Senate
26 August 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

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

page 195

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

- Mr President, I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) left Australia on 22 August 1975 to attend the meeting of non-aligned nations, at which Australia has been given observer status, to be held in Peru from 25 to 29 August 1975. He will then proceed to New York where he will attend the South East Asia Treaty Organisation Council meeting and address the United Nations General Assembly. He is expected to return to Australia on 29 September 1795. During his absence the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will represent the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Senate and I will also represent those Ministers whom Senator Willesee normally represents in the Senate.

I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Treasurer, left Australia on 22 August 1975 to lead the Australian delegation to the Finance Ministers’ Meeting in Guyana. He is expected to return to Australia on 31 August 1975. During Mr Stewart’s absence the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) will act as Minister for Tourism and Recreation.

page 195

PETITIONS

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 104 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) That Parliament should pass the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation.

That an Australian Government Insurance Corporation will benefit all Australian women and men by offering equal opportunity for employment and insurance cover.

That there is a need to establish in Australia National Interest Insurance so that cover is available against natural disasters.

That the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will compete fairly with the general and life insurance companies thereby benefiting the industry and the policy holders.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will pass the Bill without further delay.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 203 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

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.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.

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.

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.

That the insurance industry is already faced with

the effects of inflation,

b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,

the effects of recent natural disasters,

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.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2m 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.

Senator CARRICK:

– As the petition exceeds 250 words, I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 75 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

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.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.

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.

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.

That the insurance industry is already faced with

the effects of inflation,

increased taxation on life assurance offices,

the effects of recent natural disasters,

other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, National Superannuation Plan.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2m 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.

Senator BONNER:

– As the petition exceeds 250 words, I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 14 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

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.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.

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.

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.

That the insurance industry is already faced with

a ) the effects of inflation,

increased taxation on life assurance offices,

the effects of recent natural disasters,

other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, National Superannuation Plan.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2m 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.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

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

  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. 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 $2m 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 Rae, Senator Webster and Senator Baume.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will: (. An AGIO will have an unfair advantage over private enterprise.

  1. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.
  2. Increase the bureaucracy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australian respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Lead to the nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.
  2. Divert a substantial flow of funds from the private to the public sector.
  3. Depress the private sector still further and create unemployment both within the Insurance Industry and elsewhere.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1973.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.

Provide no better plan for the establishment of a national disaster fund than provided by the insurance industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1 974.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. . That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a fund was submitted to the Treasury in October, 1974.
  4. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Lead to nationalisation of the insurance industry.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 life offices and 260 general insurers.

Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuauon business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State government’s, local and semi-government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the insurance industry.
  2. Increase bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  3. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. 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.

  3. 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 Service Superannuation.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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 1974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. ) That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. 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 Cotton and Senator Missen.

Petitions received.

South West National Park- Tasmania

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That present and proposed development of limestone mining at Precipitous Bluff, tin mining at Coxs Bight, woodchipping in the remaining native forests and damming of South West rivers to produce power, will significantly affect the wilderness quality of South West Tasmania necessitating extensive road systems and damaging irreparably one of the last great wilderness areas of the world.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will protect this national heritage by refusing Australian Government financial assistance to any project which will further alienate this wilderness and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Rae.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should pass the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation.
  2. That an Australian Government Insurance Corporation will benefit all Australian women and men by offering equal opportunity for employment and insurance cover.
  3. That there is a need to establish in Australia National Interest Insurance so that cover is available against natural disasters.
  4. That the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will compete fairly with the general and life insurance companies thereby benefiting the industry and the policy holders.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will pass the Bill without further delay.

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

Petition received.

page 198

HEALTH INSURANCE REGULATIONS

Notice of Motion

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

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

That the amendments of the Health Insurance Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1975 No. 135 and made under the Health Insurance Act 1973-1975 be disallowed.

page 198

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 198

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall that the

Prime Minister wrote to the President of the Senate on 1 5 July indicating that the public servants who had been summoned to appear before the Senate would be instructed to claim privilege? Does he recall also the promise contained in that letter by the Prime Minister that certain outstanding questions would be answered and that when the House of Representatives resumed on 1 9 August a response would be given to Opposition requests for the tabling of documents? As the assurances given to the President of the Senate have not been honoured, I ask: When will they be honoured? Is the Minister able to give an express assurance to the Senate that no Minister of the Crown is currently negotiating or seeking the raising of loan moneys overseas for either energy purposes or temporary purposes?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that a statement was made and a commitment given concerning the answering of certain questions which had been placed on notice. My understanding was that they were to be tabled last week. I assume from the question that the answers to the 44 questions were not tabled. If that is the case, I shall certainly refer the matter to the Prime Minister. My understanding was that they were to be tabled last week in the House of Representatives. As to any further matters concerning what was generally known as the loans affair, a full and complete statement was given by the Government. There was a full debate in this chamber. As we know, although one witness gave evidence before this chamber, very little information which would support arguments, or accusations against the Government, of any improper conduct could be obtained from him. I think it is now proper, in view of the fact that the Government has been completely factual from the beginning on this whole matter, that any other questions concerning the loans affair be by way of questions on notice which, I am sure, will be answered properly. I am not able to explain why other questions which I understood would be answered last week were not answered, but after question time today I shall certainly convey the substance of the question to the Prime Minister. I am quite sure that there is a proper explanation as to why those answers were not tabled.

page 199

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF FAWNMAC COMPANIES

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. He will be aware that the Minister for Health announced on 1 July 1975 the purchase of the Fawnmac group of companies by the Australian Government for approximately $6m. However, it is apparent from the Budget Papers that the Government will now pay $8.4m for the group. Is the Minister able to offer any explanation as to why the Government will pay more for this group?

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

– I dare say that this matter is one which could have been dealt with by the appropriate Estimates committee or during the debate on the Estimates, but as it is a matter of interest I have obtained some information concerning it. The Fawnmac group of companies was purchased by the Australian Government after an investigation by the Australian Industry Development Corporation which was asked to identify a pharmaceutical company suitable for acquisition by the Australian Government. The Fawnmac group was found to be the most suitable. It is an Australian owned group, with a good profit record. The acquisition of the Fawnmac companies was negotiated after the ordinary commercial approaches were made. The formula which was negotiated by the AIDC with the owners of Fawnmac for the purchase of the companies was a flat $2. lm plus 5 times the consolidated net profits before tax of the companies being acquired. The increase from approximately $6.3m at the time of the public announcement to which Senator Poyser has referred to the $8.4m provided in the Budget is simply a reflection of increased earnings by the companies. The formula was based on the profits of the company in 1973-74 or 1974-75, whichever were the greater. I have a table which sets out a calculation on the purchase price of the Fawnmac group of companies, which I shall table for the information of honourable senators.

page 199

QUESTION

DAIRYING INDUSTRY

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

-Can the Minister for Agriculture give the Senate an indication of the concern of the Government for the dairying industry and those people connected with it? Can the Minister indicate how concerned his Government is for the maintenance and the welfare of people involved in this industry? Is the Government giving any consideration to the replacement of some of the assistance which this industry previously shared, but which has been taken away by Labor? Does the Government intend to persist with the removal of the margarine manufacturers’ quotas in the near future? Will it review the cutback in funds which it has made to the dairy adjustment scheme? Will it reassess the time required for the implementation of the code of practices for dairy factories? In short, can the Minister indicate Labor’s attitude towards the dairying industry as that industry faces a very crucial time?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Senator Webster has asked about 8 questions but there is one question that I would like to answer quite clearly. Yes, this Government has shown more concern for the dairy industry in Australia than our predecessors did. We made sure that the assistance that was given to the industry enabled poorer dairymen, who were going out of the industry at a great rate when we came to office, to adjust the processing of their milk in order to allow them to keep up with the changes in the processing of dairy products in Australia. We introduced the dairy adjustment scheme specifically for that purpose. We certainly opposed, and we would never introduce again, the old system of dairy bounty under which the bigger a farmer was and the more he made, the more he got out of the bounty. We certainly will not go back to that system. I would suggest that there are many powerful forces in the Liberal Party which would support us on that attitude, if they were prepared to speak publicly on it.

The program we introduced was to enable farmers to adjust to changing circumstances. It is true that I have issued a statement this week to the effect that $28m interest free has been provided. The dairy industry is the only industry in Australia to be receiving interest free money. That scheme has now largely been completed. Over 2500 dairymen throughout Australia have benefited by those loan moneys which have been made available to them. I might indicate for Senator Webster’s benefit that a very large proportion of those funds has gone to Victoria. In fact, I think slightly in excess of 50 per cent of those funds has gone to Victoria. I think that is a fair proposition as Victoria is far and away the largest dairying State. Currently, the Industries Assistance Commission is reviewing the whole of the assistance to the dairy industry. It is only proper now that the Government should wait until that Commission has reported and we have an up to date analysis of the position of the dairy industry throughout the whole of Australia.

page 200

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– As a follow-up to my earlier questions on the turmoil in Timor, I ask the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs specifically, in view of Australia’s refugee operations, whether our Ambassador in Lisbon has had access to the Portuguese Foreign Minister and obtained any specific information as to the attitude of the Lisbon Government to the future of Timor, and how that Government intends to deal with the current turmoil there.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I should indicate to the Senate that I, on behalf on the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, will be making a statement on the Timor situation later in the day- I think after question time. Perhaps it would be preferable if we were to wait to see the contents of that statement.

page 200

QUESTION

JACKSON COMMITTEE TO ADVISE ON POLICIES FOR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. Is it a fact that on the Jackson Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing Industry, there has been a difference of opinion regarding tariff changes, which concerns the Chairman of the Industries Assistance Commission who is also a member of the Jackson Committee? Can the Minister inform the Senate when the report of the Jackson Committee will be tabled in this chamber?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have seen reports of this alleged difference of opinion to which the honourable senator refers, but I know nothing at first hand about any such difference of opinion, nor do I know when the report of the Jackson Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing Industry will be ready and available to be tabled. I will make inquiries about the matter and let the honourable senator know.

page 200

QUESTION

HANG GLIDING

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport been drawn to the increasing number of enthusiasts involved in hang gliding in South Australia? If so, can the Minister inform the Senate whether it is intended to introduce regulations covering this sporting activity?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have been advised that the Department of Transport has proposed regulations for the conduct of hang gliding. An air navigation order dealing with the subject has been prepared and will be promulgated shortly. It is not the intention to inhibit this sport which is becoming very popular in most of the States. However, it did become necessary to take steps to regularise the legal aspects of the operation and also to exercise an appropriate measure of control over this activity, in view of air space usage.

page 201

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Social Security confirm that to get back documents from. Medibank, namely things like doctors* receipts, a person must send a stamped addressed envelope to Medibank within a certain time after receiving a payment from Medibank? Is it not the usual practice for the Government to pay postage, and might not this particular action in making the person involved pay the postage both ways set a precedent which could easily extend to other sections of his Department and even to departments other than the Department of Social Security?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I do not know whether this will create a precedent for anybody else. That is something which only someone with much more prophetic power than I have would dare to prognosticate. Whether it sets a precedent or not, it is a rather desirable precedent that the Government is able to save nearly $3m through not having to post a stack of receipts and useless pieces of paper all round Australia to people who do not want them.

The documents which will be sent to those who have paid their Medibank accounts will be completely sufficient for them to obtain their rebates from the various private medical funds. I should have thought that Senator Townley would like to join in with the rest of us in cutting back public expenditure, particularly in this unprofitable section of the public sector. I am really quite distressed to learn that there are members of the Liberal Party who would want us to act in such a profligate manner with public funds in sending useless documents all over Australia in the way in which Senator Townley apparently would like us to do.

page 201

QUESTION

REPATRIATION PENSIONS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Can he advise what will be the total payment available to totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners when the pension increases announced in the Budget become payable in November? Can he also advise what taxable income is the equivalent of these amounts? How do they compare to current average weekly earnings?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes, I can. I do have that information available, now that the honourable senator has raised the subject. In answering this question, I think it should first be said that, because of the actions this Government has taken in relation to the means test, it is now possible for a veteran to receive not only a pension for total and permanent incapacity but also, if he has no other income or property, a considerable additional amount in the form of a service pension. A single veteran under 70 years of age can receive a total of $ 104.33 a week, which is $5,425 a year. A married veteran and his wife who are under 70 years of age can receive a combined total of $ 140.37 a week or $7,300 a year. In both of these situations where the recipients are 70 years or more and can benefit from the abolition of the means test, the amounts are $112.85 a week or $5,868 per annum, and over $142 a week or nearly $7,500 per annum. I think it is important to remember that these amounts are tax free and that the equivalent taxable incomes per annum are as follows: For a single veteran under 70 it is $6,632 -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Bravo!

Senator WHEELDON:

– I know that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack with his vast resources in the western districts of Victoria, is not interested in this, but the people I represent in this Parliament are interested in these matters and I believe they should be explained. For a veteran over 70 years of age it is $7,327 per annum. For a married veteran under 70 years of age it is $9,600 per annum. If he is over 70 years of age, it is $9,800 per annum. As at present the average weekly earnings are $8,300 a year, it can easily be seen that through this Government steps have been taken to see that veterans are coming much closer to receiving the average weekly earnings by way of benefits than they have done under any of the previous governments. The difference between our Government and the previous Government is that the other Government conscripted Australians to go off and fight but did not look after them when they came back; we opposed them being sent but when they came back we looked after them.

page 201

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the Government’s financial statement for July this year indicates that Government outlays were up by $585m or 53 per cent compared with July last year while receipts were up by only $10m or less than 1 per cent, and the deficit was up by $575m or more than 300 per cent compared with last July, I ask the Minister: Were there special factors which caused what appears to be a disastrous July result? If there were not special factors, does he believe the Budget introduced last week can restrain the deficit within the Treasurer’s calculations?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The question is involved and the answer is involved. I have seen an explanation of the very matter that Senator Hall has raised. I would not attempt to answer the question without reference to the Treasurer because the figures which the honourable senator has quoted could be interpreted as misleading. I can assure him they are not. There are factors such as seasonal and other fluctuations which bring about the situation he describes. I think it would be only proper for me to refer the question to the Treasurer himself and for Senator Hall to get a detailed answer.

page 202

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation aware of the continuing anti-Labor campaign being waged by the life and general insurance companies? Is it a fact that the insurance companies have set up committees both in the States and in many Federal electorates with the object of discrediting the Government’s proposals by whatever means possible? Are the workers on these committees continuing to be paid from policy holders funds, even though much of their time is spent on the conduct of this anti-Labor campaign? Will he ask the committees for an estimate of the costs they are incurring in this campaign so that this information can be made known to policy holders who can then judge for themselves whether such amounts are being spent wisely? Would he agree that, in the light of the gallup poll which showed that 1 9 per cent of all persons polled had no insurance and that 19 per cent of the people polled would transfer business to the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation, his carefully orchestrated campaign is ultimately doomed to be an expensive failure?

Senator Missen:

– Say. ‘Yes, yes, yes’.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-No, Mr President, I will not say: ‘Yes, yes, yes’. I will give an answer which I am sure Senator Missen will not like. As it happened, Mr President -

Mr PRESIDENT:

– Order! I should like to remind all honourable senators that questions shall not ask for expressions of opinion, for statements of Government policy, or for legal opinion and they shall not refer to debates in the current session or proceedings in Committee. I should like the question to be answered with that in mind.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I have seldom given a legal opinion, Mr President, and I do not think I want to give an opinion on any of the other matters. But I should like to answer the question that has been asked by Senator Melzer. In fact, all of us know that quite extensive and expensive advertising has been conducted by the insurance companies and directed against this Government.

Senator McLaren:

– Misleading advertising.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Misleading advertising, as Senator McLaren has said.

Senator Poyser:

– And false.

Senator WHEELDON:

-And false, as Senator Poyser, with his customary succinct expression of these matters, has pointed out. However, the advertising has also been so inept that one can only hope that the insurance companies retain their present advertising agents, because the longer they keep on going the less we will have to spend on advertising. As it happens, I have the minutes of a meeting of the Life and General Insurance Committee in Western Australia which was held at the office of the South British United Life Assurance Company in Barrack Street, Perth, on 29 July last. If I might say so, Mr President, I find myself generally better informed on the proceedings of the board of the Australian Mutual Provident Society that I am on the National Executive of the Australian Labor Party.

I find that at this meeting of the Life and General Insurance Committee a number of individuals were present, including representatives of Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd, City Mutual General Insurance Ltd, Legal & General Assurance Society Ltd, the Union Assurance Society of Australia Ltd, New Zealand Victoria Life Ltd, the Royal Insurance Co. Ltd, and AMP Fire and General Insurance Society Ltd. Apologies were received from a Mr Milne, and a Mr Johnston. The representatives present said that they were going to organise campaigns throughout Perth on an electoral basis to operate against this Government, not only in respect of its policy on the Australian Government Insurance Corporation but in respect of all its policies including that on compensation.

Opposition Senators- Hear, hear.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am glad Opposition senators say ‘Hear, hear’, because I want to see that as many people as possible throughout this country recognise the complete identification between the people who own these insurance companies and the Opposition parties in this Parliament. That is why they have opposed our legislation when it has come before this Parliament. Each of these companies has agreed to organise the sending of letters and a number of us have been receiving letters and petitions. The companies have set out the form of the letters and petitions which are being circulated through the agents of these insurance companies throughout Western Australia with lists of the names of members of Parliament to whom the letters can be addressed. They have appointed organisers in each Federal electorate in Western Australia named in this document in order to co-operate with the anti-Labor parties to work against the Australian Labor Party members of Parliament and Labor Party candidates.

Opposition Senators- Hear, hear!

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes-‘Hear, hear’! Opposition senators would not get any support from trade unionists or from pensioners. They would need to fall back on foreign-owned insurance companies to get their support. These people who are doing this are using the funds of policyholders quite improperly in order to defeat a democratically elected government. As they like advertising and as they have come into politics, I know they will not object when I take steps to see that every person in Western Australia is informed of the names -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. You reminded the Senator quite properly of the Standing Orders in relation to questions without notice. There is one you did not mention. I am sure it was an oversight in the heat and pressure of the moment. It is that the Minister answering a question shall not debate the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I thought that the Minister was giving a very elaborate and full answer to the question.

Senator WHEELDON:

-If I might say so, Sir, it was an elaborate answer to an elaborate question. I should merely like to finish by saying that in case any of these people feel at all hurt that their names have not become known I intend to ensure that the names of all of these insurance company agents and their companies which are engaging in anti-Labor campaigns will be made available to all Labor Party branches and trade unions who will be able to draw their own conclusions.

page 203

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– Did the Minister for Agriculture state at a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council this month that some farmers could look forward to an improving situation and that government action was being taken to help others? Will he identify the first group and elaborate for the benefit of the second?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I should have thought that Senator Sheil would be quite able to answer the first question for himself. Two major industries in Australia that can look forward to a very promising future are the sugar industry and the grains industry. I am sure that the honourable senator would recognise that both of those industries are doing better today than they have done for a very long time. As I have said before, this has nothing to do with whatever political party is in power. The fact remains that both of those major industries, which employ, I suppose, about 70 000 primary producers throughout Australia, are in a very healthy condition and the prospects for them are extremely good.

As to the other broad question, yes, there are many things which could be enumerated but the one which readily springs to mind is the support that the Government is giving to our other major primary industry, namely, the wool industry. It has taken a step that no other government has taken in the history of this country to underwrite the support of the wool industry. That is something which the industry had sought for many years but which remained to be done by a Labor Government. I have just answered a question from Senator Webster concerning what we have done for the dairy industry. If I were to go on and enumerate all of the things that the Government has done and is doing for the rural sector there would be no time for any other questions to be asked and answered.

page 203

QUESTION

SESSIONAL SURGICAL SERVICES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. It also probably impinges upon his responsibility as Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. I ask: Has the Minister seen or been made aware of an Australian Broadcasting Commission radio interview last evening during which a Mr Scarlett, who presented himself as being a spokesman for New South Wales surgeons, insisted that sessional services by doctors in hospitals were not in the interests of patients and that unless surgeons could be paid on a fee for service basis standards would fall? In the same interview it was implied that the whole idea of sessional service was contrary to the best standard of care in hospitals and stemmed anyway from a centralist, socialist government which did not care about standards. Can the Minister comment on the validity of the claims by the spokesmen for certain surgeons that sessional service leads to a lowering of standards? Further, is it a fact that payments are made on a sessional basis at repatriation hospitals? Is the service provided on a sessional basis at those repatriation hospitals generally regarded as being of an inferior standard, as Mr Scarlett has alleged?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-To answer the second part of the question first, I do not think that there would be any justification for any such claim. I find Mr Scarlett, who, despite his name, seems to be particularly upset by the red peril, to be rather disconcerting in some of the claims that he makes. He says, for example, that the use of sessional payments for services provided by medical practitioners in hospitals is part of a socialist plot; yet we find if we turn to Queensland, where Mr Bjelke-Petersen is the Premier and head of government, that that State has been in fact operating a salaried medical service and a system of sessional payments for services provided by medical practitioners in its hospitals during the entire tenure of office of the said Mr Bjelke-Petersen. I should have thought that even the Australian Medical Association would be hard pressed to justify the claim that Mr Bjelke-Petersen is in any way a socialist or communist or that he subscribes to Marxist, Fabian or, for that matter, Bakuninite views. If we were to turn to other distinguished people who have held these views we might recollect that there was a meeting of Australian Health Ministers in Melbourne in 197 1. That conference issued a statement that the honorary system was to be replaced. The Ministers said that everybody agreed that that anachronistic system must go, and that a system of sessional payments for visiting specialists appointed to hospital staff to treat public or standard ward patients be adopted, as this was in the interests of patient care and would provide better administration of hospitals and a better form of medical teaching.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Who said that?

Senator WHEELDON:

-That was a conference of Health Ministers in 1971. One tends to forget, in the light of his subsequent activities, that Senator Greenwood was once the Minister for Health. In fact he was the Australian Minister for Health at that conference which issued the declaration, without a dissenting voice, in favour of the replacement of the honorary system by the sessional payments system. I do not think Senator Greenwood is a socialist. I have heard it claimed but I tend on the whole to reject the claim. If Mr Scarlett is saying that Senator Greenwood is a socialist, then I do not think he is being strictly accurate. At the same time I do not think it is fair of Mr Scarlett, as a spokesman for the Australian Medical Association, to reflect in such a way on the loyal body of doctors in Queensland, such as Senator Sheil’s colleagues, who have worked for many years under a salaried and sessional basis under the aegis of Sir Frank Nicklin and Mr Bjelke-Petersen.

page 204

QUESTION

ARCHIVES

Senator COLEMAN:

– My question to the Special Minister of State relates to the development of an archival system. In March 1974 his predecessor announced that the Australian Government was taking steps to upgrade and expand the existing archival services. Important aspects of efficient and economical administration are sound records and archives management. In addition, they develop archival resources of great significance for informational, research, educational and cultural purposes. Accordingly, does the Australian Government still intend to develop these archival resources and services?

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

-The honourable senator knows, as is apparent from her question, that as long ago as March last year my predecessor as Special Minister of State took an early and consistent interest in establishing and developing an effective archival system within Australia. For some time we have been awaiting the appointment by the Australian Public Service Board of the Director-General of Australian Archives. I know that just recently Professor R. G. Neale, the former official historian with the Department of Foreign Affairs, was appointed Director-General of Australian Archives and is due to take up his duties very shortly. I must admit, though, that progress has not been rapid, firstly, because we have been awaiting the finalisation of the appointment of a Director-General, and secondly, because the problems are quite complex, complicated and of long standing. In short, my Department is most anxious to offer the research and educational archival services that are required in a modern society such as Australia’s, and we are working towards promoting a concept of a national archives system based on close co-operation with other archival organisations that operate already within Australia. I can also tell the honourable senator that since I have taken over these responsibilities as Special Minister of State I have had my Department investigate the establishment of a film archival system. Just recently there was a conference between officers of my Department, the Department of the Media, the Prime Minister’s Department, the Australian Film Commission and other interested organisations such as the National Library. We expect very shortly to be able to announce a new and effective system for the preservation of film archival records within Australia.

page 205

QUESTION

SCHOOL CADETS

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence relates to the Government’s decision to abolish school cadet training. Would the Minister not agree that such training is an integral part of our national defence preparedness and that it has the other tangible national advantages of character moulding, self discipline and the development of a spirit of comradeship and citizenship. Would he not agree that such military training of school children occurs in most other countries around the world and in virtually all communist countries and that a recent public opinion poll disclosed that 76 per cent were in favour of the continuance of cadet training in schools and only 18 per cent were against it? I ask therefore whether the Government will reconsider its decision to abolish cadet training and arrange instead for its continuance in all schools and that military training and equipment be upgraded realistically.

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The Minister for Defence, Mr Morrison, after receiving information from his advisers and considering the report from Professor Millar, recommended to the Government -and the recommendation was accepted- that the cadet force should be disbanded for a number of reasons. The most important reasons for the recommendation were, firstly, that it costs $ 10m a year to keep the service going and, secondly, that about 500 members of the Services are tied up in all sorts of related activities. On the advice of that group, it was decided that the members of the Services and the money could be better used in the other defence services generally. It was decided that the $ 10m should be used in the general revenue for defence and that the 500 members of the Services could be better used in other areas. If I can obtain any further information from the Minister I shall do so and advise the honourable senator tomorrow.

page 205

QUESTION

FISHERIES RESEARCH

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Agriculture been drawn to comments in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald by Mr Mason, the New South Wales Minister for Lands and Forests, claiming that millions of dollars were being wasted by the Australian Government in duplicating New South Wales fishing research? Is it a fact, as claimed by Mr Mason, that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is chartering a new $700,000 trawler to conduct deep sea research similar to that already being conducted by New South Wales?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I think there is a misunderstanding on Mr Mason’s part. The vessel referred to is operated by the CSIRO and is not engaged at the present time in fisheries research. It is in New South Wales waters but it is doing some calibration tests on the scientific instruments aboard the ship. It will be engaged in fisheries research when it is fully in service, of course, but at the present time the ship is not duplicating the work which is being done by the New South Wales vessel.

page 205

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the proximity of Timor to northern Australia, its distance from Darwin being only one-third of the distance from Darwin to Cairns, what is the attitude of the Government to the present civil war in Timor? Has any consultation taken place between the Australian Government and the Indonesian Government on the future of the island and will the Australian Government provide military aid if requested to do so?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I indicated earlier that I thought it more appropriate for the Senate to wait until such time as I have read the statement which has been prepared by the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. When that statement has been read a motion for the adjournment of the debate will be moved and I expect that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter at some time in the near future.

page 205

QUESTION

GRANTS COMMISSION

Senator McLAREN:

– I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. In view of statements made in the media to the effect that the States are being bypassed by the Grants Commission scheme, will the Minister outline to the Senate what role, if any, the States have in the scheme? Further, if the States are being bypassed, is that procedure a contravention of the Australian Constitution?

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

– In the opinion of the Government, the Grants Commission is the body in Australia best qualified to undertake an assessment of the relative needs of local government bodies on a nationwide basis. The substantial interstate differences in the responsibilities of local government and the fiscal needs of local government bodies naturally require that recommendations for assistance from the Australian Government be based on assessments and criteria that are applied uniformly by the one body throughout Australia. The Grants Commission has been carrying out this function since 1933 with regard to applications that have been made to it by claimant States. Each of the annual recommendations of the Australian Grants Commission has been accepted by any government that has been in power, regardless of its political persuasion.

I have noticed the statement to which the honourable senator has referred, but quite clearly the State governments have an involvement in the scheme that has been developed since the Labor Government came to office to assist local government financially. Indeed the Grants Commission Act, as amended by the Government in 1973, specifically requires the responsible Australian Minister, at this stage the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, to consult with State authorities or his State counterpart Ministers on the determination of regional boundaries that are to be looked at by the Grants Commission and on the applications for financial assistance that are received from the various local government bodies.

The grants that are made on the recommendation of the Grants Commission are paid to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and are earmarked for disbursement by those States to specified local government bodies. So, all round, the States are not overlooked; they are very much involved in the application of the Grants Commission recommendations. I can tell the honourable senator, as doubtless he would know, that this year the Government has increased the amount of assistance to local government organisations via Grants Commission recommendations from approximately $50m last year to $79.9m this financial year.

page 206

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAMESE STUDENTS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration, refers to the many South Vietnamese

Colombo Plan and private students who are anxious to achieve permanent resident status in this country. I ask: Is this matter one of primary responsibility for the Minister himself in his capacity as the Minister responsible for immigration matters? Has the Government reached a decision on this matter? If so, will the Minister indicate the nature of that decision? If no decision has been reached when will one be announced?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The question of Vietnamese students, and indeed the question of applications by Vietnamese generally, for residence in Australia is under consideration by the Government. I ask Senator Carrick to give me an opportunity to give him a considered reply on this matter. I will undertake to do so within the next few days.

page 206

QUESTION

BAGS AND SACKS

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Can the Special Minister of State inform me whether the Government is taking any specific action to help meet the present problems being experienced by Australian industry producing bags and sacks of man made fibre?

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

– I know that this matter was the subject of concern to the industry and also to those engaged in rural production. My predecessor referred the matter to the Textiles Authority for investigation and inquiry. I can now inform the honourable senator that having received recommendations from the Textiles Authority within the Industries Assistance Commission and having discussed those recommendations with my colleagues the Minister for Agriculture and the Treasurer, I have taken action towards assisting this particular industry. The Government has approved the introduction of tariff quotas on these bags and sacks to be applied as from 1 August last. The tariff quotas are designed to limit imports for domestic use to 3 million bags and sacks in the first year of operation and 4.8 million bags and sacks in the second year. The need for these restrictions will be reviewed after the first 6 months of operation of the quotas.

I can also tell the honourable senator, because I know of his interest in agricultural matters, that I have sent a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission on the question of long term assistance for the industry. In doing so I have asked the Chairman of the Industries Assistance Commission, if it is at all possible, to give some priority to this particular inquiry. I have done so having in mind both the need for the industry to know clearly the Government’s plans for the industry in the long term and the fact that the goods are an important input for other manufacturing and user industries, particularly, as I have said and as the honourable senator knows, the agricultural industries of Australia.

page 207

QUESTION

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the recent statement by the AttorneyGeneral concerning the establishment of the Family Court of Australia. I refer particularly to his statement that all State governments, apart from Western Australia, have agreed that the Federal Family Court should have full jurisdiction in the States. Is it the intention of the Government, in establishing the Family Court of Australia, that the Court will exercise full jurisdiction under the Family Law Act, or initially will the new Court be confined to administering the traditional matrimonial causes areas of that jurisdiction and not be extended to the areas of maintenance and custody which have been exercised traditionally by Courts of Petty Sessions in the States?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was discussing this matter with the Attorney-General yesterday. He had only recently received a reply from all the State Attorneys-General to whom he had written concerning their intention about whether the States should set up family courts or whether that should be left to the Australian Government. I do not think he has made a final decision on the matters to which Senator Durack adverted- that is, the matters of maintenance and custody. I will discuss the matter with the Attorney-General at greater length and let the honourable senator have a detailed reply.

page 207

QUESTION

DRUG CONTROL: ACTION BY THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Has the attention of the Minister for Police and Customs been drawn to a statement by the Premier of Queensland regarding the purchase of aircraft for use in Queensland to detect drug smugglers and marihuana plantations? Would the Minister like to comment?

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

– I did see the report. I welcome the fact that the Queensland Government is doing something more tangible to control drugs, because the majority of marihuana plantations discovered in Australia would be in Queensland. I think that is so mostly because the climate is suitable for such cultivation. I cannot let pass the statement that the Australian Government has done nothing in respect of this matter, because the Australian Government is the authority that has been most keen to control illicit drug importation and drug taking in Australia.

Senator Baume:

– You have not been prosecuting anyone.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Our ability to prosecute is limited. Honourable senators will remember that when it was proposed to bring in an Australian law to cover drugs, under the constitutional power of the Australian Government in relation to international agreements, it was the States, including Queensland, which opposed the Australian Government having that power. The Australian Government’s power to prosecute is confined to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Nevertheless, we have complete co-operation with the States in relation to the use of State laws for prosecuting. As to surveillance, in 1974 we formed a specialised group to plan the co-ordination of sea and air surveillance in relation to the importation of drugs. We have established a coastal patrol for this purpose. We have on order ships which will be used in the northern area and we have patrols at present which, as much as our facilities will permit, are searching the coastline. We receive information from overseas, and while we think that we are possibly as effective as we can be in this field, we do know that there is much illicit trading in drugs in Australia which is not detected by anyone. We welcome the cooperation of the Queensland Government and hope that with the purchase of aircraft, that State will be able to do more than it has done in the past to wipe out this curse of some Australians.

page 207

QUESTION

MR BARRY COTTERRELL

Senator BONNER:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Services and Property inform the Senate of the position held by Mr Barry Cotterrell in the Australian Government Centre, Brisbane? Is Mr Barry Cotterrell a member of the Commonwealth Public Service employed in Queensland? If the answer is in the negative, will the Minister inform the Senate why Mr Barry Cotterrell occupies a ministerial office and has the use of all facilities provided therein by the Government in the Australian Government Centre, Brisbane? Is the Minister aware that Mr Barry Cotterrell is the endorsed Australian Labor Party candidate for the Brisbane City Council ward of Camp Hill for the forthcoming municipal election? If Mr Barry Cotterrell is still employed by the Commonwealth Public Service, when will this employment terminate to allow Mr Cotterrell to conduct his campaign for the forthcoming municipal election?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I have no knowledge of the person to whom the honourable senator refers. I will have to refer the question to the Minister to get an answer.

page 208

QUESTION

DAIRYING INDUSTRY

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Agriculture seen in today’s Australian a report that the Queensland Government will protest against a decision by the Australian Government to suspend the $28m dairy adjustment program? Has the scheme been suspended? If so, why?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Basically, I think I answered this question or gave some information in respect of it earlier. It is true that there is a newspaper report to the effect that the Queensland Government will object officially to the Australian Government. There are no grounds on which the Queensland Government can object. The program under the dairy adjustment scheme was undertaken in conjunction with the Queensland Government until such time as the moneys which had been appropriated for that purpose expired, which they virtually have done now. I am quite sure that if such a protest were forthcoming from the Queensland Premier it would have little or no effect. It should be stated also that if there had been as great a realisation in his State of the benefits flowing from that scheme as there was in other States, perhaps some of the dairy farmers in Queensland could have benefited more under the scheme than some of their counterparts did in other States.

page 208

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. In view of the Government’s Budget proposal that pensions should be adjusted in future on the basis of alterations in the consumer price index rather than by movements in average weekly earnings, will the consumer price index be discounted for the effects of the indirect taxes imposed by the Budget before pensions are adjusted? Will pensioners receive larger adjustments in pensions under the new formula, or is this a device to reduce the increase in pensions which runaway inflation makes necessary?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I am interested in Senator Baume ‘s approach to this question. Apparently he is one of those Liberals who think that the expenditure by the Government in the public sector ought to be maintained or increased. As I understood it, the main criticism by his Party of this Government was that it was spending too much money on social welfare. I am interested to note that Senator Baume differs from the majority of members of his own Party.

Senator Baume:

– What about the pensioners?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I will come to that but, if I may say so, the practice which I intend to follow every time somebody from the Opposition complains about steps which have been taken by the Government to cut back expenditure in the public sector, is to ask honourable senators opposite the question: If we are not to cut back here, which part of the expenditure in the public sector is to be cut back? Having said that, let me add that what we determined on this occasion was to endeavour to adjust the age pension in accordance with the consumer price index. It would seem that, largely as a consequence of the sucessful efforts which the Government has been making to combat inflation, the adjustment in line with the consumer price index will still provide about 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings and, if anything, that the pensioners may be receiving more than 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings.

Senator Webster:

– Come on!

Senator WHEELDON:

– I refer Senator Webster to the figures. I think they are readily available. If Senator Webster would like me to make a statement on the figures later I will be only to happy to do so, but he will find that this is the case.

Senator Webster:

– They will get 2 1 per cent.

Senator WHEELDON:

-No, it is not 21 per cent. The honourable senator is quite wrong.

Senator Webster:

– It is.

Senator WHEELDON:

-It is at least in excess of 24 per cent.

Senator Webster:

– It is 2 1 per cent now.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Well, it is at least in excess of 24 per cent. There is not much point in saying yes it is or no it is not. The fact is that it is at least in excess of 24 per cent- unless the Statistician, my Department and everybody else associated with the Government have been completely misled and are not privy to information which in some mysterious way has come into the hands of Senator Webster. We do not propose to take into account the matters which Senator Baume has raised, which are propositions which the Minister for Labor and Immigration has advanced with regard to applications concerning the indexation of wages before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They have no bearing on the matters with which I am dealing in my Department, and certainly in making any calculation on the consumer price index we would be thinking of the consumer price index as it always has been established. In any event, the policy of the Labor Party remains the same, that is, to de the age pension to the average weekly earnings. What we have done has been to take drastic measures in relation to what we regardeven though Senator Baume apparently does not- as being the drastic situation in which we find ourselves at the present time.

Senator BAUME:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Social Security. Will pensioners receive larger or smaller adjustments under the new formula than they would have under the old formula?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I can only repeat that this is no new formula. All that we decided to do on this occasion was to see that the pension -

Senator Baume:

– You are ducking the question.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am not ducking any question. I am saying that there is no new formula whatsoever.

Senator Baume:

– They are going to get less.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am telling the honourable senator that the policy of the Labor Party is to tie the age pension to the average weekly earnings. That is our policy. That is our objective. Because we believe that we have been subject to inflationary pressures, what we are doing on this occasion as part of our effort to cut down on spending in the public sector- Senator Baume apparently thinks it is not high enough- is not to pursue that part of the policy but to see that at least the pensioners will not lose their purchasing power but will keep up with the increase in the consumer price index. I am afraid that I have nothing further to add.

page 209

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Special Minister of State a question on the subject of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Has his attention been drawn to Press reports of the meeting in Melbourne on 1 1 August last between the Leader of the Opposition and businessmen and academics? Has he noted that, despite the Opposition’s declared intention of abolishing the Prices Justification Tribunal if elected to government, a senior businessman at the meeting is reported as supporting the Tribunal because, among other things, the work and self-examination required for submissions to the Tribunal are good for the companies themselves? Does the Minister consider that this is a significant factor in the continuing value of the Prices Justification Tribunal which has been under such ill-considered attack by the Opposition?

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

– I have seen the Press reports to which the honourable senator has referred. I believe that the reported comments on the Prices Justification Tribunal and the work that that Tribunal is doing reflect a proper appreciation of the Tribunal’s value by some people who are in a good position to know. I know from discussions that I have had with a number of them that many other businessmen have the same sort of view as that which has been reported in the columns to which the honourable senator refers. It is true that one of the great contributions of the Prices Justification Tribunal to society is that companies have to examine their own affairs much more critically than they did or than they had to prior to their having to make any application to a tribunal, such as the Prices Justification Tribunal. Obviously, this has had desirable effects on their own efficiency and, I suggest, also on their productivity results. I would assume, in reply to my colleague Senator Devitt, that even the Leader of the Opposition would not claim that this is something to be discouraged or to be removed altogether and that, I suggest, would be a consequence of the Opposition’s proceeding with its policy of abolishing the Tribunal. The Prices Justification Tribunal has been doing a very effective job. Mr Justice Williams, the Chairman of the Tribunal, and the members of it are to be congratulated on their practical and effective approach to the problems.

page 209

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I refer to a question which I asked of the Minister on 28 May 1975 relating to the proposed Freedom of Information Bill, the machinations of an interdepartmental committee in relation to the Bill and to the Bill’s disappearance from public view. The Minister then assured me that he had been raising the same question in the inner councils of his own Party and expressed the hope that I would soon see the Bill. After this further delay, I ask the Minister whether he has been successful in his inquiries, whether he can give any information as to the fate of the Bill and whether it is to be seen in its original form or in some emasculated form?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Many things can happen between a statement of opinion to me by the Attorney-General and the appearance of a Bill in this chamber. However, I am as curious about the matter as the honourable senator is. I will draw it to the attention of the Attorney-General again and I will let the honourable senator have a reply.

page 210

QUESTION

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SCHEME

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question to the Minister for Labor and Immigration is related to eligibility for assistance under the National Employment and Training scheme. Currently in Stanley in the north-west of Tasmania there is an 8-week course in trawl fishing being conducted by an officer of the Tasmanian Fisheries Department and a Mr Koga of Nippon Suisan Kaisha Ltd of Japan. As many of the fishermen are self employed and are not eligible under the terms of the NEAT scheme, will consideration be given to varying the eligibility criteria of the scheme to enable these men to gain experience in a new field that will fill the gap caused by the diminishing returns from what could be termed the recognised methods?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I believe that applications have been made by 10 fishermen from Stanley to attend a course in trawl fishing conducted under the auspices of the Tasmanian Fisheries Department. In considering these applications, it was necessary to ascertain whether the individuals concerned were in a situation of redundancy in their current employment or whether they were facing redundancy. I have asked my Department to continue its examination of these cases and to report to me on whether there is justification for the acceptance of the trawl fishing course as a special program of training under the NEAT scheme which could, subject to the application of the normal criteria, mean that the fishermen in Stanley about whom the honourable senator is concerned would be eligible for assistance. I will continue my inquiries and let the honourable senator have an answer as soon as possible.

page 210

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Media. I refer to a series of reports, including one in yesterday’s issue of the Melbourne Age which, among other things, states that the Minister for the Media is setting up a national committee in connection with ethnic radio. Does the Minister recall the setting up of a committee to conduct ethnic radio for an experimental period? Is he further aware that the period of this committee’s operation does not conclude until mid September? Has the Minister received a report from the chairman of this committee and, if not, why has the Government made announcements which include those concerning the appointment of directors, program officers, co-ordinators, consultants, controllers, and other details concerning the setting up of an on-going organisation?

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

– I have seen the report in yesterday’s Melbourne Age to which the honourable senator referred and on seeing the report I referred it to my colleague, the Minister for the Media, in case a question were asked on the subject. In answer to the second portion of the honourable senator’s question: Yes, I well recall establishing the committee in conjunction with my colleague, the PostmasterGeneral, Senator Bishop, when I was the Minister for the Media and our appointing Senator Davidson and Senator Mulvihill as 2 members of that committee. However, as I have said, I did refer the matter to Dr Cass, as Minister for the Media, in anticipation of a question being asked on this matter. The Minister for the Media has advised me, firstly, that as Senator Davidson will be aware because of his involvement in and considerable contributions to the committee advising the Minister on the initial 12-week experiment, there has been great concern in the 7 Sydney and 8 Melbourne ethnic communities which have been enjoying these broadcasts for the last 10 to 12 weeks that the experiment might be discontinued. I understand from Dr Cass that literally thousands of letters have been received from these people on this subject. The Sydney experimental station 2EA began broadcasting on 9 June and the Melbourne station 3EA began broadcasting on 23 June. Sydney, therefore, would cease broadcasting at the end of this week and Melbourne 2 weeks later.

Secondly, $100,000 has been set aside in this Budget for continuing the experiment in ethnic broadcasting for another 6 months. It has been necessary to consider the personnel of new advisory committees and to organise staffing, programs, etc., in order to keep the stations on the air. I understand that it is intended that licences will be granted to the chairman of 2 new local committees, one in Sydney and one in Melbourne. There is no suggestion that the report of the initial advisory committee will be disregarded, nor will the survey of ethnic listeners presently being conducted by the Department of the Media be ignored. Both are important matters to be considered during the second 6-month experimental period and before decisions are made about the final form of organisation to be adopted. I understand that my colleague, Dr Cass, hopes to release details of the future structure of the ethnic radio experiment sometime later this afternoon.

page 211

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Earlier in question time today Senator Greenwood asked about the provision of answers to certain questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives during a recent debate on the loans matter. The Prime Minister has been waiting to be asked a question on this subject. Although the Prime Minister in his statement to the House had already given most of the information sought in the questions of the Leader of the Opposition, I undertook that all of these questions would be answered. I now lay on the table answers to those questions and seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 211

OVERSEAS LOAN RAISINGS

The Prime Minister has provided the following answers to questions which the Leader of the Opposition had incorporated in Hansard on 9 July 1975. (Hansard pp 3608-9).

Question 1. Did the Government, at the time of the Executive Council minute of 13 December 1974, believe it had a mandate for such unorthodox and massive overseas borrowings? If so, what was the basis of such a belief?

Answer. In my speech of 9 July I referred to the Government’s determination that Australians shall have the maximum share in the ownership and control of Australia’s resources and to this having been perhaps the decisive issue in the 1974 election. (Hansard p 3598).

Question 2. Is it not a fact that this exceptional loan-the largest in Australia’s history- was not cleared through Cabinet?

Answer. I said in my speech of 9 July that loan raisings are not normally referred to Cabinet for decision, and were not in this case. (Hansard p 3597).

Question 3. Was the Prime Minister aware that the Minister for Minerals and Energy was actively engaged in making arrangements for a $4,000m loan at least as early as November, and that the first block of $500m was to be ready for transfer six days before the Executive Council minute authorising the loan? If so, when did the Prime Minister first become aware of this?

Answer. I was aware for some time before the December Executive Council Meeting that Mr Connor was interested in having the Government borrow overseas.

Question 4. Did the former Treasurer, Mr Crean, advise against the Executive Council decision? What was his advice?

Answer. Mr Crean was not a member of the Executive Council Meeting which approved the initial decision. The Treasurer was present. There was no need to consult the former Treasurer.

Question 5. Were any attempts made to raise all or any of the money through traditional channels? If so what were these attempts?

Answer. Investigations of other sources of funds were undertaken as a matter of course; these included inquiries and preliminary negotiations undertaken by the then Treasurer ( Dr Cairns) in the Middle East.

Question 6. Apart from departmental and bank advice in Australia, did the government receive warnings about this back-door’ operation from the Bank of England, the French Embassy in Canberra, and Treasury officials in London?

Answer. There was no ‘back-door’ operation. The Government had benefit of advice from various sources.

Question 7. Why were the States not consulted?

Answer. In my speech of 9 July, I said that there were no requirements for consultation with State Premiers for borrowing for temporary purposes. I also repeated my earlier advice to the Leader of the Opposition that approval would have been sought from the Loan Council, which of course involves State Premiers, if and when the loan was made. (Hansard pp 3598-9).

Question 8. In view of the Prime Minister’s claim that the loan was ‘for matters related to energy’, how can the use of the phrase ‘for temporary purposes’ be justified?

Question 9. Was the phrase ‘for temporary purposes’ a deliberate subterfuge to avoid the constitutional requirement of the financial agreement?

Question 10. Who suggested the use of the formula ‘for temporary purposes’?

Question 1 1 . Is it not a fact that the Treasury and the Attorney-General’s Department have since 1929 regarded temporary purposes’ as being Treasury Bills for a period of not more than one year?

Question 12. How does the Government account for the apparent contradiction between the term of 20 years mentioned in Sir Lenox Hewitt’s letter of 12 November 1974 and the ‘temporary purposes’ formula?

Answer. (Questions 8-12). In my speech of 9 July, I quoted from the Explanatory Memoranda for the Executive Council the temporary purposes stated, including ‘to deal with exigencies arising out of the current world situation and the international energy crisis’ and also ‘to provide immediate protection for Australia’s supplies of minerals and energy’. I indicated that the Australian Government had intended to carry out these purposes by spending the borrowed moneys on development of the nation’s energy resources. I stated that we had seen an opportunity to counter the temporary, short-term pressures on our economy and our energy sources, while at the same time reaping longterm benefits of enduring significance to Australia. I said that the former Attorney-General had advised that, in the exceptional circumstances I had outlined, the borrowing could probably be regarded as a borrowing for ‘temporary purposes’ within the meaning of the Financial Agreement. (Hansard pp. 3595-6, 3598). The Government acted on legal advice given in complete good faith.

Question 13. It is not the case that the whole procedure was adopted in order to be secret from the public, the States and the Parliament?

Answer. No. See the previous answer. I add that, in my speech of 9 July, I re-iterated what I had said in the House of Representatives on 13 February 1975 that open government did not and should not apply to two financial matters- overseas borrowings and the value of the currency. (Hansard p. 3596).

Question 14. What evidence is there that the Loan Council would ever have been asked to approve the loan as the Prime Minister claimed on 20 May 1975.

Answer. My stated intention. ( Hansard p. 2478 ).

Question 15. Did the Government seek legal advice on the use of the device of the Executive Council minute for a loanraising of this nature?

Question 16. What was that advice?

Question 1 7. Who gave that advice?

Question 1 8. Who drafted the Minute?

Answer. (Questions 1 5- 1 8 ). To seek Executive Council approval for a loan raising was not a device but a normal procedure. The Executive Council Minute was drafted in accordance with the instructions of Ministers. See also my answer to Questions 8-12 above.

Question 1 9. Will the Prime Minister tell the nation what he understood the ‘temporary purposes’ to be?

Answer. See my answer to Questions 8-12 above.

Question 20. What advice did the Government receive from all sources on the substance of the loan? Will that material be made available in the interests of open government?

Answer. I indicated in my speech of 9 July that we had advice from several departments. I also made clear that the decision was a decision about policies, a decision to be made by the Government. (Hansard p. 3597). See also my answer below to the requests for tabling of documents.

Question 21. Was advice sought or received on the likely impact of the loan on the Australian economy?

Question 22. Will that advice, if there is any, be made available in the interests of open government?

Answer. (Questions 2 1-22). I indicated in my speech on 9 July that we saw an opportunity to counter short term pressures on the economy and energy sources, while at the same time reaping long term benefits of enduring significance to Australia. I made clear also that the loan proceeds would be used in such a way so as not to be inflationary. (Hansard pp. 3598-9). See also my answer the Question 13 and to the requests for tabling of documents.

Question 23. Would raising of a loan of this magnitude reduce the scope for further fund raisings by the Australian private enterprise?

Answer. I referred in my speech to numerous projects which would be financed by the proposed borrowings. (Hansard p. 3599). This would have reduced the need of the private sector for funds.

Question 24. What effect have these shady dealings had on Australia ‘s credibility as a borrower?

Answer. There were no shady dealings. I illustrated in my speech of 9 July that Australia’s credit has never stood higher, that we have the highest credit rating available. (Hansard p. 3600).

Question 25. Does the Prime Minister now agree that there is a prima facie case that the Executive Council minute was illegal and unconstitutional?

Answer. No. See my answer to Questions 7 and 8-12 above.

Question 26. Why did the government, for the first time in Australian history, authorise a Minister other than the Treasurer to conduct substantial loan raisings on behalf of Australia?

Question 27. What did the government believe was the propriety in providing such an open-ended authorisation to the Minister for Minerals and Energy?

Answer. (Questions 26-27). All Ministers are subject to the same adequate procedures and safeguards. The Minister for Minerals and Energy was in contact with a potential source of funds. My speech of 9 July made clear that circumstances were exceptional, and related to the energy crisis. (Hansard pp. 3595, 3598). The authorisation was in specific terms.

Question 28. From whom did the Minister for Minerals and Energy receive advice on the terms and conduct of the loan negotiations? Will he table that advice?

Answer. Advice was received from various sources but, as I have mentioned in answer to Question 13, all such advice is confidential. See also my answer below to the requests for tabling of documents.

Question 29. What action did Mr Connor take to implement the various authorities conferred upon him by the Executive Council decision of 1 3 December?

Question 30. The letter from Dolmac Consultants to Dr M. G. Ako confirms that they ‘are the holders of an exclusive mandate from the Government of Australia’ and then refers to a document which appears to be the Executive Council minute. What action did Mr Connor take which would warrant this confirmation being given in such explicit terms? To whom did he provide or allow to be provided a copy of the Executive Council minute? For what purpose was it so provided?

Question 31. The letter from Dolmac Consultants to Dr Ako states that by their mandate they are authorised to negotiate a loan of US dollars funds totalling 4,000m and there are set out terms of 20 years, a promissory note payable 20 years from receipt of funds, to be issued and signed by the Government of Australia and to be in accordance with ICC recommendations. There is also an undertaking to pay a penalty equivalent to one per cent of the loan funds. These are terms and conditions of the loan. Such terms and conditions are capable of being fixed only by Mr Connor. What action did he take to actually fix the terms and conditions so that they could be so explicitly stated by Dolmac Consultants?

Answer. (Questions 29-3 1 ). See the speech by the Minister for Minerals and Energy on 9 July and the numerous documents tabled in conjunction with that speech. (Hansard pp. 3610-25).

Question 32. Was the sacking of the former Treasurer, Mr Crean, in any way connected with his attitude on the government’s loan raising policy?

Answer. No. Mr Crean ‘s change of portfolio was not connected to his attitude to loan raising.

Question 33. What does the Prime Minister understand to be the scope of the authorisation to the Minister for Minerals and Energy under the Executive Council minute? Did this authorisation extend to concluding the loan deal as it appears on the face of the Executive Council minute?

Answer. 1 said in my speech of 9 July that the Minister had power to determine on behalf of the Australian Government the terms and conditions of the borrowing, to sign and deliver promissory notes for the purposes of the borrowing or to authorise any other person in writing to sign and deliver the promissory notes. (Hansard pp. 3595 ).

Question 34. Why was the amount of the proposed loan reduced from $4,000m to $2,000m?

Answer. As explained in my speech of 9 July, the first authority effective from 14 December 1974 to borrow up to US$4,000 m was revoked on 7 January 1975 and a new authority to borrow up to US$2,000m was issued on 28 January and subsequently revoked on 20 May 1975. (Hansard p. 3595). See also the speech by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Hansard pp. 3620-2 1 )

Question 35. What was the reason for the sudden revoking of the Executive Council decision?

Answer. I indicated in my speech of 9 July that the Executive Council authorities were revoked when they conflicted with other loans being negotiated. (Hansard p. 3595)

Question 36. What is the reason for the discrepancies about the reason for the loan- the different explanations given by the Executive Council minutes and in statements by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Minerals and Energy and the former Treasurer, Dr Caims?

Answer. There are no discrepancies. See my answer to questions 8-12 above.

Question 37. Is it a fact that the $4,000m loan would have cost Australia some $ 1 8 billion when repayment fell due in 20 years?

Answer. The repayment would have depended upon the terms and conditions of the loan had it been finalised.

Question 38. To what extent were Mr Bowen and Mr Cameron included at any stage of the loan raisings?

Answer. Not in any material way. See Mr Bowen ‘s speech of 9 July (Hansard pp. 3647-8); Mr Cameron’s speech of 9 July (Hansard p. 3654); and also Mr Connor’s speech of 9 July (Hansard pp. 36 10-25)

Question 39. Did the Governor-General question the government’s loan raising activities at the Executive Council meeting on December 13?

Answer. I stated in my speech of 9 July that it was proper for the Governor-General to act on the advice of his Ministers (Hansard p. 3597). It would be quite improper to indicate the nature of any discussions at an Executive Council meeting and would be a breach of the Executive Council oath.

Question 40. Has the Australian Government been approached by any persons claiming to be agents and asking for payments of commissions?

Answer. Not by any responsible persons. I repeated in my speech of 9 July that not a cent has been or has to be paid to Mr Khemlani. (Hansard p. 3595).

Question 41. On what basis did the Government believe that Mr Khemlani was a suitable person to be engaged in loan-raising activities on behalf of Australia?

Answer. The circumstances of Mr Khemlani’s introduction to Mr Connor and the subsequent checks made were outlined by the Minister in his speech of 9 July (Hansard pp. 3612-14).

Question 42. Was there a conspiracy to deceive and defraud the States and to evade the terms of the Constitution?

Answer. Not in any way. See my answers to Question 7 and Questions 8-12 above.

Question 43. Has the Government abandoned all attempts to raise the sum of $2,000m?

Answer. In my speech of 9 July, I indicated that we need foreign capital. (Hansard p. 3599) The particular loan proposal referred to is past, but the Government will continue to seek funds as and when appropriate.

Question 44. To what extent was Dr Cairns acting with statutory and Executive Council authority in his loan-raising activities?

Answer. Dr Cairns as Treasurer had a general responsibility in the loan raising field. He was issued with specific Executive Council authorities as necessary to formally conclude loan arrangements. I indicated in my speech on 9 July, that Executive Council authorities are usually only sought when a loan matter approaches finality, but this does not mean that negotiations or discussions about possibilities are precluded without Executive Council authority. (Hansard p. 3595).

The Leader of the Opposition also had incorporated in Hansard the following list of ‘Documents required to clarify loan raisings’:

Treasury

Attorney-General ‘s Department

Minerals and Energy Department

Prime Minister’s Department

Department of Labour

page 213

AIDC

Commonwealth Bank

Non-Governmental sources, including banks and other financial institutions.

  1. Advice from former Treasurer Crean.
  2. Advice to the Government from the Reserve Bank.
  3. Advice to the Government about the legality of the Executive Council minutes.
  4. Treasury advice on the impact of a $4,000 m loan.
  5. Copies of all correspondence and records by Ministers and Departments to and from intermediaries, contacts and their associates.

Treasury files on or files containing information on:

Phillip Cairns

Tirath Khemlani funny money’

  1. All documents and letters associated with any offers or propositions made to Ministers by Mr Lionel Bowen.
    1. Copies of any documents issued by Dr Rex Patterson.
  3. Copies of any letters signed by Mr Enderby.
  4. Copies of any documents or advice given to or received from the Australian Ambassador to Switzerland. Mr Brennan.
  5. Statement as to any directions given to the Commonwealth Police or advice received from the Commonwealth Police.

The texts of the Executive Council Minutes authorising the Minister for Minerals and Energy to borrow and the revocation of these authorisations were included in the answers I supplied through Senator Wriedt to Question on Notice No. 646 asked by Senator Wright. (See Senate Hansard of 9 July 1975, pp. 2723-4.)

Executive Council Minutes relating to other loan raisings are available and could be tabled if good cause were shown. However, Executive Council Minutes are normally regarded as confidential documents and the Executive Council Minutes referred to in Item 3 do not seem to be of sufficient relevance to the other loan negotiations which were the subject of the debate of 9 July.

In general terms, advice between Ministers and advice to the Government from its advisers including legal advice, advice from Departments, and advice from Statutory Authorities is traditionally regarded as confidential. It was so regarded by the previous Government and is by this Government. I have made the point that the decision had political objectives and was a decision about policies. (Hansard p. 3597.)

Clearly, disclosure of papers and files on the scale requested by the Leader of the Opposition in this case would be a major departure from long established principles. This applies equally to the requests for the release of documentation included in the 44 questions quoted and answered above.

In the course of my speech on 9 July I tabled a substantial folder of papers relating to Dr Cairns’ loan negotiations through Mr George Harris. (Hansard pp. 3557-95.) On the same day the Minister for Minerals and Energy tabled documents relating to his overseas loan negotiations with Mr Khemlani. (Hansard pp. 3612-24.) There have also been other papers tabled in the Parliament in relation to these overseas loan raising negotiations.

page 214

RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

– I lay on the table the report of the Reserve Bank Board on the operations of the Reserve Bank of Australia, together with financial statements and reports of the Auditor-General thereon, for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 214

AUSTRALIAN DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Australian Department of Social Security for the financial year ended 30 June 1975.

page 214

HANDBOOK OF HEALTH MANPOWER

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the first edition of a ‘Handbook of Health Manpower’ prepared by the Australian Department of Health.

page 214

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for May 1975.

page 214

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL PROJECTS

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a report entitled ‘Australian Government Assistance to Local Projects’.

page 214

COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

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

– On behalf of the Minister for Education, pursuant to section 33 (2) of the Australian National University Act 1946-1973 I present the report of the Council of the Australian National University for the calendar year 1 974.

page 214

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report on Canberra Plan Variations

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-I present the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on the fifty-ninth series of proposed variations to the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra and its environs.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator DEVITT:

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DEVITT:

-The fifty-ninth series of variations to the plan of lay-out of the City of Canberra involves 6 items. Four of the proposals involve minor routine changes, one was withdrawn and one involves changes of some significance. I will draw the Senate’s attention to two of these items. The first is the deletion of two small roads in Belconnen, sections 14 and 16. This variation is proposed to enable the establishment of a Belconnen bus depot in the service trades area of the Belconnen Town Centre. The Committee is gratified to see that this proposal accords with an evolving policy of increased emphasis upon the use of the public transport system. This policy and its ramifications were mentioned by the Committee in paragraph 7 of its report on the fifty-eighth series of variations.

The second item worthy of comment involves major changes. It is the proposed development of Tuggeranong Creek South. This area is expected to accommodate ultimately 25 000 inhabitants; therefore, its planning and development was of particular interest to the Committee. The area, to comprise approximately 1500 hectares of residential development, is a particularly attractive rural setting of mainly undulating country with several prominent hillsides and some lower lying ground to the north. Consequently the Committee was concerned to preserve as much of the natural environment as possible.

Two facets of the proposed development attracted particular attention of members of the Committee. These were, firstly, the possibility of drainage problems in the area and, secondly, the preservation of trees. The country to the southeast of the proposed development is higher than that to the northwest, thus providing a substantial catchment area. These catchment waters flow across a natural flood plain and eventually into the Mumimbidgee River. The Committee was concerned that proper measures should be taken to provide safe and effective drainage in the area and assurance was given by the National Capital Development Commission that the construction of a major stormwater channel will alleviate the possibility of flooding in the future. The drainage system being constructed has the capacity to cope with flooding of the order of frequency of once in 1000 years. There are several major stands of trees in specific sectors of the development but on the whole the area is otherwise sparsely timbered. The Committee was concerned about the preservation of those trees and was assured that, whenever possible, provision is made to incorporate existing stands of trees into open spaces and that development is carried out in such a way as to preserve as many trees as possible. I commend the report to the Senate.

page 215

PORTUGUESE TIMOR

Ministerial Statement

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

– I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Whitlam) in respect of the position in Timor.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-Where the first person personal pronoun appears it refers to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The Government welcomed the outcome of the talks last May and June in Dili and Macao between the Portuguese Government and the principal parties in Portuguese Timor. In our view, the program mapped out at Macao, providing for steady forward movement towards decolonisation and free elections for a constituent assembly, went a long way towards the objectives we support for the territory.

It follows, however, that the Government is most concerned by the present situation in Portuguese Timor. What began as a show of force by the UDT party on 10 August has deteriorated into virtual civil war with widespread loss of life. The UDT and the rival Fretilin party are struggling for power in Dili and in many parts of the interior. The Timorese police appear to have sided with UDT, while the much more numerous military is predominantly for Fretilin.

The polarisation between the 2 groups now seems to be complete. Both groups are armed with Portuguese weapons captured at the time of the initial UDT show of force or having been taken over to Fretilin or UDT with the defecting troops and police.

Apodeti, the party favouring integration with Indonesia, is not a major participant in the struggle, although there are some reports of attacks on its members.

As a result of the evacuation of most of the Portguese administration and military, the Governor now remains in Dili with only a very small staff, and with no chance of exerting control over more than a small section of Dili. The Governor thus retains no more than the formal trappings of office. The Portguese authorities in a communication to the Secretary-General of the United Nations have acknowledged that it is impossible for them to control the situation.

Several days ago the Governor issued an appeal for international forces to be sent to Timor to control the situation and to bring an end to the bloodshed. The Portguese Government has also issued appeals for international assistance, including suggestions that Indonesia and Australia might help, especially with the evacuation of Portuguese and foreign nationals from Timor. Australia has extended considerable support in various evacuation operations. We stand ready to take part in any humanitarian action that may be practicable.

We have been, however, and remain opposed to Australian military involvement. One of the first policy decisions of the Government, on assumption of office in December 1972, was to determine that Australia would not intervene again in land wars in South East Asia. This applies as much to the civil war in Portuguese Timor as to the earlier civil war in Vietnam.

On political aspects of the situation, the Government has been in close touch with the other governments most concerned, namely, the Government of Portugal and the Government of Indonesia. The Australian Government, however, does not regard itself as a party principal in Portuguese Timor. We continue to hold that the future of the territory is a matter for resolution by Portugal and the Timorese people themselves with Indonesia also occupying an important place because of its predominant interest.

The Government recognises that there are some who believe that Australia should accept some political obligation in regard to Portuguese Timor, and even that Australia should step in and attempt to arbitrate between the competing political factions.

The Government acknowledges that those who have put forward these views have been motivated by genuine feelings of concern for the welfare of the Timorese. But the Government does not itself think these views reflect the best approach for Australia. It believes that acceptance of these views could lead to a situation where Australia was exercising a quasi-colonial role in Portuguese Timor, and might lead to the point where we were assuming some de facto responsibility for the territory. But the Government does view with serious concern the recent turn of events in Portuguese Timor.

The immediate need, of course, is to bring the fighting to an end. This is both a necessary precondition to any political settlement as well as an urgent need if the bloodshed is to stop and relief work to begin. I take this opportunity to appeal on behalf of the Australian Government to all parties engaged in the fighting to lay down their arms and end the bloodshed.

I have said that it is not possible to carry forward relief or rehabilitation without restoration of order in the territory. The immediate responsibility for bringing an end to the fighting must continue to rest with Portugal. In the Government’s view, Portugal cannot simply wash its hands of Portuguese Timor.

The present situation, of course, may have passed the point of no-return. In the absence of firm policies in Lisbon, defections of local officials and local military forces may now be complete. Nonetheless, the Government understands that Portugal is to make an attempt to retrieve some lost ground by sending a negotiating team with a view to persuading Fretilin and UDT to stop fighting and to agree to negotiate new arrangements among the Timorese parties for orderly decolonisation. The Portuguese

Government, through Dr Santos, the former Minister for Interterritorial Co-ordination has approached the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The results of this approach are not yet clear. There have been suggestions that a good office committee might be proposed to help mediate a settlement in Portuguese Timor. But none of this has gone very far, and without some restoration of basic order in the territory it is not easy to see how a United Nations good offices committee, whose role would be essentially political in character, could function on the ground. The same consideration applies to various ideas for an international humanitarian relief effort.

I return, therefore, to the conclusion that the first priority is to put an end to the killing and fighting and to restore order. This objective requires the active intervention of Portugal itself. It is a responsibility that cannot be shrugged off onto others such as Australia. We have no national obligations or interest in getting rein.volved in colonial or post colonial affairs in Portuguese Timor at the very time when Papua New Guinea’s imminent independence is leading to the ending of our colonial role there. We have no ethnic or cultural links with the Timorese which would suggest a role for Australia in substitution for Portugal in Portuguese Timor.

The other interested country in all this is, of course, Indonesia with whom we have been in very close touch on developments in Portuguese Timor in recent days. Indonesia has shared the Australian concern about the evident drift in Portuguese policies and, like us, have urged on the Portuguese the need to reassert Portuguese control in Portuguese Timor. We, for our part, understand Indonesia’s concern that the territory should not be allowed to become a source of instability on Indonesia’s borders. Portuguese Timor is in many ways part of the Indonesian world; and its future is obviously a matter of great importance to Indonesia. Indonesian policy is to respect the right of the people of Portuguese Timor to self-determination and Indonesian leaders have often denied that Indonesia has any territorial ambitions towards Portuguese Timor. Nevertheless, Indonesia’s concern about the situation in the territory has now led it to offer, if Portugal so requests, to assist in restoring order there. President Soeharto has made it clear that Indonesia would only wish to act at Portugal’s bidding and that the objective would be the limited one of restoring conditions which would allow orderly self-determination to proceed.

The Australian Government has frequently stated its concern that the people of the territory should be able to decide their own future. Whatever external efforts might accomplish, the hostility and mistrust between Fretilin and UDT remain the main threat to future stability in the territory. This hostility and mistrust are indeed one of the most disappointing aspects of the situation in Portuguese Timor. The events of the last few weeks have dashed the hopes for Portuguese Timor which followed the change of government and Portuguese colonial policy in Lisbon. In a little over a year, the situation in Portuguese Timor has become a very dangerous one, mainly- it must be said- because of the shortsightedness of some of the territory’s aspiring political leaders. It is a matter of record that none of the 3 major political groups in the territory has shown any genuine willingness to work with the others. Each demands that it alone be recognised as the sole legitimate nationalist group. None seems prepared to test its claims to lead the country through any conventional form of democratic process.

At the moment, it is not possible to predict how events will move or what constructive contribution Australia may be able to make. Our first task will be to be alert to opportunities for humanitarian assistance, but here there are real questions of practicability. We shall give what practical help we can to the Portuguese in their efforts to mediate and bring an end to the fighting. I repeat my call to the parties for a cease-fire and the ending of the bloodshed. As events develop it may be necessary for me to keep the House further informed. I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 217

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY LEGAL PRACTITIONERS LEGISLATION

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement relating to the business of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CHANEY:

– I refer to notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name. The motion relates to disallowance of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Practitioners Ordinance (No. 2) 1975. This ordinance has been repealed in the last few days and replaced by the Australian Capital Territory Legal Practitioners Ordinance (No. 3) 1 975, which is in similar terms to the repealed ordinance but which contains a provision that it shall cease to have effect on 1 January 1976. The explanation of this is contained in an explanatory memorandum which was issued with the ordinance by the Attorney-General’s Department. The memorandum states in part:

It is expected that this will allow sufficient time for the Legal Aid Bill 1975 to be debated in the Parliament and, if passed, for that legislation to be brought into operation. That Bill would establish the Australian Legal Aid Office on a statutory basis, and that Office, as so established, would fulfil in the Australian Capital Territory the functions conferred on the Director of Legal Aid under this Ordinance.

It is the view of the Opposition that Parliament should determine its attitude to legal aid in the debate on the Legal Aid Bill 1975 rather than through a motion to disallow a particular ordinance which relates only to the provision of legal aid in the Australian Capital Territory. In not moving to disallow the new ordinance the Opposition is not to be taken as approving the ordinance or the establishment of the office of Director of Legal Aid in the Australian Capital Territory. The attitude of the Opposition to the Legal Aid Bill will be announced in due course, presumably in the course of debate on the Bill. I wish to withdraw the notice of motion.

page 217

TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to standing order No. 28a, I lay on the table my warrant appointing Senator J. I. Melzer to act as Temporary Chairman of Committees when requested to do so by the Chairman of Committees or when the Chairman of Committees is absent.

page 217

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that 1 have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate nominating Senator Primmer to fill the vacancy now existing on the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory.

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

That Senator Primmer be appointed to fill the vacancy now existing on the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory.

page 217

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Douglas

McClelland)- by leave- agreed to:

That Senator Donald Cameron be appointed to fill the vacancy now existing on the Library Committee.

page 217

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

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

That Senator Poyser be appointed to fill the vacancy now existing on the Publications Committee.

page 218

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The major purpose of this Bill is to provide for the abolition of certain types of fees payable by undergraduate students at the Australian National University. Soon after it came to office, the Government established a policy of further assisting students at tertiary institutions throughout Australia by removing the need to pay fees for tuition and matters related to tuition. While it has been the responsibility of the Universities Commission to effect this policy with respect to the majority of Australian universities, the Australian National University, in contrast to the various State universities, is constituted under an Act of the Australian Parliament and a special amendment to that Act is required to abolish tuition and tuition-type fees.

In addition to this the major purpose of the Bill, it is also intended to increase slightly the membership of the Council of the University in order to provide for additional representation of staff and students on the University’s governing body and, further, to amend certain terminology used in the principal Act so as to accord with modern usage. The Bill provides the Council of the University with a power to make statutes regarding only those kinds of fees which it is intended should remain payable by students. These are specified in clause 4 of the Bill and include such fees as subscriptions to student organisations, sports unions, accommodation and other non-academic charges. Since it is intended that this policy should have effect from the commencement of the 1974 academic year, the Minister is empowered under clause 5 of the Bill to direct that specified fees otherwise payable for the years 1974 and 1975 shall be deemed not to have been payable.

The Council of the University last year approved, and I was pleased to confirm, the extension of its membership to include representation of the non-academic staff of the University so that all groups within the University may now be represented in the governing of their institution. The second representative of the undergraduate student body provided for in clause 3 of the Bill brings to three the number of such representatives and is in keeping with the general increase in student numbers in the School of General Studies. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for a clarification of the term ‘matriculation’ occurring in the principal Act in order to allow for the increasing opportunities for entry to university and college study which enable intending tertiary students to apply to institutions on the basis of studies or experience not directly related to traditional matriculation qualifications gained at the end of formal secondary education. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 218

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The major purpose of this Bill is to provide for the abolition of certain types of fees payable by undergraduate students at the Canberra College of Advanced Education and for parallel amendments to be made to the Australian National University Act. Soon after it came to office the Government established a policy of further assisting students at tertiary institutions throughout Australia by removing the need to pay fees for tuition and matters related to tuition. While it has been the responsibility of the Commission on Advanced Education to effect this policy with respect to the majority of Colleges of Advanced Education, the Canberra College is, unlike other colleges, constituted under an Act of the Australian Parliament and a special amendment to that Act is required to abolish tuition and tuitiontype fees.

The Bill provides the Council of the College with a power to make statutes regarding only those kinds of fees which it is intended should remain payable by students. These are specified in clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, and include such fees as subscriptions to student organisations, sports unions, accommodation and other nonacademic charges. Since it is intended that this policy should have effect from the commencement of the 1974 academic year, the Minister is empowered under clause 5 of the Bill to direct that specified fees otherwise payable for the years 1974 and 1975 shall be deemed not to have been payable. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 219

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 3) 1975 [No. 2]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator Wheeldon) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Bill before the Senate contains provisions relating to the furnishing of information to the Department of Health by manufacturers or distributors of pharmaceutical benefits and is consistent with a recommendation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices, which inquired into the effect of the December 1972 revaluation of the Australian dollar. In its first report of November 1973 the Committee recommended, among other things, that: the National Health Act be amended to allow the Department of Health to obtain cost and financial information in respect of products in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

More than 80 per cent of all dispensed medicines are supplied under the provisions of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. At present there is no power under the National Health Act requiring manufacturers or distributors of pharmaceutical benefits to supply information about costs to the Government and consequently the Department of Health depends on negotiations to try and achieve fair and reasonable prices for pharmaceutical benefit items. Such negotiations depend for their effectiveness upon the cooperation of the parties. If a satisfactory price cannot be achieved an item may be removed from the list of pharmaceutical benefits. Such delisting may not, however, always be in the public interest because of the therapeutic value of the particular drug. For this reason compromise and offsetting savings, rather than the analysis of cost information, currently play the more significant part in establishing prices of benefit items.

The Government recognises the need to have information about costs at its disposal when considering the reasonableness of prices for pharmaceutical benefits. Attempts to obtain information on costs from manufacturers and distributors on a voluntary basis have not always been successful, particularly in respect of patented drugs. Under the provisions of the Bill, drug manufacturers and distributors may be required by notice to furnish financial information, including information on prices and costs, about pharmaceutical benefits. The information will be required to be furnished within the time and in a manner specified in the notice. The Bill imposes penalties for failure to comply with the terms of the notice, without reasonable excuse, and for the supply of false or misleading information. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 219

OMBUDSMAN BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator James McClelland) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is to establish an Office of Australian Ombudsman for the purpose of investigating and reporting on complaints. The Bill will require the Ombudsman to investigate complaints received by him against administrative actions of departments and authorities established by this Parliament or under Territory legislation. There will be 2 Deputy Ombudsmen who will have a special role in relation to the Territories, one in the Australian Capital Territory and the other in the Northern Territory. The creation and appointment of an Australian Ombudsman is an important element of the policy of this Government. The policy speech in November 1972 and again in 1 974 included reference to this intention.

The existing methods of checking deficiencies in administration are many and varied. These methods include supervision by tribunals, review by the courts, a Minister’s responsibility to Parliament, examination of officials by select committees and, of course, the efforts of members of both Houses of the Parliament. These checks on administration may be effective in their own spheres but they are subject to important defects. Only some administrative decisions are subject to review by tribunals. In many cases members of the public are disadvantaged by the fact that procedures are unfamiliar. Often legal representation is required for the aggrieved person to present his case in an effective way. An appeal on the merits may not be available and review by the ordinary courts involves technicality, expense and delay.

The duties of a Minister of the Crown are such that he cannot effectively exercise responsibility for all the many activities of departments under his administration. For these reasons the existing remedies need to be supplemented by an institution for investigating complaints which is independent and thorough, which can go behind the screen hiding the department or authority from the citizen. The Ombudsman will be able to go behind that screen and report on what he finds. The Ombudsman will not be confined to making a report. He will be able to exercise a personal influence with departments and authorities. In the grievance field he can act as a conciliator, and he can make suggestions to departments iri an informal way. Over a period he can become an influence for systematic administrative reform. His work will provide a record of situations where grievances are felt which are not taken care of by existing remedies. In one sense the Ombudsman will be providing a free legal aid service. A person who complains to the Ombudsman will not find himself in the adversary situation which is encountered in litigation.

The establishment of the Australian Ombudsman will further involve Parliament in its historic role as a committee of grievances. One of the duties of the Ombudsman will be to report regularly to Parliament on the carrying out of his functions and on all significant matters arising out of his inquiries.

The concept of Ombudsman is of Scandinavian origin and first appeared in an Englishspeaking country with a Westminster-style Parliament in New Zealand in 1962 and in Great Britain in 1967. All the Australian States, except Tasmania, have passed Acts establishing an Ombudsman. There are Ombudsmen in several of the Canadian provinces. The services of the

Ombudsman have been in demand in those countries where the institution has been established and the Ombudsman’s work has obviously satisfied a felt need. Experience has shown that in most cases complaints against authorities turn out on investigation to have been unjustified but the complainants are happy with the result of the investigation. In most cases the officers concerned are shown to have done their work conscientiously, and so the Ombudsman improves their standing with members of the public. The fact that a citizen can complain with the knowledge that his complaint will be dealt with by an independent and respected official is itself an incentive for good administration.

In Australia a Committee on Administrative Discretions, chaired by Sir Henry Bland, recommended to the Government the appointment of an Australian Ombudsman. The Committee’s interim report was tabled in the Parliament in May 1973 and its final report in October 1973. To a large extent this Bill follows the recommendations of the Bland Committee. Other recommendations made by that Committee have been implemented in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill already considered by this House. Other work had earlier been undertaken by another distinguished Committee headed by Sir John Kerr. Its report was tabled in the Parliament in October 1971.

Separate provision for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory- which do not have Ombudsmen of their own as do the States- has been made in the Bill. In each case a Deputy Ombudsman will be appointed and will have all the powers of the Australian Ombudsman except that of reporting to the Parliament. This provision will ensure that there is an accessible and responsible official available to carry the work load in the Territories but the overall responsibility of the Australian Ombudsman will be preserved in order to avoid duplication or conflict. I emphasise that the Ombudsman is to be accessible throughout Australia. Facilities will be provided in each State for complaints to be lodged with the Ombudsman, who will be personally involved in the investigation of complaints of citizens from all parts of Australia.

I turn now to a general description of the Ombudsman Bill. The Bill establishes an Aus.tralian Ombudsman and 2 Deputy Australian Ombudsmen whose functions are to investigate complaints made under the Act and also to investigate of their own motion actions by departments or prescribed authorities that relate to a matter of administration. Prescribed authorities are, generally, authorities or bodies established for a public purpose by a law of Australia other than those declared by the regulations to be authorities or bodies to which the Act does not apply. The Bill extends also to bodies constituted on a non-statutory basis and to companies in which Australia holds a controlling interest. Individual persons performing the duties of statutory offices are also brought within the compass of the Bill. Courts and similar bodies are excluded. The Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate action taken by a Minister or action taken by a department or authority in matters connected with employment in the Australian Public Service or employment in a prescribed authority. The Government has introduced into the other House a Bill to establish a Defence Force Ombudsman and the Australian Ombudsman is not authorised to investigate matters within the jurisdiction of the Defence Force Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will have a discretion not to investigate certain complaints. For example the Ombudsman may decline to investigate a matter if the complaint is in the opinion of the Ombudsman frivolous or vexatious, or if the complainant does not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the complaint, or if the complainant has the right to a review by a court or tribunal.

The Bill provides that a complaint will be made to the Ombudsman in writing. A further provision ensures that persons in custody wishing to complain to the Ombudsman are to be given facilities to do so, and that their complaints are delivered to the Ombudsman unopened. The Ombudsman or his staff will personally investigate the complaint and will inform the responsible Minister and the principal officer of the department or authority that its action is to be investigated. The investigation will be in private and in such manner as the Ombudsman thinks fit. The Ombudsman will have the right to obtain information and to call for files. Only in certain defined areas will a department or prescribed authority be able to refuse production of documents or the giving of information. Such a refusal must be backed by the certificate of the Attorney-General furnished to the Ombudsman certifying that the disclosure of information concerning a specified matter would be contrary to the public interest because it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia, relations between the Australian Government and the government of a State, or that it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a committee of the Cabinet, or that it would involve the disclosure of deliberations of the Administrator’s Council of the Northern Territory. A person is not excused from answering questions or furnishing documents on the grounds that he might be incriminated but his answer to an incriminating question is not admissable in evidence against him.

The Ombudsman is empowered to enter premises for the purpose of his investigations, and even in the case of prohibited places under special Acts, he may obtain entry with the permission of the Minister. Following his investigation the Ombudsman will report in the first instance to the department or authority concerned, and in his report he may make suggestions and recommendations. Normally this report should have the effect of remedying the matter complained of. In every case the Ombudsman must furnish a copy of his report to the responsible Minister. Where the department or authority fails to take appropriate action, then the Ombudsman can report to the Prime Minister and also to the Parliament. This special report is in addition to the periodic reports which he will be giving to Parliament. Reports to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are provided for in relation to matters arising in those regions.

The Ombudsman is given security of tenure. He holds office until he attains the age of 65, and he may be removed only on an address praying for his removal being presented to the GovernorGeneral by each House of Parliament in the same session. The Act provides for the appointment of a person to act as Ombudsman during a vacancy but a person appointed to act as Ombudsman shall not continue to act after 12 months from the occurrence of the vacancy. The Ombudsman and his staff are obliged to observe secrecy with regard to confidential information which is obtained in the course of investigations.

It is intended that the administrative actions of all government authorities that deal with the public should be subject to investigation by the Ombudsman. Authorities will be excluded by regulation only for cogent and special reasons. The Bill is the result of the deliberations of the distinguished members of the Bland Committee and of further discussions with people experienced in this area. The practising Ombudsmen overseas and in Australia were also consulted. The Government believes it is an important step towards the goal of improving the enjoyment of civil liberties by Australian citizens and towards better administration in Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 222

CRIMES BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator James McClelland) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to make it an offence for a person who is an officer, member or employee of an organisation registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to steal, fraudulently misappropriate or fraudulently convert to his own use any money or property belonging to the organisation. As Parliament has legislated in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to provide for the registration and incorporation of organisations to represent employers and employees and that such organisations may own property and are required to keep accounts of receipts, payments, funds and effects and to file records with the Registrar, it is appropriate that provision be made by Parliament for the offence proposed by this Bill.

Section 71 of the Crimes Act 1914-1973 contains a similar offence except that it relates to any person who steals or fraudulently misappropriates or fraudulently converts to his own use any property belonging to the Commonwealth or to any public authority under the Commonwealth. The penalty for this offence is a maximum period of imprisonment for 7 years and it is the same penalty that is proposed for the offence created by this Bill. Sub-section (2) of proposed new section 9 1 of the Crimes Act is designed to facilitate proof in proceedings where it is not possible to trace the individual items or to prove the conversion of individual property or money. The effect is that, where the books of account are kept by the defendant and these books show a general deficiency, the books can be used as evidence of the stealing, misappropriation or conversion of the sum specified in the indictment. A similar provision is contained in section 71a of the Crimes Act and a provision along these lines is found in the legislation of the States. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator James McClelland) proposed:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I rise on this motion only to invite the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland), if he will, to obtain a reply for me from the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) before this debate is resumed. I have written on 3 occasions since the Bill was first introduced into the House of Representatives in May this year seeking information from the Attorney-General as to the particular circumstances for this Bill being introduced.

The Minister will understand that there have been registered organisations under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for almost 60 years. This is a common theft provision. No government has felt it necessary to introduce this provision until recently. It is to ascertain the reasons for its introduction that I am seeking the information. I note from the debate in the House of Representatives that the Attorney-General said that he had replied to me. I can only assume that that is a letter of recent origin. I have not yet received it. I mention the matter only because I think the debate will be facilitated if the information could be obtained.

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

– I undertake to see that Senator Greenwood gets a reply before the debate is resumed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 222

DEFENCE FORCE OMBUDSMAN BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator Bishop) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to establish the office of Defence Force Ombudsman and to define his powers and functions. Honourable senators will recall that it was announced in the policy speech of 1972 that the Labor Government would create an office of military ombudsman. As may be expected, the provisions contained in the Defence Force Ombudsman Bill follow very closely those in the Ombudsman Bill which establishes the office of the Australian Ombudsman. However there are some significant differences between the two Bills and I wish to confine my remarks largely to explaining these differences.

The function of the Defence Force Ombudsman will be to investigate complaints made by members of the defence force, former members of the defence force or their dependants with regard to any action in relation to a matter of administration which arises from the fact that a person is serving or has served in the defence force. The Defence Force Ombudsman is also given power to investigate any of these actions even though a specific complaint has not been made to him. The jurisdiction of the Defence Force Ombudsman covers not only actions which may be taken by the defence force or the Department of Defence but those which may be taken by other departments and authorities. Thus the jurisdiction of the Defence Force Ombudsman will encompass a very wide range of matters affecting a serving member, an exmember, or their dependants.

Because there are adequate review and appeal provisions already in existence, the Defence Force Ombudsman will not be authorised to investigate matters arising out of disciplinary action taken against a member of the defence force. While it is the intention that complaints arising out of a person’s service in the defence force will come within the jurisdiction of the Defence Force Ombudsman, some matters will no doubt arise which are common to all Government employees. Provision has therefore been included in the Bill for the Defence Force Ombudsman to refer matters to the Australian Ombudsman for investigation if the Defence Force Ombudsman considers that they could be more effectively investigated by that office and if the Australian Ombudsman agrees.

Honourable senators will appreciate that the relationship between those in command and those under command in a disciplined force such as the defence force is a very important and particular relationship. Because of this, provision has been made in the Bill requiring a serving member of the defence force to attempt to have his complaint dealt with by the Services authorities before submitting the matter to the Defence. Force Ombudsman. The Defence Force

Ombudsman is, however, given a discretion to deal with a matter which has not been so submitted to the Service authority if he considers that there are special circumstances justifying the member from refraining from so submitting his complaint. A further protection for the serviceman is a provision permitting a matter to be referred to the Defence Force Ombudsman if the member of the defence force has not received an answer to his complaint within 28 days of submitting it to the Service authorities or if the member is not satisfied with the decision given.

Provision has been made in the Bill for the Defence Force Ombudsman to report to both the principal officer of the Defence Force and the principal officer of the department or authority concerned in the matter that he intends to investigate. This provision will ensure that the defence force is aware of matters affecting its members. The powers of the Defence Force Ombudsman in connection with his investigation of a matter are similar to those contained in the Ombudsman Bill. That is, he will be able to require persons to give information regarding the matter under investigation, and he will be able to make the same type of reports to the authorities concerned, to the Prime Ministers and to Parliament as the Australian Ombudsman. In addition the machinery provisions relating to the appointment of the Defence Force Ombudsman and his staff are the same as those of the Australian Ombudsman. Honourable senators will recall that in November 1973 the Prime Minister announced that it was proposed that Mr D. O. Hay, the former Secretary to the Department of External Territories, would be appointed as Defence Force Ombudsman when the necessary legislation had been passed. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 223

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION AGREEMENT BILL 1975

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 223

PROPOSED JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it has disagreed to the modifications made by the Senate to the Resolution of the House of Representatives.

page 224

QUESTION

RESOLUTION AGREED TO BY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON 5 JUNE 1975

  1. 1 ) That a Joint Standing Committee be appointed to act Tor and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new and permanent Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto.
  2. That the Committee shall reconsider and, as necessary, amend the recommendations of the former Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House contained in its report dated March 1970, which when revised shall be used as the basis of the construction of the new and permanent Parliament House.

  3. That the Committee shall also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1 974 as may be referred to it-

    1. by the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1973, or
    1. by resolution of either House of Parliament.

    2. That the Committee consist of:

    3. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
    4. The Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1973;
    5. Six Members of the House of Representatives, three of whom shall be nominated by the Prime Minister and three by the Leader of the Opposition, and
    6. Six Senators, three of whom shall be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and three by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
  4. That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be Joint Chairmen of the Committee.
  5. That every nomination of a member of the Committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  6. That the members of the Committee hold office as a Joint Standing Committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.
  7. That the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to such a sub-committee any matter that the Committee is empowered to inquire into.
  8. That the Committee or a sub-committee so appointed have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment or recess of the Parliament.
  9. 10) That the Committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.
  10. That seven members of the Committee, one of whom is the President or the Speaker, constitute a quorum of the Committee and a majority of the members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.
  11. That in matters of procedure, each of the Chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman occupying the Chair has a casting vote.
  12. That in matters other than those of procedure, each of the Chairmen, whether or not occupying the Chair, has a deliberative vote.
  13. That the Committee and sub-committees be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources.
  14. That the Committee or a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it or any information obtained in the course of its inquiries or any document presented to it.
  15. That the Committee be authorised to provide, on behalf of the Parliament, all necessary information concerning the functional requirements for the new and permanent Parliament House and matters incidental thereto direct to the National Capital Development Commission as the Authority responsible to Parliament to undertake or arrange for the planning, design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House.
  16. 1 7 ) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
  17. That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

Senate’s modifications-

In paragraph ( 1 ), after ‘ appointed ‘, insert ‘( a) ‘;

In paragraph ( 1 ), at end of paragraph add the following new sub-paragraph:

to investigate and recommend what Departments and persons be removed from the Parliament to provide each and every Senator and Member with-

an office for his sole use and occupation; and

office space for a secretarial/legislative assistant;

In paragraph ( 10), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph:

That the Committee have power-

in respect of the matter referred to in sub-paragraph ( 1 ) (a), to report from time to time; and

in respect of the matter referred to in sub-paragraph (l)(b), to report on or before the 1st day of November 1975, and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.’

That the provisions of the Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate does not insist on the modification of the resolution disagreed to by the House of Representatives.
  2. That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

The record of this question goes back to 5 June 1975 when in the House of Representatives the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) moved that a joint standing committee be appointed to go into the question of the planning, design and construction of a new and permanent parliament house. That motion read:

  1. 1 ) That a Joint Standing Committee be appointed to act for and represent the Parliament, as the client for the new and permanent Parliament House, in all matters concerned with the planning, design and construction of the new and permanent Parliament House and all matters incidental thereto.
  2. That the Committee shall reconsider and, as necessary, amend the recommendations of the former Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House contained in its report dated March 1970, which when revised shall be used as the basis of the construction of the new and permanent Parliament House.

  3. That the Committee shall also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1 974 as may be referred to it-

    1. by the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957- 1973, or
    1. by resolution of either House of Parliament.

Then it set out what the composition and the administration of the committee would be. That motion was carried in the other place and a message notifying the resolution was received in the Senate.

In the debate which took place in the Senate Senator Withers moved an amendment to the resolution which was carried. That amendment, in part, added to paragraph ( 1 ) of the resolution the following sub-paragraph:

  1. to investigate and recommend what Departments and persons be removed from the Parliament to provide each and every Senator and Member with-

    1. i) an office for his sole use and occupation; and
    2. office space for a secretarial/legislative assistant.

The amendment received such commendation that, despite the fact that Government senators opposed it, it was carried and the modifications of the resolution were transmitted to the other place. On 19 August Mr Uren moved that the modifications of the Senate be disagreed to. On that occasion the first speaker for the Opposition was Mr Drury who agreed with the motion moved by Mr Uren. The motion was carried finally without a division. The Hansard report would suggest that the motion was carried unanimously. The Senate is again requested to consider the original resolution.

There are 2 points that I ask the Senate to consider. Firstly, everyone agrees that today we are in a cramped position. I agree with the suggestion that certain occupants of the present Parliament House should be kicked out to provide greater convenience for senators and members. But the question arises whether we should ask the proposed joint standing committee on the new and permanent parliament house to decide which occupants should be removed, or whether we have not that power now. Mr briefing notes say that Mr Uren, as the responsible Minister in the House of Representatives, has accepted the need to examine and remedy the severe accommodation problem in the present Parliament House and has given an assurance that this action will be taken, but he opposes the suggestion that the proposed joint committee should have the responsibility to examine this question* because it would divert the committee from its primary task.

The report of the former Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House is dated 1970. For too long we have been talking about the construction of a new and permanent parliament house, which is the only permanent solution to overcrowding in this building at present, but no one is doing anything about it. Now a move is being made to set up a committee to consider the question of the planning, design and construction of a new and permanent parliament house, but an attempt is being made to have that committee side tracked into looking at the question of the accommodation in the present Parliament House. To do so would take the proposed standing committee away from its prime responsibility, which is to do something about a new and permanent parliament house.

My briefing notes also advises me that 2 methods could be used to get over the present difficulty which concerned the Opposition in the debate on the previous occasion. Paragraph (3) of the original resolution, which we are now presenting again to the Senate, reads:

That the Committee shall also consider and report on matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it-

by the Minister responsible for administering the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-1973, or

by resolution of either House of Parliament.

My notes say that the original resolution, by virtue of that paragraph, gives the proposed joint standing committee scope to examine the issues of accommodation in the provisional Parliament House. That is, a proposal could come forward under the terms of the Parliament Act 1974 and by virtue of section 5 of that Act he referred to the Parliament and hence to the proposed joint standing committee for approval. So it would appear that there is already some avenue for providing assistance. If the proposed joint standing committee is established, this will happen in the near future because the National Capital Development Commission is currently preparing such a proposal in response to representations by the Speaker and the President for more space. With a proposal for additional space before it, the proposed joint standing committee would be obliged to examine the proposal and also the alternatives which would include removing people and departments from the existing building to make the existing space more efficient.

I turn to the other method which could be used to get over the present difficulty. We have power to do something about the present position, because the Joint House Committee already exists and has the task of overseeing the accommodation situation in Parliament House. This Committee could be allocated specifically the task of examining the accommodation situation in the terms proposed by the Opposition’s amendment. If it is desired to examine the present accommodation situation, it would seem to me that the Joint House Committee, which is already set up, should examine the question rather than to divert the attention of the proposed Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. The Joint House Committee could examine the present accommodation, if we put such a proposal to it. Therefore, in those circumstances, I think the Senate is justified in not insisting on its modification to the original resolution.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I was going to say I would be brief but in this place that is always an indication of a long speech. I rise to indicate that the Opposition will not insist upon its amendment. I should like to say a couple of things, if I may. If the Government had not departed from this place after the autumn sittings of the Parliament in such a state of disarray- in the House of Representatives debates were gagged, rows occurred and all sorts of nonsense went on and the Leader of the House (Mr Daly) gagged the adjournment because the Government was in such turmoil- our amendment could have been accepted. By the time we came back here in August we would have been able to present a report on the present accommodation. Two months have already been lost although I do not think that 2 months out of a 1 5 -year project matter much. I said at the time, I think, that the implementation of what the Opposition was trying to do was very simple. All the Committee has to do is recommend that the 187 senators and members get 2 rooms each. It could allocate those 2 rooms. Those who are left can sort out for themselves what to do with the accommodation that is left. I do not care whether the Clerk has first pick of the remaining accommodation, whether Hansard has first pick or anybody else. I think that senators and members should be fixed up first and then the staff could have what accommodation is left. This would be a simple operation to carry out.

I am pleased that the Government has, at least, looked at this problem. I think perhaps the most sensible suggestion, as the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) has said, is for the Joint House Committee to look at this matter immediately. I think it is a cumbersome suggestion for either House of the Parliament to refer it to the proposed Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. After all, that Committee should not look at the present accommodation in Parliament House. I am pleased that what we have done has at least brought this suggestion forward. I must say that I am somewhat surprised at the attitude of members of the House of Representatives- I say that about all members. Due to the actions of Presidents of this place senators are accommodated quite well. Their rooms might not be the biggest or the best but, after all, they were designed by the National Capital Development Commission. But having looked at the new Senate wing I am a little wary about the NCDC having anything to do with the new proposal. The new wing is a disgrace. The health inspector in my shire most probably would not let it be passed with the type of heating and cooling systems it has. It is not a very great monument to the architects. But the members of the House of Representatives, so they tell me, are disgracefully accommodated. In some cases there are two and even three members to a room. I do not think this is a fair situation for anybody.

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

– They are very bad industrial conditions.

Senator WITHERS:

-They are and it surprises me. If the members on the Government side of the House of Representatives were back in their trade union days they would strike tomorrow, quite properly, about the rotten conditions under which they work. But, still, they seem to accept it. I hope that something is done about accommodation for back bench members. I do not complain about my accommodation. I am very well housed in this building. I think my own accommodation is very good. Shortly, it will be better, of course, when I am in the room which is down the passage.

I should like to make one other comment. It is not a complaint. I wonder whether the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) who is responsible for the National Capital Development Commission should be on the proposed Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. I rather think that the Leader of the House in the other place should be on the proposed Committee. Quite frankly, if Mr Daly and I were made a committee of two we could fix this problem in about a month. I am not referring to Mr Uren in a personal sense but I do not think that he is the right Minister to be on this Committee. We really want the person who is in charge of the House to be on it. I think that until a person has been the Leader of the House- I include Senator Douglas McClelland, and Mr Sinclair in the other placeand has worked in this capacity -

Senator Poyser:

– You need the experience of the Whips.

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes, I agree. I think that we should have those sorts of people on the Committee. I know that it can be done by election and appointment. We may then have a complaint from back bench members that the brass will fix it all up and there will be nothing for the troops. They will be somewhat suspicious about putting too many of the brass on the Committee. I think that the leaders of the Houses most likely know more about the operation of the Parliament than the Minister responsible for the NCDC. Quite frankly, I do not think we will get anywhere unless there is an input at that level. We discovered this very quickly when we were trying to look at rules for the Joint Sitting of both Houses last year. It was not until the 4 House leaders got together that the rules came together quickly, easily and without much fuss or bother.

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

– Had we left it to a committee, we would still be awaiting the rules.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is right. There were all sorts of other people who wanted to become involved in it. They were involved in it but nothing seemed to be happening. I think that was a very good exercise where the 4 leaders, who each basically wanted to see the proceedings run properly, smoothly, with the proper dignity and with a fair go for everybody, solved the problem, I think, over 2 sandwich luncheons.

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

-Wehad2 meetings.

Senator WITHERS:

-We had 2 meetings, each of which lasted about 45 minutes while we ate a sandwich. I know that to build a new Parliament House will take a long time. I should not knock the proposed Committee too much; I hope to serve on it. The proposed membership of the Committee is fifteen. My very good friend and colleague, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, always says that once we have more than 6 members on a committee it is not a committee but a mob. It is almost a public meeting. The only thing that will save the Committee, I think, is that, in the experience of the Parliament, it is difficult to get members of such a joint committee together. I suppose we will be lucky to get a quorum most of the time. I imagine the Committeee will run generally with an attendance of about 7 members. I wish the Committee well. I think it will embark upon very interesting and painstaking work. I do not suppose many of us will still be here when the Committee’s work is completed. Senator Chaney, my friend and colleague, is young enough to be a son to most of us. He perhaps will still be here.

Senator Chaney:

– I will not take offence. Do not go any further than that, if you do not mind.

Senator WITHERS:

-Yes, well I do not either. I am trying to be polite. Senator Chancy may enjoy the new Parliament House. I think for a variety of reasons most of us will not be here in 1 5 years time. I wish the Committee joy. I wish the Committee well and I hope that it can so design a Parliament House that it will not only benefit the nation but will be a better place for those who come here- whether they are senators, members, parliamentary staff or anybody else. I hope it will be a place which has decent working conditions for all.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I am pleased that the Opposition is not persisting with the amendment it moved during the last sittings of Parliament. I believe we are now moving forward towards the erection of a new and permanent Parliament House which has been needed for many years. I, like Senator Withers, normally believe that small committees are good committees. I used to like the committee of three, when two did not turn up and I was the one who did. A lot of work used to get done. I think, in this case, the task is one of great depth. Perhaps that committee will find it necessary to establish subcommittees to look into various aspects of the requirements of the new and permanent Parliament House.

I agree with the remarks that have been made by the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) in relation to the appalling lack of accommodation in this building at the present time. It is my firm belief- I will be submitting my belief in the form of a report within the next few days- that only those directly associated with the operations of this House and the House of Representatives should be housed in this building.

I believe that the Hotel Canberra, which was taken over recently for office space, could house quite a number of people who are already housed in Parliament House. Members of the Press should be housed in their National Press Club. We should not have a situation in which members of this Senate and members of the House of Representatives who have because of pressure of business been granted additional staff, have to leave that staff up to 2,500 miles away for 6 months of the year. It is a ridiculous situation to have a research officer housed in Perth, Cairns, Townsville, or even Geelong where I live, when they are needed on the spot. I believe that the standard of debates and the knowledge that could be made available to the people of Australia through their elected representatives would be much better if the persons who are employed as research officers and other staff members, the need for whom has been clearly established, were available in this House for use at the required time.

Whilst I would not consider a comparable situation should exist in Australia at this stage to that which exists in the United States of America, in that country members of the Senate have up to 40 employees on their staffs- speech writers, persons doing research work and persons in offices in every major town in the State in which a senator operates. I do not envisage this at all in Australia but if members are to have research workers they should be available in this building. Sufficient space would be available now for this if the persons who have no real right to be in this building were not occupying vital space that the members of this Parliament should have for their use.

I agree with Senator Withers that at least 2 rooms should be available to each member of this Parliament, to whichever House he may belong. My observations of the Ministers’ suitesas we like to call them- have shown them to be a disgrace to the national Parliament of Australia. If people desire to interview a Minister by arrangement they have to be kept out in the corridors because the small waiting-rooms that were provided originally in Ministers’ suites have been taken up by staff, simply because there is a complete lack of capacity for those Ministers to house the staff that they need to have in this building within their present accommodation.

I think that the Joint House Committee, the President and the Speaker should look very quickly and positively at the situation that we are facing now. I would not agree to another $10m or $ 1 5m being spent on extensions to this building when there is room within this building which could be made available to the people of this House at far less expense. The staff of members and Ministers of this Parliament, the officers of the Parliament, and probably Hansard are the only 3 groups of people that I can see that it is absolutely essential to house in this building. I believe that the bottom floor is taken up by a continuing bureaucratic organisation that seems to grow like Topsy every year. The majority of the Joint House Department could well be housed away from this building. Their functions are not associated with the operation of this House or of the House of Representatives. The functions are purely administrative and could be carried out quite a distance from this building without having any effect on the efficiency of that Department.

These are things which I propose to report in a statement I will be making to the Joint House Committee by request very shortly. I sincerely hope that the matter will not end there. The Whips have been requested to make a report to the Joint House Committee and I hope that the matter does not rest on the basis that in another 5 years we will receive a similar request. I hope that the members of that Committee, the President and the Speaker, will act very quickly on the recommendations that are submitted to the Committee in order to alleviate the problems of accommodation in Parliament House. I do not believe that the problems will be solved by building additional wings on to this building at great expense. The space is here now and a far lesser amount of money would need to be spent to provide a temporary solution to the problem of accommodation that is required by Ministers, leaders of Government, leaders of Opposition and back bench members of both Houses in order to carry out their functions satisfactorily.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– This is one of those very rare bi-partisan occasions in the life of a parliament which we all relish when they happen, as they do, so infrequently. How could one better occupy oneself on a rainy afternoon than by talking about the roof over one’s head which is what we are doing now? I have been here some little time- I do not expect to be here in 15 years time- and during the years in which I have been involved in this matter of a new and improved permanent Parliament House it has been a highly movable feast. I have a great affection for this building. It is an historic building for the Australian parliamentary scene and to the Australian nation. I have a considerable regard for it and have no wish to see it not used adequately.

As Senator Poyser and certainly Senator Withers indicated earlier, we could make much better use of the building we now have provided we place the matter under serious study. I gather from what was said today by Senator Cavanagh,

Senator Poyser and Senator Withers that there is some prospect that the use of the existing building might be more carefully studied with a view to using it more effectively while we wait interminably for the new and permanent Parliament House to emerge on the skyline.

Senator Poyser has raised a matter which has been very dear to most of us for quite some time: That is the matter of the ancillary activities that are occupying space in this building. I have a fair mass of information that I shall seek to discuss with my colleagues in the Senate- at least with those who are here and who are interested enough to worry about the building in which they live and work. These details relate to the section of the building that lies to the west of Kings Hall. First of all, I have had produced with the help of the Senate staff highly coloured and interesting floor plans of the 3 floors of the building which show how space is taken up in Parliament House and, more particularly, the space occupied by senators. With the leave of the Senate I should like to table these documents and, except for the plans, have them incorporated in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Senator COTTON:

-I do not think it will be possible to incorporate the plans in Hansard. One would need to see them through a pair of coloured glasses with a switching arrangement on them. But those people who have an interest in this matter will be able to make arrangements to inspect the plans. Not only are they attractive and informative but also they are highly artistic. The plans were drawn up following a debate which dealt with the problem of accommodation in Parliament House in an Estimates Committee. It was decided then that there was a need to analyse the space that is available for what might be called ‘Senate purposes’ and how that space is taken up. This analysis has been performed extremely thoroughly by the Usher of the Black Rod with some assistance from others. I must say that I thank the Usher of the Black Rod for the immense amount of work that he has done.

The document itemises the rooms allocated to senators on the upper floor and the square footage they occupy. On the main floor the President’s suite is identified, the suite of the Chairman of Committees, the ministerial Party room, the Opposition Party room, the National Country Party joint room, the Opposition Leader’s room and the room of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The total square footage occupied by Ministerial suites is indicated, as is the space occupied by each individual senator’s room. A similar analysis has been made of the lower floor. These statistics are interesting and honourable senators will be able to read them in Hansard. The Ministerial suites of 7 Ministers occupy 6637 square feet, whereas the 49 remaining senators and office bearers have about 7639 square feet at their disposal. In other words, 49 senators occupy little more space than do 7 Ministers. The Press Gallery takes up 2694 square feet.

In summary, on the Senate side of Parliament House- the 3 floors on the west of King’s Hailapproximately 53 600 square feet are available for the purposes described by Senator Poyser, Senator Withers, Senator Cavanagh and myself. The figures I am about to give are approximate. The ministerial suites occupy about 12Vi per cent of the available space. The other areas that have been mentioned, such as the suite of the President, the suite of the Leader of the Opposition, the Party rooms and so on, occupy about 1 1 per cent of the available space. Senators, other than office bearers and Ministers, take up 14 per cent of the space on the Senate side of Parliament House. The Senate staff takes up about 12 per cent. The storage of Senate material requires the use of 6 per cent of the space. Two per cent of the Senate’s space is occupied by the House of Representatives for use by isolated individuals who wander in and out. The Parliamentary Library occupies 6Vi per cent of the space on the Senate side of Parliament House. Hansard has nearly 8 per cent of the space. The Joint House Department occupies about 4 per cent. The refreshment rooms, the boilers, the repair staff and so on occupy about 12Vi per cent of the space.

Senator Chaney:

– It is probably full of old boilers.

Senator COTTON:

-As Senator Chaney so rightly reminded us, it is probably full of old boilers anyway. The Committee rooms occupy about Vh per cent of the space. Outside services occupy 3 per cent of the space. The Press gallery takes up 5 per cent of the space. That, without any offence to anybody, is an identified arrangement both as to the plan in a diagrammatic form and as to an analysis on a square footage basis. That indicates what space is available for senators, in the pursuance of their parliamentary dudes, on the Senate side of Parliament Househistoric and ancient as it is. What it adds up to is this: Approximately 49 senators are taking up 14 per cent of the space. Senator Poyser has said that he could make a powerful case for bringing his secretary from Geelong and placing her in a room in which she can at least have tea by herself. In my view he has made a powerful case.

I think that Senator Poyser was quite correct when he said that it is time that the occupancy of the present building was looked at critically. What is the reason for the existence of this building? Is Parliament House a place in which members of Parliament are supposed to pursue useful and sensible functions or are members of Parliament to be regarded as being isolated figures that fit in occasionally through the gloom? I am being quite serious when I say that I think some committee that will be able to produce a report inside at least the 1 5 years that it has been estimated it will take to construct a new and permanent parliament house should engage itself on this task because it is possible that out of it all there will be a bit more space made available, which might help some senators to live longer. It could be that amongst us there are people who will be here with Senator Chaney in another 15 years to enjoy the new world that we are about to embrace.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– As a member of the Joint House Committee I feel that I should say a few words on the proposal before the Senate. Senator Withers, in typical fashion, endeavoured to lay at the feet of the Government the blame for the delay of 2 months in proceeding with the setting up of the proposed Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House. Of course, Senator Withers is well aware that if the Opposition, under his leadership, had not moved an amendment to the original proposition there would have been no need for it to be sent back to the House of Representatives and therefore no delay would have occurred. But for the actions of the Opposition we could have got on with the job.

Senator Withers has criticised the National Capital Development Commission in relation to the architecture of the new wing on the Senate side of Parliament House. This is one of the few times when I am in agreement with Senator Withers’ comments. I think that the architecture of that wing is an absolute disgrace. The people who now work in it should have been consulted before it was ever agreed to construct it in the way in which it has been constructed. Of course, Senator Withers did not tell us who was responsible for the housing of the Joint House Department in the new wing. The Opposition Parties were in government at the time when it was decided, as we have now discovered from the figures given by Senator Cotton, that the Joint House Department would occupy 4 per cent of the available space and that only 14 per cent would be allocated to senators. I think that the blame must rest on the shoulders of the previous government for the setting up of the Joint House Department in its nice new quarters. I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Poyser ‘s statement that the staff of the Joint House Department should be housed outside this building. There is not the immediate need for them to be in this building and to have ready access to the place that there is for the people in the parliamentary offices that have to service the Senate.

I am in full agreement with the statement made by Mr Uren and repeated by Senator Cavanagh that a decision should be taken by the Joint House Committee as to which members of which departments should be the occupants of this House and which should be transferred elsewhere. As a member of the Joint House Committee, I look forward to having something into which the Committee can get its teeth and come up with a decision. I hope that the Committee would be able to find the time to sit and deliberate on this matter. I have made that remark only because every other matter that has come before the Committee has had to be rushed through in a very hasty fashion because the Committee has only about half an hour each time it meets to discuss a multitude of problems. The Committee would need more than that short space of time to deliberate upon the question of who should occupy this place and who should vacate it. I am on record in the Joint House Committee as having moved on one occasion that the Committee should sit on one sitting day to deal with its unfinished business. Unfortunately I have not received much support in that regard. But if the proposition were put up that the Committee should sit on an non-sitting day to deliberate on this matter I am sure that would receive support on that occasion. I am very pleased that the Opposition is not going to persist with its amendment and that at long last we will be able to get on with the job of constructing a new and permanent parliament house and of determining who are the rightful occupants of this place.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (5.16)- I enter this debate only to make the very point that Senator McLaren has made, that is, that we have before us agreement by honourable senators on both sides of the Parliament that there has to be a proper redistribution of the space available in Parliament House. The Opposition is not persisting with its amendment. Therefore the motion as originally proposed will be accepted. It is obvious from everything that has been said so far- indeed, the Minister for Police and Customs (Senator Cavanagh) has admitted this to a degree- that the gravamen of the situation is the lack of appreciation of the importance of space to parliamentarians in the conducting of their business in Parliament House.

My anxiety complex became a little more developed when I got the message loud and clear that it is going to be the Joint House Committee that is going to solve all our problems. I have been a member of this Parliament for, I think, 22 years and over those years the Joint House Committee, of which the Speaker of the House of Representatives is the Presiding Officer and the President of the Senate is his deputy, has been notoriously tardy. I recall the famous occasion when a senator tried desperately through the Joint House Committee to get some pepper pots put onto the tables in the dining room and did not succeed. All I hope and pray is that in the light of the new situation that has emerged the Presiding Officers- Mr Speaker and Mr President- will insist upon the Joint House Committee meeting frequently and, as Senator McLaren said, that sufficient time will be set aside for the Committee to deal with the matters that are an integral part of getting the basic work done in relation to the construction of a new and permanent parliament house. If the withdrawal by the Opposition of its amendment will mean that the Joint House Committee will discuss these matters and will move out those who should be moved out and give more space to those of us who should be here, I am happy to support such an action for the time being. I shall await the results of what is done. When I am no longer a member of this place I will be Stil interested in reading about what progress has been made in this respect. I think that it has been said that we will have a new and permanent parliament house in 15 years. I will try hard to preserve myself for that period.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for not insisting upon the amendment which it moved when this matter was last before the Senate and for permitting this proposal to go through in its original form. All honourable senators opposite have agreed not to insist upon the amendment. The discussion today has revolved around the disabilities of the present Parliament House. I agree with what has been said from the start. Of course, when one is looking at the whole situation one must not blame a particular section without having full knowledge of the facts. It should be remembered that the disgraceful wing on the Senate side of Parliament House was built under the supervision of the previous Government and that if there is to be any criticism of its construction it should be made of the authorities which supervised its construction. While it is easy to say that the architect did a poor job of it one must consider the instructions to the architect. There was an instruction that the extension had to be identical with the new extension on the other side of the building. That did not leave much scope for the architect to erect one of his dream designs. It did not permit him to enlarge the rooms because if the building had been extended another few feet to provide for that the extension would have been different from the extension on the other side which was erected a few years before.

While every honourable senator has picked on the Joint House Department which apparently has only 4 per cent of the space- I also think it could operate outside this building- no one seemed to have the courage to allude to the presence of the Press in this place. The Press has no right in this House but now is acquiring additional accommodation because it has television studios here. However we are not criticising the Press for taking up a bigger area in the House. I agree with what was said about the Joint House Department and I agree that at times it has been hard to get anything from it. This may be the time to look at our whole system of government because every time there is a VIP function in this Parliament House the Joint House Department hires glasses. The cost of hiring would have purchased them over and over again but when it has been pointed out that it is a cheaper proposition to buy them the Department has said: ‘Yes, but we can unload the cost onto the Department which is arranging the function’. Although purchase would be cheaper for the Parliament it would not be cheaper for the Joint House Department. The division of our funding and financing seems all wrong. Apparently we are not concerned with the economics of the position; we are concerned with each person running his own little department for the best result he can obtain.

It is a pessimistic notion that we are building a new and permanent Parliament House only for Senator Chaney because that would prevent us incorporating all the facilities in it. Of course we will all be here in 1 5 years to occupy the new and permanent Parliament House. Honourable senators should not get so depressed. I see no reason why we should not be here. I thank the Opposition for its support of this motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 233

FOREIGN TAKEOVERS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 August on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– The Opposition is not opposed to this measure and does not have any amendments to suggest to the Senate. However, on looking through the legislation and at the results of its operations certain areas appear that give us some concern. It is hoped that experience may reduce the need for change and when that time comes we will be able to look at it quite objectively. On page 2 of the explanatory memorandum there is a reference to clause 18 (7). This perhaps may prove, through its legislative effect, to be too restrictive. I wonder whether experience through time will not dictate that a better level would be 25 per cent rather than 15 per cent. I think it is early days to strike a firm figure but it has been struck at 15 per cent. I think it is on the low side but, as I said earlier, time will determine whether change may be called for in that regard.

This is a continuous piece of legislation in reality. It was introduced in 1972. One also must observe that prior to its introduction, at the time of its introduction and subsequent to its introduction it was fairly continuously rubbished by the then Opposition, now the Government. When in Opposition the present Government said that the whole thing was inadequate, that it was no good and would not work. Yet the Government has found it possible to use it quite effectively, and has done so for 3 years. The Government now brings this Bill forward with a kind of impression that it represents its own idea and its own thinking. The Government did say that it would replace this legislation, which was our legislation, at a later date with a much more comprehensive piece of legislation. That great promise has not eventuated. The Government simply has extended the earlier legislation which was brought down by us in 1972. I think that Mr Crean, when Treasurer, did observe at one stage in a debate that this measure had worked reasonably well. I think that statement was fairly true then, as it is now.

This Bill perpetuates the proposal that the provisions will be controlled fairly sharply at the discretion of the Treasurer. One wonders whether that is as satisfactory as it might be because it leaves a great deal of discretion in his hands alone. One would think that later it would be better if it were possible for the Committee on Foreign Takeovers, which has no statutory form and from which the Treasurer can receive advice and either accept it or refuse it, to be the device and that it should give reasons publicly for its decisions. It may be that there is no case for this. If it were done there could be some danger to people who might have been involved and whose business interests would be harmed if the facts of negotiations or proposals were disclosed. In general, however, one would argue that there would be merit in this legislation being a bit more exposed to the public view when decisions were pre-eminent. When a particular case had been refused, if possible the reasons for refusing the takeover or the merger could be stated or tabled in some report in the Parliament.

When one looks at the legislation one sees that it really is designed for the screening of foreign takeovers of Australian businesses and the prohibition of such takeovers when the Treasurer determines that it would be against the national interest. National interest is the test. This Bill introduces comprehensive legislation to replace the interim legislation which I referred to and which has been in continuity for 3 years. It also represents policy measures operated on an administrative basis.

In addition to company takeovers effected by means of the acquisition of voting rights the Bill covers takeovers by means of asset acquisitions and a takeover of mineral rights. It also covers takeovers by methods used to evade the 1972 statutory and policy measures, for example, acquisitions of non-voting shares, the splitting of large shareholdings, takeovers of leases and licences, takeovers by agreements and arrangements, and transfer of control from one foreign group to another. The Bill also provides, as is known to honourable senators, for certain screening of transactions that might take place outside Australia, where companies are incorporated outside Australia and where the effect would be felt in Australia. Such a share deal could result in change of control outside Australia, and it would be examinable where either 50 per cent or more of the assets are held in Australia or where the company’s assets in Australia amount to more than $3m. That amount of $3m is the bottom limit and 50 per cent is the test.

There are no exemptions from examination of any domestic takeover transactions. However, the Government would not normally intervene in takeovers of businesses with total assets of Sim or less. That seems to be sensible. The Treasurer may examine a proposed acquisition which would have the effect that a foreign person, either alone or with associates, would acquire or increase an interest to 50 per cent or more in the ownership or voting power of a corporation. Where the proposed acquisition means that foreigners would acquire or increase aggregate interest to 40 per cent or more in the ownership or voting power of a corporation, the criteria, as I mentioned earlier, really are not incorporated in the Bill. Perhaps it is extremely difficult to do this. The Treasurer rests a great deal upon the Committee on Foreign Takeovers. I think it would be true to say that such criteria would need to be flexible. In many cases it would not be possible to spell them out in a precise legislative form.

One would have to be prepared to admit the fact that in government it is necessary sometimes to act very quickly to prevent situations in relation to which legislation cannot be drafted in sufficient time to stop that situation. So the criteria are flexible. In a sense they are what I call management decisions taken on a daily basis, if necessary, by the Treasurer within the broad framework of responsibility and within a broad set of policy guidelines. But the judgment one would want to make is whether the benefit would lead to net economic benefits such as competition, productive capacity improvement, technological changes, development of new markets, eta If the proposed takeover were not against the national interest, then one could take into account such other criteria as whether one would be following practices consistent with Australia’s interest in matters such as exports, imports, local processing, research and development, industrial relations, regional developments, etc. Due weight would need to be given to Australian participation in ownership, control and management in the interests of the employees, the shareholders and the creditors. Equally, the Treasurer might order persons who acquired assets contrary to the national interest to dispose of those assets within a specified time to any person or persons approved in writing by the Treasurer.

I realise that this is not the most lively debate of all time, but I am anxious to be accurate about this because it is a matter of some consequence that the legislation be introduced in as close to a bipartisan situation as can be achieved. In my view, it is not a matter for heated debate and screaming matches. Any Australian government of whatever political complexion has responsibilities in this scene. Those responsibilities seem to me to be ones that have to be exercised by the government of the day very largely in a management situation within broad policies. The Parliament ought not to expect to be able to follow every act with legislation, which in effect may have to be introduced well after the act itself. But when one looks at the whole operation one needs to say some things over and above that.

First of all, I have found it refreshing that the Labor Party in government has learned to accept progressively the fact that Australia does need to have a body of overseas investment in this country if it is to sustain its growth rate and if it is to sustain its increases in living standards. This investment ought to come under reasonable inspection, and the legislation the government is going to use for that purpose is substantially the legislation which the Opposition used when it was in office. The Labor Party criticised massively the legislation at that time. The Opposition does not criticise it massively now because it is our legislation. What we do criticise is the lack of understanding by the present Government in an earlier day, and we welcome as a refreshing change some understanding of the international money scene and the Australian capital market scene.

The Opposition also believes that it is very important indeed, when recognising that Australia needs approximately 9 to 10 per cent of its total investment pattern to come from overseas, that there ought to be as much as possible an avoidance of confusion and misunderstanding and of changes made by governments in mid-stream affecting the people who may want to involve themselves in company situations within Australia as part of the overseas investment process. Not all takeovers of companies, domestic or international, are undesirable. Some are, of course, but not all; some are highly desirable. Not all the multinational corporations in the world are undesirable. Some of them have made great contributions to living standards, increased opportunity, education and growth in all kinds of countries around the world. I do not like situations in which people are lumped together in a group and bedevilled by some kind of name-calling process. What I do say is that some takeovers are good; some may not be necessarily good. Multinational corporations have given great benefit to the world. There may be some cases in which they have not done as well as we might have liked, but they should not be treated as if they were all evil.

In my humble view, there is a very great case for the consideration of joint ventures between Australia and overseas countries with which we might become involved. That is a development of which I believe we will see more and more over the years. We might even find ourselves involved in tripartite ventures in which a Japanese organisation could join with an Australian organisation to work with a third organisation in another country, using the raw material resources in Australia and Japanese expertise and finance to develop an interest in a market in a third country in which the three are joined together. The study of the joint venture situation, I think, will need elaboration over a period of time.

There is a great need for certainty in the decision-making process. As far as possible, the investor in Australia ought to be able to understand what are the guidelines. These ought to be spelled out as far as possible. They should be understandable, and people ought not to be subjected to changes in the middle of negotiations unless something positively harmful and positively dangerous can be shown to be case. I believe that there is a clear case, in circumstances which the Treasurer himself would have to decide, for the reasons for refusal of takover attempts to be made public. That would establish a level of understanding and it would establish certain areas of precedent to be followed. Where great discretion is left in the hands of a government and one of its Ministers, it is important that some rules be either laid down or evolved over a period of time. If those things are not done I believe that Australia will have some problems over the years in attracting the investments that it will need for the country to continue to grow and to provide the opportunities for the living standards of its people to improve.

There is not a great deal more that I wish to say, and I close with the remark that Australia will have to learn to understand a great deal more fully. Some people perhaps do understand, but some do not. Some people take public atttitudes and public positions that are not consistent with their personal beliefs. But Australia is not a continent isolated unto itself. It is part of a world in which it has to live, work, trade and exchange. It is extremely important that Australia thinks of itself as part of such a world. It has to emerge, it has to enlarge, it has to grow. It has to be prepared to expand outside its borders, both by giving out finance, ideas and materials, if necessary, and taking them in. I do not think that Australia will improve and grow and enlarge unless it is prepared to be part of a world which tries to do that. If all that we seek to do in Australia is to remain unto ourselves, cherishing our opportunities and our wealth, husbanding them and being very selfish about it all, then I suggest to the Senate that we will go through a period of great decline. I should like to see Australia be more open and much less nationalistic in its attitudes, more Australian, more open, more prepared to give help and to receive it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Melzer)- I call Senator Everett.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-Madam Acting Deputy President, on behalf of those in the crowded chamber and the packed galleries, I should like to congratulate you on your appointment to the office that you are now occupying. All members of the Senate are confident that you will bring to your occupancy of the chair the wisdom that has brought you to the fore within your political party, that you will add dignity to the conduct of the proceedings of the Senate and, above all, that you will add considerable grace and charm to the debates in this chamber. I do not believe that it will be necessary for you to assert the authority to which historically your sex is entitled; I believe that you will assert it irrespective of that fact.

Senator Cotton said that he found it difficult to inject life into this debate. I find it somewhat difficult to do that too, but I will try to do so by saying that it is refreshing that at last there is a measure before the Senate which has the concurrence of the Opposition. It is particularly refreshing that that should be the case this week, after the troubled time last week in which the Government suffered the defeat of some of the most beneficent legislation that it has ever introduced- in particular, the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill. Of course, the Opposition could not credibly oppose the Foreign Takeovers Bill because the legislation replaces the Opposition’s own unsatisfactory attempt to stop the sell-out of Australian business and commercial interests. The Bill before the Senate widens the net considerably. It removes loopholes which have been proved to exist in the 1972 legislation and it puts the national interest in proper perspective in relation to foreign investment. The Labor Party does not attempt to detract from the proud record of the Opposition in this matter. After 23 years of allowing Australia to lie fallow so far as corporate raiders were concerned, on the eve of the 1972 election and in the face of a tide of economic nationalism which had arisen at that time, belatedly but inadequately the then Government acted and produced the 1972 takeover legislation.

This Government, as is well known, has twice extended the operation of that legislation pending the preparation of this legislation. It was foreshadowed by a statement in the House of Representatives on 10 December 1974 by the then Treasurer, Mr Crean, and the scope of the legislation is very much in line with the statement of Government policy which he made on that occasion. Basically the 1972 legislation extended only to takeovers of companies which were affected by the acquisition of shares to which voting rights attached. By policy decisions and by administrative action over the next 2 years the present Government extended the operation of the Act to takeovers, firstly, of incorporated and unincorporated businesses by means of the acquisition of assets and, secondly, to mineral rights.

The effect of the Bill before the Senate is to add 2 further essential areas of government control in relation to takeovers. The first is to cover the cases which over the last 2% years have been proved to allow loopholes for the evasion of the provisions of the Act- devices which were predictable and which have been employed by foreign corporations and individuals. The second additional area of control is in relation to the transfer of control of a business from one foreign group to another and, as a necessary consequence of that, the screening of certain transactions in the shares of companies incorporated outside Australia.

I had a practical demonstration of the weaknesses of the 1972 legislation in relation to the affairs of the Wrest Point Hotel Casino approximately 2V4 years ago. A situation developed in relation to that casino when there was a danger that effective control of it would pass into foreign hands by virtue of the purchase of shares by Asian interests. The provisions of the 1972 legislation were examined- I received the advice of Sydney counsel in relation to the matter- but they were quite inadequate to deal with that situation. The consequence was that it was necessary in Tasmania for special legislation to the enacted to prevent the feared or impending takeover by foreign interests. In the course of the preparation and passage of that legislation the manifold weaknesses of the 1972 legislation were brought home very forcibly to me. I do not think anyone, be he a Treasury officer, company secretary, lawyer or anyone else, who is involved in these affairs would not readily concede that the massive strengthening of the Act is essential.

I should like to invite attention to the scope of the Bill because in this legislation an attempt has been made- it appears to me to be a successful attempt- to make the Act as wide as possible in its operation. I refer to clause 16 which expressly applies the Act on an extra-territorial basis so that it operates both within and outside Australia and extends to every external territory other than Papua New Guinea. Clause 1 7 is of interest and worth reading. It provides:

The obligation to comply with this Act extends to all natural persons, whether resident in Australia or not and whether Australian citizens or not, and to all corporations, whether incorporated or carrying on business in Australia or not.

So there is no constitutional barrier, as we found with the Trade Practices Act, to the completely comprehensive application of the provisions of this Bill.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8p.m.

Senator EVERETT:

-I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 236

NATIONAL HEALTH (PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS CHARGES) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator Wheeldon) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bonner)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

In order to meet rising costs the Government has decided to increase the amounts payable by patients for drugs and medicinal preparations supplied as pharmaceutical benefits. The Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) announced the Government’s intentions in this regard on 24 July 1975. The Bill will amend the National

Health Act by increasing patient contributions for general benefits from $1 to $1.50 and for benefits supplied to beneficiaries under the subsidised health benefits plan from 50c to 75c. The increases will take effect from 1 September 1975. As in the past, eligible pensioners, that is those holding a pensioner medical service entitlement card, will not be charged for their pharmaceutical benefits. Similarly, no charge will be made for repatriation prescriptions. This increase of 50 per cent is the first rise in patient contributions since 1971 when the amount for general benefits was increased by 100 per cent. The new patient contributions will still be less, in relation to purchasing power, than at the time of the previous rise since prices generally rose by 53.8 per cent on a cumulative basis in the 4 years from June 1971 to June 1975. In common with charges for other services and specialist equipment the cost of medical goods and services has increased at a faster rate than the general price index. Fortunately the rises in the wholesale prices of drugs listed under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme have not been as great as for the more Labor- intensive health services.

Following the 1972-73 inquiry into pharmacy earnings, costs and profits carried out by the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements, the Minister for Health announced on 24 July 1975 that chemists would receive higher dispensing fees to be paid in part retrospectively to 1 July 1973. It is estimated that retail chemists will benefit by $5 8m this financial year including extra payment in respect of the previous 2 years from the increase in dispensing fees. Faced with the argument that public sector spending should be restrained, the Government has been obliged to increase the patient contributions to partially offset such increasing costs. In a full year, revenue from the increase in pharmaceutical benefits charges authorised by this Bill will amount to approximately $34m. Assuming the higher charges operate from 1 September 1975, they will yield $26m this financial year. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 237

RAILWAYS AGREEMENT (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator Bishop) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

I present the Railways Agreement (South Australia) Bill 1975, which is to approve the Agreement for the transfer of the non-metropolitan South Australian Railways to the Australian Government. Honourable senators will, I am sure, recall that I introduced into the Senate similar legislation relating to this transfer, and the transfer of the entire Tasmanian Government railways during our last session, and that this legislation was passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Tasmanian Agreement was approved by the State Parliament, and as a consequence the former Tasmanian Government railways became the Tasmanian region of the Australian National Railways Commission on 1 July 1975. In the case of South Australia the State Legislative Council rejected the transfer legislation and a State election ensued. The Dunstan Government was returned and the South Australian legislation approving the Agreement has now been passed. It now only remains for this Parliament to approve the Agreement again, for the legislative requirements of the transfer to be met. It is necessary for the Australian Parliament to again approve the Agreement because section 2(2) of the earlier Railways (South Australia) Act provided that that Act would not come into operation unless South Australian legislation approving the Agreement came into force on or before 1 July 1 975. The first of July was an appropriate date because it coincided with the commencement of the financial year and also was the date proclaimed for the Australian National Railways Commission to come into existence. The Act was not passed by the South Australian Parliament by this date so the earlier Australian Act could not come into operation.

Honourable senators will notice that the present Agreement is in fact the one the Parliament previously approved. The reason for this is that the Australian and State governments are concerned that the people of South Australia should not be penalised financially by the initial rejection of the South Australian legislation. This Bill therefore approves the existing Agreement with effect from 1 July 1975 as did the State legislation approving the Agreement. Honourable senators will be aware that it is very unusual for an Agreement to be approved retrospectively. During my years in Parliament I do not recall this being done, but in the present circumstances I am convinced that it is warranted. The main argument against retrospectivity is that the rights of third parties could be adversely affected. However, in the present situation, during the interim period provided for in the Agreement, the State authorities will be deemed to have continued, and will continue, to administer, maintain and operate the non-metropolitan South Australian Railways under State laws but subject to direction by the Australian National Railways Commission until the declared date which is expected to be in about 12 months. As a consequence third party rights will be protected. The State will, however, benefit from the retrospectivity in the following ways: There will be retrospective confirmation of the payment referred to in clause 1 6 of the Bill so that the amounts in question can be taken into account by the State in respect of the financial year ended 30 June 1975; the State will be freed and discharged from 1 July 1975 from debt repayments and interest in relation to the debts set out in the sixth schedule referred to in clause 19 of the Agreement; under clause 20 of the Agreement the State will be freed from 1 July 1975 from losses incurred on the operation of the non-metropolitan railways, With the passing of this Bill, a date can be set for the non-metropolitan South Australian railways to become part of the Australian National Railways Commission, the first mainland railway system to do so, and a further major step will have been taken towards the creation of a national railway system.

I have spoken about the need and benefits for a national railway system in the past on a number of occasions, twice in the previous session of Parliament; the first on the introduction of the Australian National Railways Bill 1975 and the second on the introduction of the previous Railways (South Australia) Bill. I don’t propose to discuss these benefits in any detail again except to remind honourable senators that a national railway system would have the means of overcoming the disadvantages inherent in the operations of State railway systems. Railway problems can be tackled in accordance with national priorities. Long overdue improvements and economies can be made- our first task will be to prepare a program of improvements for the South Australian region of ANR- a program that will be carefully evaluated by the Bureau of Transport Economics to ensure that maximum benefits are obtained from the finances that will be provided.

It is fitting that the first mainland State railway to be transferred to the Australian Government should be in South Australia because the South Australian non-metropolitan railway system is the system most readily able to be integrated with the present system operated by the Australian National Railways Commission and will enable the benefits of the Australian Government’s transfer policy to become apparent quickly. As South Australia has common borders with all mainland States and rail connections with all mainland States except Queensland, it will form the central core of a national railway system that we can build on in the future.

I come now to the actual provisions of the Bill. I have circulated explanatory notes on the various clauses of the Bill for the benefit of honourable senators, and I have reproduced the notes on the Agreement that were circulated when the Agreement was previously approved. As the Agreement has been available to senators for some months and its provisions are well known, I will confine myself to a brief description of some aspects of the legislation. On the whole the legislation is very similar to the previous legislation. Clause 3 repeals the previous Railways (South Australia) Act 1975. Clause 5 is the clause which approves the Agreement. Clause 6 and 7 are the clauses where retrospectivity is imparted concerning the vesting of land and other property in the Australian National Railways Commission. Clause 16 confirms that the $10m required to be paid to South Australia has in fact been paid, under Appropriation Act No. 6 1 975.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this Bill is one of the most important pieces of transport legislation introduced by any Australian Government. Because of it the mainland railways will be able to take the first step into a new era of rail transportation- where the emphasis will be on meeting the nation’s needs in fair competition with other transport modes. I venture to predict that before too long the other States will realise the benefits to be gained from a wholly national rail system, and will follow the lead given by South Australia. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 238

FOREIGN TAKEOVERS BILL 1975

Debate resumed.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had been directing attention to the comprehensive scope of this legislation. I had referred to clauses 16 and 17. There is one clause, clause 38, to which I wish to refer specifically because its intention and effect may be misunderstood. It provides:

The doing of any act that constitutes an offence against section 30 or 3 1 is, notwithstanding the commission of that offence, valid for all purposes.

That clause, on its face, means that if one is prepared to incur the penalties imposed by clause 30- namely, a fine not exceeding $50,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months- one can flout the provisions of the Act. That is not the practical effect of that clause because preceding clauses, in particular clause 35, permit the Treasurer to apply to the Supreme Court of a State or a Territory for such order- I quote the words of sub-clause (1) of clause 35- ‘as it thinks fit for the attainment of the purpose for which the order was made by the Treasurer’. The practical effect of all those provisions is simply this: Although the Treasurer may make an order which may not be complied with, he still has the power to apply to the Supreme Court for such order as it thinks fit for the attainment of the purpose for which the original order was made by the Treasurer.

In those circumstances it may be wondered why clause 38 is in its present form. It simply follows the corresponding provision in the 1972 legislation- section 18. 1 suggest to the Government that that clause needs very careful consideration in the light of subsequent developments because, although there is power under clause 35 to apply to the Supreme Court to get orders in aid of any decision made by way of order by the Treasurer, there is under clause 38 that ultimate right of a corporation or a person to say: ‘Nevertheless, this transaction is still valid’. I do not know the reason of policy behind section 18 of the Act or the reason of policy behind the continuation of that provision, but I think the greatest deterrent to the evasion of this legislation would be to make completely void a transaction which was in breach of the Act. Clause 38 adopts the opposite situation. I suppose the argument is that the power to apply to the Supreme Court for orders supplementary to the order of the Treasurer is a sufficient sanction. I ask the Minister in charge of the Bill, Senator Wriedt, to watch closely clause 38 to ensure that it is not made the medium for the evasion of the provisions of this legislation.

Reference was made, both in the House of Representatives and again this afternoon by Senator Cotton, to the fact that no criteria are established by which the Treasurer may determine what is in the national interest. That omission was made a subject of criticism in the House of Representatives. It was not made a subject of criticism by Senator Cotton. I submit that there is no basis for criticising it because it would be completely impossible to define in relation to future circumstances what was or was not in the national interest. Very wisely, I submit, the legislation provides that it is a question of ministerial responsibility. The Treasurer must determine in relation to facts which can vary infinitely what is and is not in the national interest. I have read the speech of the right honourable member for Bruce, Mr Snedden, in the House of Representatives and his claim that this matter ought to be made the subject of regulations. Fortunately, so far that claim has not been repeated in the Senate. I submit it is quite fallacious. It would be impossible to put not only in an Act but also in regulations the various circumstances which would make a particular transaction against the national interest. Circumstances vary infinitely. I remember that an English judge once said that the expression ‘public interest’ was an unruly horse. I would suggest that the expression national interest’ in this context is an equally unruly horse.

The Minister bears the responsibility for determining the facts. He has a committee to advise him. He makes the decision, for which he has to accept responsibility as Minister, whether a particular transaction is contrary to the national interest or is not contrary to the national interest. I would submit that any attempt to make it more particular, any attempt to define what is in the national interest, would be folly because it is impossible to define the national interest. Each case stands on its own facts. Each case merits a responsible decision by the appropriate Minister.

I have mentioned the committee which advises the Minister. I believe that I am correct in asserting that in a period of nearly 3 years no one has criticised a decision taken under the existing legislation. Most of those decisions, I think it is easy to imagine, have been taken on the advice of the members of this committee.

To support this measure is not to advocate an excessive retreat from the judicious use of foreign capital in the development of Australia. I am not aware of figures available which indicate the total extent of foreign investment in the private sector in Australia. But we do know from figures that were given to us only today, the extent of the governmental and semi-governmental debt of Australia.

In a statement released today by the National Debt Commission, we learn the exciting fact- it does not worry me- that the Australian Government and the State governments owe a total at 30 June this year of $ 1 7,770m. I have worked out my share of that debt on a per capita basis. It is $1,270. 1 can only express the wish that my private overdraft was as low as that; but it is not. If the whole of the 13.5 million people in Australia contributed $1,270 we would wipe out that national debt overnight. If there are any starters from the Opposition, we will see what we can do from the Government benches to effectuate that situation. That figure gives an idea of the extent of government indebtedness. Some of it is overseas; some of it is not. So far as the private sector is concerned, as I have said, I do not know what the figure is. But I am not one of those who takes the view that Australia can reach an appropriate rate of growth and an appropriate living standard without some involvement of overseas capital.

The point this Bill makes- the point that the Government tried to make in the debate last week on the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill- is that there is a vast difference between the borrowing of money which simply attracts an obligation to pay interest and eventually on agreed terms to repay the capital, on the one hand, and, on the other, the acquisition of control- that is what this Bill is aimed at- so that policy within individual businesses can be determined by foreign interests. That type of control includes, of course, the conditions of employment subject to Australian laws.

I imagine that, in a country such as Australia, for some decades to come there will be a need to permit a degree of foreign capital to be allowed into this country for the purpose of the development of our resources, the maintenance and improvement of our living standards, and the maintenance and improvement of the rate of growth. But a sharp distinction must be drawn between investment of foreign overseas capital and the investment which leads to control which, as I have said, is the purpose of this Bill. That is the point of this measure. It is a point, I submit, that the Opposition should not overlook.

There are reasons that were canvassed in the House of Representatives- I need not detain the Senate on them- why we must acknowledge that for a period we need some overseas capital. It has been said that overseas capital leads to an improvement in technology, to market development and to access to markets. Of course, we cannot ignore the fact that a country which is not completely financially independent- what country is?- must have some overseas capital to assist its rate of growth and development. But consistently with those economic desiderata, there must be the stage at which Australia says: ‘We are not going to permit ourselves to be controlled to the extent that policy is dictated to an excessive degree by overseas interests’. Finally in 1972 the previous Government- now the Oppositionrecognised that it could not go against that trend. This Bill strengthens the position and, I would hope, makes it plain to overseas interests that ownership and control of Australia are not to be bought for a song.

This Bill is another example of the determination of the present Labor Government to pay more than lip service to measures which will promote economic nationalism in Australia and which place Australia more surely on the path towards its eventual emergence as a powerful and independent nation. We have not yet achieved that situation. The Bill also sounds a warning to foreign investors that no amount of money will buy control- I emphasise the word control’- of Australian businesses and commercial ventures if it is against the national interest to do so.

I will be surprised if even this legislation does not require some amendment in future. As we all know from our experience with the taxation law, there are people in this world who are able to find loopholes in legislation. I would hope that the Government would be as determined to close such loopholes as it has been in its period of office since December 1972 to improve the legislation of that year. I enthusiastically support the Bill.

Senator WEBSTER (Victoria) (8. ^Senator Everett was somewhat critical of the attitude of the Opposition parties in earlier years to the takeover of Australian businesses by foreign companies. I think there has been a growing awareness in the community of the activities of foreigners in this country. This matter certainly has been given publicity, and people in important positions in government in the last years have been speaking quite vigorously against those activities. That action, in my view, has created some disadvantages for Australia.

Certainly the economic problems with which we are faced at this moment are probably due in some respects to the attitude of Labor in these matters. Let me put it to the Senate in this way: If it were possible for the unemployment situation faced by Labor at this time to be solved by a number of foreign corporations taking over flagging Australian businesses and assuring that within a year 200 000 jobs could be found, what would be the choice of Labor? One has to make a decision as to what choices we should face in this community. I myself have no doubt that the general publicity that has been engendered by Ministers and back benchers on the matter of foreign takeovers has resulted in corporations retreating and leaving Australia. Certainly investment which might have been made in Australia has not been made. The very talk of foreign takeovers and the use of the word foreign’ in this community in such a way as to make it sound bad have meant that we are in a position of lesser strength today than we would have been had this talk not taken place.

There is an attraction associated with the horizon view that Australians should own everything in this country. That would be the ultimate; that is what we all desire. Indeed, there would not be one of us who did not have some objection to seeing some very wealthy businessman apparently in control of some vast empire. It is interesting to note that when many of these leaders of industry with their vast empires have gone into liquidation they have not possessed the great reserves of assets that some other people have.

Senator Georges:

– Oh come on! You know what they did. They dispersed their assets.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The honourable senator interrupts. If, after he returns from his overseas trip, he starts to interrupt when I am making a speech he will bring some trouble on himself, because the man whom he abused in this place not so many months ago put in his sheet of assets within the last fortnight and it was found that he did not have even as much as the honourable senator.

Senator Georges:

– You take a look and see how he dispersed his assets. You want to stand behind his problems.

Senator WEBSTER:

-I think Senator Georges can be satisfied that the general run of criticisms that he has made about foreign corporations has, to a degree, lessened the work opportunities of Australian citizens. From the day that Australia was founded it has had a large percentage of foreign ownership. But from that day until now Australians have been growing in strength, growing in capacity and growing in corporate law so that they are able to take over and build their own businesses. That is something which we must encourage. We as a nation must not adopt this attitude that we hate the sight of foreign investment. I do not criticise the legislation that is before us. Indeed, it is based upon legislation that Labor has accepted for Vh years. It is based upon the foreign takeover legislation which was laid down by the former LiberalCountry Party Government in September 1972. A former Treasurer has said that he found little argument with that legislation.

Under the present legislation a takeover will be a transaction which results in a change in the identity of a person or which puts that person in a position to determine the major policy decisions of an Australian business. I think that that is a particularly sound statement because it embraces all those situations in which a person with knowledge can find himself or in which a corporation can find itself- that is, a position of strength with which to domineer or direct the course of a company. Often in this country foreign corporations act in a way which is not necessarily in our national interests. I hold the view, which I think many honourable senators do, that foreign corporations should be welcome in Australia if they continue at all times to work in the positive interest of Australia. Of course, when foreign corporations which are in the position of manufacturing and distributing goods introduce restrictions on overseas export or restrictions which cut down competition in various fields of business in Australia, that is to the disadvantage of Australia as a whole. It is on that basis that the Opposition, while not doing as Senator Everett has credited us with doing, that is, positively supporting the legislation, is taking the attitude of not opposing the legislation which Labor has now put before us. Indeed, we find some merit in many parts of this Bill.

Senator Everett:

– Are you going to vote for it?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I understand that the Bill will not be voted upon. That is one of the mistakes that many people often make- and both Senator Everett and I know it. I often hear the statement that the Opposition has not supported a Bill. One hears that statement time and again, but unless there is a division on a Bill one does not know whether people have supported it or not. I believe that the general thrust of the previous legislation on foreign takeovers which dealt purely with the taking over of the share structure of a business is something which the Government could investigate and broaden to include the taking over of assets or the taking over of other particular benefits held within a company which give the right of control over that company.

I wonder what has been the truthful attitude of Labor regarding this question of foreign corporations during these past years and today. I have expressed the view that takeovers on a trade practice basis, that is, Australian companies taking over other companies and inhibiting a market or gaining too much control of the share of a market or gaining a position where they obliterate competition in a particular manufacturing field, are not good for our corporate or commercial structure in Australia. One remembers members of the Labor Party floating the idea three or four years ago that for 10c an acre people could take part in a scheme which was designed to buy out the whole of the inland of Australia. I do not know how far that scheme got. There were probably too many acres in the interior of Australia to enable members of the Labor Party to form a corporation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You never invested any money in it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not too sure what Senator Cavanagh does with the $40,000 a year which he receives as a Minister. I have often wondered what a socialist does with $40,000 a year while his comrades receive an average of $ 1 40 a week, or $7,000 a year. I have often wondered what a good socialist does with his money.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Webster, I would like you to come back to the Foreign Takeovers Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I was interrupted by the -

The PRESIDENT:

– You should not be interrupted. Interjections are disorderly.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I was interrupted by the unique comment of a socialist Minister. He challenged me as to whether I invest or not. In my lifetime I would have invested in Australia 100 times more than Senator Cavanagh has ever considered investing.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And the Government subsidised you.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Government has subsidised you in every way as a Minister. As much as you smile, I wonder what you do with your $40,000 a year. If Australian citizens, such as Senator Cavanagh, were able to see proper investment in Australian industry and Australian land we would not need foreign takeovers. I wonder whether for all the time that Senator Cavanagh has been receiving his salary as a senator he has been thinking of his colleagues who earn much less than he does. I do not know what he does with his money. I have often wondered what a socialist Prime Minister does with his $50,000 or $60,000 a year. What have honourable senators opposite invested in Australia? Investment is the thing in which we in this country should be interested during our lifetime. Australians are in the unique position of basically not being interested in advancing the development of their country. I remember the scheme well. It was a great scheme. Labor said that for 10c an acre people could buy these inland millions of acres. I did not see the members of the Labor Party romping in with their money and giving it to their colleagues hoping that they would be able to buy this land. I think Senator Georges spent too much time as a member of the committee that sat in this chamber for so long. He probably would not risk his money that way. But Australians have not invested their money. One of the greatest takeover operations that was available to the Australian citizens, in my opinion, was when the Killen family floated the Northern Agricultural Development Corporation. It was a most wonderful operation in which the vast areas of the Kimberleys and the meat works were floated into a public company. That company, in honesty, declared that there would be no dividends for 8 years, and the Transport and General Life Assurance Co. Ltdone of those insurance companies hated by the Labor Party- was the only company to take up shares. It took up about 40 per cent of the shares. It had no interest other than the benefit to be derived from the development of Australia. I wonder how many members on the Government side ever envisaged that that was an opportunity for Australians really to control Australia. But they never did. Although it might have been good for a little while, I believe the share market reflects that it is not so good today.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You have made a packet out of the Australian community, have you not?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have never got $40,000 a year. The man who is getting that is malting a packet out of the community. We have heard it said that some Ministers spend only 5 per cent of their time doing their job. If that is capitalised, they would be receiving much more than $40,000. 1 refer to the NADC because I feel that this was an opportunity for Australians to demonstrate- if they really had any enthusiasm for Australian control and ownership- their desire to keep out foreigners and to keep this country for themselves. But I and many other honourable senators have not been as enthused as we should about Australian control of Australia. So, we have found it necessary to voice our opinions in this place. We have heard Senator Cavanagh saying: ‘You have always got a lot of money out of the community’, or similar statements.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You made a packet out of government contracts.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If Senator Cavanagh wishes to interject on that basis, I will really pull him apart because I have said several times that he has had his fingers in the till up to his elbows. He will have to reply to that accusation one day. Let us get the situation right.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You made a packet out of government contracts.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not think it is fair that Senator Cavanagh should bring up that matter. At least we know that out of the two of us I am the only one who is clear.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, we do not.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I ask Senator Webster to address the Chair.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I was indicating at the outset that it is clear that Australians do not have within themselves that great demand that we do not have foreign investment in Australia. We have not been enthusiastic enough to invest sufficiently in Australian structures so that they are kept Australian. I wish to refer to one action I particularly abhor which has been taken in the past few years by this Government. It is a measure which has been to the disadvantage of Australian companies. I am referring to action which this Government has taken in the taxation field. Under the previous Government an attempt was made to enable proprietary companies to build up their reserves so that they might be in a position to fight domination by larger corporations or fight a takeover by foreign companies. There was a difference in the tax structure of public companies and proprietary companies- the smaller companies. The public company used to pay 45 per cent tax and the proprietary company paid 37% per cent. You, Mr President, would know that under the Labor Government the tax scale for proprietary companies has been increased to 47 Vi per cent and is now equal to the scale for public companies. That has placed the smaller company at a disadvantage. All honourable senators are aware that, once the smaller companies have paid their initial company tax, if they do not distribute 50 per cent of the residual amount it will be taxed at 50c in the $ 1

We have a situation in which, during the past few years since Labor has been in office, proprietary companies have been unable to gain for themselves any new reserves except by introducing new capital. Mr President, you would be well aware of that situation. It is a matter that affects foreign takeovers. I should like to impress upon honourable senators opposite that the present Government should revert to the previous situation in which there was a difference in the taxation provision for public and proprietary companies. The public company is not forced in any way to divulge its dividends other than by the requirements of the shareholders but the proprietary companies- which are now taxed at the same level- must now distribute basically 50 per cent of what is left after they have paid their 47V4 per cent tax -

Senator Everett:

– It is not 4716 per cent now.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Government has reduced it. It is down to 42 per cent in this Budget. In referring to foreign takeovers I ask: How genuine are members of the Labor Party when they say they do not want foreign takeovers to take place in Australia? I imagine that the Labor Party is not saying it as a blanket. It is basically looking to see how it can protect competition in the industry. The Government has attempted to set up committees so that, when advice is received that a takeover may not be in the interests of either trading operations in this country or of a foreign takeover, it will oppose it. Yet that has not been the Government’s stance. That is not what has occurred. On the day of the South Australian election the Labor Party announced that the Nissen and Toyota motor companies were going into some manufacturing operations.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We beat you.

Senator WEBSTER:

-There we are. That good senator, Senator Cavanagh, proudly says: We beat you’. I am not too sure what the Labor Party beat us at but I do know a number of things. What one cannot imagine is why the Government has approached one foreign country. We have had the manufacturers of Renaults in Australia for years. It has been a good French company. We have had British manufacturers in Australia for years and we have had German manufacturers here for years. The Labor Government, giving no opportunity to others, goes to one foreign country. On this basis, the greatest loss that has occurred because of the Labor Government’s approach, is that it had the opportunity to go ahead with the development of the Australian Sarich engine. That engine could have been manufactured in the plant in South Australia and Australia would have had the opportunity to export that engine.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd is looking after Sarich.

Senator WEBSTER:

– BHP is another one which the Government dislikes, I suppose. Nevertheless, if honourable senators are aware of what has been put to one of the tariff hearings at present they will know that that proposal has more weight than the proposals of the Government in approaching one foreign country and trying to attract foreign investment to Australia. Again we heard the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) today discuss the attitude that the Labor Government had taken to the takeover of a drug company whereby the Government was going to attempt to socialise drug production. The situation has not arisen where the Government has said: ‘We will try to rid ourselves of a foreign corporation ‘.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You know that is not true.

Senator WEBSTER:

-I do know that it is.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You know it is not true.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Government did not go to the foreign companies and say: ‘We would like to see Australian manufacturers take over’. We do know that the drug industry in Australia is very much dominated by foreign corporations. What did Senator Wheeldon say today? Senator Wheeldon said that the Government would pay $8. 5m instead of $6m to take over a totally Australian-based drug manufacturing industry.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is a commercial transaction.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Why is it? I know there is enough trouble in the pharmaceutical industry today. It is in grave danger. One of the dangers arises from the Trade Practices Act that the Government introduced and the way it is being carried out. Another danger is the Prices Justification Tribunal and the way it is performing. Another is the attitude of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which is a government drug manufacturer. CSL is free to put up its prices but the drug manufacturers, even though they have to buy the raw products, cannot put up their prices. The Government will damage this community very greatly by eliminating some of the major drugs that are in our stores and in our chemist shops at the present time. But where is the truth of Labor’s argument that it does wish to see foreign companies prohibited from developing in this country or from taking over? The

Labor Party when in office considers it best to take over an Australian corporation rather than to see a reduction of foreign investment even in this particularly important industry.

Another matter which Labor should consider is one which I have mentioned on one or two occasions here and I know that the Labor Party would like to have it mentioned again. We heard earlier this year of a large British corporation- a very good British corporation- named AMATIL wishing to take over some of the food manufacturing section of Marrickville Holdings Ltd. This was a matter at which the Trade Practices Commission looked. It involved the acquisition of the assets and the goodwill of the potato chip operations of Marrickville Holdings Ltd by Associated Products and Distribution Pty Limited, known as the APD. In its first annual report for the year ended 30 June 1975 the Trade Practices Commission stated: . . The Commission formed the view that the acquisition would be likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition in the market because it would add more to APD’s already dominant market share than it would otherwise get by competition with the remaining companies. The Commission was also mindful of the fact that AP[ -

As I mentioned, APD is a multi-national corporation, a big overseas owned foreign company- had grown to its dominant position in the relevant market through acquisition of other manufacturers. The Commission therefore refused clearance. In considering the authorisation of application, the Commission was unable to accept the claims of the applicant that substantial public benefits would result from the acquisition and further, in judging such public benefits as might result against the circumstances of APD’s dominant position in the market, the Commission determined that the application should be dismissed.

I might say that in this venture the acquiring company held 50 per cent of the market and the company that it was taking over- the Australian company- held 10 per cent. When the acquiring company took over this gave them a 60 per cent control of that manufacturing market. Here was a foreign company taking over. The Commission that had been set up by the Government recommended against such a takeover, and what occurred? The legal adviser of Marrickville Holdings came to the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) and without giving any reason the Attorney-General gave permission for the takeover.

This is an illustration of the Labor Party giving effect to its policy that foreign takeovers must be avoided. The wisdom of what the Labor Party says in relation to foreign takeovers is obvious in that dominance of a market by a foreigner can be a bad thing for that market. But why was it that the Attorney-General permitted that takeover by

AMATIL or APD of an Australian manufacturer? I have gone over the reasons why on a number of occasions. If there is a Minister in charge of this particular Bill and if Senator Cavanagh is that Minister, I hope that he will obtain the reason. Probably there is no Minister in charge.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Of course there is.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Probably there is not. Who is the Minister in charge?

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Minister representing the Treasurer.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Who is the Minister in charge?

Senator Cavanagh:

- Senator Wriedt.

Senator WEBSTER:

-That is the way we are conducting affairs in this House. There is no Minister in charge.

Senator McLaren:

– There is a Minister in the House. Senator Cavanagh is here. What is wrong with you?

Senator WEBSTER:

-There is no Minister in charge of the Bill. Can the Labor Party please tell me why the Attorney-General permitted a foreign corporation which already held 50 per cent- the dominant share- of a market in this country to take over a small Australian subsidiary that held only 10 per cent of the market and to do so against the advice as is printed in the 1975 report- the first annual report- of the Trade Practices Commission? Unless there was some attraction for such a takeover to occur the words of Labor in relation to foreign takeovers have been entirely humbug. I hope that Hansard will put 5 dots after the remark: Unless there was some attraction for such a takeover. That is what I am worried about in this latest foreign takeovers operation. One would hope that where one Minister is concerned with the granting -

Senator Georges:

– Why do you not make yourself clear?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I need not make it any more clear, senator.

Senator Georges:

– If you have a charge to make -

Senator WEBSTER:

-The honourable senator has had sufficient interest in affairs in his time to know that where that type of thing occurs a question is raised. I am asking for a Minister in charge of this House to give me either today or at some future time the reason why his Government allowed a foreign company with 50 per cent domination of the market to take over another 10 per cent. I should think that such a takeover would not be in the interests of the community. If that is what is likely to be done under this latest Foreign Takeovers Bill I should be most distressed. I only hope that when any foreign takeover proposals are referred to the Treasurer who is the final arbitrator in such matters he will give advice in writing to the Parliament as to the reason why he either agreed to or rejected the proposals. I think it is very good to make a matter clear and to make it public. It removes the possibility for any shadow of doubt.

One can point to many avenues for the development of Australian expertise, knowledge, craftsmanship and engineering skills. I think it is very good for us to be able to say to foreign corporations: ‘You are welcome to come here; we are anxious to see you if you will engender employment in the community, if you will engender production, if you will attempt to create greater competition amongst our free enterprise traders, if you will not inhibit the export of your goods and if you will not confine them within Australia’. Some corporations confine the Australian manufacturers to a licensed area within which they can trade whilst the corporation’s home base in America or some other country has the rest of the world market. That is not in the interests of this country and it certainly should not remain a practice.

With respect to the Pipeline Authority, the responsible Minister granted the main body of contracts to a foreign consortium to perform the work in Australia. I do not think that is in the best interests of Australia. If we had spent that money in Australia and had retained the contracts here we would have developed the knowledge and the expertise of pipeline laying instead of being reliant on the Government owned corporation in Italy, as we are at present. I noticed that Senator Everett made quite a song about what foreign loans had meant to this country over the years. He brought to mind the fact that at the present time the Federal and State governments owe $ 17,000m. I thought that it was a very large amount. The enormity of the amount involved was enough to make the mind boggle. Senator Everett brought the situation down to simple facts by saying that the amount represented an amount of $1,270 a person. That reminds me: Was Mr Connor not after the same sort of thing? He attempted to borrow $4,000m some few months ago. In reality that would have meant that the people of Australia would have been mortgaged to a foreign country to the extent of $ 18,000m in one hit.

Senator Georges:

– Oh, come on!

Senator WEBSTER:

– An honourable senator opposite said: ‘Come on’. The minds of honourable senators opposite boggle at the idea. Their main speaker on this matter has said: ‘Past governments have mortgaged this country to the extent of $ 17,000m. That is terrible. That is foreign ownership’. But he was not willing to Us ten -

Senator Georges:

– I am listening

Senator WEBSTER:

– I can see that. The honourable senator is shifting in his seat because he is very uneasy about the matter. I do not blame him for being uneasy. Which is worse- a foreign mortgage or foreign ownership? I think that they are both bad if the resources of this country are being transferred overseas. At least in the laying down of proper guidelines for investment by foreign corporations in this country we can find the basis for the bringing in of competition and expertise. I have not known one corporation to come into this country in the last 10 years and not be willing to endeavour as quickly as it can to have the main positions held by Australians. In that way we have been able to gain expertise and knowledge from those foreign corporations, we have made our capacity for industry greater and we have brought markets to this country.

I envisage that before the turn of the century the ownership and control of various trading organisations will not necessarily be by the company corporate structure. A number of” progressive companies in this country have attempted to go overseas. I do not think that they have necessarily done so with a view to making extra millions of dollars. I think that they have had some vision that they can go to America and Canada and compete in the world market and demonstrate that Australians have as much capacity and ability to compete in industry as any other nation. The world is becoming a smaller place. I think that we should try to get away from the breeding of hate and dislike for foreign corporations. I think that they should be welcome here. I think that they should be welcome on the basis of guidelines that point out that we want them to become established as good Australian organisations and that within 8 or 10 years of their establishment they should by a natural process shed at least 50 per cent of their shareholding to the Australian people. If that were to happen we would find, as we did a couple of years ago, that we had in this country a growing and viable manufacturing and processing industry in so many areas.

The Australian Labor Party very regularly changes the attitude it adopts towards many matters, including foreign investment in Australia. We have seen it change its attitude on very many occasions in the past. When Mr Crean originally indicated that there would be a change in the existing attitude towards takeovers by foreign companies he indicated that what had applied under the former Government- the Liberal-Country Party Government- would be quite acceptable. I think that the step that is now being taken is nothing that will have a very disastrous effect upon our community. It is only fair that the Government should put forward at this moment the attitude that it has adopted towards foreign takeovers. The Opposition does not oppose that view. But I plead with the Government at least to remain consistent in any attitude it adopts.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Senate is debating a Bill which is described as a Bill for an Act relating to the foreign control of certain business enterprises and of certain rights relating to minerals. In effect it is a Bill which provides for the scrutinising of takeovers by foreign interests of Australian shareholdings and Australian assets. I think it is significant to acknowledge at the very outset that the Bill has that character. It is a Bill which represents the way in which the Australian Parliament, if it chooses to do so, can control the activities of foreign interests in Australia. A great bogy has been built up in recent years- I suspect mainly for political purposes- that multinational corporations are menaces which threaten the very existence of democracy. There is an element of poppycock in that assertion. If multinational corporations were left unrestrained I suppose they could cause damage to any national entity because they would seek to take unto themselves a greater and greater influence. But if there is a government which is concerned and people who are concerned about the operations of multinational corporations there is always power in the national Parliament to deal with those corporations. This Bill is a Bill which indicates that this Parliament is concerned to give to the Government of the day an authority to deal with those activities of foreign interests that are seen to operate against the national interest.

I think it always should be remembered that multinational corporations have their credit side as well as their debit side. On the credit side they introduce to a country that capital which provides and generates development, which generates employment, which introduces new enterprises and which brings in a degree of expertise and know-how that otherwise would not be available. That is to the credit. We in Australia encourage our entrepreneurs- our business interests- to export to under-developed countries. We encourage our entrepreneurs and businessmen to engage in joint enterprises in the countries to which they export and we regard that as being legitimate. But if one develops the multinational concept to the extent that all multinational corporations are to be criticised then, I suppose, those countries in which we want our businessmen to be located and our exports and goods to be sent we also could be regarded as multinationals. Let us not forget that there is a benefit to every country which can receive the capital and the expertise of the multinational corporations, but let us equally be sure that where there is the risk that the activities of foreign entrepreneurs in a domestic country may operate in a way that prejudices the domestic country in which they are working there always can be laws and there should be laws to regulate that sort of activity. This Bill reflects the power that this Parliament has to ensure that such controls exist. That is the first point which I think ought to be made with regard to this Bill.

I want to do only 3 things with regard to this measure. Firstly, I want to consider what is the nature of the provision and whether the type of powers which it seeks to give are the best type of powers to promote that regulation. Secondly, I want to see whether it does, as claimed by the Government, represent such a tremendous advance upon the existing legislation. Thirdly, I want to see whether it represents the desirable method of controlling foreign takeovers in this country. The first question to be considered is what is the nature of the provisions contained in the Bill. I found it very interesting to look at the very first paragraph of the second reading speech of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), which states:

This Bill introduces legislation for the screening of foreign takeovers of Australian businesses and the prohibition of such takeovers determined by the Treasurer to be against the national interest.

I emphasise that the takeovers that are to be screened and regulated are those that are determined by the Treasurer to be against the national interest. It is to be one man’s judgment; one man’s decision. I have looked through the Bill and I find that in a not very large bill of some 39 clauses the Treasurer is given 2 1 discretions and each of those discretions is vital to the operation of this Bill. It is the Treasurer who makes the decisions.

What are the decisions he makes? I list merely the significant ones. The Treasurer has the power to make orders prohibiting share acquisitions or the issues of shares by companies in this country. He has the power to make orders prohibiting acquisitions of assets of businesses. He has the power to direct a person to dispose of certain assets which that person has. He has the power to prohibit agreements or alterations of company documents. Where an obligation would arise in a director to act in accordance with instructions or wishes of a foreign person he has power to order persons to do certain acts and to refrain from doing other acts. And there is no limitation on the type of acts he may be permitted to order and which he may be permitted to prohibit. The Treasurer has a power to restrain arrangements and to prohibit the termination of existing arrangements. He also has a blanket power, before he has addressed his mind to whether he could make or should make any of those orders which I mentioned earlier, to simply make a blanket holding order in respect of any of the companies in regard to which he may make those orders at some stage in the future.

Senator Georges:

– What is the alternative?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Let me come to it. They are immense powers and I do not think anyone would doubt them. I suppose that a Treasurer in whom a nation and a government has confidence can be as trusted with that sort of power as any other individual or any group of individuals but it is a significant power to give to any one man. I note that the penalty for anyone who disobeys one of these directions of the Treasurer is the liability to pay a penalty of $50,000 or to be imprisoned for 6 months.

What are the criteria the Treasurer has to look at to determine whether he makes these orders? He has to be satisfied, of course, that there is a factual situation as to whether an event has occurred. If he is satisfied in the light of those facts that what is occurring would be contrary to the national interest, then he has the power to act, and one man’s judgment of what is or is not contrary to the national interest is as broad or as wide as one man ‘s power as to what is in the public interest. There is absolutely no limit. We can have some mighty curious Treasurers in this country, as we have known for the past 2 years. Even the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has had to get rid of two of them. One wonders how long the third is going to last. I suspect that happened because the Prime Minister had doubts as to whether their view of the national interest, indeed his Government’s interest, is the sort of interest he would encourage. So this immense power is given to one man.

That leads me to the second question I posed, namely, whether this legislation represents an advance on the existing legislation. The first legislation directly related to the screening of takeovers was introduced by the last LiberalCountry Party Government. It was preceded by an immense amount of inquiry. There had been a Treasury White Paper. It is a great pity that document is not referred to more often than I suspect it is at the present time. That document was produced in the middle of 1972 and it raised for consideration all the aspects of foreign investment in this country. Flowing from what was in that document, the first of what was to be a series of measures was introduced by the McMahon Government. It was the Companies (Foreign Take-Overs) Act. That legislation did not give to an independent authority the power to make these decisions. It gave them to a Minister. I think it was the Treasurer. I have looked at that legislation to compare it with this Bill. The only comment I make right at the outset is that the number of discretions given to that Minister was about half the number contained in this Bill.

Senator Georges:

– Was it one or twenty?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It was approximately eleven, I think.

Senator Everett:

– It did not cover the scope that this Bill covers.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I agree that it did not have the same scope as this Bill. I want to advert to that point in a moment because I did hear what Senator Everett had to say. The first point I make is that that original legislation gave a similar power of ministerial decision to a Minister. That was almost 3 years ago. Mr McMahon, when he introduced the legislation, said that it was interim legislation and that the following year, assuming the election went all right, an independent authority would be established to determine the takeovers which ought to be rejected. I think it was anticipated by everybody that that would be the consequence. Indeed, that is the view which the Labor Party held at that time. It is remarkable to see how different is this current Bill from the promises made by the Labor Party in 1972, 1973 and 1974. I remember hearing it in this chamber. I remember members of the Labor Party stumping the countryside saying that theirs was the only party concerned with protecting Australia from the encroachments of foreign interests. I detect a smile on Senator James McClelland ‘s face, as if he well recalls the language which was used in those days. Let us look at a few of the precise words which were used. This is what Mr Whitlam claimed in his 1972 policy speech:

The protection of Australian enterprises against foreign takeover can only be achieved by explicit government policy. We will establish a secretariat to report to the Government on all matters concerning the flow of foreign investment and all substantial takeovers and mergers.

Where is it? It is not to be found in this Bill. On 27 November 1973, almost a year after the Labor Party came to power, the then Treasurer, Mr Crean, made a statement in the Parliament and said:

We are now in a position -

This is November 1973 - to identify essential requirements of reasonably effective legislation and work is in progress with a view to the introduction of new legislation into the House.

In February 1974 it was stated quite clearly in the speech on the occasion of the opening of the new session of Parliament:

The Companies (Foreign Take-Overs) Act will be replaced.

We are left to assume that it would be replaced by this new comprehensive legislation which the Prime Minister had promised. Then there was the April policy speech before the 1974 election when the Prime Minister said:

We will continue to pursue with vigour the surveillance of all foreign takeover proposals for shares or assets of existing Australian companies . . . The Government will proceed with the further definition of guidelines for foreign investment and will extend the present systems of surveillance and review into a general screening process of foreign take-overs and new direct foreign investment.

I simply say that this Bill does not provide any guidelines, let alone a definition of guidelines, and it provides no control over direct foreign investment. In short, this Bill is a very pale reflection, if it could be called a reflection, of what the Government promised prior to its election and shortly after its election. It ought not to be forgotten that the Labor Party put itself forward before its election in 1972 as the only party which was interested in this subject and which had great proposals to which it would give effect. Let it not be forgotten that the legislation on companies’ foreign takeovers was much criticised by the Labor Party when it was introduced by the McMahon Government. The legislation was quite inadequate, yet ait the end of the first year, at the end of 1973, it was re-enacted and at the end of 1974 it was again re-enacted. In the course of the debate on this particular Bill in this chamber Senator Wriedt said:

The measures have worked reasonably well with the voluntary co-operation of both Australian and foreign interests whose transactions have been affected by their administration.

One goes back to the way in which that previous legislation operated. I extracted some comments and figures for the purposes of a few short remarks I made when the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act was re-enacted for the first time in 1973. At that time I ascertained that, until July 1973, 242 applications for foreign takeovers had been notified, and under the Labor Government, 233 applications had been approved and only nine had been rejected. That suggests to me that when the Labor Party came to office and examined the matter it found that most of the socalled foreign takeovers were in Australia’s national interest. That made a certain amount of humbug of what the Government had said when it was in Opposition.

I do not know what the recent figures are because I have not taken them out for the whole period, but I have seen the Treasurer’s Press releases for the last 3 months. In May he said that 22 cases came to the notice of the Government during April in the administration of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1972-74. The preliminary examination of 24 proposals was completed during the period. The Government found after examination that it had no objections to 12 proposals and that action was not available under the Act in respect of 10 proposals. The Government decided that further consideration should be given to two proposals. I note that there is no reference to any rejections in that month. In the month of May, 21 cases came to notice and a preliminary examination was completed of 21 proposals. The Government found after examination that it had no objection to 14 proposals and that action was not available under the Act in respect of 7 proposals. There is no mention of any rejections in that month. Coming to June 1975, which I suspect is the last month for which figures are available, the Treasurer said that 1 8 cases came to notice during that month. The preliminary examination of 20 proposals was completed and the Government found after examination that it had no objection to 16 proposals and action was not available under the Act in respect of four proposals. Once again, there is no mention of any rejections.

I listened with great interest to the solitary speaker whom the Government has put up in support of its case. Senator Everett talked about the tremendously unsatisfactory legislation of the previous Government, legislation which is now being replaced by this Bill. I can only say that the present Government found that earlier legislation adequate enough under which to operate for 2lA, almost 3 years, and it certainly has not found a great number of cases which it desired to reject. On the figures which I have, clearly the number of rejections of those matters which have been notified is less than 5 per cent. I think that is fair comment, and it ought to be incumbent on the Minister to give some answers on whether or not he shares Senator Everett’s view that the previous legislation was so inadequate and whether or not the bulk of the foreign takeovers which are notified to the Government are takeovers which are found to be in the national interest. If they are found to be in the national interest, then in the interests of reassuring the people of Australia I think the Government should abandon its previous constant criticisms of the activities of foreign companies in Australia and honestly indicate that its own examinations have disclosed that so many of them are in the national interest.

Senator Everett interjected earlier and I think he made a valid point, that the previous legislation dealt essentially with the acquisition of shares by foreign companies. It did not deal with a number of other types of acquisitions to which experience had shown that companies were resorting in order to avoid the provisions of the takeovers legislation. I think it is clear that the intent of this legislation is to cope with those evasive practices. The Minister also indicated in his second reading speech that he did not feel there would be need for much recourse to be made to those provisions, but I think it is desirable to have a comprehensive coverage of the type of situations under which takover can occur. So we will have an extension of the legislation to cover takeovers by means of asset acquistions, that is, the actual acquiring by purchase or other means of the assets of a business or of mineral rights, the acquiring of shares where the shares do not have voting rights, the coverage of situations where large shareholdings can be split and nominee groups can take over the smaller shareholdings which result where there are leases and licences and arrangements under which rights can be given to persons on boards of companies to participate in the arrangements and profits of a business. I wonder how far some of those arrangements could be regarded properly as takeovers as distinct from merely profit sharing or profit participation in the benefits of a company.

I recognise that what has been put into this Bill is the result of experience, but I think the point should be made that it provides merely for the widening of the definition of the types of companies which will be scrutinised by the Government. The further test that has to be looked at by the Treasurer is whether or not in these circumstances actions are being taken which ought to be regarded as contrary to the national interest. I wonder whether we would not be better served by having an independent authority which is able to operate in accordance with clear and specified guidelines in order to give a degree of certainty to persons who are liable to be affected by these provisions. I know that there has been some criticism in the earlier part of the debate of the fact that the legislation does not lay down clear and specific guidelines. Senator Cotton, who was the opening speaker for the Opposition, indicated the general stance of the Opposition in support of this measure, and I know he feels there should be clear and specific guidelines. In the administration of this legislation I think there Will be an adherence by the administration to specific guidelines, as there was under the old legislation, but there will be a degree of flexibility which will produce some element of uncertainty.

I remind the Senate of a research paper entitled Government Operations in the Australian Mining Industry by Susan Bambrick which recently received some publicity. The paper highlights some of the problems which have been created for the mining industry by this Government. I will not quote many sections of the paper, but I will refer to two parts. In relation to the petroleum industry Susan Bambrick states:

The present Government’s policy towards local petroleum exploration has been killing the industry, and in the absence of any control on local Australian consumption, has left our national outlook in a parlous state of inadequate reserves and rising prices as we have to import more crude oil.

The second part states:

The real limit to local exploration is uncertainty. No company mindful of its obligations to its shareholders can commit funds without being sure if it can profitably develop commercial finds. Experience on the north-west shelf- and in other industries such as uranium- does not at present give companies such confidence.

Much of the development which has occurred in these areas has been generated by the capital and expertise introduced by the overseas companies. I do not think that there would ever have been those finds of crude oil and natural gas off the Victoria n coast only 8 years ago if it were not for the willingness of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd to have tendered throughout the world for an overseas company to bring in its knowledge and expertise to explore and then exploit any discoveries. That was how it was a BHP-Esso combination. The value of those finds to Australia is absolutely incalculable. When we have a government policy which discourages the interest and enterprise of foreign companies of that character we are prejudicing the development of this nation. I do not think any other example that I can think of could make the point more clearly.

We ought to be concerned to have a proper national policy which can regulate foreign takeovers and ensure that they operate in the public interest and that we do not frighten off the foreign interests because of uncertainty. We will frighten off foreign capital by uncertainty if foreign companies do not know the guidelines, if they do not know the conditions on which they may come into Australia, if they do not know the conditions on which they can operate and if they do not know the taxation or royalty basis on which they can assess their returns, what they must leave in Australia and what they must take out of Australia. It may be that many foreign companies, if they are assured of stability and certainty, will submit to rigorous and even harsh rules in Australia as to the taxation and the royalty rates if they know that they are guaranteed certainty over a period. But if they do not know what the rules are and if furthermore a host of Ministers in the Government periodically criticise and question the welcome which these companies have in Australia, it is no wonder that the sources of overseas finance for development are drying up. This is part of the whole question which this Bill has generated.

The tragedy is that the guidelines have not been set out in the Bill or in some way specified, even if a degree of flexibility were to be allowed in the terms of the legislation. I went to what Mr McMahon has said when he made the previous Government’s statement as to the criteria of national interest with which we should be concerned. In the Hansard report of 26 September 1972 he is reported as saying:

For the purpose of references to and reports by the independent authority, the first criterion to be applied in judging whether a proposed foreign takeover would be against the national interest will be: Whether, against the background of existing circumstances in the industry concerned, the takeover would lead, either directly or indirectly, to net economic benefits in relation to such matters as production, prices, quality and range of products and services, and efficiency and technological change which would be sufficient to justify the increased degree of foreign control of the particular industry that would result from the takeover.

If the proposed takeover is judged to be not against the national interest on this basis, the following additional criteria will also be taken into account: Whether, after the takeover, the firm concerned could be expected to follow practices consistent with Australia’s interest in matters such as exports, imports, local processing of materials produced, research and development and industrial relations, including employee protection; and whether the takeover would have adverse consequences in terms of the Government’s objectives for defence, environmental protection or regional development.

Then he indicated that due weight would be given to Australian participation in ownership and management. I think those provisions are unexceptional. I do not think that in their precise language they were subject to criticism at the time. Yet one comes to Senator Wriedt ‘s speech in support of this Bill in this chamber and one finds that he uses virtually the same standards, the same tests, to determine whether a takeover is in the national interest. I quote for the record what Senator Wriedt said:

The first criterion forjudging a proposed foreign takeover under the Bill will be: Whether, against the background of existing circumstances in the industry concerned, the takeover would lead, either directly or indirectly, to net economic benefits in relation to such matters as competition, productive capacity, technology change, development of new markets, production, quality and range of products and services, level of prices and efficiency which would be sufficient to justify the change in foreign control of the business concerned.

With all allowances for the different sort of language, that is almost the same as Mr McMahon said in 1972.

Senator Wriedt:

– What are we arguing about?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I think there is not such a great difference in the objectives which both parties are seeking in this area of foreign control. Senator Wriedt is cautious and sensible enough to concede that, but that cannot be said for some of those who get up on the hustings and who sit behind him. The Minister continued:

If the proposed takeover is judged not to be against the national interest on this basis, the following additional criteria will also be taken into account: Whether, after the takeover, the business concerned could be expected to follow practices consistent with Australia’s interest in matters such as exports, imports, local processing of materials produced, research and development and industrial relations; and whether the takeover would be consistent with the Government’s objectives in relation to such matters as defence, the environment and conservation, urban and regional development and the preservation of Aboriginal land rights.

Then there is reference to due weight being given to the extent of Australian participation in ownership and control and to the interest of employees, shareholders and creditors of the business subject to the takeover. When the criteria have not altered in any significant degree over a period of 3 years, I can only say: Is not that sufficient evidence of the enduring quality and acceptability of the guidelines and to support the proposition that they be included in the legislation? I think the insertion of those matters in the legislation would help to give the certainty which otherwise is lacking. It is a matter of regret that the Government has chosen to leave this entirely as a matter of ministerial discretion.

I conclude where I started. The Opposition gives its support to this measure because it represents a desirable objective which we share with the Government, but I think it is regrettable that the Government has not been prepared to follow the lines of the earlier legislation, to establish an independent authority and to establish guidelines against which there could be an assessment of the merits of each decision which is made. To do that it would provide that certainty which I think is an essential background to the involvement of overseas capital in Australia. The involvement of that overseas capital has been demonstrated by the Government’s own decisions in the administration of the legislation to be clearly in the national interest.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- This must surely be one of the most curious debates I have ever heard. I thought Senator Greenwood almost did my job for me in his contribution to this debate. The initial comments of Senator Cotton, the first speaker for the Opposition, were that this debate should not generate much heat. I should have thought that that would have set the tone for the debate because, as has been quite clearly stated in the last three or four minutes of Senator Greenwood’s speech, the essentials of this legislation are the same as those which were brought down by the McMahon Government in 1972. There are areas of difference, but basically we have the same objective in mind- that is, to ensure that takeovers in this country are properly examined and policed and that there is the machinery necessary to do so. I would have drawn attention to the similarity in the points that Senator Greenwood made in the last part of his speech, and that is why I tended to throw up my hands in surprise and say: ‘What are we arguing about?’

One or two points which were raised I think require some comment. I noted that Senator Greenwood earlier in his remarks spoke of the wider powers which are given to the Minister under this legislation. That is fair enough. It is true. We believe that there are wider powers which the Minister should be given, but I guess that is a matter of degree rather than of principle because during the past 3 years, despite the fact that the legislation has worked reasonably well, we have learned by experience that it can be improved. Flowing from that realisation is the thought that to lay down more specific guidelines, to which Senator Greenwood has just referred, at this stage would be unwise because we will continue to learn about the administration, inquiry and examination of foreign takeovers in this country. So I believe we would be in error if we tried to indicate too clearly the precise measures that should be followed. The legislation is comparatively new in Australia. No doubt we have a lot to learn about it.

Another point to which Senator Greenwood referred was the number of cases which he quoted which have not been refused by the Government and which he suggested indicated that foreign takeovers are not as evil as some people might think they are. I would not regard it as a valid objection. It illustrates the point that this is the screening process. I do not think that any government would imagine that the majority of takeovers, especially small ones, would be found objectionable. The odds are that they would be accepted. It is the important individual and larger ones, which have ramifications for big business in Australia, which we must watch. I think that honourable senators on either side of the chamber would share that view. In the course of establishing the guidelines that have been set, naturally there will be a lot of cases which come within the ambit of this legislation but which should be the subject of investigation.

The other major point to which he referred, and the one on which he closed, was the powers which he felt were given to the Treasurer under this legislation. I remind him that under the McMahon Government’s legislation power was vested in the Minister. I do not think it actually stated the Treasurer, but it was the Minister responsible for the legislation. The powers under that legislation were no different from the powers which obtain under this legislation. It is useful to quote the actual statement of Mr McMahon on 26 September 1972. He said:

Decisions on individual cases will be taken- I stress this- by the Government.

So it is not a matter of this legislation being the subject of any marked change in the powers which are given to the responsible Minister. They are basically the same. It is a matter of the Government or the Minister making a judgment as to whether these things are in the national interest. There was reference to the fact that no independent authority or secretariat has been established. Again under the original McMahon proposals, an independent authority was envisaged but was never part of the legislation. The power vested with the Minister. There are many policy considerations in these matters for any government, irrespective of its colour. Naturally it must take into account its policies and its philosophy on these matters in making judgments.

Unfortunately many of the comments which were made, especially by Senator Webster, were quite out of context in this debate and quite unnecessary. He raised the question of a takeover of the Marrickville Margarine Corporation. I have a very brief note on this matter. I understand that the committee on foreign takeovers had reported on the Marrickville takeover. On its advice, the Government had raised no objections. That was before the Trade Practices Commission gave a decision. The Attorney-General considered himself bound by the Government’s decision. Therefore he directed the Commission to authorise the takeover. I understand that is the substance of the matter raised by Senator Webster. However, I will undertake, as he invited me to do during the course of his contribution to the debate, to get a more detailed answer for him. I believe that the suggestion of some improper action by the Attorney-General could not be sustained.

I do not think this is quite the place or the time to be debating the other references to questions of Government policy on overseas investment. Suffice to say that this Government has consistently taken the line that overseas investment in Australia is welcome under certain conditions. Senator Greenwood referred to oil exploration off Australia. I think the word which he used when referring to the value of those assets was incalculable’. We see them as being incalculable. That is why we are prepared to take positive steps to ensure that those assets remain as far as practicable under Australian control and to ensure that they will be used for the benefit of Australia.

Senator Greenwood:

– You would be quite happy to get them exploited.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I am quite sure that under the proposed Petroleum and Minerals Authority legislation, which might have had a greater degree of acceptance by the Opposition, we would be able to establish the machinery to do just that. From what the Opposition said during the course of this debate, I understand that it will not oppose this legislation. I am glad of that. I am sure that by passing this legislation we will have better machinery to police foreign takeovers in this country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I know that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) has advisers present. They may be able to help me. I have a query in respect of clause 1 1 which defines, in effect, an interest in a share. The query which I have is related to sub-clause (3) which states:

A person shall not be deemed not to hold an interest in a share by reason only that he holds the interest in the share jointly with another person.

I wondered about the purpose of that provision.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The question raised by Senator Greenwood apparently has some involved legal implications. I am not in a position to give him an answer immediately, but I will undertake to get a considered answer for him from the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) who is the Minister concerned.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a third time.

page 252

AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received advice from the Prime Minister that in accordance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of 1 August 1974, as amended on 21 August 1975, and the Senate’s resolution of 12 June 1975, the list of delegates nominated by the Party Leaders to represent the Australian Parliament at the forthcoming meetings of the Australian Constitutional Convention to be held in Melbourne from 24 September to 26 September 1975 is as follows:

The Senate

Australian Labor Party

Senator the Honourable J. R. McClelland

Senator A. T. Gietzelt (Senator D. M. Devitt as alternate)

Senator R. E. McAuliffe

Liberal Party of Australia

Senator R.G. Withers

Senator the Honourable I. J. Greenwood, Q.C.

National Country Party of Australia

Senator J. J. Webster

House of Representatives

Australian Labor Party

The Honourable E. G. Whitlam, Q.C, M.P

The Honourable G. G. D. Scholes, M.P

The Honourable K. E. Enderby, Q. C, M.P

Dr R. T. Gun, M.P

Mr R. Jacobi, M.P

Liberal Party of Australia

The Honourable J. M. Fraser, M.P

MrR.J.Ellicott,Q.C.,M.P.

The Honourable D. J. Killen, M.P

National Country Party of Australia

The Right Honourable J. D. Anthony, M.P.

The Honourable I. McC. Sinclair, M.P.

page 253

DEFENCE FORCE RE-ORGANIZATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 August on motion by Senator Bishop:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr President, the remarks I have to make on this Bill will be very brief. The Opposition does not oppose the motion for the second reading of the Bill. It accepts that with changes that have taken place in our region in recent years it may be necessary for the defence forces to be reorganised. However, there does seem to be some doubt as to whether the proposals put forward by the Government are the best way in which that may be done. This is a specialised field and all we as members of Parliament can do is seek to find out what is the most appropriate form of reorganisation of the defence forces suitable to Australia.

The Bill is a complex Bill and is concerned with defence administration. It has 187 clauses and it seeks to amend 14 Acts of Parliament. A lot that this Bill proposes to do has already been done administratively. This is not unusual for this Government but one would have thought that when major changes are to be made to the defence force structure the approval of the Parliament should have been sought prior to these changes having been made. The major proposal of the Bill is to provide a joint administration of the armed services of the defence force between the Secretary of the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force Staff. There is to be a separation of command and administration and it is this that has caused the greatest disquiet among those who specialise in defence matters.

Administration is a function of command. Administration cannot be separated from command without great peril. It may be possible to entertain such a proposal in a period of peace and tranquillity but in war-time such a proposition would be ludicrous. I do not believe that the world is so tranquil- certainly events in our immediate region such as Portuguese Timor support my view- that we should not allow this proposition of the Government’s through without detailed examination so that we may all be satisfied. Once this Bill is passed and this reorganisation is completed it would not be something which could easily be undone. Therefore we should take the opportunity before the reorganisation is fully implemented to iron out any doubts about the legislation.

It would seem that the commander of a naval vessel could be given a function to perform yet the resources he needed to carry out that function would be in the hands of somebody else. This, I believe, would be intolerable for those with the responsibility of command and the responsibility of implementing orders. Another aspect of the Bill concerns the chief of the Defence force staff having command of the defence forces. This appears to be in conflict with section 68 of the constitution which vests the command in chief of the military services in the Governor-General. What is to be the position of the GovernorGeneral? Is he the commander in chief, or is the chief of the Defence Force Staff, or is the Minister? Where does supreme authority now lie? This point should be clarified.

The Tange Report on the Re-organisation of the Defence Group of Departments has not been debated in this chamber and there has been very little public debate on the impact of the Government’s proposed changes. A great variety of matters has been given to the civilian side of the authority at the disposal of the Defence Department. It there a proper distribution between the military and the civilians? Should there be more input in the advice going to the Minister? It is on these and other matters I have mentioned earlier that the opposition would like to hear more information.

There has been very little public debate, and none in this Parliament, about the Government’s proposed changes. It is a major step and one that should not be implemented without a thorough public investigation. The Government claims that what it is doing is the best course. 1 put it to the Senate and to the Government that to test that proposition it ought to let everyone have an opportunity of making that judgment on the infomation available. It is for this reason that, although the Opposition will not oppose the motion for the second reading of the Bill, I intend to move after the second reading stage, in accordance with standing order 196a, that the Bill be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. As a second part of the motion I would propose that, unless otherwise ordered, that Committee report to the Senate by 20 November 1975. I have chosen the date 20 November 1975, that being 2 weeks before the Senate is due to rise on 4 December 1975.I suspect that we will most likely be here until 1 1 December 1975 as the Senate generally tends to sit a week longer than the House of

Representatives. That would give at least 3 weeks for the report to be before the Senate, for the debate to be resumed and consideration of the Bill completed.

If I may anticipate the argument that this would unnecessarily delay the Bill, may I say to the Minister and honourable senators opposite that this reorganisation, as we understand it, has been virtually completed as a result of administrative action. All the passage of this Bill will do is give legal effect to some things which have been done and clear the way legally for some other things to be done. But really it would not matter if this Bill was not passed for another 6 months or 12 months.

Senator Georges:

– There is no threat for 15 years.

Senator WITHERS:

-That is right, there is no threat for 15 years. The only threat this country faces is from the mad Government it has. That is the greatest threat it faces. I have the feeling- it is no more than a feeling- that this Bill basically was hurried along and brought into the Parliament as a farewell present to the previous Minister for Defence, the former honourable member for Bass, Mr Barnard.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– And his adviser sitting on the front bench at the present moment, Senator Bishop.

Senator WITHERS:

– Well, it was not a farewell present for him. Senator Bishop is still among us. I do not think that Senator Bishop is going off as Ambassador to Sweden- yet.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You never know.

Senator Davidson:

– He might go to Mauritius, though.

Senator WITHERS:

-He might go to Mauritius, might he? I think it is fair to say that Mr Barnard played a very large part in the defence reorganisation. It incorporates many of his ideas. It is something that he always wished to bring about. I have the feeling that this thing, which really surfaced after the Tange report, was sort of dumped into the Parliament, if I may put it that way, a day or so before Mr Barnard resigned. I therefore put it to honourable senators opposite- I know that they will oppose the suggestion -

Senator Devitt:

– That is pretty good anticipation.

Senator WITHERS:

-I know. But I think that actually they will agree to it because it is a sensible request. After all, as I recall it, when former Senator Murphy was Leader of the Opposition and we started to put down all these standing committees of the Senate, one of the great arguments was that basically all the Bills ought to go off to them and that Committee debates, to a large degree, would disappear from the Senate.

Senator Poyser:

– And save time?

Senator WITHERS:

-It has, and I will give 2 examples. I think that the Family Law Bill was a far better Bill -

Senator Poyser:

– That did not save time at the Committee stage.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, but it cut short the debate. We got far more effective legislation because of the fact that the Family Law Bill was considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That Committee did a fantastically good job. I think everybody agrees not that the Committee did a fantastically good job but that it was a far better Bill after it had been considered by the Committee. I think that the Committee did a wonderful job. The other Bill which was referred to a Senate standing committee was the National Compensation Bill. Under committee exposure I think again that we had a far better Bill to consider. Seeing Senator McAuliffe in the chamber reminds me that the Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill was referred to the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, of which Senator McAuliffe was the chairman. I think that that referral improved that legislation. I do not say this in any political sense at all- I am not that sort of a personbut I think that one can point to a fair bit of -

Senator Poyser:

– Confessions are always on a Saturday.

Senator WITHERS:

-When is dispensation? I think it can be said that the complicated legislation that has come into this place has been improved enormously by a committee having a look at it. I can understand that the Government would wish to resist my proposal. Normally, as a matter of course, governments react in this way to oppositions. When we are on the other side of the chamber shortly I suppose that we will be reacting the same way. As against that, I can understand the Government taking that point of view about legislation which is urgent, which is pressing and which the country could not live another day without- not that I have ever found one of those Bills, but I have heard this argument put up for a number of years now. As I read this piece of legislation- I have heard nothing to the contrary- it really only tidies up what has already been done administratively. I suppose that there are a few legal bugs still left. But this matter has been going on for some 2 lh years now. What will another two or three months mean? Therefore, whilst we will not be voting against the second reading of the Bill because we think that the Bill most likely has merit, we believe that it ought to be put under the scrutiny of a Senate committee. I give notice that at the completion of the second reading debate I will move that the Bill be referred to a Senate committee.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-I wish to urge upon the Senate the need to pass the Bill as it is currently before the Senate and to reject the proposition so keenly advanced by Senator Withers to refer the Bill to a committee. This is not a new proposal at all. In fact, it first came to light in the nature of the Morshead report approximately 17 years ago. It may well be that honourable senators opposite have only come to the realisation of what is going on. The proposition has been around for a long time. In the passage of time, since the proposition was first put forward, there have been a number of inquiries directed towards the adoption of the idea of the Defence Force being under a single administration. That is the proposition that is before the Senate at present. It was recommended in the Morshead report and in the Tange report which was produced to the Parliament on, I think, 4 December last year. During recent months the committee to which Senator Withers wants this matter referred has in passing, in the context of making an examination of the affairs of the Army, raised a number of issues which I am pleased to see have been incorporated in the terms of this Bill.

Senator Sim:

– The main ones have not.

Senator DEVITT:

– Of course-I say this quite seriously- the situation is not so inflexible that any good propositions that come to light, such as the one we are now considering- could not be built into the legislation as time goes on and as the necessity for doing so is seen. As Senator Withers has said, it is a proposal to bring a type of joint aministration under the direction, first of all, of the Secretary of the Department of Defence acting in collaboration with the Chief of Defence Force Staff. Assurances have already been given on a number of occasions about the points which Senator Withers has raised. He suggests a full searching public inquiry. I am just wondering how he would produce a situation like that under his proposal that the Bill should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.

We talk about there being no threat to Australia for 15 years. I do not think that this affects the validity of the proposition in this Bill at all. I think the idea is that once it is seen that there is a need to effect some readjustment of the system it ought to be proceeded with right at the outset, as soon as it seems to be necessary, rather than wait for something to happen in the period of 15 years. So much for that. I think it would be a gross waste of time to refer this Bill to the Committee especially, as has already been acknowleged, as many of the provisions of this legislation have already been put into effect

Briefly, because I do not expect that there will be a long debate on this Bill, I think it is important for me to indicate the objectives of the legislation. On 19 December 1972 the Minister for Defence announced the Government’s intentions concerning the reorganisation of the defence group of departments. It is not new at all. In doing so he laid down some guiding principles which I should like to summarise for the Senate. Firstly, there is ultimately to be a single Department of Defence comprehending the staffs in the Department of Defence and the Service departments and, if so decided after further study, parts of the former Department of Supply, which is an integrated part of the defence system of this country. The reorganisation will not change the separate identity of the Navy, Army and Air Force. In the interests of efficiency within each Service, a substantial degree of delegation of financial and other authority for administration, whether to Service or civilian officers, will continue.

There is to be more effective central military control of operations and related military activities. I wish to emphasise this because the right to conduct a military type of activity within this new Defence Force will be the responsibility of the professionals in the defence Service. Some aspects of supply, personnel and other policies will be brought under a central functional control. The reorganisation is to improve the presentation to Parliament of the nature and cost of the various defence functions. When the departments are merged the functions of Service boards will be modified to accord with the redistribution of responsibilities, to ensure more efficient linkage among the elements concerned and to strengthen central control of resources allocated to defence. Certain other innovations are indicated, including standing machinery for assessing Service pay and conditions, a Service Ombudsman and a natural disasters organisation.

Organisational and administrative arrangements that will give effect to the Government’s intentions which I have outlined were proposed, as I said earlier, in the report on the reorganisation of the defence group of departments in November 1973- the Tange report. This report was tabled in Parliament on 4 December 1973, more than 1 8 months ago. The Minister for Defence announced the general acceptance by the Government, subject to certain necessary legislative changes, of the recommendations in the report. This can be found in the House of Representatives Hansard of 4 December 1973. The main features of the legislation are specific recognition of the Minister’s general control and administration of the defence force. The Minister will give directions to the Chief of Defence Force Staff, the Secretary and the Chiefs of Staff, in respect of matters for which they will be responsible; creation of an office of Chief of Defence Force Staff, responsible directly to the Minister for Defence for command of the defence force. The Chief of Defence Force Staff will also be Chief Military Adviser to the Minister.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What do you mean by ‘command ‘. Define it.

Senator DEVITT:

– The honourable senator believes he is the fount of all knowledge. This is the old sabre rattler at his best. He will get up to tell the Senate in due course how we should be stuck into some people; how we should be fighting someone else -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You have not got the faintest idea.

Senator DEVITT:

– You let me make my speech. You ought to know better than that, a man of your length of service in the Senate -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator will address the Chair.

Senator DEVITT:

-I know that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack likes to let everybody know just what a wonderful soldier he was and what a wonderful sabre rattler he was. Why does he not keep quite and let someone else have a go for a while?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Why don’t you define ‘ command ‘?

Senator DEVITT:

– Why do you not keep quiet for a little while. You are not the fount of all knowledge, Senator. You may think you are, but you are not.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You do not know what you are talking about.

Senator DEVITT:

– As a matter of fact, you are becoming a bit of a laughing-stock. The honourable senator should sit down and keep quiet. I do not know whether he was in the Boer War but he is a hopeless bore.

Another feature of this legislation will be the creation of an office of Chief of Defence Force Staff, responsible directly to the Minister for Defence for command of the defence force. The Chief of Defence Force Staff will also be Chief Military Adviser to the Minister; provision for Chiefs of Staff of the Navy, Army and Air Force, to exercise command of their respective services under the Chief of Defence Force Staff, administration of the Defence Force to be the joint responsibility of the Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Secretary of the Department of Defence, except in relation to matters coming within the command vested in the Chief of Defence Force Staff of the Chiefs of Staff or in relation to matters specified by the Minister to be the responsibility of either the Secretary or the Chief of Defence Force Staff; the Chief of Defence Force Staff and Chiefs of Staff to have direct access to the Minister- something which has not been possible in the past- in relation to their professional military responsibilities.

Here I pause to say that, in the course of the inquiry conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence into the running of the affairs of the Army, great emphasis was placed on the fear amongst the professional soldiers in the defence forces of the intrusion of the civilian element as authorities having access to the Minister and taking precedence over the professional officers in the defence Services. The Committee that looked into the affairs of the Army was very conscious of this problem and, in fact, emphasised the difficulty in its report. I am delighted to see, as I said earlier, that the Minister has been responsive to this and has built into this legislation the necessary safeguards which will protect and preserve the position of the professional officer in the defence force. It will clearly distinguish between the functions of those people and the functions to be exercised by the civilian element in the defence system. The legislation contemplates, of course, the abolition of the 3 Service boards. Finally, the defence research and development activities will be transferred to the Department of Defence from the Department of Manufacturing Industry.

I want to turn briefly to what I consider to be the advantage of the changes embodied within this new legislation. It is expected that these changes will lead to significant improvements in defence administration in the years ahead. The major advantages can be summarised as follows: Firstly, the changes will improve both ministerial supervision and the presentation to Parliament of the nature and cost of the various defence functions. Secondly, the military power of command is clearly defined with, for the first time, a clear line of command for the defence force, under the Minister, from the Chief of Defence Force Staff through the Chiefs of each Service. Thirdly, a single Department of Defence will enable improvements in administration, particularly in force structure planning, resource allocation, financial management and the management of civilian personnel. Fourthly, Service officers, at all levels, will be associated much more closely with the process of formulating policy advice and recommendations to the Minister than has previously been the case.

This is a substantial improvement in the systema system which existed under the previous Government despite the recommendations that were made to it over the years and despite the acknowledged fact that reorganisation of the defence structure of this country into a single defence force was most desirable from the point of view of the efficient functioning of the defence force and having proper regard to the necessary economies to be effected in matters of this kind. That is not to say, of course, that there are to be cut-backs in the equipment available to the defence force or in any way a limitation on the necessary functions of the defence force. Quite obviously, where we formerly had 5 departments looking after the affairs of the defence forces, there must be, of necessity, economies to be gained from bringing the defence force into a single unitary structure.

The role of the Secretary of the Department of Defence is very important indeed. I can recall- it is embodied within the report of the Senate Committee- the problems and apprehensions of people in relation not only to the functions of the Secretary of the Department of Defence but also the civilian element in the Department of Defence which appeared to be gaining an ascendant position over the professionals in the Services who had devoted their lives to the 3 arms of the Services and who feared that the interference by the civilian element- it is always possible, I suppose, in peace time- would greatly undermine their authority and diminish the effectiveness of the highly trained officers in the defence forces. The Bill before the Senate acknowledges this situation. It endeavours to strike a proper and reasonable balance between the functions of the 2 elements- the civilian element and the defence force element- so that we get a totally, wholly integrated, smoothly functioning system, which has not been the case in the years since the Second World War.

Also, it is believed that the reorganisation of the defence force along the lines proposed in this Bill will enable a much more speedy transition from a peace time to a war time situation than is currently possible. I suppose that is a farly simple proposition when we look at it. If we have to build a defence potential in the event of an attack upon this country and get into a state of defence preparedness, it stands to reason that this can be done with far greater ease and speed and in a much more beneficial way if we have a single unitary defence force than if we have to gather together the threads of 5 departments.

The basic powers of the Secretary, as Permanent Head of the Department, are set out in section 25 1 (2) of the Public Service Act. I think it is important to realise that this is the function and the role that the Secretary of the Department of Defence would be fulfilling. That section states:

The Permanent Head of a Department shall be responsible for its general working, and for all the business thereof and shall advise the Minister in all matters relating to the Department.

To the extent that specific powers are given in the Defence Act to the Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Chiefs of Staff, these powers of the Secretary must be read down. In particular, under new section 9a ( 1 ), the administration of the defence force is vested jointly in the Secretary and the Chief of Defence Force Staff. Under proposed new section 9 (3) the Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Chiefs of Staff are given the responsibility of advising the Minister on matters relating to the command which is vested in them. In other words, the professionals in the defence Services have direct access to the Minister as distinct from the situation in the past. The Chiefs of Staff of the 3 arms of the defence Services will have this access similarly for the first time. It is a very important point. This deficiency in the previous legislation emerged during the inquiries to which I have referred. These people now have direct access to the Minister and can bring to the Minister’s notice matters which they believe appropriate, falling under their particular area of responsibility.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They have that power now.

Senator DEVITT:

-No. As was spelled out in some detail to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, under the previous system the junior Ministers of the three arms of defence, as they used to be, did not have direct access to the Minister for Defence at all.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– The Chiefs of Staff have direct access to the Minister now.

Senator DEVITT:

– The Chiefs of Staff have direct access to the Minister under this legislation.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They have it now.

Senator DEVITT:

– It is my understanding that they did not have it. I suppose I ought to say that I bow to the seniority and superior knowledge of the honourable senator. But I do not bow to either until he demonstrates that he has superior knowledge in these things. Quite frankly, over the years, he has not appeared to have that superior knowledge.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Now, look, senator -

Senator DEVITT:

– If you would just keep quiet for a while, please -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You are making silly statements.

Senator DEVITT:

– Why do you not save it all up?

Mr PRESIDENT:

– Order! Disregard the interjections and address the Chair, please, Senator Devitt.

Senator DEVITT:

-I think I should, Mr President, if you would just keep the old fellow quiet back there. The new organisation increases considerably the direct participation of Service Officers in the formulation of defence policy, advice and recommendations to the Minister and to the Government. In particular, the Chief of the Defence Force Staff was made responsible to the Minister for the command of the defence force and each Chief of Staff for command of his services. The Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Chief of Staff of each Service will have access to the Minister, either individually or through the Chiefs of Staff committee. There is therefore ample scope for them to present their views to the Minister, either jointly or individually. The use by the Secretary of his powers as a permanent head under the Public Service Act will be qualified by the statutory powers of the Chief of the Defence Force Staff and by ministerial directive requiring responsiveness by the departmental structure to the needs of the Defence Force.

A substantial increase in the number of Service officers participating directly in the work of the

Department of Defence, including the preparation of policy advice and recommendations to the Minister will flow from this. For example, since December 1973 Service positions in the Central Defence Organisation have increased from some 130 to 490, of which some 340 have already been filled. This clearly indicates an acknowledgment of the need to involve people in this particular category in that area. To ensure the necessary close co-operation, provision is made for two-hatted arrangements whereby senior Service officers in key areas, such as material and supply, will be responsible both to their Service chiefs and to their functional heads in the Department of Defence.

So the Bill spells out quite clearly changes in the structure of the Defence Force which have been urged upon the governments of this country over the years- at least for the past 17 years. The Labor Government upon resuming office in 1 972 undertook to bring about a consolidation of the defence services of this country under a single defence force and, having agreed upon that step, proceeded to put the proposition into effect. As I said, a statement was made in the Minister’s second reading speech as follows:

On 28 January this year, the restructuring of the Department of Defence into the functional groupings approved by the Government was implemented to the extent possible pending the abolition of the Service Boards. There has already been a significant increase in the direct participation by officers from the Navy, Army and Air Force in the Defence Department business of strategic assessment, works and equipment programming, and advising on the use of total manpower.

As I mentioned earlier, the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence reported very strongly on the aspects of growing disagreement between the civilian and Service elements in the Department of Defence. It was a matter which was causing increasing concern to those people involved who were ensuring an adequate defence force in this country. It was acknowledged that the problem that was growing had to be cut off and that there had to be a proper rationalisation of the functions of the two elements in the defence force. The Bill before the Senate proposes to correct those problems. It is pointed out in the second reading speech:

Naturally it is accepted that further changes to the defence organisation may be required from time to time.

That answers the question that was raised by Senator Sim earlier. The second reading speech continued:

Indeed, it will be important to maintain an ongoing analysis of the organisation, the absence of which has been a major deficiency in the past.

The question of the role of the GovernorGeneral as the Commander-in-Chief of the Army was raised in the discussions of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence also. A rather curious situation in relation to the provisions of section 68 of the Constitution was brought to light. When the Australian Constitution was adopted we adopted the practices of the British system. Of course, at that time the Queen was the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom and we adopted that provision in our own Constitution. But, as I understand it, after the adoption of the Australian Constitution, the Queen agreed to the command of the armed Services being placed in the control of the Parliament of the country. It is not possible to effect that same change to the Constitution in this country except, as has been suggested to us, by a referendum of the people of Australia agreeing to such a change. As I read the provisions of this Bill, the problem which could very well arise as a result of this has been corrected by the agreement upon the chain of command which has now been laid down in the Bill.

As I said at the outset, many inquiries have been made into this matter. Reports have been received from time to time by the Parliament and certain aspects have been examined by committees. They have been examined by the very Committee to which Senator Withers suggested we should refer this matter- the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I draw honourable senators’ attention to the fact that the provisions of the Bill have been substantially implemented. I do not think any good purpose could be served by again referring this matter to a Committee of the Senate or to any other form of public inquiry. What has been attempted in this Bill- the restructuring of the defence force of the country into two elements, the civilian and the Service sectors- has been largely achieved.

As I said earlier, some areas will need further correction and will need to be looked at from time to time to make this an even more efficient set-up. But the proposition has common agreement. The civilian and the Service elements in the defence force as it now is are in substantial agreement on the roles that will be performed and on the necessity for the restructuring. I can see no good purpose at all in referring this matter for further examination. That will only delay the implementation of what I believe everybody would accept to be a reasonable proposition. I suggest that the Senate should pass the legislation now.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

-This Bill that we have before the Senate does make radical changes in our defence structure. Although a great deal of what is contained in the Bill has been implemented already by the Government, 1 support the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) that we should refer this matter to a committee.

Senator Poyser:

– Why?

Senator MAUNSELL:

-Because this Bill has two objectives. The first is the move towards the integration of the three arms of the defence forces. Secondly, it gives greater power to the civilian component of the Department of Defence and to its Minister. Will that be good or bad? Will it achieve the objectives that this proposal expects it to achieve? I have grave doubts about that. That is why I shall support the Opposition’s proposal.

Senator Devitt mentioned the Morshead report. He said that this matter had been going on for a long time. From my knowledge of the Morshead report and of other commitments that the Liberal-Country Party Government was heading towards, I doubt very much whether it ever envisaged vesting the power proposed to be vested in the Public Service in relation to the defence structure or the power that the Minister is to exercise over the defence chiefs. It is necessary that the government of the day, as the custodian of the people’s money and the people’s interests, decide the amount that should be given to a defence structure and decide what the requirements of the defence forces should be at any given time. But having done that and having made that decision in consultation with the experts in the Department of Defence, particularly the senior Service personnel, I believe that it should then leave it to the experienced personnel to decide how best the money allocated is to be spent in the interests of our defence. Certainly we have to coordinate the three arms of the defence forces into an efficient fighting force, but in doing so we must not destroy the particular expertise that has been developed by years of training. Anyone who has been in any of the Services will realise that there is a far different set up in the Navy from those in the Air Force or the Army. Therefore the three arms of the Services should have a fair amount of control over their own affairs and not be controlled by someone from outside. The greatest area of concern in this Bill is the demarcation -

Senator Poyser:

– You would not know a soldier from a girl guide.

Senator MAUNSELL:

- Senator Poyser is not even interested in the defence of his own country. Defence comes second to him if not lower than that. Honourable senators on this side of the House regard defence as being of primary importance to this country. We do not recognise the claim that there will be no threat to the security of this country for 1 5 years. We do not accept all of the baloney that has been spoken in this respect by various Ministers. The experts in the Army and the Air Force also do not agree with what has been said in this regard. I turn to the subject of the demarcation between civilian control and control by the armed forces. What is of concern to most of our senior officers today is that they do not know exactly where the civilian control ends. In fact if one has a look through this Bill one can see where some sections of the civilian component of the Department of Defence can even tell the Services how they should operate or give them instructions as to how they should operate in the field of battle. That, to me, is just absurd. No wonder there is so much disquiet amongst the senior officers of our defence forces. Nothing can have a worse effect on a defence structure than for the confidence and morale of the fighting forces to be lowered, but that is what is happening today.

Senator Poyser:

– You are not reading your speech, are you?

Senator MAUNSELL:

- Senator Poyser probably is not concerned about that aspect.

Senator Poyser:

– You know that you are not allowed to read a speech. I thought that you were reading from some document.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I am referring to my own notes, if Senator Poyser wants to know, and I am entitled to refer to my own notes. Those who have any knowledge of what happens in the armed forces in times of war know that everyone must give of his best effort, irrespective of whether the decisions made by those in control are right or wrong, if disaster is to be averted and victory assured. That has certainly been the role -

Senator Poyser:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. The honourable senator is obviously reading his speech. Only 2 days ago one of the honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber was chided for doing the same thing. I suggest that you should bring the honourable senator to order and ask him to refrain from reading his speech.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Maunsell has said that he was referring to his own notes.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-That is right, Mr President. I will give them to Senator Poyser when I finish, if he likes. I doubt whether he will be able to understand them.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Maunsell is entitled to refer to his notes.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-Thank you, Mr President.

Senator Keeffe:

– Now you have lost your place.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Is that not bad luck, Senator Keeffe? As long as I do not lose you.

Senator Keeffe:

– You will not.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-Senator Keeffe is the best thing that the Opposition has going for it in Queensland. The role of the defence forces in peace time is twofold. Firstly, it is to assist the Government of the day in its foreign policy, where the taking of a strong stand is necessary. I do not know whether the present Government is prepared to take a strong stand anywhere. In fact we have witnessed a few instances lately where the Government has not even been prepared to stand up for what this nation requires. Secondly, of course, it is to be the springboard for a future conflict in which we can rapidly mobilise and train our forces and in this way keep those 2 objectives to the fore. A defence force is almost useless -

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

– What would you say about the value of the road from Gilbert River to Normanton?

Senator MAUNSELL:

-The Special Minister of State can make a speech later.

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

– What would you say about the value of the road from Gilbert River to Normanton as a defence road?

Senator MAUNSELL:

-The Special Minister of State has just seen that area for the first time in his life and now appreciates the problems of that area. I will be interested in what he has to say about it in his speech on the Budget. He made statements all over Queensland to the effect that the people of the area are entitled to petrol subsidies and all sorts of things. I will be very interested in whether he defends those people in his speech on the Budget.

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

– What would you say about the -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Poyser:

– You could not even lead a team of boy scouts up Pitt Street.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Maunsell has the call.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-When honourable senators opposite finish interjecting I will continue, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– You may continue your speech, Senator Maunsell.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Any defence force must have consistency in its directives and objectives from those in command and there must be forward planning with the assurance that any equipment that may be envisaged or planned will be available in the future. Unfortunately one of the things that our defence personnel are very concerned about in this respect is the power to be vested in the Minister because any defence planning could be at the whim of the government of the day and any future plans could be scrapped. The situation could be reached where there was no confidence and no real mobility within the forces. I believe, therefore, that we must take notice of the concern that has been expressed by members of the defence forces. If we are to have an effective defence force the morale of the defence force has to be taken into consideration. The defence force has to have confidence in this leadership. It has to have complete confidence in the way in which it is going. Because there is so much concern being expressed in this area, I believe that the Senate should send this Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and allow the people on both sides of the argument to give evidence and explain to the Committee exactly what they believe is right or wrong and where they believe improvements can be made. I believe that that is necessary. When that Committee reported back to the Senate we could then make a decision as to what should happen.

Debate interrupted.

page 261

ADJOURNMENT

Photocopying Facility: Parliamentary Library

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– My purpose in speaking to the motion for the adjournment of the Senate tonight is to draw your attention, Mr President, to an inadequate and outdated piece of equipment in use on the main floor of the Parliamentary Library. I refer to the photocopying machine which is used to provide a quick service to senators and members who require extracts from publications which are available in the Library. All the people who have had cause to require copies produced by this machine will be aware of the poor quality of” both the paper used and the reproduction thereon.

Senator Bunton:

– Are you reading that speech?

Senator McLAREN:

-Yes I am.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must not read his speech. He admitted that he was reading it. I would rather that he referred to notes.

Senator Poyser:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. Previously Senator Maunsell also admitted that he was reading his speech.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, I do not think Senator Maunsell admitted it. He said he was referring to his notes. I would prefer that Senator McLaren referred to his notes.

Senator McLAREN:

– I always have been an honest chap, Mr President, and that is why I did admit I was reading it, unlike Senator Maunsell who said that he was not reading his speech. However, I have drawn your attention to what I wanted to mention; namely, the inadequate and outdated photocopying machine.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would like to draw attention to the Standing Orders. It is my responsibility to interpret the Standing Orders, and they provide that a senator must not read his speech. When an honourable senator says that he is reading his speech, it is my responsibility to remind him of the Standing Orders. Senator McLaren, refer to your notes.

Senator McLAREN:

– Thank you, Mr President. I bow to your ruling. I think I can put my case without reading a speech, or even referring to my copious notes although I understand that copious notes have been allowed in the past. I think I already have made my point that the photocopying machine in the Library is inadequate and outdated. I raised this matter with our late colleague Senator Milliner in the very early days of the autumn session. I am not aware whether the Library Committee has discussed it. I would like to draw your attention, Mr President, to the quality of the reproductions that we get from this machine, and request that you have an investigation made to see whether it is possible to provide in the Library an up to date machine which can give us the good quality of service which is in keeping with the Parliament.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Or a machine which produces copies that you can read.

Senator McLAREN:

– Yes, a machine which will give us a quality of reproduction in keeping with the services we always have been able to get from the staff in the Library. I hope you will take this matter on board and see whether the staff can be provided with a machine which will help the staff to give us the quality of service we need.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (10.33)- If the Senate will permit me to intrude for a moment, may I say that machine was put in the Library in order to provide duplicating facilities for honourable members. It was not put in the Library to produce endless reproductions of matters of one sort or another.

Senator Keeffe:

– It does not, except for members of the Liberal Party.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK-The honourable senator is interjecting from a place which is not his own. Mr President might like to make that point to the honourable senator.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is quite true.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-When I had the responsibility of being Chairman of the Library Committee the first problem which confronted us was that honourable senators were attempting to use the duplicating processes in the Library to run off not a dozen, not 50, not 100 but literally thousands of copies of pieces of information which they wanted for proper purposes of profit to honourable senators or honourable members. But that was not the reason that machine was put in the Library. It was put in the Library to run off copies of matters of one sort and another, whether from books, periodicals or research notes, so that an honourable member or an honourable senator might be able to have a copy of what was necessary for his personal reasons in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. It was not put there to run off hundreds and even thousands of copies. From listening to Senator McLaren I was not able to understand the problem with this machine.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You cannot read the copies. That is all.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I do not believe that for one single solitary moment. If Senator McLaren had made it clear to the Senate how many copies he wanted off that machine we would have been able to get down to another area of the argument, but that point was not made clear. The machine was put there to reproduce for the benefit of honourable senators and honourable members those matters from periodicals, research notes or books which were necessary for their legislative processes in debate. It was not put there to reproduce hundreds of copies of information of one sort and another. The honourable senator cannot speak again in this debate because of the restriction in the Standing Orders but if he would make this point clear to you, Mr President, we would be somewhere further along the line.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, I .wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator McLAREN:

-Yes. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack implied that I wanted a multiple number of copies from that machine. No words came from my mouth indicating that I wanted multiple copies. All I want when I go in there is the odd copy, the same as any other member of this Parliament wants. There have been many complaints. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack misrepresented me in implying that I wanted multiple copies. There are other places in this building where I can get multiple copies if I want them.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have listened very carefully to the remarks of honourable senators. I realise the value of photostats being readily available, and will give attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.37 p.m.

page 263

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Education: Capital Assistance (Question No. 369)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Are State Priority Committees of the Australian Schools Commission instructed as to special factors which should be considered in either approving or rejecting applications for capital assistance.
  2. Do these factors ever (a) include assessments of the viability of a school to the year 2000, and (b) include the level of fees.
  3. Is approval ever withheld from a school because fees are said to be too low.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, guidelines have been provided to assist the State Priorities Committees. It is the function of the Committees to recommend to the Schools Commission an order of priority on the basis of relative needs in respect of all applications received.

  2. (a) While there is no specific reference to the year 2000, the long term viability of the school is one of the factors taken into account.

    1. The level of fees is taken into account in assessing the percentage subvention offered by the Schools Commission in support of a project.
  3. The Schools Commission has never withheld or recommended that the Minister withhold approval of an application because the fees are said to be too low.

Education: Capital Assistance (Question No. 370)

Senator Baume:

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

What action is open to the parents and council of a school should a State Priority Committee of the Australian Schools Commission neither reject nor approve an application for capital assistance for a building grant, but continually defer the application.

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

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

Originally some schools in each State were placed on reserve lists, following the allocation of all available funds to other projects with a higher priority as determined by State Priorities Committees. These schools on the reserve list were considered to have the next highest priority for available funds and were made aware of their position.

In a number of cases funds have become available as a result of the rejection of grants or cost savings and schools on the reserve list have been offered grants.

The projects that could not be funded from the reserve list have not yet been notified finally that assistance cannot be offered as it is possible that further grants will be offered. Schools on this reserve list who do not now wish to be considered for any such offer that may be made should notify the Schools Commission and the school will be removed from the reserve list.

Education: Yimbilliko School Building Grants (Question No. 371)

Senator Baume:

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

Has Yimbilliko School applied for building grants from the Australian Schools Commission; if so, what has been the outcome of that application.

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

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

The school applied for assistance towards the construction of new teaching areas, a library, shelter, land and Administration/Staff area.

After thorough examination by the New South Wales Priorities Committee it was considered that the school ‘s application at this stage was not of the same urgency as others approved for financial assistance. The school was notified of this in December 1974.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Question No. 488)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

Will the Attorney-General assure the Senate that appropriate action will be taken to ensure that no more ‘cops and robbers’ exhibitionists, like Max Wechsler, will be utilised either directly or indirectly by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

You will be aware that the activities of the Australian Intelligence Services are currently being examined by a Royal Commission.

Anti- Vietnam War Demonstrators and Draft Resisters: Records (Question No. 531)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

Why are records of persons who were involved as antiVietnam war protestors and draft resisters still retained in the Sydney office of the Attorney-General ‘s Department.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

I am informed that cases concerning anti-Vietnam war protestors and draft resisters which were referred to the Sydney office of my Department for the conduct of proceedings under the National Service Act are no longer kept in that office. The files relating to these cases have been treated in accordance with archival instructions relating to official records and it is expected that they will be destroyed in accordance with those instructions in due course.

Medibank (Question No. 612)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Did the previous Minister for Social Security, in a press release dated 16 April 1975, state that ‘in States which entered the Medibank Hospital Plan, people would be automatically covered for the cost of standard ward care’; if so, will this promise of cover for standard ward care extend to patients in standard ward beds in public psychiatric hospitals run by the State Health systems.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

Yes, the previous Minister for Social Security in a press release dated 16 April 1975, did make that statement. Concerning the cost of standard ward care in State psychiatric hospitals I would like to refer the honourable senator to his question No. 557 to the then Minister for Social Security and my answer which appeared in the Hansard of 5 June 1975.

Accommodation and treatment is free in State psychiatric hospitals in all States except New South Wales and South Australia. In South Australia patients are not charged for the first 28 days of any period of treatment in a mental institution.

The other point to which I would direct the honourable senator’s attention is the press statement issued by the Australian Ministers for Health following their Annual Conference in Perth on 8-9 May 1975, when it was announced that a Working Party comprising representatives from each State as well as from the Australian Departments of Health and Social Security and the Hospitals and Health Services Commission would be formed. The Working Party would review the present system of financing psychiatric hospitals and consider the close co-ordination of psychiatric services and the general hospital system. Included in this review would be the possibility of off-setting general revenue grants to the States for psychiatric institutions.

Attorney-General’s Department: Official Cars (Question No. 624)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) Which officers in the Attorney-General ‘s Department or authorities under the Attorney-General’s responsibility are allocated a drive-yourself car.
  2. What is the basis of allocation to each officer.
  3. What is the total annual cost of all such cars.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) The Secretary; First Parliamentary Counsel; Director of Law, Darwin; Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Darwin; Stipendiary Magistrate, Darwin; Stipendiary Magistrate, Alice Springs; Crown Prosecutor, Alice Springs.

Cars have been provided to the Secretary and the First Parliamentary Counsel because of their needs, particularly demands on their time after normal hours, and because of the level of their positions.

The remaining cars are allocated to officers in the Northern Territory for use during and after normal hours. These cars are also available for general Departmental use but the officer allocated the car has first priority. The basis of allocation of cars generally to this Department in the Northern Territory is under review.

  1. The current total annual cost of all such cars is approximately $5,000.

Overseas Loans: Dolmac Consultants (Question No. 644)

Senator Wright:
TASMANIA

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister have any communications directly or indirectly with Dolmac Consultants; if so, what was the substance of such communications.
  2. If the communications are in writing will the Minister identify the writings.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) A message, unsolicited, over the name of MacDonald, Managing Director, Dolmac, London, was received on my teletype machine on 25 February 1975. The substance of it was overseas loans through the Moscow Narodny Bank, London, which were then the subject of current direct communication with the Moscow Narodny Bank, without the intermediation of Mr MacDonald or Dolmac, who were both completely unknown to me and therefore no reply was sent to the message. My communications with the Moscow Narodny Bank of 30 and 31 January and 7, 27 and 28 February were tabled on 9 July. I had no other communication, directly or indirectly, with Mr MacDonald or Dolmac.

Medical and Hospital Funds (Question No. 655)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister received from the Director-General of Social Security his report on ‘The Operations of the Registered Medical and Hospital Benefit Organisations’ for the year ended June 30 1 974; if so, when was the report received by him.
  2. If not, as the Director-General is required under section 76a-( 1 ) of the National Health Act to furnish him with the report ‘as soon as practicable after the thirtieth day of June’, would he ascertain why the report has not been received almost a year later.
  3. If the report has been received, why has it been withheld from the Parliament and why has the Minister breached the requirements of section 76a-(4) of the Act that the report should be tabled within 15 days of its receipt by the Minister.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. and (3) The report is prepared from the annual returns of the medical and hospital benefit organisations registered under the National Health Act. The requirements of section 76a of that Act as to the matters to be contained in the report necessitate a detailed and expert analysis of the annual returns, the last of which was not received in the Department of Social Security until the end of January 1975. The compilation of the report has been completed and the DirectorGeneral of Social Security has authorised its being printed. It will be tabled in the Budget Sessional period immediately after it is furnished to me by the Director-General.

Airmail Services (Question No. 662)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Have direct airline flights between Yugoslavia and Australia improved airmail services; if so, to what extent?

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

The introduction of direct flights to Australia by Yugoslavia’s National Airline on 3rd April has not resulted in any increase in the frequency of the airmail service, which is still live times weekly in both directions. However it has permitted improvements in service. On the two days when the direct flights to Australia are used, people in Yugoslavia are able to post mail for Australia 9 hours later than previously. In the reverse direction the two direct flights each week enable Australian mail to be received in Yugoslavia approximately 12 hours earlier than before.

Health: Congenital Limb Reducation Defects (Question No. 666)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to an article entitled ‘Oral Contraceptives and Congenital Limb.Reducation Defects’ which appeared in the June 197S issue of the journal ‘Current Therapeutics ‘.
  2. Does this article quote evidence that there is a significantly greater chance of children being born with limb defects to mothers who have had hormonal preparation at the commencement of their pregnancy.
  3. In the light of the evidence presented, does the Minister believe that the prescription of such preparations by medical practitioners needs to be reviewed, and that in association with this, more educational information needs to be provided for women who are using oral contraceptives.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The article referred to is extracted from a paper which was published in the New England Medical Journal (Vol. 291, p. 697-700) and which considered the mothers of a group of children with limb deformities. These women were exposed to significantly greater numbers of a variety of hormonal preparations given for various reasons during pregnancy, compared to the exposure suffered by a control group of mothers having normal children. From this study the authors were unable to draw conclusions relating to oral hormonal contraceptive agents, because of other differences between experimental and control groups. This and other related papers will be drawn to the attention of the Congenital Abnormalities Sub-committee of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee at its meeting on 1 2 September 1975.
  3. Pending consideration by the Congenital Abnormalities Sub-committee, no changes are proposed to the present availability of oral hormonal contraceptive preparations. They will continue to be available only on a medical practitioner’s prescription. The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee has recommended that patients should have access to prescribing information for oral contraceptives, phrased in non-technical terms. Arrangements are proceeding to produce this information which will be available from medical practitioners and pharmacists.

Aplastic Anaemia (Question No. 669)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Did a recent Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin (No. 6), dated 1 May 1975, point out that aplastic anaemia is still occurring following the use of chloramphenicol.
  2. Did the Bulletin further point out that 40 per cent of the cases reported were fatal and that in all four of these episodes, infection was minor and treatment with chloramphenicol probably not indicated.
  3. Were seven out of the ten episodes of aplastic anaemia in patients who had minor infection and in whom the drug should not have been used.
  4. What further action is planned by the Committee to limit the use of chloramphenicol for trivial infections.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. The item in Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin (No. 6) indicated that chloramphenicol should be suspected in a recently reported episode of aplastic anaemia. Because of the concurrent administration of two other antibiotics, this reaction cannot be definitely ascribed to chloramphenicol.
  2. and (3) Yes.
  3. Chloramphenicol is only available as a pharmaceutical benefit for a number of serious conditions including typhoid fever and bacterial meningitus and since the warning by the ADEC was published in 1971 prescribing of chloramphenicol as a benefit has fallen by over 60 per cent. Both the ADEC and PBAC have kept a close scrutiny on the level of usage of the drug and the Department of Health will continue to exercise close surveillance where doctors appear to be prescribing chloramphenicol as a benefit for minor infections regardless of the warnings which have been repeatedly issued concerning this antibiotic over the last 20 years both in Australian and International medical literature.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 August 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750826_senate_29_s65/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant