29th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 767
– I present the following petition from 17 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:
We respectfully call on the Senate to pass the Australian Government Insurance Bill for many reasons, these being constant attempts by various means, of private insurance companies not to honour or to try to escape their contracted responsibilities. Not the least of failures of private insurance companies is the constant tragic lack of performance by such companies during natural disasters such as the Brisbane floods, the Darwin cyclone etc., this later alone establishes an urgent need for an Australian Government Insurance Corporation.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– The following petition has been lodged for presentation:
To the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition ofthe undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the insurance industry is already faced with
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will “reject the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Lawrie. Petition received.
page 767
page 767
– My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Customs. I refer to the question I asked on 1 1 September concerning the superphosphate bounty. I ask: Can the Minister now say whether the Department of the Capital Territory should have been included in the list of users who had purchased more than 400 tons of fertiliser in 1 973? If so, will the Minister explain why the Department of the Capital Territory was not included in the list tabled? Finally, what other companies, organisations and so on were not included in that list and for what reason?
– I earlier tabled a list of users of more than 400 tons of fertilisers for the year 1973. This list was supplied by the producers. Senator Withers then asked why the Department of the Capital Territory was not included in that list. I think I gave him the answer at that time that as the Department of the Capital Territory was buying by tender from a number of suppliers it would not be purchasing in excess of 400 tons from any one producer. This was the information conveyed to me by the Australian Capital Territory authorities. On further investigation it was found that the answer was not correct insofar as the list supplied by the producers included the users and the companies which were distributors of fertilisers. We supplied only a list of users. On checking the list we found that the Australian Capital Territory and the New South Wales Department of Agriculture were included among the distributors of superphosphate. Therefore, those names were not included. A lot of other names which were specified as distributors, not users, were in the list which was not tabled. If Senator Withers wants the complete list tabled I am prepared to table it. If the letter which I sent to him explaining my previous mistakes does not provide sufficient information I am prepared to table the whole file on the question.
– Thank you. I would appreciate that.
– I now table the letter to Senator Withers and the list, supplied to my Department by producers, of those who received in excess of 400 tons. I would not have thought it would support Senator Withers ‘s case. We have nothing to hide in this matter.
page 768
-I ask a question of the Postmaster-General. It follows the suggestion which 1 made to him on 9 October last year. In view of recent Press statements concerning a reduced rate of postage for Christmas cards and certain amendments to postal by-laws which could assist Australian newspaper and magazine publishers, I now ask: What are the details of these new proposals? When are they likely to come into operation?
-When Senator Devitt asked me a similar question previously I told him that the matter was under consideration. As a result of discussions between myself and the Australian Postal Commission I approved the reduction in postage rates to 15c for Christmas cards. The envelopes must be endorsed with the words ‘card only’. The special rate will apply only to articles posted in November and December this year and will be limited to articles posted for delivery in Australia. In the circumstances there will be no obligation on the Australian Government to subsidise the new proposal; it is an attempt by the Commission to pick up business. At the same time some amendments were made to the by-laws concerning the postage rates for Australian newspapers. The amendments are designed to lessen the charges. I note that the Chairman of the Commission, Mr Kennedy, has under consideration some other matters.
page 768
– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. During the fortnight recess did the Australian Labor Party Government indicate to the United Nations that it was willing to contribute Australian forces to serve overseas as peacekeeping forces in concert with United Nations troops in various parts of the world? Will the Minister indicate to the Senate the general text of that communication, if there was one? Will the Labor Government now request Australian troops to serve overseas? Is this a reversal of previously stated Labor Party policy?
-No. As a matter of fact, last year when I was having discussions with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Waldheim, we discussed the offer that Australia had made over a year previously to supply peacekeeping forces, specifically in the Middle East. Mr Morrison also raised that point when he was at the United Nations this year. Mr Whitlam in his speech to the United Nations last year mentioned it. I understand that there have been some stories in the Press that we have altered our stand and have withdrawn our offer. That is not true. We have not rebuffed any United Nations request to supply Australian troops for the Middle East as a peacekeeping force nor have we instructed our delegation to the United Nations to discourage any Secretariat planning to take up the Australian offer to contribute to United Nations peacekeeping activities. It was mentioned in the general statement by the Prime Minister about which I and Mr Morrison spoke that there has been no request to Australia to provide forces for Middle East peacekeeping activites. Neither is it known whether an Australian contribution to the Middle East peacekeeping force would be acceptable to all members of the Security Council. That is one of the problems into which a Secretary-General always runs because he must balance the forces and have an agreement with those forces, wherever they might be. Also there are agreements in the various agencies as to where clerical and other staff should come from.
I have a statement which was made by Mr Waldheim recently at a meeting of the Fifth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. I will quote from this to give the Senate an idea of the sort of thing which we might expect. He said:
The size of the disengagement zone will be substantially increased. The disengagement zone itself will be shifted eastward thus necessitating changed and extended lines of communication as well as the possible relocation of certain unit headquarters. New and different kinds of equipment may well be needed and in addition the size of the force itself, which has been substantially reduced since it was first created in 1 973, will have to be somewhat increased.
Mr President, there has been no change; the offer still stands.
page 768
– My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Customs. It has come to my notice that a major shipping company has recently suffered a fine of approximately $7,500 under the Customs Act for a relatively minor smuggling offence for which no real culprit could be found. Will the Minister undertake to review the equity of customs legislation which enables blame for alleged offences, where no culprit can be found, to be sheeted home to an innocent party?
– If the honourable senator named the particular case perhaps we could get details of it. I cannot imagine that someone was convicted on an occasion when he was an innocent party. I presume that the honourable senator is referring to a recent judgment against the China Navigation Company Ltd. I point out that the Customs Act provides that the owner of a ship or an aircraft which has any secret or disguised place adapted for the purpose of concealing goods shall be liable to a penalty of up to $10,000. The China Navigation Company Ltd was charged under that section after customs officers discovered approximately 60 wristlet watches concealed in a space behind panelling in a dining room of the ship The Rhexenor. The Supreme Court of Victoria found the charge proven, noted that the offence was serious and imposed a fine of $7,500.
The evidence showed that the crew from that ship had been involved in many previous infringements of the Customs Act. The court noted that in spite of this there was no evidence which suggested any earnest endeavour to prevent the use of the ship by those working on it or serving on it for the purpose of illicit trade or the smuggling of goods. The court also noted that the laxity of the owner appeared to have been generally appreciated and taken advantage of. Under the Act the responsibility is on the owner. There is an onus on ship owners to exercise appropriate control over a ships’ crews to ensure that vessels are not physically adapted to conceal goods. On this occasion the court did not accept that the company was completely exonerated from being a party to the offence and a fine commensurate with the evidence was inflicted on the company.
page 769
-Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate what humanitarian assistance the Government intends to give to the people of East Timor? Secondly, does the Government intend to send a delegation to East Timor to assess the situation in that country at present?
– In relation to the question of humanitarian assistance, the International Committee of the Red Cross has launched an appeal for some 1.1 million Swiss francs, which is about $A300,000, to finance its relief operations in Timor. Australia has made a cash contribution of $A 100,000 to this appeal. We hope that this will be used on both sides of the border. There are problems on the East Timor side as well as on the Indonesian side. As honourable senators know, a Royal Australian Air Force Caribou aircraft painted with Red Cross markings began a month’s assignment with the Red Cross relief operations on 4 September. As at 29 September that aircraft had flown 1 12.5 hours at a cost of some $27,000. The services of 6 medical personnel of the defence forces were provided to assist the ICRC medical teams. Radio equipment was also provided to enable the teams to maintain communications. We have been advised by the International Committee of the Red Cross that, contrary to Press and other reports, there is no acute food shortage in Portuguese Timor. The Red Cross thus believes that there is no need for large scale imports of foodstuffs at this time.
– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I am well aware and many people are well aware of the involvement of the International Committee of the Red Cross, but the kind of humanitarian aid that is needed at the moment, as other members of Parliament who visited that country with me would say, is in the line of foodstuffs. That is the kind of aid about which 1 asked the Minister. What does the Government intend to do?
-I thought that the last part of my answer dealt with that. I said that the Government has been advised by the Red Cross that, contrary to Press and other reports, there is no acute food shortage in Portuguese Timor. I believe that there is no need for large scale imports of foodstuffs at this time. I do not think that we could be advised by better people than the International Committee of the Red Cross.
– What about the question concerning the sending of a delegation to assess the situation?
– Order! The Minister is answering the question.
– He has not answered that part of the question.
– Yes, I realise that, but the supplementary question dealt with foodstuffs and I was dealing with that. I was about -
– You did not even answer that question the first time.
– Order! The Minister is answering the question.
– I was about to apologise to Senator Bonner and say that I had inadvertently missed his second point regarding the sending of a group of people to advise on what is the situation. I will have a look at that to see whether that is necessary. As 1 understand the situation at the moment, what we are trying to do is to get the Portuguese to have talks and arrange a political settlement. We think that that is the only thing than can finally bring about some sort of progress in Portuguese Timor. Our reports show that the intensive fighting has subsided at the moment. The situation is being constantly reviewed. We are constantly in touch with other governments on this matter. If it were thought to be necessary to do something like Senator Bonner has suggested we would certainly do it.
page 770
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. I ask: Is he aware that, following the broadcast of an interview with him on the program AM on Thursday 25 September 1975, an Opposition spokesman, Mr Chipp, was invited to express or comment upon the Opposition’s views on the Australian Government Insurance Corporation legislation? Did the Minister hear Mr Chipp’s comments and was he able to make any sense of them? Were the statements made by Mr Chipp in relation to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation legislation true?
– I did not actually hear them but I was informed of them and I must say that 1 was a little puzzled by them. To use the language that Senator McAuliffe has used, I did find it a little difficult to make much sense out of them. Mr Chipp said that the Prime Minister and I were pursuing some manic passion about this matter and that this was despite the fact that three distinguished members of the Australian Labor Party had advised us all not to proceed with an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. What he has against those 3 members that he should describe them in that way I do not know, but that is what he said. The short answer to the question is that apparently Mr Chipp has confused the National Compensation Bill with the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill.
– You know you are not sticking to the truth.
-Yes, I am. As Senator Marriott has said that 1 am not sticking to the truth I seek leave- I will not ask for the withdrawal to which one would be entitled- to incorporate in Hansard the transcripts of what I said and what Mr Chipp said so that all can judge whether I am sticking to the truth.
-Is leave granted?
– No.
– Leave is not granted.
-Mr President, I am accused of not sticking to the truth and when I want to table the document leave is refused by that doughty champion of the civil rights of senators, Senator Wright no less. The fact of the matter is that Mr Chipp seems to be incapable of distinguishing between the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill and the National Compensation Bill. They are quite separate Bills. Despite the paranoid opposition of the Opposition to both of them we intend to proceed with the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Corporation and we intend to proceed with our examination of the National Compensation Bill. I am afraid that if the Opposition cannot produce better than Mr Chipp- I know he has his difficulties; I can well imagine how he must feel at the present time inside his own Partyand if Mr Chipp cannot do better than he did on the ABC radio program I am afraid that the level of opposition that will be provided over the next year will be most unsatisfactory indeed.
– I take a point of order. Surely it is not permissable for a Minister to answer a question about an interview at which he was not present. He would not know what Mr Chipp was asked. To make statements of this sort in answer to a question is in my view quite improper.
– I wish to speak to the point of order. Apparently Senator Chaney wishes to prevent me from replying to this question. I was certainly present when I was interviewed. I am not capable of ambi-location, as I understand some saintly persons are. I was present when I was interviewed; I was not present when Mr Chipp was interviewed. However, I do have a transcript from the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I sought leave to have it incorporated in Hansard but leave was rejected. If Senator Chaney would like I would be quite happy to read Mr Chipp’s answer. May I have leave to table the transcript of the interview of Mr Chipp so that Senator Chaney may read it? The fact of the matter is that Mr Chipp was unable to distinguish between the 2 Bills.
– The Minister does not need leave. He may table the document. In answer to the point of order raised by Senator Chaney, the question was asked of the Minister and the Minister proceeded to answer it in his own way. He was quite in order.
– I table the transcript of the AM program in which Mr Chipp and I were interviewed.
page 771
-My question is directed to Senator James McClelland as Minister for Labor and Immigration and in all his representative capacities- as the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. Has the Minister seen a report by Professor Meredith, head of the Department of Financing and Accounting of the University of New England, predicting that more than 2000 small businesses could be expected to close during the next 6 months and that already 3000 small businesses have closed in the 12 months to 30 June? Is he able to confirm that small businesses in this country represent 96 per cent of all firms in the country, employ 40 per cent of the work force and are responsible for about half the total output of Australian business? Is the predicament of small business today the result of deliberate policy on the part of this Government in transferring resources from the private sector to the public sector? If it is, does the Government propose to take any alleviating measures? If not, what future does it hold out for small business in this country?
– I do not wear as many hats this week as I did last week but I will undertake to answer the honourable senator’s question. The last part of it I should describe as purely fatuous. The suggestion that the Government had embarked on a deliberate policy of wrecking small business 1 do not think requires any answer. The answer, if he wants one, is no. If he seeks to make the point that business in Australia is in a state of recession, I have conceded that many times before. I suggest to Senator Greenwood that instead of regurgitating the ills of the country, he or his Leader might come up with a few suggestions for their alleviation.
page 771
– Has the Minister for Social Security heard reports that the Budget estimates for postage by the Department of Social Security are inadequate due to recent postal increases? What action does the Minister intend to take to ensure that the allocation is sufficient to meet costs so that pensioners and other clients of the Department are not disadvantaged?
– I did see a report in a Sunday newspaper to the effect that there had been an under-estimation made by a number of departments, including the Department of Social Security, of the postage costs which would follow from the recent increase in postal charges. The fact of the matter is that the. estimates for the Budget are prepared by the various departments according to Treasury estimates which are calculated on the known numbers and the current costs. The Department of Social Security Budget allocation for postage is about $7. 5m. As honourable senators would appreciate a huge volume of mail comes from the Department of Social Security. About 58.5 million cheques and letters are despatched during a year. It may well be that there will be some changes resulting from the increased postal charges. There was certainly no under-estimation. If there has been any under-estimating of the total charges these will need to be dealt with in the Additional Estimates which are usually presented during the autumn sittings of Parliament. I assure the Senate that there was no under-estimation of costs by the Department of Social Security or, I would imagine, by any other department. All of these matters are covered by instructions which come from the Department of the Treasury.
page 771
– Can the Minister for Labor and Immigration assure the Senate that there is no truth in the allegation by the Prime Minister that some union secretaries are receiving kickbacks from lawyers under the present system of compensation and insurance?
– I was present at a gathering at which the Prime Minister said something to the effect of what has been stated by the honourable senator, but it was my understanding that he was referring more to the past than to the present. I certainly do not have any information on the matter to which the Prime Minister adverted.
page 771
-The Minister for Police and Customs will recall that on 3 September he tabled a document in the Senate giving the names of persons and companies which were recipients of the superphosphate bounty in respect of the purchase of a minimum of 400 tons of superphosphate in the year 1 973. As the national average of” usage of superphosphate is 31 tons per farmer 1 now ask the Minister: In view of the fact that it is reliably reported that many large users of superphosphate doubled and even trebled their purchases in 1974 because of the Government’s announcement that it would not renew the bounty legislation, will he provide the Senate with the names of all persons and companies who purchased in excess of 35 tons in the year 1974, January to December inclusive? Will the Minister also ascertain and inform the Senate as soon as practicable what would be the cost to the Australian taxpayer if the superphosphate bounty were reintroduced at the rate of 40 per cent of the cost of this commodity on an unlimited quantity, as advocated by the National Country Party at its annual conference at Loxton in South Australia on Friday, 26 September?
– It was only shortly prior to the Senate assembling that I knew the nature of the matter on which Senator McLaren sought information. Let me say that there has been insufficient time to get the details he sought and I am advised that it would be almost impossible to get such a list. Honourable senators will recall that the list I tabled in the Senate was of those who used in excess of 400 tonnes of superphosphate during 1974. I think some 472 used in excess of 400 tonnes. There would be a much larger number using in excess of 35 tonnes. In 1974 one of the conditions of the Act was that producers must supply the information and the penalty for not supplying that information was that they would not receive the superphosphate bounty. There has been some reluctance by producers to supply that information and it is questionable whether they would supply it readily on this occasion when there is no compulsion on them and the Government does not have the ability to withdraw a bounty if the information is not supplied.
– When you have misused the information in the way you have already misused it.
-They did not supply the information in accordance with the Act. The Government obtained the information in accordance with the Act and made it public. The producers are recipients of government finance and the Government has a responsibility to disclose the names of those who are recipients of that finance. My Department has drawn up a list setting out the month by month increases in sales of superphosphate from 1973-74 onwards. As the bounty is not paid until some time after the supply is made, a covering note is needed to explain the detailed figures and I shall try to obtain that note and table it in the Senate.
Generally, the picture shows that the figures vary from State to State. Taking all the figures shown and the payments made, including the final payments in 1975, the table shows that in Victoria and Western Australia the payment of bounty in 1974 increased by some 40 per cent over the 1973 figure; in South Australia it increased by about 20 per cent, and in the other States there was little variation between the 2 years. In fact, the Queensland figure was down by some 9 per cent. I will try to obtain a covering statement and table the figures some time this week. On the question of the cost involved in paying a bounty of 40 per cent on all superphosphate used, I will get my Department to work out the figures and I will supply them to the honourable senator.
page 772
– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration. How long are existing stocks of fuel oil and petrol expected to last? What is the current position in the oil industry dispute, and what will be the attitude of the Government in the event of severe shortages of petrol and fuel oil for industry?
– Conflicting statements have been made by oil authorities as to the exact amount of reserves held at the present time. Of course, the future of the supply of fuel is dependent on a lot of at present unpredictable factors. I think that if the honourable senator had been following the Press reasonably closely he will know that the Government is taking a close and abiding interest in this contest. He may rest assured that I am following the matter hour by hour and getting reports on the situation. Certain meetings are taking place today in relation to the lifting of certain bans. I understand from the information I have had already that the bans will be lifted and that negotiations will then proceed under the aegis of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The matter is at such a delicate stage that I would suggest to honourable senators on the other side of the chamber that if they are interested in the actuality of industrial peace rather than in attempting to score some political points out of this situation, they will agree that the less said about the matter at the present time, the more likely there is to be a happy result.
page 773
– Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to the statement made by the President of Mexico and has he noted the action taken by 6 countries associated with the European Economic Community condemning the recent execution of 5 political dissidents by the repressive Franco Spanish Government? I ask: What diplomatic steps have been taken or are proposed to be taken by the Australian Government to condemn such unwarranted and brutal action?
-There have been several arrests in Spain resulting in 5 people being executed. Six others have had their sentences commuted from death to long imprisonment. We deplore very much the carrying out of executions. In expressing our repugnance, we have expressed the hope that the Spanish Government will not carry out any such sentences again. We have expressed our concern to the Spanish Government through the Spanish Ambassador in Australia who was also informed that we wished to associate ourselves with the protests that have been made by certain European and other governments.
page 773
– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. I preface my question by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that the Australian Council of Social Services and the 8 State and Territory councils of social services, which have a total membership of over 2000 non-government health and welfare organisations and whose purpose is to carry out and promote programs to eliminate poverty and promote the well being of disadvantaged groups in our society, are at present in financial difficulties. Will the Minister advise whether the funding of ACOSS and the State organisations is under review? If so, is he able to indicate when the review of the funding will be finalised? ls the Minister aware that the Tasmanian Council of Social Services will have to close its activities in November or December if adequate funding is not forthcoming?
-I am well aware that there have been some substantial cuts in the funds available to the Australian Council of Social Services and the various State councils of social services. This was something which was done by the Government while we were in the process of cutting expenditure on a number of matters on which the Government previously spent very great sums of money. I think it may well be that in retrospect the cuts which were imposed on the Australian Council of Social Services were somewhat too harsh. I am at present in discussion with the Treasurer to see whether the funds which are available to the Australian Council of Social Services and the various State councils may be increased.
I think I should say that in the situation in which we find ourselves at present where there have been of necessity cuts in public spending, I and the Cabinet had the rather unpalatable task of deciding where the cuts should take place. It seemed to me- and I make no apology for this - that if one did have to make cuts, it was better to make cuts in the provision of funds to advisory bodies, that is those bodies which were going to advise the Government of where expenditure could be made in the future, than in those areas where it was obvious there should be expenditure at the present time. I would rather cut back on the funds that are available to someone who was advising me where I should be spending money than cut back on a blind persons’ home or an aged persons’ home or whatever else it might be. There has been enough cutting back going on there. I appreciate the difficulties which face these organisations which apparently are dependent upon government financial assistance in order to operate.
Apparently this has been the case with the Tasmanian Council of Social Services. However, as I said elsewhere this morning, in my capacity as Minister for my other Department, that of Repatriation and Compensation, I also deal with voluntary bodies which look after the welfare of large numbers of people; for example, the Returned Services League of Australia. This League has managed to function in Tasmania and everywhere else as a voluntary organisation without receiving contributions from the Australian Government to maintain its independent existence. With the greatest fairness to the Australian Council of Social Services- I am endeavouring to raise some additional money for that Council- I do think that it is rather a tortuous path that one follows when one says one is a voluntary organisation but wants to be paid by the Government for being a voluntary organisation.
The RSL is an organisation with which I have disagreed in the past on certain political matters. However, I think that it does offer a very good example to a lot of voluntary organisations in that, despite the fact that it represents a great many very deprived people- a number of its members are now very elderly and are incapacitatedit has been able to maintain its independent existence without receiving grants from the Australian Government. I know that this may be cold comfort to the Australian Council of Social Services but I suggest that as well as asking me for additional money, which I am trying to obtain for it, it might speak to Mr Keys, the National Secretary of the RSL, to see how his organisation gets on in maintaining its independent existence without asking the Department of Repatriation and Compensation for any financial assistance.
page 774
– My question is directed also to the Minister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Knowing that the Minister is an avid reader of the AMA Gazette, I assume he has read the article which appeared in the edition of 18 September and was headlined ‘Muddles, Delays with Medibank Cheques’. The article went on to assert that the Treasurer of the Australian Medical Association had been asked to forge the signature of another doctor on a Medibank cheque. Has the Minister any information as to the truth or otherwise of this allegation?
-Yes. The AMA Gazette is one of those journals which I peruse with more avidity than I would if I did not occupy my present position. I have seen the article to which Senator Grimes refers. It did occasion me some distress that a Dr Lionel Wilson should be asked by officers of the Health Insurance Commission to forge somebody else’s signature. To say the least of it, this seemed to be a rather irregular practice and I caused some inquiries to be made. I discovered as a result of these inquiries that in fact a cheque for the munificent sum of $5.55 was made out to Drs V. M. and R. E. Wilson. It was a ‘pay doctor’ cheque and was sent to a patient who had received the services of Dr Lionel Wilson, who made these rather extravagant charges and who, as it happens by coincidence, is the Treasurer of the Australian Medical Association. This same Dr Wilson telephoned Medibank when he received the cheque from his patient, but my officers have been unable to find who it was who took the call from Dr Wilson.
Subsequently Dr Wilson spoke to a senior officer of the Liverpool processing centre of the Health Insurance Commission on 28 August. The officer informs me that Dr Wilson was very irate during this call and demanded that
Medibank send a courier to his surgery immediately armed with a letter of authority to collect the cheque. A courier was sent around that day in fact, with great promptitude; not 3 weeks later as the AMA Gazette claims was the case. A mistake had occurred in the drawing of a cheque which apparently arose because of a coding error in Medibank. To avoid these errors doctors have been asked to include a code on their account forms. However, the Australian Medical Association has advised its members not to assist Medibank and not to include the code numbers on their claim forms. This does make it a little difficult for Medibank to do the sort of things which the members of the Australian Medical Association apparently want it to do. Nonetheless, despite the opposition of the AMA, some 5300 doctors have agreed to co-operate.
The fact of the matter is that the cheque clearly was intended for Dr L. Wilson; that nobody asked him to forge anybody’s signature to it; and that, in fact, Dr Wilson could have endorsed the cheque in his own name, it would appear, and would have been able to bank it. I can assure Senator Grimes, the Senate and the editor of the AMA Gazette, whoever he is and if he is interested, that at no stage did anybody suggest that this reputable medical practitioner should forge somebody’s name. All he was asked to do was to endorse the cheque, which was intended for him, and then bank it. I am sorry that this terrible distress has been aroused, to the extent of warranting a front page article in this journal which is read by so many sagacious givers of the hippocratic oath throughout Australia.
page 774
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Consumer. Affairs. Has the Minister received, or is he aware of, strong protests from eminent and responsible leaders of the 3 Victorian universities against the 66 per cent reduction in research funds provided in the Budget? Is this the most severe Budget cut affecting any group in the Australian community? Will it lead to widespread retrenchment of research projects and to the breakup of irreplaceable research teams? Does it not add to the criticism contained in the 1974 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development examiners’ study of the low level of government support in Australia for research in universities and other institutions? Does the Government propose to review this decision and, if so, to what extent?
– I will refer the honourable senator’s question to my esteemed colleague, Mr Cameron, the Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs, and let the honourable senator have an early reply.
page 775
– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen a Press report in which the national director, I think he is called, of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Eggleton, accused the Australian Labor Party of generating election speculation so that it could blame the Opposition for creating political instability? Is the source of political instability the equivocation of the Opposition over whether it will pass the Appropriation Bills? If this instability so concerns the Liberal Party, could it be removed if Opposition senators in this place gave an unequivocal assurance that they will not block the Appropriation Bills?
– I am sure that there are many people in Australia, particularly in the business sector, who would like to know one way or the other whether the Opposition intends to refuse passage of the Appropriation Bills which will come before us shortly. The Government’s attitude is that we have been elected for 3 years by a mandate of the Australian people. We believe that we should be allowed to continue to govern until that 3-year period, during which we would not normally and properly face the electorate again, has expired. As regards any assurances about the continuation of the present position, from the Government’s point of view that is entirely a matter within the hands of the Prime Minister.
page 775
– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. He may recall that on 4 September last I asked him a question concerning the issue of licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. I asked the Minister:
Will the issue of such licences contravene the provisions of the Act? Has the Minister had legal advice on this matter? If not, will he obtain advice from the Attorney-General and make it available to the Senate?
I now ask the Postmaster-General: Has he obtained that advice? If so, will he now give it to the Senate?
-I think I indicated at the time when the previous question was asked that such advice was being sought. It is not yet available. Both I and Dr Cass, the Minister for the Media, have studied Senator Young’s contribution, and a request for an opinion has been made. When we have that opinion I shall give it to the honourable senator.
page 775
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence seen recent Press comment which suggests that the Government is reluctant to encourage servicemen’s associations or unions being formed? Will the Minister inform me of the Government’s views on this matter?
– Honourable senators may recall that, when Mr Barnard stated that he would consider to what extent such a servicemen’s association might be formed, he made it clear that any request for the formation of such an association would have to come from the grass roots level and that it would have to be studied. He indicated that he had examined to what extent such organisations were in existence in other countries, including West Germany, and he made some observations about them. There has been no response in the way that I have mentioned and no widespread interest amongst servicemen in the formation of such an organisation. Because the matter has been floated and because some people have been indicating that they represent servicemen, it has been considered that a study of this matter should be made. Consequently, Mr Morrison has ordered that a survey be conducted in respect of this matter and also in respect of other Service personnel matters. It is anticipated that the survey will take three or four months to complete.
page 775
– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in his capacity as representing the Treasurer. As many taxpayers are complaining that tax refunds are slow in coming to hand, can the Minister indicate whether this is so and what is the reason for the delay? Is it because the Department of the Treasury is short of funds?
– A similar question to this was asked a fortnight ago before we rose for the recess. In the meantime, I have ascertained some information from the Treasurer. There is no substance in the suggestion that the procedures and the rate of taxation refunds are any different this year from what they were last year. By the middle of September approximately 2 million refunds had been made to taxpayers. By the end of November, about 4’A millions refunds will have been made. Information that I have been given suggests that the rate of refunds is no different this year from what it was last year.
page 776
– Can the Minister for Agriculture confirm reports that cattle prices have increased in Australia? If so, what are the reasons?
– There are very definite signs of improvement in the meat market at long last. The price of some export quality beef has gone up by as much as 60 per cent during the last 2 months. On the American market, the price is now about 78c a kilo which is a considerable improvement on what it was 12 months ago. Nevertheless, prices are not as good as they were 2 years ago, but they ‘.vere abnormally high prices at that time. The principle reasons for the present improvement, of course, are the very strong increase in demand in the domestic market- consumption in Australia is up 40 per cent on last year- the reopening ofthe Japanese market and, of course, the allocation of a shortfall into the United States market which Australia was able to obtain. All of these factors are combining to move the price of beef upwards gradually. It would appear that in view of the slowing down of the rate of cattle coming onto the market in the last month or so because ofthe good seasonal conditions that are obtaining all around Australia prices will tend to strengthen further. I would suggest that we have seen the real trough in beef prices.
page 776
– I am glad that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is pleased that I did survive the coup. It was more dangerous in a strike the night before when I just missed one of those gas bomb attacks. That was more of a problem than the coup. I have been looking at the question of a policy statement. I am finding some difficulty with it. I do not want to make a statement that is too wide ranging. I have always thought that one can get into too many corners. 1 may- although it is just a thought going through my mind at the moment- relate a statement particularly to the Seventh Session and to the new trends which are emerging in the United Nations. Did the honourable senator want something of a general statement on East Timor?
– I would like to know what is happening.
-It is a pretty fast moving situation there. I do not quite know the particular points which the honourable senator has in mind.
page 776
– I direct a question to the Minister for Police and Customs. What action does the Government contemplate regarding the reported large stockpile of kangaroo skins harvested under conditions that disregarded the code now in operation?
– A previous Minister for Customs and Excise, Senator Murphy, imposed a complete ban on the export of kangaroo skins. The agreement at the time was that the ban would be lifted on kangaroo skins harvested in those States which entered into agreement with the Commonwealth as to the management and culling of kangaroos. Agreement was reached with South Australia and New South Wales. The ban was lifted on kangaroo skins which were harvested under the agreement between the Commonwealth and State governments. For some time the other States would not come into the scheme. Queensland and Western Australia have now entered the scheme. The products of kangaroos which were shot under the culling and management program of those 2 States are eligible for export.
I come now to the situation in New South Wales. There is a stockpile of kangaroo skins which was accumulated over a period during which there was a prohibition on the export of skins. Representation has been made for the lifting of the ban to permit those skins now stockpiled to be exported. At the time of the imposition of the ban Senator Murphy said that there would be no export of the products of kangaroos which were killed when there was not some control over kangaroos or some agreement between the State and the Commonwealth. Discussion is now continuing between me, the Minister for Environment and the Prime Minister, who has had representations from the Premier of New South Wales, as to whether there should be some lifting of the ban on those stockpiled skins which were harvested at the time the ban was on, in view of the fact that there are now controls over the culling and management of kangaroos. Nothing definite has been decided.
– Could you apply a surcharge?
– It was never an offence to kill kangaroos. The power of the Commonwealth was only in relation to export. I am of the belief that there should be some honouring of Senator Murphy’s statement that those who killed kangaroos at the time when they could not export their products should not be rewarded by the lifting of the ban at some other time.
page 777
-Has the Minister for Social Security seen the report in the West Australian of 1 9 September 1975 headed ‘Wheeldon sees social change’, which purports to summarise an address by him to students at the University of Western Australia? Is the report accurate? In particular, does the Government regard the Constitution as a weight around its neck or is that merely a personal view of the Minister? Which, if any, of the participants at the Constitutional Convention in the 1890s were octogenarians? Is it the aim of the Labor Government to replace the capitalist system in Australia? Is it the Minister’s view that the Australian Press is trying to undermine the Government?
– I tend not to record indelibly in my memory articles which I read in the West Australian. I read the report. It was fairly accurate. I would say that on the whole the Press in Australia is trying to undermine the Labor Government. I believe the Australian Constitution is in many respects a weight around the neck of a Labor government and that it was introduced to preserve the property rights which existed in the 1890s. I do not recollect off-hand which of the delegates were octogenarians but I think if Senator Chaney were to refer to any adequate Australian history he would be able to obtain the information for himself. The other question was whether I wish to replace the capitalist system in Australia: The answer is yes.
page 777
– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the Minister’s announcement last Saturday, 27 September, that he had invited 7 members of the Cocos community, including the 3 longest serving headmen, to serve on the newly established Interim Advisory Council to advise the Administrator and the Government. I also refer to the Minister’s announcement that he had invited 2 members of the Cocos community to provide secretariat services to the Council. Have Mr Clunies Ross and the Cocos community been informed of the Minister’s announcement?
-My announcement was made virtually concurrently in Australia and on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, I think last Friday. The Administrator of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Mr Linford, visited Home Island last Saturday morning. That is the island on which Mr Clunies Ross and the members of the Cocos Malay community are domiciled within the Cocos (Keeling) group. He spoke to a meeting which was attended by most of the adult members of the Cocos community. In the course of the proceedings I understand that the Administrator conveyed to the general meeting my invitation to the members of the community to serve on the Interim Advisory Council which has been appointed by me. The Administrator indicated that he would later approach individually those islanders or members of the community who have been invited to be members of the Interim Advisory Council. The Administrator has reported to me that during the meeting there was substantial support from the islanders in favour of the Government’s recently announced decisions on Cocos.
The honourable senator will remember that I made a ministerial statement in this chamber shortly before the Senate rose for the recent fortnightly recess. I am given to understand that subsequently it was indicated to the Administrator that Mr Clunies Ross would not permit members of the Cocos community to serve on the Interim Advisory Council. The Government is now considering what further action it might be able to take, if that intimation is correct, to ensure that this important instrument of direct communication between the Government and the members of the Cocos Malay community is effective so that the members of the Cocos community are not denied their natural, basic and democratic rights. I can tell the honourable senator that last night at about midnight I had a discussion with the Administrator of the Cocos Islands on this very subject.
page 777
-Did the PostmasterGeneral receive recently from me photocopies of a pamphlet on Medibank from the Socialist Party of Australia- whatever that is- and an envelope in which the pamphlet was posted marked ‘On Her Majesty’s Service’, bearing no stamp and having as a return address the Revenue Section of the Postmaster-General’s
Department with a box number in Sydney? Can he yet inform me how government envelopes were used without postage for transmission of what was to me offensive political material? What steps are being taken to investigate the incident, to apprehend the person, and to prevent further occurrences?
-About 10 000 letters are sent to me each year and I certainly do not read every letter. 1 have not received the communication which has been referred to but I will look for it and will give an answer later.
page 778
-On 9 September 1975 Senator Laucke asked whether the decision of the Government to disband the Army Cadet Corps would also apply to the Air Training Corps and the Naval Reserve Cadets. As the basic aims of the naval and air cadets are similar to those of the Army Cadet Corps, Mr Morrison asked the Defence Force Development Committeethe most authoritative source of advice available to the Minister on defence capability matters- to review the value to the defence of Australia of retaining the Naval Reserve Cadets and the Air Training Corps. Honourable senators will recall that the Government’s decision to disband the Army Cadet Corps resulted from a recommendation from the Army.
Like Army cadets, Navy and Air cadet organisations were established as military activities and their only justification for continued funding by the Department of Defence would be their military value. The Committee advised Mr Morrison that ‘abolition of the Naval Reserve Cadets and the Air Training Corps would similarly’- that is, to the Army Cadet Corpshave no adverse effect on defence capability’. The Committee also advised that the cadet organisations are not essential to enable the Services’ present and foreseeable recruiting levels to be achieved. The Navy and Air Force cadets are therefore little different from the Army Cadet Corps. The Government has decided that defence support of the Naval Reserve Cadets and the Air Training Corps will also be withdrawn as they do not contribute to Australia ‘s defence preparedness and indeed are diverting resources from higher priority activities.
In the case of the Air Training Corps these steps would save $1.3m per annum and release 1 1 1 Air Force personnel for other higher priority duties. Similarly, in the case of the Naval Reserve Cadets there would be savings of $0.23m per annum plus about $0.23m for capital equipment expenditure over the next 3 years and 4 naval personnel would be released for other duties. The decision will affect some 5800 Air Force cadets and about 2100 Navy cadets. Following a decision by the previous LiberalCountry Party Government, the responsibility for some of the Naval Reserve Cadet units was transferred from the Navy League to the Navy in January 1973. Accordingly, Mr Morrison proposes to discuss with the Navy League whether it wishes once again to assume responsibility for the management of Naval Cadets.
page 778
– In accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Banks Act, I lay on the table the annual reports and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, together with the AuditorGeneral’s reports thereon, for the year 1974-75.
page 778
– I present the annual report of the Public Service Board for the year ended 30 June 1975.
page 778
– I present an agreement between the Australian and Tasmanian governments entitled ‘Amending Agreement in Relation to Dairy Adjustment Programs, Tasmania (1975)’.
page 778
– I present the interim reports ofthe Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee, the Australian Egg Board and the Australian Honey Board for the year ended 30 June 1975.
page 778
– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Australian delegation to the third session of the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea held in Geneva, Switzerland, between 17 March and 9 May 1975.
page 778
– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum on the circumstances of the transfer of allocated indigenous crude oil by Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd to ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd. The report is dated September 1975.
page 779
– Pursuant to section 28 (3) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1975 and on behalf of the Minister for the Media, I present the twentyseventh annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30 June 1 975, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.
page 779
– I present a paper entitled ‘Taxation Statistics 1973-74’ and dated 1 September 1975, and the fifty-fourth report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated 1 September 1975.
page 779
– For the information of honourable senators, I present the interim report on the operation of the defence service homes insurance scheme for the year ended 30 June 1975.
page 779
– Pursuant to section 76a of the National Health Act 1953-1975, 1 present a report on the operations of the registered medical and hospital benefit organisations for the year ended 30 June 1 974.
page 779
Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present financial statements relating to Commonwealth Railways’ Operations for the year ended 30 June 1 975.
page 779
Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a summary record of proceedings of the second meeting of the Nature Conservation Ministers held in Adelaide on 12 July 1974.
page 779
– Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974 I present an agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to Western Australia for Urban Expansion and Redevelopment (Moore River studies) 1974-75.
page 779
-I present the report and transcript of evidence from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on its inquiry into the United Nations involvement with Australia ‘s territories.
Ordered that the report be printed.
– I seek leave to move a motion for the Senate to take note of the report.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.
– I move:
Mr President, in presenting this report, I would like to make several observations for the information of honourable senators. No doubt other members of the Committee will wish to comment on the report at an appropriate time. The Committee’s inquiry resulted from concern by the Senate over the United Nations involvement in the affairs of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Indeed, the Committee of Twenty-four’s report on the Territory raised a number of questions concerning the relationship between domestic jurisdiction over territories held by member states of the United Nations on the one hand, and the growth and exercise of international authority by the United Nations on the other hand.
Although the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee’s interest was not confined solely to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the Committee did make a 6-day visit to the Territory in June to assess the validity and balance of the Committee of Twenty-four’s recommendations, and to gain first-hand knowledge of conditions experienced by the Islanders. Consideration was also given to the United Nations involvement with Australia’s former territories, as this has influenced the United Nations and Australia over Cocos- and might possibly bear on future events.
During the course of the inquiry, the Committee examined the international legal obligations on Australia as an administering power, as a background against which to consider the present and possible future involvement of the United Nations with Cocos and with Australia’s other island territories. In chapter 4, the Committee has concluded that Australia is obliged to prepare the Cocos Island people so that they may make a free decision as to their future status. This future status may involve independence but it may also involve some form of association with Australia. Australia is, however, under no obligation to treat independence as the main alternative status- especially in the case of a territory which is not a viable separate entity- and may press strongly for integration or association. Indeed the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee favours a form of free association between the Islands and Australia, and believes that Australia should encourage the Cocos Islanders to consider the merits of such a choice.
Throughout the inquiry the Committee has paid considerable attention to the welfare of the Cocos Islanders and it is clear to us that substantial changes are required to allow the Cocos Island community adequate opportunity to develop socially, economically and politically as an entity independent of the Clunies-Ross Estate. Mr Clunies-Ross informed the Committee that, as a result of economic and governmental pressures, he had decided to sever the family’s connections with the Islands and to negotiate the transfer of his assets to a Cocos Island Community Co-operative. The Committee believes that serious consideration should now be given to acquisition of the entire estate for this purpose. We believe that the establishment of an island co-operative would assist significantly in the creation of an integrated community with a sense of responsibility and purpose, and concur with the view that acquisition of the estate is the most practical means of giving effect to the reforms which are desired for the benefit of the Cocos Island people.
I believe that the Committee of Twenty-four’s visit and report have generally been helpful in bringing about necessary change and have acted as catalysts in the development of a policy framework for the territory. However, the Committee has expressed concern that in the process, the Cocos Malay community has been seriously unsettled.
It is clear to us that a number of internal changes are required on Cocos before the islanders can engage in a final act of selfdetermination. The Committee believes that Australia should not be in a hurry to force the islanders to choose any one option in preference to another and we hope that the Committee of Twenty-four will be amenable to the deferment of any kind of plebiscite for some years and will accept that, as the administering power, Australia is in the best position to assess the most appropriate time for such an act. In view of the ordinance now before the Senate relating to the acquisition of land on Cocos, and in view of speculation concerning the islands generally, I believe that the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee’s report has come at a propitious time and will be of benefit to all members of parliament. I commend the report to honourable senators.
President, I ask for leave to make a short statement.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– Speaking for myself and, I hope, on behalf of other members of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I think it proper that we should acknowledge the competence, the capacity and the fairness with which Senator Primmer chaired the Committee of the Senate in the area in which we are involved. I agree with the last observation made by Senator Primmer that it is important that this report should have come down at this stage because honourable senators will be aware that on 10 September Senator Douglas McClelland, the Special Minister of State under whose aegis these islands now rest, put down a statement to the Senate. The report that Senator Primmer has presented on behalf of the Committee I think will go a long way towards enlarging the collective minds of honourable senators when they come to discuss Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s statement.
The second matter to which I wish to refer is this: Honourable senators reading the report will come across a paragraph in which one of the witnesses advised- honourable senators sitting on the
Committee not to regard the United Nations as a moral temple. I never have regarded the United Nations as a moral temple, but I am bound to make the observation that more than a double standard exists inside the United Nations. It has turned its attention to what is known from time to time as the salt water theory and any island that is either governed by or possessed by a western European or a western-European derived nation becomes the subject of contention and examination by this self-appointed or even self annointed Committee of Twenty-four in the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The interesting thing about all this is that it is well within the knowledge of most honourable senators who sat on that Committee that there are a number of areas in other parts of the world that have plantation economies which, in fact, is the economy of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. This plantation economy has been in existence for well over 100 years. As Senator Primmer mentioned it is an economy and a society of delicate fabric. One thing about which Senator Douglas McClelland, as the Special Minister of State administering these territories, must be careful is that he does not disrupt and tear the fabric apart. Anyone who is fortunate enough to have been to these islands has seen how delicate is the relationship between the various families, their ecological background, their social structure–
– The zero population growth practised by them.
– What is more, zero population growth is practised by them. Mr John Clunies-Ross is not and should not be held to public obloquy in Australia. The man is part of his environment. 1 think he has done a job which is far beyond the capacity of anyone that I know of in being able to hold this community together. It is not a down-trodden community. Its economic circumstances at the present moment are probably much less than they were some years ago, but ever since 1968 when the cyclone blew down 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the palm trees on Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the society and the economic structure of this island has been maintained out of the private purse of John Clunies-Ross. With those few remarks I leave the matter at this juncture.
Debate (on motion by Senator Primmer) adjourned.
page 781
-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament, I present the report of the Committee entitled Declaration of Interests, together with the transcript of evidence and minutes.
Ordered that the report be printed.
– I seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the report.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– I move:
As Deputy Chairman of the Committee, it is a very satisfying duty for me to report back to the Senate on the deliberations of the Committee and, in so doing, to present a unanimous report. The Committee embarked on its task faced with many seemingly insurmountable problems to be solved. How does one define the types of pecuniary interests which might be thought to conflict with a member’s public responsibilities? How does one create a workable system of declaration of interests without making unjustified inroads into members’ reasonable expectations of privacy? How does one institute such a system without creating a large administrative structure out of all proportion to the benefits which will flow from a register? The Committee has tackled these problems and many more in a manner which I believe does justice to the sincerity of the views expressed by members of Parliament and people from all walks of life who gave evidence to the Committee.
The members of the Committee and indeed the people of Australia, in my belief, owe a debt of gratitude to and should congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, the Honourable J. M. Riordan, for his handling of a very difficult assignment, made all the more onerous because of his elevation to the Ministry during the meetings of the Committee. During the period of the Committee’s work two of its members became members of the Ministry, the second one of course being the No. 1 man in the Australian Labor Party New South Wales Senate team, the Honourable James McClelland. The unanimous view of the Committee expressed in this report is, I believe, a reflection of the earnest desire of every one of its members to preserve and enhance the dignity of the institution of Parliament and those who serve in it. At no stage in its deliberations was the Committee under any illusion that a register could be devised which would be incapable of evasion. But that did not deter the Committee from its task. The usefulness of a register lies not in the ability to detect fraud or impropriety but as a means of assuring the public that decisions affecting it are made in the public interest. I believe the recommendations made by the Committee will go a long way towards achieving that goal.
The Committee devoted a lengthy chapter of the report, Chapter III, to a discussion of the many arguments which had been advanced for and against the concept of a register. Many of the fears and reservations of some witnesses concerning such things as the invasion of privacy and administrative complexity have been accommodated in the central recommendations of the report. That is to the effect that a declaration of interests system should be instituted whereby members of Parliament are required merely to declare their interests in general terms. An example of this approach is the recommendation that members of Parliament be required to declare the names of companies in which they have a beneficial interest but need not disclose the actual value of any shareholdings. This form of declaration would not necessitate the continual alteration of the register to reflect changes in the size of a member’s shareholding in a particular company, but it would provide a starting point for any person who felt that a member was not acting in the public interest. Such a person could then search the share register of that company to ascertain the size of the shareholding of the particular Member of Parliament.
Clause 1 (c) of the Committee’s terms of reference required it to consider what classes of persons other than members of Parliament ought to be required to register their pecuniary interests. In an attempt to answer this part of its terms of reference, the Committee received evidence from representatives of the Public Service, ministerial staff and the media- 3 components of our society which can have a vital function in the public decision-making process. The Committee concluded that different forms of declaration of interests would be appropriate for each of these 3 groups and has made recommendations and suggested general guidelines accordingly.
I recall the Chairman, Mr Riordan, saying when declaring open the first public hearing of the Committee in Sydney in January of this year: . . the subject for investigation and report of this Committee is complex and to some extent, controversial.
That has proved to be a prophetic comment. I am sure I would be expressing the sentiments of the Chairman as well as of myself when I thank the members of the Committee for the way in which they undertook their task during the Committee ‘s more difficult times. It is a tribute to the dedication of the members of this Committee that a unanimous conclusion was reached by members of 3 political parties in the 2 Houses of the Parliament on the contents of this report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion ( by Senator Marriott) proposed:
That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
– I rise to speak on this motion because I feel that one aspect should receive attention. I think it is an appropriate motion on which to raise this. I listened with great interest to what Senator Marriott said and I am sure that the report of this Committee will repay study but no mention was made by Senator Marriott in the course of his remarks to a certain matter. I think no mention was made of it because it was not a matter within the terms of reference of this Committee. This Senate on 22 April this year resolved that a judicial committee of inquiry should be appointed to inquire into the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. I think by simply mentioning that fact I will remind the Senate of the circumstances in which the motion was carried. It was carried at the time when a member of this Senate had his case referred to the Court of Disputed Returns. The Court of Disputed Returns, of course, has reported that Senator Webster was not disqualified from or incapable of being a senator, but the matters which agitated the Senate at the time and which, as I recall, were outside the terms of reference of the Committee which has reported today were matters which the Senate felt should be looked into by a judicial committee of inquiry. I understand that the Leader of the Government indicated the Government concurred in the appointment of that judicial committee. It has not been appointed and I feel that there were matters raised then and there are circumstances of what I regard as ordinary justice which require that the unfinished business of the 22 April ought to be pursued. I raise these matters on this motion in the hope that when it comes back to debate -
– I rise to a point of order. The questions that we are debating is that the debate be made an order of the day for the next day if sitting. I cannot see any relevance in Senator Greenwood’s remarks to this question. I think they would be better left until we are debating the substantive motion. How he relates his remarks to whether we should make the debate an order of the day for the next day of sitting, I do not know.
- Mr President, I am raising a point of order as a member of the Committee. I ask whether it was fair that the debate should be opened at this stage, when obviously we are following the forms that have been previously agreed to when committee reports have been brought down. Senator Marriott, on behalf of the committee, brought down the report; he sought leave to continue his remarks; and then he moved that the matter be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. This surely would have precluded any other member from continuing the debate. I have quite a few words to say. I should like them to be said alongside the words that Senator Greenwood is about to say. I think it is only fair, therefore, that we should proceed according to the forms that we have established for so long and should allow the debate to continue at a later stage. Then Senator Greenwood can say what he wants to say and I also can say what I want to say.
– I have indicated that Senator Greenwood is entitled to speak to the motion before the Chair which is that the matter be made the order of the day for the next day of sitting. I ask him to confine his remarks as closely as possible to that motion and not to introduce the subject matter of Senator Marriott’s report.
– Are you excluding the subject matter of the report altogether?
– No. I am excluding the subject matter of the report only from the debate on the motion for the adjournment. Senator Greenwood is entitled to speak to that motion.
– I raised this matterand I was reaching the point of my remarks -because I think that when the debate is resumed it is entirely appropriate for the Government to declare whether or not it intends to proceed with this judicial inquiry and, if it does not intend to proceed, to explain to the Senate why such a change of front has occurred. It is germane to the ultimate debate which will take place on the motion which has been moved by Senator Marriott, and I do feel it is quite appropriate that the matters in due course should be linked. We know that when the matter was raised on 22 April there was a feeling in this chamber as to whether it was right for one person and one person only to have to undergo the ordeal of having his qualifications considered by the High Court. Accordingly I think it is appropriate that the whole question should be considered in due course.
– Perhaps Senator Greenwood has finished. I rise to take a further point of order. The motion before the Chair is that this matter be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. What Senator Greenwood has been talking about has no relevance to that motion whatsoever. Perhaps I am a little late in taking a point of order. Maybe I can stir him up to have another go. That is the point of order.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 783
– I present the Tenth Report of the Publications Committee.
Report- by leave- adopted.
page 783
Assent reported.
page 783
– I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate nominating senators and members to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House as follows: Senators Button, Carrick, Melzer, Mcintosh, Webster and Withers, and Mr Drury, Mr Garland, Mr L. K. Johnson, Mr Keating, Mr Keogh and Mr I. L. Robinson.
– I ask for leave to move a motion for the appointment of members to the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
-I move:
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 784
– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Prime Minister appointing Mr M. J. Young to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in place of Mr J. M. Berinson.
page 784
-Mr President, I ask for leave to move a motion for extension of time for the presentation of the report from the Committee of Privileges.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.
-I move:
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 784
Motion (by Senator Wriedt) agreed to:
That the sitting ofthe Senate be suspended to enable Estimates Committees to meet until approximately 10.15 p.m. this evening.
– The sitting of the Senate is suspended until approximately a quarter past 10 p.m. to enable Estimates Committees C, E and F to meet. Committee C will meet in the Senate Chamber, Committee E in Senate Committee Room No. 1, and Committee F in Senate Committee Room No. 3. The bells will be rung for 3 minutes prior to the assembling of the Committees.
Sitting suspended from 4.7 to 10.16 p.m.
page 784
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 Wriedt) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
The purpose of this Bill is to impose a levy on bearing areas of apple and pear trees to provide the source of finance for the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. The Corporation, which commenced operations in September, 1974, has been financed to the present by the export charge collected under the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act 1938-1973, which was the source of income of the Corporation’s predecessor, the Australian Apple and Pear Board.
When the Bill to establish the Corporation was introduced in the Senate in December, 1973, however, it was made clear that financing through the export charge was an interim measure only. That interim measure was to be replaced by a broader financial base for the Corporation through a levy on all apples and pears, not simply on export fruit, since the activities of the Corporation could be expected to produce benefits for all sectors of the industry. It was indicated at that time that studies were being undertaken, in consultation with the industry, to devise the most practicable method of imposing and collecting a levy on all apples and pears produced and sold. After a detailed investigation, however, it was concluded that a levy on this basis would present great difficulties in the policing of payments. There is a high percentage of fruit disposed of through undocumented or cash sales in some of the major producing States. These sales would lend themselves to easy evasion of the levy and require a disproportionate effort in policing.
Following consideration of other bases for imposing the levy, including a levy based on the number of bearing trees, the Australian Apple and Pear Growers’ Association has recommended that the levy be based on bearing area. Such a basis would not militate against the introduction of improved husbandry techniques, such as the closer planting of trees, which are designed for more efficient production and cost savings. The Association recommendation has, however, been opposed by the Queensland sector of the industry on the ground that a levy on this basis will bear disproportionately on them because of the relatively low yields of fruit per hectare in that State. The Government nevertheless accepts the Association view that an area based levy is the most desirable method, and proposes to meet the circumstances of individual growers in Queensland or elsewhere who experience, on the average a low volume of fruit produced and sold per hectare of leviable land by a system of partial remissions where individuals can demonstrate the need for such a remission. A system of remission will also be applied in cases where a grower can demonstrate that he has suffered significant crop damage in a particular year through natural disaster. 1 turn now to the provisions of the Bill. The Bill imposes a levy at a rate not exceeding $3.00 for every 0. 1 hectare of land on which productive trees are growing. Productive trees are defined as apple trees not less than 5 years old and pear trees not less than 8 years old.
The area of land subject to the levy is calculated by multiplying the number of such trees planted in a regular fashion in orchard plots by the distance between trees in a row and by the distance between rows. The area of productive land for individual trees not planted in this fashion will be calculated on the basis of 0.004 hectare per tree. In calculating leviable area beyond 0.5 hectare any fraction of 0.1 hectare is to be treated as 0.1 hectare (See Clause 6 (3) of the Bill). Liability to pay the levy rests with the holder of the land, that is the person in possession of the land at 1 January in any year.
The minimum area which will attract the levy is 0. 1 hectare or land on which more than 25 productive trees are growing, but once this liability has been established the minimum amount of levy payable will be the amount applicable to 0.5 hectare. The reason for this minimum levy is the high relative cost of collecting and checking the levy from small areas. It is also necessary to take into account the cost which would be incurred by the Corporation . in servicing growers of these small allotments with apple and pear publicity material, pricing information, market reports and other material. Since such growers will benefit from the activities of the Corporation it is equitable that they should contribute a reasonable amount towards its finances.
As I indicated earlier, the Bill is designed to give a firm financial base to the Corporation, which in the short time since its establishment has shown vigour and determination in its approach to the formidable problems of this industry. The Corporation has embarked on a far reaching programme of export market diversification, product research, marketing surveys and intensified domestic promotion. It is imperative, however, that its financial position be strengthened if this initial impetus is to be maintained. I commend the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Senator Bessell) adjourned.
page 785
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 Wriedt) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
The purpose of this Bill is to provide the machinery for collection of the apple and pear levy which is the subject of the Apple and Pear Levy Bill that I have just introduced. The Bill provides for payment of an amount of the levy not later than 3 1 July in any year, subject to variation that may be made by regulations. Regulations will be necessary for example to establish an appropriate payment date for the 1975 year. It is also intended that the regulations will permit payment of the annual levy in two equal instalments throughout the year at the option of the levy payer.
Clause 5 of the Bill is designed to allow the deduction from the amount of levy payable by growers who send pears to a cannery of an amount which would represent the portion of levy referable to those pears. The formula for calculating the amount of the deduction is set out in sub-clause ( 1 ) of Clause 5 of the Bill. Subclause (2) of this Clause also provides for a deduction in respect of any charge in the first year of the levy which may have been paid on export apples and pears under the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act 1938-1973. The remission clause of the Bill (Clause 6) is designed to meet the circumstances to which I have already referred in my speech on the Apple and Pear Levy Bill.
It is proposed that the remission system would limit the incidence of levy to 5 cents per bushel of apples and pears produced and sold from leviable land. The 5 cents per bushel limitation which would be imposed on the incidence of the levy would relate to an overall levy of $30 per hectare, which is the maximum permissable rate. If the operative rate of levy were to be fixed at a level below $30 per hectare, there would be a proportionate reduction in the remission level of 5 cents per bushel.
The proposed remission system should substantially meet problems of individual orchardists in all States whose income from leviable area was affected because of low yields or was seriously affected by natural disaster, or by difficulties in marketing production. However, its principal regional application would be in Queensland where the remission would reduce the average Queensland commercial apple and pear grower levy liability from $30 per hectare to approximately $23 per hectare- a reduction of about $100 per farm (i.e. Queensland levy payers would have a similar per farm levy liability on average as N.S.W. and Tasmanian producers).
In instances of very severe natural disaster, the remission as proposed may be insufficient. Applications for remission by levy payers in those circumstances would be looked at on basis of the case put forward. 1 have arranged for a paper which contains details ofthe proposed remission system to be made available to honourable senators. It is intended that particulars of the proposed remission system would be prescribed in regulations under the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill 1975. The Bill provides penalties for non-payment of levy by the due date with a power to remit such penalties in appropriate circumstances; and also provides for recovery of amounts of levy or penalty due.
Clause 9 of the Bill deals with the powers of an authorized person to enter premises to exercise his functions of search, examination and measurements in relation to what might be leviable land. The authorized person may enter with the consent of the occupier or may apply to a Justice of the Peace for a warrant authorizing entry. The Bill also provides for a penalty for failure or neglect to comply with the requirements of the regulations relating to the submitting of returns and information. Detailed administrative procedures relating to collection of the levy and the submission of the requisite returns and information will be set out in regulations under the Act. I commend the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Senator Bessell) adjourned.
page 786
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 Wriedt) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973 to take account of changes in the income source of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, which will be brought into effect by the Apple and Pear Levy Bill and the Apple and Pear Levy Collection Bill, which have just been introduced. The Bill also repeals the Apple and Pear Export Charges Act 1938-1973 as from the date that the Apple and Pear Levy Act 1 975 comes into operation. Since under the new levy, revenue will flow to the Corporation on a calendar year basis, rather than a financial year, the Bill provides for amendment of the Principal Act to permit the annual report and financial statements of the Corporation to be submitted on such a basis.
The Bill also amends the principal Act to extend the Corporation’s power to borrow in the exercise of any of its powers under the Act. This is presently confined to borrowing only for the exercise of its power to engage in trade. It has become evident that the Corporation will need to have a greater flexibility in respect of the purposes for which it may borrow, particularly in the initiatory period of the new levy. I commend the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Senator Bessell) adjourned.
page 786
Political Parties- National Compensation- Postal and Telephone Charges- Imprisonment of Australian Citizen in Yugoslavia
Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) proposed:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I rise tonight to say a few words in this Senate because of certain statements that have been bandied around the country at the present time as to whether this Government will survive or whether we are going to be forced to the people when the Appropriation Bills come into this Senate. I am very disturbed by some of these statements that are being made by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and also, in particular, by a statement that was made today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lynch. In tonight’s issue of the Melbourne Herald it states:
In CANBERRA today, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lynch, charged the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, with trying to ‘create circumstances for constitutional anarchy’.
Of course, we all know who is creating circumstances for constitutional anarchy. If this does come about, we could name none other than Mr Lewis and Mr Bjelke-Petersen at the head of the list. 1 want to refer to some of the statements that are being made by Mr Fraser in relation to whether there will be a rejection of the Appropriation Bills. I want to quote from the Melbourne Age of 23 September. It is headed ‘Polls hint by Fraser’. It states:
CANBERRA-The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Fraser) yesterday started fresh speculation about an election by carefully leaving his options open on rejecting Supply.
He told a Brisbane rally the Government would get its answer about whether Supply would pass ‘on the day or about the day in which there is in fact a vote in the Senate’.
It would be irresponsible of us as an Opposition to make a decision about it before the time arrives,’ Mr Fraser said.
Can we believe this man? Mr Fraser made up his mind at least 12 months ago as I will relate during my remarks this evening. In the Daily Telegraph of 23 September in a report from Brisbane headed ‘Arrogant’ it is stated:
In statements issued in Canberra yesterday Mr Fraser and the Senate Opposition Leader, Senator Withers, refuted Mr Whitlam ‘s description of the Opposition as ‘a pack of jackals hounding for an election ‘.
Calling Mr Whitlam a ‘pompous, arrogant, profane would-bc dictator’, Senator Withers said the only insurance against an early election was good government.
That is what we have had now for Vh yearsvery good government. I refer now to an article which was printed in Melbourne on Saturday, 20 September. It is headed ‘Libs wait for a nod from Big Mai ‘.It states:
It’s sort of a two-part secret. The first half is that the whole show could cost $1.5m. The second is that I can’t tell you who told mc.
This is written by Jack Darmody. He goes on to say.
But while the nation speculates and politicians ponder on the possibility of an early election, a tight-knit band of specialists is ready to serve up the Opposition Leader, Mr Fraser, to the people tomorrow.
That, according to one member of the inner sanctum, is an indication of the party’s preparedness to go to the polls. lt all depends on one man’, said an aide. ‘Fraser’.
He’s a stickler for convention and he worries himself sick at the prospect of having to force the Government to the polls by blocking Supply. ‘
But if he makes the decision we are ready to go. ‘
– I take a point of order. I was waiting for the honourable senator in his guileness and ingenue-ish way- he has not been here very long- to offend Standing Orders. I now refer you, Mr President, to the relevant standing order which states that no honourable senator shall refer to newspaper reports that deal with matters that are currently before the Senate although he may refer to Hansard. He has now spent seven or eight minutes quoting from newspapers. Mr President, I ask you to pull him into gear and make him conform to the Standing Orders. The second point is that it has been ruled for many years in this Parliament that a senator quoting from newspapers must substantiate the truth or otherwise of the article from which he quotes.
– The standing order to which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has referred is 4 1 4. It reads:
No Senator shall read extracts from newspapers or other Documents, except Hansard^ referring to Debates in the Senate during the same session.
I must be satisfied that Senator McLaren is referring to a debate ‘in the Senate during the same session’. He is entitled to refer to any documentation he wishes on any subject during the adjournment debate.
– In spite of the objection of Senator Cormack, who is renowned for his presidency, I am talking about the Appropriation Bill. It has not been passed by the House of Representatives. So it is not even before this place. Senator Cormack is very touchy on this subject. When he hears what I have to say he will know that he is involved in it. No wonder he is very touchy. He is deeply involved in the articles from which I will be quoting. 1 have quoted all I need to quote from that newspaper. It is on record.
I shall now quote some extracts from a transcript of a television program. Surely Senator Cormack will not deny me that right. I have obtained this transcript from the Library. I was asking whether we can believe this man Fraser when he says these things. The article from which I quoted said that he was a stickler for convention and that he worries himself sick about the prospect of knocking out the Budget. He is worried about all these things. When I opened my remarks I said that nearly 12 months ago be laid the foundation for what he intends to do. 1 will prove that to the Senate. What has happened? I quote from the transcript of a report by Michael Schildberger on the Liberal Party leadership challenge in A Current Affair program broadcast on 27 November 1974. That was when the skids were being arranged to be put under the previous Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Snedden. Mr Staley and Mr Gorton were interviewed by Mr Schildberger. I quote from the transcript:
Reporter:
Can I ask Mr Staley this one? Do you think that perhaps you ‘ve spoilt Mr Fraser ‘s possible chances for the future?
Tony Staley:
No. You couldn’t spoil Mr Fraser whatever you did. Mr Fraser is Mr Fraser, he had nothing whatsoever to do with this move.
The move about which I am talking was the move, which failed, to unseat Mr Snedden at that time. I continue quoting:
John Gorton:
Fraser did have something to do with the move. Tony Staley:
No. he didn’t John. John Gorton:
Well I know that he was round talking to Senators the night before. I know this, there’s no question of it, and 1 also know, and I say this, that all he had to do was to step up and say ‘I’m not going to stand, I’m not interested in this. It’s a terrible thing’, and it wouldn’t have happened.
That night Mr Fraser issued a Press statement. Surely Senator Cormack will not prevent my quoting from his present Leader’s Press statement, lt is headed ‘Press Statement 27.1 1.74’. It reads:
THE HON. MALCOLM FRASER-SHADOW MINISTER FOR LABOUR AND PUBLIC SERVICE MATTERS
1 took no part in what occurred this morning in the Party Room. 1 asked no one for support nor would I do so.
I will put aside that Press statement. I will come back to it later when I have completed my other remarks. It ties in very nicely with what I want to say. Of course Senator Cormack might try to prevent me quoting from some of the other newspapers. So I will put those aside. I quote from the Sun-Pictorial of 28 November 1974, which referred to a statement made by Mr Staley. I quote: lt must be made clear that at no stage did Mr Fraser himself support or make any sort of bid for the leadership whatsoever.
We approached him, and when I made the approach his instinctive and immediate reaction was “Oh, my God. no, don’t talk to me about it.” ‘
All of us know what took place later. I quote from another article in the Sun-Pictorial of the same date. It is an article by Mr Laurie Oakes. It has a Canberra dateline. It reads:
Victorian Liberal MHR, Mr Malcolm Fraser, last night pledged loyalty to the Federal Opposition Leader, Mr Snedden.
He said he had taken no part in the bid to depose Mr Snedden and had given no encouragement.
What occurred was initiated by other people without my knowledge’, Mr Fraser said.
Tonight I will prove that what occurred occurred with the knowledge of Mr Fraser. On 16 January Mr Fraser issued another Press statement. It was issued by the Honourable Malcolm Fraser, shadow Minister for Labor. It states:
In view of rumours and reports which never at any stage were inspired by mc of a challenge to Mr Snedden let me say that I made a statement after the Party room discussion on November 27. In that statement I made it plain I supported the Party room decision.
He issued that Press statement on 16 January. That was a very short time before the real coup.
I refer now to an article by Mr Hugh Armfield in the Age of 8 February 1975. It states:
Yesterday morning Mr Fraser released a statement designed to clarify his position.
The statement said: ‘At my initiative last Thursday, 30 January, and because of my concern, I discussed with Bill Snedden the continued and wrong Press speculation that 1 am promoting a challenge to him as Leader of the Liberal Party. As a consequence ofthe discussion I make this further statement.
Bill Snedden has my full support.
I repeat, as I have said on numerous occasions, that I supported the Party room decision of last November and that I support the elected leader of the Liberal Party.
Despite that, there has been continued widespread speculation that 1 or colleagues of mine on my behalf are promoting a challenge to Bill Snedden. That is not so. There is no contest.
The issue was decided in November. No one to my knowledge or with my consent or support has done anything whatsoever to re-open the question. ‘
I refer now to a statement in the Age of 18 March, which is the next month, headed ‘Fraser wants clean hands’. It ties in’ with what Mr Fraser wants now, if he tries to reject the Budget. He is trying to promote himself as being scrupulously fair and wanting to have clean hands. The article by John Jost states:
It does seem extraordinary that Mr Fraser will not declare his intention to bid for Liberal leadership later this week.
Mr Fraser’s desires have been known for months. His supporters have been broadcasting them far and wide.
We are now about to have a full meeting of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party, for the express purpose of allowing a leadership contest.
But still Mr Fraser stays silent. He even dubbed a suggestion that he would challenge Mr Snedden as ‘theoretical’.
Mr Fraser is not being shy, modest or unassuming. What he wants is to become Liberal Leader without being stained by the political blood of Mr Snedden.
We know that he became the leader and was stained by that political blood. I will not quote further from that article. If people want to follow it up, they can go to the Library and get it.
Despite all these assurances, 3 days later Mr Fraser was the leader. Mr Snedden had been stabbed in the back. All of us know of the midnight happenings at Toorak which led to this event. Many still talk about the organising carried out by the Knight of the Long Knife. I do not need to tell the Senate who that knight is. He was knighted a long time ago. What was Mr Fraser’s first statement after he achieved leadership? I refer to an article in the Australian of 22 March. It is headed ‘Labor has right to govern: Libs’ new leader takes pressure off Whitlam’. I will quote only portion of the article. It is set out in black type. Mr Fraser said: 1 generally believe that if a government is elected to power in the lower House and has the-numbers and can maintain the numbers in the lower House, it is entitled to expect that it will govern for the 3-year term unless quite extraordinary events intervene.
He has changed his mind since then. We know that people such as Senator Withers, Mr Lynch, Mr Anthony, Mr Peacock and Senator Greenwood, no doubt, judging by some of the Press statements I have read about him recently, are running around trying to find an issue. They are saying that they cannot reject the Budget unless that issue presents itself. As 1 said earlier, twelve months ago Mr Fraser knew what he was going to do. So he does not want an issue.
I return now to relate what was being organised by Mr Fraser and certain of his colleagues as far back as October of last year. I shall relate to the Senate a discussion which took place 1 1 months ago today- on 30 October 1974- in the precincts of this building because it has a deep bearing on the credibility of Mr Fraser. Mr Fraser and Mr Street, in the company of a leading South Australian Liberal senator, were discussing the coming move to oust Mr Snedden and what the plans would be if the move were successful. Mr Fraser said it was against Liberal Party policy to reject the budget and that he would overcome this by claiming that the economy was in such a mess that he just had to do it. However, to prevent the Liberal and Country Parties from bringing down the wrath of the public servants and the pensioners upon their heads if an election prevented those people from being paid over the Christmas period, he would offer the Government temporary Supply on the understanding that the Government held an election early in the new year.
That is precisely what is in Mr Fraser’s mind today. If he tries to bring on an election and if he is successful he will say to the Government: ‘I will give you temporary Supply because 1 do not want to have the wrath of the pensioners, the public servants and whoever else depends on a pay cheque from the Government, because of their being deprived of the wherewithal to buy Christmas essentials. The Government will have to give an undertaking that it will go to the people early in the new year’. That is what he was cooking up last year. It is on the plate ready to be brought into this place this year; and that is what we will hear from Senator Withers. His next proposal was that his faithful friend Tony Street would be Minister for Labor and his first task would be to take the unions on in the courts to teach them a lesson. Of course, we know what transpired. Mr Fraser denied all along the line that he was trying to instigate a move to unseat Mr Snedden from the leadership. He left that to Tony Staley. When that move failed he again denied that he was behind a move but we know what happened at Toorak in the dark hours of the night. Out of that Mr Fraser became the Leader of the Liberal Party and Mr Tony Street became the shadow Minister for Labor. The other person who was at that discussion that took place on the night of 30 October missed out. Prior to this that person was a front bencher and a shadow Minister and he is now a back bencher. He is the only one who missed out.
– Who was that, senator?
– If the honourable senator were to do a series of eliminations he would be able to find out who that was. If that person were in this chamber tonight he would not deny that he took part in those discussions on that night. This is what will happen if Mr Fraser takes the plunge that he was contemplating 12 months ago. Then he said in a Press statement:
I took no part in what occurred this morning in the party room. 1 asked no one for support, nor would I do so.
What I have related here tonight is the truth because I heard it with my own ears, so I am not putting anyone in. That night in the guests’ dining room, which was crowded, I was sitting jammed up against a table where some of the really good stuff was flowing when this conversation took place. I overheard what was said. 1 have never said anything about this previously because I do not believe in eavesdropping, but when a letter which was purloined from the Treasurer’s office came into Mr Fraser’s hands and he tabled it in the Parliament, I thought: What is good enough for the Leader of the Opposition to use against this Government is good enough for me to relate in this Parliament’. Whereas he cannot assure the people at large that what was contained in that letter was gospel I can say on my honour here tonight that my account of that discussion which took place was gospel because I heard it with my own ears. I have a piece of paper here. I went straight back to my office and I wrote on this piece of paper Guests’ dining room. Fraser- Wannon. StreetCorangamite. Wednesday October 30th’. I also wrote the other name, which I will not mention. To prove further that I was there and heard that conversation I have here my docket from the Joint House Committee to show that I and 2 guests were sitting at that table. We are being told around the country by Mr Fraser that he knew nothing at all about the move to unseat Mr Snedden, that he knows nothing at all of any move to upset the Budget and that he is going to wait until it comes into the Senate. I have proved here tonight that Mr Fraser laid the foundations of what he is going to do as far back as October 30 last year. I challenge Mr Street, Mr Fraser or the person who was in their company to deny that that discussion took place.
– Seldom in 23 years have I delayed the Senate on an adjournment motion and less seldom have I stayed to listen. I certainly would not have put my name down to speak tonight if I had known that I had to suffer such stupidities and nonsense. But I believe in the principle of fair play. Mr President, today it was not my turn to be called to ask a question. I wanted to ask a question of the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) because of an attack he made following a Dorothy Dix question from Senator McAuliffe. He made an attack on the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) who is the shadow minister for social security in the Liberal-Country Party coalition opposition. Unfortunately I could not ask my question in broadcast time but I want to put it in the same Hansard as records the attack on the honourable member for Hotham. As far as I recall Senator Wheeldon ‘s reply to the question, it was stated that he was interviewed on the Australian Broadcasting Commission about the Australian Government Insurance Corporation by a Mr Paul Davy of Sydney who telephoned the Minister. On the program AM either that day or the next day the honourable member for Hotham was quoted as answering questions which were put to him by Mr Duncan of the ABC in Sydney in a telephone call to Melbourne.
The full transcript of the interview by telephone will prove that Mr Duncan questioned Mr Chipp about national compensation and did not mention in the recorded interview the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. It will be recalled that in the Senate this afternoon Senator Wheeldon, as a Minister replying to a question said, in brief terms, that it was obvious that Mr Chipp did not know anything about the AIGC and the difference between it and the National Compensation Bill. I had knowledge of Mr Chipp’s concern at the abbreviated and distorted reportage by AM of a portion of the telephone interview, so I told Mr Chipp of what had happened in the Senate and got his leave to produce and read in the Senate an extract from a letter which he had written to the editor of AM asking for an explanation of what Mr Chipp suggested in his fairness was unwitting misreporting of his participation in the recorded interview. I will keep the Senate only another 2’/6 to 3 minutes. Mr Chipp took the opportunity, having received the information from me, of making a personal explanation in the House of Representatives. On being given the authority to make a personal explanation he said:
I claim to have been misrepresented by the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s morning program AM. I would not normally have bothered about making a personal explanation because I believe that I was unwittingly misrepresented by the AM program but because Senator Wheeldon-
I understand has made cheap and dishonest political capital out of this matter in the Senate. I seek to put the record straight in this House. Last Wednesday evening I was telephoned by Mr Geoff. Duncan from AM in Sydney. I was informed that Senator Wheeldon had made a statement in Queensland to the effect that the Government was to reintroduce the National Compensation Bill in the form in which the Senate had already rejected it so as to make it a double dissolution issue.
I think that there are already 15 of them. Mr Chipp went on to say:
Mr Duncan also said that it had been reported that Senator Wheeldon stated that he would be prepared to consider any amendments which the Opposition proposed. I informed Mr Duncan that I was astonished by this news and really could not believe that the Government would re-introduce this Bill which had been to a Senate Select Committee- on which there had been 3 distinguished-
The generosity of Mr Chipp- members of the Labor Party. Those members had scathingly criticised several aspects of the Bill including the sickness provisions and had doubts about its constitutionality.
Mr Duncan assured me that Senator Wheeldon had referred to the National Compensation Bill. It was on his assurance, and only on his assurance, that Senator Wheeldon had been referring to the National Compensation Bill, that I then made a series of comments on tape lasting, from memory, three or four minutes. In the event the transcript has been tabled in the Library and 2 paragraphs of mine appear together with an interview with Senator Wheeldon. At the time Mr Duncan spoke to me he had not been able, or had anybody been able, to speak to Senator Wheeldon. He was relying on a teletype from the ABC in Brisbane which stated that Senator Wheeldon had mentioned the National Compensation Bill. Apparently on the Thursday morning some-
I emphasise the word ‘some’- of my reported comments as per the transcript in the Library were set against the spoken words of Senator Wheeldon to Paul Davey, another ABC interviewer, so my comments came over with no reference to the spoken comments of Senator Wheeldon.
So as to make the matter absolutely certain before and after Mr Duncan recorded my comments I had an informal discussion on the telephone with him about the extraordinary action of the Government in re-introducing the National Compensation Bill. At no stage during our conversation did Mr Duncan refer to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill. This can be confirmed by a journalist from the West Australian newspaper who rang me the next day and asked me to comment on the AGIC Bill. Of course I refused because that is not my area of responsibility. It is the area of responsibility of my colleague, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch). I have written to the editor of the AM program about this matter asking for a copy of the complete transcript and registering my deep and immediate concern with him. I have asked him to make any comments that he wishes to make to me.
I will read no more of what Mr Chipp said. I will not indulge in any criticism of the Minister because I believe that he was perhaps, like the ABC programmers, unwittingly mislead as to what his political opponent, Mr Chipp, had been asked and how he had replied. But this does bring before the Senate a serious situation whereby 2 members of the staff of a radio documentary program can interview 2 members of the national Parliament, not tell either of the members in truth what they had spoken to the other one about, put questions to them; then probably after they had written their report, somebody else, not knowing anything about what transpired between the members and the commentators, edits it to make an interesting documentary, in such a way that both members of the Parliament are put in a situation in which they have either misreported each other or have been accused of making differing statements. As I remember Senator Wheeldon ‘s remarks, he said that the whole thing showed that Mr Chipp did not know what he was talking about in relation to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation.
– I will not detain the Senate for very long. I simply wish to table in the Senate a form of petition which is not a form that is appropriate for presentation in the Senate. It is headed ‘We the undersigned protest against the extra costs of postal and phone charges’. It bears 191 signatures. It was forwarded to me by a Mrs V. E. Smith of Devonport. I seek leave to table it.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– I think I said at the time I answered the relevant question this afternoon that I had not heard what Mr Chipp had said but that it had been reported to me and I had obtained from the Parliamentary Library a transcript of the broadcasting program AM, which I in fact tabled in the Senate this morning.
– But it was not a transcript of the interview.
– It was a transcript of the program which was broadcast by AM which is what I said. I am not psychic; I do not know what happens inside the Australian Broadcasting Commission. But the program which was broadcast and which had been reported on to me was to the effect that I had said something about the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill and then Mr Chipp, on being asked what he thought about that, had said that it had been condemned by three distinguished members of the Australian Labor Party and that it was most extraordinary -
– I was not even on the committee.
-Senator Cavanagh said that he was not even on the relevant committee. It is rather surprising that there should be three left. If I may, I wish to refer to the transcript which was provided to me. In referring to the Bill 1 said:
We believe than an Australian Government Insurance Corporation can be just as beneficial in the field of insurance as the Commonwealth Bank has been in the field of banking. I support it because I believe it’s a good Bill and in the interests of the Australian people to have it passed.
The transcript continues:
Announcer.
Well, has this caught the Opposition on the hop. Geoff Duncan speaking to the Shadow Minister for Social Security and Welfare, Don Chipp.
Mr Don Chipp:
A Senate Select Committee of both parties sat for several months and went into it and condemned the Bill as being probably unconstitutional, the cost astronomical, the sickness provision not to be countenanced -
And various other things followed. It seemed to be fairly clear what it was saying and I, in all good faith, took that to be what had actually occurred. In fact, my secretary subsequently telephoned a producer- I have forgotten what are the correct titles- of AM in order to obtain some clarity from him and the person contacted at the Australian Broadcasting Commission said that Mr Chipp in fact had been asked about the AGIC. I completely accept the assurance given by Mr Chipp, by way of a personal explanation, that there was some confusion. Certainly when 1 was interviewed I was not told at any stage that I was to be involved unwittingly in some sort of debate on the subject with Mr Chipp and that he would be commenting on what I said. I had no idea that Mr Chipp would be spoken to. I know nothing of the matter other than that I was telephoned by somebody while in Brisbane and asked certain questions about the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill.
I am sorry that Mr Chipp felt constrained in the course of his explanation to say that I had engaged in cheap and dishonest propaganda, or whatever the expressions were that he used. I was acting on what had been handed to me and I assumed that the ABC had correctly reported what in fact had taken place. Mr Chipp does not need to give an assurance but if he says that he understood that he was being asked about national compensation I believe him. I always have regarded Mr Chipp as a person with whom I have very friendly relations. I am sorry that something which occurred within the ABC should cause a situation such as this to arise. I agree that if this is what happened, and it appears to be what did happen, the ABC has engaged in a rather extraordinary practice in any event, whether it was accurate or not, by interviewing a Minister and then not telling him at the same time that it would be asking somebody else for comments on the subject. I find that in itself a little peculiar. I have nothing to add to the subject other than to say that if I have misrepresented Mr Chipp in some way it was done unwittingly on my part because I was relying on the transcript given to me and the reports people gave me of what they had heard. When I see Mr Chipp I will apologise for my references to him and ask him whether he will withdraw his references to me.
– I desire to refer to a matter not raised during the debate on the adjournment tonight. There is at present in gaol and under a death sentence in Yugoslavia an Australian citizen about whom this Government seems remarkably unconcerned. When I say that he is under a death sentence and this Government seems remarkably unconcerned I am relying on information given to me and about which I am seeking some explanation or statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). Mr Marco Nazor is an Australian citizen of Croatian birth ordinarily resident in the Australian Capital Territory suburb of Dickson. He came to Australia in 1966 and I am assured he has led a blameless life. He was naturalised in 1 972. In April of this year he went with his wife and children, all of whom were born in Australia, to Yugoslavia for a holiday. Apparently he was arrested in June of this year and has been languishing in prison ever since. My first information about this matter came from the newspapers on, I think, Wednesday or Thursday of last week. In them it was related that he had been in gaol for some 3 months, that no one was able to find out the charges against him, that Australian officials in Yugoslavia had not been able to contact him and, according to a spokesman in the Department of Foreign Affairs, there was nothing the Australian Government could do. I must say that that verified the feeling gained from my experience over the past two or three years, that we have a Department of Foreign Affairs which has treated Croatian born Australian citizens as second rate Australian citizens. This man has been imprisoned on an unspecified charge and Australian officials have not been allowed to see him, and all this has happened in a country, Yugoslavia, with which the Australian Government claims to have close and friendly relations.
I said in a Press statement I issued at the time that it is a shameful confession on the part of this Government that there is nothing it can do. I expressed the view that this Government is concerned not to say or do anything which would offend the Government of Yugoslavia. As far as I can see there was no response subsequently by the Department of Foreign Affairs, by the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs or by the Minister for Foreign Affairs since he has returned which would give any information about this matter. My concern in raising the matter tonight is due to the fact that I received information today from a person who has been contacted by a relative of Mr Nazor and who has received information from Yugoslavia to the effect that he has been charged with a treasonable offence, that the death penalty has been imposed on him and that his wife has been sentenced to 6 years in gaol.
I ask the Minister whether he will make a statement about this matter. Will he say whether the Government has been able to get in touch with this man in Yugoslavia? If it has not been able to do so, what steps have been taken or will be taken in the future? Is it prepared to bestir itself on this occasion for a Croatian born Australian citizen who is entitled to the protection of this Government? If a situation like this had arisen in some other countries, America or South Africa for example, I do not think this Government would have been quiet. Cables of protest would have been sent, there would have been publicity and there would have been Press statements aimed at shaming the particular offending government into doing something about the situation. I call upon the Minister for Foreign Affairs to respond.
- Senator Greenwood has told us that he had some information about this matter this afternoon. I returned to Australia yesterday morning and was unaware of this case until I was given some papers this morning as part of my usual preparation for questions that 1 may be asked. That was the first 1 knew about it. Senator Greenwood said he had some information this afternoon. I wish he had given me the information then and not 5 minutes before I came into the chamber tonight. I would have been able to have given him a far fuller reply than 1 can give now. I assume he did not think to do that earlier in the day. If he had done so I would have been in a much better position. I do not think it is fair to say that the Department of Foreign Affairs has treated people of Yugoslav or Croatian birth as second class citizens. I have never seen any such indication.
– You have had letters from me for months to which your Department has not replied.
-If the honourable senator had told me that I would have obtained the replies. I certainly would not allow my Department to treat anybody as a second class citizen at any stage. It is quite unfair to say that if this had happened in South Africa we would be doing different things. There was a very well known case in South Africa involving a naturalised Australian and we did all the things in respect of it that we do in respect of other cases.
Perhaps there is a little general information I can give about the matter that Senator Greenwood raised. He would remember what happened when he was Attorney-General in respect of his relationships with the Croatians. He would remember the difficulties he had, including difficulties with other Ministers in the then Government, about this very vexed question of people with dual nationality. The situation is that the acquisition of another nationality by a person with Yugoslav citizenship is not recognised under Yugoslav law unless that person formally renounces his Yugoslav citizenship and the renunciation has been formally accepted by the Yugoslav Government. That is not what we say; that is what the Yugoslav Government says. The view of the Yugoslav authorities is that it is a principle of international law, reaffirmed in article 4 of the 1930 Hague convention on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, that a State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a State whose nationality such a person also possesses. In such circumstances the ability of Australian official representatives to assist an Australian citizen who has Yugoslav nationality is limited if he commits an offence under Yugoslav law.
When we came to government there was precious little the Australian Government could do to protect the interests of dual Australian Yugoslav nationals arrested and tried in Yugoslavia. With great respect to the previous Government, it had done nothing about a situation such as this. We have demonstrated far more concern for Australian citizens of Yugoslav extraction than it did. We commenced negotiations with the Yugoslav Government with the aim of securing the right of proper consular information about dual nationals detained in Yugoslavia, the right of observation by Australian officials at the trials of such people in Yugoslavia, and the right of consular access to such persons detained in Yugoslavia. Since the commencement of these negotiations the Yugoslav Government has agreed that Australian officials can attend trials of dual nationals in Yugoslavia and that consular information will be provided to Australian officials about dual nationals arrested in Yugoslavia. This is progress that we have been able to make as a Government. We are still carrying on negotiations to obtain more information and to give us greater access to information on what has been a very difficult situation- a situation in which the previous Government made no gains at all but in which we have been able to make some gains. I am not aware of the situation described by Senator Greenwood. As I said, had he given me the information earlier today I would have been able to provide him with more details. I shall certainly make inquiries as to the exact situation and I shall do whatever is possible to ascertain whether Senator Greenwood’s information is correct and to what extent we can check it in Yugoslavia. I shall advise Senator Greenwood of the outcome of my inquiries.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 11.6 p.m.
page 795
The following answers to questions were circula
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:
Arc replacement parts for black and white television sets becoming difficult to obtain; if so, is this due to deliberate policy by manufacturers to force people to purchase colour sets.
– The Minister for Manufacturing Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question. 1 am not aware that manufacturers of television sets have been withholding spare parts for monochrome receivers so as to encourage people to purchase colour sets. Existing monochrome sets are predominantly of local manufacture. In view ofthe wide range of imported as well as local colour sets that is available to prospective buyers, the colour set sales of any local manufacturer would be likely to suffer if consumers consistently found it difficult to obtain replacement parts for that manufacturer’s monochrome sets. The deliberate creation of shortages of replacement parts for monochrome sets would therefore not seem to be in the best interest of any local manufacturer.
For much of 1974, there was a world wide shortage of electronic components, and this could have contributed to difficulties in obtaining replacement parts for monochrome sets. The shortage has eased and components are now more readily available.
Recent months have seen an upsurge in imports of monochrome sets as a result of the tariff reduction in November 1973. Some of these imports may have been brought in by importers without the service facilities provided by established suppliers. A similar situation may occur in relation to colour sets. There have already been reports of colour sets being imported without the approval ofthe local representative of the overseas manufacturer and which may therefore not have the benefit of adequate service facilities. Prospective buyers of television sets should therefore consider the likely adequacy of service facilities as well as the initial purchase price. As has been pointed out by the Government in the ‘Australian Buyers’ Guide’ one way of minimising longterm service problems with television receivers is to buy from a company which has a reputation for maintaining spare parts and for providing service.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:
Senator WHEELDON-The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Behavioural Disturbances and Learning Disabilities (Question No. 674) Senator Baume asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Feingold ‘s research is not applicable in Australia. In the light of current knowledge approved food additives in use in Australia are safe.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
What are:
the names of the current operators of all forms of shop/restaurant concessions at the Sydney International Air Terminal;
the terms of the concessions; and
the rent paid by each concession holder.
– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Olims Travellers Services Ltd- Restaurant, bars and three shops selling travellers goods, jewellery and books;
the fees paid by each for 1974-75 were:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice:
– The Minister for the Media has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:
– The Acting Foreign Minister has provided the following answer:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:
– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The honourable senator should understand that the discussions I have had with the Minister for Transport on this matter are confidential.
asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:
– The Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:
– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The numbers of Councils which received funds are:
Regional Councils may be allocated funds of up to-
Mr R. J. Myers, University of Sydney; Dr L. Tierney, University of Melbourne; Mr L. Halliwell, University of
Queensland; Dr A. Graycar, Flinders University; Professor L. Jayasuviya, University of Western Australia; Mr A. Jamrozik Tasmanian College of Advanced Education.
The reports of the evaluators were released by the Social Welfare Commission on 30 July, 1 975.
Extensive consultations and discussions have been conducted with Local and State governments, voluntary organisations and agencies, consumer and community groups and citizens. These will be continued and are expected to intensify following the publication by the Social Welfare Commission, of its recommendations to the Australian Government ofthe future shape of the Australian Assistance Plan. In this way the views of as wide as possible spectrum ofthe community will be taken into account before legislation is prepared.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the following question, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:
– My Department has provided the information below in answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l)and(2)-
asked the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Judge ‘s Associate Tipstaff
Secretary- Class 9 Clerk Assistant Secretary- Class 6 Clerk Steno-Secretary (Grade I).
Consultants have been employed at the Judge’s discretion and Departmental staff have been made available full-time at varying times.
Departmental staff comprised:
First Assistant Commissioner Level 3-( 1 ) Assistant Commissioner Level l-( 1 ) Clerk Class 10-(1) Clerk Class 9-(l) Clerk Class 8-(2) Clerk Class 6-(l) Clerk Class 2/3-(l) Steno-secretary (Grade I)
Other Departmental staff provided assistance on a part-time basis as needs arose for research, report and administrative assistance.
Examine and report on the adequacy of the arrangements by the Repatriation Commission in its overall responsibility for providing or arranging and supervising the total rehabilitation, re-establishment and re-employment program for each eligible Repatriation client. In this regard, make recommendations as to the need, if any, for any additional rehabilitation facilities, such as sheltered workshops, day centres, etc., to be provided within the Repatriation system.
Examine and report on the use, if any, that should be made of Repatriation hospitals and rehabilitation facilities for members and ex-members of the Forces, their wives and children.
asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:
– The Minister for Manufacturing Industry has. provided the following answers:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The seat factors for Qantas have been based on the total number of revenue passengers uplifted and discharged by the airline over the whole route on each of its two Pacific services. Foreign airlines operating to Australia are not required to supply the Department of Transport with details of passengers uplifted and discharged between points outside Australia. Accordingly, seat factors for Pan American, CP Air and UTA have been based on the total number of revenue passengers carried to/from Australian ports on their respective Pacific services.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
However the first ship ordered by the Australian National Line was the ‘Princess of Tasmania’ and it was launched on 13.12.1958.
As these vessels were constructed overseas and purchased or chartered by ANL, the launching dates are not readily available.
Up to the 30 June, 1975, the Line has undertaken expenditure on terminals in the following ports:-
Brisbane-$2.307m Sydney-$3.806m Adelaide-$ .087m Melbourne- $ .409m
The Line operates General Cargo services through 16 ports throughout Australia, including the above 4 ports.
Apart from this expenditure, terminals were built by the appropriate Harbour Authority, for which the Line pays fees.
The average rates per ton (inclusive of port charges) in the Bass Strait trade at the date of changeover to roll-on roll-off vessels were:-
Subsequent Australian National Line’s freight rate changes in the coastal general cargo trades have been as follows:
Reduction
October 1961 - 15 percent; Northbound cargoes in Bass Strait trade
Increase
September 1 965-1014 percent; Hobart/Brisbane trade August 1970-1216 percent; All trades July 1971 - 1214 percent; Sydney /Tasmania trade July 1971-8 percent; Melbourne/Tasmania trade
Selective Increases to Correct Anomalies 14 August 1972- Dense Cargo (except aluminium, zinc concentrates, green timber and other defined Tasmanian export commodities) 1 4 August 1 972-1 2 per cent; Sydney /Tasmania trade 14 August 1972-25 per cent; Melbourne/Tasmania trade 14 August 1972-20 per cent; Hazardous cargo all trades 14 August 1972-1 1 per cent; Newsprint Tasmanian trades
Removal of Concessions 1 4 August 1 972-22 per cent: Heavy lift cargo all trades 14 August 1972-18 percent: Mobile industrial machinery all trades
Surcharge
I July 1974-214 percent; Necessary as a result of 20 per cent increase in wharfage charges at all North Tasmanian ports
Increase 1 2 September 1 974-25 per cent; All trades Reduction 20 November 1974- up to $2.40 per cubic metre; Northbound general cargo from Tasmania (excluding bulk cargo and paper)
Surcharges (necessary as a result of increases in wharfage charges by port authorities) 1 January 1975- Melbourne/Tasmania trade 1 January 1975-214 percent; Northbound I January 1 975- 1 V4 per cent; Southbound 1 July 1975- Melbourne/Tasmania trade 1 July 1975- increased from 214 to 5 per cent; Northbound
I July 1975- increased from 114 to 314 percent; Southbound 1 July 1975-114 per cent; Melbourne/Queensland trade 1 July 1975-1 per cent; Melbourne/Darwin trade, northbound only
I July 1975-N.S.W./Tasmania trade I July 1975-1 percent: N.S.W. inward 1 July 1975-14 percent; N.S.W. outward I July 1975-N.S.W./Queensland trade 1 July 1975-1 percent; N.S.W. inward 1 July 1975-14 percent; N.S.W. outward
Increase 1 August 1975-40 per cent; All trades except northbound general cargo from Tasmania (excluding bulk cargo and paper)
Empress of Australia ‘ passenger service for each of the two years ended 30 June, 1974 and 30 June, 1975. The subsidy will continue during the current financial year.
The Government has also announced that a subsidy will be paid in respect of the northbound general cargo services from Tasmania excluding bulk commodities and paper. The results in these trades for the year ended 30 June 1 975, on which the subsidy will be based, have not yet been determined and audited. The subsidy will continue until the Nimmo Commission report becomes available and is considered by the Government.
There were some earlier voyages of an occasional nature to various overseas countries, primarily with steel or bulk cargoes.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Northern Australia, upon notice:
– The Minister for Northern Australia has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Department of Northern Australia 2 Journalists Grade Al- $14,815-15,397 1 Journalist Grade A-$ 1 2 ,5 65 - 1 3 , 1 5 9 2 Journalists Grade B-$ 10,647-1 1, 169
Darwin Reconstruction Commission 1 Journalist Grade A- $12,565-1 3, 1 59 1 Journalist-$ 15,600
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:
– The Mnister for Manufacturing Industry has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Journalist Grade A2, Director Public Relations, Canberra$ 16,537
Journalist Grade Al, Assistant to Director Public Relations Canberra- $ 15,397
Journalist Grade Al, Editor Publications, Canberra$ 15.397
Journalist Grade A 1 , Public Relations Officer. Victorian Region-$ 15,397
Journalist Grade A. Assistant to Editor Publications, Canberra-$I3,159
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Social Security 1 Director, Public Relations- $17,676 2 Assistant Director, Public Relations- $ 16,537 2 Journalist Grade A I -$ 1 5,397 2 Journalist Grade A I -$ 1 4,8 1 5 1 Journalist Grade A-$12,565
Health Insurance Commission 1 Director, Public Relations-$ 17,676 1 Journalist Grade A-$ 15,397 4 Journalist Grade A-$ 1 2,565 2 Journalist Grade B-$ 10,647
Social Welfare Commission l Clerk-$ 15.224
asked the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:
– The AttorneyGeneral has furnished the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:
Director of Public Relations- $ 1 6,537. Journalist, Grade A 1 -$ 1 5,397. Journalist Grade B-$ 11,169.
asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:
Will the Minister give details of (a) the numbers of people approved for re-training under the National Employment and Training Scheme; (b) the total number approved in each week of the Scheme’s operation; and (c) the distribution of approvals in total by Local Government areas.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:
– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l)and(2)-
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, upon notice:
– The Minister for Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The Commission is continuing to apply the investigatory practices and policies which were developed and applied by the former Postmaster-General’s Department. Departmental instructions relating to these practices and policies were last issued in July 1973 and their application is governed by the particular circumstances and findings of the investigations carried out in each case.
Where, after a check of all computations of charges included in the disputed account and discussions with the subscriber, higher than normal metered call charges cannot be accounted for and the subscriber maintains that an overcharge has occurred, a special investigation is carried out. Normally, the investigation covers the following:
Testing of the meter itself and other equipment associated with the particular subscriber’s service.
Examination of the fault history of the service and exchange fault records for any possible cause of irregular metering.
A check of the recorded meter readings and comparison with previous calling rates.
Interviewing of the subscriber to seek additional information which might support alleged overcharging or provide possible explanations for higher usage.
In addition, when deemed necessary, special equipment which prints on paper tape details of calls made is associated with the service- usually for at least 2 weeks- to further check the accuracy of call registration.
The instructions to the Commission’s staff authorised to finalise overcharge complaints with subscribers are designed to protect subscribers’ interests and at the same time ensure that the Commission receives payment for services provided. They cover the following points:
An adjustment of charges to be made where there has been some failure on the part of the Commission to provide approved facilities or arrangements required by a subscriber to safeguard the use of his service, or where the facilities fail to operate correctly or are interfered with without the knowledge ofthe subscriber.
Adjustments in respect of rental overcharges to be fully retrospective.
Allowance of a credit or refund where expense has been incurred because of inadequate or incorrect information supplied by the Commission’s officers about facilities.
The delay in finalising complaints should be kept to an absolute minimum and the administrative and technical components of the investigations should be carried out with all possible speed.
The need for careful analysis of periodical meter readings within the accounting period and discussion with the subscriber where any unusual variations are detected. Where there has been a sudden increase in call registrations during the period in question the reason for which cannot be determined beyond reasonable doubt a mutually satisfactory adjustment is to be negotiated with the subscriber.
The need for investigating officers to avoid the adoption of an inflexible attitude in their treatment of cases.
The referral to Commission Headquarters for decision of any cases not clearly covered by the foregoing. (2), (3) and (4) See answer to ( I ).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:
Advice to my Department on the negative aspects of dispersants and oil on the marine environment is provided by a Committee of Advice. This committee consists, of among others, representatives of the Australian Government Departments of Environment, Agriculture (Fisheries), Science, Minerals and Energy, Transport, and CSIRO, and also of the oil industry.
My Department agrees with Dr A. W. Larkum on the effects of the indiscriminate and wanton use of dispersants in dealing with oil spills.
Under the National Plan dispersants will only be used when their effect on the marine environment will be less than that of the oil if it were allowed to come ashore.
asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
In Melbourne the ABC Station 3ZZ does provide an access facility to ethnic communities. The 3ZZ Ethnic Programming Committee considers approaches by the various ethnic communities for access, and it liaises directly with ABC officers involved in the 3ZZ operation.
An ethnic radio experiment is currently underway in Sydney and Melbourne on Stations 2EA and 3EA respectively, which are licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Neither of these stations were originally established as access stations, but in the present expanded phase of the experiment, the Sydney and Melbourne management committees will be charged with the responsibility of ensuring the fair conduct of minimum access requirements.
Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply (Question No. 790)
asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Up to 100 Fund members could be eligible to draw under the 1975 facility. Each country’s maximum access is determined by a formula based on the rise in its oil import costs and the size of its quota in the International Monetary Fund. Eligibility is subject to establishment of a balance of payments need. Loans are conditional; each borrower is required to describe its policies to achieve medium term solutions to its balance of payments problem and to describe any measures to conserve oil or to develop alternative sources of energy that it has taken or proposed to take.
Loans are for up to seven years and the interest rate for all borrowers is about 7.75 per cent. The extent to which this rate will be effectively reduced for the poorer developing countries will depend on the total contributions made to the Subsidy Account. The Oil Facility is financed by IMF borrowings. Total funds available for the 1975 facility are presently about SA3.1 billion. Funds lent by the 1974 Facility were SA2.4 billion.
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:
Where is Pollock’s picture, ‘Blue Poles’, now hanging and where has it been hanging for the past six or so months.
– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Jackson Pollock’s painting, ‘Blue Poles’ is in storage in the Australian National Gallery repository, Canberra, where it has been since the close of its public exhibition in Adelaide in November 1974.
Budget Estimates
– On 26 August 1975 Senator Steele Hall asked me a question without notice concerning the annual Budget estimates. The
Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Judgments about the annual Budget estimates based on figures for one month can be very misleading. Both outlays and receipts- and consequently the deficit- can fluctuate considerably from month to month in response to seasonal and other influences; these influences render the monthly budgetary figures an unreliable guide to the annual figures.
Seen in this light, it is wrong to describe the July result as disastrous’. Outlays in July 1975 totalled $l,692m, compared with $2,070m in June and $ 1,803m in May. The large increase in outlays between July 1974 and July 1975 reflected in the main the rapid growth in outlays which occurred during the latter part of 1974-75 following the downturn in the economy. The relatively small increase in total receipts in July 1975 compared with July 1974 also reflected the impact of the reduction in the personal income tax rate scale during 1974-75. Mainly for this reason gross PA YE receipts in July were only 5 per cent greater than a year earlier, despite a large increase in earnings.
The figures for August, which are now available, serve to underline the point that conclusions about the Budget outcome for the year as a whole should not be made on the basis of a single month’s figures. The deficit in August was $3 1 5 m, less than half the deficit for July and only $17m more than the deficit for August 1974. Having regard to fluctuations in the pattern of receipts and outlays over the year the figures for the first two months of 1975-76 are not inconsistent with the Budget estimates for the year as a whole.
The Budget
-On 20 August 1975 Senator Cotton asked me a question without notice concerning financing of the 1975-76 Budget deficit. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Since the Honourable Senator asked this question he has asked a number of further questions on financing the deficit in the context of the debate on the Loan Bill 1975. Answers to those questions have been incorporated in Hansard at pages 4 1 8 to 42 1 and 695 to 703. The answer to question 7 in the first set of questions and the answers to questions 1 1 to 14 in the second set provide as full an answer as can be given to the Honourable Senator’s question without notice.
Peru
– On 4 September 1975, Senator Mulvihill asked me for an assessment of the change of leadership in Peru. The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to Senator Mulvihill ‘s question:
The new President, General Morales Bermudez, announced publicly on 5 September that there would be no change in the basic policy of the Peruvian Government but that there would be changes in the procedures and methods to be adopted by the government in carrying out its basic aims.
The Australian Embassy has maintained without interruption normal business dealings with the Peruvian Government.
I might add that the Australian Government will pursue its policy of developing Australian/Peruvian relations as foreshadowed in the joint communique issued at the conclusion of my visit to Peru earlier this year.
Department of Urban and Regional Development
-On 28 May, 1975, Senator Baume asked the following question, without notice:
Does the Defence Service Homes Act require that the applicant for a loan under this Act must be in occupation of the home in question at the time of settlement? Do some churches require their ministers to reside on church property? If so, docs this mean that ministers of religion who are veterans are thus excluded during the period of their ministry from acquiring homes under the Act? In the light of assurances given earlier today to Senator Drake-Brockman, will the Minister undertake to include this anomaly with that raised by Senator Drake-Brockman for the Minister’s attention?
The answer to Senator Baume ‘s question is as follows:
On 28 May 1975, in a question without notice, you asked whether the Defence Service Homes Act requires the recipient of a loan under the Act to be in occupation of the home at the time of settlement. You also asked whether this meant that a minister of religion who is required to occupy a home provided by his church is thus excluded from obtaining a Defence Service home.
The provisions of the Defence Service Homes Act specifically preclude the granting of assistance under the Act unless the Australian Housing Corporation is satisfied that the dwelling-house, the subject of the application, is intended to be used as a home for the applicant and his dependants. In conformity with the legislative requirements it is not possible for Defence Service Homes assistance to be approved unless the Corporation is satisfied that the applicant will occupy the home at the time of settlement or shortly thereafter.
Although you referred only to church ministers in your question there are others, such as bank managers, caretakers,
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
Approval to proceed with the acquisition of a home with temporary finance in the circumstances mentioned is subject to settlement within 5 years and to the condition that a Defence Service Homes loan to discharge the bridging finance will not be available until the applicant takes permanent occupation of the home, and then only if the policy in operation at the time permits such assistance to be granted.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:
– The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Whyalla Shipbuilding and Engineering Works, Whyalla, S.A.
State Dockyard, Newcastle, N.S.W.
Evans Deakin Industries Ltd, Brisbane, Qld.
Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd, Sydney, N.S.W.
Reasons for the closure were essentially commercial, lt is understood from published statements of the companies, that Adelaide Ship Construction Pty Ltd withdrew from shipbuilding because of its inability to quote competitively for new contracts and the difficulties it faced in meeting contractual! commitments because of industrial unrest within the yard. Walkers Ltd indicated that poor shipyard results, the damaging effects of floods, difficulty in maintaining contractual completion dates and the uncertainty of covering over-award payments on existing contracts led to the decision to close its shipyard.
During the past five years, the levels and forms of subsidy assistance have been as follows:
Subsidy was assessed as the difference between the lowest Australian tender price and the estimated cost of construction in the United Kingdom. The maximum amount of subsidy payable was 33 V6 per cent of the Australian tender price.
was also provided through the Government’s power to buy and sell ships under Section 47 of the Australian Shipping Commission Act.
However, in this period, the contractual arrangements for building ships were entered into between the Owner and the shipbuilder. The Australian Government contracted with the shipowner to purchase the ship from him at the total building cost and to re-sell it back to the Owner at a lower price, the difference representing the amount of subsidy contribution by the Government.
Initially, the maximum rate of assistance was 45 per cent of the lowest tender price. This rate of assistance is being phased down to a long term rate of assistance of 25 per cent.
Details of changes in the forms and rates of assistance introduced by the Australian Government on 1 8 December 1973 are set out in the press release of the then Minister for Secondary Industry, Mr K. Enderby, M.P., of that date, (c) From 20 June 1975- The Ship Construction Bounty Act is now the legislative basis for providing financial assistance to Australian shipbuilders.
This table does not include details of defence vessels ordered in the period. The Minister representing the Minister for Defence would be able to provide that information.
Australian Emblem’
ANL asked the four larger Australian Shipyards, Evans Deakin Industries, Whyalla Shipbuilding and Engineering Works, State Dockyard, and Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard to submit an indicative quotation for the vessel. None of these yards did.
Melbourne Trader’
This vessel was purchased when construction was well advanced to meet an urgent need for tonnage in the Tasmanian trade. The vessel has been temporarily imported and is to be replaced by the ‘Seacoaster’ vessel under construction at State Dockyard. 29 000 dwt. Container vessel
Delivery offered by the only Australian yard with the capacity to build the vessel, would not have enabled ANL to meet its trade commitments. 4 Large Bulk Carriers
No Australian shipyard has the capacity to build vessels of the sizes ordered.
Takasago’
The two Australian yards which submitted tenders quoted prices and delivery times which were substantially higher (even after subsidy) and much longer respectively than submitted by the successful tenderer.
Similarly a possible requirement exists for two small vessels for CSIRO and Australian Institute of Marine Science. However, Budget constraints will mean some dealy in proceeding with these vessels.
A further project for a 57 metre navigational aids vessel for the Department of Transport is at an advanced stage and it is hoped to place an order in Australia for this vessel before the end of the year.
Information in respect to future orders for Department of Defence vessels should be sought from the Minister representing the Minister for Defence.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 September 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750930_senate_29_s65/>.