers relevant to those matters. This direction, does not, of course, prevent you from giving answers to formal questions that may be addressed to you by the Senate.

I shall be glad if you will arrange for a copy of this letter to be handed to Messrs Stone, Prowse, Whitelaw, Bailey and Hay. I ask you to convey to Messrs Stone, Prowse, Whitelaw, Bailey and Hay the direction that I have addressed to you in the second paragraph of this letter and to inform them that it is my intention that that direction should apply to them in the same way as it applies to you.

Yours sincerely,

BILL HAYDEN

I have received a letter from the AttorneyGeneral. It reads:

Attorney-General of Australia

Parliament House

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 16 July 1975

Dear Mr President,

I refer to my letter to you dated 15 July 1975 concerning the summonses issued and served pursuant to the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975.

Having regard to the course that proceedings in the Senate have taken yesterday and today, I have given further directions to the Secretary of my Department in relation to the matter of claiming privilege in respect of answers to questions upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 and in respect of the production of any document, file or paper relevant to those matters. Those directions are included in a letter that I addressed to the Secretary today. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information and for the information of the Senate. I draw your attention to the fact that the directions in that letter are to be conveyed by the Secretary to the other officers of my Department who have been summoned as witnesses before the Senate and that they are to be informed of my intention that those directions apply to them in the same way as they apply to the Secretary.

Yours sincerely,

KEPENDERBY

Attorney-General of Australia.

Senator the Honourable Justin O’Byrne,

President of the Senate,

Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600.

The letter to Mr Harders reads:

Attorney-General of Australia

Parliament House

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 16 July 1975

Dear Mr Harders,

I am writing to you today to expand upon my letter to you dated 15 July 1975 in relation to the summonses issued by the Senate and served upon you and other officers of my Department.

In case there should be any misunderstanding of the position that I have directed you to take as a witness before the Senate, I direct that, if the Senate rejects the general claim of privilege made by you, you are to decline to answer any questions addressed to you upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and to decline to produce any documents, files or papers relevant to those matters. This direction does not, of course, prevent you from giving answers to formal questions that may be addressed to you by the Senate.

I shall be glad if you will arrange for a copy of this letter to be handed to Mr A. C. C. Menzies and Mr D. J. Rose. I ask you to convey to Mr Menzies and Mr Rose the direction that I have addressed to you in the second paragraph of this letter and to inform them that it is my intention that that direction should apply to them in the same way as it applies to you.

Yours sincerely,

KEPENDERBY

MrC.W. Harders, O.B.E.,

Secretary,

Attorney-General’s Department,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

I lay the letters upon the table of the Senate. The Clerk has informed me that a summons has now been served on Mr Whitelaw and he is present in the gallery.

Senator WITHERS:
Leader of the Opposition · Western Australia

– I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the letters. It would not be my intention to speak to the motion at the moment.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later time.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I ask for leave to move a motion concerning the rules for the examination of witnesses, copies of which have been circulated to all honourable senators.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

Mr President, the simple reason I have moved this motion is this: Some comment has been made about the place that the Senate would be conducting this examination along the lines of that concerning Fitzpatrick and Browne. Nothing has ever been further from my mind and, I think, from the Government’s mind. If witnesses are called to this place they should be treated with courtesy and, as we do in our Estimates Committee hearings, they should be invited into the Senate and should be able to be seated. The Standing Orders of the Senate, which were designed many years ago, really were not used in the examination of Sir Robert Gibson in 1931.I think it is fair to say they are not up to date or altogether satisfactory. I put to the Senate- and I am always open to argument and to persuasion being the reasonable man I am- that these rules may not be the perfect answer. However I think the motion would be of benefit to the Senate and would be of benefit to the witnesses. As I see these proposed rules there is no political advantage for either side. The motion relates to a set of rules designed for the more orderly conduct of the Senate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Would you explain paragraph (10) in the interests of justice and fair play?

Senator WITHERS:

– I might have great difficulty in convincing the honourable senator as to what those words mean. I remember the famous speech he made in the Senate once when he spoke about scabs. If that were the honourable senator’s sense of justice and fair play he just has no sense of it. I remember the honourable senator quoting that great speech of Jack London and I think the honourable senator was even prepared to indulge in the death penalty for such persons. I would be wasting my time explaining to the honourable senator because he has no sense.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Because of what I said you do not believe in fair play?

Senator WITHERS:

-If Senator Cavanagh has any comments to make I suggest he do so in an orderly fashion by entering into the debate and not by being disorderly and trying to interrupt. I think the set of rules is reasonable, but if any honourable senator has a better suggestion I will welcome it and take it into consideration as I am certain will the whole Senate.

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

– I indicate that the Government will oppose these rules. We do so on the basis that we did not ask for this course of action to be taken. We indicated our opposition to public servants being brought before the Bar of the Senate. For that reason we do not wish to be involved in the formulation of any rules at this stage. I advise you, Mr President, and the Senate that the Government will formally oppose the suggested rules for the examination of witnesses.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Withers) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sir Frederick Wheeler, C.B.E., Secretary to the Treasury, announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The oath having been administered by the Clerk,

Sir Frederick Wheeler, Frederick Henry Wheeler, public servant.

Sir Frederick Wheeler; Yes

Senator WITHERS:

-You regard that as a lawful instruction to you and you intend to obey it?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

- Mr President, I take a point of order immediately. I believe that the first part of the question is not in order. As I understand the position, I think the second part of Senator Withers’ question is a fair question, but to ask Sir Frederick to give an opinion as to whether or not it is a legal instruction by the Government I would suggest is not in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will hear argument on that point of order.

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not think we want to get into argument. I will put the question this way: Sir Frederick, you intend to obey the instructions contained in that letter?

Sir Frederick Wheeler; Yes

Senator WITHERS:

-So if I ask you what papers, files and documents you have brought with you, how do you answer?

Sir Frederick Wheeler; I have indicated that I will obey the instruction of the Minister. Against the background of that instruction, I have no files or documents of a relevant kind with me.

Senator WITHERS:

-Could I ask you this question then, to discover what is a formal question and what is not: You will be aware that the present Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) tabled in this Senate a document which is generally known as the Larkin minute. Are you aware of the tabling of that minute?

Sir Frederick Wheeler; Yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-Can I ask you: Were you present, as alleged in the Larkin minute, at a meeting in the Attorney-General’s Department on that date at that time?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Mr President, I must object to the question. I think it is quite clear from the letters which you have received and which you have read to this Senate, and from the answers already given by Sir Frederick to the earlier questions asked by Senator Withers, that Sir Frederick is acting on instructions issued to him by his Minister and that he intends to obey those instructions. The question that has already been asked is directly related to the resolution and places Sir Frederick in a position where he has to make a choice which may well contravene the instruction he has been given by the Government. I believe that this is the essential position that we have arrived at and I am glad that we have arrived at it immediately. I would seek your ruling that Sir Frederick be properly protected in the light of what he has already indicated to thc Senate.

Senator WITHERS:

-If I may speak to the point of order, I quite deliberately alluded to a document of which the witness is aware which was tabled in this place by a Minister. It is a public document. It is in the record. It has been tabled in the Senate. It is certainly incorporated in Hansard. I understand that there has been no question as to its authenticity and, arising out of that, I believe that I am entitled to ask the witness whether he was present as alleged in that minute.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am not dissenting from the point of order raised by the Leader of the Government. I feel that the witness has to be given an option to refuse to answer questions, as he has been instructed. It is now optional for the witness to answer the question that has been directed to him.

Sir Frederick Wheeler; Mr President, the question falls within the matters covered by the direction given to me by my Minister, the Treasurer. I therefore object to answering.

Senator WITHERS:

-Could I ask you this question then, Sir Frederick: You are not claiming privilege; you are just declining to answer as a result of an instruction issued to you by your Minister?

Sir Frederick Wheeler; Mr President, in a shorthand reply I did not mention privilege; but my basic instruction is- and I was resting on this understanding- that I have been directed by the Treasurer to claim privilege in respect of all questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate.

Senator WITHERS:

-Sir Frederick, could I put this question to you: No matter what question is asked of you from now on, having answered what would appear to be the formal questions, namely, as to your name and occupation, you will both claim privilege and decline to answer any other question addressed to you as a result of your ministerial direction?

Sir Frederick Wheeler; Mr President, yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr President, if that is to be the attitude of the witness- and I blame not the witness but the Minister- then I suggest that the witness be stood down.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Does any other honourable senator wish to ask questions?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Through you, Mr President, could I ask Sir Frederick whether the loan program prepared for the Loan Council in the year 1974-75 included any loan referred to as $4,000m?

Senator WRIEDT:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. When a resolution was carried in this chamber last week for the bringing of public servants before the chamber I indicated that there was a possibility of embarrassment being caused to those public servants. I have no doubt in my mind that the Leader of the Opposition was completely sincere in his remark that he does not wish to create embarrassment to any member of the Australian Public Service. I hope that every other honourable senator will adopt the same principle and respect the public servants as individuals. The question asked by Senator Wright is obviously related to the resolution in the same way as I felt the previous one was related. I hope, Mr President, that you will rule that the principle has been properly established. Sir Frederick, as the first witness, has indicated his position- that he is acting under a direction of his Minister- and has indicated his intention not to answer any further questions. I believe it is proper that that authority should be respected, and I believe that he, as a witness, should be respected as from now.

Senator WITHERS:

-I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr President.

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-You asked for him to be stood down.

Senator WITHERS:

-I did not ask him to sit down. I suggested that he be stood down.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator POYSER:

– What is the difference between them?

Senator WITHERS:

-I hope I do not have to give my colleagues a lecture in semantics, Mr President. Senator Wright has asked a question. Before he asked it he asked me about it. I think that it is a valid question to put. As I understand it, Sir Frederick Wheeler can give us information as to whether the loan program is a public document or is not a public document. It may be that Sir Frederick will have to claim, according to his instructions, that he is not to admit to the existence of a public document or to comment on what the public document contains. I think it should be for the witness to take the objection and not for the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I uphold Senator Wriedt ‘s point of order. Sir Frederick, you are excused from attendance in the Senate for the time being.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Mr President, I raise a point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have excused the witness for the time being. Sir Frederick, you are excused.

Sir Frederick Wheeler withdrew

Senator WRIGHT:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I propose to ask a series of questions relating to public documents which ordinarily are handled by the Treasury and which, I expect, would be within the knowledge of the Secretary of the Treasury. I also will include a question specifically directed to that document which was tabled by Mr Connor, appearing in House of Representatives Hansard of 9 July at page 3613. 1 shall ask Sir Frederick whether that is an authentic document. It purports to be a Treasury statement on unsolicited offers of overseas funds. We will then see what the loan program consisted of during the relevant year and what Treasury instructions were. Then there will be questions with regard to the proper legal control of those funds according to the knowledge of the Secretary of the Treasury. They are all objective questions, the answers to which I require to know for an assessment of any matters that may arise out of these proceedings.

The PRESIDENT:

– Black Rod, you are required to recall Sir Frederick Wheeler.

Sir Frederick Wheeler having been recalled

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I raise a point of order. Before the questions raised or adumbrated by Senator Wright are put to Sir Frederick Wheeler, I invite you to rule that those questions are clearly within the ambit of the questions which Sir Frederick has indicated he is not prepared to answer and are covered by his claim of privilege, and that he should not bc asked to answer them.

Senator WITHERS:

-Speaking to that point of order, I think the witness ought to be able to answer for himself. Sir Frederick is a very distinguished public servant. He is quite clear on what his instructions are. I think the witness ought to be able to answer for himself without this continual interruption.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Speaking to the point of order, I accept the basic point that has just been made by Senator Withers, namely, that a witness ought to be able to answer for himself; but I do not believe that he should be continually subjected to a series of questions now, when he has already indicated that if questions are within the terms of the resolution he has been directed by his Minister not to answer them. I believe that the point of order raised by Senator James McClelland requires a ruling on whether or not those questions come within that ambit.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Mr President, before you give a ruling on the point of order, I think we need to get the record straight. When Sir Frederick gave his decision that he accepted the instruction of the Minister, it was Senator Withers who asked that he be stood down. Senator Withers requested that he be stood down and in compliance with that request you stood him down. However, the rebel on the back benches wants to dig up some filth somewhere. Senator Withers is not sufficiently powerful to subdue the rebel on the back benches. Because there is such a rebel on the back benches the request of the Leader of the Opposition cannot be complied with. Everyone with a responsible attitude in relation to this matter has asked that Sir Frederick be exonerated from or relieved of the obligation to face the gutter-snipe tactics that have to be used by other sections of the Senate. I suggest that in compliance with the request of the Leader of the Opposition Sir Frederick should be stood down from this hearing.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I take a point of order. I ask you, Mr President, to direct Senator Cavanagh to withdraw the expression ‘guttersnipe tactics’ as the words are offensive to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Senator Cavanagh to withdraw that expression.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-It was one of the mild ones and I will withdraw it. Sewerage came to my mind.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In replying to the point of order raised by Senator James McClelland I want to recapitulate the situation that existed at the time that Sir Frederick was excused from the Senate. There was a suggestion by Senator Withers that Sir Frederick be stood down. There was no substantive motion; it was just a suggestion. I expected that a motion would be forthcoming to discharge Sir Frederick or to excuse him and then Senator Wright asked his question. After the suggestion was made there was no motion forthcoming from Senator Wright. I think that now we have recalled Sir Frederick, after excusing him, the option is open to him to reply to Senator Wright. Then I would expect, rather than a repetition of something of this kind, to hear something substantial from the Leader of the Opposition. That would be after Senator Wright has asked his question.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Mr President, through you, my question is directed to Sir Frederick. I refer to page 3613 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 9 July and the document printed there under the heading ‘Treasury statement on unsolicited offers of overseas funds. ‘ Is that an authentic document from the Treasury?

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

-I take a point of order. I would like to put forward for your consideration, Mr President, that if this question asked by Senator Wright is relevant to the discussions before us today then quite clearly Sir Frederick Wheeler has stated his position very clearly, that according to the instructions of his Minister he is not going to answer relevant questions. If that is not so and the question is irrelevant, I suggest to you that it should be ruled out of order because of its irrelevancy.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr President, I rise on a point of order. It is apparent that the Government is using the tactic that Sir Frederick Wheeler will not even be allowed to be asked the questions. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) has said, Sir Frederick Wheeler has indicated that he is well seised of what his Minister has said and that he is prepared to obey his Minister. That is the first step in Government intimidation of the Senate. Now, before questions relating to public documents on the record can be asked of Sir Frederick Wheeler, the implication becomes well known to Government senators as to the absurdity of the breadth of the prohibition which has been imposed. That, Mr President, I submit is the real reason behind the objections which are being taken. I respectfully submit that notwithstanding how many points of order are taken by Government senators, the ruling you have made is the proper ruling. I also submit that senators are entitled to ask Sir Frederick Wheeler questions and that if he proposes to claim privilege and object to answering them that is his prerogative. But it is not for Government senators to stop the questions being asked.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ruled before that the question that has been directed to Sir Frederick is optional for him to answer. I leave it to him to answer.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Do you require me to repeat the question, Sir Frederick?

Sir Frederick Wheeler No, thank you. Mr President, the question is a question upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate and, as such, it very clearly comes within the direction given to me by the Treasurer, namely, that I must claim privilege in respect of all such questions.

Senator WRIGHT:

- Mr President, I ask through you the question: Sir Frederick, what was the amount of money included in the loan program for 1974-75 for Commonwealth purposes?

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-Mr President, I take a point of order in relation to that question. The point of order is that that question is not and cannot be a relevant question. It cannot be a relevant question because the witness has already indicated that he will not answer any questions. That is, he has claimed privilege within the terms of the Minister’s letter. With respect, I say that one cannot ask a relevant question of a chair for example, unless one is certifiably insane, because the chair will not answer. By the same token, one cannot ask a relevant question of a person who will not supply an answer and who has indicated that he will not do so because he claims privilege. That is my point of order.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I rise on a further point of order in relation to that question: It is in no way relevant to the resolution which is attached to the summons. Therefore the question cannot be answered.

The PRESIDENT:

– The witness has already indicated that the question asked by Senator Wright is within the area of the resolution. He has claimed privilege and does not wish to answer.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Not this question, Mr President. I think you are under a misapprehension. This is an entirely new question and it relates simply to the public document relating to the loan program which has not been referred to in the evidence or the files or the proceedings. I suggest that when the Senate is inquiring into the overseas loan raising activities of the Government, it is not within Sir Frederick’s direction to refuse to answer all questions relating to those matters before and after the minute of the Governor-General in Council of 13 December. My question now relates to a program from June to June, a public document and the amount of money included in the loan program for Commonwealth purposes. If Sir Frederick goes to the point of claiming privilege for that, it will be an illustration of the extremity to which the Executive Ministers are going to preclude witnesses from performing their normal duty of answering questions of fact. This is a question of public fact, non-controversial and, I would think, known to any junior officer of the Treasury.

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

– I rise to speak to the point of order. I again take the point of order to which Senator Willesee alluded earlier; that is that Sir Frederick Wheeler has already indicated that any question directed to him within the terms of the resolution of the Senate is, so far as his ministerial direction is concerned, one of privilege, and that he intends to adopt that attitude. Sir, if the question is not within the terms of the resolution of the Senate, as I understand Senator Wright to be putting to you now, I suggest that the question is purely irrelevant and, therefore, is not one which should be allowed to be directed to the witness.

The PRESIDENT:

– The witness has already stated that he considers the question posed by Senator Wright to be within the terms of the resolution.

Senator WRIGHT:

-No, he has not.

Senator WRIEDT:

– In relation to the previous question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, on the previous question that Senator Wright asked. If the witness wishes to answer the new question, he has the option to do so.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– On the point of order, the important aspect -

Senator WITHERS:

– Are you objecting to the ruling of the President? The ruling has been made. You must move a motion to dissent.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am rising on the point of order.

Senator WRIGHT:

– There is no point of order before the Senate.

Senator WITHERS:

-The ruling has been made.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am rising on the point of order that Senator Douglas McClelland addressed himself to, that is, the relevancy of this and every other question. Whether a question should be put to a witness must stand the test of relevancy. I might ask a question outside the overseas loans matter as to whether something happened. Would that question be relevant to the matter now before the Senate? The witness was called to answer questions only in relation to the resolution of the Senate. That resolution concerned the question of overseas loan negotiations. I might want to know the amount involved in 1971-72 in respect of Australian Government borrowings. What value would it have? There will be no end to this examination if we allow irrelevant questions to creep into these proceedings. This would be contrary to the purpose for which the witness was asked to attend the Senate, to appear before it, and on which he was asked to prepare answers.

The PRESIDENT:

– I uphold Senator Cavanagh ‘s point of order. The question is irrelevant.

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I wish to ask Sir Frederick Wheeler 3 questions. My first question to Sir Frederick is: If I should write to the Secretary of the Treasury, as a member of Federal Parliament, asking the questions which have been raised by Senator Wright regarding the loan funds, will he on behalf of his Department answer the questions or will his silence be required by the instructions of his Minister?

Senator WRIEDT:

– I take objection to that question, Mr President. I ask you to rule accordingly. It is not relevant, in terms of the ruling that you have just given. It is completely out of order, I would believe, to ask such a question in view of your ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are there any other speakers to the point of order? I uphold the point of order taken by Senator Wriedt.

Senator WEBSTER:

– My second question to Sir Frederick Wheeler is: If his officers are brought before an Estimates Committee of this Senate, will he -

Senator POYSER:

-I rise to take a point of order. The standards of this Senate have always been such that no question of a hypothetical nature can be asked. This is clearly a hypothetical question.

The PRESIDENT:

– In answer to that point of order, I have not heard the question through. I would like Senator Webster to put it.

Senator POYSER:

– The first 3 words of the question, ‘if his officers’, make it hypothetical.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask Sir Frederick Wheeler whether, upon officers of Treasury being brought before an Estimates Committee of the Senate, the direction of the Minister for his silence will continue and apply to the hearings of that Committee?

The PRESIDENT:

-I rule that question out of order.

Senator WEBSTER:

– My third question to Sir Frederick Wheeler is: If he or his officers are required to appear before the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament, will the requirement of the Minister for his silence relate to hearings of that Committee?

The PRESIDENT:

– I rule that question out of order. There being no further questions, Sir

Frederick, you are excused from attendance for the time being.

Sir Frederick Wheeler withdrew

Mr J. O. Stone, announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The oath having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

– Will you please give your full name and occupation?

Mr Stone; John Owen Stone, public servant.

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Stone, please be seated. You have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give the Leader of the Government in the Senate the first call to ask questions followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, but they may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Mr President, I have no questions.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr President, through you I ask the first question of Mr Stone. Mr Stone, you have received a letter this day from the Treasurer, dated 16 July, in which you are instructed not to answer questions on this matter.

Mr Stone; That is correct, Sir.

Senator WITHERS:

-And you intend to obey those instructions?

Mr Stone; With respect, Mr President, I inform you that I have been directed by the Treasurer to claim privilege in respect of all questions other than purely formal questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate. I am therefore unable to answer that question and other such questions.

Senator WITHERS:

-The last question 1 asked you was whether you intend to obey the instructions in that letter.

Mr Stone; That is so, Sir.

Senator WITHERS:

-So that no matter what question is put, whether it relates to a public document that has been tabled in Parliament or something published by the Government you will object every time and claim privilege and refuse to answer as a result of those directions.

Mr Stone; Mr President, the direction I have received from my Minister does not distinguish between questions based upon public documents or other documents or other matters and therefore my answer to the Leader of the Opposition is, yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-I have no further questions.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no further questions, Mr Stone you are excused from attendance in the Senate.

Mr Stone withdrew

Mr Robert James Whitelaw, O.B.E., announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The oath having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

– Will you please give your full name and occupation?

Mr Whitelaw; My name is Robert James Whitelaw. I am a public servant, at present on the unattached list and employed in the International Monetary Fund.

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Whitelaw, you have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give to the Leader of the Government in the Senate the first call to ask questions, followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. They may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I have no questions.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Withers.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr Whitelaw, as I understand it you are no longer an officer of the Department of the Treasury; is that correct?

Mr Whitelaw; That is so.

Senator WITHERS:

– You are on the unattached list of the Public Service?

Mr Whitelaw; That is correct.

Senator WITHERS:

-Did I hear you correctly? You are at present with the International Monetary Fund?

Mr Whitelaw; That is correct.

Senator WITHERS:

-Did you receive a letter today from Mr Hayden, the Treasurer?

Mr Whitelaw;I did.

Senator WITHERS:

-Is he still your ministerial head?

Mr Whitelaw; He was at the time that these matters were dealt with.

Senator WITHERS:

-Yes, but as at today he is not your ministerial head?

Mr Whitelaw; I would need to take advice on the appropriate answer to that question. I am not sure. I think not.

Senator WITHERS:

-I quite understand what you may wish to do. I put this question to you: Whilst Mr Hayden may well have the proper lawful power to direct Sir Frederick Wheeler, Mr Stone, Mr Prowse, Mr Bailey and Mr Hay, as you are not properly attached- if that is the correct Public Service term- you may not be subject to these directions. Mr President, as this is a matter of some importance, perhaps Mr Whitelaw ought to seek advice as to what standing these directions have as they apply to him. I ask for leave of the Senate not to -

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-To excuse him.

Senator WITHERS:

-No-to continue my questions at a later time after Mr Whitelaw has sought some advice and informed the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Mr Whitelaw, your examination is postponed for the time being. You are excused for the time being.

Mr A. R. G. Prowse, announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The oath having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

-Mr Prowse, would you please give your full name and occupation?

Mr Prowse; My name is Albert Richard Graham Prowse and my occupation is public servant.

The PRESIDENT:

-Mr Prowse, you have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities, and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) the first call to ask questions, and he will be followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers), but they may elect to reserve their right to ask questions until a later stage. I call on the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I have no questions, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call on the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr Prowse, have you today received a letter from Mr Hayden, the Treasurer?

Mr Prowse; Yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-In it I understand he says that you are to claim privilege and refuse to answer any question at all.

Mr Prowse I have received the letter and the text of it is as you have stated.

Senator WITHERS:

-Do you intend to obey those instructions?

Mr Prowse; Yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-Will you refuse to answer, as a result of those instructions, any questions put-to you by any honourable senator?

Mr Prowse; That is other than formal questions.

Senator WITHERS:

-I have no further questions.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are there any further questions? There being no further questions, Mr Prowse, you are excused from attendance in the Senate.

Mr Prowse withdrew

Mr A. P. Bailey, announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The oath having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Bailey, would you please give your full name and occupation.

Mr Bailey; Alan Paterson Bailey, public servant.

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Bailey, you have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give to the Leader of the Government in the Senate the first call to ask questions, followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, but they may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-No questions, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Withers.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr Bailey, you have received a letter from the Treasurer, Mr Hayden?

Mr Bailey; Yes, sir.

Senator WITHERS:

-In which you are instructed to claim privilege and to decline or refuse to answer all questions directed to you?

Mr Bailey; Yes, other than formal questions.

Senator WITHERS:

-You intend to obey those instructions?

Mr Bailey; I do, sir.

Senator WITHERS:

-Even if I asked you a simple question like. What is a temporary purpose?

Mr Bailey; Yes, sir.

Senator WITHERS:

-You would decline to answer?

Mr Bailey; I would.

Senator WITHERS:

-I have no further questions to ask- this witness.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are there any further questions? As there are no other questions, Mr Bailey, you are excused attendance in the Senate.

Mr Bailey withdrew

Mr I. Hay, announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The affirmation having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Hay, would you please give your full name and occupation?

Mr Hay; Ian Maxwell Hay, public servant.

The PRESIDENT:

– You have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give to the Leader of the Government in the Senate the first call to ask questions, followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, but they may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. I call on the Leader of the Government, Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:

-No questions, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr Hay, 1 take it you have also had instructions from the Treasurer?

Mr Hay; Yes, Mr President.

Senator WITHERS:

-What are those instructions?

Mr Hay; That I should not answer any questions relating to the matters pertaining to the Senate resolution on the grounds that the Treasurer has claimed privilege and I also claim that privilege.

Senator WITHERS:

– You claim it for yourself also? You make a personal claim, do you?

Mr Hay; Within the instructions I have been given.

Senator WITHERS:

-And you intend to obey those instructions?

Mr Hay; Mr President, I do.

Senator WITHERS:

-And not even to give us the benefit of your version of what happened according to the Larkin minute on 13 December at about 7 p.m.?

Mr Hay; No, Mr President; I will not answer that question.

Senator WITHERS:

-And you would not answer any questions at all relating to what is alleged in that minute?

Mr Hay; No, Mr President.

Senator WITHERS:

-I have no further questions to ask.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are there any further questions?

Senator WRIGHT:

-I ask my questions through you, Mr President. May I direct your attention, Mr Larkin, to the House of Representatives Hansard -

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-He is not Mr Larkin.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The witness is Mr Hay.

Senator WRIGHT:

- Mr President, I direct the attention of Mr Hay to the House of Representatives Hansard of 9 July at page 3613. Have you the Hansard before you?

Mr Hay; I do not have it before me, but I am aware of the document.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Do you regard it as a formal question if I ask you whether or not the statement there printed is an authentic statement of the rules of the Treasury?

Mr Hay; In view of the Treasurer’s instruction to me, I am unable to answer any questions pertaining to that matter.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I understand that your duties in the Treasury are associated with loans.

Mr Hay; They are.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Would you be good enough to state the amount of loan money appropriated for Commonwealth purposes in the loan program 1974-75?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Mr President, I take a point of order. This matter was the subject of a point of order during the examination of a previous witness. It was debated and ruled out of order. It is a question of relevancy as to whether questions about the loan estimates for 1974-75 have anything to do with the resolution to call witnesses before the Senate to answer questions. It was decided during the examination of a previous witness that the matter had no relevancy and I do not know why the honourable senator has attempted to ask the very same question of a subsequent witness.

The PRESIDENT:

– I uphold the point of order and declare the question irrelevant.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Without disrespect to you, Mr President, may I ask you to consider my argument on that point of order?

The PRESIDENT:

– 1 will hear argument.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It is inconceivable, that anybody could imagine that that question is irrelevant to the Senate resolution.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have ruled that it is irrelevant.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I thought you said you would hear me.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am hearing you, but I do not want you to -

Senator WRIGHT:

– In view of that sort of futility, I will not proceed.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are there any further questions? Mr Hay, there being no further questions, you are excused from attendance in the Senate.

Mr Hay withdrew

Sir Lenox Hewitt, O.B.E., announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The oath having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

- Sir Lenox, will you please give your full name and occupation?

Sir Lenox Hewitt Lenox Hewitt, public servant.

The PRESIDENT:

- Sir Lenox, you have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loans activities and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control, relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in the other House of the Parliament. I shall give the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) the first call to ask questions, followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers), but they may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-No questions, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers.

Senator WITHERS:

- Sir Lenox, I take it you have received the letter dated today’s date from Mr Connor?

Sir Lenox Hewitt; Mr President, yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-I understand that the instructions are that you are not to answer questions except formal questions?

Sir Lenox Hewitt; Mr President, yes.

Senator WITHERS:

– You can answer formal questions?

Sir Lenox Hewitt; That is the instruction, Sir.

Senator WITHERS:

-Could I ask a formal question? As you were no doubt formally introduced to Mr Khemlani, I ask the formal question: When and where?

Sir Lenox Hewitt; With respect, Mr President, in accordance with the Minister’s letter to you and his direction to me, I claim privilege in respect of that question.

Senator WITHERS:

-By instruction you will not answer that question?

Sir Lenox Hewitt; That is correct, Mr President.

Senator WITHERS:

-If I ask you another question, Sir Frederick, if you had seen -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-You mean Sir Lenox. Sir Frederick has gone.

Senator McLAREN:

-That is the third booboo you have made today.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is not as big a booboo as directing a public servant over whom you have no direction. Sir Lenox, can I ask you this question: Have you seen what is commonly known as the Larkin minute which was dated 23 May? Do you regard that as a formal question?

Sir Lenox Hewitt; With respect, Mr President, in view of the Minister’s letter to you and his direction to me, I beg to decline to answer the question.

Senator WITHERS:

-No matter on what public document or what has been put down by any Minister in this place you will give the same answer?

Sir Lenox Hewitt; With respect, Mr President, that is an omnibus question, but insofar as any such question would be within the terms of my direction, the answer is yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-As Sir Lenox is obviously acting under his ministerial direction, I have no further questions.

Senator WRIGHT:

- Sir Lenox, would you refer to House of Representatives Hansard of 9 July at page 3613 where there is printed a copy of a document which your Minister tabled in the House of Representatives last week purporting to be a Treasury statement on unsolicited offers of overseas funds? Is that document authentic or not?

The PRESIDENT:

– If you wish to answer that question, Sir Lenox, you may do so.

Sir Lenox Hewitt; With great respect, in view of the Minister’s letter to you, Mr President, and his direction to me, I beg to decline to answer the question.

Senator WRIGHT:

– My next question is: Sir Lenox, will you identify the contact or associate in Adelaide referred to in the Khemlani correspondence?

Sir Lenox Hewitt; With respect, Mr President, in view of the Minister’s letter to you and his direction to me, I beg to decline to answer the question.

Senator WRIGHT:

-My third question is: Sir Lenox, in the loan program for the Commonwealth for the year 1974-75 what was the amount for Commonwealth purposes for the period -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have already declared that the question is irrelevant.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I wish to be heard on a point of order as an objection to the ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it an objection to the ruling?

Senator WRIGHT:

– It is a point of order. The resolution of the Senate refers to overseas loan transactions before and after 13 December 1974. Loan transactions by the Commonwealth for the year June 1974 to June 1975 include the matters to which the Senate’s resolution is directed. It is impossible, I submit, to take the view that the loan program, so far as it refers to loans for Commonwealth purposes for that full 12 months, is irrelevant to the subject matter of the Senate’s resolution. Mr President, I ask you so to rule.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I wish to speak on the point of order, Mr President. I have raised this point on 2 occasions before, and on both occasions you have ruled the question out of order because the event happened before the thirteenth of some month. I also have some queries about 1928. I am not satisfied with the loan raising then. Is that within the ambit of the resolution? Mr President, you have given a ruling on the same question on two previous occasions and for the matter to be brought up as a point of order at this stage is canvassing your previous ruling. This is quite contrary and detrimental to the standing orders. I think it is not befitting for any honourable senator to canvass the President’s ruling in this House.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have disallowed the question on previous occasions. The point of order is not upheld. Are there any further questions?

Senator WRIGHT:

-I ask Sir Lenox Hewitt through you, Mr President, whether or not he has knowledge of the existence of a Loan Council in Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I rule on this as being a frivolous question.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Mr President, before you deal with me so abruptly and I would submit without any basis of reason such as that I put that this is not a frivolous question. If you will hear my argument I think you will be convinced that it is a very serious question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Have you, Senator Wright, any further questions?

Senator WRIGHT:

– No, but I am addressing you. I am giving you cause for understanding what I am submitting to you, with respect.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wright, if you wish to raise a point of order you may do so.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am raising a point of order and I am hoping it will be understood. I am submitting that the existence of the Loan Council is the first of a very important series of questions which go to the fundamental validity of the transactions into which we seek to inquire because the Loan Council has been put up in the opinion of Mr Deane, Queen’s Counsel, as a very important factor in considering whether or not the negotiations of Sir Lenox Hewitt and Mr Khemlani for $4,000m were valid and, secondly -

Senator DEVITT:

– I take a point of order, Mr President. I ask you to identify, for the edification of the other members of the Senate, to which standing order Senator Wright is directing his comments.

Senator WRIGHT:

– The rule as to relevancy. I should have thought that would have been known without having to identify it.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wright, you are addressing yourself to a point of order. You are in continuation in respect of that point of order.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes.

Senator DEVITT:

– I ask for identification of the standing order to which Senator Wright is addressing himself. I think the rest of the members of the Senate are entitled to know so that we can also make some judgment upon the point.

The PRESIDENT:

– I expect Senator Wright to nominate the standing order to which he is speaking.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Rule 1 3, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wright may proceed.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I was saying that the existence of the Loan Council is a very fundamental matter in the beginning of a series of questions.

Senator DEVITT:

-I take a further point of order based upon rule 13.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There is a further point of order.

Senator DEVITT:

- Mr President, rule 13, which we have adopted this afternoon, states:

Upon a Question of Order being raised relating to relevancy or other matter of Order, the President may give his decision forthwith . . .

Mr President, I ask you to give your decision.

The PRESIDENT:

– On a previous occasion when Senator Wright asked Sir Lenox Hewitt, who has been associated with Treasury matters for a considerable number of years, whether he knew of the existence of the Loan Council, I gave the opinion that I considered it a frivolous question. Senator Wright pointed out that it was part of a series of questions that he intended to ask. Perhaps I was precipitate in ruling that way, considering that there were questions to follow, but that question to a man of Sir Lenox’s standing appeared to me to be frivolous. Senator Wright, if you wish to continue your series of questions I would like you to do so.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Mr President, will you not permit me to direct that question to Sir Lenox?

Senator DEVITT:

– What about the point of order? I wish you to rule on the point of order

The PRESIDENT:

-I have ruled already on 2 previous occasions that the questions relating to the Loan Council were irrelevant.

Senator WRIGHT:

– There has been only one previous occasion, Mr President. I ask you: Do you deny me the opportunity to direct that question to Sir Lenox?

The PRESIDENT:

-I will hear it and will rule again after you repeat the question that you wish to ask Sir Lenox.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I ask Sir Lenox: Do you know of the existence of the Loan Council in this country?

The PRESIDENT:

-I have ruled that that is a frivolous question.

Senator WRIGHT:

– My next question is: Sir Lenox, of whom does the Loan Council consist?

The PRESIDENT:

– Do you wish to answer that question?

Sir Lenox Hewitt From my own knowledge and recollection at the moment, I do not think I could give an accurate answer to that question.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Why? Because you claim privilege or because you do not know?

Sir Lenox Hewitt With respect, I intended to say and thought I had said that from my knowledge at this moment I did not think I could recollect with complete accuracy the answer to that question.

Senator WRIGHT:

- Mr President, through you, I ask Sir Lenox: How long has your experience in the Treasury been?

Sir Lenox Hewitt Thirteen years.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Do you know whether the Loan Council sits once a year or more frequently than that?

Senator WRIEDT:

-I take a point of order. It is quite apparent that Senator Wright is determined to get some publicity out of these hearings today. We started off this sitting of the Senate in, I thought, a fairly sensible way, with the purpose of respecting the rights of individuals who are brought before the Bar of the Senate. That would never satisfy Senator Wright. It never has, and it never will. I suggest that the questions which he is asking now are turning the hearing into a farce. They are not relevant to the matters contained in the resolution which we agreed upon when we commenced proceedings. If they are not relevant they should be ruled out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

-I uphold the point of order.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I rise on that point of order. The position which has arisen now is different from any other points upon which you have had to rule, Mr President, because Sir Lenox Hewitt has answered the last 2 questions without claiming privilege or relying upon the Minister’s instruction. One does not know how many further questions may be asked of him to which he will respond. I think it is significant that he is answering questions. I can understand the concern of the Government senators who have been raising points of order all afternoon. They want to stop this particular line of questioning because it is obvious that Senator Wright is embarking upon a series of questions as to the knowledge which Sir Lenox has of the Loan Council. The purpose may be the relevance of the Loan Council’s activities to fund raising. The financial agreement under which the Loan Council was established requires that all loans shall be raised by the Commonwealth. The question may well be relevant as to whether the Loan Council was ever asked, let alone informed, that the Commonwealth coolly intended to raise something like $4,000m. My submission is that while the witness is answering questions these attempts by government senators to shut out the answers ought not to be regarded as anything other than a further attempt to intimidate the Senate.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Mr President, speaking to the point of order, I think Senator Greenwood has given the answer completely to you and to the whole Senate. If these things are relevant to the questions which Sir Lenox Hewitt has said he is under instructions not to answer, very clearly Senator Greenwood instead of representing his colleague has completely put Senator Wright out of court. If these questions relate to the very position that Sir Lenox Hewitt has made clear to you, that he is under instructions not to answer, they will not be answered.

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Mr President, the last submission on the point of order makes it quite clear that the Government is trying to intimidate the witness into claiming the privilege he has been instructed to claim.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is your point of order, senator?

Senator CHANEY:

– I am addressing myself to the point of order to which the last senators to speak have been addressing themselves. The point is that the last speaker made it quite clear that he is drawing the attention of this witness to the fact that if there is relevance he should be claiming privilege. I think this demonstrates the way the Government is behaving today.

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

-Sir Lenox Hewitt indicated at the outset that he would answer questions of a formal nature, other than any other covered by the resolution of the Senate on which he would claim privilege. Senator Greenwood referred to the fact that Sir Lenox Hewitt had answered the 2 previous questions directed to him before the immediate one now put to him by Senator Wright namely: ‘How frequently does the Loan Council sit?’ The 2 questions immediately preceding that question I submit were questions purely of a formal nature, namely, the length of service that Sir Lenox Hewitt had had in Treasury and whether he knew the members of the Loan Council. They being questions of a formal nature, I submit he was entitled to answer them. This particular question is the subject of the resolution of the Senate and therefore I submit that it should not be put to him or if it is that he can claim privilege.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I wish to raise another point which applies not only to this witness but to all witnesses. I do not think witnesses should be asked questions not within their sphere of activities, of which one would expect them to have great knowledge. Sir Lenox Hewitt is called as a witness before this Senate as the Secretary to the Department of Minerals and Energy. We know that he has held that position since 1 972. Whilst he has stated that he had some 18 years experience in the Department of the Treasury, he is not now a Treasury official. He was asked a question which was not asked of the Treasury officials whom one would expect to have the answer and to know the answer. The Opposition is hoping to get a particular answer from someone not associated with the Treasury but with another role to play.

We would expect that some 3 years ago Sir Lenox Hewitt would have known the answer to the question about how often the Loan Council meets. One could forgive him if today he did not know how many times a year the Loan Council meets at present. Anyone would excuse him if he could not answer that. But the officers whom we could expect to know and who have been called as witnesses were not asked the question. The particular question has been asked of one who at this stage is not an expert on the question. That indicates that the Opposition is trying only to manufacture the answer rather than to get facts out of the witness. I ask you, Mr President, to see that all questions referred to a witness are questions in relation to the particular occupation that justifies that witness being called before the Senate.

Senator MISSEN:

-On the point of order, Mr President, it has already been pointed out that the Foreign Minister (Senator Willesee), by his remarks on this point of order, is endeavouring to cause this witness to be intimidated. Now, on the contrary, Senator Cavanagh is endeavouring to impute ignorance on the part of the witness before the witness in fact has answered. I am suggesting that Senator Cavanagh should not be entitled to impute or suggest ignorance. The witness does not have to be an expert in a particular field in any area, either in a court of law or in this Senate, to have knowledge of an area and be able to answer. I suggest that he should be allowed to answer the question for himself.

The PRESIDENT:

– I feel that the questions that have been directed by Senator Wright to the witness have been presented rather skilfully and that they are questions that remain to be answered by the witness if he chooses to do so. If he feels that they are outside the scope of relevance he can refuse to answer them.

Senator WRIEDT:

-May I ask you to clarify that point, Mr President? If that is the case, will you rule the questions out of order if you consider them irrelevant?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, I will rule them out of order. Senator Wright, would you repeat that last question? You had asked 2 questions of a formal nature which Sir Lenox had answered.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Sir Lenox, is it within your knowledge as to how many times the Loan Council met in 1974-75?

The PRESIDENT:

– I declare that question to be irrelevant.

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not want to get into the situation of moving dissent, Mr President, but I would be obliged if you would inform the Senate why that question is irrelevant. You allowed the 2 previous questions as to the membership of the Loan Council and Sir Lenox’s experience in Treasury. Perhaps you could advise the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– The position as I see it is that Sir Lenox has a set of guidelines to which he is working, at the request of his Minister. I am here to see that he is not intimidated- in any way and that, by skilful questioning, he is not asked to answer questions that he does not wish to answer. Therefore, I will leave the answering of the question to Sir Lenox. If he wishes to answer the question relating to the number of times the Loan Council met, he may do so.

Sir Lenox Hewitt, With respect, it is not really within my present knowledge and I therefore cannot answer the question with the certainty that the answer I give would be correct. If I may, I should like to elaborate on that a little and also elaborate on what I said a moment ago. I was asked a direct question about the length of my experience at the Treasury and I answered Thirteen years’. I perhaps should have answered an unasked question, the answer to which would be that, with the exception of the periods in which I acted as Secretary of the Treasury, at no time when I was in the Treasury did Loan Council matters form part of my responsibilities there. If I may further say, I answered the 2 previous questions because, as a lay person quite untutored in the law, I thought they were formal questions and believed them to be formal questions. If I may add one more word, with the greatest and deepest respect, Mr President, I think that this epitomises the problems that a lay person and a person who is not qualified in the law faces when he is in a court of justice without the representation that is there provided to him in the form of counsel.

Senator WRIGHT:

-My next question to Sir Lenox is: Was the loan of $4,000m proposed by Mr Khemlani referred to the Loan Council, to your knowledge?

Sir Lenox Hewitt, With respect, Mr President, in view of the Minister’s letter to you and his direction to me, I beg to decline to answer the question.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I fear, Sir Lenox, that there may have been some misunderstanding between us as to my question concerning whether you knew who were the members of the Loan Council. I was not asking that in the sense of nominating the names of the present representatives; I was asking as to the constituent bodies. So that there will be no misunderstanding, I ask: Do you know what bodies constitute the Loan Council?

Sir Lenox Hewitt, With respect, my answer is really the same as the previous one. I cannot from my present personal knowledge and recollection give an accurate answer to that question. If I may illustrate my problem: I cannot recall, for example, whether it is the Treasurer of Australia or the Prime Minister of Australia who is the Chairman of the Loan Council. Consequently I cannot go on of my own knowledge accurately to say at this moment that it is the Treasurers of the States or the Premiers of the States. Indeed my recollection of being in attendance at Loan Council meetings is that they have all participated, but I cannot without counsel and consideration answer that formal question.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Is it within your knowledge, Sir Lenox, that the Loan Council consists of one representative of the Commonwealth and of each of the 6 States?

Sir Lenox Hewitt, I am sorry, Mr President, but with the deepest respect I cannot be more helpful than I have already tried to be on that question.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I wish to ask one question. I think it is a formal question, but it may not be. If I get an answer to it I imagine that a question subsequent to it will not be answered. Sir Lenox, do you know whether the commission which was payable to Mr Khemlani under the documents which have been tabled in the House of Representatives was to be divided in any particular proportion and who were the persons to benefit from that proportioning? I have simply asked the question: Do you know?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, that is a clear flouting of a clear ruling that you gave earlier.

Senator WITHERS:

-What ruling?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The ruling that the people who have come here with letters instructing them to claim privilege claim privilege in respect of all matters that are relevant under that summons. No question could be more relevant than this one. Sir Lenox Hewitt has claimed privilege in respect of precisely that type of question. There has been a clear flouting of his claim by Senator Greenwood. The question should be ruled out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

-I uphold the point of order raised by Senator James McClelland. The witness is not required to answer that question. Are there any further questions?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr President, I respectfully ask you to reconsider the position. May I rephrase the question so that it will be quite clear what I am asking? I am asking not for details, if the witness should know, because I apprehend that if I were he would say that he is not allowed to answer that sort of question. I am asking a question which I should have thought was a formal question, but it may not be. That is for the witness to say. My question is simply: Does the witness know how the commission which was payable in regard to the transaction, details of which are contained in the documents tabled in Hansard, was to be apportioned?

Sir Lenox Hewitt, With respect, Mr President, in view of the Minister’s letter to you and his directions to me, I beg to be allowed to decline to answer the question.

Senator WEBSTER:

– In relation to the letter received by Sir Lenox, would he inform me as a member of Parliament how far into the future the silence required of him by the Minister will extend? Will it extend to questions on this matter by members of Parliament on another occasion, to questions that may be raised in estimates committees of the Senate or to questions before the Public Accounts Committee?

The PRESIDENT:

- Sir Lenox is not required to answer that question. Are there any further questions? There being no further questions, Sir Lenox, you are excused from attendance.

Sir Lenox Hewitt withdrew

Mr J. T. Larkin, announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The oath having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

-Would you please give your full name and occupation?

Mr Larkin; John Terence Larkin, Public Servant.

The PRESIDENT:

– You have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to these matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give the Leader of the Government in the Senate the first call to ask questions, followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate but they may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-No questions, Mr President.

Senator WITHERS:

– Are you the same J. T. Larkin, First Assistant Secretary, who signed a Minute dated 23 May which was tabled in this place by Senator James McClelland?

Mr Larkin; Mr President, I am.

Senator WITHERS:

– You are at present, as we know, a First Assistant Secretary in the Department of Minerals and Energy. On 13 December 1974 were you employed in the Department of Minerals and Energy?

Mr Larkin; Mr President, I was.

Senator WITHERS:

-In Minerals and Energy?

Mr Larkin; Yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-As a First Assistant Secretary. You know the Minute; you wrote it on 23 May. Why did you write it on 23 May concerning an event which happened on 1 3 December?

Mr Larkin; Mr President, with respect, in accordance with the Minister’s letter to you and his direction to me, I claim privilege in respect of the question.

Senator WITHERS:

-You claim privilege only?

Mr Larkin; Also in accordance with the Minister’s letter, I beg to decline to answer the question.

Senator WITHERS:

– By instruction.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Bad luck.

Senator WITHERS:

-I let him off.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are all heart.

Senator WITHERS:

-Of course I am. It is you fellows I want, not them- and I will get you. I take it, Mr Larkin, that whatever other questions I ask you concerning the minute you will give the same answer as you just gave?

Mr Larkin; Yes, Mr President.

Senator WITHERS:

-You regard this minute as falling within the directions of your Minister?

Mr Larkin; I do, Mr President.

Senator WITHERS:

-So, we cannot have the interesting information about the rebuking and the rebuked. That also falls within your direction?

Mr Larkin; I believe it does, Mr President.

Senator WITHERS:

-I have no further questions of this witness.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are there any further questions? Mr Larkin, there being no further questions, you are excused from your attendance in the Senate.

Mr Larkin withdrew

Sitting suspended from 4.16 to 4.30p.m.

Mr C. W. Harders, O.B.E., announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The oath having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

-Mr Harders, will you please give your full name and occupation?

Mr Harders; Clarence Waldemar Harders, public servant.

The PRESIDENT:

-Would you please be seated? Mr Harders, you have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) the first call to ask questions followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers), but they may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. I call the leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-No questions, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr Harders, I take it you have a letter from the Attorney-General.

Mr Harders; Yes, I do.

Senator WITHERS:

-As read by the President?

Mr Harders; Yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-I take it you intend to obey his instructions and not answer questions.

Mr Harders; I do.

Senator WITHERS:

-That will extend to each and every question which might be put to you?

Mr Harders; That will extend to each and every question other than purely formal questions.

Senator WITHERS:

-Can you regard this as a formal question? You know the Larkin minute which was tabled in the Senate recently?

Mr Harders; I do not regard that as a formal question and I decline to answer the question.

Senator WITHERS:

-You do not accept the view that once a document is made public there is no privilege attaching to that document?

Mr Harders; I do not accept that view.

Senator WITHERS:

-That would be a consistent view which you would take of any document which has been tabled in the Parliament?

Mr Harders; I would on every occasion claim privilege and obey the direction of the AttorneyGeneral.

Senator WITHERS:

-I have no further questions, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-Are there any further questions?

Senator MISSEN:

-I should like to ask Mr Harders whether he is aware of the resolution adopted by the Senate this morning and of the terms of that resolution.

Mr Harders; The resolution adopted by the Senate this morning concerning what subject?

Senator MISSEN:

– Concerning the statements which have been made. I will read the opening paragraph of the resolution and subparagraph (1) on which I desire to ask a question. It was resolved:

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

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

That is the first sub-paragraph of the 4 subparagraphs in the resolution.

Mr Harders; I was present in the gallery of the Senate when that motion was adopted, and that is my answer to your question.

Senator MISSEN:

– My question, following that, is: You have heard me read out paragraph ( 1 ) of that motion. Do you accept the statements made in that paragraph as being true to your knowledge?

Mr Harder; Paragraph ( 1 ) being?

Senator MISSEN:

– In relation to the powers and privileges of the Senate as conferred by section 49 of the Constitution.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Mr President, I rise to take a point of order. I ask you to rule whether this question is relevant in the context of the ruling that you have given earlier.

Senator WITHERS:

-On the point of order, 1 think the question must be relevant to this issue. A resolution of the Senate having been passed last Wednesday and you, Mr President, having read certain letters yesterday concerning that resolution of last week, a further resolution was passed today. So I put it to you that it is part and parcel of what the Senate passed on Wednesday of last week. It flows out of that resolution of last Wednesday which led to your reading those letters yesterday afternoon. The resolution passed this morning flowed out of that. So, there is a direct connection between the 3 events.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-On the point of order, it would be hard to imagine a more specious argument than that which has just been advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers). How can a resolution passed today by this Senate, subsequent to the issuing of these summonses, be connected with a full and accurate account of the activities of the Government’s Ministers, servants and agents relating to all dealings by them prior to and subsequent to the Executive Council meeting of 13 December 1974? It is impossible to link the passing of the resolution today with the matters mentioned in the summons. I suggest that there could not be a more irrelevant question than that which has just been addressed to Mr Harders.

Senator MISSEN:

-I wish to speak to the point of order. I say that my question is relevant. It is relevant to the extent to which this witness can answer the questions that he was summoned here to answer. He has received correspondence. He has received directions. He has received also, I would suggest, directions by this Senate as to its rights, powers and privileges. I want to know whether the witness does intend, in the light of that resolution, to continue with his refusal to answer questions. Therefore, I say it is relevant to ask whether he is aware of this resolution and whether he, as a lawyer, regards the first part of it as being true and within his knowledgewhether he accepts it.

Sentor JAMES MCCLELLAND- If I may elaborate on my point of order, if that is so, if the point made by Senator Missen is true, the question is even more impermissible. Mr Harders has indicated that he will not answer questions which are relevant to the summons. So, either the question is irrelevant and therefore should not be asked or is relevant and Mr Harders has already indicated that he would not answer such a question.

Senator WRIGHT:

– If it is irrelevant, the decision is for you, Mr President. If it is relevant, the decision is for the witness.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He has already made the decision.

The PRESIDENT:

– On previous occasions, I have ruled some questions to be irrelevant. This question is one which I intend to allow to go through to Mr Harders to give an answer, because he has already given what I consider to be an answer to this question and he may reiterate that answer.

Mr Harders Mr President, I decline to answer the question.

The PRESIDENT:

-Mr Harders, you are excused from attendance.

Mr Harders withdrew

Mr M. H. Byers, Q.C., announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

-Would you please give your full name and occupation?

Mr Byers Maurice Hearne Byers, SolicitorGeneral of Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

-Mr Byers, you have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give the Leader of the Government in the Senate the first call to ask questions, followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and they may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. I call Senator Willesee representing the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Mr President, no questions.

The PRESIDENT:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr Byers, on 15 July you wrote a letter to the President which was read in the chamber this morning, I think in your presence. Is that correct?

Mr Byers; Yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-Unlike the previous witnesses you have received no instructions from anybody in the same terms as they have?

Mr Byers; Or at all.

Senator WITHERS:

– Not at all?

Mr Byers; That is right.

Senator WITHERS:

– So you are here as yourself and not under any direction from any person outside?

Mr Byers; I am not amenable to ministerial direction.

Senator WITHERS:

-As I understand your letter, you claim that because of your position as Solicitor-General you are entitled to claim privilege. Is that correct?

Mr Byers; It is the Crown’s privilege. It seems to me as Solicitor-General that I cannot do anything inconsistent with the privilege which the Crown asserts.

Senator WITHERS:

-Has the Crown asserted privilege?

Mr Byers; Yes.

Senator WITHERS:

Mr Byers; To the Senate in the letter of the Prime Minister of yesterday’s date, I think, which I imagine immediately preceded mine, and in the subsequent letters directed by various Ministers to various officers.

Senator WITHERS:

-How was the Crown exercising that? Was it just by Ministers of the Crown writing letters or as the result of a direction of the Executive Council?

Mr Byers; I do not quite follow what you mean.

Senator WITHERS:

-You say that the Crown has exercised its right of privilege. I ask: How has the Crown exercised its right of privilege?

Mr Byers; By acting through Ministers of the Federal Executive Council.

Senator WITHERS:

– Without their formally meeting beforehand?

Mr Byers; Maybe. I do not consider that essential for the assertion of the Crown privilege.

Senator WITHERS:

-Do you believe any Minister can do that?

Mr Byers; No, I do not think any Minister can do it. I said members of the Federal Executive Council; some may not be.

Senator WITHERS:

-Some may not be. You know of some who are not, do you?

Mr Byers; No.

Senator WITHERS:

-I did not think they were.

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

-He said some may not be.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– He said a person can be a Minister without being a member of the Federal Executive Council and if he were a Minister who was not a member of the Federal Executive Council the privilege would not apply. It was fairly clear, I think.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is actually not, but Senator Wheeldon has made it clearer. It is because they have made the claim that you intend to make the same claim or to abide by the claim?

Mr Byers; It is because the Crown has made the claim in constitutional terms. I, as the Crown’s second law officer, as it would seem to me, cannot do anything which is intentionally inconsistent with the privilege which the Crown asserts.

Senator WITHERS:

– Do you accept the proposition that it is for the Senate to either accede to or reject that claim of privilege?

Mr Byers; No.

Senator WITHERS:

-You assert, then, that the Crown has absolute privilege?

Mr Byers; No.

Senator WITHERS:

– What privilege does the Crown have?

Mr Byers; I am not asserting anything. I am giving my understanding of the law. My understanding of the law is that the privilege resides in the Crown. That privilege may be asserted. It has been. When it has been, the question next arises as to my duty in relation to that assertion. I can see my duty to be no less than keeping secret the Crown’s counsel. The duty which the oath of a Federal executive councillor imposes on him is not to reveal matters directly or indirectly. That is my understanding.

Senator WITHERS:

-How far do you believe that privilege extends? Does it extend to each and everything you do as Solicitor-General?

Mr Byers; Obviously it does not.

Senator WITHERS:

– Can you inform me where it does not?

Mr Byers; One can only answer questions like that when one has a specific case in relation to which a specific privilege is asserted. One can then determine the extent to which the assertion, properly made, extends.

Senator WITHERS:

-Do you believe the Crown has properly asserted its privilege here?

Mr Byers; I should have thought that there were the most central principles of constitutional law involved. That is my understanding.

Senator WITHERS:

-More central than the power of the legislature to summon witnesses before it and to put questions to them?

Mr Byers; No, I was not drawing a distinction or intending to imply any relevant inhibition on the power of the legislature to summon. What I am saying is that given the Crown obligation and my obligation, the choice with which I am presented is whether or not to answer the question.

Senator WITHERS:

– In other words, you believe that your obligation to the Crown is higher than your obligation to the Senate?

Mr Byers; I do not believe anything of the sort.

Senator WITHERS:

-Why not? You either do or you do not. If you are faced with a conflict of whether you ought to answer a question here or whether you ought to sustain your belief in Crown privilege, you must opt for one or the other.

Mr Byers; I do not think, really, that is right. When one is faced in this chamber with a question which would appear to invade the area of secrecy, as I state in my letter, I am presented with a choice of whether I should answer that question and thus betray my obligation or refuse to answer the question and uphold my obligation. That is the choice with which I am presented.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is what I said.

Mr Byers; Did you?

Senator WITHERS:

-You opt for the claim of privilege.

Mr Byers; I opt for my obligation.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is right.

Mr Byers; That is a different thing.

Senator WITHERS:

-Eventually everybody picks up options. If I put to you a question which you believe you ought not to answer, you will opt to carry out what you term your obligation and you will not answer the question.

Mr Byers; Indeed, I should hope so.

Senator WITHERS:

-I put it to you this way: No matter what question I put to you concerning this matter you wil opt for your obligation not to answer?

Mr Byers; Well, if you mean, pardon me if I appear to be over-precise, but I am endeavouring to indicate my obligation as I understand it- by ‘this matter’ the matter referred to in the resolution and if you ask a question relevant to that matter, the answer to which on my part would involve a breach of my obligation as I see it to protect the confidence of the Crown, then I will certainly decline to answer.

Senator WITHERS:

-What if I asked you quite a simple factual question such as that which I have asked a number of people who have appeared previously? I will ask a simple factual question: Do you know of what is now termed the Larkin minute, the minute signed by Mr J. T. Larkin on 23 May? You either know of it or you do not.

Mr Byers; Literally I know of it; 1 do not think I have read it.

Senator WITHERS:

- Mr Larkin alleges in that minute that on 13 December 1974 at about 7 p.m. there was a meeting at the AttorneyGeneral’s Department between officers of that Department and of Treasury to prepare an Executive Council minute for a proposed borrowing abroad of $4,000m. The minute states that present were Messrs Byers, Harders, Menzies and Rose from the Attorney-General’s Department, and Sir Frederick Wheeler and Messrs Prowse, Bailey and Hay from Treasury. In his minute Mr Larkin says: ‘I was also present’. If I asked you whether or not that is correct, could you answer that question?

Mr Byers; I do not think so, bearing in mind that the Senate’s resolution proceeds from the basis of the anterior debate, as I would appreciate it, in the House and covers the events leading up to the Council meeting of that day, into which I think would fall that to which you refer. Therefore it seems to me that I must, consistent with my obligation, follow the course you suggest and decline to answer.

Senator WITHERS:

– Decline to answer even that question?

Mr Byers; Yes.

Senator WITHERS:

-If that is the course the witness intends to adopt, I have no further questions to ask.

The PRESIDENT:

– Are there any further questions? I call Senator Greenwood.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Byers, do you accept that the claim for privilege which you assert, if made in a court of law, would be determined by that court of law?

Mr Byers; I do not assert any claim to privilege. It is the Crown’s claim to privilege, not mine. What I am saying is that given that assertion of privilege I could, no more here than in a court if I were appearing for the Commonwealth, advance propositions that are opposed to the cases of the Crown or the Commonwealthin this context I think the Senate would agree that they are the same- for the purpose of denying the claim asserted.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Byers, I am seeking to reach a position where, if a court of law rejected an assertion made on behalf of the Crown that the Crown had privilege in respect of a particular document or of particular questions and answers which were involved, the answers would have to be given and the documents would have to be produced. Is that not the position?

Mr Byers; Indeed.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– If the Senate were to rule that the privilege asserted on behalf of the Crown was not a privilege which the Senate recognised, would you accept the Senate’s decision?

Mr Byers It does not seem to me, with respect, as one lawyer to another, that I can. May I endeavour to explain why? It is because here I seem to be presented with a situation where the Executive arm of government asserts a privilege.

I am presently before the Bar of one of the legislative Houses. There is, of course, written in and imbedded into our Constitution, to a fairly strong extent, the notion of the separation of the powers as between Executive and legislature. It seems to me, as I think Senator Greenwood said earlier today, that this raises a central constitutional point, and the point is: May I in conscience answer a question which, in conscience, I believe I should not merely because one of the chambers of the legislature says that in its view the Crown ‘s claim to privilege is unfounded? That raises for me the central question of conscience.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Is it fair to saypardon my possible blunter language- that if the Senate rejects the claim for privilege asserted by the Crown you would then rely upon what you believe in conscience is your right course of action?

Mr Byers; I have done that right through. At least I have endeavoured to do that right through, it seems to me.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Is the position that you would therefore not be asserting, as you do now, that there is a privilege but that you would be asserting: ‘It does not matter what the Senate does; I will still not answer”?

Mr Byers; I do not think, Mr President, with respect, I have altogether made myself clear. The privilege at all times is the privilege of the Crown; it is not mine. I do not assert it, and I do not assert my privilege. What I am endeavouring to do, to the best of my ability, is to act consistently with my constitutional duty to the Crown in not revealing its confidences whatever the result may be. That seems to me to be the point. I think Senator Greenwood, if I may say so with respect, raised it quite clearly this morning when he said that this was a constitutional issue. It is. For me it is a central one. I hope you pardon my being somewhat verbose, but may I endeavour to make my situation a little bit clearer in this way: While the privilege is asserted and so long as it is not waived, I would understand my duty to remain the same. Until it is waived, my duty subsists.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Has anybody on behalf of the Crown required you to adopt the privilege of the Crown, or is this a unilateral act on your part?

Mr Byers; No one, in my view, could, and no one has.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-You are subject to direction with regard to some matters under the

Law Officers Act by the Attorney-General, are you not?

Mr Byers; I do not think that is altogether correct. Your having been Attorney-General, of course, I differ with great diffidence. As I understand the section, it says what my functions areand you will remember them- and then it says that I shall undertake certain work at the request of the Attorney-General. As I would appreciate it, that does not mean that if I could not, for example, argue a particular case and the Attorney-General, whether it be Senator Greenwood or Mr Enderby, were to say: ‘Do it’, I would have to do it. The request is made to me that I must in the performance of my duty fulfil, but if performance of my duty prevents me from fulfilling it, then of course the request cannot be honoured. That would involve, it would seem to me, no conflict of the statute, and that is the way I would interpret the statute.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Over what ambit does your view of the Crown privilege extend which precludes you from answering any questions which we put to you in regard to this matter?

Mr Byers; It involves my declining, with respect to this chamber, to answer questions which are inconsistent with or opposed to the privilege claimed. If I may say so respectfully, I think that maybe at the back of the senator’s mind is a distinction between fact and opinion. If it is, I would not draw any such distinction.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Was a meeting of the Federal Executive Council held on either 1 3 December or 14 December?

Mr Byers; That, Mr President, seems to me immediately to get into the area which my appreciation of my duty would require me not to answer.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-On what ground would you justify answering that specific question?

Mr Byers; You mean not answering it?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-On what ground would you regard yourself as entitled to decline to answer a question: Did an Executive Council meeting take place on 13 or 14 December?

Mr Byers; Only in this way, that I have assumed throughout that an Executive Council meeting did take place. When I say I have assumed throughout, the records of the debate seem to indicate that, and the minutes indicate that, that there was such a meeting. I cannot say anything, it would seem to me, that is inconsistent with or opposed to the notion that such a meeting did take place. I am not quite sure that I understand fully what you are asking.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Is not the ground which you disclosed to the President in your letter of 15 July based upon the ‘well recognised constitutional principle that the deliberations of the Crown are secret’?

Mr Byers; Oh, yes.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Do not the deliberations of the Crown occur only in the Executive Council?

Mr Byers; Oh, no.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Where do you say the deliberations of the Crown occur?

Mr Byers; They occur there and they occur in events leading up to it by those participating in it. The deliberations of the Crown are secret. When I say ‘deliberations of the Crown are secret’, I mean just that and the events leading up to the formal regional decisions. They are secret. My obligation is not to act inconsistently with the privilege which is claimed and not therefore to indicate anything that I may have done or said or participated in, in those events the subject of the minute.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I understand from your earlier answer that you have not satisfied yourself one way or the other whether an Executive Council meeting took place. Why therefore do you claim a privilege in regard to any deliberations which may have preceded 13 or 14 December?

Mr Byers; I was not present at any meeting. In that sense I did not see with my eyes and hear with my ears the events. But as I understood them, a meeting did occur because I was shown the document in the records of Hansard and I have assumed throughout that such meeting did occur. I cannot conceive why I should not have.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-On the assumption that it did occur, do you make a further assumption as to when it occurred?

Mr Byers; Not really.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Were you present at the meeting at 7 p.m. on 13 December in the Attorney-General’s Department?

Mr Byers; 1 do not really think, with respect, that I can answer that question. I say that with respect to the whole Senate and with respect to the Senator who is asking the question.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Are you able to say whether, in your assumption, the Executive Council meeting took place after or before that meeting at 7 p.m.?

Mr Byers; It seems to me that that also would involve me declining to answer, upon precisely the same principle.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Did you, prior to the meeting at the time of 7 p.m. on 13 December, offer written advice with regard to the projected authority to the Minister for Minerals and Energy to borrow the equivalent of $4,000m?

Mr Byers; Whilst the privilege is maintained by the Crown, it seems to me that my duty must be to decline to answer that question and all questions of that kind. Whilst it is not waived, it seems to me, my obligation subsists.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Do you not consider that the fact of whether you have or have not given advice has been waived twice by the Prime Minister- firstly, in the House of Representatives and, secondly, at a Press conference?

Mr Byers; I did not think it was waived in the House of Representatives and I am not quite sure that I heard all that was said in the Press conference, but I doubt that he could waive it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-So, you are not prepared, sitting where you are and responding to questions asked to you, to say anything which would confirm or deny the veracity of what the Prime Minister said; is that the position?

Mr Byers; I cannot say anything that is inconsistent with the privilege that is asserted. My appreciation of it is that whilst it is maintained, and only whilst it is maintained, I must do my duty and refuse or decline to answer. I do so with respect to this chamber.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The crucial words in your last answer are ‘whilst the privilege is maintained ‘?

Mr Byers; They are a central part of it, yes.

Senator MISSEN:

- Mr Byers, when you say that the privilege at all times is the privilege of the Crown and not your privilege, I take it that you judge that by the statement which the Prime Minister has made in claiming privilege?

Mr Byers; To some degree, yes.

Senator MISSEN:

– I assume you have read the letter which the Prime Minister wrote on 15 July to the President of the Senate?

Mr Byers; I heard it read out.

Senator MISSEN:

– I want to read to you the second paragraph of that letter. The Prime Minister writes in these terms:

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

The question I want to ask you is: In that letter the Prime Minister indicates certain instructions that were given to Public Service officers. Is that not so? But he does not, in that letter, assert that any instructions will be given to you?

Mr Byers; He cannot give them to me.

Senator MISSEN:

-I understand that. Nor does he indicate in that letter that you are to take any course in respect of claims of privilege?

Mr Byers; He cannot tell me what course I shall take.

Senator MISSEN:

-You have, therefore, made up your own mind from your own opinions and views on the question of privilege as to what you should do and what refusal of questions you should give?

Mr Byers; That is correct. As I have endeavoured to indicate, after quite honestly the most anxious consideration, that is what I did.

Senator MISSEN:

-Therefore, your case must be distinguished entirely from the case of the public servants who have been called today?

Mr Byers; In certain respects that is right. I know I am a terrible witness, but what I mean when I say ‘in certain respects’ it that the privilege, of course, in a sense is the same- it is Crown privilege- but the reason for not answering what would, in the absence of the privilege, be answerable is different in each case.

Senator MISSEN:

– Yet you have said today that you doubt whether the Prime Minister would waive the privilege and until it is waived, I think you said, you would still feel bound. Is that consistent with what you are saying now?

Mr Byers; I do not find any inconsistency in it.

Senator MISSEN:

– If the Prime Minister were to direct you to answer you would accept that direction?

Mr Byers; I did not say I doubted whether he would waive it; I said I doubted whether he could waive it.

Senator MISSEN:

– So, you are asserting that in your opinion the privilege not to give answers to the Senate could not be waived by the Prime Minister or the Government?

Mr Byers; No, I am not saying ‘or the Government’. If there were a decision of the Federal Executive Council that would put it, in my view, beyond dispute. It could, I would have thought, both assert the secrecy which the Constitution confers, in my understanding, and it could remove the obligation by waiver, if it wished. The point I am endeavouring to make is that I do not think the Prime Minister can do it in his own right.

Senator MISSEN:

– But you consider he can claim it of his own right in relation to public servants?

Mr Byers; Of course he is not the only one.

Senator MISSEN:

-The Ministers too.

Mr Byers; Yes, that is right.

Senator MISSEN:

– Let me ask you a question with regard to the extent and ambit of this privilege which you claim. I turn to your letter to the President of the Senate wherein you say:

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

What I am putting to you in regard to that paragraph is that that is not a true reflection, particularly of paragraph 136 referred to in that paper. Let me give you the reason why I put this to you. In that paragraph in the paper by Senator Greenwood and Mr Ellicott there is a statement that some documents shall fall into a class which of their nature would be privileged. It refers to law officers’ opinions. That, I would suggest to you, would seem to support your contention, but have you not ignored the last part of that paragraph which states:

Where, however, documents do not fall within classes such as these, it is open to the court to decline to be bound by the Minister’s certificate and consider the documents themselves to see whether the withholding of them is necessary in the public interest having in mind the public interest of ensuring the proper administration of justice.

What I am putting to you is that, in relation to all the events leading up to any opinion you might give and in the event of questions relating to what information you were given before you made an opinion, that would not come within the area of principle as outlined in those paragraphs.

Mr Byers; All I can say, with great respect, is that 2 lawyers disagree.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Through you, Mr President, I wish to ask the Solicitor-General to refer to his letter to the Senate of yesterday where he said: 1 must object to answer any question relating to the Resolution that may be put to me-

On reflection, do you not agree that the statement of privilege there is too wide?

Mr Byers; No.

Senator WRIGHT:

-You claim then that you would base your refusal to answer any question here today upon privilege?

Mr Byers; On the Crown’s privilege.

Senator WRIGHT:

– You are an independent statutory officer, are you not?

Mr Byers; Yes.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Is it not your duty, as the second law officer of the Crown, to form your own opinion as to the validity of the Crown’s claim to privilege?

Mr Byers; I have.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Do you assert to the Senate that in your opinion the Crown has a valid claim to privilege from answering any question relating to these overseas loan borrowings?

Mr Byers; That is not the privilege which is asserted. It is -

Senator WRIGHT:

-Is it not within your knowledge -

Mr Byers; If you do not mind, I had not finished my answer.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take a point of order. I think it is very improper that this witness, who has been so courteous to the chamber, should be bullied. He should be at least allowed to finish his answers.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I take a point of order. That statement by Senator James McClelland was quite uncalled for. Questions have been put in a proper manner to the witness. The imputation is totally unfair and unreasonable.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think the witness is handling the situation very capably.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Would you complete the answer that you were giving when you were interrupted?

Mr Byers; I am sorry. Honestly and truly, I have forgotten what I was about to add.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I was about to try to restore the understanding. My question when I was interrupted was: Is it not within your knowledge that the relevant Ministers yesterday claimed to instruct witnesses not to answer any questions asked here relating to those matters in the resolution?

Mr Byers; Yes, I think that is an accurate statement.

Senator WRIGHT:

– As the second law officer of the Crown, do you state that it is your opinion that the Crown has a privilege as wide as that?

Mr Byers; What I state is what I have said in my letter. If you go to my letter, I thought I set out with what clarity I could muster -

Senator WRIGHT:

-I referred, I thought -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Let him finish.

Senator WRIGHT:

– He dropped his voice. I thought he had finished.

The PRESIDENT:

– Had you completed the answer?

Mr Byers; I had not. If I may, I would acquit Senator Wright on any charge of bullying me. All I am endeavouring to say is that I attempted to set out in the letter the reason why it seemed to me that in law the privilege could be well claimed.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I referred with brevity to the nub of your letter, which is:

The above considerations and much anxious thought have compelled me to conclude that I must object to answer any question relating to the Resolution that may be put to me . . .

Having drawn that to your mind, 1 ask you: As second law officer of the Crown, do you state that it is your opinion that the Crown has a valid privilege to claim before the Senate as wide as that?

Mr Byers; The privilege is the privilege of secrecy of Crown deliberations. That there was involved a Crown deliberation here seems to be indisputable. The question, therefore, is the extent to which the privilege extends. I should have thought that it extended to events prior and subsequent to those deliberations. Having come to that conclusion, I have to make my difficult choice. I assure you, as one lawyer to another, I did it and to the best of my ability I came to that conclusion.

Senator WRIGHT:

– If you will permit me, I asked you to state your opinion of the extent of the Crown’s privilege from answering questions in the Senate. May I put this point on it? Is it not limited to such grounds as confidentiality, incrimination or relevance?

Mr Byers; Again with respect, I do not understand those as but specific examples of the central constitutional notion. The central constitutional notion is the secrecy of the deliberations. That is the central constitutional notion.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, that is behind the privilege of confidentiality.

Mr Byers; That is right.

Senator WRIGHT:

– And when you come to the privilege of incrimination, it is not based on secrecy, is it?

Mr Byers; I would have thought it was. So far as it relates to- when you are talking about incrimination you are talking about a particular person incriminating himself.

Senator WRIGHT:

Mr Byers; That is not relevant here, at least I hope not to me. I certainly have not proceeded upon the basis that I would or would dream of claiming privilege here on the basis that I was incriminated in any way.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I never suggested such a thing, Mr Byers. I want to assure you of that.

Mr Byers; Thank you.

Senator WRIGHT:

– But it is within your contemplation, is it not, that some of the Ministers concerned may wish to invoke that privilege?

Mr Byers; It is a difficult thing, you know. I want to object to answer the questions but I do not want the Senate for a moment to think that any such thing is within my knowledge.

Senator WRIGHT:

-No. I shall return to that in a moment, if I may. But on the question of the extent of privilege of confidentiality of public servants, you are aware of Sir Kenneth Bailey’s opinion of 14 September 1956 printed in Australian Senate Practice by J. R. Odgers? In paragraph (b) it reads:

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

You are aware of that opinion, are you not?

Mr Byers; Yes.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Do you agree or disagree with it?

Mr Byers; I think it is right. ‘Does not of itself indicates the central notion.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Then you could go on from there and consider confidentiality or other grounds of privilege to see whether the Public

Service validly claims privilege. Is that your approach?

Mr Byers; My approach as a matter of theory is rather different.

Senator WRIGHT:

– No, not your personal one, but in defining the Crown privilege.

Mr Byers; I had thought you limited the question in that way. I was not at all affected, Senator. Just speaking intellectually, my approach is rather to ask: What is the central constitutional notion which finds specific illustrations in various circumstances? I have thought that the central constitutional notion is the notion of secrecy. The cases or categories in which privilege, having been claimed in a court, has been upheld in a court are all illustrative of that central principle. That is my approach.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Proceeding from there, Mr Byers, with regard to the Cairns-Harris affair, certain departmental statements were collected and submitted to you by the Prime Minister for opinion, were they not?

Mr Byers; Yes, I made a report.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Including your professional opinion?

Mr Byers; Oh yes. I thought it was published.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That was what I was about to remind you.

Mr Byers; You do not need to remind me.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It has been published in Parliament in full, has it not?

Mr Byers; I have read it in Hansard.

Senator WRIGHT:

-You do not mean to imply any difference between you and me when I say that it has been published to the public in full?

Mr Byers; No, not at all.

Senator WRIGHT:

-None of it now has any secrecy, has it? None of it, therefore, from then on had any element of secrecy?

Mr Byers; You mean the things published?

Senator WRIGHT:

-Did the facts in the statements and the facts in your report and opinion have any element of secrecy after that tabling in the Parliament?

Mr Byers; I have never claimed secrecy or privilege in relation to the report I gave.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I am not suggesting that.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Mr President, the witness has been more co-operative than he reasonably could be expected to be, but Senator Wright is adopting this Hobart police court method of questioning. He has been known in Hobart for many years as ‘Bully Wright’. We accept it down there but we do not have to accept it here. I would ask you to protect -

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I take a point of order, Mr President. The comments addressed by Senator Wriedt to you are offensive to me, certainly they must be offensive to Senator Wright, and I ask for an immediate and unqualified withdrawal.

Senator WRIEDT:

-With respect to you, Mr President, I withdraw the reference to Senator Wright, but with great respect I ask whether you would give consideration to allowing the witness to answer questions without being interrupted by Senator Wright.

The PRESIDENT:

-I hope that Senator Wright will co-operate with the Chair in ensuring that the witness has a full opportunity to answer his questions in full in his own way.

Senator WRIGHT:

-For my part, I wish to be fully co-operative, and I do not think that Mr Byers will appreciate the implication that he is not able to defend himself completely.

Mr Byers; You are a redoubtable opponent, Senator.

Senator WRIGHT:

– My question was whether or not the facts in those statements or in your report and opinion retained any secrecy after they were tabled in Parliament?

Mr Byers; I should not have thought so.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Does it not follow therefore that the facts so made public do not belong to the category of secret matters to which you attach privilege?

Mr Byers; I do not think it does, really. I think that all we are concerned about, are we not, is whether I am obliged- I do not mean that in any offensive sense- consistently with my duty to answer matters embraced within the resolution of the Senate. That seems to me to be the central question. I did do a report at the request of the Prime Minister and that was published, but the fact that I have done that does not seem to have any bearing upon what my obligation is.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Your opinion having been published to the world, you still claim that on elements of secrecy it still retains privilege?

Mr Byers; What is the first assumption? The first assumption in that question is that those facts are related to the Senate resolution, is it not? The second is that, having seen the documents and having given the opinion, in some way I acted inconsistently with the claim I am now making. That is just not so.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I will leave that part of the questioning. Are you aware that it was stated in this place as recently as this morning that a Minister of the Crown was not aware of any allegations of impropriety or illegality arising out of these matters?

Mr Byers; I was sitting in the gallery.

Senator WRIGHT:

-And you heard that statement?

Mr Byers; Yes; I think something like that was said. Maybe I did not give the speeches the attention they deserved, but I did hear something like that.

Senator WRIGHT:

- Mr Byers, are you, as you sit there, aware of any allegations of illegality having been made in connection with these matters up to this time?

Mr Byers; I hope you will acquit me of any wish to avoid any legitimate question but it does, with respect to both you and the chamber, seem to me that that is rather remote from the question on which this chamber summoned me to appear before it.

Senator WRIGHT:

-With great respect I shall proceed to do my best to make the relevancy quite clear and indisputable. I would like to know, as a matter of fact to begin with, whether as you sit there you are aware of any allegations of illegality that have been made arising out of these loan transactions?

Mr Byers; I cannot think of any.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Have you read the opinion of Mr William Deane printed in Hansard?

Mr Byers; Yes.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Do you mean to say that you are not conscious that it, carefully read, is a plain opinion that illegality occurred?

Mr Byers; No, I do not think so.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I shall read to you the passage from his opinion quoted on 3605 of House of Representatives Hansard of 9 July 1975. It reads:

It is clear that if the proposed borrowings had not been borrowings ‘for temporary purposes’ they would have been in breach of the Financial Agreement and illegal.

Mr Byers; Firstly, I do not understand that to be an allegation of illegality or criminality. I do not think with respect to Mr Deane that when he used the word ‘illegal’ he meant anything other than unconstitutional. He is not talking about criminality or illegality in the specific text. He is talking about excessive power.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I seek leave to extend my questioning.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP
The PRESIDENT:

– There being dissent, leave is not granted. Are there any further questions? There being no further questions, Mr Byers, you are excused from -

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr President, is Mr Byers being excused? I would like a ruling on this because I thought that the witnesses were to be discharged by a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– I seek a decision of the Senate relating to witnesses who have today been examined and excused from attendance. The resolution of 9 July provides that witnesses shall attend the Senate from day to day until the Senate otherwise orders. I suggest to the Senate that it should consider a motion discharging the witnesses, providing that their further attendance is not required. Such motion, of course, would not include Mr Whitelaw whose attendance has been only postponed.

Senator WITHERS:

-Speaking briefly to this, as I understood the procedure, we were basically standing the witnesses over and at the end of the examination we would pass a blanket motion discharging all witnesses. I thought that ought to be made clear. They have not been formally discharged by the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is correct. I am reminded that if there is no specific motion the witnesses will be required to attend tomorrow morning. If there is a motion at the conclusion of the examination, they are all discharged, but up to the present time none of the witnesses has been discharged. They have just been excused from being present in the Senate. Are there any further questions? There being no further questions, Mr Byers, you are excused from your presence in the Senate.

Mr Byers withdrew

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from the Treasurer in the following terms:

Treasurer

Parliament House

Canberra 2600 16 July 1975

My dear President,

In view of the evidence given by Dr R. J. Whitelaw in the Senate today, it may be said that there is some doubt whether the directions previously directed to him with respect to the matter of claiming privilege before the Senate were adequate.

Accordingly, I have today addressed to Dr Whitelaw personally a letter, a copy of which is attached for your information and for the information of the Senate.

I certify that the answering of any questions by Dr Whitelaw upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 and the production of any documents, files or papers relevant to these matters by Dr Whitelaw, which could only lawfully have been acquired by him as an officer of my Department, would be detrimental to the proper functioning of the Public Service and its relationship to Government and injurious to the public interest.

Yours sincerely,

BILL HAYDEN

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

Treasurer Parliament House Canberra 2600 16 July 1975

Dr R. J. Whitelaw O.B.E.,

C/o Lakeside Hotel,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Dr Whitelaw,

I refer to the summons that was issued by the Senate and served on you in your capacity of First Assistant Secretary, Overseas Economic Division of the Department of the Treasury, in pursuance of which you attended at the Bar of the Senate earlier today. I assume that, in accordance with the summons, you will attend the Senate from day to day hereafter until excused.

Any material of which you have direct knowledge or any documents that may be or may have been in your possession relevant to the matters mentioned in the Resolution of the Senate pursuant to which your summons was issued would clearly have been acquired by you in your capacity as an officer of my Department. In accordance with longestablished principles, I direct you to claim privilege in respect of answers to all questions upon matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate and in respect of the production of all documents, files and papers relevant to those matters. Furthermore, I direct you that, if the Senate rejects the general claim of privilege made by you, you are to decline to answer any questions addressed to you upon the matters contained in the Resolution of the Senate, and to decline to produce any documents, files or papers that may be in your possession relevant to those matters.

This direction does not, of course, apply to answers to formal questions that may be addressed to you by the Senate.

Yours sincerely,

BILL HAYDEN

I formally table the letters.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr President, as I have done with previous letters, I ask for leave to move a motion ‘that the Senate take note of the letter’.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Mr A. C. C. Menzies, announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The oath having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

-Would you please state your full name and occupation?

Mr Menzies; My full name is Andrew Charles Colin Menzies and I am a public servant.

The PRESIDENT:

-Would you please be seated? Mr Menzies, you have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities and to produce all documents, Hies or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) the first call to ask questions followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers), but they may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:

-No questions, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr Menzies, I take it that you have received a letter of today’s date from the Attorney-General?

Mr Menzies; Yes, Mr President.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is the letter which we well know about. It instructs you not to answer questions arising out of this matter.

Mr Menzies; Yes, Mr President.

Senator WITHERS:

-You intend to obey those instructions as issued by the AttorneyGeneral?

Mr Menzies; Mr President, I intend to claim privilege in respect of answers to all questions put to me in the matters referred to in the summons. I therefore decline to answer those questions.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr President, I have no further questions to ask of Mr Menzies.

The PRESIDENT:

-Are there any further questions?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Menzies, if the claim of privilege which you assert were to be rejected by the Senate, would you still decline to answer questions?

Mr Menzies; Mr President, with the greatest respect, I say that that question is a hypothetical question. May I please be excused from answering that question?

The PRESIDENT:

-Are there any further questions? There being no further questions, Mr Menzies, you are excused from attendance in the Senate.

Mr Menzies withdrew

Mr D. J. Rose, announced by the Usher of the Black Rod, attended at the Bar of the Senate.

The affirmation having been administered by the Clerk,

The PRESIDENT:

- Mr Rose, will you please give your full name and occupation?

Mr Rose; Dennis John Rose, public servant.

The PRESIDENT:

-Would you please be seated? Mr Rose, you have been summoned to answer questions upon the matters contained in the resolution of the Senate of 9 July 1975 relating to the Government’s overseas loan activities and to produce all documents, files or papers in your possession, custody or control relevant to those matters which have not been tabled in either House of the Parliament. I shall give to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) the first call to ask questions, followed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) but they may elect to reserve their questions until a later stage. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-No questions, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers.

Senator WITHERS:

-Mr Rose, I take it you have this day received a letter from the AttorneyGeneral?

Mr Rose; Mr President, I have received such a letter.

Senator WITHERS:

-That letter instructs you not to answer questions on this matter?

Mr Rose; It does so.

Senator WITHERS:

-Do you intend to obey those instructions?

Mr Rose; Mr President, as directed by the Attorney-General, I intend to claim the Crown’s privilege in respect of every relevant question.

Senator WITHERS:

– You say: ‘to every relevant question’. You have qualified it. Well then, Mr Rose, I ask you: Do you know of the existence of the Larkin minute of 23 May?

Mr Rose; Mr President, that question is within the scope of the Attorney-General’s direction to me to claim the Crown’s privilege. I so claim that privilege.

Senator WITHERS:

-If that is so, I have no further questions of this witness.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no further questions, Mr Rose, you are excused from your attendance in the Senate.

Mr Rose withdrew

The PRESIDENT:

– It is now a matter for the Senate to indicate to the Chair its intention in relation to Mr Whitelaw. I would like that action to be taken now.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I suggest that Mr Whitelaw be recalled as a witness.

The PRESIDENT:

– Very well.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I ask for leave to make a brief statement, as Minister representing the Attorney-General, with relation to the position of Mr Whitelaw. This statement may clear up a few points.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr President, I have made some inquiries and I have been informed by the Attorney-General that Mr Whitelaw was served with the summons as First Assistant Secretary (Overseas Economic Relations Division) of the Treasury. Mr Whitelaw is the Executive Director to the International Monetary Fund, Washington, and was granted leave from the Australian Public Service in pursuance of Section 72 (b) of the Public Service Act as from 14 April 1975. Under section 72 (b) of the of the Public Service Act, an officer granted leave under the section is an unattached officer of the Australian Public Service during the period for which he is granted leave. Under the same section, upon the termination of the leave, the unattached officer has a right to be appointed by the Public Service Board to an office in the Australian Public Service of appropriate status. The leave is granted by the Public Service Board. Mr Whitelaw, therefore, is part of the Australian Public Service in accordance with sections 10 and 72 (b) of the Public Service Act.

The directions that have been given by the Treasurer to officers of his Department, including Mr Whitelaw, dated 15 and 16 July 1975, directed the officers to claim privilege in respect of all questions upon the matter contained in the Resolution of the Senate. This point was made by Sir Frederick Wheeler in his evidence and he indicated that he would observe the direction not to answer questions on that basis. A claim of privilege is made by or on behalf of the Minister, not the individual officer. The direction given on 16 July is in essence a direction to claim privilege in respect of all questions and the production of any documents. The correct person to make that claim in relation to Mr Whitelaw is the Minister within whose jurisdiction the relevant questions and documents fall. Mr Whitelaw was summonsed as an officer of the Treasury. He answered the summons as such. The material in relation to which he could possibly give the relevant evidence consists of matters under the jurisdiction of the Treasurer. The Treasurer therefore has rightly directed Mr Whitelaw to make the claim of privilege and to decline to answer questions or produce documents on that basis.

Senator WITHERS:

-I ask for leave to make a statement on the same subject.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-The Minister for Labor and Immigration will appreciate that we are looking at this matter on the run. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has been kind enough to show me his copy of what Senator James McClelland has just said. A couple of problems have been raised which I would like to take into consideration. I put them to Senator James McClelland so that he may have notice of them and perhaps give further consideration to them.

The first is that the claim of privilege is being made by the Minister. Yes, that may or may not be true. But the nub of the matter, it seems to me, is: As Mr Whitelaw is no longer an officer employed within the jurisdiction of the Treasurer- and the statement does not appear to have adverted to this point, unless I have overlooked it- who can now give instructions to Mr Whitelaw, if he is on the unattached list? Can the Treasurer so instruct him? Is the only person who can now instruct Mr Whitelaw the Chairman of the Public Service Board, if Mr Whitelaw is not under any ministerial authority? As I understand it, if he is on the unattached list he is not subject to direction by any permanent head. I understand that permanent heads of departments have certain authorities over officers under their control or under their supervision- I do not know what is the correct term. Mr Whitelaw has now moved to somewhere out of Sir Frederick Wheeler’s direct supervision, control or authority. 1 put these questions purely so that the Minister will see what is exercising my mind. Without going into the merits or demerits of the fact that the Treasurer is claiming privilege, what right has he to say that Mr Whitelaw is not to answer questions?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– It is in the statement.

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not quite see how the Treasurer gets that authority. I can quite understand the situation in which the Treasurer writes to Sir Frederick Wheeler and gives him a ministerial direction, because he is the Minister and Sir Frederick is the departmental head. I can quite understand that Sir Frederick Wheeler most likely would have the authority, even if the Treasurer did not have it, to so direct all other officers within that Department. But how does Mr Hayden or Sir Frederick address enforceable instructions to a person who is not within the Department of the Treasury? I do not want it to sound as if I am arguing nothings. I think this is important.

I indicate that I would like the Minister to take these points on notice. As we all know, the Senate is to rise at 6 o’clock tonight. In order to save time, I point out that in a moment or two I will seek leave to move a motion to discharge all witnesses except two- one would be Mr Whitelaw and the other would be Mr Byers- so that Senator James McClelland can give me further advice in the morning on the problems I have raised. As it is almost up to the witching hour, it might be better to get that advice to me in the morning. If the Minister can show that Sir Frederick or Mr Hayden has the power, then of course Mr Whitelaw ought to be discharged forthwith.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Why do you want to recall Mr Byers?

Senator WITHERS:

– We might want to ask him a few more questions. I now seek leave to move a motion for the discharge of certain witnesses.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I hope I am formally correct in what I am doing. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2793

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

page 2793

ADJOURNMENT

Suspension of Union Office BearerPhotocopying Facilities: Australian Government Centre, Sydney

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise on the motion for the adjournment. I hope I will not detain the Senate long, but while we have been endeavouring to unravel the mysterious Government loan raisings matters have been occurring which excite the attention of senators and which I think should excite the attention of a much wider audience. As far as I can see, most or all senators received within the last 2 days a letter signed by Mr Norm Bray. It reads:

To: Members of the Senate,

Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Senator,

I am writing to you and each Member of the Senate to request your assistance in raising in the Senate the specific matters referred to in my affidavit Sworn today 14 July 1 975 for attention by the responsible Ministers named in my affidavit.

I have Sworn to the truth of the matters raised by me as has Peter James Moxon and I respectfully ask your assistance to see that the facts are investigated and verified by proper enquiry.

Yours sincerely,

NORM BRAY

Attached to the letter are 2 copy affidavits, one by Mr Bray and one by Mr Moxon. I have read them with interest and concern. I have ascertained to my satisfaction that the actual affidavits have been sworn, though I am in no position to verify the authenticity or the truth of the matters contained in them. I think they raise matters which warrant the attention of persons concerned with justice in the industrial movement and with seeing that right is done. The material discloses that a Mr Brian Harradine, who is well known throughout this country and, more particularly, in the Government Party, has been the subject of what is an alleged frame-up of enormous proportions. That is verified in the material which is contained in the affidavits.

My purpose is to seek the attention of the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) and of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) so that the matters contained in these affidavits are investigated. It would be a shameful affair if, simply as the result of a frame-up, a union office bearer were suspended from his office and therefore lost the rights which are conferred by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Act to have financial assistance to enable him to test in the courts the validity of his suspension. That is the allegation which he makes. It also ought to be a matter of public knowledge if prominent union officials in this country are engaged in activities which amount to concocting untrue evidence with which to ruin a person’s political fortunes in any political party. That appears to be the gravamen of what is contained in these affidavits. I have no wish to read these affidavits in full, but if it is desired I shall do so. I seek leave to have the affidavits incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

AFFIDAVIT

1, NORMAN JOSEPH BRAY of 5 Stoney Creek Road, Beverly Hills, in the State of New South Wales, Union Official, being duly sworn make oath and say as follows:

1 am a member of the Beverly Hills Branch of the Australian Labor Party and I have been a member of the ALP since 1968.

From 1955 approximately to 1968 I worked in an industry whose union coverage is now exclusively that of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia. In that period of time I held a number of honorary union offices in the unions then covering my employment.

In or about February 1968 I was appointed to the office of salaried organiser in the New South Wales Branch of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia by resolution of the State Council of that Branch and held office for some three years until 1 97 1 .

In or about March 1971 I was elected in a court controlled ballot of the rank and file members the full-time Secretary of the Australian Leather and Allied Industries Branch and a delegate to State Council of the New South Wales Branch of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia and I held those offices for some three years until 1974.

In or about March 1974 I was elected in a courtcontrolled ballot of the rank and file members the full-time Secretary of the Australian Leather and Allied Industries Branch, delegate to Federal Council and delegate to State Council of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia and I held these offices until Thursday 6th February 1975.

On Thursday 6th February 1975 I was confronted by the Federal Executive of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia with a document signed by one Francis Anthony Shanahan, known to mc as Frank Shanahan, which made various allegations against myself and other persons.

1 say that Frank Shanahan was an unsuccessful candidate in the elections in the New South Wales Branch of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia declared in or about March 1 974 and was one of a number of candidates including myself who campaigned jointly for election. In or about July 1974 the said Shanahan was convicted by the Australian Industrial Court of certain offences allegedly committed by the said Shanahan in the course of his campaign involving interfering with ballot papers posted to members of the union.

The document signed by Shanahan was read to the members of Federal Executive by one Raymond Hogan and according to the official minutes of the said proceedings of Federal Executive was introduced by Raymond Hogan to the members of Federal Executive including the Federal Secretary Ray Gietzelt in the following terms:

Hogan: Mr President, an important document has come into my possession this morning, the contents of which are very specific and have a bearing on the charges laid by mc against Mr Norm Bray. Mr Hogan proceeded to read a letter signed by Mr Frank Shanahan which ran for two pages. ( Letter tendered ) ‘

1 was not then or later, despite my requests, given a copy of the statement by Frank Shanahan but I recall that the statement included an allegation that I had misconducted myself in various ways during my participation in the 1973-1974 elections in which both Shanahan and myself were candidates and in particular had participated with Shanahan and others in a meeting with one Brian Harradine, secretary of the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council, the meeting allegedly being held at an address in Castlereagh Street Sydney which was alleged to be the office of the National Civic Council, a political organisation to which members of the Australian Labor Party may not belong.

I say and the fact is that I have never in my life mct Brian Harradine so far as I am aware and I have certainly never attended any meeting at which Mr Harradine was present, whether at the address given by Shanahan or anywhere else, and the allegations made by Shanahan to the contrary were false.

  1. After hearing read Shanahan ‘s statement the Federal Executive of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia voted to dismiss me from my offices and to suspend me from membership in the Union until 30th June 1975. The practical effect of the latter suspension was to deny me any possibility of obtaining employment in the industry in which I had worked before becoming a union officer.

On the evening of the day I was dismissed from office I telephoned Peter James Moxon who was the campaign director for myself Shanahan and the other candidates who had agreed to run on a joint ticket. I told Moxon what Shanahan had said in his statement concerning a demonstration outside the Commission of which Peter Moxon had been described as the organiser and also of meetings alleged to have taken place at the address in Castlereagh Street. Peter Moxon said: ‘That is a lie’ or words to that effect. I said: ‘Why should Frank do such a thing to us.’ Peter Moxon said: ‘I know why he did it. I am going to ring Barry Egan right away’.

From that day I continued to press the Federal Secretary of the Union to give me a copy of the statement made to Gietzelt by Shanahan and supplied to Raymond Hogan to use against me but I have not been supplied with that statement and 1 do not now know if it exists in the form in which it was read to Federal Executive on Thursday 6th February 1975. I say that my dismissal was confirmed by Federal Council of the Organisation in April 1975 and that Federal Council likewise refused my request to provide mc with a copy of the statement made to Gietzelt by Shanahan. although the statement was read to the members of Federal Council.

1 have read the affidavit sworn by Peter James Moxon on Monday 14 July 1975 and I say that the affidavit, so Tar as it refers to matters within my own knowledge, appears to me to be true and correct in all respects.

1 say that upon the basis of what is said in that affidavit and of other matters I believe that a prima facie case exists that I have been wrongly deprived of my offices, employment and prospects of advancement in a major Australian organisation of employees registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, by a document which was not correct.

By reason of the matters alleged in the affidavit of Peter James Moxon and now sworn to by myself I respectfully request of the members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament and especially of those Senators who are members of the Australian Labor Party the following relief:

That the Attorney-General of Australia be requested to make enquiries and report to the Senate upon the following matters:

Whether one Francis Anthony Shanahan was convicted of various offences against the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by the Australian Industrial Court in Sydney in or about July 1974 and if so of what offences was the said Shanahan so convicted and when;

Was the said Shanahan after his conviction employed by the general secretary of the Australian Workers Union one Barry Thomas Egan as an organiser in Wagga, New South Wales, and if so when did such employment commence and on what terms;

Did the said Egan arrange for the said Shanahan to meet with one Ray Gietzelt, Federal Secretary of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia on or about Tuesday 4 February 1975 and did such a meeting take place;

At the said meeting did Shanahan provide Gietzelt with a two-page signed document making allegations against various persons in consideration of Gietzelt procuring the discontinuance or settlement of an action for libel in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in which the said Shanahan was defendant;

Do the records of the Supreme Court of New South Wales show that on and prior to Tuesday 4 February 1975 the said Shanahan was defendant in an action for libel in that Court and that the said action has since that date been discontinued or settled and if so by whom was that action brought, what office (if any) did the plaintiff or plaintiffs hold in the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia and upon what terms (unless not to be disclosed) was that action settled and when.

Whether the existing state of the Law of the Commonwealth provides any remedy for Norman Joseph Bray in respect of the loss of offices, employment and prospects of advancement suffered by him and if not what action the Attorney-General proposes to effect any necessary alteration to the laws of the Commonwealth to remedy any such deficiency.

That the Postmaster-General be requested to make enquiries and report to the Senate upon the following matters of fact:

Do the records of the Australian Post Office (as it then was) show that a telegram was sent from the telephone number Wagga 22.5519 at or about 9.15 a.m. on Wednesday 5 February 1975 to an address in Sydney by a sender giving the name ‘Frank

Shanahan’ which referred to an action by Gietzelt and if so what are the terms of that telegram:

Do the records of the Australian Post Office disclose what Subscriber Trunk Dialling telephone calls were made to Sydney and interstate telephone numbers from the telephone number Wagga 22.55 19 from and including 1 February 1975 to and including 30 April 1975 and if so to what Sydney telephone numbers were calls made from that number and who are the subscribers for the telephone numbers to whom such calls were made.

That the Minister for Labour be asked to consider and report to the Senate whether the provisions of thc Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, as amended provide adequate means for enquiry into and resolution of administrative acts that are alleged to bc oppressive unreasonable and unjust in cases where the person making complaint has been suspended from his membership in the organisation and for that reason is denied entitlement to financial assistance under section 1 40 and section 1 4 1 of that Act.

I expressly disclaim any wish for any enquiry to bc made by any person into the internal affairs of the Australian Labor Party, The Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia or any other organisation grouping or event and ask only that the Senate or a senator or senators take such action as is necessary to ensure that the specific questions of fact referred to in this my affidavit are investigated and reported upon to the Senate for such action as the Senate may then see fit to take.

Sworn by the deponent at

Sydney on the fourteenth day of July 1975 N. BRAY

Before me:

P.

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, PETER JAMES MOXON of 328 Sommerville Road. Hornsby Heights in the State of New South Wales being duly sworn make oath and say as follows:

1 was appointed an organiser in the New South Wales Branch of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia by the State Council of that Branch in 1964 and held office for three years. In 1 967 differences developed between Ray Gietzelt and a number of organisers (including myself) over Gietzelt’s decision to appoint one Keith Blackwell as Branch Secretary. Three organisers (including myself) were outspoken in their opposition to Blackwell ‘s appointment and Gietzelt terminated the appointment of all three.

After my appointment as organiser was terminated in 1967 1 worked full-time as head steward in the Pennant Hills Golf Club. At the same time I began to undertake organising on behalf of a rank and file team to contest the 1970-1971 elections in the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia in opposition to the Gietzelt team. I was approached by one Barry Egan with offers of financial support and assistance for the campaign. Egan was at the time thc secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Shop Assistants and Warehouse Employees Federation and later in thc same year became Federal Secretary of that union.

Egan directed the 1 970- 1 97 1 campaign and attended to all publicity and money required and Egan’s office was in fact our campaign headquarters. The campaign began with a press conference called by Egan in about September or October 1970 in Egan’s board room. At this conference a press statement drafted by Egan and typed up and xeroxed by his staff was issued over the names of Norm Bray, Frank Shanahan and Lloyd Grove. This statement criticised thc administration of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers

Union or Australia and after it appeared in a number of newspapers, writs for defamation were taken out in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by three officers of the New South Wales Branch of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia namely Bill Rigby, Keith Blackwell and Jack Dwyer against each of Norm Bray, Frank Shanahan and Lloyd Grove. These are still awaiting hearing, except for the action against Shanahan which is referred to below.

The results of the election which was conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for New South Wales were declared on March 17, 1971. The results were quite close, contrary to the expectations of some, and Egan was excited by the result. He said to me: ‘We will not let the matter rest. Will you come to Queensland with me and see if we can get a team together there to contest the Queensland Branch elections?’ I agreed to this and went to Queensland with Egan in or about March 1971. My air fares and accommodation were paid by Egan and I stayed at the Tower Motel, Brisbane. Egan provided me with introductions to a number of officials in other unions but none of them proved to be of any help.

1 returned to New South Wales and was then asked by Egan to go to Tasmania to see if I could put together a team there to contest the Branch elections in the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia in opposition to the proGietzelt officials. Egan said that he had arranged for me to meet a number of union officials in that State who would be able to assist me. I went to Tasmania at Egan’s request and with a ticket and expenses paid for by Egan. In Tasmania I saw a number of union officials. One of these introduced mc in a hotel to Brian Harradine who I had not previously met. Harradine invited me home to have dinner with him that night. He listened to my account of what I was attempting to do and like almost every other official 1 had met expressed sympathy and interest but said that he did not see how he was able to be of any assistance to me. He told me that he had heard the same rumours as myself that there was a defect in the last Tasmanian Branch election in the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia due to nominations not being advertised but said that he did not know whether this was correct and could only suggest I search the newspapers. He could not give me any leads to follow up in the way of members who were dissatisfied. These were the only two matters on which I had asked Mr Harradine if he could help. I later returned to Sydney and reported to Egan that no one in Tasmania that 1 had spoken to including Mr Harradine had been of any practical help except one member of the union who I had found myself by canvassing on the job.

At no time after that meeting have I met Mr Harradine for any purpose or on any occasion or at any place. Mr Harradine did not offer any assistance to me of any sort on the one occasion that I did meet him which was in Tasmania on the occasion referred to above.

In or about mid- 1972 Egan said to me that in preparing for our 1973-1974 election campaign in the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia in New South Wales it would be necessary for the campaign to be placed on a proper footing. Egan said that I should work from Egan’s home-unit at 9 Cook Street Glebe which I would use as an office and he would supply me with a female clerk to attend to secretarial work. The woman’s name is known to me and she was described to me by Egan as a former Roman Catholic nun and a family friend of his employee Laurie Brereton. These arrangements went ahead and I began working on a full-time basis for a wage of $80 a week paid weekly by Egan or Brereton. Expenses of the campaign for stationery and stamps were not great and these were paid from Egan’s office as required. At no time in the course of this campaign which continued until the ballot in February 1974 was Mr Harradine ‘s name even mentioned. Egan controlled the campaign until its conclusion in February 1974 but for the last nine months or so, that is from about mid- 1973 on Egan began to ask me to bc careful to avoid any open connection with him as he was dealing with Gietzelt and did not wish to antagonise him.

In the course of canvassing for votes at a late stage of the campaign in or about February 1974 two members associated with the team which Egan and I were promoting namely Francis Anthony Shanahan and Lloyd Grove were apparently seen by Commonwealth Police to engage in conduct which led to them being charged with offences under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act by interfering with a ballot. Shanahan and Grove were convicted on various charges by the Australian Industrial Court in or about July and August 1974 and were fined. The election results had been declared in or about March 1974. The team for which I had worked was not successful in the ballot and when the results were declared the team disbanded. Only one candidate was elected to a full-time position and this was oneNorm Bray.

Egan continued to consult with me on the affairs of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia and his relations with Gietzelt. Early in 1 975 Egan told me that he had put Frank Shanahan on his payroll as an organiser in the Australian Workers Union of which Egan was secretary. He told me: ‘Shanahan and his wife get $300 a week between them. Shanahan gets an AWU organiser’s salary, a house in Wagga and a car and his wife will be paid as the AWU office girl in Wagga. They are clearing more than me. I have looked after Frank Shanahan. I look after those who stick with me. Now I have got to clear it with Ray Gietzelt so he knows it is not aimed at him ‘.

On a later occasion in January or early February 1975 Egan rang me and said: ‘I cleared Frank Shanahan s appointment with Ray Gietzelt but Gietzelt has set a condition. He says I must get Frank Shanahan to make a statement about all the people who assisted in the campaign. Do you have any ideas on what it should say? We will have to concoct something for Frank to say to keep Gietzelt happy, lt should be possible to put something together that will not give too much away to Gietzelt about the details of the campaign’. I said: ‘Frank knows nothing about the campaign anyway so how can he make a statement?’ Egan said: ‘Think about it and see if you can come up with something. 1 want you to put together some details that we can give Frank to tell Gietzelt’.

  1. About a week later Frank Shanahan rang me. lt was the first I had heard from him in about nine months. Frank said: ‘Barry Egan has put me on his pay-roll in Wagga. He wants me to give Gietzelt a statement about the campaign’. I said: ‘I don’t care what you tell him but you must let mc know in advance what you are going to say because I believe they are after Norm Bray’. Norm Bray was the only one of our candidates who had been successful in obtaining election to a salaried position in the 1973-1974 elections and I feared that Shanahan might be pressured into making some statement which might be used against Norm Bray.

On Thursday, February 6, 1975 at about 8.00 p.m. I was telephoned by Norm Bray at my home. Norm was distressed. He said: ‘You won’t believe this, Peter. One of our team has put in a statement to Gietzelt making all sorts of allegations. You are supposed to have staged a demonstration outside the Arbitration Commission with non-union people. We are supposed to have had meetings with Brian Harradine at the NCC office at Porter House ‘. I said: ‘That is a deadset lie’. Norm Bray said: ‘I know it is a lie. I just can’t understand why he said it’. I said: ‘I know why he said it’. 1 immediately hung up and rang Egan’s number at Glebe. A recorded voice said that Mr Egan was out and to record any message for him. I said: ‘Peter Moxon here. Egan, get off your tail, as soon as you get this message you ring me’. Egan himself then cut in and said: ‘Here I am. What is up with you?’ I told Egan what Norm Bray had just said. Egan said: I told you I would do whatever is necessary to get these NCC bastards off my back. I will teach them to interfere in my union’. I understood that this was a reference to Egan’s dismissal as National Secretary of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association in October 1974 by that Union’s National Council of which Mr Brian Harradine was a member. I said: ‘Then why did you have to implicate me in your lies? ‘ Egan said: ‘ I haven ‘t implicated you. 1 don ‘t know exactly what is in Shanahan ‘s statement. I arranged for Frank to meet Ray for lunch last Tuesday. It had to be done so Frank could get the writ off his back. It will turn out for the best. I will look after anyone who gets hurt. If you and Norm make similar statements to Frank and give them to Gietzelt I will look after you. There are jobs with the AWU like Frank’s job available now in Tamworth and elsewhere. Frank wasn’t supposed to mention your name, however it has happened now. If you make a statement implicating Harradine, Ray Gietzelt will withdraw his writ against you’. I said: ‘What is Frank’s number. I want to speak to him’. Egan said: ‘Ring me in the office tomorrow when you have cooled down. This has been a terrible ordeal for Frank. He is terribly worried and upset over what he had to do ‘.

I rang Egan’s office in the morning of the following day, namely on or about Friday, 7 February 1975. I demanded Shanahan ‘s phone number in Wagga and Egan told me it was Wagga 22 5519. I rang that number and one of Shanahan ‘s children answered the phone. 1 left a message for Shanahan to ring me at home that night.

Shanahan rang me that same night. 1 said: ‘Frank you remember you promised you would let me know in advance what statement you were going to make to Ray Gietzelt?’ Shanahan said: ‘What is all this rot about, you know that No. 1 comes first’. I said: ‘You know that you and I never had any meeting with Harradine’. Shanahan said: ‘I know that but you got to give them what they want. I ‘ve got the writ off my back now and that is all I was worried about. If you are sensible I can arrange the same deal for you and Norm Bray’. I said: ‘Why did you use that business about me organising a demo outside the Court?’ Shanahan said: ‘Come on Peter, be sensible, give them what they want. I had lunch with Ray Gietzelt on Tuesday and we ended up mates. I found him a reasonable-bloke once I had given him what he wanted. If you are sensible you will give them a statement too’. I said: ‘I am interested in knowing what sort of deal Ray Gietzelt is offering me’. Shanahan said: ‘I will ring Ray and let you know Peter’.

Shanahan rang me again at my home on or about Monday 10 February 1975. He said: ‘I spoke to Ray about a deal for you and Norm, Peter. Ray says he has to go away for a few weeks. He will decide when he gets back whether he will do a deal with you. It will depend on whether Norm and you do anything to embarrass him while he is away’.

Egan rang me a few days later. He said: ‘If you are really worried about the writs, you and Norm can get rid of the writs by making a similar statement to Shanahan’. I said: Exactly what do you want, Barry?’ He said: ‘I want as many times and dates and places as possible for meeting Harradine and anyone else you wish to name that would be of interest to Gietzelt. It would be best if you said you met them in the NCC office’. I said: ‘Give us time to think about it. 1 will have to speak to Norm’. I rang Norm Bray immediately and told him of this conversation. Norm Bray said words to the effect that while I could try to keep the conversations going if I thought it worthwhile he would not make any such deal with Gietzelt or Egan.

Shanahan rang me next. He said: ‘I have talked to Ray Gietzelt. I have just been on the phone to him. Ray says he would have no objection to Egan looking after Norm Bray. He won’t object if Egan gets Norm a job as industrial officer. Ray will consider dropping the writs against you and Norm if you give him a statement. Another thing. Norm Bray has to stop making application for a copy of the statement I gave Ray Gietzelt’. I said: ‘I will speak to Norm about this’. I again rang Norm Bray and told him of this offer. Norm Bray replied with words to the effect that he would not make that sort of deal.

Egan rang me next. I believe this was on or about Saturday, 1 March 1975. He said: ‘This can’t go on forever. Are you going to give Gietzelt a statement or not?’ 1 said: You are asking a lot Barry. You are asking me to make a false statement in support of Frank ‘s false statement to do Harradine. Since Frank has already proved himself untrustworthy how can you expect me to do this?’ Egan said: ‘You should not have any objection to lying’. I said: ‘Why is that?’ Egan said: ‘If you would steal ballot papers you would lie’. 1 said: ‘I have never stolen ballot papers’. Egan said: ‘Frank Shanahan might be persuaded to testify that you did’. I said: Are you threatening to frame me too?’ Egan said: ‘If you are wise you will think about it’. I reported this conversation to Norm Bray immediately after it happened.

Shanahan rang me next. I believe this was on or about Tuesday, 4 March 1 975. Shanahan said: ‘ Ray is still ready to make a deal Peter. Ray will drop the libel writs against you and Norm Bray. Egan will employ you as an organiser and they will find Norm a job in the leather trade in a small establishment handy to home. In return you must both make a statement that Harradine attended a meeting in Sydney with you, offered to supply money and did supply money for thc campaign against Gietzelt. Ray says there would be no worries about any come-back against you because your statements would be used only at an ALP Federal Executive inquiry and unsworn statements would suffice. All you have to do is say you were present at a meeting between Harradine and myself. I will say that I was the one who did all the talking and made all the arrangements. You will only have to say that you heard him tell me that he would give us money and support. And you have got to stop Norm Bray from trying to get a copy of my statement from Ray’. I said: Frank, how can you go on lying about some bloke you have never even met?’ Shanahan said: ‘He deserves it anyway. 1 know a lot more now than I used to. It’s been explained to me that he is a danger to the Labor Party’. I reported this conversation immediately to Norm Bray.

Egan rang me next. I believe this was on or about Monday, 14 April 1975. Egan said: ‘1 spoke to Ray Gietzelt on the weekend. Ray says if you are really sincere about making a statement and getting the writs off you Ray is prepared to settle for one dollar and an apology. You will give him any vague unsigned statement. You can come into my office and get it typed up and I will give it to Ray myself. He will send back to me an unsigned corrected copy indicating what he wants to see in it. If you agree to that you will meet him the day before the ALP Federal Executive meets and you will both exchange signatures. You will sign the document Ray wants and he will sign something withdrawing the writs’. I said: ‘I do not like it. I do not trust him. He could have his State Council override him and direct that the writs continue ‘. Egan said: ‘ You have until Thursday to agree ‘.

Egan rang me again. I believe this was the day following the previous conversation. He said: ‘I am booking thc seats on the plane for the ALP Federal Executive meeting for Frank Shanahan, myself and the party. Am I going to book your seat or not? All you have to do is tell the Executive you met Harradine in Tasmania and had a meal with him. I know you did have dinner with him in Tasmania. We will do all the rest. It is only an ALP meeting, you will not be under oath’. 1 said: ‘No, I cannot go along with you. You and 1 don’t see eye to eye anymore on how things should be done.

As far as I am concerned Shanahan is nothing but a grub and you are no better. If you go ahead with this I will do what I can to stop you’. Egan said: ‘You will get yours when the writs come up’. He hung up. I reported this conversation to Norm Bray.

The writs referred to are writs for alleged libel taken out against Norm Bray, Frank Shanahan and Lloyd Grove previously referred to and a fourth writ for alleged libel taken out by Gietzelt against myself personally.

SWORN by the deponent at

Sydney this Fourteenth day of

July 1975: P. J. MOXON

Before me:

P.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am indebted to the Senate.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Like Senator Greenwood, I will be extremely brief. I simply ask for the permission of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard a letter which I sent to the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) regarding facilities in Sydney and the rights of members in relation to access to the photocopy machine at the Sydney office on the twelfth floor of the Australian Government Centre. Without labouring the point, everybody can read the letter in Hansard tomorrow. I ask for leave for my letter to Mr Daly to be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)- 16 July 1975

PHOTOCOPYING FACILITIES AND THEIR USAGE AT THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT CENTRE- 12th FLOOR OPERATIONS ROOM

My dear Minister,

Several days ago my secretary Marian Grace in her usual mood of generosity undertook a photocopying assignment in behalf of the Executive Officer of the Ethnic Radio Committee of which I am a member, this Committee being created at the joint action of the Ministers for the Media and P.M.G. It may well be said that either of these two Ministeries could take carriage of such clerical tasks associated with the committee operations and to explore that possibility the two responsible Ministers are being given a copy of this communication.

Notwithstanding this aspect I refer to the current and future policy which does and will in the future apply to photocopying facilities at the 12th floor in Sydney. What I take strong objection to is the interference of the authoritarian minded secretary of Senator J. Carrick attempting to browbeat 12th floor Public Service staff to claim a priority of service for Senator Carricks wants. In all the time I have had recourse to such facilities I accepted without demur the policy of first come first served.

To put it bluntly Senator Carricks secretary should have done what my staff always does wait until an earlier parliamentary client has his wants completed.

If what I suspect this obscure Senator and his stand-over type secretary are claiming that the phoney title of ‘Shadow Minister’ merits special treatment let me say in the words of the Prime Minister ‘it ‘s just not on ‘.

My various committee functions including re-appointment to the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council would certainly refute any ideas some people, even some of your officers might have, that Shadow Ministers rate ahead of Government Senators who are non-Ministers.

Having regard to all the facts I would expect an early answer to ensure

  1. my secretary is not to be subject to any future hijacking of the use of photocopying facilities.
  2. No nonsensical claims that Opposition Shadow Ministers are highest amongst the equals.

After all Mr Minister, Opposition Members were denied many basic facilities until you became the responsible Minister and as a consequence all members are indebted to you for the vastly improved facilities.

This being the case however, instead of Opposition members both Senators and Representatives in Sydney are trying to still implement their born to rule concept, let them face up to the cold winds of change.

Just to show you one outmoded concept held by a former Liberal Minister he felt my practise of having lunch in the dining room in the 12th floor with my secretary was ‘not the thing’.

It’s my desire to see once and for all these 19th Century behavious concepts are banished that I call for an explanation on future procedures on the 12th floor of the Australian Government Centre in Sydney.

Yours in anticipation,

  1. A. MULVIHILL

ALP Senator for New South Wales

HonF. M. Daly.M.P.,

Minister for Services and Property,

C/o Australian Government Centre,

Chifley Square, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000.

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

– I reply very briefly to the matter raised by Senator Greenwood. I have no knowledge of the allegations contained in the affidavits which he has tabled. If he will let me have a copy of them I will have the matter investigated immediately. If the allegations to which the honourable senator has adverted are true I acknowledge that this is a very serious matter, requiring prompt attention from the Government. I undertake to have the allegations raised in the affidavits investigated promptly and, if any action is called for, to take such action.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 5.59 p.m.

page 2799

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Nurses (Question No. 528)

Senator Baume:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of claims made by Sydney anaesthetists that nurses risk miscarriages and malformed babies if they work in operating theatres and are exposed to anaesthetic gases while pregnant.
  2. What measures have been taken in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory to investigate the implications of this claim for Government controlled hospitals.
  3. What plans have been made to issue appropriate warnings to nurses and what new procedures have been laid down to protect nursing staff who might be working in operating theatres during the early stages of pregnancy.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware that a number of reports suggesting an increased incidence of spontaneous abortions and congenital malformations of offspring of pregnant women exposed to volatile anaesthetics in operating theatres have appeared in medical literature over the last few years; the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC) is currently reviewing the subject.
  2. No specific measures have been taken in the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory to investigate this problem. However, the matter was taken into consideration when the airconditioning system for the operating theatres at the Woden Valley Hospital was being designed.
  3. An article drawing attention to the problem and summarising the available information has been prepared for consideration by the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (a sub-committee of the ADEC) for possible publication in the Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin. This

Bulletin is circulated to all hospitals, medical practitioners, pharmacists and dentists in Australia. Apart from this, no action has been taken at this stage pending receipt of the report from the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee.

Leisure Facilities (Question No. 648)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister, in the context of the excellent Report of the Youth Say Project conducted by the National Youth Council of Australia entitled ‘The Recreational Priorities of Australian Young People’, considering programs designed to provide what a large consensus of Australian youth requires, that is, community meeting places run by young people on non-competitive and unstructured lines.
  2. To what extent will State governments be involved in these programs.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) Under the Capital Assistance Program for the development of leisure facilities, which is administered by . my Department, assistance is available, for the provision of community meeting places run by young people. Such centres as ‘The Spot’ youth centre in Charters Towers and Colony 47’ drop-in centre in Hobart have been assisted through this program.

The State Recreation Departments are co-operating enthusiastically in this program. Organisations and groups should submit applications for assistance with this type of facility through the State Departments responsible for recreation. Proposals are examined by them and accorded priorities before referring them to my Department for consideration in the light of national priorities.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 July 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750716_senate_29_s64/>.