Senate
21 October 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1247

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Pensioners: Telephone services

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

That the decisions of the Australian Government-

  1. to depart from its 1972 election promise that basic pensions would be related to average weekly earnings and never be allowed to fall below 25 per cent thereof, and
  2. To increase postage costs and the costs of installation and annual rental of telephones, will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by these facts to call upon the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review theabovementioned decisions (a) and (b), and to determine-

  1. That pensions be related to average earnings as promised by the Prime Minister in his1972 policy speech, and
  2. That no charge be made for installation or rental on the telephones of those pensioners entitled to a PMS card.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mulvihill (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Army Cadet Corps

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we protest at the Government’s decision to abolish the Army Cadets.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the cadet corps be continued.

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

Petition received.

page 1247

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1247

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I ask Senator

Wriedt, as Minister for Minerals and Energy: Since assuming his new portfolio has he examined the material which is now available to him as the Minister for Minerals and Energy? Has he in particular checked the allegations made by Mr Khemlani that a Mr Karidis of Adelaide had acted, after 10 June 1975, as the former Minister’s intermediary in the raising of an $8 billion loan? If the Minister has not checked the allegations, why has he not? If he has checked them, will he assert positively that Mr Khemlani’s allegations are without foundation?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · TASMANIA · ALP

– The question, of course, is based on the same accusations which have formed the basis of the whole of this so-called loansaffair over the past few months. I remind Senator Greenwood that last week when Mr Khemlani was in the country I invited one of Senator Greenwood’s colleagues to persuade members of the Opposition to use the opportunity and to bring Mr Khemlani before the Senate in order that this information might be sought. That invitation was not accepted by the Opposition. I think it is fair to say that that is proof that Mr Khemlani did not have the information that the Opposition suggests that he has. I noticed a Press report that Mr Khemlani consulted a solicitor whilst he was here about alleged claims he might have against the Australian Government. According to the newspaper report the solicitor must have told Mr Khemlani to be on his way, presumably because he had no case to support. Therefore, Mr Khemlani has left the country. I repeat that the opportunity presented itself for the Opposition to have Mr Khemlani brought before the Senate. It was not taken up.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I again ask the Minister the question I asked him previously: Has he checked the files which are now available to him? If he has checked them, will he say that Mr Khemlani ‘s allegations are completely without foundation?

Senator WRIEDT:

-I have checked the same files which this Parliament and the Australian public have had the opportunity to check over the months; that is, all the documents relative to this matter which have been tabled. I indicated last week that the Government is currently considering any other material which may be relevant to the Khemlani matter. These matters are under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister and are currently being considered by the Government. I hope that an announcement will be made this week as to the tabling of any further documents.

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr President, I ask for leave to ask a further supplementary question to get an answer to the question which I first asked.

Senator Poyser:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has twice answered the question which Senator Greenwood wants to ask a third time. I think that is taking the situation to a ridiculous stage. Senator Greenwood is hogging the whole of question time at the expense of other honourable senators. Because he is not satisfied, he wants to hog the whole time against all other members of the Senate.

Senator Wright:

- Mr President, I speak to the point of order. I remind you that Senator Greenwood’s main question was: ‘Has the Minister, Senator Wriedt, checked the files relevant to this matter?’ Senator Wriedt is a Minister accredited to this chamber. I submit that he is bound to answer that question.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, may I speak to the point of order? It is my understanding that at question time I can answer questions as I see fit. I have twice answered the questions which have been directed to me. I do not intend to add anything further on them. I suggest that any further supplementary questions by Senator Greenwood would not be in order.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I want to speak to that point of order because I think it is important. During my term in opposition in the Senate we did not have the right to ask supplementary questions until Senator Sir Magnus Cormack became President of the Senate. He adopted the custom of the House of Commons and permitted a supplementary question at such times as an honourable senator needed clarification of an answer given by a Minister.

Senator Withers:

– This is a perfect case for it, then.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No. An accusation has been made that the question was not answered in the way in which the questioner wanted it answered. That is the allegation now. When Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was President an honourable senator would ask only one supplementary question. It is not a proper use of the right to ask a supplementary question if a Minister is to be subjected to interrogation by the one questioner throughout question time. The concession was given during the period Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was in the chair. I submit that perhaps one supplementary question is permissible but further questions should not be allowed. The Minister has no obligation even to answer a question. He can ask for it to be put on notice, if he so desires. It has always been ruled that a Minister answers a question in the way he deems fit. Senator Wriedt has done that on two occasions. The answers do not suit Senator Greenwood and he wants to occupy question time for the sole purpose of putting somebody under interrogation in a legalistic fashion until such time as he gets the answers he wants. They may or may not be the correct answers.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think the point has been quite well raised. The practice of asking supplementary questions was introduced by my predecessor, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. That was already a practice in the House of Commons. I felt that the practice should continue and I would be loth to end it. On the other hand, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack always stipulated that a supplementary question must be for the elucidation of some aspect of the question rather than to widen the scope of a question. I think that one supplementary question should be sufficient and that if the matter is not completely clarified by the further information the question should be placed on notice because, as has been mentioned in discussion of the point of order, the time of the Senate is being taken up. So I rule then that in future I will allow only one supplementary question.

page 1248

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN JOURNALISTS IN TIMOR

Senator POYSER:

-Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether he has any information concerning the fate of the Australian television crews reported missing in East Timor?

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

– It appears that the television newsmen- one team from Channel 7 in Melbourne and the other from Channel 9 in Sydneywere filming in the border areas near the town of Balibo which was the scene of heavy fighting between rival factions on Thursday and Friday of last week. The Senate will be aware of the report cited in a Jakarta newspaper Kompas on 20 October that advancing UTD and Apodeti forces had come across the remains of 4 male Europeans in the Balibo area. The UTD leader, Lopez de Cruz, was reported as saying that he could not confirm whether the 4 people were Australian journalists, but the written markings on the ruins of the house in which the 4 bodies had been found indicated that they might be Australians. While the Press report was sketchy it indicated that the house could have been hit by a mortar or artillery shell, presumably during last week ‘s heavy fighting.

We are, of course, gravely concerned about the fate of these missing journalists. The Australian Embassy in Jakarta has been able to enlist the co-operation of the Indonesian authorities who have undertaken to do what they can through their contacts with Apodeti and UDT to try to ascertain the identity of the 4 bodies. An officer of the embassy will be proceeding to the border area shortly, perhaps today, to make an on-the-spot investigation. It has been the Government’s practice to issue standard warnings as opportunity permits to Australians who have proceeded to Timor about the risks of travelling to Timor while fighting continues. We have established, in the case of both the Channel 7 and Channel 9 teams, that the pilots of the charter aircraft involved were specifically provided with such warnings. I would like to reemphasise to any people who are considering a visit to Timor that the situation there is unstable and that they might be putting themselves at serious risk by entering areas where fighting is in progress or may occur.

page 1249

QUESTION

MEDIBANK CARDS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-BROCKMAN -I ask the Minister for Social Security: How is it that in times of economic crisis, with austerity drives in government departments, my wife and I received 7 Medibank cards in the 6 weeks’ period I was away from Australia? How is it that I have been given 2 Medibank numbers? What assurance can the Minister give the Senate that mine is an isolated case and that gross wastage in staff time and postage is not occurring?

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

– I must confess that I was unaware that Senator Drake-Brockman had received all these cards, and it certainly must have been a pleasant surprise for him when he came back from overseas to find them waiting for him. There has been a number of instances of people not having received a card and there are other instances of people having received more than one card. These are the sorts of problems which are going to occur in the introduction of any massive scheme such as Medibank. One consequence of using computers, I suppose, is that although a number of things can be speeded up there are opportunities for error which sometimes are greater in certain types of instances than in the case of ordinary human error. I cannot give any assurance that this is an isolated instance. I think that the number of instances of these things taking place has been relatively very small compared with what one might well have expected to be the case with such a huge operation. I am only sorry that a member of the Opposition’s shadow Cabinet was one of those who received 7 cards. I will see that in future, if possible, if anybody is going to receive the wrong cards it will not be Senator Drake-Brockman.

page 1249

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence seen Press reports to the effect that one result of the Opposition’s refusal to pass the Appropriation Bills will be that the defences of Australia will grind to a halt? Can the Minister confirm the accuracy of these reports? Can he indicate what steps can be taken to ensure that this country is not left defenceless?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Honourable senators opposite are laughing. It is a very serious question. Only a few days ago honourable senators opposite sat on the relevant Senate Estimates Committee. During a gruelling examination, which took over 2 hours I think, of the funds appropriated for the defence Services they made sure that those funds were identified in respect of every Service- the Royal Australian Air Force, the Army and the Navy. It is clear that, because of the Opposition’s action in blocking supply, after 30 November- that is the date I have been given- there will be no money for the defence Services.

Senator Young:

– The honourable senator should ask a serious question.

Senator BISHOP:

– Is it not a serious question? This result, of course, will be due to your action. Opposition members of the Senate Estimates Committee have approved the funds that are required for the Services. Now they want to make sure that all the ships, aircraft, etc will not operate. They will make sure that not only the 70 000 Service men and women but also all the people in the civilian services will not have funds and will not receive wages after 30 November.

This Government expects the nation to honour any entitlement which those staff will have in regard to pay, travelling and overtime. I hope that the Parliament of the country will accept that entitlement. We will see what we can do to ease whatever burdens there will be. The position is clear and the Opposition cannot get away from it. I wish to refer to one other very important service that has come to our attention, namely, the Natural Disasters Organisation. That Organisation has been launched and is perfect in its operations. That Organisation, like the rest of our services, will be affected. Of course, not only the defence departments but also every other department will be affected. It is up to the Opposition to decide what to do about it.

page 1250

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct to the Minister for Agriculture a question which deals with the dairying industry and which is in 2 parts. Is the Minister aware of a judgment in a recent case involving milk produced and processed in Victoria and supplied for sale in New South Wales through sources other than the New South Wales milk authority? Can he say what effect this judgment will have on the orderly marketing of dairy produce in Australia? Secondly, has he knowledge of progress being made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its inquiry into assistance which may be required by the dairying industry resulting from reduced Government assistance? Can he say when the report will be presented?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The Industries Assistance Commission report on the dairy industry is due, I think, on 30 June 1976.I am no longer the Minister for Agriculture- at least, I do not think that I am- but if my memory serves me correctly, there is an interim report to be tabled or to be given to the Government I think in December of this year. As to the earlier matter raised by the honourable senator, the Federal authorities would not have any jurisdiction as I understand it. This matter falls within the ambit of the State governments. It reflects one of the very great problems which the dairying industry has had throughout the whole of Australia, that is, the right exercised by the various State governments to hinder a national attitude towards the dairying industry. I should say that not only this Government but also the previous Government was fully aware of the problems of the States’ rights in this matter. I think efforts have been made over the years, through the Australian Dairy Industry Council, to overcome them. I can only say with regret that today I do not think they are much more advanced than they were some years ago.

page 1250

QUESTION

WAGE INDEXATION

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Labor and Immigration seen reported statements by the Leader of the National Country Party, Mr Anthony, to the effect that he is not in favour of wage indexation? Can the Minister tell the Senate what the likely consequences in terms of inflation and unemployment would be if this policy were to be implemented by the self proclaimed alternative government?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Anthony consistently gives bad advice to his partners in crime. It is about time they stopped listening to him. On the question of indexation, I am glad to see that Mr Fraser has not fallen for the crude, misinformed, reactionary line of Mr Anthony; neither have most of the large employer organisations in this country. In the last indexation case the Premiers of every State supported the Australian Government’s case on indexation. So once again Mr Anthony is out of tune with the mood of the electorate. I suggest to honourable senators opposite that if they stop taking any notice of him they will keep out of trouble. Last night I spoke at a meeting of the Metal Trades Industry Association. I later spoke to most of its members and found unanimous support for indexation. If indexation is abandoned at this stage there is no doubt that we will get a wage explosion of the dimensions of 1974, with horrendous results for the inflation level and a consequent increase in unemployment. Once again all I can say is that I am relieved to find that in this instance at least Mr Fraser and the Liberals have not fallen for the stupidities of the Leader of the National Country Party.

page 1250

MONEY BILLS IN THE SENATE

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the

Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the following reported statement by the Prime Minister that was published in the West Australian of 18 October and, no doubt, other newspapers in Australia:

But the Opposition Senators would have to bite the bullet of being the first Senate in Australian history -

Rather dramatically- three-quarters of a century, which has rejected a money Bill.

As the Labor Opposition in 1970- indeed, 3 times between 1967 and 1970- rejected a tax or money Bill in the Senate, is the Prime Minister telling the truth?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-To begin with, I have not seen the report referred to by Senator Sim and I certainly cannot recall what measures were opposed by the Opposition of those days of seven or eight years ago. I think the best thing would be for the honourable senator to place the question on the notice paper and for me to give him a factual answer.

page 1251

QUESTION

MEDIBANK LEVY

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security, whom I ask: Has the Minister read the comment by Mr Chipp, member of the House of Representatives, as reported in the Melbourne Age of today, that a Liberal Government would consider a special levy to part-finance Medibank’ and that ‘any welfare scheme of this type completely paid for out of general revenue was doomed because of the strain it put on resources’? Does that comment amount to an extraordinary about-face by the Opposition? Does it cast doubt upon the whole credibility of the Opposition in relation to its new social welfare policy?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I have read the report and I have in fact read the paper which was prepared by Mr Chipp. It certainly does constitute a very remarkable about-turn by him and his Party on this question. I think the Senate will recall that at the Joint Sitting of both Houses of the Parliament on 7 August last year the Health Insurance Act and the Health Insurance Commission Act, which established the Health Insurance Commission, which operates Medibank, and which provided for the payment of the benefits that are available under Medibank, were passed and that subsequentlyon 1 August and 1 1 December last year- 2 Bills which were presented by the Government were rejected by the Senate after having passed through the House of Representatives. Those 2 Bills were the Health Insurance Levy Bill 1974 and the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill 1 974, which in fact provided for a special levy to pay for Medibank.

It is rather odd that the Liberal Party should now say that something which was to be financed out of general revenue would be a total failure when, legislation having been passed to provide for Medibank, it was through the actions of the Liberal and Country Parties that the proposals that it should be financed out of a special levy were rejected by the Senate. It is certainly a most extraordinary proposition that is being put forward that when we put up a levy Bill they rejected it and that after it has been rejected it suddenly becomes sound policy. I agree with what Senator Everett has said. It casts doubts over the whole integrity and understanding of Mr Chipp and the Opposition on the question of health services.

page 1251

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In view of the Prime Minister’s statement on Four Corners last Saturday that he acted immediately he knew that Mr Connor had misled the Parliament, will the Minister confirm that Mr Connor resigned not because of ill health but because his resignation was demanded for misleading the Parliament?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I do not know what the Prime Minister said on a television program over the weekend. I certainly did not see any. The Prime Minister has made clear in his statement to the House of Representatives the reasons for Mr Connor’s resignation. I have nothing to add to that.

page 1251

QUESTION

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration whom I refer to Press reports that the Government will not be in a position to honour Regional Employment Development scheme commitments because of the Opposition’s deferral of Budget funds. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the amount of money that is needed to honour obligaion to scheme sponsors? If the Government cannot pay these moneys, what effect will this have on unemployment?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is extraordinary that every question today that refers to the ill effects of the Opposition’s conduct has been greeted by the Opposition with laughter. I am sure that the public at large will not be laughing at these problems.

Senator Withers:

– Why don’t you take us to the electorate and test it?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Why does the Opposition not let us run our term as every other Government has been able to do? To meet the October commitment for the Regional Employment Development scheme the Government has $2. 65m. The actual commitment is $10m, leaving a shortfall of just under $8m. The deferral of the Appropriation Bills means that the jobs of more than 20 000 people currently employed under the RED scheme are in immediate jeopardy. Other workers- for example, workers in the building materials industry- who are reliant on the RED scheme also are in danger of becoming unemployed. I should also mention that about 14 500 people who are training under the National Employment and Training scheme might not receive their training allowances after the end of the month. Many of them are totally reliant on these allowances for maintaining their families. The same applies to subsidies under the National Apprenticeship scheme. Already my Department is finding that it has no funds available to meet claims from employers for assistance under the National Apprenticeship scheme. If honourable senators opposite find this funny I can assure them that the population does not.

page 1252

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I remind him that on 30 July 1974, 28 May 1975 and again in August 1 975 I asked the AttorneyGeneral or his representative in the Senate why the Freedom of Information Bill promised by this Government since early 1973 had not been seen publicly and seems to have disappeared without trace. Does the Minister recall on the last two occasions undertaking to ascertain its fate and expressing expectations that it would soon be seen? Can he inform the Senate whether the Bill is a further victim of the abandonment of open government?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-One of the problems of a government that is kept in a state of permanent crisis is that desirable legislation gets postponed. When the Parliament settles down to behaving in a normal way we will see the emergence of some of this desirable legislation.

page 1252

STATISTICS BILL

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he can indicate why the Statistics Bill which was passed by this chamber some months ago has not yet been proclaimed and when it is likely to be proclaimed.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I would need that question to go on notice to be referred to the Treasurer for an answer.

page 1252

QUESTION

SALE OF BEEF TO RUSSIA

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has he seen a League of Rights pamphlet stating that Russian housewives are buying Australian beef at 9c lb and that the Government has subsidised Union of Soviet Socialist Republics consumers to the extent of $6m? Is there any- truth in these allegations?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I did see some reports to the effect that Russian housewives were allegedly paying less for their beef than Australian housewives. I would not know about that but if they are it is certainly not due to any give-away price that we permitted in the recent sale of beef to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That sale was negotiated by the Australian Meat Board and the price paid was 21c per lb. That was 2c above the ruling United States price at that time, so no one could suggest in the light of the very depressed beef market in the world at that time that that was a give-away price. In fact it was a very good sale. It was assisted, of course, by the loan provided by the Australian Government to the Meat Board to permit the Meat Board to finance the sale to the U.S.S.R. and, of course, to other countries. I can assure the honourable senator that there has been no giveaway price of anything like 9c per lb. I do not know on what possible basis the pamphlet could suggest that it was a figure of 9c. It was a very good commercial deal on the basis of the ruling market conditions at the time.

page 1252

QUESTION

FUNDS FOR POLICE SERVICES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Police and Customs inform the Parliament when funds for the Department of Police and Customs will run out? More particularly, when will police services in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory suffer generally as a result of the shortage of funds?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I was pleased that funds had not run out before today and that we had an effective police force out front at lunch time. The Department of Police and Customs has funds to pay salaries up to and including 27 November. Strict controls have been placed on expenditure in the Department to make this possible. Only unavoidable overtime is being worked. It is expected that this will result in a reduction of about 50 per cent in the overtime payments. Travel by departmental officers is undertaken only in exceptional circumstances at present. That is expected to reduce the expenditure on travel also by some 50 per cent. Other operational expenses which we are reducing include freight and the running of motor vehicles and launches. The use of motor vehicles and launches will be restricted as far as practicable. So I can say that the efficiency of the police force now is not what it was when there was no threat to the money supply. Nevertheless, there is no money in sight to pay wages after 27 November.

The Minister assisting the Minister for Defence spoke about the harm to the country if we had no defences. That would be a threat only if someone invaded us. I ask the Senate to anticipate the threat to Australia after 27 November if we have no police.

Senator Baume:

– We will have the State police.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-We will have the State police but there are no State police in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory.

Senator Webster:

– Did not you give these instructions at the beginning of the month?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not know the instructions to which the honourable senator is referring.

Senator Webster:

– Instructions to lower expenditure.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is very difficult to understand Senator Webster at any time, because of the way he babbles on. I am pointing out the dangers. I hope that we will get some sense in the Parliament before that time. I am not prepared to ask men to work without pay or salary. It is repugnant to all of my trade union principles. Although there may be policemen who will work, I think the morale of the force will suffer greatly. I think we must do whatever we can to avoid this happening.

page 1253

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Does the Government accept that Mr Khemlani is a person of good character? Does the Government now have any reason to doubt Mr Khemlani ‘s honesty or bona fides?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I should think it would be fair to say that Mr Khemlani apparently has made statements since he left the country which one would have assumed he could have made while he was here. These comments are related to the answer I gave earlier to Senator Greenwood. If Mr Khemlani believes to be true the things that he is saying then he should have been prepared, in concert with the members of the Opposition, to come to the Senate and tell us all about them.

page 1253

QUESTION

AIRLINE BOOKING SERVICES

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether he has seen an article in an airline magazine concerning an improved telephone service to facilitate booking arrangements for passengers from small centres. If so, can the

Minister say when the improved facilities will operate?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– A new telephone trunk service known as the distant exchange service was introduced some time ago to cater for the needs of organisations such as the two domestic airline operators which maintain regional telephone reservation offices. Under the system, they can have a 24-hour service. For example, if a Canberra subscriber dials a local number to book an airline ticket, instead of the matter being dealt with locally it goes through to the centre in Sydney. This saves a lot of money and, as I have said, gives the customer a 24-hour service. The idea of the regional booking arrangement is to give a better service to customers and to effect savings in local staffing and accommodation. I understand that, as well as the airlines, a number of other organisations are using or are interested in using the service.

page 1253

QUESTION

NEW RADIO STATIONS

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. He may recall that I originally asked this question on 4 September and have asked it again on a few occasions. I refer to the issue of wireless licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. I again ask the Minister whether he has been in touch with the Attorney-General to obtain an opinion from the AttorneyGeneral’s Department as to whether the issue of such licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act contravenes that Act. If the Minister does have an answer, will he give it to the Senate? Is it a fact that the Minister has been supplied with an opinion from the Attorney-General’s Department?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I promised Senator Young some weeks ago that, as soon as I had the opinion and it had been examined by the heads of both the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Department of the Media and had been interpreted, I would let him know. We have received the opinion but it has not yet been evaluated or examined. I would hope that within a few days I will have an expression in relation to it from the 2 departments and at that time I will certainly be able to give the honourable senator some information.

page 1253

QUESTION

CITIZENSHIP APPLICATIONS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration and relates to the current sizeable backlog of citizenship applications existing at the Sydney Immigration Office. In view of the speed-up by the New South Wales Police of screening processes, what supplementary action is contemplated by the Department of Labor and Immigration in Sydney to overtake this backlog?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In May of this year the Public Service Board approved a total of 43 positions, the number asked for by the Department of Labor and Immigration to speed up the processing of immigration work, including citizenship applications. Some 17 of these positions will be located in Sydney.

page 1254

QUESTION

TELEVISION INTERVIEW ROOM

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. Does the Parliament provide a room on the Senate side of the House for television interviews? Does the use of this room carry a strict provision that it is to be used to interview only politicians? Is it a fact that on Wednesday, 1 5 October, the room was used by the0-Ten television network to interview the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Bob Hawke? Does that constitute a blatant breach of the provisions under which the room is made available? If so, will you give serious consideration to the withdrawal of these privileges from the0-Ten network?

The PRESIDENT:

– I take notice of the honourable senator’s question. I will give it full consideration and supply him with an answer.

page 1254

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA POLICE

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

– I ask the Minister for Police and Customs: Is it true that there is considerable opposition to the setting up of an Australia Police Force amongst members of the police forces in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory? Is this opposition based on a belief that the police activities in the Territories are quite different from those of the Australia Police?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I would not say there is great opposition. There is some concern amongst members of the Australian Capital Territory Police Association and the Northern Territory Police Association about being merged into one force. I think their fears are groundless. The local police and the Australia Police perform different functions. In the Territories the police have had a range of functions which cover general police activities whereas the Commonwealth Police previously policed Commonwealth law. With the amalgamation, all of these activities will be the responsibility of the one police force. A conference will be held next week of the federation of police associations. 1 have made arrangements to speak to the Secretary of the Federation, Mr Tremethick, and the Secretary of the Australian Capital Territory Police Association, Mr Oldroyd. I think we can iron out all the difficulties as there is much to be gained from having one police organisation. The public will gain by having all police activities within one large organisation instead of having small fragmented organisations.

page 1254

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to Mr Bagier and his colleagues a very warm welcome to the Senate. I hope that their visit to this country will be most enjoyable and fruitful.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 1254

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Minerals and Energy: Will he assure the Senate that nothing in the records of his Department or within his knowledge as a Minister and as a member of the Executive Council confirms in any way the repeated allegations by Mr Khemlani that the Prime Minister was kept continually informed by Mr Connor of the overseas loans negotiations?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Insofar as my personal knowledge is concerned, I can say yes. So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, it is a matter I will refer to him for an answer.

Senator Carrick:

– I referred to the records of your Department.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I have already indicated that any other matters which have not been tabled in this Parliament are the subject of Government consideration at the present time. I understand that the Government may make a decision this week as to whether further documents will be tabled.

page 1254

QUESTION

DUTY FREE SHOPPING

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Customs. I refer to an article which appeared on 1 4 October in the Daily Mirror concerning a change in the duty free buying patterns of Australians shopping overseas. The article points out that since last March visitors going overseas may bring back to Australia goods to the value of $200 with an additional $160 worth of items admitted at a duty rate of 20 per cent. Could the Minister inform the Senate if the details contained in this article are correct and if unaccompanied baggage could be included in the values mentioned?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I saw the article to which the honourable senator has referred and the information contained in it is correct. There has been a change with respect to the duty free allowance for passengers entering Australia. This change came into operation last March. Rather than place restrictions on the type of goods that may be brought in, there is a duty free permissible allowance of accompanied goods up to the value of $200, but there is a restriction as to the quantity of certain goods that may be brought in. There has been a further change in that an additional $ 1 60 worth of commodities attract a dutiable rate of 20 per cent, which is below the overall rate of different commodities having varying rates. This does not apply to unaccompanied baggage. We receive many complaints from people who have gone overseas, bought articles and sent them by freight to Australia. Duty is payable on those occasions. This is one of the problems that we have to face. Despite its aim of expediting the admission of passengers to Australia there is nothing that the Department can do to simplify the method of duty payments. Essentially it must be accompanied baggage if it is to attract the duty concessions.

page 1255

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WRIGHT:

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it not a fact that the Executive Council minute of 1 3 December 1 974 relating to the Khemlani loan stated that the loan was for temporary purposes? Is it not a fact that the accompanying documents- the promissory note, the draft acceptance and other documents- several times stated that the loan was for 20 years?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I understand that the answer to both questions is yes.

page 1255

QUESTION

NURSING HOMES

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it true, as alleged by Mr Brian Jacques, secretary of the Private Geriatric Hospitals Association of Victoria, that the present parliamentary situation will mean the closure of dozens of nursing homes in Victoria by Christmas? Will the Minister assure this chamber that this will not be the case and that patients in these nursing homes will continue to receive their nursing home benefit entitlements as well as their pensions?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– It is understandable that Mr Jacques, along with a number of other people in the community, should be very concerned about the actions of the Opposition in withholding the Budget. But as it happens, in this case Mr Jacques’ fears, so far as geriatric nursing homes as concerned, are ill founded. Both the payment of nursing home benefits under the National Health Act and payments to religious and charitable homes to meet operating costs are deficits under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act and payments are made under the National Welfare Fund which will not be affected by the current situation. In the Budget it was announced that the rates of nursing home benefits payable to patients in private nursing homes and approved under the National Health Act would be increased from the first pension day in November, which is 13 November. A Bill to amend the National Health Act to provide for these increases will be introduced into the Parliament this week, and. I presume that the Opposition will not oppose this Bill.

However, there is one problem to which of course Mr Jacques would be quite right in drawing attention, and that is that although the actual appropriations for geriatric nursing homes are covered elsewhere, the salaries of the public servants who administer these funds and make arrangements for the payments are covered in the Budget itself, as are the various administrative expenses involved. So it may well be that if the Opposition continues on its present course for long enough, the very difficulties that Mr Jacques has foreseen facing his organisations will in fact arise.

page 1255

MONEY BILLS IN THE SENATE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is further to the question asked by Senator Sim, which he was unable to answer, in relation to whether Mr Whitlam was telling the truth. I ask: Is it not a fact that Senator Wriedt was present at a meeting which issued a statement from Kirribilli House at the weekend? Is it not a fact that that statement said that the committee there did not concede the Senate’s right to reject money Bills and noted that no Senate had ever done so. Is it not a fact that on 18 June 1970 there was a series of divisions in this chamber on the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill? I further ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is the Hansard of 18 June 1970 incorrect in showing at pages 2681 and 2682 that Senator Wriedt himself joined with other members of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democratic Labor Party to defeat the second reading of that major taxation measure? Is the Prime Minister clearly not telling the truth?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I do not know in what way that question is related to a meeting at Kirribilli House on Sunday and I do not propose to answer any questions relating to that meeting. As to the record of the Parliament, I repeat that I will have an opportunity to peruse Hansard to my own satisfaction before I answer such a question.

page 1256

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer the following question in view of the Prime Minister’s deceitful claim in April-May last year that he and his Government had beaten inflation. Is it a fact that recent steep increases in the Government’s indirect taxes on beer, cigarettes and petrol and enormous rises in postal and telephone charges will not be reflected fully in the consumer price index until the December quarter index is published next year? Is it also a fact that the Budget deficit will be far higher than the planned $2.8 billion, even if only for the reason that the cost of Medibank will be higher than estimated? Are the people of Australia entitled to conclude from these clear indicators that high inflation is to continue and may well grow higher?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is unfortunate that Senator Scott and many of his colleagues use such terms as ‘deceitful’ when referring to the Prime Minister. There was nothing deceitful about the Prime Minister’s statement in April and May of 1974 about inflation because the indicators then showed that inflation was levelling out. He made no more of a claim than did anybody else on the information available to him, and indeed to everyone, that the increase in the rate of inflation was levelling out. There was nothing deceitful about that statement. It was a factual statement and a statement that the Opposition was sorry he was able to make because the Opposition was desperately wanting the rate of inflation to increase. Ever since then the Opposition has been satisfied with the fact that inflation has increased.

As to the other matters concerning the consumer price index and the question of whether or not inflation will continue, of course inflation will continue but it will not continue at the rate it has over the past 12 months. Last week I answered a question along similar lines and, although I understand the figures for the September quarter have not been officially published yet, I think they will show the continuing trend that has been achieved by this Government, very largely through its involvement in the indexation case, as a result of which the rate of increase in incomes has come down markedly in the past 9 months. This is an example of the positive steps the Government has taken to reduce the rate of increase in incomes and at the same time to reduce the rate of increase in inflation. It is quite wrong to suggest that because of the other factors nominated by Senator Scott inflation must continue to rise at the rate at which it has risen over the last 12 months. That will not be the case.

page 1256

MONEY BILLS IN THE SENATE

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Does the Leader of the Government recall hearing the Prime Minister state on national television on Saturday night that he has opposed the right of the Senate to interfere with or to reject money Bills? If so, I ask him whether he recalls the Prime Minister saying, as recorded in Hansard in 1970 when the Budget was before the House of Representatives, the following words: let us take this Budget and the Government which produced it to the people themselves. The Parliament has already voted supply to the end of November. By that time, there can be an election for both Houses. An election therefore would cause no disruption. The only thing that will cause disruption is the continuance of this Government.

Can the Leader of the Government explain why the Prime Minister takes one view in Opposition and takes a directly opposite view in Government? Could it be that the Prime Minister is untruthful?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Senator Greenwood’s question implies that I must have been sitting watching television on Saturday night. I was not. I was listening to Mozart, which was much preferable. Listening to Mozart would be preferable to listening to any politician on a Saturday night, including Senator Greenwood. I do not know what the Prime Minister may or may not have said. I am not going to comment on something I have not heard. Reference has been made to the matter, but I am not aware of what he said.

page 1256

QUESTION

DARWIN RECONSTRUCTION

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. I refer to the Senate Estimates Committee discussions and ask the Minister whether he is aware that during these discussions several weeks ago there was consistent questioning of departmental officers about the progress being made in the rebuilding of Darwin. What effect will the decision of the Senate to delay the Appropriation Bills have on the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Darwin?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The effect of the Opposition’s withholding appropriations from the Government in this instance will be the same as it is in other instances; that is, the funds which would normally be available under the Darwin Cyclone Damage Compensation Act to compensate people in Darwin for the loss of property and, to a lesser extent in this case, for death and personal injury will not be available. Without the funds being made available to them by way of compensation from the Government, obviously the amount of money available to the people of Darwin to rebuild Darwin will be much less. Of course, the reconstruction of Darwin will be affected by the withholding of appropriations from other departments as well. Certainly, as far as the very pressing task of rebuilding that devastated city is concerned, the actions of the Opposition will have a most harmful effect indeed.

page 1257

QUESTION

OCEANOGRAPHIC CONFERENCE

Senator BAUME:

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs concerns the intergovernmental oceanographic conference to be held in November in Paris. Can the Minister give assurances to the Senate that the Australian delegation to that intergovernmental oceanographic conference will vote against any motion to expel Israel and against any motion to admit the Palestine Liberation Organisation to the conference?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I am not aware of the details of this conference or of what motions might be moved. I will certainly look at the matter. I thought Senator Baume might have been referring to the United Nations vote recently on Zionism.

Senator Baume:

– No.

Senator WILLESEE:

-I appreciate that. We voted in the way the honourable senator would want us to vote. I take it that is why he did not raise the question.

page 1257

QUESTION

MEDIBANK CLAIMS

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. In asking it I refer to Press allegations about delays in the payment of Medibank claims. I ask the Minister whether he will provide the Senate with answers to the following questions: How many claims of all types has Medibank received since 1 July 1 975? What is the current average daily intake of claims?

Senator Baume:

– Why did you not come to the Estimates Committees?

Senator COLEMAN:

- Senator Baume, would you care to ask my question for me? How many cheque and assignment claims were on hand as at Friday, 17 October 1975? What is the average time lag for payment of claims, other than cash paid claims?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Since Medibank became operative on 1 July last nearly 1 1 million claims have been received and more than 1 50 000 claims are received every day. Last Friday about 550 000 cheques and assignment claims were on hand in the various offices of the Health Insurance Commission. The average time lag for the payment of claims, other than cash paid claims, is a little over 8 days. There are 3 reasons why this is the case. The information relates to the period between the date of receipt of the claim by the Health Insurance Commission and the date of the preparation of the cheque. With the volume of claims being received there have to be cases, usually for very good reasons, which exceed this norm. They are the cases which the Opposition likes to quote in its rather schizophrenic approach to Medibank which it sometimes supports and sometimes opposes. What I think is relevant is that 90 per cent of Medibank claims are paid in under 2 weeks. Although there is a very great tendency for opponents of Medibank, most of whom seem to be members of this Parliament, to make statements to the Press whenever the 5-day cycle of payments is not met, I do not regret that we do not have such a tight schedule for processing these claims. I am quite convinced that in a short while, when the Health Insurance Commission has had an opportunity to settle down and eliminate the problems which I think can be fairly described as teething troubles, the objective of a 5-day average for the payment of claims will be quite easily reached.

page 1257

QUESTION

SENATE SITTINGS

Senator WITHERS:

-Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicate to the Senate whether or not the Government desires the Senate to sit next week? The Leader of the Government will recall that, according to the Government’s program, the Senate is to go into recess for 2 weeks. I further indicate to the Leader of the Government that should the Government desire to sit next week and the week after and the week after that the Opposition would not resist such a course of action. I was wondering whether he can give that indication to honourable senators.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am sure honourable senators will regard it as the best news of the day to learn that we will be coming back here next week. I have discussed this matter with Senator Douglas McClelland and he will be giving notice of a motion to that effect tomorrow. So, presumably, in view of Senator Withers’ indications, we can all look forward to another couple of weeks of joining battle.

page 1258

QUESTION

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DEVITT:

– I address my question to the Special Minister of State. Is it a fact that the Industries Assistance Commission and its predecessor, the Tariff Board, have been inquiring into the aluminium industry for some time? Can the Minister advise whether a final report on this industry has yet been received from the Commission? If it has been received, when will it be publicly released?

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

– It is a fact that the Industries Assistance Commission has been inquiring for some time into the aluminium industry. Earlier this year a draft report was released by the Commission for the consideration of the various witnesses who had given evidence to the Commission. I think it was the first time in a large scale inquiry that the IAC had adopted the practice of releasing a draft report for the consideration of witnesses before it prepared the final document.

The honourable senator will remember that about a fortnight ago when I was in Nauru representing the Australian Government at a meeting of the South Pacific Commission my colleague, the Acting Special Minister of State, Mr Lionel Bowen, released the report of the IAC on aluminium and articles thereof. The matter has been referred to the standing interdepartmental committee which inquires into matters relating to assistance to industries. I understand that that committee will be considering the matter on or about 8 November. The report has been released publicly.

page 1258

QUESTION

REPORT ON ETHNIC RADIO

Senator YOUNG:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Media whether the Bayutti report dealing with ethnic radio will be tabled in this place. I understand that the report has been completed and is in the hands of the Government.

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

– I am given to understand that if the report has not already been received it is in the course of being received by my colleague, the Minister for the Media, in another place. The honourable senator will realise that this report has been called for by the Minister himself and whether or not that document is released publicly will be a matter for determination by the Minister. I will put the honourable senator’s question to my colleague, the Minister for the Media, in order to seek a response from him.

page 1258

COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL AND FURTHER EDUCATION

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Committee on Technical and Further Education for the period 1 July 1975 to 31 December 1976, together with an accompanying statement.

page 1258

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

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

– Pursuant to sub-section 7(7) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973-1974 I present 3 determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal. Two of these determinations relate to:

The Secretary to the Postmaster-General’s Department,

Australian National Railways Commission,

Commissioner for Community Relations,

Commissioners under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1 974,

Road Safety and Standards Authority,

Director of National Parks and Wildlife,

Aboriginal Hostels Ltd,

Schools Commission,

Health Insurance Commission

Determinations in relation to the same were presented and disapproved on 9 September. These 2 new determinations are without the 3.6 per cent national wage increase which had been incorporated in the 2 disapproved determinations. The other determination relates to:

Special Consultant on Community Relations, Commonwealth Hostels Ltd.

page 1258

BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled ‘The Economics of an Australian Landbridge’. Due to the limited number of the report available, reference copies of it have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1258

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present an information paper on the progress in environmental conservation in the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay.

page 1259

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970-1973 I present the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

page 1259

COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY RELATIONS

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

For the information of honourable senators, I present the final report of the Committee on Community Relations.

page 1259

DEPARTMENT OF MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

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

For the information of honourable senators, I present the report on the activities of the Department of Manufacturing Industry for the year ended 30 June 1 975.

page 1259

PRESENTATION OF REPORTS

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a very brief statement in relation to the presentation of reports by Ministers. I seek leave to make a statement with a request as to the procedure to be adopted.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator RAE:

– In relation to some of the reports which have just been presented, without having an opportunity to see the report it is very difficult for the Opposition to know whether it wishes to move that the Senate take note of the report. I know that some of the reports are in short supply and that in due course copies are placed in the Parliamentary Library, but I wonder whether Ministers could have 2 copies available, one of which could be made available quickly to the Opposition at the time of presentation.

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

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on the same matter.

The PRESIDENT:

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

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

-The Government is merely adopting the practice that has been adopted in the time that I have been in the Senate. It is always competent for any honourable senator to move that the Senate take note of a report at any time and not necessarily, as I understand it, at the time at which the report is tabled. Therefore, I suggest to the honourable senator that the practice that exists now can continue to exist and that if, after perusal of the report an honourable senator seeks to have the matter debated in the Parliament, he is at liberty to make such an application to the Senate.

Senator Rae:

– In the normal course.

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

-We will try it and see.

page 1259

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That consideration of business of the Senate be postponed until the next day of sitting.

page 1259

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND THE ARTS

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate nominating Senator Mcintosh to fill the vacancy now existing on the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland agreed to:

That Senator Mcintosh, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 17 September 1974, be appointed to fill the vacancy now existing on the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts.

page 1259

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION LEGISLATION

The PRESIDENT:

– The following Bills have been transmitted from the House of Representatives to the Senate for concurrence:

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1 975

Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2) 1975

Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill 1975

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

– I move:

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I do not wish to sound as if I am opposing the motion; I am just trying to get it clear in my mind. I can understand that the Government may wish to have a cognate debate, but is there to be but one question put on the 3 Bills? That is as I understood the motion. We could be in the situation where we may agree to two of the Bills but not to the third or we may agree to one of the Bills but not to the two others. As I understood the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) it would appear that there is to be but one question put in relation to the first reading of the 3 Bills and one question put in relation to the second reading of the 3 Bills, the Committee stage, and so on. I do not wish to sound difficult but, whilst I do not think the Opposition would object to a cognate debate on the issues raised within the 3 Bills at the second reading stage, I think the Opposition would like to vote on 3 separate motions at the second reading stage. It may be that a different view will be taken in relation to the Committee stage. I have just put that view because that is as I understood the sense of the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

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

– in reply- I think the point raised by Senator Withers is a reasonable one. Therefore I seek leave to withdraw the motion I have just moved. If leave is granted I will then seek leave to move motions in relation to each Bill independently.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

– I withdraw the motion I have just moved.

page 1260

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION BILL 1975

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

Immediately following the introduction of this Bill, I shall be introducing Bills to amend the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960-1975 and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1975. The subject matter of the 3 Bills is related and I propose to refer to all three of them in this speech.

Honourable senators will know that on 26 September the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) announced that the Government had decided to appoint Mr Justice A. E. Woodward, O.B.E., to be the head of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. He is to take up his new duties on 24 November 1975 and it is intended that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill will come into effect on that day. In announcing Mr Justice Woodward’s appointment, the Prime Minister said that it is appropriate that this very important position should be filled by a judge and that in the Government’s view this position should in future always be filled by a person holding judicial office. The Government holds strongly to this view.

Arising from the Government’s decision to appoint a judge to head the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, this Bill ensures that such an appointment of a judge does not affect his tenure of office as a judge, or the salary, allowances and other rights and privileges that he has by virtue of his judicial office. Service of a judge in this position is to count as judicial service for all purposes. There is no such provision in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act as it now stands and what the Government is proposing is in line with similar provisions which have been passed by this Parliament on other occasions- section 1 3 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973, for example, enables a judge to be appointed as a commissioner and retain his judicial status and the rights which attach to that status. Further, I remind honourable senators that while he was a justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Owen Dixon, who later became Chief Justice, was appointed Australian Minister to the United States in 1942 and the Judiciary (Diplomatic Representation) Act 1942 was passed to enable him to hold that office in addition to his judicial office.

The Bill provides for the official title of the head of ASIO to be changed from ‘DirectorGeneral’ to ‘Director’. In November last year, the Government agreed that, in Australian

Government organisations, the title ‘Director’ should ordinarily be used in preference to Director-General’ except in the case of organisations with significant State offices headed by Directors’. Expression has been given to this policy in other legislation- for example, in the course of the passage of the Australian Development Assistance Agency Bill through the House of Representatives in December 1974 the title Director-General’ wherever appearing was changed to ‘Director’. This was agreed without division in that House, and the amendments were subsequently agreed to by the Senate.

A judge appointed as Director is to receive such additional salary and annual allowance as is necessary to bring his salary and annual allowance to the level payable to the Chief Judge of the Australian Industrial Court. Mr Justice Woodward now receives such additional remuneration by virtue of his office as President of the Trade Practices Tribunal. Provision is made for the salary of the Director to be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal in the situation where the Director is not a judge. Under sections 8 and 9 of the Act as presently worded, the designations, salaries and other terms and conditions of employment of ASIO officers and employees are determined from time to time by the Chairman of the Public Service Board, the Solicitor-General and the Director-General of ASIO. By virtue of section 1 8 of the Law Officers ‘ Act, the reference to the Solicitor-General in those sections must be read as a reference to the Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department. After the Bill comes into operation on 24 November 1975, the relevant matters will be determined by the Chairman of the Public Service Board, the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Director of ASIO, but existing determinations will continue in force until revoked or varied by them. In accordance with the policy of the Government, the opportunity is being taken to change references to ‘the Commonwealth’ in the existing Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act and the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act to ‘Australia’ or ‘Australian’.

The second Bill, the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 2), provides for an increase of one in the number of judges in the Australian Industrial Court so that the Court will consist of a Chief Judge and ten other judges. This will allow the Court to operate at its full strength during the period of Mr Justice Woodward’s appointment with ASIO, which is for 7 years. The third Bill, the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill, provides for the Prime Minister in future to be responsible for the issue of warrants to authorise the interception of telephonic communications. The provisions relating to the issue of warrants are found in section 6 to 12 of the existing legislation. This change is proposed following the revised administrative arrangements order made on 26 September whereby the administration of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act was transferred to the Prime Minister. The Attorney-General will remain responsible for the administration of the other sections of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act and for the prosecution of offences under the Act. Secondly, the Bill provides for consequential amendments of the principal Act arising from the change in title of the head of ASIO. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 1261

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL (No. 2) 1975

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 1261

TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) BILL 1975

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Minerals and Energy · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 1261

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2) 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for optional preferential marking of ballot-papers at Senate elections.

This Bill is presented as the first in a series of 6 Bills which the Government has decided to introduce in its continuing efforts to bring about the much needed electoral reforms contained in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill 1974. As honourable senators will be aware, the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill was first introduced into the House of Representatives on 13 November 1974 and was passed by that House on 25 November 1974. It was refused a second reading by the Senate 3 days later.

The Electoral Laws Amendment Bill was then passed a second time by the House of Representatives on 10 April 1975, but was unacceptably amended in this chamber on 14 May 1975. The Senate subsequently insisted on its amendments which in effect stripped the Bill of its vital measures and emasculated it in such a manner that the original identity of the Bill was virtually destroyed. The amendments made in this chamber were unacceptable to the House of Representatives and the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill was laid aside on 3 June 1 975.

It would be both tedious and superfluous for me to once again list all the proposals contained in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill. That Bill was designed to introduce vital and long overdue reforms to our electoral system, a system which, although the envy of several overseas countries, is far from perfect. The Government continues to place great importance on the achievement of substantial electoral reform, despite the persistent obstruction it has encountered at the hands of the Opposition parties. We are determined to pursue these vital reforms, step by step, until successful. For that reason, the Government has chosen to divide the proposals contained in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill into 6 separate Bills, each capable of standing on its own and being enacted independent of the other 5 Bills.

As with the parent Electoral Laws Amendment Bill itself, the proposals contained in these 6 Bills, taken as a whole, are designed to implement improved voting facilities; to provide more realistic and less cumbersome voting procedures which will assist electors to exercise their franchise effectively by the recording of valid votes; to permit a speedier finalisation of election results and to reduce the scope for electoral malpractice in any guise. The Government is hopeful that these nonpartisan objectives will yet receive the support of the Opposition parties. They are in no way designed to favour a particular political party, a particular type of candidate or a particular type of elector.

This first Bill, the Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1975, is designed simply to provide for the optional preferential marking of ballot-papers at Senate elections. The Opposition parties react hysterically to any mention of optional preferential voting, and yet they themselves have introduced it on a number of occasions. They introduced the procedure for Advisory Council elections in the Australian Capital Territory and they also selected the optional preferential procedure for the people of Papua and New Guinea. Optional preferential voting is also used for elections for the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and the South Australian Legislative Council.

As honourable senators are aware, under the existing preferential system, each voter, irrespective of his or her individual wish, is compelled to rank in order of preference all the candidates on a Senate ballot-paper, even where this requires the sequential numbering of 73 squares, as was the case for the 1974 Senate election in New South Wales. Surely, it must be recognised that this imposes a most difficult burden, sometimes an impossible burden, upon the voters and leads to a ballot-paper being rendered informal even though the voter inadvertently fell into error at the stage of marking a preference which may never have been required in the count.

Furthermore, the existing law compels an elector to express a preference for candidates about whom he has no knowledge, or towards whom he may be positively hostile. Faced with such a meaningless, undemocratic requirement, many electors either intentionally or unintentionally fail to correctly mark all necessary squares on the ballot-paper. The consequence is that their ballot papers are rejected as informal and their votes are wasted.

At the last Senate elections on 18 May 1974, the informal vote, Australia wide, averaged 10.77 per cent. In New South Wales, where there were 73 candidates, the average informal vote was as high as 12.31 per cent. I incorporate in Hansard, for the benefit of honourable senators, a statement showing the percentage of informal votes recorded at the 1974 Senate Election in each State and in each electoral division throughout Australia.

Of course there will always be a number of electors who fail to record a valid vote irrespective of the voting system. Nevertheless, this regrettable fact should not be used as a pretext for failing to reduce the number of citizens who, unwittingly in many cases, are currently being deprived of a basic democratic right because of the complexity of our preferential system, which becomes increasingly absurd as the number of candidates for whom they are required to show preferences increases.

This Bill, therefore, proposes that an elector be required to mark his order of preference on the Senate ballot-paper only up to the number of candidates to be elected. In other words, in a normal periodic Senate election, the voter, in order to cast a formal vote would be required to mark his ballot-paper consecutively from 1 to 5, in his order of preference for the candidates. In an election following a dissolution of the Senate, the voter would be required to indicate his order of preference for only ten candidates, be there 73 or 173 candidates on the ballot-paper. Let me stress, however, that any voter may choose, and this is where the option comes in, to indicate his further preferences for as many of the other candidates as he so desires, and should his preferences be required to determine the result they would be counted. Accordingly, supporters ofanypoliticalparty who wish to exchange preferences with the supporters of another political party contesting the election will be free to do so. How can the Opposition parties object to this proposal?

It may be argued that the optional preferential system of marking the ballot-papers does not in practice have any significant effect on informality and that the system operative for Senate elections in the 1920’s demonstrates this point. The fact is, of course, that the system we propose is considerably less restrictive than that applying for Senate elections between1919 and 1931, under which electors were required to express preferences for double the number of candidates to be elected, plus one.

On any reasoned view, experience at the 1974 Senate elections must surely have demonstrated to even the most ardent advocates of a full preferential system, that the compulsory marking of preferences for all the candidates in Senate elections can no longer be tolerated. There is no evidence to show that optional preferential marking of the ballot-papers would change the result of Senate elections, nor is it the Government’s intention that such should be the case. We present thismeasure- an eminently democratic and non-partisan reform- as a single Bill in the hope that the issue will not be clouded by irrelevant argument but will be dealt with by this Parliament responsibly recognising the merits of the system from the public and electoral points of view.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 1264

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 3) 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill, the second in a series of six Bills containing proposals originally encompassed by the

Electoral Laws Amendment Bill provides for the optional preferential marking of ballot-papers at House of Representatives elections.

The basic feature of the optional preferential system, embodied in the Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1975 which I introduced earlier today, whereunder electors should only be compelled to express a preference for the number of candidates to be elected, is also inherent in this Bill. Although far fewer candidates stand for House of Representatives elections than for Senate elections, the underlying principle that electors should not be compelled to vote for candidates for whom they have no preference still applies.

Under the optional preferential system proposed by this Bill a voter at a House of Representatives election must indicate his first preference for one candidate and may indicate his further preference for some or all of the remaining candidates, as he so desires. The exchange of preferences between candidates will not be impeded in any way and this practice will no doubt continue. To the extent that preferences beyond the first shown on the ballot-papers are required to determine the result of the election, such preferences will be counted. What is more important however is that a ballot-paper would not be rejected outright because the voter failed by inadvertence or otherwise to indicate an order of preference for all the candidates. This, of course, is the case under the full preferential system, despite the fact that the majority of House of Representatives seats are decided on the count of first preferences.

Let me stress that optional preferential voting is not a first-past-the-post system masquerading under another name. It is true that if all voters deliberately refrained from expressing any preferences beyond the first preference, the result under optional preferential voting in an election for a member of the House of Representatives would be the same as in a firstpastthepost system. However, this is a hypothetical proposition which has not eventuated in elections under the optional preferential system in Australia in the past, nor is it likely to eventuate in the future.

The results of elections of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, the Northern Territory Legislative Council and, more recently, the South Australian Legislative Council, indicate that a majority of electors voting under an optional preferential system will express preferences beyond the minimum number required to cast a formal vote.

There is another important aspect which I wish to stress. Under the optional preferential system proposed by this Bill a candidate cannot be elected unless he has received more than 50 per cent of the votes in the count at the stage he is elected. It is recognised of course, that some votes may become ‘exhausted ‘ during the distribution of preferences in a Division where it is necessary to exclude a candidate (or candidates) and further preferences are not shown on the ballot-papers concerned. However, the saving in informal voting which must result from the acceptance of ballot-papers which, although bearing a first preference, do not indicate preferences for all candidates, can be expected to offset votes which become exhausted.

It can be said that the optional preferential procedure ensures that meaningful preferences are distributed whereas the present system can lead to the election of a candidate with a manufactured majority based on what may well be preferences randomly assigned by the voters.

Like the Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1975, this is a non-partisan reform which is designed to introduce a system of voting which provides for the maximum flexibility and democratic freedom of choice for the voters while maintaining the essential elements of a full preferential system, should the voters choose to indicate preferences for all candidates in the election.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 1265

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 4) 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill is designed to bring about a fundamental and widely sought change to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. It seeks to amend the Act by inserting a new Part to provide for the printing of the political affiliations of candidates on the ballot-papers for both House of Representatives and Senate elections; and providing for the printing and exhibition of a list setting out the names of the candidates and, where applicable, the names of the respective parties by which the candidates are endorsed.

As a necessary corollary to this reform, it is proposed that political parties be registered in order that the ‘ bona fides ‘ of a political affiliation claimed by any candidate may be properly authenticated. Honourable senators will readily appreciate the importance of making adequate provision so that the Chief Australian Electoral Officer can ensure that correct and genuine party affiliations are shown in respect of the candidates. The Bill proposes that an application for the registration of a party name may be lodged with the Chief Australian Electoral Officer who would be required to keep a register called the Register of Names of Political Parties’. Provision is made in the Bill so that the Chief Australian Electoral Officer may refuse an application for the registration of a name in respect of a party in specified circumstances, for example, if, in his opinion, the name is the same or is likely to be confused with the registered name of another party.

The Bill also sets out the criteria which a party must meet in order to have the affiliation of its candidates shown on the ballot-papers. In general terms, to qualify, parties must endorse candidates for not less than one-quarter of the number of vacancies to be filled in the State at a Senate election or, in the case of a general election of members of the House of Representatives, one-quarter of the number of Divisions in the State. In respect of casual vacancies in the Senate, or by-elections for the House of Representatives, the party must have met this test at the last preceding Senate election or general election of members of the House of Representatives, as is appropriate.

This Bill would be unnecessary and irrelevant if we did not recognise political parties as part of the Australian electoral system. However, they are so recognised and it cannot be denied that a large number of the electors vote for the candidate representing the political party of their choice. We intend therefore by this Bill to assist the electors to knowingly record their votes, particularly in circumstances where they are uncertain of, or unable to ascertain, the political affiliations of the candidates appearing on the ballotpaper.

In registering parties and printing political affiliations on ballot-papers we are joining the following countries: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Gambia, West Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, South Korea, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America.

No basic civil liberties are infringed by this proposal nor is there anything curious or ominous about showing the political affiliation of the candidates on the ballot papers. Indeed, it is an eminently fair and effective means of assisting and informing the electors and we believe it is a much needed reform which would meet with widespread approval.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 1266

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 5) 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I ask for leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The purpose of this Bill, a further Bill incorporating proposals contained in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, is to provide for- closing of the poll at 6 p.m. in lieu of 8 p.m.; drawing for positions of candidates on the ballot-papers at House of Representatives elections; increasing the amount of deposit required for nomination at both House of Representatives and Senate elections; changing the formula governing forfeiture of deposits at House of Representatives and Senate elections; and revising penalties for electoral offences, in line with present monetary values.

Some of the provisions of this Bill are very similar to the proposed amendments to the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act (N.S.W.) which the New South Wales Premier (Mr Lewis) recently announced, and which include among other proposals: close of polling at 6.00 p.m. in lieu of 8.00 p.m. order of candidates names on ballot paper to be determined by lot. increasing the amount of deposit required for nomination at Legislative Assembly Elections.

The proposed variation in the conditions governing forfeiture of deposit at House of Representatives and Senate elections, and the new schedule of electoral offences and punishments, are matters which met with substantial agreement when the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill was before the Senate and I do not feel that there is a need for me to deal further with these aspects in respect of the present Bill.

However, the proposal to increase deposits for House of Representatives and Senate candidates merits further brief comment. The essential purpose of the proposal to increase deposits is to reduce the number of persons who might be tempted or influenced to nominate for either Senate or House of Representatives elections for obstructive or frivolous reasons. This occurred in the 1974 Senate Eelections when an individual publicly admitted that he had sponsored a number of candidates in order to deliberately obstruct the Senate elections in New South Wales. In fact I understand only time prevented him from nominating about 140 candidates. Let me stress that this proposal is not designed to reduce the number of genuine candidates or to discourage candidates from nominating. The 1974 Senate elections in New South Wales (when there were 73 candidates) and to a lesser extent the 1 974 Senate elections in certain other States, gave a clear indication of what might happen in the future unless a sufficient deterrent is introduced to operate against frivolous candidature or candidature designed to infringe upon, or obstruct, the democratic process of election. Obviously, the present deposit amounts are clearly inappropriate, given current monetary values.

Nor is there anything radical about the proposal to amend the hours of polling. The poll at Queensland State elections has closed at 6 p.m. since 1915. The Premier of New South Wales recently announced that he intends to introduce this reform shortly in his State. Many Local Government polls also close at 6 p.m.

Any argument that this proposed measure would disfranchise farmers or adherents of certain religious faiths, or generally inconvenience people who vote late in the day, is not persuasive. Postal vote facilities are available to electors who, for the various reasons specified in the Electoral Act- including religious reasons- will be precluded from voting at a polling booth on polling day. Absent voting facilities enable electors who are outside their Subdivision on polling day to vote at any other polling place in the State. These facilities, together with the availability of modern day private and public transport, are adequate to enable electors to conveniently record their votes, and effectively eliminates the need to keep the polling booths open until 8 p.m.

A by-product of the earlier closing hour is that the scrutiny can commence two hours earlier with the result that the counting trend for which the nation is waiting is known much earlier in the night of polling day.

Irrespective of what time polling booths are closed, there will always be people who vote at the last minute or attempt to vote too late. This is a condition of human nature and cannot be overcome by legislation.

Another long overdue reform contained in this Bill relates to the drawing for positions on the ballot-paper in House of Representatives elections. Drawing for positions already occurs in respect of Senate elections and is becoming increasingly commonplace for elections in organisations, political and otherwise. There is no logic in denying this commonsense proposal in respect of elections for the House of Representatives.

The so-called ‘Donkey Vote’ does exist and it does give advantage to the candidate who enjoys the top position on the ballot-paper. This situation, which becomes more significant in a closely contested election, would of course still obtain even where a draw was conducted to determine the order in which the candidates’ names appeared on the ballot-paper. However, the draw gives all candidates an equal chance of securing the most favoured position, whereas the present system consistently favours the candidate whose surname begins with a letter higher in the alphabet than the surnames of the other candidates.

There is nothing even remotely radical or sinister about the proposals contained in this Bill. On the contrary, the measures we propose are straightforward, eminently rational, nonpartisan and deserving of the support of every member of this Parliament.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 1268

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 6) 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I ask for leave of the Senate to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This is another Bill in the series of Bills derived from the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill designed to implement long overdue reforms to the Australian electoral system.

The Bill provides for: the establishment of mobile polling facilities at hospitals and institutions; the retention of franchise rights for persons in the service of the Crown or a public authority outside Australia; a prohibition on sitting Members of other legislatures- including those of the Territoriesfrom nominating at House of Representatives and Senate elections; a declaration relating to a recent change of name and the printing of a former name on the ballot-paper; and a prohibition on the use of offensive or unacceptable names for enrolment and candidature purposes.

The Bill also makes a number of fairly minor amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act of a formal or consequential nature. I ask leave of the Senate to incorporate these amendments in Hansard.

Minor Amendments of the Commonwealth Electoral Act to be Incorporated in Hansard adding definitions for ‘broadcast’, ‘broadcasting station’, ‘televises’ and ‘television station’. providing for a substitute Assistant Returning Officer at a place outside Australia when the original appointee is temporarily absent. providing for the Minister to engage persons to assist the Distribution Commissioners and to fix the remuneration and allowances to be paid to Distribution Commissioners and persons engaged to assist. by substituting ‘Given name ‘ in lieu of ‘Christian name’ in respect of enrolment and voting. substituting ‘Status of a British subject’ for British subject’ in respect of qualifications for enrolment, voting and candidature. enabling the Electoral Registrars to correct the roll by altering the address of electors in the case of re-numbering or re-naming of any building, thoroughfare, locality, etc. without an application from the electors concerned. substituting ‘8 kilometres’ for ‘5 miles’ as the requisite qualifying distance in order to apply for a postal vote. changing from 2 1 years to 1 8 years the qualifying age for appointment of Presiding Officers and Assistant Presiding Officers. providing a defence against prosecution where a candidate unwittingly makes a donation to a club or association etc. within 3 months of polling day. amending the provisions relating to misleading representation of a ballot-paper. providing redress for candidates against misleading propaganda distributed to voters. limiting the provisions concerning the signing or authorisation of newspaper articles on the occasion of an election to the period ending with the close of the poll in lieu of the period ending with the return of the Writ. requiring an announcement on a broadcasting or television station to be made in a clear and undistorted manner and removing the need for the address of the author to be broadcast or televised. changing to metric measurements the standard measurements in relation to size of electoral posters. enabling the posting up or exhibiting within a hall used in connection with an election or referendum an electoral poster irrespective of size. changing to metric measurement the distance relating to canvassing near polling booths. limiting the application of the offence of disorderly behaviour at lawful public political meetings to meetings held on or after the date of the issue of the Writ and before the close of the poll (in lieu of the date of the return of the Writ).

As the honourable member for Curtin pointed out in the House of Representatives on 10 April 1 975 many of the amendments contained in this Bill were originally embodied in legislation introduced by a Liberal/Country Party government in March 1971. When the provisions contained in this Bill were being dealt with as part of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill there was general agreement with them. I would expect this Bill to be readily agreed to by this Chamber.

Consequently, I shall confine myself to elaborating briefly on the more important provisions of the Bill, without engaging in superfluous repetition of what was said by speakers on previous occasions.

The establishment of mobile polling booths in hospitals is a vital reform, one which would permit polling officials, in the presence of scrutineers, to take the ballot-boxes and voting material to bed patients, thus enabling such patients to record ordinary or absent votes. This facility would be a significant step forward in making it easier for the aged and infirm to register their votes, while at the same time removing the need for canvassers and political party organisers to invade the hospitals, convalescent homes and institutions, as they do at present.

Another worthwhile proposal in this Bill is designed to enable a person who is qualified for enrolment and who is posted overseas in the service of Australia, a State or a public authority (or his or her spouse), to enrol in respect of the overseas address. While it may be argued that this proposition, although worthwhile, is a little too restrictive, the Government believes that further extension of this privilege is unnecessary.

To turn to a further reform proposed in this Bill, the Government believes that, given the present ineligibility of Members of State Parliaments to stand for election to the Australian Parliament, it would be appropriate for a member of the legislature of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory to be placed in the same category. Accordingly, the Bill provides that no person who is at the date of nomination, or was at any time within fourteen days prior to the date of nomination, a member of the legislative Assembly for either the A.C.T. or the Northern Territory, shall be eligible for nomination to the Australian Parliament.

It is also proposed that where a person changes his name within the 1 2 months prior to nomination, the person shall be required to state the former name in the nomination paper, which will then be included on the ballot-paper. Senators will be aware that in the past candidates have changed their names just prior to an election for the specific purpose of having the name placed above other candidates on the ballotpaper in order to gain some political advantage in the election. This provision will not apply to a change of name by marriage.

A further proposal deals with the situation where a person seeks to enrol under an unacceptable name. This term includes a name (not being the person’s original name) which is offensive, obscene, frivolous or likely to be interpreted as a slogan or as advocating a political objective or policy. In the 1974 Senate Election a number of persons enrolled under such names, including White Australia’ and ‘StopAsianImmigrationNow’. The Bill makes it clear that a person is not entitled to be enrolled by an unacceptable name and consequently would be precluded from nominating under such name.

The five main provisions to which I have referred, together with the minor amendments previously suppported by the Opposition, will lead to improved voting facilities for electors, will remedy defects in our electoral practices, and create a more democratic and efficient electoral system.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 1269

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 7) 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I ask for leave of the Senate to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill, the last in the series of Bills incorporating proposals previously contained in the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, provides for- a speedier finalisation of election results, by introducing an earlier deadline for the return of postal votes and by providing for the return of postal votes direct to the relevant Returning Officer; prohibition on the listing of names of persons who apply for postal votes, except in certain specified circumstances; restriction of postal vote application forms to be used at an election or referendum to those specified by notice in the Gazette; postal voting facilities for prisoners who have retained their franchise entitlements; discretion to appoint a licensed or registered surveyor as a Distribution Commissioner in lieu of the Surveyor-General of the State concerned; and other minor amendments to the existing electoral law.

As honourable senators are well aware, the present electoral system involves intolerable delays in finalising the election results, particularly when a large number of postal votes is admitted to the Scrutiny as was the case in the 1974 House of Representatives Elections when almost 5 per cent of the total votes recorded throughout Australia were postal votes.

For the information of honourable senators I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard details of the number of postal votes admitted to the Scrutiny at the 1972 and 1974 House of Representatives Elections.

The PRESIDENT:

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

In order to remedy this situation, it is proposed, firstly, that an earlier deadline be fixed for the return of postal votes and, secondly, that postal votes be returned direct to the relevant Returning Officer, rather than through an Assistant Returning Officer, some other Returning Officer of a Presiding Officer, as allowed under the existing law.

At present, a period of ten day’s grace after polling day is allowed for the receipt of postal votes by the relevant Returning Officer. This practice hinders any attempt to speed the count, especially for Senate elections. It is therefore proposed that postal votes be returned so as to reach the appropriate Returning Officer not later than the close of the poll.

There is a growing tendency for party workers to take advantage of the existing provision which enables a person to examine postal vote applications in the office of a Divisional Returning Officer so as to compile a list of electors who voted by post at the election and to use this list to forward postal vote applications to the persons concerned at the next election, without knowing whether those persons are still eligible to vote by post.

The Government proposes to inhibit such malpractices by preventing party workers from examining lists of names of postal voters, except when this is necessary for an enquiry into an alleged or suspected contravention of the Act or for a petition to a Court of Disputed Returns.

It is also proposed to give the Chief Australian Electoral Officer power to vary the form of postal vote applications at each election, in order to prevent the dubious practice of stockpiling partially completed forms. Under this proposal the Chief Australian Electoral Officer will specify by a notice in the Gazette, the postal vote application forms which may be used at an election.

It is proposed too that provision be made enabling a person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment to apply for a postal vote, provided that such person is still qualified for enrolment. It might be noted that no person who has been convicted and is under sentence for any offence for one year or longer is entitled to enrolment.

I now turn to another area of reform dealt with in this Bill. It has not always been possible to obtain the services of the Surveyor-General of a State or an officer having similar qualifications for the purpose of redistributing a State. Therefore, it is proposed to provide that one of the Commissioners shall be a registered Surveyor. This will enable greater flexibility for the purposes of future redistributions.

There are some minor provisions in the Bill which require no elaboration here; these amendments, taken collectively, will either improve or update our existing electoral law.

The Government believes that the reforms contained in this Bill will not only considerably streamline postal voting procedures, but will also reduce the possibility of electoral malpractices which have sometimes been an unfortunate byproduct of the existing postal voting facilities.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned.

page 1272

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 15 October.

Postponed proposed new clause 17A.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Might I remind the Committee of the stage we had reached when the debate was adjourned. I had moved that there be inserted in the Bill the following amendments:

Insert the following new Clause:

17A.

It shall be the duty of the Commission to maintain and execute all laws of the Commonwealth for the carrying on of stevedoring and shipping for carriage of cargo and passengers interstate and particularly between Tasmania (including dependent islands) and other states;

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

(i) The Commission may at any time declare that the regular carrying on of such services is urgent;

During a period of 60 days after such declaration it shall be unlawful for any person, company or union to take part in any strike or lockout interrupting such services;

Any party in breach of the foregoing paragraph shall be liable to a penalty of $500 for any person and $10,000 for any company or union for every day for which such breach continues and shall also be liable to pay compensation for any damage caused by such strike or lockout.

I shall not take the time of the Committee unduly, but I want to remind those honourable senators who have indicated their interest by being present that the purpose of the amendment is to take advantage of the Inter-State Commission, which is one authority provided for by the Constitution itself. The Commission operates without respect to State boundaries or powers of States and the Commonwealth and therefore would have power to organise its work so as not to be dependent upon a decision of either a State government or the Federal Government. It seems to me that if we are to solve the difficulties of Tasmanian shipping the utilisation of some such body as that is required. Tasmania is particularly dependent upon sea transport. The mainland States have alternative forms of transport, and Tasmania’s trade has been bedevilled now for years for the want of some authority with the requisite power to organise timetables, to inquire into the economics of transport, and to see that timetables are observed and freight rates applied on a proper economic basis.

It is quite obvious that half or more of Tasmania’s difficulties- I am probably understating my case by saying half- are caused through industrial stoppages. In a recent case, a shipment of paper from Tasmania was subjected to blackmail payments before interstate ships were allowed to carry it to the mainland. A long inquiry into this matter has been conducted and still it is not resolved. Ships are being held up all the time through political and industrial strikes because Tasmania’s shipping services are so vulnerable to the behest of unions that are of extremist views. I refer to an article in today’s Mercury headed ‘Wharf stop delays ANL ship’. We have a paragraph there to the effect that a ship is being delayed because members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia believe that they have to demonstrate by means of a strike against Tasmanian trade to solve the difficulties which are plaguing this Parliament because of the stubborn refusal of the Prime

Minister (Mr Whitlam) to take constitutional means to avoid the breakdown in government which may happen if he finds himself still in office at the end of November without Supply.

It is obvious that that is a parliamentary matter and not a union matter. Without trying to attract too much attention from the Senate to this proposal, it is an instance of how Tasmanian shipping is dependent upon the whims of unions to that extent. Therefore, the third paragraph in my motion is an adaptation of principles that have been in operation since 1948 in America whereby, in proper circumstances, a declaration of emergency can be made by the Presidentthat is to say, in that case, by the Executive Government. I have taken the Inter-State Commission here as the repository of the power because it seems to me desirable to divorce industrial government as much as possible from politics and, therefore, to put it in the hands of the Inter-State Commission. If the matter is urgent and the timetable should be observed, say so. This prevents strikes for 60 days. In the cooling off period, it has been the experience in America that settlement under the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act has been able to take place in the vast majority of cases that have occurred there since 1 948.

It seems to me that that would be a very reasonable proposition for the Senate to introduce into the Inter-State Commission. I ask the Committee to give it proper consideration. There will be some who will flinch at the idea that a breach of that proposition should be followed by some sanctions. We have seen provided in the trade practices legislation and in the financial companies legislation huge penalties for a breach of any law which is laid down for the governance of our trade when the breach is directed against capital. I am not so dependent upon penalties as I am upon the second part of that clause which makes it possible for people whose business has been interrupted to recover civil compensation- for example, if their cattle have been kept waiting for shipping for 2 1 days there would be the cost of agistment, loss of market and loss of condition; potatoes could be kept in a hull, rotting; or apples could be delayed in the market and so could never be shipped.

I am concerned that people should have a right to be compensated if the law of the country is not carried out. It is in that spirit, without desiring to provoke the situation to any degree of heat, that I try to persuade the Senate that in this case, in order to resolve the difficulties of the Tasmanian trade, that provision is appropriate for this Bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Mulvihill:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the amendment seconded?

Senator BESSELL:
Tasmania

-Yes, I second the amendment. In doing so, I would like to support what Senator Wright has said. Everybody has agreed that this is fundamentally important. We have discussed this problem of Tasmanian shipping for a long time in this Senate. The Government has recognised that there is a problem and it has established the Nimmo Committee. The Opposition has recognised for a long time that there is a problem. The results of shipping strikes are a tremendous loss to the Australian National Line, as instanced by the Minister when he said that one of the reasons for the 40 per cent increase in freight rates was the fact that $3. 5m to $4m was lost to ANL because of industrial disputes.

The big difficulty in this matter, of course, is what happens at the other end. Instances have been cited of the tremendous difficulties caused by industrial disputes faced not only by small industries in Tasmania but also by large industries. Senator Wright has cited a couple of instances of the problems associated with the rural industry and the paper industry which have been disadvantaged. This, of course, applies also in the case of small industries. I think honourable senators will remember that on one occasion I cited the instance of a manufacturer of brass water pipe fittings who freighted them out by air at double the cost purely because of the unreliability of shipping. If we can get an amendment such as this agreed to, I am sure it will go a long way towards solving some of the problems that we have before us at the moment, particularly in regard to regularity of shipping.

The question of cost and equalisation of cost is a subject for another discussion. It is currently the subject of an inquiry. All these points lead to the same conclusion, that is, that we should establish for Tasmania its right to ship goods by alternative methods, of which there are none now. I think it is imperative that we do all that we possibly can to make sure that the one avenue for the movement of goods, either into or out of Tasmania, shall be as unfettered as possible. I support the amendment.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

-The Government, of course, will not accept this amendment. I cannot think of an amendment more designed to break down the recent agreement that has occurred between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and strikers in relation to disputes between the mainland and Tasmania. It is clear that during a number of recent disputes the ACTU has particularly exempted Tasmania. The penal clauses that are included in c (iii) of the proposed new clause are such that any such type of agreement would be very unlikely in the future. It is proposed that we shall go through the whole machinations that we have been through in this country before, with union bashing legislation which created the situation of a national strike at the gaoling of Clarrie O’Shea of the Tramways Union. I thought that honourable senators from both sides of this House had learnt their lesson in relation to this type of legislation. It is quite easy for the Seamen’s Union or any of the maritime unions associated with it to circumvent this type of legislation in any case. They simply would decline to sign on with ships where such penalties did exist. This is not a strike action. It is just a simple action of seamen, engineers, stewards and others declining to sign on with ships that would be subject to such penalties if they broke the agreement in the circumstances outlined in this amendment. We could well find that there would be unmanned ships. Then, what would be the next move? Perhaps it would be conscription of seamen. We would get ourselves into a most intolerable situation around the whole coastline of Australia if penalties of this kind were pursued.

Let us look at the penalty of $500 a day for any person involved in such a dispute. I appreciate that the employer organisations come under the blanket of this particular clause. The amendment seeks to impose a penalty of $10,000 a day for any company or union involved in such a dispute. It is quite obvious from the experience which the Opposition had when in government that the trade union movement will not be prepared to meet such penalties. In most cases, penalties were not met. Many of the penalties imposed under previous legislation have never been recovered. It would prolong disputes for a tremendous amount of time if such provision were part of the legislation before the Committee now. It is the type of provision that would be considered by the unions to be union bashing. It would create a situation in which seamen would be very reluctant to sign on with any ships associated with the Tasmanian trade, whether with the Australian National Line or any other company. We would then have conscription of manpower.

Senator Rae:

– There would be plenty of nonunionists prepared to do it.

Senator POYSER:

-There may be plenty of non-unionists prepared to do the work, but the cargo would still have to be unloaded off the ships when they get to Tasmania. The cargo would have to be loaded on to ships in the ports of Melbourne, Sydney or Adelaide. Senator Wright does not realise what kind of position he is getting himself into if he tries to impose these kinds of penalties on workers because they may engage in a legitimate stoppage. In the course of their working day there are many issues in relation to matters of safety about which seamen or engineers or marine stewards strike. It is vital that they have a stoppage about these matters. It is vital that they control the safety of the ship and of the persons who travel on that ship. In recent years we have seen some examples involving safety in relation to shipping between Victoria and Tasmania.

Our position is quite clear. Under no circumstances could this type of union-bashing legislation be accepted by the Government, because it would have the very reverse effect to that which Senator Wright seeks to achieve. It would kill for all time any further agreements with the Australian Council of Trade Unions in relation to maritime disputes involving Bass Strait trade. We would then have a situation in which no exemptions from strikes could be granted. One must give full credit to Mr Bob Hawke, the President of the ACTU, for the attitude that he has taken to this matter over recent months and indeed over the past 1 8 months. Exemptions have been granted because the trade union movement accepts the fact that Tasmania suffers disabilities when there are shipping strikes. The exemptions that have been granted on occasions have been most beneficial. I am certain that such exemptions would be very hard to come by if we had the system of penalties which is laid down in this amendment. I hope that the Committee in its wisdom will refrain from putting this amendment into the legislation because I believe that it will be unworkable and that it will be completely unacceptable to the trade union movement of Australia.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Mr Temporary Chairman, I should like briefly to indicate that so far as Tasmanian shipping is concerned there are the aspects of the union based stoppages which create uncertainty, irregularity, delays and added costs. They are aspects which have not been overcome completely by the agreement to which Senator Poyser has referred. Whilst I as a Tasmanian am grateful- I am sure that other Tasmanians are grateful- for the fact that some step has been taken to exempt some Tasmanian shipping on some occasions, there have been numerous occasions when stoppages as well as actual strikes have applied to some of the ships servicing Tasmania. In fact, the many stoppages which delay and throw out of gear the schedules under which Australian National Line ships operate, and therefore cause ships to be sent back and forth across Bass Strait after having been only partly unloaded or only partly loaded, are creating havoc in the Tasmanian economy. It is not something which any responsible government could stand by and see happen without proposing and experimenting with whatever action can be taken which may overcome the problem.

There is the added cost as a result of the union aspects. There is the added cost as a result of the inflationary increases which have taken place in recent times. It is with all this in mind that the Liberal Party has proposed a policy to which I wish briefly to refer because I think it is relevant to the consideration in which we are involved at the moment. The major part of that policy is the recognition of Bass Strait as part of the national highway. The national highway concept applies throughout the remainder of Australia. There is no reason why it should not apply across Bass Strait, linking Tasmania and Victoria. Once one applies the national highway concept to Bass Strait shipping, there will be available to Tasmania immeasurable advantages which will put Tasmania on a more equal basis with the other States. I certainly support Senator Wright’s intention in bringing the need for the taking of action in this situation to the notice of the Committee. I believe that it is a matter which should be constantly brought to the notice of the Senate and of the government of the day until appropriate action is taken in the interests of Tasmania.

I take the opportunity to urge that the most appropriate thing that can be done at the moment is for the Nimmo report to be expedited in every possible way and for appropriate action to be taken on that report as a matter of urgency as soon as the report is available. I believe that with the implementation of the product of the Nimmo inquiry, which has now been under way since April last year, and with the application of the national highway concept to the shipping lifeblood across Bass Strait, Tasmania will be able to look forward to overcoming at least one part of the problems. Unless Mr Nimmo has some suggestions of which we are not aware at the moment, this will not overcome the disastrous effects which union stoppages and strikes are having on Tasmania. Other steps are necessary. I have heard nothing from the Government- I would be interested now to hear from the Government- about the steps that it proposes to take to overcome this major problem. If the

Government does not like Senator Wright’s amendment, what is its alternative?

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– May I start with the point at which Senator Rae left off in relation to this Bill. It is not what the Government wants to do. In fact, as everybody knows, this last clause of the Bill that is before us results from an agreement between the Government and the Opposition parties. They have fully canvassed the sorts of powers which the Inter-State Commission proposed by the Government should have. As honourable senators now know, looking at the paper that we put down last week, the powers of the Commission have been greatly reduced at the request of the Opposition, as far as we are aware, in a responsible way. Although the Government did not want to give way on some of the powers that the Commission would have had under the legislation, which had been proposed by the Government and which had been discussed for many years, it decided to do so on the plea of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that the most advantageous thing to industry and to the nation would be to have the Inter-State Commission set up as quickly as possible. Of course, honourable senators who have taken part in this debate have spoken largely, I suggest, about the problems which are related to Tasmania. I do not discount those problems. If we look at those problems in relation to the legislation about which we are talking, it would seem to me that in the final analysis we will have to rely on what Mr Nimmo advocates in his report which is expected to be released later this year. When the report is available it will be up to the Government to consider the recommendations that Mr Nimmo makes in relation to the matters put to him.

As regards the industrial questions which are bound up in the amendment, it seems to me, as I have mentioned before, that the amendment is just too powerful. For example, the Opposition agreed upon a moderate Bill, which we accepted. Honourable senators will note that in paragraph (a) of his amendment Senator Wright enters into the area of not only shipping for carriage of cargo and passengers, but also stevedoring. It means that the Commission could take over the obligations of the stevedoring authority which we have had for years. It could intervene in matters concerning waterside workers and stevedores. Paragraph (b) of Senator Wright’s amendment is the most powerful part of the amendment. I would think that in other days the Australian Labor Party would have been glad to have such a power as is proposed in paragraph (b), which states:

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

If this amendment were carried it would mean that if we wished we could discount any intervention by the private shipowners or by the nation’s own operators and also interfere with what is taking place in the stevedoring operations. That would be a very strong socialised power. I think that even if we said we had to have that power to do what Senator Wright wants to do, no Parliament would accept such a wide and strong power, vested in that way. The other matter which I consider to be highly dangerous is the proposition that the Commission, consisting of 3 specially selected people- one of whom is a legal man- can make a declaration. There is no criteria. The Commission simply has to make a declaration about the strike that Senator Wright has referred to, or the protest concerning the political scene today, because things should be done urgently on the wharf. Once this declaration is made nobody can act- no union can negotiate or have a matter considered under arbitration. The union is subject already to a penalty.

Senator Wright:

– They can do everything except strike.

Senator BISHOP:

-Senator Wright has referred to the situation which exists in the United States of America. But I have never known the Opposition Parties to accept, nor would we accept in totality, the industrial relations system of the U.S.A., where it is usual for unions and employers to allow a period for agreement, then for the agreement to be subject to discussions and strike action and then, later on, to have recognised cooling off periods. That part of the system does not operate in Australia. It may be developed. There is no doubt that in better economic times when we were talking about more conciliation- Senator James McClelland might easily enter this argument- we were looking at the possibility of having negotiated agreements for a term. I think it is unreal for Senator Wright to expect the Parliament to give him the powers he requests. We certainly could not agree to the industrial powers for which he is asking. But the strengthening of the powers of the Commission could be considered at a later stage.

Perhaps, Mr Chairman, I should wind up by saying, as was mentioned by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones), that if once the legislation is passed senators feel there are matters which should be encompassed by the Government, the Minister will consider these matters in the same way as he has considered constructively- I think honourable senators will agree with me- the recommendations from the Opposition with which we have been in agreement. I say on behalf of the Minister that we welcome the discussions that have taken place. It would seem to me that they have made possible the inauguration of a very important piece of legislation which a lot of well known and recognised authorities and our own committees have considered to be an essential requirement for modern day Australia. At a later stage we shall have to review how the legislation should work and in what respects it might be altered. The Government is not able to accept any part of the proposed amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Part III as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1276

TASMAN BRIDGE RESTORATION BILL (No. 2) 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 September on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I rise to speak in support of this Bill but commence by regretting what I call the ‘undue delay’ by the Government in calling this Bill on so it could become law. I shall try not to transgress Standing Orders but I say sincerely that I can accuse the Government of sending to the Senate Bill after Bill of little importance, that the Government knows will be rejected; of spending a lot of time on them; and of disobeying the wish of the President of the Tasmanian branch of the Australian Labor Party- I think Mr Doug Lowe, the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, is still the President of that branch. Some months ago, he urged the Whitlam Government to get on with legislation that would help the people and not to waste so much time in trying to enforce changes that it knew would not come into law. It is my belief as a layman that the need for this Bill is great in order to save the Federal Government and perhaps the State Government and contractors from committing illegalities.

The Government set up a Commission with the Chief Commissioner of our Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission, Sir Allan Knight, as its Chairman. That Commission has done its best under great difficulties and in full co-operation, where that was possible, with State and Federal Governments to get on with the job of restoring the Tasman Bridge. But I believe that too much emphasis is being put by the Federal and State governments upon saying: ‘What wonderful people we are; look at all the things we have achieved; look at all the money we have promised in years to come in order, first of all, to overcome the emergency situation and then to repair your bridge- your lifeline; and look at the promise of a second crossing of the Derwent in the future’. I believe that the supply of the emergency measures has been good but I believe that an Australian government and a State government should be big enough and should have the resources to get on with 2 aspects: Firstly, the supply of the emergency services and, secondly, the reconstruction of the bridge. About a month ago the Hobart Mercury stated:

Hobartians have been assured that if it had not been for the Commonwealth ship LakeIllawarra knocking down part of the Tasman Bridge, they ultimately would not have had it so good.

In other words, if they had not lost their bridge, ultimately they would not have had it so good. The newspaper editorial continued:

This was the message given by the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, when he proudly proclaimed that because of prompt and generous Federal help, ‘transport across the Derwent will be very much better than it ever was before.’ Mr Whitlam should remember that all the millions his Government is pumping into restoring the Derwent links will do little to compensate for the financial liabilities and social disruptions that look like continuing for years yet.

His claim that the City of Hobart will be much better planned and much better equipped as a result of the Government ‘s response and initiative is dubious at best. An extra lane on the Tasman Bridge was inevitable, as was an extra crossing.

I would add the words ‘Lake Illawarra or no Lake Illawarra’. The editorial continues:

The smashing of the Bridge merely persuaded the Federal Government that it had a moral, if not legal responsibility and a political necessity -

I stress the words ‘political necessity’- to open the purse. The political necessity would have remained whether or not the Tasman Bridge had been smashed. It probably could have been stalled off a little longer, like the Antarctic base at Kingston.

The Federal Government cannot be held primarily responsible for the incredibly frustrating delays in getting on with restoring links. The State Government and irresponsible unionists must share this culpability.

I agree with those sentiments completely. Long term repairs are not yet apparent for the reasons I gave when quoting from that article in the Mercury. I commute across the harbour at least twice a week and I still see the gaping hole. I understand that the oil has not been taken out of the. Lake Illawarra yet as we approach the first anniversary of the disaster. I understand that the cargo is still in the holds or perhaps is floating down the bed of the River Derwent causing . further pollution. We are not told that.

I understand that no contract has yet been let to salvage the Lake Illawarra. I believe that some school of engineers fear- perhaps groundlessly- that leaving the Lake Illawarra at the base of one of the piers or pylons could be a danger in years to come. As an emergency measure we were promised a Bailey bridge across, I think, the most narrow part of the Derwent River, which is up near the northern suburbs. My information is that a year will pass from the smashing of the Tasman Bridge before the Bailey bridge is in position. In wartime that bridge would have been across in a fortnight or 3 weeks. However, it was not all the Government’s fault. Unfortunately, there was grave union trouble.

Mr Whitlam, as Prime Minister, in his enthusiasm and because of political necessity, appointed Mr Lance Barnard- not, I think, his deputy at that time but the Minister for Defence and therefore the senior Australian Labor Party man in Tasmania- to be the liaison officer or Minister between the Australian Government, the State Government and the Tasman Bridge Reconstruction Commission. I do not think Mr Barnard can do much in that job as His Excellency in Stockholm. I have yet to learn of any interest by the Australian Government in replacing Mr Barnard with a new liaison officer. For those who do not know Hobart or who may think that we may be parochial in complaining about the problems this bridge has caused I shall refer to an independent survey into the Tasman Bridge disaster prepared by the Faculty of Education at the University of Tasmania. I emphasise that this was an independent survey and I understand was undertaken on the faculty’s own initiative. One question was:

Who do you think is most aware of the difficulties of life on the eastern shore?

That is the shore which is opposite the city proper. The answers were:

Clarence Council- 67.81 percent.

State Government- 4.06 per cent.

Federal Government- 0.00 per cent.

That shows the amazing confidence the people on the eastern shore, who are the most disadvantaged, have in our Federal Government. They were asked:

What of the effect during all the delays in linking east and west?

The survey revealed that there were disruptions to the domestic routine of many householders. The report states:

The bridge collapse obviously made a huge impact on the social life of the eastern shore. The fall in social trips to friends and relatives -

Both young and aged- on the western shore provides the most dramatic evidence of changed social patterns.

The report continues:

The most severe form of deterioration in relationships was seen in the separation of families. . . . Many respondents believed their aged parents would deteriorate very rapidly if they were unable to keep regular contact with their families.

Other interesting results produced by the survey were as follows: There was a significant increase in the number of persons using tranquillisers since the bridge collapsed; 40 per cent of those interviewed knew of someone who claimed to be depressed much of the time because of the collapse of the bridge; nearly 5 per cent of those interviewed had resigned their jobs because of the difficulties following the bridge collapse; and 51.88 per cent felt that the State Government had not handled the affairs of the eastern shore, since the bridge collapse, in a satisfactory manner. I do not want the Australian Government to hide behind the incompetence of the State Government. I ask honourable senators to remember that the people who were asked said that the Australian Government had 0.00 per cent interest in the welfare of the people of the eastern shore.

In Howrah, the suburb of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, the survey found that 67.5 per cent of people are finding that the bridge collapse is making things worse for family life. There is less of minerals and energy on the eastern shore because of the bridge collapse, unless the minerals are flowing down past the suburb from the Lake Illawarra. I say quite sincerely that we in Tasmania- that is, practically the whole of Tasmania- are affected very seriously in some way or another by the collapse of the bridge. When the enthusiasm of political necessity was apparent the Government was talking about a 2-year delay. Now some, maybe pessimistic- I hope not- are talking about 4 years of delay before the collapsed bridge will be repaired. I remind members of the Australian Government that if they had been in opposition and if a ship owned by private enterprise had smashed into the bridge, there would have been a cry for all sorts of commissions of inquiries, insults, inferences and allegations; but because the ship belonged to the Government it is my belief that the Government has been as quiet as possible. It is ready to leave the Lake Illawarra deepening down into the sandy mud of the River Derwent.

It has been reported to me by Mr Ian Braid, the honourable member for Wilmot in the Tasmanian House of Assembly, that since September he has been writing to the Premier asking for some financial subsidy for people living on the Tasman Peninsula who used to be 128 miles away from the city of Hobart but now are 1 90 miles away.

Senator Everett:

– Where would they live?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– These are people down on the Tasman Peninsula.

Senator Everett:

– Whereabouts on Tasman Peninsula?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I ask the honourable senator to have a look at the Tasman Peninsula.

Senator Everett:

– That is why I am asking the question. It is 195 miles?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– These are people who live 128 miles from the city of Hobart via the Tasman Bridge. Now they live 1 90 miles away for a return trip. I am sorry, I understand the honourable senator’s point. This is for a return trip. That led to a very great increase in freight charges, and most of the people lived in a rural area. When writing back to Mr Braid, the Premier- I will not read all of his letter; it is signed by Mr Lowe for the Premier- said:

You will be aware that the Australian Government has provided very considerable funds to help overcome the difficulties created by the collapse of the Bridge, especially the transport of commuters by ferries and improved road facilities by means of construction of the Old Beach Road. However, to date it has not been prepared to provide funds to subsidise commercial losses or to provide freight subsidies.

I regret that in the absence of Australian Government funds for this purpose it is not possible for the State Government to provide funds by way of a freight subsidy.

I received that letter only this week. However, as soon as time permits I will be making representations in the right places to the effect that there be a serious look to the provision of subsidies for freight, otherwise the carriers will go off the road and there will be further grave and serious hardships to be faced. I conclude by saying that the Opposition supports the Bill, but it does plead with the Government to get on with the job, to cut out the red tape, and to give Sir Allan Knight and the Commission every help available. The money has been promised but what we need is help and progress.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-In my view there are a number of remarkable features about the speech to which the Senate has just listened. For me to question the relevance of 99 per cent of the speech would be a reflection on the Chair, and therefore I do not do so. The first remarkable feature was that although I listened intently to Senator Marriott I did not hear him mention one thing about the Tasman Bridge Restoration Bill (No. 2) 1975 which is before the Senate.

Senator Marriott:

– I thought you would have read it.

Senator EVERETT:

– I have read it. I suggested that I have read it a good deal more assiduously than has Senator Marriott. The Bill extends the powers of the Tasman Bridge Restoration Commission which was established by the Tasman Bridge Restoration Act 1975 to include the additional function of organising and constructing a fifth lane on the Hobart Bridge during the course of the restoration work which has been occasioned by the damage done by the collision of the S.S. Lake Illawarra with the Bridge. That is the basic purpose of the Bill. I would have thought that by now Senator Marriott would have ceased to use Bills which confer extreme benefits on Tasmania for making a political attack on what must really be the Government of Tasmania and not the Australian Government.

The second remarkable feature of his speech was that on the one hand he criticised the delay- in a moment I am going to ask him to specify in what manner the Australian Government has been guilty of delay- while on the other hand he ignores the fact- surely this reeks of hypocrisy- that the money for this work which he says is so essential is provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 2). We saw last week what happened to Appropriation Bill (No. 2) with the help of the vote of Senator Marriott. The appropriate item in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) is item 03 of division 964, which reads:

Payments to Tasmania in respect of Tasman Bridge Disaster, in respect of reconstruction of Tasman Bridge to provide an additional traffic lane and in respect of investigation of proposals for a further permanent bridge across the Derwent River.

The amount appropriated is $13m. Yet Senator Marriott, the person who voted to defer that Bill last week and who, according to Press statements, presumably will maintain that attitude of deferring the Appropriation Bills, is the very person who complains of delay in the completion of the work of restoring the bridge. Senator Marriott also voted in favour of the Bill passed by Parliament earlier this year which established the Tasman Bridge Restoration Commission. He knows, or he ought to know if he has read the Bill, that the whole of the financial arrangements in respect of the restoration of the bridge depend upon the availability of funds to the Commission which was established under the 1975 Bill. So, on the one hand, he says: ‘Get on with the job; it is taking too long’. On the other hand he says: You will not get any money for it’. What sort of position does he expect the Commission to be in within a week or so? The Commission ought to act with business prudence. Can it enter into contracts when it does not have the money with which to pay the contractors? Does Senator Marriott recommend that course? He would be far better occupied reconsidering his vote on Appropriation Bill (No. 2) so that the Commission would have some guarantee of the continued availability of funds.

In that regard I have some news for Senator Townley because, in case he does not know it, a very strong invitation was issued to him today by the President of the Australian Labor Party in Tasmania that he consider, in the interests of Tasmania, which undoubtedly he will flog when he speaks on this Bill, whether or not he should revert to the independent status that he occupied some 16 months ago. We all know that he has undergone 3 metamorphoses in 16 months. He was elected as an independent senator to do justice for Tasmania. Within a few months he had become that rather unusual breed of an independent Liberal, whatever particular ideology that connotes. Then, of course, he was able to find the $4 needed for him to return to full membership of the Liberal Party. It is that type of person who, on the one hand, last week would vote against the Commission getting funds, because that is what the Opposition did in effect, and, on the other hand, this week would criticise the Australian Government for delay?

Senator Townley:

– It was a vote to get rid of a dishonest government.

Senator EVERETT:

-On the issue of a dishonest government, Senator Townley would have had his answer if he had plucked up the courage to go to Franklin Square yesterday between 1 p.m. and 1.30 p.m., but it was wise of him not to go because he would probably have been lynched from one of those sturdy oak trees in Franklin Square. I would indicate to Senator Baume who is interjecting that the mood of

Hobart was reflected at Franklin Square. Senator Baume was not there, and it is just as well that he was not. The third remarkable feature about Senator Marriott’s speech is the fact that he has not given a single particular of the manner in which the Australian Government has been guilty of any delay. The next time Senator Marriott speaks on a Bill such as this I ask him to give some particulars. I also ask him to indicate when he next speaks on a Bill of this sort in what way an Australian government, with him as a member of it, would have acted differently from that of the present Australian Government. What extra assistance would it have given? Indeed, what extra assistance could it have given?

Let us look at the history of the Government in relation to this matter. Immediately the disaster occurred the Australian Government announced that it would pay all the costs, direct and indirect, associated with the collision. It could be said, of course, that that was only its legal liability anyway, vicariously through the Commission, but there was a point- I mentioned this some months ago in this chamber- as to whether there was a limitation of liability by virtue of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. I express no concluded view on that because it would not be appropriate. But the Australian Government immediately assumed the full financial responsibility. I contrast that with the attitude of a government of which Senator Marriott was a member in relation to two other occurrences in Tasmania in recent years. The first was the bushfires of 1967. Certainly some moneys were made available from Canberra but they were made available almost entirely by way of loan. They had to be repaid and they are being repaid. The second was the Bell Bay Railway Agreement which was described- it was not really refuted- by the former Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, as the worst agreement, so far as any State was concerned, in the history of Federation.

By contrast, the Australian Government in January agreed to put Tasmania back completely, insofar as money could do so, in the position in which she had been before the disaster occurred. It consistently followed that attitude. It arranged for the Bailey bridging. It is no fault of the Australian Government that there has been delay in the construction of that Bailey bridge. Let any member of the Opposition specify any particular way in which the Australian Government, the Department of Defence or any Minister has been responsible for delay with respect to the construction of that bridge. The essence and the express terms of the agreement were that the Tasmanian Department of Public Works would do the construction. To talk about emulating wartime feats and putting a Bailey bridge across the Derwent River in 2 weeks with approaches that would satisfy and be safe for the travelling public displays a lamentable lack of knowledge of what Bailey bridging is supposed to do.

Then there came the agreement to establish the Joint Commission between the Tasmanian Government and the Australian Government to investigate the appropriate type of location of a second bridge, a completely new and permanent second bridge. The Australian Government said that it would pay the entire cost of that. Then came the establishment, by the Statute to which I referred earlier, of the Joint Tasman Bridge Restoration Commission, the functions of which are being enlarged by this Bill. These were initiatives of the Australian Government. Yet we have the statements of the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania who is always prating about the evils of centralism. Tasmania wanted to be reasonably independent with respect to the execution of these works in Tasmania. I do not criticise the State for that. But this Government, in every way, paid regard to the economic and political situation in Tasmania. It has not done anything that it was not asked to do and it has not failed to do anything that it was asked to do.

Finally, there was the agreement of the Australian Government to pay the complete cost, amounting to, it is estimated at this stage, some $3m, of the enlargement of the number of lanes of the existing Hobart Bridge from 4 lanes to 5 lanes. I would have thought that Senator Marriott who says that he commutes to the eastern shore twice a week would have been more concerned to consider the extreme benefit that that will confer upon the people of southern Tasmania. The extra lane or 2 extra lanes have been sought in the past. They were never practicable financially. Now the finance has been provided. The opportunity exists for the work to be done without delay and without traffic confusion. It can be done quite simply and easily while the main task of restoration and bridging the gap is carried out. That is what this Bill is all about. I would have thought that it would have had the speediest of passages without criticism. But that was not to be.

I return to the second point that I made and it is my essential point. Let the Opposition, and that includes Senator Townley, explain how it justifies the refusal last week of the passage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) which contains the very financial life blood with which this

Commission will operate. Let it explain that in conjunction with its criticism of the Australian Government in relation to this project. It is not explainable. It reeks of hypocrisy. I support the Bill.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– The Tasman Bridge Restoration Bill (No. 2) that we are dealing with is a relatively small Bill, but for Tasmania it is a very important Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to modify another Bill that we had before us earlier this year to restore the Tasman Bridge and to allow the construction of one additional lane- a fifth lanewhile the bridge is being repaired. I point out to honourable senators that the Schedule to the Bill states:

  1. . the Tasman Bridge on the Derwent River at Hobart shall be structurally modified to accommodate five lanes of traffic throughout its length concurrently with the restoration of the bridge to a fully operational condition-

The Senate will remember that the bridge was severely damaged when the Lake Illawarra brought down 3 spans early in January this year. That was an unfortunate event and one that bridges of this style are likely to be subject to, particularly in rivers such as the Derwent where there are many large ships travelling to and fro under the bridge. The disruption that this tragic event has wrought upon the lives of all who live in the south of Tasmania has to be seen to be believed. It is not my purpose now to go into that at any great length. Senator Marriott has covered that matter to some degree. Those who live in Tasmania and those who have visited the State lately will no doubt have been told by the residents there just what a mess has been caused by the collapse of the bridge. They will know of the thousands of extra miles that some people have to drive each year. They will know of the additional cost that western shore businesses have to incur to service the people of the eastern shore. They will know of the additional cost to people such as farmers who must now pay quite a lot more money to get their stocks shipped to market. They will know also that this state of affairs will persist for a long time.

The bridge repairs can be completed in 1978 at the earliest and that is provided we do not have too many stikes such as the metal workers strike that we saw recently. That strike continued for about 3 months and further delayed the construction of the temporary bridge. The temporary bridge will have only one lane of traffic initially and it will be available for only priority traffic most of the time. Most of the people of Hobart have adapted well to the broken bridge syndrome that has divided the city. But all of us have one aim, that is, to get the means of transport across the river as soon as possible. The cost of rebuilding this bridge and undertaking the associated roadworks in the meantime will cost somewhere between $50m and $60m. That is a tremendous amount of money to spend on a bridge that may well be knocked down again in the future. For that reason I would like to reiterate that I feel the Joint Tasman Bridge Restoration Commission should have more freedom under the clauses of the Bill and should be empowered to decide whether in fact it is wise to’ rebuild the bridge. Clause 4 of the Schedule to the Bill states:

  1. The Commission shall, by way of addition to its present functions be empowered to exercise and may perform all or any of the functions (hereinafter referred to as ‘the additional functions’) of superintending, co-ordinating, directing, managing and executing the planning and performance of any work associated with the structural modification of the Bridge throughout its length to accommodate five lanes of vehicular traffic.

While we are giving the Commission that additional power, I feel we should be giving it also additional power to examine whether this bridge should be rebuilt. I have said at other times that the Tasman Bridge was very near its traffic carrying capacity when it was knocked down. The forecasts that were made in 1958 when the Tasman Bridge design was chosen instead of the suspension alternative, which was the one recommended by the Parliamentary Committee looking into what type of bridge should be built across the Derwent, anticipated that about 25 000 people would be living on the eastern shore at this time. We all know that there is now about twice that number in that area. That is the reason why this bridge was nearing its capacity. Tasmanians will know that before the Lake Illawarra incident the lanes of the bridge were divided into 3 lanes going one way and one lane going the other way during peak periods. All the construction of this additional lane will do is to add one additional lane to the traffic that is going against the mainstream; in other words, it will not help a great deal. The construction of one additional lane is not enough. Although it will help it will not help in the way in which help is most needed. Six lanes are needed. In that way there could be 4 lanes going one way and 2 lanes going the other. The direction of those lanes could be reversed when the traffic is mainly going one way or the other, but that will not be possible or practicable with the construction of 5 lanes.

In my opinion the only safe way in which Hobart can have a bridge of the right size is by the building of a suspension bridge of some 6 or 7 lanes between the Domain and Rosny. That is what was actually recommended by the parliamentary committee in 1958. Suspension bridges are inherently safer, their design is reasonably straightforward and, of course, they cannot be hit by ships. It is also likely that the cost of the construction of a suspension bridge would be about or marginally more than the amount that is presently contemplated to be spent on repairing the Tasman Bridge.

Senator Devitt:

– Is that the whole bridge?

Senator TOWNLEY:

-Yes. As an example I mention a bridge of almost exactly the size as the one I am talking about that was recently built in Canada between Halifax and Dartmouth. The construction of that bridge was decided upon in June 1967 and it was opened in July 1970. The cost of the bridge at the time of its opening was Can$30.5m. Of that amount Can$3.6m was used to buy property for the approaches and almost Can$1 lm was used on building those approaches. So the bridge cost some Can$ 161. I realise that following the opening of that bridge an additional $ Im or $2m was spent on finishing it off and that costs nowadays are more than they used to be. Nevertheless even if it were to cost us twice as much as that one cost to build a bridge in Hobart we would be spending only roughly what is now being spent on repairing the Tasman Bridge. Another thing that one has to remember with respect to bridges and other engineering structures, such as dams and things like that, is that they are meant to last for some 100 years. That is the usual design minimum for such structures.

I believe that the Tasman Bridge Restoration Commission should have the power to investigate whether the Tasman Bridge should be rebuilt and to recommend, if necessary, the construction of a bridge of a different style. It is no good throwing good money after bad money and it is no good rebuilding a bridge that may well be knocked down again. I believe that it would be wrong to take anything but a long term view. It can be seen from the mention I have made of the bridge that was constructed in Canada that even from the design stage to the opening stage the suspension bridge there took only 3 years and one month to build. I do not believe that it is too late to take advantage of such an opportunity. In fact I believe that such a new bridge could be built more quickly than we may well find it will take to repair the Tasman Bridge.

There are just a couple of other matters that I would like to raise at this stage. Some roads are falling into disrepair because of the extra traffic that is going over them as a result of the damage to the Tasman Bridge and those roads need a lot more attention. A couple that come to mind are the roads that run from the RichmondColebrook area to the Tasman Highway on the east coast and the Midway Point to Brinktop road. That one could well be sealed and provide a convenient outlet for some thousands of people who now use it because the Tasman Bridge is down. I would also like to mention that I feel that some special help is needed for places like the Sorell saleyards. Those saleyards are likely to fold because of the extra distance that cattle must be shipped from Sorell to the abattoir at Derwent Park. Also, as Senator Marriott has said, the people in the Tasman peninsula area have to pay an extra $100 for each load of cattle or sheep. Of course, the price that they are getting for some of their animals these days makes it very difficult for them to afford to do so. I would like to see the implementation of some form of subsidy.

I wish to comment now on one of the matters raised by Senator Everett. He blamed the Senate vote last week for holding up the supply of funds for this restoration work. I would like to reiterate the point that I made by way of interjection whilst he was speaking, that is, that my vote last week was given in the way it was because I regard the removal of the dishonest Government that now occupies the treasury bench as being of great importance to this country. My vote last week was a vote against a dishonest Government.

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

– in reply- I am indebted to Senator Everett for his contribution to this debate, which is certainly a fairly low key debate because the Opposition is not opposing this legislation, nor should it be doing so. I dare say that in the whole history of relations between the State of Tasmania and an Australian or Federal government there has been no case of generosity being shown as quickly and as effectively as it has been shown in this case.

Senator Wright:

– Why, you have instanced it as one of your decentralisation efforts in the States!

Senator WRIEDT:

-I regret that Senator Reginald Wright, who is a Liberal senator from Tasmania, should treat this debate as a matter for some hilarity. I think that anybody who travels on the Bellerive ferry and who has heard about that interjection probably will have something to say about it to Senator Wright the next time that he travels on it. The important point is that the Australian Government realised the tremendous impact that the collapse of the Tasman Bridge would have on the people of Hobart and, as a result, this Bill is before the Parliament. Fortunately the Bill will be carried as it stands. But it is a matter of very great concern, on the basis of the point that Senator Everett raised earlier, that the decision by the Opposition, including the Tasmanian members of the Opposition, not to support the Appropriation Bills will mean, of course, a delay in the completion of the reconstruction work.

It has been brought to my attention that a joint meeting of the State and Australian Government Co-ordinating Committee on the Tasman Bridge Disaster was scheduled for Hobart early next month but that it is now likely that that meeting will be postponed indefinitely because of a lack of funds for Australian Government travel as a result of the Opposition’s move not to pass the Appropriation Bills. That is a very serious matter. I hope that all the residents of Hobart realise the significance of that. As we proceed along during the next few days it will be interesting to find out the things that will come out as a result of the failure on the part of the Opposition to pass the Appropriation Bills. It may seem to be almost an insignificant thing to us or to the country as a whole, but here we have a very important project in the State of Tasmania- there could well be similar projects in the State of Queensland or Western Australia which will be similarly affected- the completion of which will be affected by the Opposition’s decision in relation to the Appropriation Bills.

There are two other matters to which I wanted to refer and they were both raised by Senator Marriott. The first concerns the amount of assistance which the Australian Government has given to the eastern shore residents of Hobart, that is, in the Franklin electorate.

Senator Marriott:

– Is that where you live?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes. I am proud to say that I do live there and it is a privilege to live there. The Department of Health now has community health sub-centres available and operational in both Rokeby and Risdon Vale. The Department of Social Security has established its visiting service to residents. The Department of Labor and Immigration has established its permanent office for the district employment area of Bellerive and there has been a study done of all the social welfare needs of eastern shore residents. The survey referred to by Senator Marriott was accurate in respect of the figures he gave but could tend to be misleading. It is true that the fall of the bridge has had an effect on the lives of the majority of people in the Hobart area but not an effect which could be described as detrimental to two-thirds of them. To that extent the survey may be misleading.

The other point which Senator Marriott raised and to which I would like to make quick reference concerned a floating bridge. During January of this year, at the request of the Minister for Defence, Army engineers examined the feasibility of providing a light floating bridge to provide emergency river crossing facilities. It was finally decided that this would not be a satisfactory solution. The equipment available in the Army is of a light aluminium construction and is unsuited to long term use in salt water. There would be a very heavy maintenance requirement for a bridge of this type involving the continuous employment of at least 50 men. The floating bridge would have other disadvantages. It would be necessary to make provision for a section to be opened and closed to allow the passage of water craft and this would reduce the availability of the bridge. Further, the river is subject to fast tidal flow and this, combined with significant wave height, would further reduce the availability of the bridge, possibly cause bridge damage and loss or in some circumstances could imperil life. Those are points which are fairly minor, I daresay, in the totality of what the Australian Government has committed itself for in respect of this bridge. I hope that before very long- as Senator Marriott has indicated, maybe in a fortnight’s time- the Opposition will see the error of its ways and will pass the Appropriation Bills.

Senator Marriott:

– I did not indicate that.

Senator WRIEDT:

– That was the very strong implication, as I interpreted it. When the Opposition does accept its responsibility and passes those Bills the work that has been commenced on the restoration of the Tasman Bridge can proceed without interruption.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1283

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 August on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-In speaking to the National Health Bill (No. 3) I indicate that during the second reading stage of this Bill the Opposition will move the amendment which was moved in the House of Representatives and will be dealing with it in a similar way in the Senate. My colleague, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), the shadow Minister for Health, has outlined the Opposition ‘s approach to the National Health Bill (No. 3), the purpose of which is to enable the Government to have at its disposal information about costs when considering the reasonableness of prices for pharmaceutical products. If this is to be the Government’s real and only purpose, the justification for the legislation is questioned by the Opposition because the Government already has available to it many sources of information and can arrange for the supply of data from the pharmaceutical companies when they apply for their products to be placed within the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

I refer to the basis of this Bill, that is, the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Prices which sat in 1973. The Committee recommended that the National Health Act be amended to allow the Department of Health to obtain cost and financial information in respect of products in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. It may be recalled by the Senate that the Joint Committee on Prices at that time had a reference relating to imports and the Committee was seeking the justification of prices as they related to the devaluation of currencies and to the tariff decisions which had at that time been taken by the Government. Information was sought with regard to pharmaceutical products and a somewhat limited investigation was undertaken by the Committee on Prices. This led to the recommendation. It is questionable whether the Joint Committee on Prices had a complete understanding of all the information available to the Department of Health as it negotiates with pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers. However, the recommendation from the Committee on Prices is the basis of the suggestion that this mandatory requirement of the pharmaceutical manufacturers is necessary.

I wonder whether the Government recognises some of the difficulties which the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in this country faces with regard to the Bill. The industry has some strong reservations about whether adequate provisions have been made by the Government to ensure the confidentiality of information which is required and to ensure that this information would not be used for any other purpose. The industry also has difficulty with regard to the sweeping nature of this amendment to the

National Health Act, as there is virtually no limitation on the extent and character of the information which the Director-General may require. There is no special provision for security. There is no special undertaking with regard to the length of time that will be given for the supply of this information or the purpose for which it will be used.

There is also some question in the mind of the industry about whether there is an understanding by the Government of the nature of the industry itself. The suggestion that information could be required of a specific item of manufacture overlooks the nature of the industry, the research component of the industry if the industry is to be a continuing one, and the fact that on some products a company is prepared to accept a loss situation whereas on an across the board consideration of items there is the objective of a profitable undertaking. It is for these reasons that the industry and the Opposition seek to find some understanding of the Government’s requirements and place some stress on the need for a provision for an appeal to an independent arbitrator against decisions of the Department of Health or the pricing bureau within the Department of Health relating to pharmaceutical negotiations.

The other matter that is of concern to the Opposition is the fact that there is in course of negotiation a very comprehensive inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission relating to the pharmaceutical industry and the industry providing veterinary products. It is for this reason that it seems to us to be somewhat ill timed to be requiring this sort of information whilst a comprehensive investigation of the industry is being conducted. We believe that if the Industries Assistance Commission is conducting an inquiry- as we understand it, a general investigation of the whole industry- it would be preferable to find the result of that inquiry before we proceed to require the industry to provide to government the very widely cast provisions in this Bill. It is for this reason that we will move an amendment to withhold further decision on this Bill until such time as the Industries Assistance Commission brings forward its report and gives us the information that may apply to the industry, particularly as it would apply to the continuity of the industry on a profitable basis.

We should look at the industry as it exists and understand that it is an international industry and that the undertakings in Australia have a variety of forms. In some cases there is total manufacture of a product. In other cases there is partial manufacture and distribution. The cost structures differ very much for each product and for each company. The requirement of information that is sought under clause 3 of the Bill is one that we would like to think is capable of interpretation with the different requirements of the different companies in the industry. At present manufacturers negotiate the price of their products individually with the Department and the Department sets the price that it is willing to pay. It is then up to the manufacturer to consider whether he can meet that price- that is, if the manufacturer wishes his product to be included in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This alternative at present for a manufacturer to decide that he will not have that product included is a decision which he may make. He may have his product dropped from the list of pharmaceutical benefits under the support scheme. This, of course, seriously affects his manufacturing program. It seriously affects the way in which he is able to develop his industry within this country.

What is of interest to us is the Government’s objective to develop a government interest in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. We wonder whether the supply of information that is to be required from the commercial manufacturers will be confidential or whether it will be used as a basis for the Government’s own program of developing further its manufacturing activities. I think it would be understood that the commercial competition in the industry is intense, and government involvement in the industry more productively in the future than in the past is of considerable concern to the pharmaceutical industry in this country since the purchase of Fawnmac Industries Pty Ltd by the present Government. It is considered that the requirements under this Bill would give to trie Government reliable information about basic production costs, manufacturing development and other information which could be of disadvantage to the commercial industry.

It is for these reasons that even if we were proceeding with the Bill, if the report of the Industries Assistance Commission had been received, we would have sought to include in the Bill some amendments that would provide for confidentiality, for the reasonable time limits on which information could be supplied, some greater degree of confining with regard to the type of information that could be required and certainly an undertaking that some understanding of the industry would be involved when the Government was considering costs and prices and their relationships. These things are of considerable concern to us in the interest of developing a healthy industry in pharmaceutical manufacturing in this country and of seeing some continuity in planning available to it for the future. It is for these reasons, while we are awaiting the report of the comprehensive inquiry being undertaken by the Industries Assistance Commission, that I, on behalf of the Opposition, move:

Leave out all words after ‘That ‘, insert- the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the Industries Assistance Commission has completed and published its report on pharmaceutical and veterinary products’.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is the amendment seconded?

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

-I second the amendment. This Bill seeks to have compulsory disclosure to the Government of the cost of manufacturing pharmaceuticals so that the Government can negotiate more easily with drug companies in the purchase of pharmaceuticals. The reason the Government gives for bringing in this legislation is that the Government supplies 80 per cent of dispensed medicines under its pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The Government claims that if negotiations break down between it and the pharmaceutical companies the only remedy it has is to delist the medicines from its pharmaceutical benefits, which would thereby disadvantage patients. Therefore, says the Government, it must force information out of the drug companies so that it can determine the price it shall pay for these medicines, thereby controlling the companies’ profits. It is not the companies’ fault that the Government supplies 80 per cent of dispensed medicines. Yet here we see the Government trying to control their profits. It is a good example of the hazards involved in negotiating with governments. The Bill would turn the Director-General of Health into virtually a drug dictator who could make or break a pharmaceutical company by using the 3 faceless men in his pricing bureau. He could create enormous unemployment and even drive a pharmaceutical company out of Australia.

The Government obviously does not consider this to be an urgent Bill because it is acting on a report of the Joint Committee on Prices that was presented to Parliament nearly 2 years ago. The Government previously claimed that the cost of medicines was too high, but this is not so. Over the last 10 years the cost of drugs to the Government under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme has fallen by over 16 per cent- this during a time of recent rapid inflation- and during that time the cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme has risen enormously but the actual cost of drugs has fallen. As evidence of that I could table a graph that appears in the Health Economics Service Bulletin which is in the September issue of the journal Modern Medicine. I do not know whether it can be incorporated in Hansard. It is a simple graph, merely depicting an international comparison of the trends in prices of pharmaceuticals since 1967. It shows quite clearly that the cost of drugs in the United Kingdom and Canada has stayed about the same, the cost in Australia has fallen dramatically and costs in the United States and Sweden have risen markedly. I am quite prepared to table it for anyone who wishes to see it. The comparison shows that Australia is in an excellent position with regard to the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. However, since this Government has been running the show in Australia, the debasement of our currency has been forcing some of our drug companies into bankruptcy, with its resulting unemployment.

The Government is inquiring at present through another of its interminable committees into the possibility of increasing drug fees in order to keep some of these drug companies in business. Drug prices have not run away over the last few years in the same way that other prices have, but the actual percentage of profit going to the drug manufacturers is falling. As Senator Guilfoyle has said, the Government already has access to a wealth of information on drug costs. For example, it has access to information relating to the cost of drugs from firms operating in those countries which do not subscribe to the International Patents Convention, the general wage level, the cost of packaging and marketing and so on. In addition, the Australian Taxation Office recently has been conducting an intense investigation into the affairs of twenty-eight of Australia’s major drug companies, nearly all of which are multinational companies. It has been looking for double dealing by an Australian offshoot of a foreign company. The fact that these companies are multinationals must be galling to this Government. The Taxation Office has checked to see that there is no double dealing in regard to transfer prices or technical arrangements or contractual arrangements. This indicates the degree of surveillance under which these companies already operate, and indeed it is most likely that the cost of drugs now appearing on the Australian market is most reasonable.

Already this Government’s persecution of and interference with the pharmaceutical companies has threatened the very existence of the drug manufacturing industry in Australia. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want this production in Australia? Do we want its technology? Do we want its employment? Do we want its continuity of supply? There is even a defence element involved in Australia maintaining its self sufficiency in pharmaceuticals. The danger of Australia losing this production is here and now, and I cite the example of penicillin. It used to be produced in Australia by 3 companies. That number now has been reduced to two, and the second of the two companies, Abbott Laboratories Pty Ltd, has suspended production and dismissed 70 people. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission is the only manufacturer remaining in Australia. CSL is owned by the Government and its subsidy has been doubled in the present Budget. A report from the Industries Assistance Commission which is due shortly is to recommend the level of tariff protection for penicillin. If no protection is recommended and Australia can buy cheap penicillin from overseas, then either CSL stops making penicillin or the Government subsidy to CSL will have to be increased dramatically. That is an inexcusable position for Australia to be in. It would appear that this Government does not want Australia to have the benefits of the production, technology, employment or security of its own drug manufacturing industry.

Under this Bill, the Director-General of Health and his three faceless men in the pricing bureau would have huge powers. For example, there would be no limitation on the amount of information required of a drug manufacturer; no reasonable time limit is placed on the manufacturer to supply the information; the overall profitability of a drug company is not allowed for in assessing the cost of any particular drug. Often it is only one or two drugs from a range of drugs that make a particular company profitable. Those drugs may have helped or even saved thousands of people, yet the Bill takes no account of the cost of research or the profitability of the pharmaceutical section of a larger company that also may produce veterinary products or have a cosmetics section. The Bill does not provide for any of the information that is forced from a drug company to remain confidential. No provision is made for an independent arbitrator. The decision on price rests entirely with the three faceless men of the pricing bureau. I wonder how constitutional it is that these 3 bureaucrats should have the power to fix prices when government price fixing is not included in the Constitution and was rejected at the last referendum. No other country in the Western world makes such demands on its drug manufacturers.

Why is the Government bringing in this Bill now? It is acting on a two-year old report. I wonder if the Government’s reasons relate to its ambition to manufacture pharmaceuticals, to provide unfair competition from a Government subsidised and supported company. As has been mentioned, the Government has just purchased Fawnmac Industries Pty Ltd, a group of 3 companies which manufacture drugs. The group of companies has been on the market for the last two or three years for $2m, yet the price released at the time the Government bought the group indicated that it paid $6m. I see in this Budget that the cost is disclosed at $8.4m, allegedly because of some agreement relating to a pricing factor. I do not think anybody in private enterprise would have paid a price like that for this company. I wonder whether it was really a good buy, or whether it was goodbye to a lot of taxpayers’ money? In any case, now that the Government owns a pharmaceutical manufacturing company it is in a good position and well placed to find out the actual cost of manufacturing drugs. So why does it want this Bill? Perhaps the Government is aware of the lack of efficiency and profitability of public enterprise. Or perhaps it is because the company has few attractive sales lines and its plant is not notable. Since the purchase the previous ownership has continued in management. The manager has written to overseas drug suppliers to the effect that as the company is now an Australian Government instrumentality special treatment will be provided. Naturally, with this Government, eastern European and Chinese companies have had these letters sent to them. Why should the Government give special treatment to its Fawnmac company?

If the Government were sincere in its desire to cut drug costs it should be looking at its own actions and not those of the private drug companies. The way to get cheap drugs is to allow the free market to operate freely, unfettered by Government interference. Some time ago the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) referred this matter to the Industries Assistance Commission, and its inquiry into pharmaceutical and veterinary products is continuing. The Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association has made a massive submission to the Commission, whose investigation has now expanded into a general inquiry into the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. It cannot be unreasonable to await the Commission’s report before considering this Bill, a Bill with a 2-year gestation period. If the Opposition is even to consider the Bill, major amendments will be necessary to guarantee confidentiality, and to provide for the inclusion of overall profitability, reasonable time limits, reasonable requirements on the information supplied, the question of an independent arbitrator and the role of the three faceless men in the pricing bureau. The National Country Party supports the amendment recommending that the Bill be set aside until the publication of the report by the Industries Assistance Commission.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak briefly to this Bill, a Bill which contains provisions to require manufacturers and distributors of pharmaceuticals in Australia to give information on the costs and overheads of their products so that the Department of Health, when considering the inclusion of the drugs in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, will have more information to enable it to reach an agreement on price. As Senator Guilfoyle said and as Senator Sheil eventually reluctantly said, this Bill results from a report in 1973 of the Joint Committee on Prices which was investigating the price effects of currency changes. Its recommendation was quite clear. Before I come to that, perhaps we should look at some of the people who were on the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee was Mr Hurford; the Deputy Chairman was the Rt Hon. John Gorton; the members were Senator Gietzelt, Senator Guilfoyle, Senator O ‘Byrne, Senator Prowse, the Hon. R. V. Garland, the Hon. P. J. Nixon, the Hon. J. M. Riordan, Mr R. B. Whan and Mr R. Willis. This was a bipartisan committee consisting of members in both Houses and all parties. On page 17 of the Committee’s report in paragraph 94 the Committee gave a definite recommendation which stated:

The Committee therefore recommends that the National Health Act be amended to make it mandatory for companies to provide the Department of Health with cost and financial information.

Senator Sheil may think this is some evil socialist scheme to take over or to destroy the pharmaceutical industry. But Mr Nixon from his own Party, and Senator Guilfoyle from the Liberal Party, and other members of the Liberay Party on that Committee did not think it was a socialist scheme at the time; I doubt if they think it is now. The Committee conducted its inquiry because it discovered that at the time of the currency changes there were reductions in the landed costs of some pharmaceutical benefits in Australia. As always happens in some cases, these costs had not been handed on to the consumers in Australia. They had not been handed on to the taxpayer or to the Government. This seems to be a not uncommon factor in the pricing of drugs in this country. We can all remember the great differentials in the price of drugs such as diazepam- Valium- in the

United Kingdom, South Africa and heredifferences which could not be accounted for by freights or by any reasonable assessment of the production costs.

It seems to me that there has been a change of view or a change of heart at least by those members of the Opposition who were on that Committee and probably by the Opposition since that time. There was no great outcry from the Opposition when the Committee brought down its report. I cannot find any dissenting reports by anyone against the Committee’s recommendations. It would seem to me that the Opposition, after pressure from the drug companies, is looking around to find some means to get over passing this Bill- a Bill that some of their own members recommended. It has tried to grasp at straws and has come up with this amendment, but it will not oppose the Bill because that might look a bit rough in view of the Committee’s recommendations. Members of the Opposition are seeking to amend the Bill until the Industries Assistance Commission report is completed and it has published its report on pharmaceutical and veterinary products. Members of the Opposition perhaps hope that the whole thing will fade away or they may come into government and will conveniently put it into a pigeon-hole and forget about it.

Some of the things that were said about the Bill by Senator Sheil did not seem- to me at any rate- to be correct. They were said about the Bill in another place and were corrected by the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) in that place. I would hope that the Minister representing him in this place can confirm his corrections and reassure some of us, particularly on the point of confidentiality of the information which is given to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Bureau of the Department of Health. The first point I would like to make about Senator Sheil’s statement that the 3 members of the Department involved in this are faceless men and they are in some way sinister. They are senior public servants; they are experienced public servants who have worked in this same job, pricing and arranging price agreements between the Government and the pharmaceutical firms when the Opposition was in government. They did so for many years. I think it is very wise that they are in fact faceless and anonymous, the same as people on the Drug Evaluation Committee, who are, in many cases, anonymous so that pressures cannot be brought on them individually from others with different points of view.

It seems to me and it seemed to members in the other place that section 135 (a) of the parent

Bill which provides for penalties of $1,000 or 3 months gaol for releasing information concerning the pricing of these drugs is a pretty fair penalty to protect confidentiality. That is contained in the Bill. It has been asserted in the other place by the Minister that this applies to the new clause. I hope we can get confirmation of that. I am sure that we can get confirmation of that from the Minister representing the Minister for Health in this place.

Sitting suspended from 5.46 to 8 p.m.

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner we were debating the National Health Bill (No. 3). As I said, the Bill is relatively simple. It is a Bill to enable officers of the pharmaceutical pricing bureau of the Department of Health to negotiate in a fair manner with the various pharmaceutical manufacturing and distributing firms. At present in such negotiations the officers have only the information which the companies are willing to give to them. They are working in the dark. They have a very important job because this country spends vast sums of the taxpayers’ money subsidising drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I pointed out that these men are honest men. They are experienced men. They are senior public servants who have served both this Government and previous governments very well with no suggestion that there has ever been any breach of the confidentiality which is necessary in their job. I do not believe that they deserve the statement which Senator Sheil made- that they were a group of faceless men who somehow were going to take over the whole pharmaceutical industry in this country and wreck it. I also pointed out that in my opinion the parent Act had provision in it to protect the confidentiality of the information which was gathered.

Senator Young:

– Where is that?

Senator GRIMES:

– It is in section 135 A, I think. I am talking about the parent Act. I realise it is difficult to go back and see that. It seems to me that it is quite unfair to suggest that these men will be used in some evil way to destroy the pharmaceutical industry in this country. This Government, like every other government, realises that the pharmaceutical industry- both the Australian companies and the multinational companies- has been very important and that it will continue to be very important in the supplying of drugs in this country.

It seems to me that there have been 2 points of opposition to the Bill. The first point of opposition was that of Senator Sheil who, in the sort of true working party nonsense and tradition which he goes on with, is opposed to all Government actions. He does not want any Government interference with anything in this country. For instance, his statement that the Government has no place in social reform and other magnificent statements like that put his attitude. His solution to the whole problem, which he stated tonight, was that all we needed was a free market. He said that we needed a free market, that all the drug prices would settle out and everything would be lovely. But he realises, and everybody else here realises, that if we had a free market in the drug manufacturing industry, if there were no tariffs, which is what the Industries Assistance Commission is investigating, we would not have any drug manufacture in this country. With the cost and price basis in this country no firm could compete with the production of drugs overseas. That is what a free market would give.

Senator Wright:

– But the Government reduced tariffs by 25 per cent on the slather.

Senator GRIMES:

– We did. We were justified in doing that. We are now investigating the tariff situation in a proper way instead of relying on pressure from large companies to tell us what to do. 1 seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1289

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I inform the Senate that early this evening His Excellency the Governor-General accepted the resignation of the Honourable Rex Patterson as the Minister for Northern Australia and also my resignation as the Minister for Agriculture. His Excellency subsequently directed and appointed the Honourable Rex Patterson to hold the office of Minister for Agriculture and the Honourable Paul John Keating to hold the office of Minister for Northern Australia. I will represent the Minister for Agriculture in the Senate.

page 1289

APPROPRIATION BILLS 1975-76

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- I have received message No. 380 from the House of Representatives in the following terms:

The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following resolution which this day was agreed to by the House of Representatives: That the House of Representatives having considered message No. 276 of the Senate asserts that the action of the Senate in delaying the passage of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1975-76 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1975-76 for the reasons given in the Senate resolution is not contemplated within the terms of the Constitution and is contrary to established constitutional convention and therefore requests the Senate to reconsider and pass the Bills without delay.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Mr Deputy President, in view of the message just reported from the House of Representatives I seek leave to move a motion to restore the Appropriation Bills to the notice paper.

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

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

– I move:

I suggest that that hour be 9 o ‘clock.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I am having a quick look at the motion. I am trying to get to the sense of it. It is a double barrel motion. I am prepared to agree that it be an order of the day for a later hour this day, say 9 o’clock. I take that to be the substantive motion. But, Mr Deputy President, if you give the motion to the ayes, does that mean that the Bills are restored to the notice paper? I think there is a difference. At 9 o ‘clock is there to be a debate as to whether the Bills be restored to the notice paper?

Senator Wheeldon:

– Leave was granted.

Senator WITHERS:

-No. Leave was granted to move a motion. The motion has been moved. Senator Wriedt requested leave to move a motion. That was granted. Senator Wriedt then moved that notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the order of the day for the second reading of the Appropriation Bills be restored to the notice paper and that they be orders of the day for a later hour this day. In fact, there are 2 motions in that. I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) that the motion be adjourned until 9 p.m. I think the Opposition is entitled to see whether it will oppose the motion to restore the Bills to the notice paper or whether it will agree to their being restored to the notice paper and then debate the second reading again. I think there is quite a difference in the procedures. I am looking for some guidance from you, Mr Deputy President, on this matter. If the Bills are restored to the notice paper, does that mean that those who have previously spoken in the debate are precluded from speaking again? Does this make it a continuation of the previous second reading debate? There are some nice procedural questions in this matter which I think ought to be sorted out.

Senator Poyser:

– What are you worried about?

Senator WITHERS:

-It is all very well to say: What are you worried about?’ It may well be that we on this side of the chamber may wish to debate whether or not these Bills be restored to the notice paper. Therefore I would wish to seek some advice and consult my colleagues. I think it would be more in order if I moved for the adjournment of the debate, which would mean the adjournment of the debate on the total motion.

Senator Poyser:

– Ha, ha!

Senator WITHERS:

-If there was only one motion it would be a lot easier to sort out, senator, but there are 2 elements in the motion. I would seek to adjourn the debate on the total motion. I do not know whether the Leader of the Government in the Senate wants the debate to come on at 9 o’clock. I suppose that would give us 50 minutes. I am never afraid of going into something reasonably quickly. I hope that honourable senators understand the point I am getting at. It is a very fine procedural point and I do not think it is something I ought to take on the run. I know that if I moved for the adjournment of the debate at this stage I would be excluding other honourable senators from speaking because such a motion must be put without debate. I do not want to move that motion if it means that I am going to cut somebody out of the debate. I think perhaps the easiest way of doing it would be for me to move for the adjournment of the debate, and should somebody- for instance, the Minister or one of his ministerial colleagueswish to intervene in the debate, we on this side would certainly give leave for him to enter the debate.

Senator Wriedt:

– Before you do that I would like to say something.

Senator WITHERS:

-On the basis that I yield, I seek leave-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Perhaps I should make the situation clear. There is only one motion before the Senate at the present time. The suggestion is that that motion contains 2 elements. That is Senator Withers’ interpretation. If these Bills are restored to the notice paper, as has been moved, it would mean the beginning of a fresh debate in this chamber.

Senator WITHERS:

-May I inquire further, Mr Deputy President? If the motion before the chamber is agreed to will it mean that the Senate is agreeing to the restoration of those Bills to the notice paper and that the debate will come on at 9 p.m.?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- That is the motion before the Senate.

Senator WITHERS:

-As I indicated earlier, I would like to think about that until, say, 9 o ‘clock. I know that Senator Wriedt wishes to say something. Perhaps the easiest way out of it would be for me to move that the debate be now adjourned and then Senator Wriedt can perhaps be given leave to say something on the motion in spite of the Standing Orders. I move:

Senator WRIEDT (Tasmania- Leader of the Government in the Senate)- I seek leave to make a statement.

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-The intention of the motion, of course, is to bring on the debate on the Appropriation Bills again at 9 o’clock. There is a fine point which Senator Withers makes and which would be argued, namely, that the motion, as I have moved it, should be the subject of debate. If the motion is defeated the debate on the Appropriation Bills would not come on. But it certainly is the intention of the Government and the intention of my motion that that debate comes on at 9 o’clock. If the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) wishes to interpret the motion as it reads now as referring to whether or not we debate the Appropriation Bills tonight, that is another matter. I can only indicate that the motion has been moved with the intention of the Appropriation Bills themselves being debated at 9 o’clock. If the Opposition has a different view as to what the motion means, it is up to the Leader of the Opposition to indicate accordingly, and I think in fact he has. I can do no more than proceed with the motion as I have moved it.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is: ‘That the debate be now adjourned ‘.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1290

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-Before I was interrupted for the second time I was saying that Senator Sheil suggested that the solution to the whole problem of the drug crisis in this country was a free market, an open market, an

Adam Smith style affair. But Senator Sheil, Senator Baume and everyone else around this place know that in fact in such circumstances of a free market and no tariffs there would be no drug manufacture in this country at all. The local companies could not possibly compete in that situation. In view of that, I do not imagine that Senator Sheil would ever agree to this Bill. I do not think he would ever agree to any part of this Bill. Therefore I believe he is not being honest in seconding the amendment moved by Senator Guilfoyle which is to the effect that the Bill be not proceeded with until the Industries Assistance Commission has completed and published its report.

However, we will always need tariff protection and we will always need the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Therefore we will always need some reasonable way in which the Government can decide how much it will pay for the drugs that come on to this scheme, and we will not be in the ridiculous situation of the government pricing officers acting blind, with the drug companies doing as they like and telling them what they like, and a drug being listed or de-listed on that basis.

Senator Guilfoyle in her speech made her opposition quite obvious when she said that the industry is worried about the lack of confidentiality, about how these prices will be worked out and about what information will be required. I suggest that Senator Guilfoyle and other Opposition senators are presenting very much the industry case. I know that the large drug firms in this country have been of great benefit to this country and of great benefit to medicine in this country and the whole world. One cannot deny that. I know that some of their discoveries have been of great benefit to mankind. But we cannot sit here, as Senator Sheil is doing, and say that because they are wonderful, big, free enterprise companies with all this purity and light therefore they are managed by great gentlemen, because some of us remember that, following an investigation by a committee of the Senate of the United States of America, five of the companies, all of whom were involved in supplying the drug market in Australia, had to pay a total of $4m. They had paid that amount in bribes to ensure that their drugs were used in the Vietnam situation.

Senator Sheil, Senator Baume and I as doctors have received vast quantities of glossy material, advertisements, Chinese puzzles- at one stage I received a travelling clocks, bottles of whisky and records- and all of this sort of stuff which these poor, unfortunate companies which have no profit margin churn out to doctors every day of the week. It just does not fit that these poor companies which are not making any profit or any money should be pouring stuff through the mail. The only thing that will stop them is the recent increase to 18c in the price of sending a letter through the mail.

Senator Marriott:

– Do you return those gifts?

Senator GRIMES:

– I have, and I have requested that I be taken off their mailing lists. I am glad that the pugilistic senator from Hobart has just interjected in order to allow me to get that point over. Even the publication which Senator Sheil held up and which he wanted incorporated in Hansard is produced in fine print on glossy paper and is paid for completely by drug advertisers. Senator Townley, who is not here tonight, would know that even on the meagre and awful prices that this Government is supposed to pay to these people for their products they give extraordinary bonuses to chemists to encourage them to use the products. Many doctors prescribe generically many drugs. I did that with drugs like procaine penicillin. Mr President, you know, I know and everybody else knows that there were bonuses of the order of 50 per cent to encourage the use of the drug manufacturers’ drugs. As the same time, these people are claiming that their profit margin is too small, that they cannot make a living and that the Government is being terrible. Senator Sheil said that we should have a great and free market. God knows what would happen to us in those circumstances.

Senator Webster:

– You would get something like the ACTU-Solo deal.

Senator GRIMES:

– I dare say, as Senator Webster rises and cries that, that the drug companies may have been making some contribution to the National Party, the National Country Party or whatever it is called. Despite the fact that some 2 years ago some Opposition members were party to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Prices and in particular were party to paragraphs 92 and 93 of the report which pointed out the impossibility of working out these prices and taking into consideration the whole profitability of the drug companies, and despite the fact that the report from the Committee pointed out that there was a regulations scheme in the United Kingdom which also showed that the whole profitability of the company cannot be used in working out the prices, the Opposition is now in the embarrassing situation, because of pressures from the industry, that it does not want to pass this Bill.

Instead of doing the honest thing and the right thing and opposing the Bill, it is moving an amendment which says that it will wait and see what the Industries Assistance Commission says. Why not come out and oppose the Bill? One can say that in regard to another Bill that will be before the Senate soon. Why not come out and oppose that also? Why does the Opposition not be honest about it and oppose the Bill? Why does it not say, ‘We want to look after the drug companies. We do not want them to give any information’. The Opposition wants the Pricing Officers Bureau of” the Department of Health to work in the dark. It is not worried about where the taxpayers’ money is going and on what basis it is spent, which is a very strange attitude for Senator Baume in view of the time he spent examining the Estimates during the hearings of the Senate Estimates Committees. I say to the Opposition: Why not come out and oppose the legislation outright instead of moving an amendment like this which is just a cover for its complete opposition to our proposal? I support the Bill.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating the National Health Bill (No. 3). I am grateful to Senator Grimes for his contribution to the debate. He has revealed the motive that drives many members of the Government Party. That motive is a hatred of the pharmaceutical companies and a dislike of profits that they make within the law. Before contributing to the debate, I wish to state a couple of personal facts which should be made clear. During my career I have enjoyed personal support from pharmaceutical companies on at least 2 occasions. In 1963 I had a fellowship awarded by the Smith and Nephew Company, which is a pharmaceutical company. I want to place that on record so that no one in some smart way brings it out later. Between 1965 and 1967 I was the Roche research fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. I won both these positions in competition and they enabled me to advance my career. Both of them were provided by the generosity of drug companies. Those matters should be known and should be on record. Incidentally, I am waiting now to publish a paper about diazepam which, as Senator Grimes will know, is Valium, to demonstrate that this drug is effective for a whole variety of minor disorders. I might say that it is one of the few drugs for which there is some proof of efficacy.

The alleged purpose of this Bill is to give to the Government right of access to information from the drug companies to allow the Government to make some judgment as to their profitability and from that point to make some judgment as to the prices which it should allow for the cost of drugs available as pharmaceutical benefits. Throughout the Government’s propaganda campaign over the last 3 years we find the recurring theme: It promises to reduce the price of pharmaceutical goods. This Bill is put up as part of that program which the Government hopes to advance. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Wheeldon) stated in his second reading speech that the Department of Health depends on negotiations to try to achieve fair and reasonable prices. He implies that the prices now achieved are something other than fair and reasonable. This is nonsense, as I hope to demonstrate in my contribution to the debate.

First, I would question the need for the Bill; second, I would assert that the Government already has considerable information regarding the cost of drugs in this country. The Government knows the costs of drugs overseas. Senator Sheil has pointed this out already. The Government knows the costs of the capsules and tablets. It knows the costs of packaging. It knows the cost of wages. It knows the rates which have to be paid on property. It knows the costs of power. It knows the cost of transport and it knows many of the other costs. One wonders why it wants this extra information and what it hopes to achieve. The annual returns of pharmaceutical companies are lodged with company registrars and are available. We have to ask ourselves what the Government is seeking, what it really wants and what is it really trying to do.

I want to develop the argument first that the pharmaceutical industry throughout the world has been one of the major benefactors of mankind and possibly has done more for mankind in this century than any other group. It is the pharmaceutical industry which has developed the drugs which have meant so much to mankind. Sir Derrick Dunlop, a person of whom even Senator Grimes would know, an eminent man, a doyen -

Senator Devitt:

– Weary Dunlop.

Senator BAUME:

– I point out for Senator Devitt ‘s edification that this is not the gentleman to whom he refers. I refer to a Scottish physician of great eminence, one of the doyens of physicians in the world, a man -

Senator Wheeldon:

– Doyen?

Senator BAUME:

– Yes, a doyen, and I use the term correctly. He is a man whose career spans the era before the explosive production of new drugs, a man who has seen the position from both sides. Sir Derrick Dunlop, in delivering an address in Sydney in 1966, had something to say about the advances that have occurred and the reasons for these advances. He remembered the times when he started to practise that very few effective drugs were available. He lists the way that he tried to practise medicine then. He said there were a few drugs for comfort and almost nothing for cure. He points out that since the 1 930s things have changed. Sir Derrick Dunlop says:

And now how different everything is; since 1 930 the mortality from gastro-intestinal infections, the chief cause of infantile deaths, has fallen over 80 per cent,, and that from pulmonary infections by nearly 70 per cent, while the mortality from tuberculosis, meningococcal infections, mastoiditis and venereal disease all show similar or greater declines.

He goes on to list the very great advances that have occurred in the treatment of diseases, all due to the production of new pharmaceuticals in the last few years.

Senator Melzer:

– And aspirin and thalidomide.

Senator BAUME:

- Senator Melzer who interjects forgets that aspirin was developed at the end of the last century. If she is generous, she will recognise that the thalidomide disaster, disaster though it is, has to be set on the scale on the other side against the advances which the drug companies have led for the benefit of mankind. Mr President, I would remind you that since 1940 we have seen the development of all the antibiotics. We have seen the development of the penicillins, the broad spectrum antibiotics and the synthetic penicillins. Not one of those drugs has been developed by a government drug industry. We have seen the development of the anti-histamines, of the corticosteroids- cortisone as we know it- of the anticholinergic drugs which are used in the treatment of ulcers. We have seen the development of the antithyroid drugs and the vaccines for the prevention of measles and polio. We have seen the development of antirheumatic drugs, antimalarial drugs and antidepressant drugs. We have seen the development of the anovulents- in other words, the pill, which has been a great boon in terms of contraception. Each one of these drugs has been produced by the pharmaceutical industry. Not one of those drugs has come from a government industry. They have all been products of the private pharmaceutical industry. Sir Derrick Dunlop pointed out that Professor Chain, the man who developed penicillin, had reviewed the 66 most valuable compounds introduced to medicine since the introduction of aspirin in 1899. 1 point out to Senator Melzer that aspirin was introduced in 1899. His analysis showed that only nine of those came from universities and research institutes and that the rest came from private pharmaceutical companies working for profit and giving in return great benefits for mankind.

Let us examine some of the benefits to humanity which have been the result of the development of these drugs. The average life expectancy, which was 55 to 59 years at the turn of the century, is now over 70 years as a result particularly of the development of pharmaceuticals. The rate of deaths before the age of 35 years has dropped from one in four to one in twenty. The chance of living beyond the age of 35 years has gone up from 55.8 per cent in 1 90 1 to something over 90 per cent in 1975. Those are real advances. The number of days lost per sickness episode has dropped from eight in 1952 to four now.

Let us look at the effects on specific diseases. The number of tuberculosis deaths has dropped from 50 per 100 000 people in 1930 to less than two per 100 000 people today. That is a tremendous advance and a tremendous boon to mankind. The number of whooping cough deaths, polio deaths and diphtheria deaths has dropped from the quite significant figure of 60 per 100 000 people in the year 1930 to a figure now which is too low to be measured. We can no longer develop accurate mortality figures for diphtheria, polio and whooping cough because the development of drugs through the private pharmaceutical industry has had an enormous effect upon the health of Australians, particularly the children. Let us look at the number of patients admitted to hospital in Victoria for rheumatic fever. Over 1 1 000 people were admitted in 1960. Fewer than 5000 were admitted in 1968. The discharge rate for psychiatric patients has increased remarkably since the development of the anti-depressant drugs and the number of deaths during pregnancy and childbirth has dropped from 20 per 100 000 people in 1930 to less than one per 100 000 people in 1969. The drug companies have given a heritage to mankind.

Sir Ernst Chain, a man who helped to develop penicillin; a man from the Department of Biochemistry at the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London; a man who does not work for a drug company- was in Australia recently. He delivered the presidential address to Section 6 of the Forty-sixth ANZAAS Congress in Canberra in January of this year. He stated clearly his view of what the drug companies have done. It is worth placing it on the record in the present atmosphere in which it is almost impossible to make a speech in this Parliament without an attempt being made to interfere, to interrupt and to denigrate these companies. Sir Ernst Chain said: . . the large majority of pharmaceutical discoveries of therapeutic importance, in the fields of analgesics, anaesthetics, vitamins, the sympathomimetics and parasympathomimetics, the polypeptide and steroid hormones, the sulphonamides, the antibiotics, the anti-parasite drugs, such as antimalarials, the antitrypanosome and anti-kala azar drugs were developed in the laboratories of the pharmaceutical industry . . . though some of the initial observations came from academic laboratories in the faculties of science and medicine.

Most of them came from the pharmaceutical industry; none of them came from government. Sir Ernst Chain went on to comment further. I will quote his second comment because it is something that supporters of the Government should understand. It is his belief that we will look back on this century and remember this era of drug discovery. He said: . . the next generation will look upon this century nostalgically as the golden age of therapeutics.

In that address he discussed the development of drugs and he paid proper tribute to what the pharmaceutical industry has done and what its discoveries have meant to mankind. It does us no harm to place that on record, to recognise it and to acknowledge it.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has a nationalised drug industry. It has produced not a single drug of therapeutic importance since the October Revolution. If one looks at the state owned industries one will find that they have produced almost no major drugs.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Do you reckon the Yanks have a monopoly on it?

Senator BAUME:

- Senator Mulvihill, almost all new drugs and almost all major drugs have been produced by the free enterprise, profitmaking pharmaceutical companies. The socialist model is noteworthy for its total failure to innovate or advance in this field. I will give an example. In 1973-74, 37 new drugs were introduced. Of those, 35 were developed by 26 different pharmaceutical companies. During that period no new drugs came from socialist countries, except for one drug that came from Sweden, where the initial work had been done by private industry before the Government took over.

Let us remember that the successful treatment of tuberculosis in Britain saved the United Kingdom economy £55m annually at a time when the total drug bill for the United Kingdom was f 100m. By the treatment of one disease, by the reduction in the number of work absences, by the reduction in mortality and by the reduction in pension requirements the British economy was able to save f 55m at a time when its total expenditure on drugs was f 100m. I ask: What industry can match those statistics? What industry has a record of such service to mankind? It has been unequalled this century and history will remember it. It has all been done through private enterprise.

The next point I wish to make concerns the Government’s assertion that in some way this Bill will help it to control the prices of pharmaceuticals. That is worth examining. We already use the provisions that exist in other countries to control the price of drugs and we use them effectively. For example, we know that in the United Kingdom there is a voluntary price regulation scheme. Our drugs compare well in price with drugs in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom negotiates price changes not on the basis of drug by drug but on the basis of total profitability for the pharmaceutical company based on an annual overall return on the capital employed. That is Great Britain’s way of doing it and our drug prices compare well with its drug prices. New Zealand has a Prices Act and has a scheme that seeks to control the price of pharmaceuticals; yet without such a scheme and without the provisions of this Bill our prices compare well with those of New Zealand.

Drug costs before the introduction of Medibank in this country represented about 10 per cent of our total expenditure under the national health scheme and of that 10 per cent the companies received half. There has been considerable upward pressure on the prices of drugs in the last few years and not all of it from the drug companies. More prescriptions have been written. Let us not forget that in 1949-50 an average of 6 prescriptions was written per 100 000 people. Under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme 660 prescriptions per 100 000 people were written in 1 973-74. Of course when there is a hundredfold increase in the number of prescriptions there will be some increase in the price with it. In 1948-49 there was a total of 280 000 prescriptions under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. In 1973-74, there were 59 million prescriptions for pharmaceutical benefit purposes. Of course that exerts an upward effect on the total price of pharmaceutical benefits. Our population is increasing in age and with increasing age there is a different disease pattern. This different disease pattern carries with it a requirement, well recognised, for more drugs and a greater range of drugs. There is an increasing share of costs now going to pharmacists. More expensive drugs are being produced and listed under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme which is adding to costs. As the patient contribution rises, cheap drugs are being delisted and as cheap drugs are delisted, the average cost per prescription will rise. Let us not forget that drugs like anovulents, commonly known as the pill, once they are prescribed as pharmaceutical benefits are drugs which are very widely used. Naturally there will be increased costs to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

It is worth examining what are the most frequently used drugs. If we look at the annual report of the Department of Health for 1973-74, we will find that the most frequently prescribed drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme were analgesics, the pill, broad spectrum antibiotics and penicillin. Those 4 drugs were far and away the mostfequently prescribed and the most used. One might say that they headed the charts. Yet on investigation, honourable senators will find some remarkable things about the costs of drugs. In 1972-73, the broad spectrum antibiotics cost us $2 1.7m. In 1973-74 they cost us less- $20.6m. That is not an upward pressure on prices. The price of the broad spectrum antibiotics, in fact, came down in that year. It is a miracle in a period of socialist inflation. It indicates some kind of effective cost control at a time when costs in the economy were running wild.

If we look further over a 3-year period at the cost of pharmaceutical benefits for nonpensioners which is met by payments from the National Welfare Fund- this information is contained in an attachment to the Budget Papers- we find that in 1973-74 the cost was $15 1.5 m and in the next year it was $18 1.6m. The estimates for 1975-76 provide for an allocation of $ 179.5m. The Government has estimated a lower expenditure this financial year on pharmaceutical products for non-pensioners from the National Welfare Fund. So we have to examine closely the assertion that there is an urgent need for further controls on drug prices.

I next remind the Senate of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits of 1971.I draw the attention of the Senate particularly to paragraphs 154 and 155 of the report which that Committee issued. Paragraph 154 states:

The Department of Health accepts the fact that the situation is highly competitive and could give no evidence of collusive practices in Australia. Overseas ownership of Australian firms could permit some price controlling but it would be difficult to show that cartels are operating against fair and reasonable pricing.

Paragraph 155, which is also germane, states:

Statistical data supplied by the Department of Health showed that major manufacturers tend to concentrate their output in certain types of drugs and to supply large proportions of the market for that product.

I draw the attention of honourable senators particularly to the last sentence of this paragraph which states:

In this way economies of scale are achieved.

The only other comment from that particular House of Representatives Committee report which deserves our attention is the final sentence in paragraph 1 59 which states:

In general, Australian prices compared favourably with overseas prices.

So what is it we are trying to say? The evidence that I have given demonstrates that drug prices in Australia have started to fall. I can add to that evidence with some more information. I have a table entitled ‘Price History Index of the Top Selling Prescription Medicines in Australia’, a copy of which has been made available to the Minister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon). I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BAUME:

– This table sets out the cost of drugs sold in Australia. It gives their price at introduction as 100 per cent and it examines what happens in the years that follow. Obviously if the drugs go up in price, they will appear as more than 100 per cent and if they go down in price a figure less than 100 per cent will be shown.

Almost all of the prices of these drugs have dropped dramatically year by year following their introduction into Australia. The price of drugs like abocillin and achromycin are dropping in price. The price of achromycin is now only 23 per cent of what it was when introduced. The price of abocillin is now 34 per cent of what it was when introduced. There are many examples of drug prices falling to quite a dramatic degree. Very few of the drugs -

Senator McLaren:

– Two is not many.

Senator BAUME:

– The table will appear in Hansard. Senator McLaren will then discover that almost all of the drugs have dropped in price.

Let us examine the question from another angle. If we have a government-controlled drug industry or a government-controlled drug company, are we likely to get competitive pricing? We have in this country a government drug authority and have had for some years. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories market a limited range of products. Among them are penicillin products. I have a second table which I have made available to the Minister which is entitled Table of Comparison: Sample of Prices of Selected Medicines Supplied by Commonwealth

Serum Laboratories and by Private Pharmaceutical Companies: Retail Prices in 1974’. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BAUME:

– This table shows that the costs of several drugs- Phenoxymethyl penicillin, phenethicillin, ampicillin- are exactly the same whether the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are selling the drug or whether private pharmaceutical companies are. We are seeing no advantage from the operation of a government-controlled drug authority. It rather gives the lie to some of the assertions which are made.

Which prices do the Government wish to lower? What is that the Government hopes to achieve? Let us examine the market for pharmaceutical drugs. Does the Government want to come in through its new company- FAWNMAC and compete on the market for unpatented drugs- the generic market perhaps? Does it wish to compete for unpatented products? Perhaps it wants to use FAWNMAC to do so. But generic prescribing, that is to say prescribing merely by the proper name of the drug and not by the trade name, accounts for only11 per cent of the Australian drug market. It is only 11 per cent of the prescriptions written under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The rest of the prescriptions are written for specific brand names. Therefore the Government might be competing for only11 per cent of the market. I must remind the Senate that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories put their products out not as generics, but in terms of their own trade names. Eighty-nine per cent of the drugs are written in terms of specific names and tremendous brand loyalty has built up. I shall cite an example. We have heard a lot about valium and we have heard about Great Britain where valium was said to be over priced. The British Government insisted that a licence for valium be given to another company. The company was Berk Pharmaceuticals and it marketed its own brand of diazepam under a different name. They captured, at the lower price, less than 1 per cent of the market with this drug. Brand loyalty is very strong. So what does the Government hope to do through its drug company and its effect on costs?

I have one other thing to say about the market for generic drugs. If the Government moves into this market whom will it be hurting? It will not be hurting the multinationals. The generic market is that segment which is in the hands of small wholly Australian-owned companies, because that is the part of the market into which the smaller Australian companies can get some entry. So if the Government wants to come in on the generic market it will do it at the expense of small Australianfirmsandletusnotforgetthat.

Alternatively the Government may care to move in on the market for patent drugs, for the big sellers, the big time drugs. Perhaps it has some scheme to require compulsory licences for these drugs and I can certainly get no assurances that this is not the Government’s plan. I would welcome any assurance by the Minister that this is not contemplated. However, let us remember that even compulsory licences do not help to get drugs away from the large companies which first develop and market them. Perhaps the Government wants to enter the hospital market. Perhaps it wants to use the information to produce drugs and enter the hospital market. Even if it did and got, say, one-third of the hospital market, let us ask what effect this would have on drug costs. The Government probably would capture only about 6 per cent of the total pharmaceutical benefit market and this would have a minimal effect on drug costs.

The provisions of this Bill are extremely wide. It is a very short Bill but it contains quite alarming provisions. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for proposed new section 102a to be inserted in the principal Act. Proposed new section 102a provides that the Director-General may require a person to furnish information relating to financial matters but also to supply ‘any information that is in the possession of or is capable of being derived from information that is in the possession of any person. This means that this Bill proposes that the Government shall be able to take any information about a pharmaceutical company, not just financial information. I would be grateful if those who disagree would address themselves to clause 3 of the Bill and to proposed new section 102A(b) which is sought to be added to the National Health Act. The Government is proceeding with undue haste and is not telling us all the facts. The second reading speech of the Minister stated that drug manufacturers would be required to provide financial information but clearly a reading of the Bill shows that it need not be only financial information that they have to provide. It can be any information which is in the possession of or is capable of being derived from information in the possession of any person. The Minister’s recond reading speech says that this information shall include information on prices and costs. Clearly it goes further and includes other kinds of information.

I remind the Senate that the report of the Joint Committee on Prices was tabled in November 1973 and that after considerable delay a reference was sent to the Industries Assistance Commission on 24 June 1974. The Industries Assistance Commission is expected to report on that reference soon. The report, we have been told, is expected probably within a couple of months and we therefore ask: Why not wait for this report which relates directly to the matter under consideration in this Bill? Why not wait for that report, examine it, and decide then whether this Bill meets the requirements which that report will doubtless want brought to our attention? I believe- and I refer again to Senator Grimes’ speech- that we are seeing one more example of company bashing. We are seeing a government which does not approve of the pharmaceutical industry, which does not approve of its pursuit of profit within the law. The Government does not recognise the contribution which the industry has made to mankind. It does not recognise its unique contribution in the last 30 years. I believe that the Bill is part of a vengeful and spiteful campaign which has been running in this country for some years. The Bill is impractical. I urge the Government to accept the wisdom of waiting for the IAC report and thus avoid embarrassment on yet another front. Let us not have another Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Bill which has to be altered even before it is passed through this place. Senator Guilfoyle has moved in most moderate terms ‘that the Senate is of the opinion that this Bill should not be proceeded with until the Industries Assistance Commission has completed and published its report on pharmaceutical and veterinary products’. I have much pleasure in supporting her amendment.

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

– in reply- It will be impossible for me to say a great deal on the Bill because the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the reintroduction of the Appropriation Bills will be debated here at 9 o’clock. The only words I would like to offer at this time in the moments that remain to me- I do not think a great many words are required to deal with what Senator Baume has said- are to -

Senator Wright:

– Remaining to you.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Yes, in the moments that are remaining to me on this occasion, but I will be here for a long time after you have gone; I can assure you of that, Senator Wright. Gone and forgotten, if you are not already. Mr President, the only thing I would say about Senator Baume- very few words are required to deal with what he said- is that this long panegyric upon the drug companies and this rather garbled version of the history of social development whereby credit for the eradication of whooping cough, measles, the slave trade and the white Australia policy can be given to the private drug industry, interesting and inaccurate though it may have been, have absolutely no bearing on the legislation which is before the Senate. I can see that Senator Wright is terribly upset. I had not realised until now that he had any interest in the drug industry whatsoever.

Senator Wright:

– Your’ ‘puerilaty is dreadful.

Senator WHEELDON:

-What was the noun?

Senator Wright:

– P-u-e-r-i-l-a-t-y.

Senator WHEELDON:

– If I could correct Senator Wright, I think the abstract noun is puerility’- that is the one he is grasping for-not ‘puerilety’ I think if he were to refer to a dictionary he would find there is no such word. It is puerility, Senator Wright. If you want to use these long words I suggest that you use them correctly and not misuse them in this way. Mr President, whether or not drug companies are admirable institutions and whether or not all the social and medical ills of the past ages have been eradicated by the private drug business is quite irrelevant to the legislation we are debating tonight. What we are debating now relates to the National Health Act and the obtaining of information from the pharmaceutical companies so that the Australian Government, that is the Department of Health, in negotiating the prices of drugs will have information available to it which will enable it to approach the matter in a sensible way with all the information which is necessary to make some rational decision about what prices ought to be paid for the drugs which are being obtained and provided by way of pharmaceutical benefits to the Australian people. In view of the time, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1299

APPROPRIATION BILLS 1975-76

The PRESIDENT:

– I call on the order of the day for the resumption of the debate on the motion for the restoration of Appropriation Bills (No. 1 ) and (No. 2) to the notice paper and that they be orders of the day for a later hour of the day.

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Question put.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

– In view of the decision just taken by the Senate, I move:

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

The Opposition does this for quite a simple reason. We believe we are entitled to take into account the message overnight and to come back tomorrow for the debate. I do not blame Senator Douglas McClelland for the fact that I did not know about this motion until 8 p.m. because as Senator Douglas McClelland told me- I accept his word- he attempted to give me notice before that. I was engaged in other places and it was not until I came back that I was informed of it. It certainly was not Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s fault that I did not know until 8 o’clock.

The reason the Opposition wants to take this into consideration- I think it is only reasonable that I ought to be able to consult my colleagues in the normal way in which we consult our colleagues in this place, whether we call these consultations Caucus meetings, party meetings or whatever- is that the message is a little more than a message in itself. I do not wish to debate the substance of the message. If I may say this without getting into the substance of the debate, the message does call into question whether or not the Senate has the powers within the Constitution to do as it did. The House of Representatives claims that what the Senate did is not contemplated within the terms of the Constitution and was contrary to established constitutional convention. Therefore the message that came from the House of Representatives- if I may say this as gently as I can- goes beyond the simple question of requesting the restoration of the Bill to the Notice Paper. In many ways it goes to the whole basis of the relationship between the 2

Houses of this Parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia.

I do not wish to debate that relationship at this stage because 1 would not be in order if I attempted to do so. 1 just indicate that that is the primary reason why the Opposition believes that there ought to be time to consider this matter. It is now approximately 9.10 p.m. The Senate will meet at 1 1 a.m. tomorrow. In the normal course of events, if my amendment is carried this matter will come on for debate before lunch, and the Opposition certainly would not resist it coming on at that stage. In fact, we would welcome it coming on then; we are not afraid at all to debate this matter. But I do believe that it is only fair and reasonable that the Opposition be given the opportunity to consult with itself, if that is the right word.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, you might change your minds.

Senator WITHERS:

– You never know, senator. In view of certain developments tonight, even the Government might change its mind. One never knows what the dawn will bring. I think the amendment is reasonable. It has been normal custom in the Senate that, while not being exactly the leisurely place that some scribblers depict, we do tend to take things into our measured consideration and come to a proper view on matters. I do not believe that the Senate ought to be stampeded tonight into a situation where it takes on board a message which I understand arrived late this afternoon from the House of Representatives. The Bill was debated there today and has come to this place tonight, and we are expected to debate the relationship between the 2 Houses. It is for that reason and that reason alone that I moved the amendment I did, namely, that the Bill be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Come the next day of sitting, if the Government lists the Bill as No. 1 on the Notice Paper, the Opposition will be quite prepared to take it on and debate the matter of substance, having had discussions between myself, my colleagues led by Senator DrakeBrockman, and our friends and colleagues who sit behind us. I therefore commend the amendment.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-Mr President, I speak to the simple question, which is whether or not the resumption of the debate on the issue of the restoration of the Bill to the Notice Paper be tonight or on the next day of sitting. As I see it, I cannot therefore debate the fundamental issues that are involved in the present controversy. But I want to say, before any decision is made over the coffin of a deceased senator -

Senator Sim:

– You are talking a lot of rubbish.

Senator EVERETT:

-That is all right about that.

Senator Jessop:

– You are misleading the public.

Senator EVERETT:

-You do not like it, do you? But harken to the fact that twice in this Senate in the brief time that I have been here I have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) say that the Opposition would not take advantage in votes in this House of the death or resignation- I will confine it to the death- of a senator. That has been said twice and it sounded very nice, but when the crunch comes is it honoured? No. Tonight the public has witnessed the descent by the Opposition in this Senate to the lowest depths of infamy. (Honourable senators interjecting. )

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator McLaren, order! Senator Wright, order! I am on my feet. I demand silence while I am on my feet. I want to impress on the Senate that the’ honourable senator who has the call is entitled to be heard in silence, and anyone who interjects on him will be dealt with according to the Standing Orders.

Senator Wright:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is your point of order? Under what Standing Order are you taking your point of order?

Senator Wright:

– Standing order 408; no, standing order 418. On a previous occasion you told me to withdraw a statement that a senator’s speech was unworthy of a senator.

Senator Poyser:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Standing order 408 -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I want to hear this point of order. Senator Wright, you are entitled to take your point of order.

Senator Wright- Mr President, I ask you to ask the honourable senator to withdraw the statement that the Opposition has reduced itself to the lowest depth of infamy. I think that that is derogatory to all senators and to the Senate itself. As the repository of the Senate’s honour, you ought not to permit that to be said with regard to a vote in the Senate. A senator is not entitled to reflect upon a vote of the Senate, and to say that it stoops to the lowest depth of infamy is derogatory and infinitely worse - ( Government supporters interjecting)

Senator Wright:

– I will not try to contend against the torrent of interjections if I am not protected by the Chair. I say to you, Mr President, that that statement is infinitely worse than the statement that a senator was making a speech unworthy of a senator, which I said of Senator Wriedt. I withdrew it at your direction. I ask for equal justice in the preservation of the dignity of the Senate.

Senator Poyser:

- Mr President, speaking to the point of order, Senator Wright raised his point of order under standing order 408 -

Senator Bonner:

– Standing order 418.

Senator Poyser:

– No, standing order 408. That Standing Order states:

By the indulgence of the Senate, a Senator may explain matters of a personal nature, although there be no Question before the Senate; but such matters may not be debated.

Senator Wright was not mentioned in the speech so he cannot make a personal explanation under that standing order.

Senator Chaney:

– On the point of order, Mr President, there was a reference to standing order 408 which was corrected to standing order 418.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, I understand that.

Senator Keeffe:

– On the point of order, when Senator Wright rose to take his point of order he definitely quoted standing order 408. I want to clear up the situation by quoting both of the relevant Standing Orders. Standing order 408, and this is the one that Senator Wright claimed when he got up, states:

By the indulgence of the Senate, a Senator may explain matters of a personal nature, although there be no Question before the Senate; but such matters may not be debated.

Senator Wright has been here long enough to know that that obviously was not the relevant standing order. Standing order 418 states:

No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

I want to make the point that when Senator Wright was endeavouring to speak to the point of order he himself deliberately infringed standing order 4 1 8. He endeavoured to blame a situation in this country today which is one of the most tragic that Australia has ever seen -

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the honourable senator to speak to the Standing Orders.

Senator Keeffe:

– I am speaking to Standing Orders. I am speaking to standing order 418 which I believe has been infringed by Senator

Wright. He is trying to create a situation in which chaos will reign in this country. I am saying now that this is a time when we need calm- a time when honourable senators opposite are holding the people of Australia to ransom. It is just not good enough for Australia.

Senator Wright:

– You did not take responsibility.

Senator Keeffe:

– I know you have a Military Cross from World War 1. 1 know that you got a Military Cross in the Boer War but you are not going to bring it into this House.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Senate will come to order. Senator Keeffe, you are addressing yourself to a point of order.

Senator Keeffe:

– I am, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask you to confine your remarks to the point of order.

Senator Keeffe:

– I am referring to standing order 4 1 8. It is not because Senator Wright had a dirty bow and arrow; it is because he did not know where the countries were where the war was on that he stayed at home. Mr President, I am suggesting that if we are going to stick to the Standing Orders at a time of crisis in this country brought about by the people on the other side of the House, then Senator Wright ought to be the first to abide by the Standing Orders.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I think you will have to wait until Senator Everett has concluded his speech before you can make a personal explanation.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I thought I could make a personal explanation at the end of Senator Keeffe ‘s speech.

The PRESIDENT:

– No. A point of order was being taken by the honourable senator.

Senator WRIGHT:

– In that speech Senator Keeffe made a derogatory remark about me. I submit that at the end of that speech I am entitled to make a personal explanation. He said that I stayed at home during the war. I enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in time to go overseas and was prevented from going overseas only by the outbreak of the Japanese War. I ask honourable senators to note the despicable speech by this dishonourable senator. I wish it to be on record that I will not permit that imputation against my attitude during the conflict. With a family of four, I enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force. I think it was in December 1941 as our troops were going to Greece.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Standing Order that has been raised is standing order 418 which deals with offensive words and imputations of improper motives. I appeal to the Senate because of the explosive and inflammatory nature of the issue before the Senate to preserve the level of conduct here. A certain amount of good temper and moderation has been characteristic of debate in the past in this Senate. I think that to be able to live with one another we have to maintain this moderation. Objection has been taken to certain words that were uttered by Senator Everett. If he would seek here to reframe those words in a different tone, then I think we can get on with the main debate that is before the Chair.

Senator EVERETT:

-The words to which objection was taken, as I recollect it, were: ‘That the Opposition tonight has descended to the depths of political infamy’. If it would help the proceedings to rephrase it I suppose I can say that the Opposition has shown by its attitude tonight that it is prepared to adopt the nadir of political perversity. If that is derogatory, I suppose I will have to change it. I think I can help this situation by referring to Senator Wright’s enlistment in the Australian Imperial Forces. If I could tell a little story it might make everyone a little happier. A dinner was given for Senator Wright- so folk lore goes- before he enlisted. The theme of the address given by the Chief Justice that night- so folk lore goes- was summed up in the Latin phrase nullum tempus aut locus occurit regi, time does not run against the King. I think that those words uttered more than 30 years ago have been proved very prophetic. If we can just regard the ledger as squared on that point -

Senator Wright:

– And keep on that level.

Senator EVERETT:

– I do not mix amongst kings. I cannot stay on the king level for too long. I will get back to what we are talking about.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I appreciate the response to my appeal to the Senate for tolerance. I ask Senator Everett to address the Chair.

Senator EVERETT:

-Let nothing obscure the fact that the Opposition in the Senate tonight by refusing to have restored now to the notice paper the motions for the second reading of the 2 Appropriation Bills is guilty of mealy-mouthed humbug and hypocrisy. The reason given was that the Opposition wanted time to consider its attitude. Members of the Opposition have had more than 2 months to consider their attitude because on 19 August this year the GovernorGeneral recommended to the Parliament that the appropriations which are involved in these

Bills should be agreed to. The Opposition has had more than 2 months to consider its attitude. Why does it want more time? It cannot say. All honourable senators opposite want to do is delay and obstruct these Bills. They remind me very much of that period in the history of the Roman Empire when it was said of the Emperor that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. The Leader of the Opposition in this Senate (Senator Withers) is very well equipped to play the part of Nero.

Senator Missen:

– You would be the barbarians, I suppose.

Senator EVERETT:

-That is quite all right. You do not get any second dividends. The Opposition is like Nero. It is fiddling and the Australian people are paying the price of this political opportunism which is being indulged in by the Opposition. What words could be clearer than the words adopted by the House of Representatives- the House in which governments are made and unmade, not in this Senatewhich simply say that the House of Representatives asserts that the action of the Senate in delaying the passage of the 2 Bills - I paraphrase- is not contemplated within the terms of the Constitution and is contrary to established constitutional convention.

The Government has been saying that for weeks. How does that take anyone by surprise in the Opposition? Do members of the Opposition want to consider what might have been relayed to their Leader at Yarralumla tonight? Is that the reason? Where are these men of strong principles I do not see them all in this chamber on the Opposition benches at the moment; I see one of them; I do not see the second one; I see another possible one- who were prepared, according to statements made previously, to stand up and be counted in their Party room. Have they gone to water? What has happened to the Opposition claim that it has made for years: ‘We do not caucus; we are always free’. I do not believe that the men of principle had anything else done to them other than had their heads temporarily placed under water. I think that they will rise because they know they have a duty to the people of Australia. I do not look at any one person in particular, because I believe that there are persons on Bills- I Opposition benches who are capable of acquiring principles for the purpose of assisting the nation to be extricated from this constitutional crisis into which it has been plunged by the blatant and premature grab for power by power-hungry members of the National Country Party- I put them first, Senator Webster- and the Liberals in the Senate.

I just wonder tonight if they are not a little rueful because if they had not beaten the gun in April 1974 they would have been facing an election very soon. It is that fact which is galling to them. They failed once; they tried to obscure it under the absurd rejoinder that they did not win but they did not lose. We have not heard much about that lately. Of course, that claim went with Mr Fraser ‘s elevation to the position of Leader of the Opposition. We will have any amount of opportunity in the succeeding days to debate the real issue which is involved here in relation to the passage of the Appropriation Bills.

I register my complete and utter protest at the fact that, after more than 2 months during which the Appropriation Bills have been before the Parliament, when they come back from the House of Representatives and when an attempt is made to put them back on the notice paper for immediate debate the Neros on the Opposition benches fiddle. They say: ‘We want more time’. Do they want more time to sleep upon their own political infamy? I wonder what it is? Or is it to receive some further message from their gallant leader? I think the answer to the question of the propriety of their gallant leader’s action was given within a stone’s throw of the Senate chamber today. What purported to be, at the start, a Liberal rally in support of the Opposition turned out to be a rout. It is on that basis that we oppose the amendment of the Opposition to defer this matter at least until tomorrow and thereby deny the people of Australia the chance to get a speedy solution to this problem which probably cannot come unless the men of principle arise.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Withers’ amendment) be left out.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Withers’ amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Wriedt’s), as amended, be agreed to.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1304

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

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

– in reply- As I was saying before the debate on this Bill was interrupted, the matters which Senator Baume raised have very little, if any, bearing upon the motion which is now before the Senate, and that is whether this Bill should be passed and whether the pharmaceutical companies are the major benefactors of humanity and have cured all of these diseases out of a spirit of benefaction. They may be very interesting matters to raise but they are utterly irrelevant to what we are discussing tonight. What we are discussing tonight is the means proposed by the Australian Government whereby there can be a more effective regulation of the prices of pharmaceutical products.

The proposal which has been brought forward was brought forward because of a recommendation which was made as long ago as 1973 by the Joint Committee on Prices. It recommended quite clearly that the Department of Health should be able to obtain this information. When it brought down that recommendation the Committee was comprised of members from both Houses of the Parliament and it was a 3-Party Committee represented by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Country Party, or whatever happened to be its name at that time. It is rather curious to hear Senator Baume saying that we have been rushing this matter with undue haste, I think was the expression he used, when Senator Guilfoyle had been complaining earlier that we had been taking too long about it.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– No.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Somebody had made some such suggestion. I correct that. I would be surprised if Senator Guilfoyle had made such an outrageous suggestion, but somebody did. Senator Baume was telling us that the problem is that we were exercising undue haste, when it has taken almost 2 years for this Bill to reach the stage that it is in now. All we were trying to do is to obtain information so that we can negotiate effectively with the pharmaceutical companies. We cannot negotiate effectively with them at the present time. Senator Baume has asked us whether we have any evidence of collusive practices. We clearly do not have evidence of collusive practices. The Department does not have evidence of collusive practices because it does not have the sort of evidence on which it would be necessary to base any assessment of whether there were collusive practices. In fact, that is what we are trying to find out by means of the Bill which is now being debated by the Senate.

The proposition has been put that the Department should be aware of drug prices generally. The Department is aware of the market price of drugs which are available on the open market, but in the case of patented drugs which are usually comparatively expensive there are many instances in which the price charged to the Australian subsidiary by its overseas affiliate is useful, together with manufacturing and other costs, to assess reasonableness of price, and that is one of the things that we are trying to be able to obtain by means of the proposed amendments to the legislation. The question has also been asked both here and elsewhere as to why it is that overseas companies should charge high prices for drugs supplied to their Australian affiliates. The answer to that question is that the transfer prices of drugs is a means used by multinational corporations to arrange in which country they wish to make their major profits- for example, a low tax country. Whether or not they are doing this we do not know, and we are not going to know unless we have the legislation which we are seeking to have passed by the Senate tonight. The basic question, of course, is why it is necessary to have legislation to require pharmaceutical firms to provide this information regarding costs. The answer to that question is that many firms, particularly the multinational corporations, do not normally volunteer such information. Many of them have said that they would do so if they were required to do so under the law of the country, but at the present time they are not prepared to make available that information. The amendment which has been moved by Senator Guilfoyle is to the effect that the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the Industries Assistance Commission has completed and published its report on pharmaceutical and veterinary products. The inquiry being undertaken by the Industries Assistance Commission is a very interesting and important one. It is an inquiry which we certainly hope will be of great benefit to the Australian pharmaceutical industry. However, it is quite irrelevant to what is being attempted to be done by this Bill. What we are attempting to do by this Bill is to fix some adequate price for those pharmaceutical products which are the subject of pharmaceutical benefits, and what assistance may be given by way of tariff or other forms of assistance by the Industries Assistance Commission is completely irrelevant and completely separate from what we are trying to do by this legislation.

The Industries Assistance Commission is at present undertaking its inquiry and the information which it will require to achieve an understanding of the problems of the industry in Australia is the same sort of information as to costs and other financial considerations which this Bill would make available to the Department of Health. Nonetheless, as I have said, this is a quite different matter. The information which would be obtained under the provisions of the National Health Bill (No. 3) would not be made available from the Department to the Industries Assistance Commission. We are not connected in any way with any inquiries of the Industries Assistance Commission. In the same way, the Commission’s information would not be made available to the Department of Health. In order to make certain that fair and reasonable prices can be assured for pharmaceutical benefit drugs, it would not be reasonable to cause any further delay in requiring the industry to provide this necessary information to the Government. That, in fact, is what the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices, many of whose members were prominent members of the Liberal and National Country Parties and the Deputy Chairman of which was formerly a Liberal Party Prime Minister of Australia, recommended we should do. That is what we are doing.

The question has been raised about confidentiality. As is always the case with the Opposition whenever there is a debate of this kind, it does not stick to the issues before the Parliament. Its members always suggest all sorts of evil motives and cunning conspiracies. The ghost of Fu Manchu is summoned forth with the 3 faceless men. It sounds like the prodigals of the elders of Zion. Whatever Bill is brought forward, evil conspiracies are conjured up in relation to it. Fiends and demons are produced from some cauldron to haunt the poor senators opposite. The suggestion has been made that somehow we will obtain information which will be provided to these evil socialistic government makers of pharmaceutical products and that they will use their illgotten information in order to sabotage these great benefactors of humanity, the private pharmaceutical companies.

There is a provision in the principal Act which preserves the confidentiality of information which is obtained by the Department of Health. These provisions are contained in section 135a of the principal Act which provides for a penalty of $1,000 fine or 3 months imprisonment for divulging any information acquired under the terms of the Act. It would be a breach of the Act bringing with it those penalties if any such information were made available to anybody else. That includes Fawnmac the government-owned company which is producing pharmaceutical goods, or the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which is a statutory authority. It is a clear breach of the Act to provide that information. I do not know why the Opposition Senators keep making these suggestions. I would have thought that if they wanted to oppose the Bill, there are more honourable ways’ of doing it than by making these very unpleasant, unfair, unjust and inaccurate accusations against the Government. I do not know for the life of me why they are opposing this proposition. The resolution is a completely reasonable one. We are trying to fix the prices of pharmaceutical goods by negotiation with the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture these pharmaceutical goods.

Senator Sheil:

– By force.

Senator WHEELDON:

-That is all we are trying to do and that is all the Bill provides for. Yes, it will be by force if it is to be a law. All laws are based on force. If Senator Sheil says that he objects to the use of force, what he is objecting to is the existence of law. The entire body of civil and criminal law would be abolished if Senator Sheil who, without knowing it, is an unconscious anarchist, were to have the political philosophy to which he subscribes adopted by this Parliament. Senator Sheil apparently is in favour of no law whatsoever.

The Government rejects the amendment which has been put forward by the Opposition. We shall be voting against this amendment. We believe that this is an essential piece of legislation which was recognised by a Committee of the Parliament on which both Houses and all parties were represented. I believe that the amendment should be rejected and that the Bill should be read a second time.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Guilfoyle’s amendment), be left out.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 27

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Drake-Brockman, T. C.

Brown, W. W. C.

Withers, R. G.

Wriedt, K. S.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 27

Majority…… . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1307

AUSTRALIAN OVERSEAS TRADING CORPORATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 1 September on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– This is a Bill to establish a governmentowned overseas trading corporation which is to be known as the Australian Overseas Trading Corporation. The object of this Bill is broadly stated in clause 7. It is said that its function is to engage in overseas trade with the principal object of ensuring the maintenance and expansion of overseas trade of a kind that cannot be or is not being adequately maintained and developed by ordinary commercial enterprise. One will see readily from that statement of its functions that it is to deal with overseas trade that not only cannot be adequately maintained by ordinary commercial enterprise but also is in fact not being so maintained by commercial enterprise. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that this proposal is one which will undoubtedly have very serious consequences as far as the ordinary private enterprise that is engaged in overseas trade is concerned. I think it is also important to emphasise that this proposed trading corporation will not simply be engaged in exporting goods from Australia which is the major feature which has been emphasised by the Government. The corporation will also be engaged in the importation of goods from overseas. It is proposed therefore that this Government trading corporation should be fully engaged in the export and import of goods. It will operate both as principal and agent with full powers of buying and selling goods in either export or import markets.

I should say at the outset that the Opposition is totally opposed to the measure and proposes to vote against it at the second reading stage. I shall now proceed to indicate why the Opposition is taking that view. As I have said, the Bill would provide for a government trading corporation to become involved in an area of enterprise which has been developed by Australia for many decades. It has been developed in a highly successful way by private institutions by private initiative, endeavour and enterprise. It has been a very successful area of enterprise conducted by Australians because Australia is now regarded as one of the major trading nations of the world. Our overseas trade, particularly our export trade, is of course one of the major activities of this nation. This Bill proposes to introduce into this very highly and very sophisticated area of commercial activity, a new body altogether. We are told that the object of establishing such a corporation is to increase Australia’s trade, particularly its export trade. But as I have emphasised the corporation will be engaged in import as well as export trade. The object is to increase trade by Australia with 2 particular areas of the world, namely the centrally planned economies, that is the communist countries of the world; and with the new Middle East nations. When I say ‘new’ I mean newly important in this field because of the growing wealth that those nations have as a result of the increase in the price of oil. The Bill also has a third object and that is to assist the smaller Australian manufacturers and processors who it is said are not engaged to any extent in the export of their product. In some way it is believed that such a trading corporation may assist the small Australian manufacturers to enter into consortium arrangements and thereby to develop an export market.

The Bill is said to have a number of safeguards with regard to our private institutions. This protection is set out in clause 10 of the Bill. By this clause it is intended that any existing Australian exporter to an existing market- that is a market which is defined as an established and continuing market- will have protection from competition from this trading corporation. This clause is not designed to give such a person any general monopoly because it would be quite undesirable that he should be free from any competition from other exporters. But the proposed trading corporation should not engage in trade with such an established market which has been built up by an Australian exporter.

However, there are a number of very serious qualifications to that provision in clause 10. The major one is that the importer may prefer to deal with the corporation rather than with the private exporter. Naturally enough when the object of this trading corporation is said to be to promote trade with the centrally planned economies in particular, it is not difficult to see that it would be very likely that in those circumstances the importer would prefer to deal with the corporation rather than the private exporter. Therefore, this protection which is given by clause 10 is likely to be a rather illusory protection.

The Bill also contains some other important limitations on the power of the corporation. The corporation is not authorised to engage in retail trade in Australia, lt is not to engage in the manufacture of goods. However, again, there are a number of important qualifications on these restrictions. The restrictions are not to prevent the corporation for engaging in the wholesaling trade, particularly in regard to the import of goods. So the corporation is able to import goods into Australia as the agent of any person in Australia. As I say, the corporation will be able to operate as a wholesaler. Although it is prevented from engaging in the manufacture of goods, it is entitled to arrange for the production or manufacture of goods by other persons for the purpose of overseas trade. It may engage in the processing or packaging of goods for the purpose of overseas trade. So it can be readily seen that the corporation may engage in a good deal of incidental or peripheral activities which will enable it to provide quite a deal of competition in this area with the existing private institutions.

The other important provision of this Bill to which I think attention must be drawn is that in clause 13 which provides for what is called a national interest role’ or activity for this trading corporation. The corporation is enjoined to act along commercial principles. I shall be dealing with some of those aspects in a minute. But if the corporation should desire to engage in a transaction which, although not in accordance with sound commercial principles is nevertheless one in which the corporation believes it should engage, the corporation may refer this matter to the Minister. The Minister may approve of the corporation’s entering into such a transaction. In that event, any loss would be met by the Australian Government. So there is a very real and serious qualification on the commercial nature of this corporation. It may thereby get into an area of quite unsound commercial practice and the Australian Government will have to pick up the tab for the losses that it will incur.

What is the nature of the corporation that it is proposed to create? It is a very typical statutory corporation. The Bill provides that the directors shall be chosen for their knowledge or experience in industry, commerce, public administration, finance or industrial matters. I would have thought that if one were going to set up a trading corporation to compete in this very sophisticated and somewhat rugged area of enterprise and competition, the people engaged in it would certainly have to be very well versed in industry and commerce. Apparently, though, if one is a public servant or an accountant or a trade union secretary one may well be chosen to be a director of this corporation. Is this Government using here the precedent it set in regard to other statutory corporations which it has set up to operate in the commercial area, namely, the ill-fated Petroleum and Minerals Authority which was never fully constituted, the directors of which, I think, in the end were simply 2 public servants and a trade union secretary with not one mining man amongst them? The same thing happened with the Pipeline Authority. If this happened now how could we as a Parliament have any trust in this Government setting up a corporation which did not have on it men with the proper experience to conduct its affairs?

It has also to be noted that the staff of this corporation are to be employed under the Public Service Act. Really, is this a believable propositionto set up to engage in this area of intense commercial competition, sophisticated competition and activity, a corporation directed by people who are not fully versed in the area and staffed by people under the Public Service Act.

Senator Coleman:

– If you look at clause 16 (2) (a) you will find -

Senator DURACK:

- Senator Coleman can point that out when she follows me in the debate. The Corporation is to be set up with a capital of $ lm to be provided by the Australian taxpayers. It is said that the object of the corporation should be to return a reasonable dividend to the Australian taxpayer. If the object of the corporation is to act on commercial principles it is extraordinary to find that under the next clause interest is not to be payable to Australia on the capital of the corporation. Here we are setting up a corporation which has to act on purely commercial lines and are providing that interest is not to be paid on its capital. Yet the vital public utilities, the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission, which are performing social and public services, have to pay interest on every advance that is made to them by the Treasury. Here we are setting up a commercial corporation which does not have to pay interest. If the results of the Australian Industry Development Corporation are any guide, there will not be any profits paid by the Corporation either.

I turn to some of the reasons which are advanced by the Government in support of the creation of this new bureaucratic body which is said to be able to advance in some way our overseas trade. It is all very interesting and ironic that this Government which has done so much to impede, obstruct and certainly to discourage trade by Australia should decide now that it has to set up a corporation of this kind to do something about advancing trade. We have a government which over its 3 years of life has withdrawn a great many of the incentives that had been given by Liberal-Country Party governments to the exporter; a government which has by its highly extensive revaluations seriously impeded all the exporting and overseas revenue industries of Australia; a government which has created havoc by its 25 per cent across the board tariff cuts to one major area of our trade; and, more important than any of those, a government which has created rampant inflation in this country, an inflation rate which is now running higher than that of our trading partners. It is of no good for Senator Coleman to shake her head. That is the real crunch for Australia’s trade. We cannot continue as a great exporting nation, a great trading nation, when our rate of inflation is running so much higher than that of our trading partners. All this has been the result of this Government’s mismanagement of the economy over a period of 3 years.

This Government has the effrontery now to come into this Parliament with a Bill to set up a corporation which it says will do something about our trade. It is acknowledged by the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Senator Wriedt), who presented this Bill to the Senate, that it has the limited function of trying to expand our trade within limited areas. The Minister acknowledges that our trade with Japan, the United States of America and the European Economic Community should be left to private enterprise endeavour. He points out that our trade with the centrally planned economies or, in common parlance, the communist world should be developed as also should our trade with the Middle East and trade by the small Australian manufacturers. He also claims that this proposal has been the subject of consultation with State governments and business organisations and states that most State Ministers gave general support to the object of this Corporation.

I have a letter here from the Minister in the Western Australian Government who informs me, and I think I should inform the Senate, that at the meeting which the Minister for Overseas Trade, Mr Crean, called with State Ministers to discuss the Bill, neither the Western Australian Minister nor the New South Minister were able to attend. Therefore, whatever may have been said by those Ministers who were present, only four out of the 6 State Ministers, gave what is claimed to be general support. The Minister also says that the matter has been discussed with the major trading houses and with other major representatives of those engaged in trade, either export or import and in particular the Australian Chamber of Commerce and the Australian Chamber of Manufactures.

Debate interrupted.

page 1309

ADJOURNMENT

Letter from Premier of Tasmania

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-My simple purpose in rising is to have incorporated in Hansard, if the Senate will agree, the full text of a letter which the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Neilson, has sent under date 17 October 1975 to all Tasmanian senators.

Senator Marriott:

– When did he send it?

Senator EVERETT:

– I said it was dated 17 October.

Senator Marriott:

– I have not got it.

Senator EVERETT:

-Perhaps your mail box has not been cleared.

Senator Wright:

– That is a very discourteous answer. Senator Marriott said that he has not received it.

Senator EVERETT:

-My reply does not mean that it has not been delivered in the normal course. I got mine in the normal course of post yesterday morning in Hobart. I propose to seek the leave of the Senate to have the letter incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Premier of Tasmania Hobart 17 October, 1975

Dear Senator Everett,

I am naturally greatly concerned at the financial repercussions that will inevitably ensue in Tasmania if there is protracted delay in the passing of the Budget for 1 975-76.

Tasmania is relatively more dependent than any other State on financial assistance and support from the Australian Government. This is naturally so because of our smaller size and our limited financial resources. For these reasons the Financial Assistance Grant paid to Tasmania is larger per head of population than in any other State. Similarly, Tasmania receives a much higher per capita allocation of funds for capital purposes.

I realise that many payments made by the Commonwealth to the State are authorised by Special Appropriation Actsthat is, reserved by law. It is therefore difficult to predict with certainty which payments could be delayed and those that could cease almost immediately because of the Constitutional crisis and political impasse. This makes my task as State Treasurer in planning all the more difficult because of the inevitable uncertainty. Further, the Treasury has not got access in an emergency to any sources of funds to tide it over such a period.

It may help to underline the gravity of the situation that could threaten Tasmania if I point out that our estimated revenue this year totals $32 lm, of which just over half, viz., $16 1.6m, would normally be received from the Commonwealth by regular monthly instalments of the Financial Assistance Grant. Again, over $30m of a Capital Works Programme totalling $ 102m is to be financed from interest-free grants from the Australian Government. I am assuming that the flow of funds to be provided by borrowings approved by the Australian Loan Council will not be disturbed. Further, you will be aware of the importance to the State of the special Commonwealth support programs in financing a number of essential social services- for example, Karmel Grants for Education; Medibank payments for Health and Hospital Services. As I have mentioned, Treasury does not have access to cash resources that would enable these programs to be maintained even for a short period.

I am not able to comment on the problems that will face the Australian Government in maintaining the administrative functions of government and continuing its own social service programs if there is a delay in passing the necessary Appropriation Bills. However, I can say without exaggeration that there could be financial chaos in Tasmania. The State might very soon be forced into a position where it is unable to meet its commitments. In this I believe Tasmania is not alone and other States could be similarly placed.

It is not necessary for me to elaborate on the economic consequences of such financial upheaval. There would be substantial unemployment with the most damaging loss of confidence. Work would virtually come to a standstill in many areas and employees would necessarily be dismissedfor example, only essential key personnel could be retained in connection with road construction; contractors working on water supply and sewerage projects would be forced to cease; urban transport would be disorganised. Local government could also soon be involved because of the growing dependence of municipal councils on grants from the Commonwealth and State Governments.

Under separate cover I am forwarding you a copy of my Budget Paper, ‘Grants to Tasmania’. This document contains details about many aspects of joint CommonwealthState financial arrangements.

If there is any further information that I can give you, I shall be pleased to do so.

In conclusion, I can only say I hope that the Constitutional crisis in Canberra will not be allowed to become the threat it could pose to the stability of State government.

Yours sincerely, PREMIER.

Senator M. G. Everett, Q.C., M.L.C. Building, 65 Murray Street, HOBART.

Senator EVERETT:

– In summary I simply say that it indicates the gravity of the situation that could threaten Tasmania if there is delay in the passing of the Budget and underlines ‘without exaggeration that there could be financial chaos in Tasmania ‘.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I have received a copy of that letter. I have considered it. I wish to convey through this chamber a message. It is that the Premier of Tasmania completely misunderstands the constitutional processes of this Government. The Senate, with a sense of responsibility as to the nation’s welfare, has decided not to proceed with the Budget. Therefore, responsible government demands that the Whitlam Government ensure that if it is to maintain government at the time the authorised funds run out it will have the confidence of Parliament. It does not claim that now but, impertinently and arrogantly through the Prime Minister, asserts that it will recognise responsibility only to another place.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. The discussion is now getting around to the right of this House to defer the Budget, not the letter from the Premier of Tasmania.

The PRESIDENT:

– What is your point of order?

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I draw your attention to standing order 413. The debate is now upon a question which has been debated this session. It is on a question that has been debated today in the other House. It is on a question that has been made an order of the day for the next day of sitting, on the motion of Senator

Withers. So it is something that has been discussed this session. It is something that is now on the notice paper. I would say that it is in direct breach of standing order 413.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order that has been raised by Senator Cavanagh is rather a delicate one. Senator Everett was given leave to incorporate a letter in Hansard. Senator Wright is endeavouring to comment on that letter. I think it would be depriving Senator Wright of his right to answer it immediately if he were not permitted to continue. Leave of the Senate was given to Senator Everett to incorporate the letter in Hansard. I think I should allow Senator Wright to continue.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am speaking on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. In response to that which has been advanced by Senator Everett through the document that we gave him leave to incorporate in Hansard, it betrays on the part of the Premier of Tasmania a complete misunderstanding of the constitutional processes that should govern the methods and procedures of this Government. This chamber is established on democratic vote and is not in the slightest degree to be compared with the hereditary basis of the House of Lords. We are one indispensable component of the Parliament of this country. For a Prime Minister to assert arrogantly and ignorantly that he will recognise responsibility only to one chamber of this Parliament means that he is determined to crush the Constitution of this country by retaining office over a period when he knows that there are no authorised funds to enable him to implement his Executive Government. Mr Neilson, the Premier of Tasmania, has been the victim of suggestion by Australian Labor Party propaganda to get out this letter addressed to Tasmanian senators suggesting that we leave over our resolution to delay the Appropriation Bills until there is a full consultation, not as there would be in England of only the House of Commons, but of the representatives in this Parliament, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, by an equally democratic vote of the people. The poor little Premier of Tasmania thinks there are senators from Tasmania who so misunderstand the Constitution that they would yield to this suggestion that he will put out to the newspapers. There would be those on the other side- the Cavanaghs- who would prevent my delivering the response here now because of this pusillanimous, contemptible channelling by Senator Everett into the records of this chamber to cow the senators of Tasmania to a complete acceptance of the unconstitutional arrogance -

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, I ask you to rule whether the word ‘contemptible’ is parliamentary.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not a desirable word to use when speaking about another senator or a member of another chamber. I rule that it is not a parliamentary word.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Instead I say reprehensible, unforgiveable, completely beyond the understanding of rational, intelligent and purposeful people, only to be absorbed by the Wriedts. Am I in order in saying a corruption of the real Wrights? I will not be provocative, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I hope you will not be provocative, Senator. You are saying that you will not be.

Senator WRIGHT:

- Mr President, we can reach a complete understanding. My purpose is to be the antithesis of provocative- persuasive. Give me audience and let me persuade audience, Mr President. I am not going to sit here and accept in silence the arrogant, ignorant assertion of the Prime Minister of this country that he will retain the seals of office of this country without the money effectually to implement the responsibilities of executive government. It is well recognised by the Constitution that the Government in this country when in deadlock with this chamber has one duty, and that is to consult the people. In other constitutions there is a legitimate complaint when the Upper House says: ‘No money’. The only consequence is that the Commons should go to the people. The Opposition here is saying: ‘If we are wrong, let the people vote for our existence in this Parliament as well as for the existence of the Whitlam Government.’ It is because of the absolutely unforgivable fallacy that he can retain office without the funds to implement the Government’s responsibilitiesfundamental to a proper conception of responsible government in this country- that I accuse the Prime Minister of being afraid to face the people. Until he gets renewed confidence from the people by a vote on the people of both Houses he is a fake, he is a hypocrite, and he is not able to discharge the responsibilities of government.

Senator Georges:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. The honourable senator ought to withdraw the reference to the Prime Minister of this country being a hypocrite. I ask for the withdrawal of the word ‘hypocrite’.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wright, the honourable senator has asked for a withdrawal of the word ‘ hypocrite ‘.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Yes, Mr President. There are many synonyms that I prefer.

Mr PRESIDENT:

– I ask you to withdraw the word ‘hypocrite’.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I withdraw it in deference to you, Mr President. The Prime Minister shows himself completely recreant to the responsibilities of the office which he holds. I want to say in response to Senator Everett’s sub silentio insinuation into the records of the Senate of the rather feeble letter of the Premier of Tasmania that those who understand the Government of this country will reply to little Willie Neilson: ‘You bring the Prime Minister into line and see that if he wants to retain government he gets the confidence of the people in a majority in both Houses before the money runs out’. Then he will be an accredited Prime Minister to this country and, if that is done, we senators from Tasmania will discharge our constitutional functions in the proper manner.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

- Mr President, I want to clear up this matter. If this House has any purpose it is the purpose of representing the States. A Labor Senator from Tasmania referred tonight to a letter he had received from his Premier about what will be the fate of Tasmania if Supply is not passed.

Senator Marriott:

– Probably the author of it.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He then informed us that it was sent to all Tasmanian senators. He wanted to show -

Senator Everett:

– I take a point of order, Mr President. An interjection was made by Senator Marriott concerning myself. Do I have the opportunity, having spoken once on the motion for the adjournment, to make a personal explanation?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator may not interrupt Senator Cavanagh ‘s speech. At the conclusion of Senator Cavanagh ‘s speech the honourable senator may make a personal explanation. I call Senator Cavanagh.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Because the Premier’s letter pointed out that it was a subject which had dire consequences for Tasmania, Senator Everett thought that was justification to let the Senate be acquainted with the views of the Premier of Tasmania. He stated that the letter was sent under the date of the seventeenth and was received in his Hobart office yesterday. We find that Liberal senators have not seen the document. Senator Marriott does not know where it has gone; he has not seen it. Senator Wright, who says that he had seen it, proved by his speech tonight that he has not read it. Because it has come from the Premier of Tasmania one Liberal senator does not bother to collect it and another Liberal senator does not bother to read it. Senator Wright started by saying that the Premier will not tell him that the democratically elected Parliament or House has no right to refuse supply. The Premier does not say that. He does not specify which House. It is not a condemnation of any House of Parliament. It is not a condemnation of anyone here. He is just pointing out what it means for Tasmania if we cannot resolve this constitutional crisis in Canberra. That is all the letter says.

It is an appeal above party lines. It is an appeal to his State senators to do something in the interests of the country and in the interests of the State which they are appointed to represent for the benefit of the State. That is the purpose of the letter. Immediately it is condemned by senators, one of whom will not look at it and the other who will not read it and who says that it is an attack upon the Senate. It is not an attack upon the Senate. It is an appeal to senators. It is an appeal to Senator Wright who is so indifferent to this matter, because he feels under some obligation to support a leader who has made a mistake, that he is prepared to get anyone who opposes him. Everyone knows that his leader spent an hour and a half with the Governor-General this evening and got nowhere when he went to ask him to issue writs and to ask Mr Whitlam to resign. He knows that Mr Whitlam has a perfect right to continue.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. The point of order I take is that the Governor-General must not be brought into the debate. The Standing Orders are finite on that matter. Senator Cavanagh is purporting to give a conversation that took place between the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in another place and His Excellency the Governor-General. Mr President, I request you to pull him into gear.

The PRESIDENT:

– No honourable senator must refer to the Governor-General in derogatory terms. Senator Cavanagh has not done that and I shall not interfere with his contribution to the debate.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I take a further point of order. I said that Senator Cavanagh was purporting to convey to the Senate a conversation that took place between the honourable member for Wannon and His Excellency the Governor-General. I asked that he be pulled into gear. That is what I said.

Senator Poyser:

– He never said that.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Yes, He did.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Let us get back to reason. I call Senator Cavanagh.

Senator Wright:

– I take a point of order. I submit that it is completely subversive for the purpose of this Parliament if you, Mr President, allow any senator tonight to allege the contents of conversations between any officer of this Parliament and His Excellency the GovernorGeneral. Mr President, I submit to you that such allegations cannot be based upon fact and that the constitutional proprieties preclude any reference to a conversation between a Minister with the Governor-General or between any other officer of the Parliament and the GovernorGeneral unless one weakens the responsibility of His Excellency the Governor-General. It is a matter which must be within your own knowledge, and a matter of which any Opposition member here is ignorant. We do not know it. I ask you to protect the status and confidentiality of the Governor-General in those high matters.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! It is not within my competence to judge in this matter. The Minister is a member of the Executive Council. If anyone would have access to information he would. I am not to know or to judge whether he has or has not that information. But the matter has been raised by Senator Wright and we have to rely on Senator Cavanagh who is addressing the Chair to speak with authority.

Senator Rae:

- Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I refer you specifically to the second part of standing order 417 which may have escaped your mind because of the inadequacy of the debate put before you or for some other reason. The standing order reads:

No Senator shall use the name of Her Majesty or of Her representative in this Commonwealth disrespectfully in Debate, nor for the purpose of influencing the Senate in its deliberations.

If that is not the reason that Senator Cavanagh is apparently breaching the confidentiality of the Executive Council or alternatively exercising something which is a figment of his imagination, I find it hard to conceive any other basis upon which it is being referred to.

Senator Georges:

– I rise to speak to the point of order. The information which Senator Cavanagh has given to the Senate is information that is current in the lobbies of this place.

Senator Withers:

– It is rumour.

Senator Georges:

– It is not rumour; it is fact. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) went out to the GovernorGeneral tonight. There is no mystery about that. It has been reported. It has been spoken of and it will be reported in the Press tomorrow. In fact, it was on the news tonight. All that Senator Cavanagh has done is to refer to that matter. He perhaps did speculate on the subject of the conversation. I do not think he is endeavouring to influence the deliberations in this place, because after all we are on the adjournment and we are speaking of matters which perhaps are quite irrelevant to the normal proceedings. Therefore, I do not believe that standing order 417 ought to be referred to. I do believe that Senator Cavanagh is in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I just indicate in answer to the point of order that I have ruled already in relation to that part of standing order 417 which states:

No Senator shall use the name of Her Majesty or of Her representative in this Commonwealth disrespectfully in Debate …

Senator Cavanagh did not use the name disrespectfully. The second part of standing order 417 states:

  1. . nor for the purpose of influencing the Senate it its deliberations.

I would like to remind the Senate that feelings are running pretty high generally everywhere. To satisfy that standing order, perhaps it might be better if Senator Cavanagh did not pursue the line of bringing the Governor-General into the debate.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Let me first say that never have I used the name of Her Majesty’s representative in a derogatory fashion. I have not done so either tonight or at any other time. As a member of the Executive Council I have a great respect for the representative of Her Majesty in Australia. It has been stated all over Australia that especially Mr Ellicott, who was formerly Solicitor-General, has been trying to force the Queen’s representative to try to find a solution to the mess that the Opposition has got itself into. I thought that that was the reason that an approach was made to the Governor-General tonight. The name was not used for the purpose of influencing a debate. I do not think whether Mr Fraser saw that gentleman tonight would have any bearing on whether the Senate should adjourn, which is the question we are debating now. I do not think I am using the name for that purpose and I had no intention of doing so.

It is known that Mr Fraser tonight went to a certain gentleman whom he thought would have influence to get him out of the mess that he has got himself in. It is also known that he came back without achieving his objective. I think that is well known. I immediately thought when I mentioned the matter that I would be contradicted or that it would be said that the statement was correct. Points of order were taken and it was said that I should not raise the matter. From my experience as an Executive Councillor I know I should not repeat conversations. The conversation which I related here tonight must have been pretty close to the truth because it hurt some people. We received a request from the House of Representatives this evening to reconsider immediately the Supply question. At the front of this building earlier today the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters were saying: We shall not surrender; we shall fight on’. Rather than saying here that there is no question of reconsideration -

Senator Rae:

– I rise to order. Is the honourable senator not reflecting upon votes of the Senate which, as I recall, took some half to threequarters of an hour this evening? He is referring specifically to what already has been the subject matter of several votes this evening. The matter is also due to be put on the notice paper. In both ways, it seems to me, he is offending against the Standing Orders.

Senator Poyser:

– Speaking to the point of order, let me say that it should also be recorded that all the votes taken tonight were votes on the dead body of Senator Milliner. That should be recorded at this time because honourable senators opposite have not won one vote honestly.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I should like to speak to the point of order. It is one that I have been raising but I have not had much success with it. The point of order related to standing order 4 1 3. I agree that I should not refer to business that has been dealt with during this session. This standing order was amended on 26 September 1969. It reads:

No Senator shall allude to any debate or proceedings of the same Session unless such allusion be relevant to the matter under discussion.

The matter that I am discussing is the scurrilous conduct of honourable senators from Tasmania who do not heed the appeal of their Premier to do some justice and save their State. That is the matter under discussion. I am linking it up with the question that was decided today solely for the purpose of demonstrating a point. I would submit, with all respect, that the reference to a previous debate tonight is, in my opinion, the first time it has been in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ruled on this matter earlier tonight.

Senator Marriott:

– I wish to make a personal explantion. I yielded -

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator will have to wait until the debate is concluded to make a personal explanation. I ruled on this matter earlier. Senator Everett was given the leave of the Senate to refer to a letter from the Premier of Tasmania. The fact that the Senate did give that leave opened up this matter. I would like to keep this debate as far as we can to the matter of the letter rather than to refer to matters that are before the Senate. I ask Senator Cavanagh to confine his remarks as closely as he can to the matter which has been raised. We will have an opportunity to debate it again tomorrow; so let us conlude as quickly as possible.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– This is a Premier who sincerely has the interests of his State at heart. He has made an appeal to honourable senators from his State to act in accordance with their obligations, which is to represent the State in this chamber and to look after the welfare of the State. No one from the Opposition benches has seen fit to read that appeal. Senator Everett, I think, was duty bound to show the attitude or the opinion of the Premier in relation to the actions of this chamber and the result those actions will have upon Tasmania. He has sought to have that opinion incorporated in Hansard.

I can understand that because of the mess it is in the Opposition gets emotional on this question. This is a time of frayed tempers, and perhaps things are said which should not have been said. Of course, the Opposition will find more to say. I recognise the desire of honourable senators on this side to refer to a vote which was obtained over a corpse. This does not lead to harmony in debate. The Leader of the Opposition has made a complete mess of the matter. I do not know who will be the next leader.

I leave the situation by congratulating the honourable senator who brought up this matter and by asking honourable senators from Tasmania to be more concerned for the position they hold by looking after the interests of their State. I ask them at least to read the correspondence. If there is anything beneficial to the State which they can advocate here, they should do so rather than get up and attack somebody on the Government benches because he has done his job and has brought the matter before the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Rae.

Senator Marriott:

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

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Rae has the calL

Senator Marriott:

– I want to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Marriott, you may make your personal explanation after the debate has concluded.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Having heard what Senator Cavanagh had to say and having listened to other speakers, I feel it would be appropriate for me to mention that I have received the letter which Senator Everett has incorporated in Hansard. It was addressed to my Launceston office, notwithstanding the fact that the Parliament is sitting this week. Any reasonably intelligent Premier, expecting the slowness of the mails with which we have become familiar to prevail, might have had the foresight to send a copy to Canberra so that honourable senators; in the urgency of the crisis to which the Premier refers, may be informed as expeditiously as possible. I received the letter. I hope that it was addressed to all 10 Tasmanian senators and npt just to 5 of them. I think the final paragraph is the relevant paragraph. It states:

In conclusion, I can only say I hope that the constitutional crisis in Canberra will not be allowed to become the threat it could pose to the stability of State government.

Australia knows, and we here know, who is creating the constitutional crisis in Canberra. I hope that the letter has been addressed to all members of the Australian Labor Party from Tasmania as well as to those who are members of the Liberal Party.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– Merely for the benefit of Senator Rae, I assure him that I received a copy of the letter. I read it. I am sure that other members of the Australian Labor Party in this chamber received a copy also.

Senator EVERETT (Tasmania)-I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator EVERETT:

-Yes. While Senator Cavanagh was addressing the Senate a few minutes ago Senator Marriott in a loud voice interjected to say that I was probably the author of the letter from the Premier of Tasmania which has been incorporated in Hansard. Senator Marriott spoke in a sufficiently loud voice for what he said to be recorded in Hansard. I therefore say that the suggestion is completely false.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator MARRIOTT:

– Yes. I speak in a loud voice because I hope that I am never ashamed to have heard what I have to say. I do not deny that I said ‘Probably the author of it’, because I know that Senator Everett as a learned Q.C. and Deputy Premier of Tasmania for many years has been the engine that made the Tasmanian Government work as it did work. I thought that this letter was a move which was probably engineered by Senator Everett. If I have insulted or offended the honourable senator, I withdraw unreservedly. I now ask leave of the Senate to make a brief personal explanation in regard to an allegation made by Senator Cavanagh.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! The honourable senator does not need to seek leave. He is entitled to make a personal explanation at the end of the speech to which he takes objection.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Is this a personal explanation? Is it in regard to something said against the honourable senator personally.

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! Senator Marriott has claimed the right to make a personal explanation. Leave is not necessary. I have given him authority to go ahead.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– It was inferred twice mo£t directly in the speech by Senator Cavanagh, who is a minister of the Crown, that I do not bother to read my correspondence. I can assure the honourable senator and all honourable senators that every letter that comes into my office at Parliament House is read by me and that I am informed of every letter that arrives each day at my electoral office. I support Senator Rae’s remarks that Labor senators should be the last to infer that we have not received our mail, as the postal services under the Labor administration are becoming more expensive and more inefficient. When I get the Premier’s letterwhoever was its author- the Premier will get my views as to its contents.

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

- Mr President, I make 2 quick points in only 2 minutes. It is quite obvious where the sense of guilt lies. No letter could be more inoffensive and, as Senator Cavanagh pointed out, more factual than is the letter from the Premier of Tasmania, of which I also have received a copy. It stung the Senate Opposition which now realises that contained in this letter are the seeds of its mistakes and the sorts of troubles in which it now finds itself. The guilt lies fairly and squarely with Opposition senators. That is why this letter has been raised tonight, initially by Senator Wright. But in defence of the Premier -

Senator Withers:

- Senator Everett raised it.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Senator Wright was the first speaker on the Opposition side on this matter and my remarks are directed primarily to what he said. I refer, for example, to his claims, as usual, about the arrogant and ignorant assertions of the Prime Minister. I rise to comment on the arrogant and ignorant assertions of Senator Wright. The Premier of Tasmania in his letter has not used the term ‘Opposition’ once. There is not one offensive comment in the letter. But, because of the sense of guilt on the Opposition side, Opposition senators take it quite correctly on board as being their own concern and their own fault.

Senator Wright described the Premier of Tasmania as a feeble person. The Tasmanian Premier is a gentle man. That is true. He is a humble man, something which Senator Reginald Wright could never understand. I am quite sure that, in the drafting of this letter, the Premier has taken every care to ensure that no offence has been directed at either side in this dispute in Canberra. The letter is purely a factual statement appealing to the representatives of Tasmania in the Senate and the House of Representatives- particularly Tasmanian Opposition members and senators- to put the interests of Tasmania, of which he is the Premier, first. That is the purpose of the letter. The guilt of the Opposition is indicated when it cannot accept it in that light.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

page 1317

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Partnerships and Corporations (Question No.534)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many of each partnerships and private and public corporations were there registered in Australia for each of the years 1945- 1946 to 1974-1975.
  2. What is the breakdown of these figures State by State.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The information requested by the honourable senator is not available from Australian Government sources.

The Australian Taxation Office has advised that it has statistics available relating to assessments of private and public companies for the income years 1945-1946 to 1972-73 and of returns of partnerships for the income years 1953-64 to 1972-73. However, the returns are incomplete since they relate only to returns assessed during a certain period after the close of the year of income. The taxation statistics would not, moreover, include details of companies or partnerships which are non-operative in the sense that their returns disclose no information that is statistically significant. There are also definitional problems associated with distinguishing private and public companies in the income tax and company legislation. As regards the income tax statistics, the comparability ofthe figures over the period to which the honourable senator has referred is affected by the 1964 amendments to the income tax law relating to the definitions of private and public companies. The number of partnerships and companies in the income tax statistical tables could not be expected therefore to correspond accurately with the numbers registered in Australia.

Although a dissection of these figures is available by office of assessment, this classification does not invariably correspond with the State of incorporation. A further complication arises in the case of statistics for the income years up to 1968-69, when the Central Office in Melbourne dealt with returns of firms and companies with income from more than one State or Territory irrespective of where their head offices were located.

These various considerations suggest that the taxation statistics would not provide accurate answers to the honourable senator’s questions.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has also advised that it has no information relevant to the questions asked by the honourable senator.

Passports (Question No. 689)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons of Australian birth who applied for an Australian passport since the present Government took office have not been granted one.
  2. How many of those so denied have been given full, complete and accurate reasons for the rejection of their application.
  3. How many Australian citizens have had their passports withdrawn during the same period.
  4. How many of those persons referred to in (3) have been given full, complete and accurate reasons for the withdrawals.
  5. How many persons have applied for naturalisation and have been refused in the same period.
  6. How many of those persons referred to in (5) have been given full, complete and accurate reasons for the refusals.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Questions ( 1 ) to (4) are the responsibility of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and have been referred to him for reply.

Concerning questions (5) and (6), I am informed that-

During the period January 1973 to June 1975 inclusive 1222 applications for citizenship were refused. Of this total 1 187 persons have been given full and complete reasons for the refusals.

It has been the established policy of successive governments to provide reasons for the refusal of applications for citizenship only where applicants are unable to meet the residential or language requirements or are unable to show they have an adequate knowledge ofthe responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.

Company Takeovers (Question No. 788)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. ) With respect to the operation of section13 of the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1972-74 whereby the Treasurer was empowered to prohibit acquisition of shares by certain persons, how many orders, not being interim orders, were made by the Treasurer pursuant to that section in each ofthe years 1972, 1973,1974and 1975.
  2. How many-

    1. notices in writing under section 13(7) were received by the Treasurer throughout the period of operation ofthe Act;
    2. orders did the Treasurer make in respect of such take-over offers, offers or issues of shares under section 1 3 ( 7 ) of the Act; and
    3. of the orders made under section 13 (7) ofthe Act are included in the numbers of the orders referred to in the answer to ( 1 ).
  3. How many orders were made by the Treasurer under the provisions of section 14 ( 1 ) of the Act to limit the beneficial ownership shares.
    1. During the operation of the Act, how many applications were made by the Treasurer to a Court under section 15 of the Act; and
    2. how many orders, and what orders, were made pursuant to section 1 5 ofthe Act.
  4. During the operation ofthe Act, how many certificates were given by the Treasurer under section 1 7 of the Act.
    1. During the operation of the Act, how many notices were given by the Treasurer under
    1. section 20 ( I ) (a) and
    2. section 20 (l)(b);
    3. how many persons refused or failed to comply with the provisions of section 20 (3) of the Act, or furnished false or misleading information; and
    4. what action, if any, was taken with respect to such persons who refused or failed to comply with the provisions of section 20 (3) of the Act, or who furnished false and misleading information.
  5. At the time when the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act 1972-74 was repealed in 1975, how many Orders by the Treasurer pursuant to sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act remained unrevoked.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

(1)-

    1. 749 to 3 1 August 1975.
    2. Section 13(7) of the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Act 1972-1974 does not empower the Treasurer to make orders of any kind. However, as at 31 August 1975 the Treasurer had made the following orders under other provisions in section 1 3 of the Act.
    1. Final orders made under sections 13(2) (c) and 13(3)(c)-21orders.
    2. Interim orders made under section 13 (6)- 121 orders.
    3. Revocation orders made under section 13 (9)-24 orders.

    4. Not applicable.
  1. Nil.
    1. Nil.
    2. Nil.

(a)

    1. Nil.
    2. Not applicable.
    1. The Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1972-1974 has not yet been repealed. As at 3 1 August 1975 the following orders issued under that Act remained unrevoked: 20 final orders (section 13(2)(c)and 13(3)(c) ); 98 interim orders (section 13 (5) ); 24 revocation orders (section 13 (9) ).

Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 845)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister list all the projects in Tasmania approved to receive Commonwealth financial assistance under the Regional Employment Development Scheme since it was introduced.
  2. What was the purpose of each project.
  3. At the time of approval, what was the estimated completion date for each project.
  4. What is the estimated completion date for each project now.
  5. What was the total cost of each project or, for those incomplete, the estimated total cost.
  6. Of the total cost of each project, how much was being funded by the Commonwealth.
  7. Of the balance for each project, which bodies were funding the remainder of the cost.
  8. What projects originally approved have been suspended since commencement because of a Commonwealth Government decision not to make the funds available, and at what stage of completion is each such project.
  9. When was each body supervising such projects advised of the Commonwealth’s intention not to proceed with funding as originally approved.
  10. What was the reason for the Commonwealth suspending the finance for each such project.
  11. Has the Commonwealth made any decision to resume making funds available for each or any such project, and if so, which ones.
  12. In respect of those projects which the Commonwealth has not made any decision to resume making funds available, why has it not.
  13. For which projects have Commonwealth funds been granted and subsequent notifications issued saying that those funds were not to be spent and were to be returned to the Commonwealth because ofthe Commonwealth’s decision not to fulfil the original funding commitments.
  14. For which projects where Commonwealth funds were first made available or guaranteed, and then withdrawn or suspended, have goods and services been provided by companies, organisations and individuals.
  15. What were those goods and services.
  16. 16) What was the value of those goods and services.
  17. What companies, organisations or individuals are still awaiting payment and cannot be paid for those goods and services rendered because of the Commonwealth Government’s termination of finance.
  18. What compensatory or other arrangements have been made by the Commonwealth Government to ensure all existing contracts are met.
  19. To fulfil the Government’s program of ‘open Government’, will the minister answer by 14 October 1975 this question, which is placed on the Notice Paper on 30 September 1975, so that those dependent on employment in the projects will know where they stand in terms of the security of their jobs and so that those companies, organisations and individuals which have provided goods and services for the projects will know when and if they can expect payment so that they will not be placed in any further unnecessary hardship or forced out of business.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. From the inception of the Regional Employment Development Scheme on 10 September 1974, 817 projects had been approved or provisionally approved in Tasmania to receive financial assistance through provision of funds under the Scheme. A very considerable amount of time and effort would be needed to list all these projects and provide all the details sought in subsequent pans of the question for each project and I do not feel able to justify the time and cost of doing so especially in the present circumstances, although my staff have passed on to Senator Rae an invitation to examine the microfilm listing RED scheme projects kept in my office.
  2. The prime purpose of all projects approved under the Scheme is to create employment opportunities in areas of excessive unemployment whether due to general economic conditions or to a labor market problem in a particular area that can be alleviated by the provision of bridging employment.
  3. Approvals have generally been confined to projects on which work could be completed within 6 months. The average duration of projects approved has been approximately 14 weeks.
  4. With the possibility of a few exceptions, most projects should be completed on or before end-November 1 975. .
  5. to (6) The estimated total cost of all projects approved or provisionally approved in Tasmania was $ 16.6m, $ 14.3m to be funded by the Australian Government and the balance by the sponsors or other sources.
  6. Of the projects originally approved, approval was withdrawn from 140 on which work had not started or had not reached the stage when unemployed workers had been engaged.
  7. In the first instance from the week commencing 2 1 July 1975, when project sponsors were advised that the project was under review and that they should not proceed on the basis of Australian Government funds being available. Sponsors of projects for which approval was withdrawn were generally advised by letter in the period 26-30 September 1 975 ofthe outcome of the review.
  8. 10) To ensure that funds will be available for projects on which work has been proceeding and, as far as possible, for commitments entered into by sponsors of those projects on which work will not proceed.
  9. 1 1 ) to ( 13) The Ministers administering the Scheme decided on 10 September 1975, that the $135m provided in the Budget for the Scheme in 1975-76 should enable all projects already commenced, that is on which unemployed workers had been engaged, to be continued within their approved financial allocation, that projects not already commenced should proceed only in a small number of areas experiencing the most severe unemployment, above 10 per cent, and that all other projects previously approved should not be funded but that claims for any legitimate expenditure of moneys already incurred in relation to these projects would be considered sympathetically and speedily. The Ministers also decided that no further cost escalation would be funded on projects other than in the most exceptional circumstances. All project sponsors have been advised on the decisions in relation to their projects by my Department.
  10. 14) to ( 17) See answer to ( 1 1) to ( 13). When claims have been reviewed from sponsors affected and considered, I shall advise the honourable member further.
  11. See answer to ( 1 1 ) to( 13).
  12. Sponsors of projects which will not now be funded under the RED Scheme have already been advised of their position and doubtless they are, where appropriate, discussing matters with those who have provided goods and services.

Department of The Media (Question No. 864)

Senator Rae:

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

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

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

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

I refer the honourable senator to the reply given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 885 in Senate Hansard, 20 October (page 930).

Department of the Capital Territory (Question No. 865)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

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

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question on Notice No. 885 which appeared in Hansard (page 930) on 2 October 1975.

Department of Health (Question No. 868)

Senator Rae:

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

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

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to question 885 published in Senate Hansard of 2 October 1975 at page 930.

Department of Northern Australia (Question No. 877)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Northern Australia, upon notice:

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

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the information provided by the Minister representing the Prime Minister in his answer to Question No. 885 published in Hansard of 2 October, page 930.

Department of Agriculture (Question No. 881)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Agriculture, upon notice:

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

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer to question No. 885 (Hansard, 2 October 1975, page 930).

Department of the Treasury (Question No. 882)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

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

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question 885, Senate Hansard, 2 October 1975, page 930.

Legal Aid Office

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Senator Bonner asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral the following question, without notice:

I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Has there been any change over the past month or so in the criteria for a grant of legal assistance from the Australian Legal Aid Office? In particular, has the means test been made more stringent or is it being applied more stringently? Have the areas of law or categories of clients within which or for which assistance is provided been redefined or has the Office recently been directed to keep within such areas or categories? Are the various offices operating on a restricted basis in any respect? Have there been delays in the Australian Legal Aid Office making payments due to solicitors to whom clients have been assigned by the Office?

The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes. Although the means and needs test of the Australian Legal Aid Office, which is the inability of a citizen to afford the cost of legal representation, has not been changed, it has been sought to make the test more certain and uniform in its application by the various offices throughout Australia. To achieve this purpose, interim guidelines were issued on 1 August 1975. The Australian Legal Aid Office has circulated a paper to legal practitioners explaining the interim guidelines.
  2. The areas of law and categories of clients within which assistance is provided by the Office have not been redefined, nor has the Office been directed to keep within such areas of work. There has been no necessity for such a direction.
  3. The Offices are not operating on a restricted basis and there have been no unusual delays in the Office making payments due to solicitors to whom clients have been referred by the various Offices.

Budget Deficit

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 7 October 1975 Senator Cotton asked me a question without notice concerning the Budget Deficit.

The Treasurer has advised that he dealt with this matter at some length in an answer to a question without notice on 8 October- see House of Representatives Hansard, pages 1823-4.

Answers to Questions

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 15 October 1975 (Hansard, pages 1113-14) Senator Rae asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning questions he had placed on the notice paper addressed to all Ministers in identical terms. The Prime Minister has now provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I did not instruct Ministers not to answer these questions. I believe some of their replies have already been published. I pointed out in my reply on 2 October (Hansard, page 930) that it would clearly be impracticable to identify and publish the title of every document produced by or for the Government and I should have thought the common sense of this approach would have been readily obvious.

My reply also referred the honourable senator to an answer I gave on 13 May 1975 (House of Representatives Hansard, page 2198) which contained numerous examples of the way this Government has, unlike its predecessors, actively sought to make public the details of its activities. In part 3 of that answer I referred to the criteria for the release of documents to be set out in the proposed Freedom of Information legislation. Considerations of practicality aside, it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt that legislation by wholesale releases now.

Departmental Consultants and Public Relations (Question No. 827)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

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

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

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 October 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19751021_senate_29_s66/>.